Tweet
Evan will love this. How to crash a perfectly good A321 on take off and kill everybody onboard, except that you manage to recover and return to land and it all ends in a write-off with no injuries.
Have you ever seen the "stupid drivers" videos where a driver (not sure why but it is typically a woman) steps on the gas instead of the brake and ends up in the fountain or crashing against the parking lot gate? Well, that exact thing caused a deadly accident in the Elementary school where my children attended, killing a parent and injuring 3 young students, one of them seriously.
American Airlines flight 300 seem to have been something similar
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...port/99240/pdf
In this accident, the pilot made increasing left rudder pedal inputs upon rotation, reaching full deflection, when apparently he intended to make right inputs or neutralize the left inputs he had ben making to counteract the very average crosswind from the right. That created a cross-over situation that induced a left roll that could not be counteracted eve with both the pilot flying and the pilot monitoring making DUAL INPUTs with the sidestick keeping both at full right deflection. The bank angle reached a max angle of 37 degrees when the left main landing gear was still on the ground or just becoming off.
The pilots didn't realize it, but the wing scraped the runway and it hit several runway edge lights and a runway sign (part of which remained embedded in the wing). The wing had an parts permanent bend of over 6 inches, which is what ultimately caused the writing off.
And here is where the good CRM starts.
Both pilots were very shaken. Both pilots said they thought that they were going to roll over and crash-burn-die. Both pilots said they would need some time off after that, but they were still continuing with the departure procedure. After the plane had stabilized in the climb the cabin crew called the flight crew asking what on Earth had been that. The first officer suggested subtly first, and then insisted, that they should consider turning back. The captain, who had been the pilot flying, had an introspective self-assessment moment and concluded that the fact that he had not even considered that option was evidence that he was in a mental state that made him not fit to fly. He decided to return and transfer PF duties to the first officer. The cabin crew contacted them again and said that a pax reported that a wing was damaged, and that she went and looked and yes, it is damaged indeed. The pilots advised ATC who then performed a runway inspection for debris.
They returned to the departure airport and the landing was uneventful despite the plane being already damaged beyond economic repair.
The airline made an internal investigation checking FOQUA data for hundreds of thousands of take offs and found that the rudder inputs made in the other flights had been much smaller than in this flight, even in cases with higher crosswind, supporting NTSB's and Airbus's findings that the plane just responded nominally to pilot-made control inputs.
The pilots collaborated with the investigation (both NTSB's and the airline's).
The airline provided additional crosswind training to the pilots involved, and apparently they are flying again.
Have you ever seen the "stupid drivers" videos where a driver (not sure why but it is typically a woman) steps on the gas instead of the brake and ends up in the fountain or crashing against the parking lot gate? Well, that exact thing caused a deadly accident in the Elementary school where my children attended, killing a parent and injuring 3 young students, one of them seriously.
American Airlines flight 300 seem to have been something similar
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/a...port/99240/pdf
In this accident, the pilot made increasing left rudder pedal inputs upon rotation, reaching full deflection, when apparently he intended to make right inputs or neutralize the left inputs he had ben making to counteract the very average crosswind from the right. That created a cross-over situation that induced a left roll that could not be counteracted eve with both the pilot flying and the pilot monitoring making DUAL INPUTs with the sidestick keeping both at full right deflection. The bank angle reached a max angle of 37 degrees when the left main landing gear was still on the ground or just becoming off.
The pilots didn't realize it, but the wing scraped the runway and it hit several runway edge lights and a runway sign (part of which remained embedded in the wing). The wing had an parts permanent bend of over 6 inches, which is what ultimately caused the writing off.
And here is where the good CRM starts.
Both pilots were very shaken. Both pilots said they thought that they were going to roll over and crash-burn-die. Both pilots said they would need some time off after that, but they were still continuing with the departure procedure. After the plane had stabilized in the climb the cabin crew called the flight crew asking what on Earth had been that. The first officer suggested subtly first, and then insisted, that they should consider turning back. The captain, who had been the pilot flying, had an introspective self-assessment moment and concluded that the fact that he had not even considered that option was evidence that he was in a mental state that made him not fit to fly. He decided to return and transfer PF duties to the first officer. The cabin crew contacted them again and said that a pax reported that a wing was damaged, and that she went and looked and yes, it is damaged indeed. The pilots advised ATC who then performed a runway inspection for debris.
They returned to the departure airport and the landing was uneventful despite the plane being already damaged beyond economic repair.
The airline made an internal investigation checking FOQUA data for hundreds of thousands of take offs and found that the rudder inputs made in the other flights had been much smaller than in this flight, even in cases with higher crosswind, supporting NTSB's and Airbus's findings that the plane just responded nominally to pilot-made control inputs.
The pilots collaborated with the investigation (both NTSB's and the airline's).
The airline provided additional crosswind training to the pilots involved, and apparently they are flying again.
Comment