Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aerosucre B-727 crash

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Same trick, different day:

    Comment


    • #32
      I'm impressed with the APPARENT 'lack of climb' in Lefty's video (and others).

      Are they going up hill, 'or' are they 'pausing' to build speed after a SLOW lift off?

      [EDIT:] I checked things on Google Earth...maybe there is a 20-ft rise in terrain (sort of consistent with what the videos look like). From this, I conclude that they pilots may have gone easy on their initial climb out to let the speed build a little moreso than it being rising terrain.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        I'm impressed with the APPARENT 'lack of climb' in Lefty's video (and others).

        Are they going up hill, 'or' are they 'pausing' to build speed after a SLOW lift off?
        I used to "impress" my girlfriend the same way with my Piper Warrior, when I was 20 years old. Oh well, I miss those old days. And by the way, she is my wife today.
        A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

        Comment


        • #34
          Hi folks, I'm trying to upload photos from the incident video, but keep getting logged out before I can type message and get photos uploaded.

          But the bullet is that up reviewing the video frame by frame (not possible just using youtube etc.) it is clear beyond any question that the right wing hit the little brick hut 'very substantially' all but totally leveling the little hut which appears to be about 6x6x5 in the form of a stack of bricks or stones.

          I'll post the images in 2 or 3 comments since only 5 allowed at a time. The first image is a successfult t/o showing the hut very clearly.

          Click image for larger version

Name:	1 (16).jpg
Views:	1
Size:	235.6 KB
ID:	1015276Click image for larger version

Name:	D1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	135.8 KB
ID:	1015277Click image for larger version

Name:	D2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	136.9 KB
ID:	1015278Click image for larger version

Name:	D3.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	137.9 KB
ID:	1015279Click image for larger version

Name:	D4.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	141.1 KB
ID:	1015280

          Comment


          • #35
            pics continued...

            Click image for larger version

Name:	D5.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	140.3 KB
ID:	1015286Click image for larger version

Name:	D6.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	140.0 KB
ID:	1015287Click image for larger version

Name:	D7.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	138.9 KB
ID:	1015288Click image for larger version

Name:	D8.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	134.4 KB
ID:	1015289Click image for larger version

Name:	D9.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	134.0 KB
ID:	1015290

            Comment


            • #36
              Click image for larger version

Name:	D9a.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	133.2 KB
ID:	1015281Click image for larger version

Name:	D9b.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	135.2 KB
ID:	1015282Click image for larger version

Name:	D9c.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	137.5 KB
ID:	1015283Click image for larger version

Name:	D9d.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	135.8 KB
ID:	1015284Click image for larger version

Name:	D9e.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	136.1 KB
ID:	1015285

              Comment


              • #37
                ...the still shots really don't do 'justice' to the in-motion but frame by frame view where the brick hut is seen definitely being hit and rather pulverized by some portion/aspect of the starboard wing.

                No doubt.

                The the pics here are aerials of the runway with hut shown for perspective.

                Click image for larger version

Name:	R1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	555.5 KB
ID:	1015291Click image for larger version

Name:	R2.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	469.9 KB
ID:	1015292Click image for larger version

Name:	R3.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	330.8 KB
ID:	1015293

                Comment


                • #38
                  Ok, enough of the building-smacking and runway length analysis...they appear to be clear, significant contributing causes and Swiss Cheese holes.

                  We may have to wait for the final report for weights and to determine if there were engine / acceleration problems.

                  In the meantime, Gabriel, the hell-better aeroengineer, once commented that there was a fundamental rule that nosing over and getting more speed can sometimes increase your aileron authority to counteract rolls...he even went so far as to say that a plane that lost a whole wing from one side, at some point / speed, would be able to counteract roll (but stressed that this was a very theoretical concept, that may lack practical application).

                  Well short of an entire wing, there are some actual incidents where, according to Aeroengineer calculations, aircraft had lost wing portions/flaps/slats, but were likely controllable, but unfortunately, they were flying too slow to have adequate authority and lost control and crashed.

                  In conflict with this are many written procedures to fly very close to prescribed speeds in the flight manual...I think that flying precisely to these speeds is stressed in training exercises and generally expected during takeoff and landing scenarios...

                  ...which begs the age old question...could the pilots have improvised, lowered the nose, built speed (and aileron authority), and maintained control of the plane, instead of falling out of the sky? (with Gabriel, in this very thread, uttering the "S"-word where roll authority really goes to hell.)

                  Perhaps we need AFMS, that along with TOPMS and FLPMS that informs the pilots if extra speed is needed due to compromised air foils, or if they are accelerating too slow, or if a fuel leak is going to form a puddle...

                  Obviously, we cannot let the pilots think that nosing over generally increases control authority, and have them deviate from written, scientifically-calculated target speeds for climb out.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    Ok, enough of the building-smacking and runway length analysis...they appear to be clear, significant contributing causes and Swiss Cheese holes.

                    We may have to wait for the final report for weights and to determine if there were engine / acceleration problems.

                    In the meantime, Gabriel, the hell-better aeroengineer, once commented that there was a fundamental rule that nosing over and getting more speed can sometimes increase your aileron authority to counteract rolls...he even went so far as to say that a plane that lost a whole wing from one side, at some point / speed, would be able to counteract roll (but stressed that this was a very theoretical concept, that may lack practical application).

                    Well short of an entire wing, there are some actual incidents where, according to Aeroengineer calculations, aircraft had lost wing portions/flaps/slats, but were likely controllable, but unfortunately, they were flying too slow to have adequate authority and lost control and crashed.

                    In conflict with this are many written procedures to fly very close to prescribed speeds in the flight manual...I think that flying precisely to these speeds is stressed in training exercises and generally expected during takeoff and landing scenarios...

                    ...which begs the age old question...could the pilots have improvised, lowered the nose, built speed (and aileron authority), and maintained control of the plane, instead of falling out of the sky? (with Gabriel, in this very thread, uttering the "S"-word where roll authority really goes to hell.)

                    Perhaps we need AFMS, that along with TOPMS and FLPMS that informs the pilots if extra speed is needed due to compromised air foils, or if they are accelerating too slow, or if a fuel leak is going to form a puddle...

                    Obviously, we cannot let the pilots think that nosing over generally increases control authority, and have them deviate from written, scientifically-calculated target speeds for climb out.
                    I think a more effective strategy would be to build speed until you can retract flaps, but look where they are! There isn't much nose-lowering you can afford without mowing through some trees. The best chance you have to gain airspeed is to stay at a shallow climb until you get at least above 200', and keep it wings level, which is where the conundrum really lies...

                    The best procedure is to not attempt hairbrained stunts like this. I would also suggest not placing brick huts on the extended centerline.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Personally speaking I would place "Getting airborne before the end of the runway" as my first priority !!
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        I think a more effective strategy would be to build speed until you can retract flaps, but look where they are! There isn't much nose-lowering you can afford without mowing through some trees. The best chance you have to gain airspeed is to stay at a shallow climb until you get at least above 200', and keep it wings level, which is where the conundrum really lies...
                        So, I disagree in that they successfully took off and climbed and made it a few miles- with the plane somewhat in control...they DID what you said they should do and got beyond the trees -other than your slight obsession with the right turn, which was probably due to the loss of the flap.

                        AND it's bad, arm-chair QB of me to suggest that they could have done different...They flew a pretty long way until they lost it.

                        I do always wonder about AA 191- Gabe makes it sound so simple...just a little more airspeed and they could have flown away and maybe retract everything...so, pure speculation here, they were dutifully slowing up and configuring the plane for landing and got too slow to deal with the flap asymmetry.

                        ...Then again, maybe the pilot was being ITS like using all sorts of fundamentals and procedures at the highest levels of competence and the hydraulic fluid ran out.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          ...Then again, maybe the pilot was being ITS like using all sorts of fundamentals and procedures at the highest levels of competence and the hydraulic fluid ran out.
                          That may have been part of the problem. The 727 is built like a complex mechanical watch, with plenty of procedure to know and follow in a scenario like this. But it has alternate (electric) flap retraction and mechanical reversion on both sets of ailerons (and the outer ones are functional when the flaps are extended) so the only roll control surfaces you lose even if both A and B hydraulics are lost are the roll spoilers. The key thing you might lose here is s i t u a t i o n a l a w a r e n e s s. I don't know what the flap indications would be if you tear off a flap and I'm pretty certain there isn't a ripped off flap procedure. Boeing apparently did not design the 727 with hairbrained stunts and brick huts in mind. I suppose the first thing ITS would do is crank open the window and ash his cigar to gauge the angle of attack, but that would have cost him valuable time...

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            So, I disagree in that they successfully took off and climbed and made it a few miles- with the plane somewhat in control...they DID what you said they should do and got beyond the trees -other than your slight obsession with the right turn, which was probably due to the loss of the flap.

                            AND it's bad, arm-chair QB of me to suggest that they could have done different...They flew a pretty long way until they lost it.

                            I do always wonder about AA 191- Gabe makes it sound so simple...just a little more airspeed and they could have flown away and maybe retract everything...so, pure speculation here, they were dutifully slowing up and configuring the plane for landing and got too slow to deal with the flap asymmetry.

                            ...Then again, maybe the pilot was being ITS like using all sorts of fundamentals and procedures at the highest levels of competence and the hydraulic fluid ran out.
                            After seeing this ac nail the little brick hut, I also immediately thought of AA191. Different ac and situations of course, but the 'going too slow' not knowing flap/slat situation definitely brought me back to the ORD crash though obviously with differences in circumstance etc.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              The preliminary report is out (in Spanish).

                              This plot is taken from that report. Obviously the aircraft was capable of level flight for some time after losing the right inboard flap. They also lost the right MLG, the #3 engine and the A hydraulics. As they would have been dealing with a lot of damage control right about then, and the fatal spiral starts as a gradual turn, I am wondering if that spiral was the result of inattention by a distracted crew rather than uncontrollability.
                              Attached Files

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                I am wondering if that spiral was the result of inattention by a distracted crew rather than uncontrollability.
                                I am wondering if the turn was the result of control failure rather than inattention. The weather was severe VMC, and it's not like they were on autopilot, fat, dumb and happy, in total darkness distracted by burnt out lightbulb. I'm betting that one poor PF was totally locked in and white knuckled trying very hard to somewhat correctly operate the rather screwed up flying machine.
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X