Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 45

Thread: Aerosucre B-727 crash

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    That was my point. The missing flap my have banked the plane without pilot's intervention. In fact, that's what it WILL do unless we have pilot (corrective) intervention, and we don;t know who good would the roll authority be at these slow speeds/ high AoA, to counteract a huge panel of triple-slotted fowler flaps (acknowledged, with a relatively short moment arm compared with the high-speed ailerons, roll spoilers and slow-speed ailerons). Another point is that it is very likely that this damage would have also damaged a couple of hydraulic systems (those serving this flap section) and rendered the whole flaps off service, and impossible to retract (because, as minimum, flaps asymmetry).
    I am not sure the hydraulics would extend into the flaps themselves. I doubt the pilots knew they had lost a flap, and I would guess they would have wanted to keep them deployed to maintain lift at low speed/high AoA. Your point about roll authority is probably true and I doubt the pilots would have realized that their minimum safe/controllable speed was now a lot higher than normal as a result of the damage.

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I have heard comments that the plane my have hit a small brick construction (shed?) which reportedly can be seen in other "successful" zero-margin take-off videos of this plane at this runway, and that this might have torn the flaps as well as caused other damage.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	727.JPG 
Views:	123 
Size:	22.1 KB 
ID:	6971

  3. #23
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	727.JPG 
Views:	123 
Size:	22.1 KB 
ID:	6971
    Schwartz, is that picture from the same aircraft?, the right wing flap appears to be attached.
    Kind of weird.
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

  4. #24
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    But I was also wondering why the seemingly deliberate turn to the right when the wise thing would be to first accelerate and then climb (and retract flaps if possible). Perhaps uncommanded?
    You sure are worried about that. I'm sure it was a conscious decision to turn, in violation of your memory checklist for when you have an over run. Just like the Delta 191 guys turned towards that water tank.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  5. #25
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    You sure are worried about that. I'm sure it was a conscious decision to turn, in violation of your memory checklist for when you have an over run. Just like the Delta 191 guys turned towards that water tank.
    Oh well, apparently you have never been in a real emergency. Sometimes adrenaline deletes everything from your memory. Checklists, are not priorities when you have a catastrophic situation in your hands such as fire or smoke or over running the runway and you got FOD in number one and number three engines, part of your flaps are gone, the hydraulics are gone and your altitude is only 1,500 ft.
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVION1 View Post
    Schwartz, is that picture from the same aircraft?, the right wing flap appears to be attached.
    Kind of weird.
    No sorry, that is from the video of the flight in October, where the plane just cleared the fence. I don't think I would ever stand on the end of the runway like those guys filming did. Clearly these pilots were flying the margin, but then, I think they were a bit unlucky to lose the whole flap.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
    No sorry, that is from the video of the flight in October, where the plane just cleared the fence. I don't think I would ever stand on the end of the runway like those guys filming did. Clearly these pilots were flying the margin, but then, I think they were a bit unlucky to lose the whole flap.
    Here is a better video of the same takeoff in October. The hut is clearly shown, but it is more toward the outside of the wing. From these shots, that inner flap looks pretty small. From the damaged photo in the air, it looks like they totally lost the inner flap and part of the middle one as well. The fence could have damaged it and then the wind ripped it off later.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	727_2.JPG 
Views:	70 
Size:	71.2 KB 
ID:	6973

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syl3tCqKbSs

  8. #28
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
    Here is a better video of the same takeoff in October. The hut is clearly shown, but it is more toward the outside of the wing. From these shots, that inner flap looks pretty small. From the damaged photo in the air, it looks like they totally lost the inner flap and part of the middle one as well. The fence could have damaged it and then the wind ripped it off later.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	727_2.JPG 
Views:	70 
Size:	71.2 KB 
ID:	6973

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syl3tCqKbSs
    Ok thanks. That is the little brick house Gabriel just mentioned above
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVION1 View Post
    Ok thanks. That is the little brick house Gabriel just mentioned above
    Yep, it looks like Gabriel said. This video shows it more clearly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_byvmyHWA14

    Looking at the previous successful takeoff, it didn't look so close to the fuselage, but in this video, that structure gets clobbered, you can see how low the flap is, and you see the structure disintegrate/crumble as the plane goes by. That is probably also the bang that you hear. If they had steered a tad to the left, they might have come out better. High risk + bad luck. I wonder if we'll ever get cockpit transcripts.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	727C_1.JPG 
Views:	112 
Size:	39.5 KB 
ID:	6974

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	727c_2.JPG 
Views:	104 
Size:	34.9 KB 
ID:	6975

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	727c_3.JPG 
Views:	97 
Size:	33.0 KB 
ID:	6976

  10. #30
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AVION1 View Post
    Oh well, apparently you have never been in a real emergency. Sometimes adrenaline deletes everything from your memory. Checklists, are not priorities when you have a catastrophic situation in your hands such as fire or smoke or over running the runway and you got FOD in number one and number three engines, part of your flaps are gone, the hydraulics are gone and your altitude is only 1,500 ft.
    Elevon:

    It's largely out of character for me, but I was being sarcastic. However, I totally appreciate your reply.

    Bumping over the ground realizing you just failed to takeoff and smacking brick buildings and then to sit here and ask, "I don't understand why they made a slight right turn?"
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  11. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    L.A.
    Posts
    6,878

    Default

    Same trick, different day:

  12. #32
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,907

    Default

    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.

  13. #33
    Member AVION1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    630

    Default

    Quote 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)....

  14. #34
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    94

    Default

    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:	48 
Size:	235.6 KB 
ID:	7005Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D1.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	135.8 KB 
ID:	7006Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D2.jpg 
Views:	45 
Size:	136.9 KB 
ID:	7007Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D3.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	137.9 KB 
ID:	7008Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D4.jpg 
Views:	51 
Size:	141.1 KB 
ID:	7009

  15. #35
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    94

    Default

    pics continued...

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D5.jpg 
Views:	37 
Size:	140.3 KB 
ID:	7030Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D6.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	140.0 KB 
ID:	7031Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D7.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	138.9 KB 
ID:	7032Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D8.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	134.4 KB 
ID:	7033Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D9.jpg 
Views:	36 
Size:	134.0 KB 
ID:	7034

  16. #36
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    94

    Default

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D9a.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	133.2 KB 
ID:	7025Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D9b.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	135.2 KB 
ID:	7026Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D9c.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	137.5 KB 
ID:	7027Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D9d.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	135.8 KB 
ID:	7028Click image for larger version. 

Name:	D9e.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	136.1 KB 
ID:	7029

  17. #37
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    94

    Default

    ...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:	48 
Size:	555.5 KB 
ID:	7038Click image for larger version. 

Name:	R2.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	469.9 KB 
ID:	7039Click image for larger version. 

Name:	R3.jpg 
Views:	41 
Size:	330.8 KB 
ID:	7040

  18. #38
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    3,907

    Default

    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.

  19. #39
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,294

    Default

    Quote 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.

  20. #40
    Super Moderator brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,312

    Default

    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 !


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •