Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aircraft crashed due to wrong take-off performance

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

  • Aircraft crashed due to wrong take-off performance

    Not yet... but you don't need to be Nostradamus to tell that the question is not IF, but WHEN.

    Are "we" really going to wait until an A-380 with 600 persons on board crashes in downtown Tokyo at rush hour to take action?
    Isn't the row of incidents that most of the times luckily don't end in tragedy enough to take action NOW before we have a high body toll?

    The clock is ticking... When it happens, I don't want to hear the word "accident": It will be manslaughter with criminal negligence (and not by the pilots).

    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  • #2
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Are "we" really going to wait until an A-380 with 600 persons on board crashes in downtown Tokyo at rush hour to take action?
    Yes.

    Are you new here? This is always how it's done. First a problem is recognized, inquiries are made, recommendations are ignored, faith is placed in the logic that if it's never happened yet, it's not really a big concern and pilots are all super confident in themselves so there's no need to make a big deal out of it.

    "Sure, we sometimes lose airspeeds for some reason at cruise altitude. You just have to hold 'er steady and ride it out and nobody gets hurt. Not really a cause for concern. What's the worst that could happen?"

    Then, a plane goes down, hundred of passengers die a nightmarish death and the press jumps all over it. Now it's a problem.

    AD's are issued, procedures are revisited, training requirements are strengthened so it won't happen again... (even though we could have prevented it before it happened).

    That's how it works. If you rant on about it, they call you a 'hand-wringer' and a troublemaker.

    BTW, I consider taking out the approach lights as a crash even if you are damned lucky enough to fly through them.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      Yes.

      1. Are you new here? This is always how it's done. First a problem is recognized, inquiries are made, recommendations are ignored, faith is placed in the logic that if it's never happened yet, it's not really a big concern and pilots are all super confident in themselves so there's no need to make a big deal out of it.

      2. "Sure, we sometimes lose airspeeds for some reason at cruise altitude. You just have to hold 'er steady and ride it out and nobody gets hurt. Not really a cause for concern. What's the worst that could happen?"

      3. That's how it works. If you rant on about it, they call you a 'hand-wringer' and a troublemaker.
      1. Concur. Gabriel's request for change sounds like a forum newbie (although I imagine he understands that).

      2. I see 1 and 2 as fairly different things. As best as I can tell, with #1, there's always a 'bit of faith' that it will work out as it should. If you really are dutifully following ALL the procedures and it's the purest of brain farts, the gluteal accelerometer may not over power the certainty that I am following procedures, and the fundamental concept that you keep going after V1...

      Conversely, doing relentless pull ups because a bunch of warnings goes off...that violates fundamentals AND your procedures.

      3. Be careful...I recall someone once posting that ranting, hand wringing and trouble-making on obscure aviation fora isn't the way to make a change in the industry. (Hell, look at how effective Tee Vee (with my assistance) isn't on the customer service aspects).

      4. Boeing Bobby still needs Gabriel to promise with 100% certainty that a false TOPMS warning won't itself also result in broken light bulbs and busted nose gears (or even body counts).
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post

        4. Boeing Bobby still needs Gabriel to promise with 100% certainty that a false TPMS warning won't itself also result in broken light bulbs and busted nose gears (or even body counts).
        Well, if TPMS is working correctly, it should go off (even a spurious warning) before v1, so the worst case scenario is a high-speed rejected takeoff above 80/100kts but below v1. Blown tires perhaps. Worth the trouble.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Boeing Bobby still needs Gabriel to promise with 100% certainty that a false TPMS warning won't itself also result in broken light bulbs and busted nose gears (or even body counts).
          You sir are 100% correct! But you know I am now considered a dinosaur, so all of my 30 year old First Officers tell me.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            But you know I am now considered a dinosaur, so all of my 30 year old First Officers tell me.
            The proper term is "fossil" unless:

            1. Your seniority number (systemwide) is lower than 50, in which case it's "prehistoric fossil";

            or

            2. Your number is lower than 20, in which case it's "overfossilized prehistoric fossil".


            Hope that helps/

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Well, if TPMS is working correctly, it should go off (even a spurious warning) before v1, so the worst case scenario is a high-speed rejected takeoff above 80/100kts but below v1. Blown tires perhaps. Worth the trouble.
              Do we really need a black and white binary warning to "go off" (I think that's Bobby's biggest objection!)...

              Why not some sort of big fat "on-target" bug on top of the actual airspeed...very simple...good range, yellow range and red range. (Again, stuff that really basic I-phone apps can do).

              Yeah, sure I know that you will complicate the hell out of it with tons of nuances and if-thens; however, with some old fashioned, healthy improvisation, any idiot pilot can probably identify and respond well before 50 knots without excessive acronyms and warning bells.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                ... if TPMS is working correctly...
                I have heard lots of stories of TPMS becoming totally screwed up after tire rotations. Seems like a very weak, back-up-lacking system, something definitely not ready for aerospace applications. Still, for applications with trailers where side-view mirrors may not provide real-time monitoring, perhaps this is worthwhile.
                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                Comment


                • #9
                  In the realm of Otto, HAL and Betty monitoring 'everything' and taking care of idiot pilots, I found these computer-taxi-SA updates to be interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jkRhIMZAZo ...and yep, it's just more smart-phone level technology, and not a big deal further the scope of a system like this to say 'inadequate acceleration' (and say it nice and early).
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    I have heard lots of stories of TPMS becoming totally screwed up after tire rotations. Seems like a very weak, back-up-lacking system, something definitely not ready for aerospace applications. Still, for applications with trailers where side-view mirrors may not provide real-time monitoring, perhaps this is worthwhile.
                    Or side-view mirrors. There's an idea...

                    The thing is, TPMS is not mission-critical. It's like a configuration warning. If it works, great. If it doesn't, it's no worse than if you didn't have it to begin with. And I really don't see a complacency resulting from it since it's not automation. On the roll, your job is still focused on monitoring things and this a a moment when a pilot would have to be really mentally unfit to be complacent.

                    The only downside I see is if you get a false warning at a speed where rejecting could result in injuries or fatalities, and rejection below V1 is supposed to be an acceptable risk. The V1 call (and the 80kts/100kts call) are going to protect you from this.

                    The upside is that well before V1, the system is going to warn you to reject or, at your discretion, increase to full power. If that warning is false, no harm done.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                      The proper term is "fossil" unless:

                      1. Your seniority number (systemwide) is lower than 50, in which case it's "prehistoric fossil";

                      or

                      2. Your number is lower than 20, in which case it's "overfossilized prehistoric fossil".


                      Hope that helps/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Every jet aircraft other than a fighter, 20 seconds to 80 knots? If not something is wrong.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                          Every jet aircraft other than a fighter, 20 seconds to 80 knots? If not something is wrong.
                          That's a very (too) rough rule of thumb. Plus, I never saw a pilot starting a stopwatch at the beginning of the TO roll (not you don't do it).

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            Do we really need a black and white binary warning to "go off" (I think that's Bobby's biggest objection!)...

                            Why not some sort of big fat "on-target" bug on top of the actual airspeed...very simple...good range, yellow range and red range. (Again, stuff that really basic I-phone apps can do).

                            Yeah, sure I know that you will complicate the hell out of it with tons of nuances and if-thens; however, with some old fashioned, healthy improvisation, any idiot pilot can probably identify and respond well before 50 knots without excessive acronyms and warning bells.
                            It's really that simple and everything needed is already there (but a few lines of code).

                            The airspeed indicator has a trend line. Just put a goal bug.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              That's a very (too) rough rule of thumb. Plus, I never saw a pilot starting a stopwatch at the beginning of the TO roll (not you don't do it).
                              Every aircraft I fly except the -8 has a big old clock with a sweep second hand on it right in the dash!

                              Besides the fact that at my company, and I assume most, the pilot flying enters the data, and the pilot monitoring checks it before we leave the gate. Gabriel, you want to make this rocket science, in my 46 years of flying airplanes for a living I have never had to call Houston for a launch window yet.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X