Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US AIR Tweet

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

  • #31
    Avherald update:


    The French BEA reported in their weekly bulletin released on Mar 18th 2014, that the aircraft was at about 20 feet AGL when the takeoff was rejected. During the rejected takeoff the nose gear collapsed and the aircraft slightly veered off the side of the runway. The passengers were evacuated. Initial examination showed foreign object ingestion into engine #1.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
      Avherald update: The French BEA reported in their weekly bulletin released on Mar 18th 2014, that the aircraft was at about 20 feet AGL when the takeoff was rejected. During the rejected takeoff the nose gear collapsed and the aircraft slightly veered off the side of the runway. The passengers were evacuated. Initial examination showed foreign object ingestion into engine #1.
      Wow...a LOT of thoughts flying through my head right now.

      It's hard to imagine a situation where you decide to land from 20 feet up because one engine had ingested something...

      Then again- did the photos not show the #2 engine blowing smoke? So did both engines eat something?

      Is this a REPEAT of Captain Sully Dual Engine Failure Heroic Emergency Landing in an A-320+/- and everyone lives???? (just not quite as spectacular splash down and rescue).

      It is a small miracle that he landed from 20 feet up and that things were not more ugly.

      Is there something with Airbi and birds?

      Interesting that there is so little information from the pilots that is being released...There's a LOT they could tell us...but again...I'm guessing it's being HEAVILY scrutinized...

      Did they do wrong, but got lucky? Did they do right but deviate from procedure? (and there's more permutations than that!).

      ...and finally- a repeat...."What's it doing now?"
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #33
        I guess...
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        It's hard to imagine a situation where you decide to land from 20 feet up because one engine had ingested something...
        Maybe "one engine had ingested something because you decided to land from 20 feet up".

        K.

        Comment


        • #34
          Who knows. At least it's confirmed this is a case of aborted take-off in the air.

          I hope there is more information released soon. I can't find any concrete explanation for the United A320 emergency landing in New Orleans in 2011 to this day, and I hope it doesn't happen again with this incident.

          Not sure if "What's it doing now?" is a joke or not. I don't see any bold, so I will take at as a serious argument - I don't think it has anything to do with this incident. In general, any properly trained crew should never experience a "what's it doing now?". Unless they messed something up, but in general that can happen with all airliners, not just the evil FBW Scarebuses, as we've seen.

          And sometimes the cause could be a little surprising. I don't think this is the case here (at least based on the released info), but it's an interesting read:

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Black Ram View Post
            Not sure if "What's it doing now?" is a joke or not. I don't see any bold
            1) I'm not sure if it's a joke or not either.

            2) I added bold font to address your comment.

            3) I still don't know if it's a joke or not.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              1) My comment was based on the description in the post immediately above mine. I have no firgging idea what the weather conditions were.
              Don't know if anyone has access to the actual WX conditions in PHL at the time, but here in PIT it was EXTREMELY windy the previous night. Wind was out of the NW, and unusually strong gusts, and by the time this incident happened those conditions would have got across to PHL. Just putting it out there.
              Yet another AD.com convert!

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                One word: Airbus.
                Thank God it wasn't a cheap composite constructed Boeing 787 Dreamliner then. That would have been guaranteed to catch fire ...... after the wings fell off if it was from the latest production line. !!!
                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                Comment


                • #38
                  Seems like this thread here will be fun to watch. I'll reserve comment until a bit more is know about what happened

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    The aircraft suffered a tail strike on rotation for takeoff, the takeoff was subsequently discontinued. The aircraft received damage beyond (economic) repair.
                    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation


                    But nothing new about the factual sequence of events or the causes.
                    This one is very interesting. Amazing that nothing has been informed or at least leaked.

                    --- 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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Gabriel
                      Amazing that nothing has been informed or at least leaked.
                      They didn't died and therefore there are no feelings to report.

                      You don't expect the media to report facts?
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        They didn't died
                        They aborted a take off after being already airborne, porpoised and bounced hard along the runway, the last time hitting nose-first hard enough to destroy the nose gear, veered off the runway and the airplane was written off.

                        They were lucky.

                        --- 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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          One word: Airbus.

                          Airbus A300 32 accident(s)
                          Airbus A310 8 accident(s)
                          Airbus A320 20 accident(s)
                          Airbus A321 2 accident(s)
                          Airbus A330 6 accident(s)
                          Airbus A340 4 accident(s)
                          Total accidents all Airbus types. 72

                          Boeing 737 136 accident(s)
                          Boeing 737 Next Gen 13 accident(s)
                          Boeing 747 46 accident(s)
                          Boeing 757 8 accident(s)
                          Boeing 767 12 accident(s)
                          Boeing 777 3 accident(s)
                          Total accidents all Boeing types. 238

                          Total accidents B737 models up to -500 (i.e Non fly-by-wire, metal construction, non next-gen) = almost TWICE THE TOTAL of all Airbus types combined.

                          Howd'ya like them apples then ?


                          Reference... http://www.airfleets.net/crash/stat_plane.htm
                          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                            ...Total accidents all Airbus types. 72...

                            ...Total accidents all Boeing types. 238...

                            ...Howd'ya like them apples then ? ...
                            Did you pay any attention to when Gabriel tried to take issue with me on the use of denominators?
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              They aborted a take off after being already airborne, porpoised and bounced hard along the runway, the last time hitting nose-first hard enough to destroy the nose gear, veered off the runway and the airplane was written off.

                              They were lucky.
                              I feel bad for the nose gear and airplane too.

                              The general public, much less so.

                              That they were very "lucky" and only almost died does not stir up enough feelings.

                              We'll most likely have to wait for the final report.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                                We'll most likely have to wait for the final report.
                                Well, that's the strange part.
                                I've searched the NTSB and I've found nothing, and I mean not even a tweet, related to this accident (not incident anymore, since an airplane write-off qualifies as "significant maetrial damage"). Is someone investigating 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

                                Working...
                                X