AA off the end in Jackson Hole.......

Re: Video

Minuteman said:
All performance data is supposed to be calculated without credit for thrust reversers, right?
Click to expand...

Probably so...it is on the C-5, but it's also predicated on max anti-skid braking pretty much right off the bat...and how many pilots ACTUALLY get on the brakes that hard that soon?
 
Re: Video

HeyEng said:
Probably so...it is on the C-5, but it's also predicated on max anti-skid braking pretty much right off the bat...and how many pilots ACTUALLY get on the brakes that hard that soon?
Click to expand...

AFAIK, Boeing numbers are no TR with the various autobrake settings. All manual braking is predicated on max manual.

The performance numbers will be for Brakes 1, 2 , 3, 4 or max; Min, MED, or MAX depending on the aircraft.

If the spoilers fail to deploy on touch down, or if they were planning manual spoilers, that would have a larger effect on the stopping distance than the TR issue.

Sometimes, you think you arm the spoilers and they may not be completely set so they won't trigger when it comes off tilt. Not saying that's the case, perhaps they had the message and then the coupled link from the TR may not have worked if they couldn't get to interlock. I've had that happen to me where the TR wouldn't come to interlock due to some issue with the transcowl. However, it cycles fine on taxi in. Funny critters they are.
 
Re: Video

Polar742 said:
AFAIK, Boeing numbers are no TR with the various autobrake settings. All manual braking is predicated on max manual.

The performance numbers will be for Brakes 1, 2 , 3, 4 or max; Min, MED, or MAX depending on the aircraft.

If the spoilers fail to deploy on touch down, or if they were planning manual spoilers, that would have a larger effect on the stopping distance than the TR issue.

Sometimes, you think you arm the spoilers and they may not be completely set so they won't trigger when it comes off tilt. Not saying that's the case, perhaps they had the message and then the coupled link from the TR may not have worked if they couldn't get to interlock. I've had that happen to me where the TR wouldn't come to interlock due to some issue with the transcowl. However, it cycles fine on taxi in. Funny critters they are.
Click to expand...

Ah...cool. Added to the repository of information that may or may not help me in the future! I think this will be like most other mishaps...several things that didn't "go right" and happened to "line up" at the right moment.
 
Re: Video

Another wrinkle to this investigation... AA will not be a party to it, because they violated standard rules regarding DFDR/CVR handling...

http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2010/101231.html

During this incident investigation, the Safety Board learned that the recorders were flown to Tulsa, Okla., where American Airlines technicians downloaded information from the DFDR; the CVR was not accessed by American.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Video

HeyEng said:
Probably so...it is on the C-5, but it's also predicated on max anti-skid braking pretty much right off the bat...and how many pilots ACTUALLY get on the brakes that hard that soon?
Click to expand...

I can if you want, but you probably won't like it. :)
 
Re: Video

Polar742 said:
If the spoilers fail to deploy on touch down, or if they were planning manual spoilers, that would have a larger effect on the stopping distance than the TR issue.
Click to expand...

This is my thinking on this incident too. Landing should be fine w/o TR's, theoretically. Something was wrong with the airplane. The takeaway lesson for those who are interested is that happens to everyone even if you do it all correctly. You have to be ready for anything, all the time. When you find yourself in this situation, and were to read a forum like this, you will quickly see how people's search for the truth becomes clouded in prejudice and conjecture.

A buddy's dad in on the airport board there in JAC and part of their safety team. The initial interview with the captain showed he was doing everything he could to stop the plane and it was unresponsive to inputs.
 
Re: Video

Ophir said:
This is my thinking on this incident too. Landing should be fine w/o TR's, theoretically. Something was wrong with the airplane. The takeaway lesson for those who are interested is that happens to everyone even if you do it all correctly. You have to be ready for anything, all the time. When you find yourself in this situation, and were to read a forum like this, you will quickly see how people's search for the truth becomes clouded in prejudice and conjecture.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Mother nature is still calling the shots, no matter how hard we try to change that.
 
Re: Video

Ophir said:
This is my thinking on this incident too. Landing should be fine w/o TR's, theoretically. Something was wrong with the airplane. The takeaway lesson for those who are interested is that happens to everyone even if you do it all correctly. You have to be ready for anything, all the time. When you find yourself in this situation, and were to read a forum like this, you will quickly see how people's search for the truth becomes clouded in prejudice and conjecture.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm really hoping it turns out the crew did everything possible.
 
Re: Video

ppragman said:
Biggest thing I hate: I land, can barely control the airplane for all the ice with the airplane trying to weathervane into the wind, any application of brake immediately locks a tire up, and I report "breaking action nil," then to keep the airport open, tower immediately sends out the truck with studded snow tires to cautiously slide down the runway, to report 5 minutes later that "braking action is poor." Its not really a factor with big runways and little airplanes, but I reported that not because I really cared, but because the 737 that's going to land there in 30 minutes might care. But whatever.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is that a heavy aircraft does not experience braking action the same way. The weight literally melts the ice under the wheels to a certain point. I have, on more than one occasion, landed on a runway that a smaller aircraft (even an RJ) reported as poor braking, and found it fair or even good. Once the official report is NIL, we can't land. I'm glad the tower sends out the truck to do a real test that is quantifiable. I find them fairly accurate, but on the conservative side (but probably dead-on for smaller aircraft than what I am flying).
 
Re: Video

Should add that the same goes for turbulence and icing. I have flown through areas where severe ice was reported just seconds prior to find just trace, if that.
 
Re: Video

seagull said:
Should add that the same goes for turbulence and icing. I have flown through areas where severe ice was reported just seconds prior to find just trace, if that.
Click to expand...

What's the definition of severe ice again? Of course that is type specific :)
im just glad everybody was safe!
 
Re: Video

seagull said:
Should add that the same goes for turbulence and icing. I have flown through areas where severe ice was reported just seconds prior to find just trace, if that.
Click to expand...

What's the definition of severe ice again? Of course that is type specific :)
im just glad everybody was safe!
 
Re: Video

TUCKnTRUCK said:
What's the definition of severe ice again? Of course that is type specific :)
im just glad everybody was safe!
Click to expand...

It's more than just that. There is literally NO ice forming on the aircraft AT ALL. The higher speeds and larger diameter of the surfaces make a huge difference. The aircraft capability is a separate matter. For example, there were many pilots at TWA who had not turned on airframe anti-ice on the 727 during their ENTIRE CAREER! It just does not form much on the bigger jets, and the 727 used to get a lot more than we do in the larger airplanes.
 
Re: Video

Anyone else look at Avweb? Looks like they're reading this thread: http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1806-full.html#203897


"Pilots who claim to be familiar with the 757 have left comments in professional pilot forums online stating that the thrust reversers on the 757 can sometimes refuse to engage. Others have speculated that a hydraulic problem or a problem with the Boeing's air/ground logic system could have prevented the spoilers, reversers and, most important, the brakes from working properly.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Video

seagull said:
It's more than just that. There is literally NO ice forming on the aircraft AT ALL. The higher speeds and larger diameter of the surfaces make a huge difference. The aircraft capability is a separate matter. For example, there were many pilots at TWA who had not turned on airframe anti-ice on the 727 during their ENTIRE CAREER! It just does not form much on the bigger jets, and the 727 used to get a lot more than we do in the larger airplanes.
Click to expand...

The whole physics in practice thing is interesting. I have not seen us get any ice on the wing of the whale. There were conditions, based on past experience, where I'd expect a trace of rime, or whatever, and nothing. The most I have seen is a trace around the window frames. Those big wings move a lot of air.
 
Re: Video

Polar742 said:
The whole physics in practice thing is interesting. I have not seen us get any ice on the wing of the whale. There were conditions, based on past experience, where I'd expect a trace of rime, or whatever, and nothing. The most I have seen is a trace around the window frames. Those big wings move a lot of air.
Click to expand...

I've always wondered about speed too. Let's say I'm cruising along in the "transonic" speed regime, what effect is that going to have on the formation of ice on the aircraft? Is aerodynamic heating an actual factor at that point (I wouldn't think so), or does the airflow simply sublime any ice that forms on the wings pretty much instantly? Just a thought.
 
Re: Video

ppragman said:
I've always wondered about speed too. Let's say I'm cruising along in the "transonic" speed regime, what effect is that going to have on the formation of ice on the aircraft? Is aerodynamic heating an actual factor at that point (I wouldn't think so), or does the airflow simply sublime any ice that forms on the wings pretty much instantly? Just a thought.
Click to expand...

I'd really like to hear an answer to this. I don't recall ever getting ice up at cruise altitude in that RJ I flew. The only time I'd see the ice protection kick in was when we were lower and slower. I do know that an ERJ's wings/tail can pick up a significant amount of ice; I recall landing in CLE once and seeing a good 2" of ice on the unheated winglets.

By the way, we had several 737 guys in my most recent groundschool, and I was surprised to hear they'd hit the wing anti-ice switch (well, deice really...) 2-3 times in their entire careers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top