CO 737 off runway in DEN

[EWR_FO]

So....what happened? Was he over 60? Did they really abort after V1?

1) He is not even close to sixty.

2) Since they departed the runway about 200 feet INTO the takeoff roll, I'm guessing no.

 

[pilotdiscretion]

Crazy Denver style cross winds are moving to the top of the list of probable causes. There are several LLWAS sensors around the runway that recorded a lot of wind information. The NTSB will be looking at that data after the new year.

My sources tell me that the captain has a broken back and that everyone else who was interviewed said he was yelling at them to get off the airplane first. Then he hobbled off the airplane behind the first officer taking time to look into the cabin and see if there were still passengers on board. If this is true then I nominate the captain of CAL 1404 for man of the year award.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

My sources tell me that the captain has a broken back and that everyone else who was interviewed said he was yelling at them to get off the airplane first. Then he hobbled off the airplane behind the first officer taking time to look into the cabin and see if there were still passengers on board. If this is true then I nominate the captain of CAL 1404 for man of the year award.

That was very noble of him. Not to take anything away from his valor, but I would have done the same thing as would many others. After all, this should be done out of duty. You are the captain, you know.

 

[atrdriver]

That was very noble of him. Not to take anything away from his valor, but I would have done the same thing as would many others. After all, this should be done out of duty. You are the captain, you know.

You don't have any idea what you would do in that situation, because you have never been in it. You know what you think you would do, or what you have been trained to do. There is a big difference between the two.

 

[BigRed1]

1) He is not even close to sixty.

2) Since they departed the runway about 200 feet INTO the takeoff roll, I'm guessing no.

I am based in DEN. The plane actullay started to veer of the runway around 2,500 feet. I was in my full A319 going to the East coast (probably same weight or a bit heavier than the 737 to IAH) last week and marked my airspeed at the same point in the takeoff roll. It was 110 Kts!

 

[Papa Woody]

Myself and a few others here would like to meet you in the EWR crew room to discuss this further. Please post here when you have some time from your Sherlock Holmes investigation service so we can all "chat".

"Drop the Jepps!........Get the cannolis!"

 

[Papa Woody]

Myself and a few others here would like to meet you in the EWR crew room to discuss this further. Please post here when you have some time from your Sherlock Holmes investigation service so we can all "chat".

"Drop the Jepps!........Get the cannolis!"

 

[slaquer5]

You don't have any idea what you would do in that situation, because you have never been in it. You know what you think you would do, or what you have been trained to do. There is a big difference between the two.

Amen Brother, That could not have been said better.

 

[pilot error]

"Drop the Jepps!........Get the cannolis!"

line of the month!:laugh:

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Oh what a tough guy you are !

Guess what? my PSP has high scores on it that took hundreds of hours of airport sit times to achieve, if you and your kids have to suck plastic smoke and get a little singed around the edges while I get it out safe, SO BE IT! You should have gotten the little ones nomex clothing, instead of that krap from Wallymart!
PBR

 

[Sedona16]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=157&sid=5136219

Is it just me or do they show the airplane in this video animation trying to take off on the taxi way?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Yeah, it does appear that way.

 

[EWR_FO]

I am based in DEN. The plane actullay started to veer of the runway around 2,500 feet. I was in my full A319 going to the East coast (probably same weight or a bit heavier than the 737 to IAH) last week and marked my airspeed at the same point in the takeoff roll. It was 110 Kts!

I believe the FO has stated that they were somewhere between 85-95 knots when things started to happen. If you are at V1 with 8,000 feet remaining is aborting a bad thing? Not trying to start an argument, just being hypothetical.

 

[GuppyWN]

If I'm V1 plus whatever with 8000 ft of concrete left and I haven't started to rotate I'm going to at least think about aborting. Yeah I know - test pilot, cowboy, idiot. I'm fine with that. I'd much rather wrestle a full jet at V1 with zero altitude than "hope she flies like the sim."

Gup

 

[172driver]

I believe the FO has stated that they were somewhere between 85-95 knots when things started to happen. If you are at V1 with 8,000 feet remaining is aborting a bad thing? Not trying to start an argument, just being hypothetical.

I would say it's a bad thing unless you are very familiar with every aspect of your aircraft's performance under the conditions (which most of us aren't). Your brakes may not have enough energy to stop you, whether you have 2000 ft or 10000 ft left. Your tires may not be able to withstand heavy braking at speeds above V1. The aircraft may become very unstable on the ground at speeds where it should be flying. Just my opinion, but the stats on high speed aborts aren't good.

 

[bubbers44]

Seems to me that aborting or continuing the takeoff had little to do with the cause of the crash. Either one should have worked fine with the x-wind they were dealing with. Since we don't know why they lost directional control at this point, until we do know, speculation is meaningless.

 

[EWR_FO]

I would say it's a bad thing unless you are very familiar with every aspect of your aircraft's performance under the conditions (which most of us aren't). Your brakes may not have enough energy to stop you, whether you have 2000 ft or 10000 ft left. Your tires may not be able to withstand heavy braking at speeds above V1. The aircraft may become very unstable on the ground at speeds where it should be flying. Just my opinion, but the stats on high speed aborts aren't good.

Don't you generally land on the same length of runway you took off from? Even a 747 will coast to a relatively slow speed in 10,000 feet.

 

[firstthird]

Don't you generally land on the same length of runway you took off from? Even a 747 will coast to a relatively slow speed in 10,000 feet.

Landing and takeoff are very different regimes. For landing you are touching down between 1000-1500 feet from the threshold whereas for takeoff you are rotating midfield (or so). If the above quoted numbers are correct, then they were 4000 feet down the runway with 8000 feet left. A classic 737 at DEN with a full load probably has a V1/Vr up around 145-155 knots. Whereas it probably had a landing speed around 135 -145. So, land at 140 with 11000 feet left and decelerating or abort at 150 with 8000 feet left and accelerating. They seem quite different to me.

The "same runway you landed on and same speed" is simplistic at best and dangerously naive at worst. I'm making no judgments or statements on this CAL accident as I know no more than the mainstream press has reported.

 

[EWR_FO]

Landing and takeoff are very different regimes. For landing you are touching down between 1000-1500 feet from the threshold whereas for takeoff you are rotating midfield (or so). If the above quoted numbers are correct, then they were 4000 feet down the runway with 8000 feet left. A classic 737 at DEN with a full load probably has a V1/Vr up around 145-155 knots. Whereas it probably had a landing speed around 135 -145. So, land at 140 with 11000 feet left and decelerating or abort at 150 with 8000 feet left and accelerating. They seem quite different to me.

The "same runway you landed on and same speed" is simplistic at best and dangerously naive at worst. I'm making no judgments or statements on this CAL accident as I know no more than the mainstream press has reported.

They departed the runway at 2500' and, according to the FO, somewhere in the vicinity of 85-95 knots. I agree it is somewhat simplistic but don't agree that V1 is hard and fast in EVERY situation. Obviously a 40 kt. headwind as opposed to a 10 kt. tailwind will greatly affect the amount of pavement you need.

 

[firstthird]

If I'm V1 plus whatever with 8000 ft of concrete left and I haven't started to rotate I'm going to at least think about aborting. Yeah I know - test pilot, cowboy, idiot. I'm fine with that. I'd much rather wrestle a full jet at V1 with zero altitude than "hope she flies like the sim."

by Gup

I would say it's a bad thing unless you are very familiar with every aspect of your aircraft's performance under the conditions (which most of us aren't). Your brakes may not have enough energy to stop you, whether you have 2000 ft or 10000 ft left. Your tires may not be able to withstand heavy braking at speeds above V1. The aircraft may become very unstable on the ground at speeds where it should be flying. Just my opinion, but the stats on high speed aborts aren't good.

by 172driver

Good points 172driver. Many highspeed aborts end up off the sides of the runway, not the end; leading a reasonably pilot to conclude that the pavement remaining isn't always the key aspect of a successful abort. Some aborts/accident landings go off the end more due to directional difficulties rather than any inherent lack of pavement (well, a lack of width of pavement could be argued)

It is one thing to brief in a light twin or a cessna that you will "put it back down after we are flying if we encounter something right after airborne" seeing as a 12000 foot runway and a cessna aren't matched performance wise. even though a 12000 foot runway seems generous by 737 standards, remember that 5000 feet altitude skews the equation. also, no specific comments on this accident as I have no knowledge of it.