747 Splits in Two on T/O

[avbug]

avbug, were you crew?

No. However, that would be irrelevant.

I know Avbug will have my a$$ for this, but it's sounds like a compressor stall. Those JT9D engines are well known for it.

Perhaps it was, perhaps not. It really doesn't matter, presently. If it was a compressor stall, then it would be an incidental contributing factor at best. If it was not a compressor stall, then it's far too early to factor in the cause, as nothing but ancillary observations have been made. The tower reported flame. That could be a compressor stall, or it could be any number of other things, too. Why did what, what happened with what, and the decisions that were made have not been revealed.

I have no desire to have your "a$$." You may keep it.

 

[filejw]

Avbug..it would be a mistake because TR' deployment is part of the abort procedure.....can't think of many reasons you wouldn't use them if you decided to discontinue the T/O.

 

[avbug]

Avbug..it would be a mistake because TR' deployment is part of the abort procedure.....

Failure to use the thrust reverse would only be a mistake if the crew either willingly refused to follow procedure without good reason, or failed to remember to do so.

Not deploying the thrust reversers intentionally due to mitigating circumstances or a mechanical failure would not be a mistake on the part of the crew.

We don't know why the crew did not deploy the reversers, or for that matter if they attempted to do so and were unable, or if the reversers simply didn't deploy. That information is not presently available. Therefore, to say the crew made a mistake is premature, and in lieu of evidence to the contrary, in error.

 

[dutch747]

Avbug..it would be a mistake because TR' deployment is part of the abort procedure.....can't think of many reasons you wouldn't use them if you decided to discontinue the T/O.

(And now the simplified version)

Assuming that they were working correctly, yes... It would be a mistake.

 

[b707guy]

No matter what, after V1 the ship goes into the air.

Watch out with that generalization. Let's say you're at V1 with the yoke or stick in your lap and the nosewheel doesn't leave the runway. The airplane's pretty much made the decision for you that you're not going to fly that day. And there are plenty of scenarios where that could happen, from gross mis-loading to flight control malfunction to configuration error. Actually, they all have. I'm sure Fine Air for instance would have rejected the takeoff in MIA a few years back if they had known that the aircraft was unflyable. Would you rather go off the end at 40 kts or crash a mile away?

And a reject after V1 doesn't mean you're going off the end either, unless you're at or near runway performance limits. Kalitta very likely was that day, but in general, we don't always operate at runway limits. Of course you'd have some 'splainin' to do if you reject after V1, but there's no guarantee that you're going to fly just because you've passed it.

 

[b707guy]

Let's say you're at V1 with the yoke or stick in your lap and the nosewheel doesn't leave the runway.

Whoops, meant to say "VR", of course. Couldn't edit it!

 

[countbat]

I know Connie got from the insurance a new engine to replace the one lost in Michigan Lake. But also I heard he secretly sent a scuba divers team to recover the lost engine. What IF that engine was on the BRU's 747 bird?

 

[hkgorbust]

I know Connie got from the insurance a new engine to replace the one lost in Michigan Lake. But also I heard he secretly sent a scuba divers team to recover the lost engine. What IF that engine was on the BRU's 747 bird?

Dude . . . like when are you going to lighten up on Connie? You are once again mal-informed and show how your distaste for Kalitta can make you appear to be more ignorant than you may actually be.
The engine was recovered, although it wasn't in the clandestine manner in which you describe.
The recovery was made by a marine salvage company and was the result of a joint effort, and shared expense, between Kalitta Air and the NTSB. Both parties were present for the search and recovery.
The engine was disassembled, and, you may find this as odd, but the fault was attributed to factors beyond Kalitta's control. The report is available.

 

[embpic1]

No matter what, after V1 the ship goes into the air. Successfully aborts after V1 are rare and the crew is lucky that the fuel tanks were not compromised (thanks Boeing) or they would be TOAST.

Umm.. no

We train for an engine out at V1. After V1 with an engine out or on fire, we continue. There are many things things that can happen to an airplane at or past V1 that would be catastrophic if continued. For instance, #2 comes apart and takes out #1 with it. You are not going to make it to Vr before the end of the runway. Hell, I bet you would lose directional control and begin to drift off of the runway. Vmcg at V1 is only guaranteed with one outboard engine out. If you are losing directional control after V1 you have to reject. If you hork it into the air you will vmc the thing into the ground.

 

[embpic1]

I know Connie got from the insurance a new engine to replace the one lost in Michigan Lake. But also I heard he secretly sent a scuba divers team to recover the lost engine. What IF that engine was on the BRU's 747 bird?

OK! You are really starting to piss me off with your misinformation.

The engine was recovered by a salvage crew because the NTSB wanted to see it. I have personally seen the engine, and trust me when I say it, or any part of it, will never fly again.

This is probably just bait (which I took), but seriously, just go back into your cave.