Legacy Bashfest - Bring it on!

[ERJ-140]

Here's a couple of items that will effect the dispatch reliability of the WSCofD.... NTSB Identification: CHI05IA116
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of TRANS STATES AIRLINES INC
Incident occurred Thursday, May 19, 2005 in Kansas City, MO
Aircraft: Embraer EMB, registration: N814HK
Injuries: 52 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On May 19, 2005, about 1030 central daylight time, an Embraer EMB-145LR, N814HK, piloted by an airline transport pilot, sustained minor damage as a result of an uncontained failure of the number one engine during cruise flight near Kansas City, Missouri. The airplane returned to the departure airport where an uneventful landing was made. The air carrier flight was operating under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 121 and was on an instrument flight rules flight plan. There were 49 passengers and 3 crewmembers on board. No injuries were reported. The flight originated from the St. Louis International Airport (STL), St. Louis, Missouri, and was bound for the Denver International Airport (DEN), Denver, Colorado.

GV might better answer this one, but uncontained failure protection is based on statistical analysis and theory in large part. Even with an uncontained failure nobody was hurt (thanks to engine location and that the parts probably didn't pierce the fuselage any way).

Let's also be real here. By the time the parts go through case, the duct, the nacelle and possibly the pylon there isn't much energy left to poke the fuselage (for compressor/turbine failure - assumption on my part).

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 836RP Make/Model: E135 Description: ERJ-135
Date: 05/27/2005 Time: 1815

Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
City: TALLAHASSEE State: FL Country: US

DESCRIPTION
N836RP, A EMBRAER EMB-135LR ACFT, CHAUTAUQUA AIRLINES CHQ6387, DURING TAXI,
THE LEFT WING HIT A CEMENT WALL, NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED, DAMAGE IS
UNKNOWN, TALLAHASSEE, FL

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: NOT REPORTED

OTHER DATA
Activity: Business Phase: Taxi Operation: Air Carrier

Departed: Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: Flt Plan: Wx Briefing:
Last Radio Cont:
Last Clearance:

FAA FSDO: ORLANDO, FL (SO15) Entry date: 05/31/2005

Aircraft returned to service the next day. Plastic parts replaced. Wing X-Rayed for damage. None found.

 

[Dangerkitty]

As for what a shadow is... It's when the radar signal attenuates (i.e. is deflected or absorbed to the point that it does not paint anything beyond that point).

Looks like you talked to your Captain to get the answer.

But the question remains. How do you "pull" shadows out of precip. <--- Your words not mine.

And since you have been typed in the B-737 it's time to answer those questions asked of you. Oh wait, guess you are going to have to ask a real B-737 typed pilot for the answer.

What will the timeline be? Another 1-2 weeks?

 

[Dangerkitty]

GV might better answer this one, but uncontained failure protection is based on statistical analysis and theory in large part. Even with an uncontained failure nobody was hurt (thanks to engine location and that the parts probably didn't pierce the fuselage any way).

Let's also be real here. By the time the parts go through case, the duct, the nacelle and possibly the pylon there isn't much energy left to poke the fuselage (for compressor/turbine failure - assumption on my part).

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about!

If you knew anything about the EMB-135/145/145 XR or Legacy you would know that the AE3007 engines made by Allison (a dividion or Rolls Royce) are wrapped in Kevlar to contain any sort of flying debris during an event such as this.

Once again ERJ-140 you are showing the people here that you are indeed deserving of being called the Red-Headed Step Child of flightinfo.com.

You ignorance is only surpassed by your stupidity.

 

[ERJ-140]

There are ways to do it, but leaving the gain in AUTO and flying around in the rain is NOT one of them.

This is basically a radar used on turboprops. It likes to paint lots of ground clutter and blobs of red everywhere or lots of nothing. When it gets wet it attenuates badly (in AUTO GAIN especially). You have to know how to make it talk to you. You have to "pull the information out" of the radar. It doesn't just give it to you. Most pilots using EMB radars shoot over the tops or paint nothing because they have no concept of gain and tilt angle, and do not know how to use ground clutter to their advantage (a must in this airplane).


(BTW I started on the EMB in 2000 so you don't have that much of an edge on me in that regard. I have been a pilot for almost 20 years.)

 

[banned username 2]

(BTW I started on the EMB in 2000 so you don't have that much of an edge on me in that regard. I have been a pilot for almost 20 years.)

Now wait a minute!!! I thought you weren't a pilot and didn't fly the EMB??? Now you have been flying the WSCofD for almost 5 years???

From Post #859 of this thread...

All right all right!!! I will admit it. I am not a pilot. I just know one and got on here to see if I could try convincing you folks through reason that the Legacy isn't that bad. A friend of mine flies it and I got this info in part through him (like where Legacys are in the USA). If I had admitted to not being a pilot you might have laughed at me...so I pretended.

Joke's on you! Sorta'.

I have experience riding in the back of the planes listed. No ATP. No hours.

Apologies to my pilot friends out there. They had no idea I was posting their ideas! Sorry!!

 

[bigD]

Sooooo....I have a choice between a radar that just plain works the way I expect it to, or a radar that requires special training to overcome its shortcomings.

Again, it seems like you're constantly showing us how to work around the various compromises of the airplane, or how the compromises aren't important ("FL370 is all you would ever need!").

 

[Dangerkitty]

All right all right!!! I will admit it. I am not a pilot. I just know one and got on here to see if I could try convincing you folks through reason that the Legacy isn't that bad. A friend of mine flies it and I got this info in part through him (like where Legacys are in the USA). If I had admitted to not being a pilot you might have laughed at me...so I pretended.

Joke's on you! Sorta'.

I have experience riding in the back of the planes listed. No ATP. No hours.

Apologies to my pilot friends out there. They had no idea I was posting their ideas! Sorry!!

(BTW I started on the EMB in 2000 so you don't have that much of an edge on me in that regard. I have been a pilot for almost 20 years.)

Well ERJ-140 looks like I am catching you in another one of your lies.

The above quote was from little over a week ago. In that quote you state that you are not a pilot. You dont have an ATP. Nothing.

Now you state that you have been flying the EMB since 2000.

Well what is it? What "truth" are we going to go with this week?

You lies and BS are getting really dull dude. I would have alot more respect for you if you would just admit that you are a fraud and a liar then shut your pie hole.

You credibility is zero and you continue to make a fool out of yourself here on a daily basis.

B-737 typed pilot my a$$.

 

[Dangerkitty]

Now wait a minute!!! I thought you weren't a pilot and didn't fly the EMB??? Now you have been flying the WSCofD for almost 5 years???

From Post #859 of this thread...

Falcon Captain,

Great minds think alike!!!

Hey red-headed step child!! Looks like you got some splaining to do!!!

 

[fokkerjet]

GV might better answer this one, but uncontained failure protection is based on statistical analysis and theory in large part. Even with an uncontained failure nobody was hurt (thanks to engine location and that the parts probably didn't pierce the fuselage any way).

Let's also be real here. By the time the parts go through case, the duct, the nacelle and possibly the pylon there isn't much energy left to poke the fuselage (for compressor/turbine failure - assumption on my part).

Aircraft returned to service the next day. Plastic parts replaced. Wing X-Rayed for damage. None found.

It all depends on how big the piece is, and where it was in its rotation when it let go. If the engine part that lets go is being spun away from the fuselage, I'd say you're correct, but if it's spinning towards the fuselage, wing or tail when it lets go, look out. Delta MD88 in Pensacola, United DC10 at Sioux City, Continental DC10 in Newark and Cleveland, DHL(?) B727 in Hartford; uncontained failures resulting in death, with aircraft damaged and/or destroyed. Most, if not all modern Part 25 tail mounted jets have their engines mounted aft of the cabin pressure vessel, or they have limitations in place to minimize the effects of an uncontained failure resulting in a hole in the fuselage.

 

[ERJ-140]

It all depends on how big the piece is, and where it was in its rotation when it let go. If the engine part that lets go is being spun away from the fuselage, I'd say you're correct, but if it's spinning towards the fuselage, wing or tail when it lets go, look out. Delta MD88 in Pensacola, United DC10 at Sioux City, Continental DC10 in Newark and Cleveland, DHL(?) B727 in Hartford; uncontained failures resulting in death, with aircraft damaged and/or destroyed. Most, if not all modern Part 25 tail mounted jets have their engines mounted aft of the cabin pressure vessel, or they have limitations in place to minimize the effects of an uncontained failure resulting in a hole in the fuselage.

Right.

If you knew anything about the EMB-135/145/145 XR or Legacy you would know that the AE3007 engines made by Allison (a dividion or Rolls Royce) are wrapped in Kevlar to contain any sort of flying debris during an event such as this.

(And yes, DK, we all know there is a containment shroud that theoretically eliminates uncontained failures. It obviously didn't work this time.)

What I do not know is whether or not a failure is actually "caused" on a test stand to determine if the containment ring(s) are strong enough. That may be a calculation based on mass x velocity (energy) vs. composition and thickness of the shroud and other components.

GV is the certification expert. I defer to him regarding this issue.

An uncontained failure may result in a change by the FAA regarding the EMB or AE3007 (it is flown on the Citation X - and the Saab 2000 I am told). Beef up the containment ring/shroud or add "armor" to the fuselage structure...or do nothing at all because of the nature of the failure.

I am not sure anyone knows if a containment ring really works until one lets go in real life, but I again claim no expertise in that regard.