"Reduced Thrust" cause for Comair crash?

[JECKEL]

Local Cincinnati news station, WCPO, is reporting that a lawyer representing a 5191 victim's family blames Comair's use of "reduced thrust" takeoffs as a cause of the crash last week. If the airline used "normal thrust" on it's takeoffs, there would have been more power for the departure roll and, thus, the aircraft would have had the speed to takeoff from the shorter runway.
The lawyer claims that Comair's use of "reduced thrust" is a direct result of the airline cutting corners to save every penny because they are bankrupt.

Here we go!!!

 

[ReportCanoa]

Okay, I don't know what Comair's SOP is, but at ASA, the first flight of every day for that aircraft we use FULL takeoff N1. Whatever the case, it sounds like an attorney got ahold of some random information and thought he might have a winner. I got news for him. It wouldn't have mattered.

 

[embpic1]

We will have to wait for the FDR data, but I would bet that Emergency thrust was used on the part of that t/o.

 

[Broke in CVG]

We will have to wait for the FDR data, but I would bet that Emergency thrust was used on the part of that t/o.

I'll bet you that it wasn't. In fact I'll bet you that thrust was never increased beyond the initial reduced thrust setting.

 

[Illinois]

Did the lawyer also state that most engine failures on take-off are at normal thrust?

 

[ReportCanoa]

I'll bet you that it wasn't. In fact I'll bet you that thrust was never increased beyond the initial reduced thrust setting.

I'll second that.

 

[j41driver]

Unfortunately I don't think that a CRJ200 with 50 people on board would take off from a 3500' runway even if you firewalled the power from the start of the takeoff roll.

 

[Soverytired]

Doubt it would've made SQUAT difference anyway. Reduced thrust ain't reduced THAT much, basically a paper-numbers game anyway, at least until an engine decides to sit the rest of the flight out.

 

[Erlanger]

In court, Comair will show that even with normal thrust or even if the crew had firewalled it from the start of the take-off, the aircraft would never of made it anyway. The performance tables and the test run that will undoubedly be done, will show that to be true.

 

[ReportCanoa]

Doubt it would've made SQUAT difference anyway. Reduced thrust ain't reduced THAT much, basically a paper-numbers game anyway, at least until an engine decides to sit the rest of the flight out.

I can't really agree with that. It may only be 5 percent, but at high RPM's, that's a lot of thrust.

 

[KeroseneSnorter]

It is an issue of amount now, $ amounts.

No matter how it boils down or what the mitigating factors are (construction, one guy in tower etc) the simple fact is the crew tried to depart on a runway that was too short for the airplane. We can say what we want, but we all know that is what killed them.

I know I will probably catch heat for it, but I am simply stating what we all know happened. I figure the feds will take part of the blame for the lack of tower staff and probably the airport and construction company if there were sign problems etc.

Good pilots that made a very bad mistake, unfortunately the lawyers are going to drag their reputation and airline through the mud before it is all over with.

but for the grace of God go I.........

 

[embpic1]

I'll bet you that it wasn't. In fact I'll bet you that thrust was never increased beyond the initial reduced thrust setting.

Well see i guess. Has it been determined that they did do a reduced thrust t/o?

 

[C425Driver]

A classic case of an F'n ambulance chaser who has NO clue!

 

[DrewBlows]

Well see i guess. Has it been determined that they did do a reduced thrust t/o?

I haven't heard one way or the other. It has been my experience that if it is possible to do a reduced thrust takeoff we do it. There are limitations but first flight is not one of them.

 

[Fearless Tower]

The guys wheels were in the grass.....nothing short of JATO bottles was going to get that plane in air before they ran out of runway.

 

[Broke in CVG]

Well see i guess. Has it been determined that they did do a reduced thrust t/o?

Only the FDR knows... but reduced thrust has been the rule at Comair for about 2 years. They really harped on it for a long time and even gave a dollar figure awhile back for the savings per TO. Normal has to been done every 100 hrs.

BUT 121 performance is guaranteed with reduced thrust, problem is that the numbers were for R22 not R26.

However, I remember Comair took a CRJ200 into Blue Ash Airport KISZ in Cincy for a static airshow display and that field is 3500 ft. But they knew it was short - normal thrust, static TO, & empty and light on fuel.

 

[spiffomatic]

this just in:

the next time there's an injury because of a gear extension malfunction, the lawyers will sue because the airline was cutting corners by rasing the landing gear - in order to save on fuel costs, but risking the passengers in the off chance that the gear doesn't extend properly for landing.

 

[54fighting]

I figure the feds will take part of the blame for the lack of tower staff

I get the feeling that somehow, they are going to try to distance themselves as much as they can. Taken from kentucky.com

Blakey, a former chairwoman of the National Transportation Safety Board, also said it was not the controller's responsibility to watch the plane on the runway.

A spokesman for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, an employee union, agreed with Blakey on a few points: It was not the controller's responsibility to make sure the plane was on the right runway, and the second controller might have been assigned radar duties, rather than ground control.

 

[Broke in CVG]

This accident wasn't caused by Comair cutting corners... it is just one more of many, many factors that contributed to a perfectly good airplane not making it. There are going to be lots and lots of contributing factors to this one.

 

[gcaflyer]

Last I read they were at 137kts when they exited the runway. Flaps 20 t/o on the 50,000# card they should have been real close to flying. I definitely wouldn't say there was no way that they could have made it.

 

[PCL_128]

Even if reduced thrust was used, I doubt it would be all the way down to 85%. Don't the Comair -100s have A model engines? With a full flight and A engines I doubt the FLEX thrust would be much of a reduction over normal thrust.

 

[Erlanger]

It wouldn't of mattered anyway if they had used flaps 20 for the take-off but can someone tell me 1) If Comair had fixed the AD on the flaps, and if not, 2) since you may realize that flaps 8 is required for take-off after the taxi out, does Comair always have flaps 8 set for the taxi out and subsequent take-off.

 

[Poahi]

Local Cincinnati news station, WCPO, is reporting that a lawyer representing a 5191 victim's family blames Comair's use of "reduced thrust" takeoffs as a cause of the crash last week.
Here we go!!!

You could make the same arguement about rolling and tailwind takeoffs as well.

 

[Hawker dude]

I can't really agree with that. It may only be 5 percent, but at high RPM's, that's a lot of thrust.

You sir, are a dork.

 

[Speedtape]

Crude Hawker Dude,

Does stating a fact make him a dork? Maybe, you should review jet performance as it relates to the power settings, especially the last 5 per cent.

 

[imacdog]

It wouldn't of mattered anyway if they had used flaps 20 for the take-off but can someone tell me 1) If Comair had fixed the AD on the flaps, and if not, 2) since you may realize that flaps 8 is required for take-off after the taxi out, does Comair always have flaps 8 set for the taxi out and subsequent take-off.

1. As I understand it some of our planes have the fix while others don't, so we treat all aircraft as if they don't have the fix.

2. We always have our performance numbers calculated before closing the door, so if he flaps need to be set at 8, we will do that and check them before taxiing out. I have been here for a year and a half and have not done any flaps 8 takeoffs yet.

 

[Huck]

Over at PPrune there is an old dude that said this: he had a sim instructor that used to pull another aircraft onto the runway when they were about V1 - 10 on the takeoff roll.

The instructor taught them to slap down full flaps. Their aircraft would balloon into the air and barely climb, but they would make it.

Sounds silly, but when you've run out of all other options....

 

[Black Hawk]

Is there any information on how the crew actually reacted? Seems to me that somewhere in the roll they would have realized they were running out of pavement. Did they go to full thrust or attempt and abort?

 

[Gorilla]

You sir, are a dork.

He, sir, is correct. Thrust response is not linear. The increase in thrust from 95% to 100% is VASTLY greater than the increase, say, from 80% to 85%.

 

[pilotdiscretion]

The engines were set to 90% N1 and stayed that way until the FDR stopped recording. In order to use a BFL of 3500' the CRJ 200 would have to weigh 33,000.