Travis Barker - 4 killed, 2 hurt as rock star's jet crashes

[400A]

we dont know yet what they said, they didn't release the transcripts yet. They might have said "we are going off the end of the runway."

I'd sure as hell do that, I would want them to get the trucks rolling

Yes Sir!

 

[ableone]

At every carrier I have worked for procedures call for the PM to notify the tower when the PF calls and executes a reject.

This is done so that ARFF can be notified, and the tower knows not to clear anyone else to either take off or land until they can be assured the rejecting aircraft is clear of the runway.

A successful reject at night is for naught if another airplane runs into you.

 

[Bronco Buster]

Abort vs takeoff

Above 80 knots it is a very bad idea to abort for a tire failure or blowout unless it's associated with severe directional control problems. A tire failure will not have much effect on takeoff performance, but will have a significant effect on braking performance and on directional control if you've lost all your tires on one side and apply heavy braking. To illustrate my point: back in the 70s hijackers commandeered a Southern Airways DC9 and demanded that it be flown to Cuba. The crew convinced the hijackers that they needed more fuel and a landing was made in the US. The FBI shot out all of the tires while the aircraft was on the ramp. The hijackers told the crew to takeoff anyway. When the crew resisted they shot the FO in the arm (he still has the bullet in his arm). At that point the captain decided it would be prudent to do what they said. The airplane successfully took off and landed in Havana with no serious problems. Of course I realize that a shredding tire could sling FOD into an engine with tail mounted engines, and squat switches could be damaged, but those problems can be addressed if and when they occur. Still accident history strongly supports continuing the takeoff when tire failures occur above 80knots. As long as we're talking about accident history, it's also not a good idea to balk a landing once you have the reversers deployed, lift dump activated, or you are below 80 knots. Of course if there's a cliff off the end of the runway and stopping distance is in doubt or you find yourself with nil braking and 60-70% of your normal takeoff distance remaining (depending on current speed) then you should consider getting airborne again to sort things out. The bottom line is that these kinds of decisions should basically be made before you ever turn a wheel. When it happens, then you just have to execute your previus decision based on the current parameters,

 

[WTF]

Above 80 knots it is a very bad idea to abort for a tire failure or blowout unless it's associated with severe directional control problems. A tire failure will not have much effect on takeoff performance, but will have a significant effect on braking performance and on directional control if you've lost all your tires on one side and apply heavy braking.

I agree, and in previous posts I made the same argument. When the nose is pointed even somewhat straight, with 2 good engines, a good wing, and seconds from being able to fly the answer should always be go unless one of the briefed items occurs, or something HUGE is in the way. From the accident photos, this aircraft stayed in a straight path down the runway for some 10,000 feet.

I still want to give the crew the benefit of doubt that there is more to this story. Something just doesnt fit. Unless it was just a case of second guessing eachother, or knee jerk pull back of the power because something was heard and the F/O saying "no....Go, go, go. But I cannot see a crew traveling 92mph and hearing a pop and trying to stop the aircraft. It just doesnt make sense.

These kinds of incidents give us the chance to really think about what we brief and to re-instill those words in our sub-concious and affirm that what we say we will do when we are taxiing toward the runway is what we really will do when those couple seconds are on our plates.

 

[Club ORD FO]

deleted...double post

 

[Club ORD FO]

I dont really think we are asking the right questions. We know they tried to abort above 80, fine. Good idea or not it is not our place to say, we were not in the cockpit. The important thing to figure out is why the airplane could not be brought to a stop? They had a decent amount of runway left. They slide over a mile they say. Did the TRs not work properly? Did the squat switches fail? Did the gear collapse?

Regardless of it was a good idea or bad idea to abort, the airplane should have been capable of doing it. Lets say that you have a blown tire 5 knots before v1 which somehow tosses funk into the engine and you lose the engine. Abort right? Not going to work evidently. Why not? So something else went wrong that the crew could not have predicted. And that is what needs to be figured out and fixed so that it does not happen to another airplane

 

[400A]

As I said on another thread, in my opinion for the aircraft to slide that far, particularly after sheering the gear off, I think it was still producing thrust. Who knows if it was the previously mentioned T/R issue, a FADEC issue or something else, but I believe for it to go that far, it still had thrust. Debris field started at 2800 feet. I do not believe that they traveled another 5800 feet plus as far as they did off the runway, much out without the gear, in a very straight line, without power. I hope they are able to give a definitive answer at some point.

 

[Fly91]

As I said on another thread, in my opinion for the aircraft to slide that far, particularly after sheering the gear off, I think it was still producing thrust. Who knows if it was the previously mentioned T/R issue, a FADEC issue or something else, but I believe for it to go that far, it still had thrust. Debris field started at 2800 feet. I do not believe that they traveled another 5800 feet plus as far as they did off the runway, much out without the gear, in a very straight line, without power. I hope they are able to give a definitive answer at some point.

They aborted the "abort, and tried to fly, after realizing there was no way they could stop by the end. And I think that decision was made well after the 2,800 ft. mark. Because like you mentioned, there is NO WAY they could go that far, stay perfectly straight, and still impact hard enough to do that kind of damage, if the power was pulled back to idle. IMO

A Lear 35 here at FXE did have a bird strike on an engine once while taking off and whatever actually happened in the engine, that engine went full power by itself and they had to pull the t-handle on down-wind to shut it down before they landed.....so............

 

[Papps]

As I said on another thread, in my opinion for the aircraft to slide that far, particularly after sheering the gear off, I think it was still producing thrust. Who knows if it was the previously mentioned T/R issue, a FADEC issue or something else, but I believe for it to go that far, it still had thrust. Debris field started at 2800 feet. I do not believe that they traveled another 5800 feet plus as far as they did off the runway, much out without the gear, in a very straight line, without power. I hope they are able to give a definitive answer at some point.

I think people were implying that a malfunction or design flaw caused the reversers to stay stowed, but the engines powered up as they normally would to produce reverse thrust.... but at this point who knows we are all just guessing.

 

[Bronco Buster]

Minor point, but something to think about: If you lose the engine 5 knots below V1 you should still be able to takeoff in the available runway but you will not have your 35 feet above the runway at the end.

 

[Hung Start]

I went to the book to look some stuff up, and made a couple of calls to clairify some things, here are some answers to the best of my ability. Not swearing all are 100% accurate, but I believe they are.

1) If the piggybacks were up, and the squat switch failed, would the engine continue to accellerate if the T/R's stowed: No, the FADECS would roll the engines back to idle.
2) If the squat switch was damaged, would they loose brakes: No, the brakes are disabled or enabled by the nose gear hydraulics. If the nose gear is down, brakes are available.
3) Would the failure of one squat switch put the aircraft in "air" mode: Should not. The relay box needs both left and right switches to be in the air to command that.
4) Would they loose autospoilers if a squat switch failed: Possibly, but they would still have the manual extension of the spoilers, which is a "memory item" for rejected T/O.

So, it seems, we would need a failure of both sides to put the aircraft in air mode. And if that happened, the T/R's would certainly retract and the engines would go to idle.

Why this accident happened, I will not pass judgement. There but the grace of God could go I. Like most out there, I am trying to learn and avoid.

Hung

 

[Papps]

Minor point, but something to think about: If you lose the engine 5 knots below V1 you should still be able to takeoff in the available runway but you will not have your 35 feet above the runway at the end.

Yeah but it may be confusing if you call the abort pop the spoilers, apply max breaks, and go for the reversers, but the plane doesn't seem to be slowing down. Im sure it happened very fast. As we always do in FI.com we are just armchair quarterbacking this one.

 

[400A]

As we always do in FI.com we are just armchair quarterbacking this one.

I think everyone has done a good job not armchair quarterbacking. The way I see it, it has made everyone dig in manuals, review SOP's and become much more familiar with the topic. I personally read the 45 page study on aborts and sent it to the other pilot of our aircraft. I have not seen anyone say the crew messed up. I still do not know what happened, but it forced me to dig into the systems of the aircraft that I fly and say " Ok, if this happened in the hawker and I lost a squat switch what all have I lost" I do not participate in these threads to sell out a crew. I participate to learn.

So her is to all of those trying to learn as well and to those we lost.:beer:

 

[AirplanesSuck]

1) If the piggybacks were up, and the squat switch failed, would the engine continue to accellerate if the T/R's stowed: No, the FADECS would roll the engines back to idle.
2) If the squat switch was damaged, would they loose brakes: No, the brakes are disabled or enabled by the nose gear hydraulics. If the nose gear is down, brakes are available.
3) Would the failure of one squat switch put the aircraft in "air" mode: Should not. The relay box needs both left and right switches to be in the air to command that.
4) Would they loose autospoilers if a squat switch failed: Possibly, but they would still have the manual extension of the spoilers, which is a "memory item" for rejected T/O.

1) Correct... if the T/R relay box receives "air" signals from squat switches.

2) Not completely correct... the hydraulic pressure for brakes comes from the nose gear down line. However, the anti-skid function is controlled by individual squat switches. The only way you can guarantee effective brakes (with squat switches in "air mode") with the gear down is turning the anti-skid off or using emergency braking.

3) Not completely correct... The squat switch relay box uses signals from both switches, and as long as one is in "ground mode," the relay box is in "ground mode." However, many systems bypass the relay box and get signals from both squat switches individually (anti-skid, for example).

4) Correct. Aborts do not rely on autospoilers... they are to be fully deployed manually.


Edited so as not to offend anyone who writes more than he/she reads.

 

[400A]

1)

And for everyone's information:

"Lose" is the is what you do when you misplace something or don't win. "Loose" is the opposite of "tight."

"Break" is to damage something or a period of down-time. "Brakes" are what airplanes and cars use to stop.

Not making fun of anyone, just letting you all know in case you didn't.

Thanks, that was very helpful information on what has been a otherwise good thread. :erm: