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

[AirplanesSuck]

I am fairly certain engine info would have been recorded on the EDS. Whether or the not the EDS is salvagable is another story. I don't think the EDS is given the same protection as the CVR.

The EDS records a lot of stuff, but I think you're right... it's probably burned up and useless.

Like I said, though, they can figure out an amazing amount of info from a CVR sound analysis.

 

[satpak77]

not for nothing, but why are they telling ATC "we had a blow out" when they should be rotating and flying off the deck or focusing on getting the plane stopped and secured? Seems like a big distraction, keying the mike and talking to tower at night in the middle of a blowout rolling down the runway.

 

[AirplanesSuck]

not for nothing, but why are they telling ATC "we had a blow out" when they should be rotating and flying off the deck or focusing on getting the plane stopped and secured? Seems like a big distraction, keying the mike and talking to tower at night in the middle of a blowout rolling down the runway.

I don't think anybody knows the answer to your "why." I think it's proably far too early to second-guess this crew since the facts are still so limited.

Generally speaking, though, some pilots think it is a priority to notify ATC ASAP so then can know what's happening and get help moving.

 

[Club ORD FO]

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

 

[LJ45]

and....as far as they did slide...They had plenty of time to key the mike.

 

[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