I used to work on jet2 one of their 737 last two letters were L.I. known to us as lima incident
I know a jet2 engineer works for jet2 and a big blue ,we always take the piss when there is something wrong ,speed tape and a hammer is all he needs :)I will forever remember the comment of our chief engineer after we pranged an ATR at Bournemouth - wind shear, very heavy landing, no casualties but a twisted airframe and big holes in the fuselage where the wheels had punched through the skin.
"The fucking fucker's fucking fucked, innit?"
Engineers.....gotta love 'em!
A rudder issue is more likely to have cased directional instability, not a rapid decent. It could be an autopilot issue. The autopilot can be switched pretty much straight after take off. The autopilot is more than capable of flying the departure, including the ascent. If for instance one of the inputs to the autopilot was compromised, and the pilots are not fully paying attention, you have a recipe for disaster.I’ve seen a pilot suggest that there was a major rudder issue and that kind of suggest it was the case.
A rapid decent out of nowhere like that is odd in the extreme.
That's what I do mate, I find out the reg of the plane and look at it's history. We flew to Fuertuventura on a jet2 757 last year, the original plane we was due to fly on 'broke down ' so they flew in a replacement 757 Reg G-LSAI which was involved in a tailstrike in alicante a couple of years previously, so I thought great, get to cruising altitude and let's break apart shall we. As it was it was a really smooth flight, no dramas or mishaps and the return journey we flew out on the A321 titan/jet2 hybrid which was a bit choppy about an hour in, I was sat next to the window and the wing kept lifting as if we was making a turn, made me a bit uneasy.See my post
That's what I do mate, I find out the reg of the plane and look at it's history. We flew to Fuertuventura on a jet2 757 last year, the original plane we was due to fly on 'broke down ' so they flew in a replacement 757 Reg G-LSAI which was involved in a tailstrike in alicante a couple of years previously, so I thought great, get to cruising altitude and let's break apart shall we. As it was it was a really smooth flight, no dramas or mishaps and the return journey we flew out on the A321 titan/jet2 hybrid which was a bit choppy about an hour in, I was sat next to the window and the wing kept lifting as if we was making a turn, made me a bit uneasy.
This year we flew out on a brand new 737-86N which was only 9 months old and was a really nice aircraft but the old 757s put the bejesus up me.
A rudder issue is more likely to have cased directional instability, not a rapid decent. It could be an autopilot issue. The autopilot can be switched pretty much straight after take off. The autopilot is more than capable of flying the departure, including the ascent. If for instance one of the inputs to the autopilot was compromised, and the pilots are not fully paying attention, you have a recipe for disaster.
One of the main inputs to the autopilot is the pitotstatic system. The pitotstatic system is a series of probes and vents which measure the dynamic and static barometric pressure to determine altitude and speed. If for instance one of these probes was damaged (even bent by a couple of degrees or so), or blocked by a cover (which a ground maintainer forgot to remove) or insect, then the input to the autopilot give incorrect readings and will likely cause the aircraft to behave erratically.
Pitot and Static vent checks are part of the AF/BF checks, and also part of the flight crew walk round checks. In this case, it could possibly a static vent issue, as the speed indications allowed for a successful take off. I could also be water in the tubes, which would essentially give the same problems, or one of the system water drain traps not being sealed properly, and the required sense and leak checks not being carried out. An alert flight crew would spot this kind of fault immediately, and revert to manual control.
Possibly a fuel control issue. Flight test may be a result of a component adjustment/change.Haha,me and you would be no good to be sat side of each other on a flight !
Like a few have said that LSAG is 31 years old now,and probably nothing in or on it resembles it as when first made,but all the same,if the landing gear has a fault you are asking for trouble,but that engine didn't sound too good,and it wasn't in my mind neither,but when I looked next day to see it had been out on a test over the sea,well to say I said to myself I thought there was somert wrong,I may have been right after all.
I thought that hardover rudders could initiate a spin but a quick Google search suggests more likely to cause sideslip which can be counteracted with the ailerons. There have been instances of 737 rudder actuators jamming the rudder hard over but for some reason the rudder pedals suggested that the opposite rudder pedal would counteract the problem and so no amount of force by the pilot would correct it. Excessive rudder input at speed can cause the entire tailfin to detach and then it really is curtains.A rudder issue is more likely to have cased directional instability, not a rapid decent. It could be an autopilot issue. The autopilot can be switched pretty much straight after take off. The autopilot is more than capable of flying the departure, including the ascent. If for instance one of the inputs to the autopilot was compromised, and the pilots are not fully paying attention, you have a recipe for disaster.
One of the main inputs to the autopilot is the pitotstatic system. The pitotstatic system is a series of probes and vents which measure the dynamic and static barometric pressure to determine altitude and speed. If for instance one of these probes was damaged (even bent by a couple of degrees or so), or blocked by a cover (which a ground maintainer forgot to remove) or insect, then the input to the autopilot give incorrect readings and will likely cause the aircraft to behave erratically.
Pitot and Static vent checks are part of the AF/BF checks, and also part of the flight crew walk round checks. In this case, it could possibly a static vent issue, as the speed indications allowed for a successful take off. I could also be water in the tubes, which would essentially give the same problems, or one of the system water drain traps not being sealed properly, and the required sense and leak checks not being carried out. An alert flight crew would spot this kind of fault immediately, and revert to manual control.
Possibly a fuel control issue. Flight test may be a result of a component adjustment/change.
A hardover rudder would certainly go with a bang, but it would have to be fairly instant to cause the tail to detach. Looking at the flight profile, there was a fair bit of up and down before it's final rapid decent, yet no radio call fro the crew to indicate any problem. This doesn't rule out rudder failure causing the final decent, but something was clearly wrong before then.I thought that hardover rudders could initiate a spin but a quick Google search suggests more likely to cause sideslip which can be counteracted with the ailerons. There have been instances of 737 rudder actuators jamming the rudder hard over but for some reason the rudder pedals suggested that the opposite rudder pedal would counteract the problem and so no amount of force by the pilot would correct it. Excessive rudder input at speed can cause the entire tailfin to detach and then it really is curtains.
I once flew Delta on an MD-90. I sat on the port side, at the back end, right next to the air intake. I could actually see the turbine blades. The engine sounded ropey as anything throughout the 50 minute flight; RPM all over the place. I was glad when I landed. I never did bother to check the history of the aircraft.I'd like to think positive vibes,but truth is I was glad when we bounced through the cloud and on the deck in Manchester
I wasn't putting forward any theories regarding this crash merely that hardover rudders can in some cases cause catastophic spins. The tailfin detaching happened on one flight as a result of violent left right rudder inputs from the cockpit. It was a reaction to jetwash from a heavy in front of them. I think it may have been the copilot who had been taught that the hard right left inputs were the way to go and the tail ended up in the ocean about ten miles from where the plane eventually crashed.A hardover rudder would certainly go with a bang, but it would have to be fairly instant to cause the tail to detach. Looking at the flight profile, there was a fair bit of up and down before it's final rapid decent, yet no radio call fro the crew to indicate any problem. This doesn't rule out rudder failure causing the final decent, but something was clearly wrong before then.
I wasn't putting forward any theories regarding this crash merely that hardover rudders can in some cases cause catastophic spins. The tailfin detaching happened on one flight as a result of violent left right rudder inputs from the cockpit. It was a reaction to jetwash from a heavy in front of them. I think it may have been the copilot who had been taught that the hard right left inputs were the way to go and the tail ended up in the ocean about ten miles from where the plane eventually crashed.
I once flew Delta on an MD-90. I sat on the port side, at the back end, right next to the air intake. I could actually see the turbine blades. The engine sounded ropey as anything throughout the 50 minute flight; RPM all over the place. I was glad when I landed. I never did bother to check the history of the aircraft.
I once flew Delta on an MD-90. I sat on the port side, at the back end, right next to the air intake. I could actually see the turbine blades. The engine sounded ropey as anything throughout the 50 minute flight; RPM all over the place. I was glad when I landed. I never did bother to check the history of the aircraft.
Am I wrong in thinking that the pilots requested a return to the airport shortly before radio contact was lost? I have, admittedly only read a couple of newspaper reports and the boffins on this thread seem to have more detailed info.A hardover rudder would certainly go with a bang, but it would have to be fairly instant to cause the tail to detach. Looking at the flight profile, there was a fair bit of up and down before it's final rapid decent, yet no radio call fro the crew to indicate any problem. This doesn't rule out rudder failure causing the final decent, but something was clearly wrong before then.
I believe so. There was huge pressure on the investigators as tensions were understandably running very high.Was that the American 67 (I think) that crashed into queens not longer after 9/11?
Sorry. I din't mean to come across as having a go; I hadn't really considered the possibility of the tail becoming detached as a result of a rudder system failure. I guess in this case it could be compounded issues.I wasn't putting forward any theories regarding this crash merely that hardover rudders can in some cases cause catastophic spins. The tailfin detaching happened on one flight as a result of violent left right rudder inputs from the cockpit. It was a reaction to jetwash from a heavy in front of them. I think it may have been the copilot who had been taught that the hard right left inputs were the way to go and the tail ended up in the ocean about ten miles from where the plane eventually crashed.
I didn't see that particular report. If true, they certainly knew they had an issue.Am I wrong in thinking that the pilots requested a return to the airport shortly before radio contact was lost? I have, admittedly only read a couple of newspaper reports and the boffins on this thread seem to have more detailed info.
Unlikely. An Air Data problem would cause the autopilot to trip out with an audible warning to the pilot. There are so many monitors and comparators on a modern autopilot that there's no way that it could do something like this.A rudder issue is more likely to have cased directional instability, not a rapid decent. It could be an autopilot issue. The autopilot can be switched pretty much straight after take off. The autopilot is more than capable of flying the departure, including the ascent. If for instance one of the inputs to the autopilot was compromised, and the pilots are not fully paying attention, you have a recipe for disaster.
One of the main inputs to the autopilot is the pitotstatic system. The pitotstatic system is a series of probes and vents which measure the dynamic and static barometric pressure to determine altitude and speed. If for instance one of these probes was damaged (even bent by a couple of degrees or so), or blocked by a cover (which a ground maintainer forgot to remove) or insect, then the input to the autopilot give incorrect readings and will likely cause the aircraft to behave erratically.
Pitot and Static vent checks are part of the AF/BF checks, and also part of the flight crew walk round checks. In this case, it could possibly a static vent issue, as the speed indications allowed for a successful take off. I could also be water in the tubes, which would essentially give the same problems, or one of the system water drain traps not being sealed properly, and the required sense and leak checks not being carried out. An alert flight crew would spot this kind of fault immediately, and revert to manual control.