Not a good night at Louisville Airport tonight!

[Scottyboi]

Looks like there is literally fuck all you can do there as the pilot, hit V1 and know you're going to die it's horrible.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Nothing like the Concorde crash. That was caused by FOD on the runway being run over and launched into the wing breaching a fuel tank. The leaking fuel caught fire.

Not quite.

Metal FOD from a previously departed Continental Airlines aircraft sliced a tyre on the Concorde. As that exploded and disintegrated, it blew up into the fuel tank and set the aircraft’s fuel tank alight.

The vulnerability of the fuel tank was known, but the cost and weight to reinforce it were deemed uneconomic by a bean counter.

This is one of the reasons an engine failure is considered no big deal, but an UNCONTAINED engine failure is a nightmare. Shards of ballistic metal fragments, many of them larger than a human being, shooting off in all directions is akin to having a missile under your wing and right next to both the fuel tanks and the passenger cabin…let alone every flight control system snaking through the aircraft.

Believe it or not, it isn’t just about pushing a button and watching George take you to the far reaches of the globe using GPS, and landing for you!

 

[LangleyBlue1970]

Just read some of the comments on that X clip from the lorry driver.

Imagine my surprise when it’s full of conspiracy nuts saying it wasn’t real.

 

[west didsblue]

Not quite.

Metal FOD from a previously departed Continental Airlines aircraft sliced a tyre on the Concorde. As that exploded and disintegrated, it blew up into the fuel tank and set the aircraft’s fuel tank alight.

The vulnerability of the fuel tank was known, but the cost and weight to reinforce it were deemed uneconomic by a bean counter.

This is one of the reasons an engine failure is considered no big deal, but an UNCONTAINED engine failure is a nightmare. Shards of ballistic metal fragments, many of them larger than a human being, shooting off in all directions is akin to having a missile under your wing and right next to both the fuel tanks and the passenger cabin…let alone every flight control system snaking through the aircraft.

Believe it or not, it isn’t just about pushing a button and watching George take you to the far reaches of the globe using GPS, and landing for you!

The modifications to the fuel tank were developed after the crash and the bean counters stepped in at this point due to the cost of the modifications. Airbus, who had inherited the Design Authorityship from BAe and Aerospatiale, refused to provide DA cover for the aircraft for an affordable amount. This made it impossible to carry on operating the aircraft.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Looks like there is literally fuck all you can do there as the pilot, hit V1 and know you're going to die it's horrible.

I wouldn’t go that far, but as soon as the left wing hit that industrial building, it was over for them.

I don’t know enough to say whether it was possible to lift that wing or not, because that takes flight controls that may have been severed or even departed the aircraft, but on the flight deck we live in the hope that we are the Gods of the Air we try to train ourselves to be.

Sometimes, though, the fickle finger of fate (or the negligence of others) signs your death warrant without your knowledge. Every day, we knowingly accept that potential outcome is a possibility.

All of that said, even if they’d managed to be Gods of the Air and stay airborne, it’s hard to know if, when and how bad any further fire/explosion would have been. When you take off with an uncontained fire, all the airmanship in the world might be absolutely useless.

Even knowing that, when you put your uniform on and strap yourself to a 500,000lb missile, you do so BELIEVING you can wrestle that beast safely back to earth no matter what serendipity throws at you. Sometimes, even on your best day, fate proves you wrong.

As I’ve told hundreds of people over the course of my 30+ year career, FIRE is my biggest fear. Sure, other things will instantly kill you, but the myriad ways in which a fire can be started on an aircraft, most of which I have no control over (lithium ion batteries being a new menace), can remove whatever responses we are trained for. There’s a reason we have dozens of smoke detectors and half a dozen large fire extinguishers embedded in the aircraft, but fire is its own special kind of demon.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

This is one of the reasons an engine failure is considered no big deal, but an UNCONTAINED engine failure is a nightmare. Shards of ballistic metal fragments, many of them larger than a human being, shooting off in all directions is akin to having a missile under your wing and right next to both the fuel tanks and the passenger cabin…let alone every flight control system snaking through the aircraft.

Precisely the reasons why aircraft have multiple redundant (backup) systems. I don't think there are many multi-engine aircraft out there not capable of maintaining flight after a single engine failure. Take off is another thing though, especially with the weight considerations. Catastrophic engine failure however could easily have taken out primary and secondary hydraulics and whichever power bus that was supplied from the failed engine at probably the most critical point of the take-off. Probably a bucket load of torque steer and weight imbalance to contend with also, and I'd be very surprised if the wheel brakes were even functional at that point.

Absolute shit sandwich for the crew.

 

[citytill1die84]

Shocking :-(

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I hate to say it out loud, because I heard this last night secondhand from a pilot at UPS, but it was reported as a fuel leak.

:-(

I heard (from an unconfirmed source) that engineers had been working on the engine prior to pushback which caused a 2-hour delay in departure. The pressure from the airline to get a fully loaded jet airborne must have been huge given the financial implications of a delay, which pails into insignificance now.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Precisely the reasons why aircraft have multiple redundant (backup) systems.

Exactly. Critical systems often have multiple back ups.

I don't think there are many multi-engine aircraft out there not capable of maintaining flight after a single engine failure.

There shouldn’t be ANY!

Part of the requirements for an aircraft to be certified are that the aircraft is flyable and controllable with the loss of thrust to an engine.

I flew the 727 (a 3 engined aircraft) and it was certified to fly on 1 engine…just don’t get slower than about 220Kts until you’re ready to land!

The 747, a 4 engined aircraft that I also flew, is certified to fly on only 2 engines.

Take off is another thing though, especially with the weight considerations.

People think landing us the scary part, because everyone thinks going from the “soft” air to the “hard” runway is the scariest part of the flight. It isn’t. The takeoff is, by far, the most critical and scary part of the flight. You are leaving the “safe” ground to climb into the “let’s hope the physics works” air, at the heaviest weight you’ll be, with the most fuel you will carry, all while accelerating rapidly towards the end of your “safe” ground that is going to REQUIRE getting airborne.

However, the weight, temperature, altitude of the runway are all included in the calculations that show you can safely takeoff OR stop on the runway prior to V1 OR get to 35 feet AGL by the end of the runway if you lose an engine at V1.

Every single day we train in the simulator, we do max weight, minimum visibility takeoffs with an engine failure immediately after V1, climb out, fly a pattern, return for a hand-flown landing at landing weather minimums…then go around on one engine upon reaching 50 feet above the runway, back into the weather, to a fully completely go-around to flaps up at or above clean maneuvering speed!

At this point, I could close my eyes and fly the procedures in my sleep. However, the real world never gives you the training scenario you’ve practiced a thousand times, which is where your airmanship comes in…IF the aircraft is forgiving enough to have left you with enough aircraft to be able to fly it.

Catastrophic engine failure however could easily have taken out primary and secondary hydraulics and whichever power bus that was supplied from the failed engine at probably the most critical point of the take-off. Probably a bucket load of torque steer and weight imbalance to contend with also, and I'd be very surprised if the wheel brakes were even functional at that point.

A lot to discuss there, but the aircraft got to almost 200 feet before it started rolling to the left onto its back, as its left wing impacted the roof of the industrial unit.

You can be absolutely certain the crew was trying everything they could to get the aircraft to stop rolling to the left and to lift the nose, but once that roll starts, you start to lose lift and that makes it harder to do everything you need to do to stay airborne at low altitude with one less engine!

Absolute shit sandwich for the crew.

You said a mouthful there!

I have to fly from Chicago to Barcelona tonight and you can bet we are all going to have an extra little anal pucker accelerating through V1 to VR and through V2 tonight!!

 

[meeesh]

Since the DC-10 became the MD-11 there are “known” issues with elevator blanking and porpoising of the aircraft, especially at low altitudes where you raise the nose and the airflow over the tail is disturbed.

There is an (in)famous crash on landing at Newark years ago.

34 year old frame as well

 

[LGWIO]

However, the weight, temperature, altitude of the runway are all included in the calculations that show you can safely takeoff OR stop on the runway prior to V1 OR get to 35 feet AGL by the end of the runway if you lose an engine at V1.

Heard of an incident at BFS where temperature was miscalculated and input resulting in the incorrect thrust. The point of no return was reached and end of runway lights were clipped.

 

[JRockBlues]

Another dashcam vid of the incident has appeared:

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

The modifications to the fuel tank were developed after the crash and the bean counters stepped in at this point due to the cost of the modifications. Airbus, who had inherited the Design Authorityship from BAe and Aerospatiale, refused to provide DA cover for the aircraft for an affordable amount. This made it impossible to carry on operating the aircraft.

I was in a pub in Richmond once when Concorde flew over. It was a magnificent sight. The only time I ever saw it.

 

[west didsblue]

I was in a pub in Richmond once when Concorde flew over. It was a magnificent sight. The only time I ever saw it.

Seen it a few times but the one I remember best was when I was in a meeting in the Heathrow control tower. The meeting stopped for a break at just before 10:30 and everyone went to the window to watch it take off on its daily flight to New York. This included people who see it all the time but even so they all wanted to watch it. The noise would have drowned out the meeting anyway. It was certainly a special aircraft, decades ahead of its time.

 

[RadcliffeRick]

Seen it a few times but the one I remember best was when I was in a meeting in the Heathrow control tower. The meeting stopped for a break at just before 10:30 and everyone went to the window to watch it take off on its daily flight to New York. This included people who see it all the time but even so they all wanted to watch it. The noise would have drowned out the meeting anyway. It was certainly a special aircraft, decades ahead of its time.

When they stopped flying it, it was one of a very few times when mankind took a backwards step.

 

[Nethermoor]

Seems that the engine became detached during rollout hence the engine just next to the runway. As that happened it appears it's gone through a fuel line or leaking fuel has ignited and that heat/debris has hit the number 2 engine on the tail and caused a compressor stall. An MD11 can get airborne on two engines but not one. Not fully laiden with cargo and fuel for a flight to Honolulu.

Also don't know what hydraulic systems were out etc. So even without number 2 engine spluttering it may never have been uncontrollable.

 

[KS55]

Seems that the engine became detached during rollout hence the engine just next to the runway. As that happened it appears it's gone through a fuel line or leaking fuel has ignited and that heat/debris has hit the number 2 engine on the tail and caused a compressor stall. An MD11 can get airborne on two engines but not one. Not fully laiden with cargo and fuel for a flight to Honolulu.

Also don't know what hydraulic systems were out etc. So even without number 2 engine spluttering it may never have been uncontrollable.

I understand that the engine that fell off had just been re-installed post maintenanance. Hmmm…

 

[RadcliffeRick]

Seems that the engine became detached during rollout hence the engine just next to the runway. As that happened it appears it's gone through a fuel line or leaking fuel has ignited and that heat/debris has hit the number 2 engine on the tail and caused a compressor stall. An MD11 can get airborne on two engines but not one. Not fully laiden with cargo and fuel for a flight to Honolulu.

Also don't know what hydraulic systems were out etc. So even without number 2 engine spluttering it may never have been uncontrollable.

I am not an expert by any means but looking at the car dash cam footage it would appear that the flaps and slats on both wings were set correctly, the port wing slats and flaps did not retract if/when the hydraulic system was disrupted, it would appear they lost 2 engines and did not have the power to climb.