Scary moment on a flight today

andyp · 27 Apr 2008 at 10:10

Green-Peace said:
I would kack my pants if I looked out my window and saw the engine do this on take-off

It looks worse than it is - the birds (2 herons I believe) damaged some internal parts and caused a compressor stall - you don't need to ingest anything to get one of those, as shown by this video here:

Yeah it caused an engine shutdown but that's why we pay pilots, ATC and airport services so much money - to respond to incidents like this.

On another note, anyone who saw that video on FL350 when it first went up, has the ATC commentary changed? I'm sure there was more dialogue from the pilot in the initial mayday call. On this video, the pilot doesn't give the inteded inbound radial to WAL and I'm pretty sure on the original video he did.

dannyjo22 · 27 Apr 2008 at 10:33

AlfCheesey said:
I landed at Tianjin the other day and the pilots engaged the thrust reversers before we had actually landed - we were still 20 metres(ish) off the ground. I don't remember that happening before. .

At 20 metres? That didnt happen. Aircraft type? It requires a ground logic to deploy. Deploying at 20 metres would have been a pretty major incident. Especially after the lauda air incidents they manufacturer and regulatory bodies would be extremely interested in any thrust reverser deploying in the air.

You actually saw these deploy or you heard a noise that you thought was the reverser deploying?

I deployed them in a sim once larking about after take off. The crash was most impressive

andyp · 27 Apr 2008 at 10:48

dannyjo22 said:
At 20 metres? That didnt happen. Aircraft type? It requires a ground logic to deploy. Deploying at 20 metres would have been a pretty major incident. Especially after the lauda air incidents they manufacturer and regulatory bodies would be extremely interested in any thrust reverser deploying in the air.

You actually saw these deploy or you heard a noise that you thought was the reverser deploying?

I deployed them in a sim once larking about after take off. The crash was most impressive

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Tupolev_Tu-154-Airline_Belavia_Aviation_Video-9235.html

SOP on some Tupelovs I do believe.

Freefaller · 27 Apr 2008 at 11:21

I used to travel constantly in my old job (60+ flights a year over 6 years) touch wood never had any serious incidents, though we did get struck by lightning once. If I'm honest, I'm the least nervous passenger in the world. Then again I used to fly planes, jump out of them and do a lot of stupid stunts so I have quite a healthy fear of my mortality, and as such don't get worked up in such situations - though oddly I'm a control freak, yet I'm perfectly calm on a plane?!

Glad to hear you're ok, and that you're not too shaken by it - I think it helps being a regular plane commuter

I know a lot of people who wouldn't have been cool calm and collected in such a situation. Then again I'm not much of a panic-er. :dunno:

Doran · 27 Apr 2008 at 11:51

Freefaller said:
I used to travel constantly in my old job (60+ flights a year over 6 years) touch wood never had any serious incidents, though we did get struck by lightning once. If I'm honest, I'm the least nervous passenger in the world. Then again I used to fly planes, jump out of them and do a lot of stupid stunts so I have quite a healthy fear of my mortality, and as such don't get worked up in such situations - though oddly I'm a control freak, yet I'm perfectly calm on a plane?!

Glad to hear you're ok, and that you're not too shaken by it - I think it helps being a regular plane commuter I know a lot of people who wouldn't have been cool calm and collected in such a situation. Then again I'm not much of a panic-er. :dunno:

Good god thats a lotta flights - what did you do? Interesting that you comment about how your past affects your fears now.

I had 90mph car crash two years ago and since then, I get nervous on most forms of transport - I find it very hard not to, as I know what that feeling is of being chucked around at high speed thinking you are definitely dead. It goes through my head sometimes, even when travelling fast on a train. Its horrid.

dannyjo22 · 27 Apr 2008 at 11:59

andyp said:
http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Tupolev_Tu-154-Airline_Belavia_Aviation_Video-9235.html

SOP on some Tupelovs I do believe.

I wouldn't trust anything built by them

Yeah that aint 20 metres though. Everything I've ever seen has been ground logic or you can start to deploy at RAD Alt below 3 metres, such as the 737 NG. Which by the time they have opened when you start the movement at below 3m your on the ground anyway.

andyp · 27 Apr 2008 at 11:59

Curio said:
Shhhh - I'm going to be on a 777 for 8 hours tomorrow night!

Just to put your mind at rest..

yes-there have been a long list of engine-shut downs on 777's lately..

Air France Boeing 777-300ER Peking - Paris 24NOV07

British Airways Boeing 777-200ER BA038 Peking - London 17JAN08

Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300ER SQ334 Singapur - Paris 31JAN08

Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-300ER SQ345 Zürich - Singapur 15FEB08

Singapore Airlines Boeing 777 SQ376 Singapur - Moskau 23FEB08

Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-200ER Singapur - Perth SQ223 24FEB08

the list is not complete but at least another three incidents involving Air France 777's ..

Other additions include an IFSD (In Flight Shut Down) over the Atlantic and an emergency landing at a diversion airfield and one not so long ago citing powerplant issues and an emergency diversion to New Delhi.

J1234 · 27 Apr 2008 at 12:00

andyp said:
On another note, anyone who saw that video on FL350 when it first went up, has the ATC commentary changed? I'm sure there was more dialogue from the pilot in the initial mayday call. On this video, the pilot doesn't give the inteded inbound radial to WAL and I'm pretty sure on the original video he did.

Yeah, I was thinking that, the original video was quite long too.

andyp · 27 Apr 2008 at 12:03

dannyjo22 said:
I wouldn't trust anything built by them

Yeah that aint 20 metres though. Everything I've ever seen has been ground logic or you can start to deploy at RAD Alt below 3 metres, such as the 737 NG. Which by the time they have opened when you start the movement at below 3m your on the ground anyway.

Seems to be a Tupelov thing, which given their wonderful history - doesn't surprise me

You can see reversers out all the time when before the nose wheel touches - suppose that's just the initiation of the deployment and subsequent help stopping the aircraft.

dannyjo22 · 27 Apr 2008 at 12:08

Justin said:
Yeah, I was thinking that, the original video was quite long too.

Stick "Russian II-76 Taking off from Canberra" into you tube, cant post the link because an aussie ATC says 'poo' in it once. The last 20 seconds and the comments made me laugh the first time I watched it.

andyp · 27 Apr 2008 at 12:19

dannyjo22 said:
Stick "Russian II-76 Taking off from Canberra" into you tube, cant post the link because an aussie ATC says 'poo' in it once. The last 20 seconds and the comments made me laugh the first time I watched it.

That video is brilliant - got to love the dry sense of humour.

Not just the cargo haulers that enjoy using every single inch of the runway either...

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Vaso..._nr=21&prev_id=0620854&next_id=0131660&size=L

Ha, great comment on there...

Well, if you see carefully, the runway marking says "GO", that means at that point the pilots will have to rotate the aircraft.

Blinkz · 27 Apr 2008 at 12:29

Scuzi said:
I'd much rather have professionals who have been extensively trained for emergency situations to handle any incidents than some random panicking passenger.

It's the reason that air travel is so safe. The pilots, air traffic controllers, engineers, cabin crew, airport firemen etc... are all highly trained to take care of things when the crap hits the fan.

You might feel less safe because you are not in control but you are much better off not being in control.

mwah haha, professionals like me!

Don't worry guys, flying is extremely safe. Modern airliners are so well designed and have so many redundant systems that a mechanical problem so so rare. The shear number of flights a day that have no problems should make you all feel safe! I mean a 737 takes off every 5 seconds somewhere in the world!

If anyone has any questions they wanted answered to alay any fears then feel free to ask!

andyp · 27 Apr 2008 at 12:32

Blinkz said:
a 737 takes off every 5 seconds somewhere in the world!

Ah any old fool can take-off. The question is... do they all come back down?

If anyone has any questions they wanted answered to alay any fears then feel free to ask!

I got a question, but it's a technical one. Tell me to go away if you don't talk shop out of the office

Blinkz · 27 Apr 2008 at 12:42

lol go for it, am on standby today so stuck in a hotel room! ask away....

Mr.Stu · 27 Apr 2008 at 12:47

Blinkz said:
lol go for it, am on standby today so stuck in a hotel room! ask away....

OT mate, did you find out your rota for May - 12th/13th in particular

andyp · 27 Apr 2008 at 12:50

lol go for it, am on standby today so stuck in a hotel room! ask away....

Right, autobrakes...

Do airlines have a set procedure for autobrake usage or is it pilot's discretion, or are the settings derived from charts?

I've seen some in-cockpit shots of 738's on short finals into a very long runway (10,000ft+) and the autobrakes set at 3, and some shots into much shorter runways with autobrakes set at 1.

How do you work out which setting to use?

andyp · 27 Apr 2008 at 12:55

dannyjo22 said:
Its an interesting time to be starting to do that seeings as the other non economy airlines offering such a service are struggling so badly.

It's emerged that Eos have gone under today.

Tomorrow's EGSS-KJFK is their last flight.

Blinkz · 27 Apr 2008 at 13:01

Stu, got the unofficial roster and not flying BHX at the moment but it can change so will have to see! Currently going to Sweden and back haha.

andyp said:
Right, autobrakes...

Do airlines have a set procedure for autobrake usage or is it pilot's discretion, or are the settings derived from charts?

I've seen some in-cockpit shots of 738's on short finals into a very long runway (10,000ft+) and the autobrakes set at 3, and some shots into much shorter runways with autobrakes set at 1.

How do you work out which setting to use?

Well it depends on the airline really. Most have a policy that recommends a setting and it should be followed but it always comes down to pilot discretion to what we think is needed, since policies can't cover all eventualities. With my airline the company standard recommended is 2, but if the runway is less then 7500', is wet or contaminated, xwind>15knots, tailwind, etc then they recommend 3.

Autobrake, whilst a useful tool isn't the be all and end all. Landing distances are calculated without the use of thrust reverse, so there is a lot of margin built into the figures. The autobrake system itself controls the rate of deceleration, so if you are using reverse thrust then the autobrake will reduce the brake pressure to give the requested deceleration setting.

As to the pictures you have seen, well that could be any manner of things. Maybe the runway was wet or contaminated, perhaps they were wanting to make a specfic runway turnoff to minimise taxi....

andyp · 27 Apr 2008 at 13:08

Blinkz said:
perhaps they were wanting to make a specfic runway turnoff to minimise taxi....

I was gonna mention that, if the pattern is very busy they could be wanting to get down to taxi speed by a certain turnoff and vacate as soon as possible.

Just been reading a bit on the braking systems, specifically how the autobrake controls the rate of deceleration and how reverse thrust/spoiler subsequently affects the main gear brake pressure.

Thanks for the info

andyp · 27 Apr 2008 at 13:16

Got another one for you - but you'll be the 5th pilot I've asked and the previous 4 have all pondered it and then proclaimed "I don't know!!"