Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: earl1937 on February 05, 2015, 12:39:17 PM
-
:airplane: It gets a little frustrating when you see accidents like the one that just happened in Twain! People dying unnecessarily due to a poorly designed aircraft! On paper, this ATR72 is a regional carriers dream ship, but when you look at the accident record and still no changes in the basic problem of the design, a horizontal stab, elevator, vertical stab and rudder which is just to small, in my view for the aircraft!
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/atr72%20fed%20ex_zpsqwceyy3m.jpg)
This a pic of the short version
(http://i1346.photobucket.com/albums/p684/earl1937/ATR-72-600-AirLeaseCorporation_zpscwmxppqx.jpg)
This the current production model, which is like the one which crashed! Now, can anyone see any change in the size of the tail surfaces between the two aircraft? I can't see any change!
Another great engineering feat by some idiot somewhere that lives by numbers alone and not what the thing will actually do. They had "deep stall" prioblems in test flights from day one, and have always had cross wind trouble when landing this thing. My question is, how many more lives are going to be wasted before they shut this thing down from carry passengers.
Sorry, didn't mean to get on my soap box, but those people should not have died!! Just because he lost the left engine right after takeoff should not have resulted in a deadly crash. Of course I realize that pilots all have different skill levels during emergencies but this was a high time capt with plenty of hours in this aircraft.
I just wonder at what IAS the aircraft was above VMC when the left engine flamed out? If he was 5 knots above VMC, should have never happened!!
A copy of accident history:
On 31 October 1994, American Eagle Flight 4184, an ATR 72–212 crashed due to icing in Roselawn, Indiana killing all 68 people on board.
On 30 January 1995, an ATR 72-200 of TransAsia Airways crashed during flight from Penghu to Taipei. Four crew members were killed.[35]
On 21 December 2002, TransAsia Airways (TNA) cargo flight 791, an ATR 72–200, crashed due to icing during flight from Taipei to Macau. Both crew members were killed. The aircraft encountered severe icing conditions beyond the icing certification envelope of the aircraft and crashed into sea 17 km southwest of Makung city. The Aviation Safety Council of Taiwan investigation found that the crash was caused by ice accumulation around the aircraft's major components, resulting in a loss of control. The investigation found that flight crew did not respond to the severe icing conditions with the appropriate alert situation awareness and did not take the necessary actions.[36]
On 6 August 2005, Tuninter Flight 1153, a Tuninter ATR 72–202 en route from Bari, Italy, to Djerba, Tunisia, ditched in the Mediterranean Sea about 18 miles (29 km) from the city of Palermo. 16 of the 39 people on board died. The accident resulted from engine fuel exhaustion due to the installation of fuel quantity indicators designed for the ATR 42 in the larger ATR 72.[37]
On 24 August 2008, an Air Dolomiti ATR 72–500 en route from Munich, Germany, to Bologna, Italy, aborted take off after the pilot announced a smoke alarm. The airline treated the aircraft's evacuation as a mild incident. On 26 August, an amateur video, filmed by a bystander, showed 60 passengers jumping from and fleeing the burning aircraft before fire department workers extinguished the flames.[38]
On 4 August 2009, Bangkok Airways Flight 266, an ATR 72-212A from Bangkok Airways skidded into a disused tower at the airport on Koh Samui. The pilot of the aircraft died and 10 passengers were injured.
On 10 November 2009, Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124, operated by ATR 72-212A VT-KAC skidded off the runway after landing at Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport, subsequently damaging the nose section severely. The aircraft came to a halt just a few metres away from the fuel tanks of the airport. All 46 passengers and crew escaped unharmed.[39]
On 4 November 2010, Aero Caribbean Flight 883, operated by an ATR 72–212, with 61 passengers and 7 crew members, crashed at Guasimal, Cuba, while en route from Santiago de Cuba to Havana. All 68 people on board were killed. The accident was due to the prevailing meteorological conditions and to the wrong decisions made by the crew.[40] The flight was due in Havana at 7:50 p.m. but had reported an emergency and lost contact with air traffic control at 5:42 p.m.[41]
On 17 July 2011, Aer Arann ATR 72–212 EI-SLM was damaged beyond economical repair when the nose gear collapsed on landing at Shannon International Airport, Ireland. The aircraft was operating an international scheduled passenger flight from Manchester Airport, United Kingdom. There were no injuries amongst the 4 crew and 21 passengers on board.[42]
On 13 February 2012 Danish Air Transport DX627, operated by an ATR 72–200 with 16 passengers en route from Bergen to Moss (Oslo) Airport Rygge had trouble with the front landing wheel and performed an emergency landing at Rygge Airport. All passengers and crew escaped unharmed.[43]
On 2 April 2012, UTair Flight 120, a ATR 72–201 crashed soon after takeoff from Roshchino International Airport in western Siberia. 33 of the 43 passengers and crew on board were killed.[44] the crash cause was wrong de-icing procedures. The flight was from Tyumen to Surgut with 39 passenger and four crew members.
On 2 February 2013, a Carpatair ATR 72–212A flying on behalf of Alitalia crashed at Leonardo da Vinci–Fiumicino Airport in Rome while landing after a flight from Pisa. 16 people were injured, 2 seriously, including the co-pilot. During the interval between the crash that Saturday evening and sunrise on Sunday, the turboprop – which had worn Alitalia's green, white and red livery – was repainted entirely in white.[45]
On 16 October 2013, Lao Airlines Flight 301, an ATR 72–600 crashed into the Mekong River whilst on approach to Pakse International Airport, Laos, killing all 49 people on board.[46] This incident marks the first ATR 72–600 to be written off in a crash.
On 23 July 2014, TransAsia Airways Flight 222, an ATR 72-500 crashed into hard ground whilst attempting an emergency landing on approach to Magong in Taiwan's Penghu county in the Taiwan Strait, killing 48-51 people and injuring 8.[47][48][49]
On 4 February 2015, TransAsia Airways Flight 235, an ATR 72-600 carrying 58 people crashed in Taipei, striking a road bridge before ending up in a river. This portion of the crash was captured on video by a car driving on the bridge. [50] Taiwan's civil aviation authority said 31 people were killed and more than 12 people were still missing.[51] At least 15 passengers survived. [52] The ATR-72 had just taken off from Taipei Songshan Airport and was headed to the outlying Kinmen islands, just off the coast of south-east China. [53] Initial media reports indicate that the pilot called a mayday for an engine flameout. [54]
Specifications (ATR 72–600)[edit]
-
Looking at the attitude in the video it appears the pilot pulled up to avoid buildings and lost too much speed.
-
Looking at the attitude in the video it appears the pilot pulled up to avoid buildings and lost too much speed.
:airplane: that could have been a contributing factor for sure.....I am sure the recorders will tell us something, but there is no way a engine failure should have resulted in this. Even at gross weight and still on the ground, he should be able to lose one engine, takeoff and have a positive rate of climb. But I am not familiar with that airport, so there could have been some obstacles in his flight path but then then the carrier should have some restrictions to make operations safe from that runway. The captain was a well experienced ATR pilot, so something unusual must have intervened during the takeoff.
-
Rather strange accident, nobody really known what happened other than engine problems. You may be too fast blaming the aircraft, it may also be related to procedures by this airline.
It wouldn't be the first aircraft to crash shortly after maintenenace because someone forgot something inside that doesn't belong there.
BTW the crashlist for B737 or A320 would be a tad longer, nobody would really claim these aircraft are unsafe.
-
Over at the O'Club Busher chimed in...
Have a few hours on this airplane and the Dash-8 (very similar).
If you fail to stop the yaw with rudder and promptly feather the prop on the failed engine, this will result
All licensed airports have published obstacle clearance procedures based upon natural or man-made terrain. Assuming the airline's safe dispatch procedures include this performance analysis (required climb gradient), the airplane will, if properly flown will clear all obstacles in its departure path after suffering an engine failure on takeoff.
Failure to control the yaw with rudder, failure to fly the aircraft at the correct single engine climb speed, and failure to feather a windmilling propeller after engine failure all work to degrade climb performance. Any one of these can cause a complete loss of control. I am not suggesting that this was the cause of the accident - we'll have to wait for the official report.
I only have about 150 hours on the ATR but more than 5000 on the Dash-8. They are very similar and used exactly the same P&W turbo-prop engine.
-
Rather strange accident, nobody really known what happened other than engine problems. You may be too fast blaming the aircraft, it may also be related to procedures by this airline.
It wouldn't be the first aircraft to crash shortly after maintenenace because someone forgot something inside that doesn't belong there.
BTW the crashlist for B737 or A320 would be a tad longer, nobody would really claim these aircraft are unsafe.
:airplane: You make a good point, but how much does the "side stick" issue play into some those accidents? Where you have to instinctively react in an emergency, I would prefer to have a "yoke" in front of me
-
Rather strange accident, nobody really known what happened other than engine problems. You may be too fast blaming the aircraft, it may also be related to procedures by this airline.
It wouldn't be the first aircraft to crash shortly after maintenenace because someone forgot something inside that doesn't belong there.
BTW the crashlist for B737 or A320 would be a tad longer, nobody would really claim these aircraft are unsafe.
:airplane: :Fat Albert" as some would call the 737 had a major design flaw in the rudder function, which has been since corrected. The A320 I think had some "side stick" issues when it first became operational and also had some computer fuel management issues, which most have now been corrected. The pilots, as time passed on, become more and more familiar with the "side stick", look at what "Skully" was able to do landing in he Hudson river! Perfect touch down, rear of both engines and tail at same instant, couldn't have been any better
-
:airplane: You make a good point, but how much does the "side stick" issue play into some those accidents? Where you have to instinctively react in an emergency, I would prefer to have a "yoke" in front of me
Why?
-
Why?
:airplane: In an emergency situation, you are going to react instinctively and to me, a side stick is something that I would have to use a long time for it to become "second" nature to use.
-
Because you're used to a yoke rather than a stick? How many hours do you think you'd need?
-
Funny you post this, I always had an irrational fear of flying on any of the MD-80 series of aircraft I would actually make sure it wasn't one before booking a flight to fly anywhere
-
:airplane: It gets a little frustrating when you see accidents like the one that just happened in Twain! People dying unnecessarily due to a poorly designed aircraft! On paper, this ATR72 is a regional carriers dream ship, but when you look at the accident record and still no changes in the basic problem of the design, a horizontal stab, elevator, vertical stab and rudder which is just to small, in my view for the aircraft!
Pfff. If it was unsafe, it wouldn't fly. I havent lost any sleep over flying dozens of times on ATR72s so far and won't be losing any now. It's a nice plane that does its job getting be to places within short distances.
And side stick? Quite a few planes these days use side sticks. You train to fly with it.
-
Just from watching the video, I noticed a few things like Earl said:
(1) #1 engine appeared to be windmilling, causing massive amounts of drag.
(2) Multi-engine aircraft should be able to climb after losing one engine at gross weight. This aircraft was clearly descending with a nose high attitude.
(3) Rudder authority seemed poor. The rudder is the last control surface to stall.
(4) If I had to venture a guess, the plane was in a stall the entire time in the video, and fell below single engine speed right as it rolled 90 degrees left.
-
Yep, it definitely appears the left engine is rolling back/failed. The aircraft appears to be climbing a normal V2 climb to 1,000 feet AGL as the engine problem occurs.
It could be whichever pilot flying was caught off guard, didn't apply corrective rudder (dead foot, dead engine) quickly enough, resulting in the unrecoverable roll.
Surely, the ATR had to be certified to experience an engine failure after V1, climb to a safe altitude, remain controllable, and land safely.
Any aeronautical engineers that can speak to the ATR's control surface sufficiency?
In this type of scenario, the rudder and proper application of it to counter the yaw of an engine not producing equal takeoff/climb power is essential for a safe outcome.
-
I believe Busher has some hours in this aircraft
-
From another board,
My Taiwanese wife is glued to the TV so I get complete update, like it or not.
What has been said on various Taiwanese TV stations is that the crew attempted a turn-around, realized they would not make it, and searched for an alternative spot to crash-land the plane. Not easy in busy Taipei. Zhongshan Airport is smack in the middle of downtown, Taipei city has simply grown around the airport over the years.
And so they went for the river, and Keelung River is not the Mississipi…
They narrowly avoided a block of buildings coming in, and stalled, grazing the taxi and hitting the river hard.
The crew is hailed as heroes for avoiding a much worse tragedy. That’s what the local media are saying so far.
Pilot was ex ROCAF on Mirage 2000 . Is that good or bad ?
-
Commuter turbo props are a different thing than the bigger jets. The fly on short routes with a lot of take offs and landings on a day. They are often operated by smaller airlines that in some cases cut some corners on pilot training and maintainace. Many turbo props also flies in 3rd world countries were aviation safety isn't up to standard. Smaller planes are also more sensitive to wheather and weight imbalances.
How many ATR:s have the big airlines in EU/US lost in fatal accidents compare to the jets they operate?
-
The investigators now say that both engine were out prior to the crash, engine 2 had a flameout and engine 1 were most likely shut Down by the pilots. If that's the case a tragic misstake and it would not be the first time it happen.
From the black boxes, it certainly looks like its the case.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9JjT2tCIAA8t9n.jpg:large)
-
The investigators now say that both engine were out prior to the crash, engine 2 had a flameout and engine 1 were most likely shut Down by the pilots. If that's the case a tragic misstake and it would not be the first time it happen.
From the black boxes, it certainly looks like its the case.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9JjT2tCIAA8t9n.jpg:large)
:airplane: You certainly have the technical facts, and now I am wondering if they, the crew, when cleaning up #1, did not accidently shut down #2, which would explain why they couldn't cont the climb. If they in fact reached 1,000 AGL, as indicated, they should have been home free on a single engine go around. Would not be the first time the wrong engine was shutdown due to pilot error, but we will have to wait on final report I guess to understand what really happened
-
So perhaps the thread should have been named "Pilots Incompetent Buffoons??" rather than attacking the engineers who designed the ATR?
-
I work within gossip distance of the commercial flight industry. Actually I protect it. Im going to call some of my contacts and find out what the scuttlebutt is on this aircraft and airline.
I do know the Asian market is huge and getting huger all the time with a lot of start ups. My mechanic friends have had questions regarding flight hours per air frames in some of them because its profit time in the industry and these start ups feel pressure to make money NOW. So they have a lot of air frames and air crews in the air a LOT. More then other companies. Most of all regional routes.
Im not a mechanic and I know these modern commercial craft were built to be in the air but it doesnt sound like a good mix to me anyways.
-
This story is getting stranger. Right engine in idle then left engine shut off.
-
It has happen before, its a stressful situation and people makes errors when they get stressed. They might have belived that engine one also was surging. But it will most likley be revealed by the investigators.
Local newspaper in Taiwan have written about issues with pilot training etc at the airline and im sure questions will be asked.
the airframe was new (less then a year in service i think) so it should not have been an issue.
-
Would not the problem for the pilots been similar to 38 pilots losing an engine on take off? That was my first thought seeing the film. 38 pilots were trained to reduce throttle to avoid flopping over on thier back from the torque of the operating engine. Couldn't it be these guys just ran out of time?
-
They would have just reduce throttle but wouldn't cut fuel to the working engine. This mystery may only be solved after analyzing the cockpit voice recorder.
-
Would not the problem for the pilots been similar to 38 pilots losing an engine on take off? That was my first thought seeing the film. 38 pilots were trained to reduce throttle to avoid flopping over on thier back from the torque of the operating engine. Couldn't it be these guys just ran out of time?
:airplane: Every multi engine aircraft has a VMC speed, i.e, the speed at which you no longer to able to control the aircraft flight on one engine! When doing through multi engine training, the one thing that is stressed so much and trained so much for, is operating on one engine! There is a "best rate of climb" on one engine in all twin engine aircraft!
If in the event of power failure, as you are cleaning up the bad engine, feathering, turning off fuel and etc, you want to be getting to that single engine climb speed. Now for reasons, sometimes beyond your control, late raising the gear would be good example, you are below that VMC speed, you are not going to have directional control over the aircraft and to keep it right side up, you would have to reduce power on good engine in order to maintain directional control. That may have been what happened, but don't think so! If that had enough time to climb to 1,000 AGL, they certainly had time to raise the landing gear after takeoff, which again leads me to believe they shut down the only good engine they had!
When viewing the recorders, engine #1 was the "failed" engine and shortly there after, #2 stopped producing thrust, so my guess right now is they just plain shut down the wrong engine when going through the emergency procedures!
Be aware for non pilots reading this post, VMC speed and stalling speeds are two different speeds, the aircraft stalling speed being the less of the two.
The whole point of my original post was, if this aircraft had a larger rudder, It would be able to maintain directional control down to a much lower speed!
-
Earl, with all due respect. When you call the designers of the ATR-72 idiots for designing the tail surfaces too small, it would be nice if you'd cite the accidents that you think were caused by the said flaw in the same post in which you call them idiots.
-
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/paper/RRDPAE-2008-Presentation_ATR72.pdf
From what I gather, this is a research paper showing that the ATR 72 should have a 12.5% larger vertical stabilizer.
-
Again, a student-paper full of assumptions is hardly relevant.
-
Again, this paper was written as a Master's Thesis by an aeronautical engineer.
-
It's still full of assumptions. Most critically about the mass of various components.
-
Most critically you asked for evidence of the vertical stabilizer being too small, and I provided it. Now you are attempting to discredit the source. Nice try. Maybe you'll win next time.
-
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/arbeiten/TextNita.pdf Please reference page 120 for the size of the vertical stabilizer as supported by modern aeronautical formulas.
-
Ok, on another bbs they came up with the following:
Vmca Flap 15 1000 ft 25°c 93 kts
Vstall Flap 15 a 22000 kg 100 kts
Vstall Flap 15 a 18000 kg 91 kts
So when heavy (take-off) the ATR's stall speed is faster than its control speed in a one-engine configuration. The plane would stall before the rudder becomes ineffective.
-
Here's the Quick Reference Handbook for the ATR 72-500.
It has the flame-out emergency procedure and how to determine Vmca.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/141616443/ATR-72-500-QRH#scribd
-
The ATR, just like all other twin engine props, are certified to fly on one engine. Even if its fails at V1. But even so there are a buttload of twins that have crashed beacuse the pilot fails to fly the plane on one engine. Its irrelevant that it was an ATR, could have been a king air, dash 8, saab 2000 or any other twin on the market.
-
The ATR, just like all other twin engine props, are certified to fly on one engine. Even if its fails at V1. But even so there are a buttload of twins that have crashed beacuse the pilot fails to fly the plane on one engine. Its irrelevant that it was an ATR, could have been a king air, dash 8, saab 2000 or any other twin on the market.
Spot on! Well said.
-
http://www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/Scholz/paper/RRDPAE-2008-Presentation_ATR72.pdf
From what I gather, this is a research paper showing that the ATR 72 should have a 12.5% larger vertical stabilizer.
Engineer student vs. a team of designers. :)
Anyway, I still haven't heard about an accident that is directly related to insufficient yaw control.
Personally, when I was a kid, I commuted many times in an ATR-72....still a live here. :)
-
Ok, on another bbs they came up with the following:
Vmca Flap 15 1000 ft 25°c 93 kts
Vstall Flap 15 a 22000 kg 100 kts
Vstall Flap 15 a 18000 kg 91 kts
So when heavy (take-off) the ATR's stall speed is faster than its control speed in a one-engine configuration. The plane would stall before the rudder becomes ineffective.
:airplane: Sorry, but your reply makes no sense! If the stall speed is higher than the single engine VMC, why even have a pubished VMC at different weights? I think you have misunderstood something about that post.
They could up with a VMC via the old slide rule method back in the day, but now do it with a computer! Then the test pilots have to go out and verify if that is in fact a accurate statement. That is all done in the design and development stage.
-
Earl I posted a link to the ATR's quick reference handbook. All is there.
Now stop calling people idiots and blaming them for something they are completely innocent of.
-
It would seem that the pilots didn't identify/confirm the correct engine to shut down. I cant speak for that airline, but my current employer and the others I have worked for in the last 15 years train us to be very careful in identifying the engine to shut down. The pilot who is doing the actions puts his finger on the control to be moved(pushed/selected) and asks the the other pilot to confirm before it is actioned. While I have nothing to hand, I think this come to pass after many previous examples of people rushing to shut down the engine and getting the wrong one. I can understand in a situation which you only experience in training, a real life event would be scary and repetitive training would likely be the only thing to save you.
Its no the aeroplane, its not really the pilots, its the training thats failed.
-
Good article about the incident: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/transasia-ge235-shutting-down-the-wrong-engine-408790/
It isn't yet clear what happened and why pilots had shut-down the wrong engine but... it is sad, mostly because it was likely preventable.
-
:airplane: Sorry, but your reply makes no sense! If the stall speed is higher than the single engine VMC, why even have a pubished VMC at different weights? I think you have misunderstood something about that post.
They could up with a VMC via the old slide rule method back in the day, but now do it with a computer! Then the test pilots have to go out and verify if that is in fact a accurate statement. That is all done in the design and development stage.
The old Islander had a Vmc that was below stall speed as well.
-
May I ask a couple of uninformed dumb questions?
Why do you shut down an engine that has failed? To prevent eventual fires? Wouldn't flying the plane be more important?
Why isn't the little warning light of a failed engine right on the control you use to shut down the engine (throttle?) so there is no confusion?
-
May I ask a couple of uninformed dumb questions?
Why do you shut down an engine that has failed? To prevent eventual fires? Wouldn't flying the plane be more important?
Why isn't the little warning light of a failed engine right on the control you use to shut down the engine (throttle?) so there is no confusion?
It's not that you shut the engine off, although in some cases it is important to get it stopped quickly. The most important thing is getting the propellor feathered. A windmilling propellor results in a tremendous amount of drag -- so much that in many cases the aircraft will not be able to maintain altitude. Once the prop is stopped then you continue with "securing" the failed engine by doing things such as shutting off fuel feed, turning ignition/magneto switches off, closing cowl flaps, etc.
-
It's accident rate seems consistent to other planes in it's class when you factor in a time frame and units in service.
Higher than some but quite a bit lower than others.
-
Earl I posted a link to the ATR's quick reference handbook. All is there.
Now stop calling people idiots and blaming them for something they are completely innocent of.
:airplane: I am not calling anyone an idiot! I just think they made a mistake in the tail design and for money reasons, refuse to change it!
-
Yes you did. In your first post.
Another great engineering feat by some idiot somewhere that lives by numbers alone and not what the thing will actually do.
-
The old Islander had a Vmc that was below stall speed as well.
:airplane: Once an aircraft stalls, the VMC is not relevant as the pilot no longer has control over the aircraft until it regains flying speed!
-
Vmc slower than Vstall shows that the size of the rudder (and other control surfaces) is adequate at any speed where the plane is actually flying.
-
Mbailey. After air alaska i try to dodge md80s as much as i can.
-
:airplane: Once an aircraft stalls, the VMC is not relevant as the pilot no longer has control over the aircraft until it regains flying speed!
But knowing Vmc is relevant regardless if it falls above or below stall speed. That knowledge gives you an idea of what may happen at the boundaries of the performance envelope.
-
I've always felt that I still had control of the aircraft even when it was stalled, albeit your options may be limited as to what you can make the aircraft do but you still have control. (This does not apply equally to all aircraft)
-
Mbailey. After air alaska i try to dodge md80s as much as i can.
Was that the one with the faulty / improperly greased Jackscrew?
Not a fan of the MD11 as well
Good to see I'm not the only one
-
DC-9/MD80 is a perfectly safe airplane when properly maintained and operated.
-
DC-9/MD80 is a perfectly safe airplane when properly maintained and operated.
To each their own
-
DC-9/MD80 is a perfectly safe airplane when properly maintained and operated.
But the vertical stab is too small. Have you seen that thing? It is one smurfy airplane.
-
:D
-
Yep jackscrew. I have been in a few airplane mishaps. I hate flying tbh. Scariest of all was flying out of Baghdad headed home on R&R and getting painted by a sam. At least something that made the pilots chop throttle and flare. Scary. Frankly it is the reason I love being a jumpmaster. Something happeneds to the airplane I stand up and say number one jumper follow me.... lol.
-
The jackscrew was only a problem on that one bird where the jackscrew was overdue for replacement and Alaska doubled the time between services leaving the already worn out screw with no lubrication. Combined with the pilots' trying to "troubleshoot" it after it had jammed resulting in a complete failure. The plane was doomed by a long series of bad decisions made by people ranging from the company leadership all the way down to the guys holding the yokes.
-
DC-9/MD80 is a perfectly safe airplane when properly maintained and operated.
The MD80 is a flying coffin when something goes wrong. The way my father put it to me years ago, when it came to design durability and performance envelope forgiveness in the MD80, there isn't a whole lotta wiggle room for error. Tiny wings with a high swept design and a weighted tail. When it's performing it does it well, but when things go wrong, his question was does the design and mechanics of the aircraft allow for wiggle outside of normal flight envelope? (I.e. a simple trim bar ring breaks, and it has no elevator control as in Air Alaska accident).
If we look at the ATR72: tiny wings and large round body. This maximizes on design and flying costs. When something goes wrong, does this allow room for forgiveness? Is it why we have a high number of spectacular fatal accidents when something does go wrong?
According to my buddy Dave who is a pilot for Jazz Airlines - the Dash 8 in comparison it's a rugged plane and forgiving for stupid mistakes. He thinks the ATR with the wider body and smaller wing design means that it's not very forgiving for said stupid mistakes or allowed to push much outside its flight envelope. Is he right or is the answer something simpler?
-
Yep. Perception killed the DC 10. It kills any dc 9 MD 80 series for me.
-
The ATR 72 has a wing loading of 76 lbs/sq. feet at max take-off weight.
The Dash 8-Q400 has a wing loading of 95 lbs/sq. feet at max take-off weight.
It's difficult to take any person serious who thinks he can divine some actual insight into an aircraft's performance or behavior just by looking at it.
-
Also, the B737 and MD-80 have very similar wing area and wing loading. The MD-80's wings only look smaller because the fuselage is longer and narrower.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz0wxda5OgA
-
Yep. Perception killed the DC 10. It kills any dc 9 MD 80 series for me.
95% of passengers have no idea what kind of airplane they are flying on. Most of all the DC/MD series who's problems occurred probably before they were even born. I would have no hesitation flying in the MD series, most of all the later ones. I see American MD-80s all the time and Delta has a bunch of later gen MDs. The reason it will be phased out is because Boeing took over MD, canceled production, and the next Gen 737s are in a demand that far exceeds production capability. Imagine a passenger jet thats had 13,000 ordered and currently has a backlog of over 4,000.
The reason? Not safety issues with the MDs but the next Gen Boeings get Jack and Jill from point A to point B cheaper. With less maintenance cost and with 50 years of background with them.
-
I am tracking all. Just pointing out that something as simple as ignorant perception impacts business. That picture of the inverted dc10 still is in my mind.
-
What inverted DC10 are you referring to?
-
What inverted DC10 are you referring to?
This one, I think.
(http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4e42c222ecad043b3c000027/dc-10-american-airlines.jpg)
-
What the hell does that mean: "the whistle blower will not work in the industry and will not work in government?" 40:00
A person who goes to government and tells that his/her company ignores safety regulations cannot work even for government?
That doesn't make sense.
-C+
-
Ah the one where the ground crew messed it up by using a fork lift....
-
What the hell does that mean: "the whistle blower will not work in the industry and will not work in government?" 40:00
A person who goes to government and tells that his/her company ignores safety regulations cannot work even for government?
That doesn't make sense.
-C+
The government has more skeletons in the closet than any company. A whistle blower is treated like a traitor. Even if he helped you by betraying his employer, you cannot trust him - because he has betrayed his employer. Right or wrong, that how the world works.
-
I am tracking all. Just pointing out that something as simple as ignorant perception impacts business. That picture of the inverted dc10 still is in my mind.
But you feel perfectly safe flying in a Boeing right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M01RmcKsm2k
Neither of those accidents had anything to do with the aircraft design. Both where human error/negligence.
-
True. All true. I do not feel safe in any airplane... that'swhy I fly a cartoon one.
-
This one, I think.
(http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4e42c222ecad043b3c000027/dc-10-american-airlines.jpg)
That was the Chicago one right? I think all DC10 crashes were attributed to a bad door design or a foul up by mechanics.
-
That was the Chicago one right? I think all DC10 crashes were attributed to a bad door design or a foul up by mechanics.
:airplane: According to some people posting on this thread, all accidents are caused by humans, not design flaws!!! I bet he never heard of the square window vs round window accidents back in the 50's!!!!
-
:airplane: According to some people posting on this thread, all accidents are caused by humans, not design flaws!!! I bet he never heard of the square window vs round window accidents back in the 50's!!!!
Who designed those windows?
-
If you're referring to the DH Comet accidents it wasn't a design flaw, but a production problem. Punched rivets instead of drilled rivets causing fatigue cracking near the windows if I recall correctly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9r7bgk_mP0
-
:airplane: According to some people posting on this thread, all accidents are caused by humans, not design flaws!!!
People make mistakes and design things wrong all the time. That's not the issue. I just take an affront to blowhards who call people idiots and accuse them of wrongdoing without a single shred of proof.
-
Actually the main cause were design flaws with the square windows were all replaced with oval windows due to metal fatigue at the corners if the square windows.....
(Taken from a report regarding the breakup of the comets
He said the painstaking analysis of thousands of fragments of the Comet involved in the Elba crash had revealed that the damage was caused by a fault in the plane itself.
In what Sir Lionel called "one of the most remarkable pieces of scientific detective work ever done", a team led by Sir Arnold Hall, director of the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, subjected models, full-size aircraft and replicas to the most elaborate and searching tests ever carried out on an airliner.
One fragment collected from the scene of the crash showed that a crack had developed due to metal fatigue near the radio direction finding aerial window, situated in the front of the cabin roof.
The investigators found that a small weakness such as this would quickly deteriorate under pressure, and would rapidly lead to a sudden and general break-up of the fuselage.
In tests on another Comet aircraft, Sir Lionel added, the investigators had found that up to 70% of the aircraft's ultimate stress under pressure was concentrated on the corners of the aircraft's windows.
-
Ok, I could be wrong. Long time since I last read/watched anything about the Comet.
-
Ok, I could be wrong.
Nope you were not wrong at all, while the design of the windows had much to do with the crashes.....the rivets did as well. The square window frames were only riveted in and not glued and riveted (as the original specs called for) The rivets were punched instead of drilled which (at times) could result in an imperfect hole. This imperfect hole could be a weak point, exacerbating an already poor design.
I did some post-grad studies at Lehigh University (a school well known for its metallurgical dept) One of my Profs did quite a bit of work with the NTSB investigating aircraft accidents involving metal fatigue, design and materials. Really smart cookie to say the least. He was actually on the team that found the flaws in the casting of and method of manufacture of the titanium fan blade failure in the United 232 crash in Souix City. That said, when we started talking about metal failure one of the examples he used was the structural failures of the DH Comet. I have a feeling you would have loved that class.
-
I most probably would have, yes. :)
-
:airplane: According to some people posting on this thread, all accidents are caused by humans, not design flaws!!! I bet he never heard of the square window vs round window accidents back in the 50's!!!!
This is from memory but it wasnt actually the doors, tho the door design did blow. What happened is when they opened due to a faulty design they caused damage to some critical control mechanisms of the airplane itself. The airplane could survive a door blowing out but it couldnt survive what damage the door damage did.
-
:airplane: It gets a little frustrating when you see accidents like the one that just happened in Twain! People dying unnecessarily due to a poorly designed aircraft! On paper, this ATR72 is a regional carriers dream ship, but when you look at the accident record and still no changes in the basic problem of the design, a horizontal stab, elevator, vertical stab and rudder which is just to small, in my view for the aircraft!...
...This the current production model, which is like the one which crashed! Now, can anyone see any change in the size of the tail surfaces between the two aircraft? I can't see any change!
Another great engineering feat by some idiot somewhere that lives by numbers alone and not what the thing will actually do. They had "deep stall" prioblems in test flights from day one, and have always had cross wind trouble when landing this thing. My question is, how many more lives are going to be wasted before they shut this thing down from carry passengers.
Sorry, didn't mean to get on my soap box, but those people should not have died!! Just because he lost the left engine right after takeoff should not have resulted in a deadly crash. Of course I realize that pilots all have different skill levels during emergencies but this was a high time capt with plenty of hours in this aircraft.
I just wonder at what IAS the aircraft was above VMC when the left engine flamed out? If he was 5 knots above VMC, should have never happened!!
Shouldn`t (ex)pilots have an open minded personality and not get ideas stuck in their heads like that. Having an opinion is one thing, but calling names based on that... May I see the source of information about "deep stall" problems in test flights from day one?
-
"The government has more skeletons in the closet than any company. A whistle blower is treated like a traitor. Even if he helped you by betraying his employer, you cannot trust him - because he has betrayed his employer. Right or wrong, that how the world works."
I'm not sure what "world" you are talking about but the point is that if your work is to ensure that the maintenance is done correctly i.e. your work directly contribute to mechanical safety of a airplane and if you know this work is not done correctly and the negligence in doing so would cause the death of hundreds of people, who is to blame? You think the company would not use any chance it has to put the blame on you if it can. How could you sleep if you knew that the covered negligence you were part of was responsible of that? And the cover-up was done to achieve what? To ensure there was no interruptions to delivering profit to share holders? The people who do the direct work to ensure the safety of millions of passengers per year cannot be expected to be loyal to an employer who has no obvious moral engagement in passenger safety. In that sense the airline industry is different as even a quite small negligence can have disastrous consequences.
A mindset that considers such person to foremost be a "traitor" and not a morally conscious citizen has something seriously twittle'd up.
-C+
-
Right or wrong. Someone who betrays his employer will be blacklisted in that industry. Even government jobs. There may be exceptions, but that's the general rule. It's not just the big jobs either. You can be blacklisted as a waitress. If you get your name on a blacklist you're pretty much screwed and need to find a completely different line of work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklist_%28employment%29
-
It's not just the big jobs either. You can be blacklisted as a waitress. If you get your name on a blacklist you're pretty much screwed and need to find a completely different line of work.
<------Trying to imagine how in Hell a waitress would get "blacklisted".
-
<------Trying to imagine how in Hell a waitress would get "blacklisted".
I got blacklisted as a cashier at a grocery store. True story. Could not find ANY work at ALL in ANY retail store after that... other non-related industries were happy to hire me (And pay me more) but after a few choice words working at HEB, no other store would touch me.