Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
Just a SWAG here, but wind shear seems likely- pilot skillset is the only "trump card" you can play in a scenario like you described. Glad you came out of OK.. Hansie
Aircraft Disasters
- Thread starter davparlr
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Always the case with any Beech freighter, from the Twin Bonanza right up to the 1900. In passenger service we never used them, but if you had to send a mech in the aft baggage to service the outflow valves, you damn well better have it in place.
Cheers,
Wes
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
Testing engines to destruction- expensive, yesiree> Almost sounds like the quote from Vietnam - "In order to save the village, we had to destroy it completely"". A real "Catch-22" scenario-
If you're over the Rockies where there's some bodacious wave and rotor currents and you forgot to turn Stab Aug on, you could get a ferocious Dutch roll that would feel like you described.
Cheers,
Wes
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
Don't know the Rockies all that well, being a "flat lander" from the Midwest- but those wave and rotor currents you detailed- part of the Chinnook wind vectors in that area?? Year around, or seasonal?? Hansie
Wave, rotor, Chinook: they're all facets of the foehn wind phenomenon which occurs to a greater or lesser extent whenever wind blows over a terrain obstacle such as a mountain or mountain chain. Ask any glider pilot; wave lift is the Holy Grail of soaring. I've been to 17K in a frumpy old SG 2-33 trainer in the wave off the Green Mountains of Vermont, which are barely 4K tall.
Rather than go into a lengthy lecture here, I suggest you look it up on Google or the info source of your choice. A thorough understanding of it is essential to any professional airman's bag of tricks.
Cheers,
Wes
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
Thanks XBE- and also for giving me the correct spelling of Chinook- I put an extra "n" in my post. Would wind and wave lift have an effect on the WW11 ETO tower gliders the Airborne units used 1944-1945. I believe the gliders carried about 16 troops plus their weapons and gear-not 100% sure. If that is the case, I wonder how they factored for that in their training flights Stateside??? Hansie
Think about where allied glider ops took place in WII. Pretty much all flat country. Not downwind of any major terrain obstacles. Your average assault glider was pretty much an express elevator to the ground floor and probably couldn't have taken advantage of wave even if it could find it. Their pilots weren't taught to soar but to get on the ground as expeditiously and safely as possible. Their release altitudes were generally too low to reach the bottom of any wave that may exist.
To catch the wave in my area, you generally have to tow or thermal to an altitude at least equal to the crest of the mountain range generating it. If you haven't experienced soaring, check it out; it's a great stick-and-rudder skill builder, as well as enhancing your knowledge and appreciation of the dynamics of the atmosphere. And a blast, to boot!
Cheers,
Wes
Interesting thread.
Finally? Human Factors has been a subject of licence exams for years. Our engineering organisations require staff to undergo HF refreshers every two years. I'm surprised the phrase hasn't reared its head in this thread thus far. So many factors contribute to air accidents and 'pilot error' is only one of the things that lead to the incident actually taking place. Pilots might make the same error at other times, but other factors in play mean that the s**t will hit the fan and people will die. The easiest way to understand the multitude of things that go into causing an incident or accident I find is Reason's Swiss Cheese Model (or Cumulative Act Effect). See here for a brief desciption. Swiss cheese model - Wikipedia
A wee diagram: http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/safety-concepts_1.jpg
Most HF stuff is oriented toward pilots, but we engineers have particular things we have to look out for, but theory like this applies equally. Working night shift (18:30 to 05:30 hours - home early if the work's done) as an engineer there are factors that count to incidents happening that might not affect day shift workers. Things like circadian rhythms (sleep patterns), commuting time etc, all play a part as causation in incidents. All slices of cheese.
Hmm, despite behaving like a dick, Michael O'Leary is a extraordinarily effective businessman and he and equally Stelios of Easyjet have revolutionised the travel industry in Europe and arguably the world, with no small thanks to Herb Kelleher at Southwest, with the advent of LCCs (Low Cost Carriers). His business model works and has seen airfares drop considerably, which from the mid 1990s led to a massive increase in air travel throughout mainland Europe. O'Leary uses his behaviour as a publicity stunt and it works. Ryanair has been one of the most successful airlines in the world over the last 20 years as a result and yes, the firm is constantly finding ways of saving money - it is perhaps at the extreme end of the fight for profit within the industry, O'Leary proposes things that other CEOs would like to, but can't implement in order to save money. Yes, its service is lousy (I've flown on Ryanair and Easyjet many times) and there are many other things about LCCs in general that are deplorable, but these things don't stop the public flying on them and Ryanair has not had a major air accident that has resulted in death, despite what has been termed questionable safety practices - although the airline consistently refutes criticism of its safety practices. The fact remains that Ryanair, despite everything is still very successful with a fleet of 420 aircraft with 160 on order - all 737s. O'Leary must be doing something right.
More info on the airline's history, including the bad stuff at Wiki: Ryanair - Wikipedia
One of the most controversial air crashes that continues to spark interest regarding its cause is the Air New Zealand DC-10 that flew into Mt Erebus, Antarctica in November 1979. Initially the pilots were blamed, but there are so many factors that contributed to it that it is subject to hostile reaction in discussion to this very day. So much so that 'experts' shy away from covering it because of public reaction to the results. Several books have been published, many of which receive negative criticism.
Air New Zealand Flight 901 - Wikipedia
Finally? Human Factors has been a subject of licence exams for years. Our engineering organisations require staff to undergo HF refreshers every two years. I'm surprised the phrase hasn't reared its head in this thread thus far. So many factors contribute to air accidents and 'pilot error' is only one of the things that lead to the incident actually taking place. Pilots might make the same error at other times, but other factors in play mean that the s**t will hit the fan and people will die. The easiest way to understand the multitude of things that go into causing an incident or accident I find is Reason's Swiss Cheese Model (or Cumulative Act Effect). See here for a brief desciption. Swiss cheese model - Wikipedia
A wee diagram: http://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/safety-concepts_1.jpg
Most HF stuff is oriented toward pilots, but we engineers have particular things we have to look out for, but theory like this applies equally. Working night shift (18:30 to 05:30 hours - home early if the work's done) as an engineer there are factors that count to incidents happening that might not affect day shift workers. Things like circadian rhythms (sleep patterns), commuting time etc, all play a part as causation in incidents. All slices of cheese.
Hmm, despite behaving like a dick, Michael O'Leary is a extraordinarily effective businessman and he and equally Stelios of Easyjet have revolutionised the travel industry in Europe and arguably the world, with no small thanks to Herb Kelleher at Southwest, with the advent of LCCs (Low Cost Carriers). His business model works and has seen airfares drop considerably, which from the mid 1990s led to a massive increase in air travel throughout mainland Europe. O'Leary uses his behaviour as a publicity stunt and it works. Ryanair has been one of the most successful airlines in the world over the last 20 years as a result and yes, the firm is constantly finding ways of saving money - it is perhaps at the extreme end of the fight for profit within the industry, O'Leary proposes things that other CEOs would like to, but can't implement in order to save money. Yes, its service is lousy (I've flown on Ryanair and Easyjet many times) and there are many other things about LCCs in general that are deplorable, but these things don't stop the public flying on them and Ryanair has not had a major air accident that has resulted in death, despite what has been termed questionable safety practices - although the airline consistently refutes criticism of its safety practices. The fact remains that Ryanair, despite everything is still very successful with a fleet of 420 aircraft with 160 on order - all 737s. O'Leary must be doing something right.
More info on the airline's history, including the bad stuff at Wiki: Ryanair - Wikipedia
One of the most controversial air crashes that continues to spark interest regarding its cause is the Air New Zealand DC-10 that flew into Mt Erebus, Antarctica in November 1979. Initially the pilots were blamed, but there are so many factors that contributed to it that it is subject to hostile reaction in discussion to this very day. So much so that 'experts' shy away from covering it because of public reaction to the results. Several books have been published, many of which receive negative criticism.
Air New Zealand Flight 901 - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Absolutely. I hopped into the back to show a junior mechanic how to set up a pressurization check. You have to disconnect lines to the outflow and safety valves. Anyhow as soon as we were back there, the tail started to fall. Fortunately we had the tail stand on. Still scared the shit out of me!
Now just imagine, standing on the airstair door, no tail stand, 18 passengers stooping over in the aisle all falling backward when the plane starts to tip, baggage door open, compartment stuffed full and two husky baggage smashers have just hopped up inside. It did a number on the tail skeg and wrecked the baggage door against the top of the bag cart.
That was deemed "substantial" damage, and there were passengers onboard, so the skipper and I each have an aircraft accident on our records, ending any hope of a job with the biggies. C'est la vie!
Cheers,
Wes
PS: No major tragedy here; the captain and I were both four-eyed, funny-looking, forty-plus geezers, not exactly the Steve Canyon types that appeal to airline personnel departments.
Last edited:
I spent two years working as a night airline mechanic 1930-0530 four (non consecutive) nights a week. At least those were the official hours. As low man on the totem pole and "permanent nigger" (What's a PILOT doing here??) I had to come in early and tow the planes down from the terminal and stay late to deliver them to the gate in the morning. Add to that a one hour commute each way, into the setting sun in the evening, then rising sun in the morning and I was a permanent zombie. "Ask the mechanics who serviced your plane last night how much sleep they got yesterday!" Thirty five years later my sleep patterns are still screwed up.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
Damn, how is the aircraft design your fault?
What is the cheapest option? Change the plane design or blame someone else?
I get that, believe me I have been in the industry for almost 2 decades, and I work in the safety department.
Nothing in that instance had anything to do with the pilot. Maybe ground operations. Probably, most likely company procedures and policies, but the pilots should not have been thrown under the bus and have a mark on their record.
swampyankee
Chief Master Sergeant
- 4,031
- Jun 25, 2013
Who has more lobbyists? Un-unionized pilots or the ATA and Raytheon?
It wasn't the fault of aircraft design. It was the fault of 400 pounds of undocumented COMAT in the aftmost section of the baggage compartment, (including an illegal fully inflated F28 mainwheel tire) and an FO (me) who didn't include it in the W&B because he didn't catch it being sneaked onboard. (The old "knew OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN" clause again!) In the eyes of the FAA inspector who tried to violate us, we operated an unairworthy aircraft in air carrier passenger service by means of a deceptive (can you spell "pencil-whipped"?) weight and balance form, thus endangering everyone concerned.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, his boss quashed the violation once he became aware we were misinformed about the load, as he knew it would go to appeal and his office would lose.
Doesn't change the fact that there were passengers aboard with the intention of flight, there was "substantial" damage, and one of the baggage smashers scraped his hand when he was pitched out of the bag compartment and into the cart (and the inspector bruised his ego), so there were injuries. By the FAA's arcane rules, that's what it took to upgrade an incident to an accident. During my seven years with the commuter, there were five legally defined accidents, all on the ground, none involving passenger or flight crew injuries, and only one that could be called serious. But they all went on the flight crews' FAA records as aircraft accidents. In one case one rampie backed a pickup into another, slamming him against the aircraft and breaking his back, with passengers and crew aboard, and two promising young pilots who already had interviews scheduled with major airlines had their career aspirations scuttled.
Cheers,
Wes
Last edited:
Ah, I get the situation now...
This was at a time when society was becoming rapidly more litigious and liability conscious, the media more aggressively investigative, and airlines more sensitive to the potential legal ramifications of employees with questionable backgrounds. Victims lawyers had become adept at wringing additional millions out of the courts in cases where a pilot or mechanic had a single accident or test failure in their history.
Cheers,
Wes
Hansie Bloeckmann
Senior Airman
Makes me wonder, as a "Monday morning quarterback"-- back in 1903, if Will and Orville had realized all this, if they might have said: "Screw this Kitty Hawk stuff, let's haul ass back to Dayton and build more bicycles instead."
