DAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 8727 times:
Amazing how some journalists and passengers dont know the difference between the speed brakes and the flaps; the one passenger said he "saw the flaps gp up to slow down the plane"...funny!! Glad they were able to abort without injuries to anyone.
EnviroTO From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 820 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7633 times:
The whole report doesn't analyze the facts much. I mean, what does the average joe passenger know about the proper handling of an engine blow out on the take-off roll and whether or not the best course of action was taken? Glad everything worked out ok but I would rather reporters talk to people that actually know how these situations are supposed to be handled rather than any member of the public they see standing around. A positive outcome doesn't necessarily tell the whole story... if an aircraft runs out of gas pulling into the gate that doesn't equate to a perfect calculation of gas required for example.
Arrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2582 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7596 times:
Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 6): Glad everything worked out ok but I would rather reporters talk to people that actually know how these situations are supposed to be handled rather than any member of the public they see standing around.
Having worked as a reporter for more than 30 years, I can tell you that the "official" version of what happened here won't come out for a while, and the pilots, or other members of the crew, don't go looking for the media after something like this. If the media finds them, their response will be "no comment" until someone in the company clears them to talk to the media -- if they ever do that.
The passenger's reaction and comments are essential to a story meant for average people -- not aviation enthusiasts -- to read. The fact that he doesn't know the difference between flaps, spoilers, ailerons, elevators etc is irrelevant -- neither do 99% of the people reading the story, and it doesn't have any effect on the accuracy of what he was describing. The passenger is entitled to his opinion, the the reporter isn't doing any thing wrong by printing it.
This story may have errors, and for sure its incomplete -- but its the first crack at it. The media is responsible for lots of sins, but this story isn't a bad example. Subsequent stories will have the official version of this incident, and you can bet the media will be looking for the holes. Be glad they do that.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Eirjet From Ireland, joined Jul 2005, 330 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5622 times:
Passenger Simpson seems to have all the right contacts !!!!
Firstly he refers to the shredded tyres on the runway when the engine blew(he must have great eye-sight to see the trailing shreds of tyre from his seat), and later the Captain apparently told him that there was loads of debris on the runway when the engine blew!!!! If I was the Captain I would be passing information to any 'joe bloggs'...
Well done to the crew for safely dealing with the incident.
Aviation has a 100% record, we've never left one up there......
EnviroTO From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 820 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3314 times:
Quoting YOWguy (Reply 8):
Kudos to the AC aircrew for averting a more serious problem.
Quoting Eirjet (Reply 10):
Well done to the crew for safely dealing with the incident.
You are proving my point. Everyone is giving kudos to the crew for a job well done because the outcome was good but not necessarily because the proper procedures were followed. If the pilot had been on a shorter runway or wet runway the same response could have resulted in tragedy. Not all good outcomes stem from doing the right thing. How do people on here know that there was a job well done if they weren't in the cockpit and there is no NTSB report? Any pilot can reverse an engine, throw on spoilers, and slam on the brakes... why the kudos? I am glad that the outcome was good but I am going to refrain from calling the captain a hero unless there is some evidence to support it.
Aviationman From Canada, joined Dec 1999, 634 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3177 times:
I saw the aircraft sitting and being fixed at the First Air hangar...Believe me....No signs of shredded tires and the engine did not look like it was missing any parts......I doubt about the debris.....
MakeMinesLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 516 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3062 times:
Given the ever-present discussions about ETOPS and single-engine takeoffs, is it safe to assume the plane had not reached V1 yet, hence the aborted takeoff? Is it possible, given the long runaway, that the abort came after V1?
Note that my ETOPS comment is not meant to refer to this specific aircraft, but to indicate that some aircraft (or is it all?) are designed to takeoff with a single engine.
CDNpax From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 45 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2782 times:
Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 13): Any pilot can reverse an engine, throw on spoilers, and slam on the brakes... why the kudos?
What's that story about any landing you can walk away from... perhaps it should apply to takeoffs as well!
The flight crew handled an abnormal situation and averted any harm to human life or equipment. This is not always the case in these scenarios. The fact that everyone walked away is evidence enough of a job well done to me. Surely you must recognize that there was some element of airmanship demonstrated here regardless of whether they followed procedure or not. It is for this reason that I commend the crew.
It nearly ended in disaster. V1 was 164 knots which is really cooking. Takeoff was rejected at 172 knots. Number 2 reverse thrust was unavailable, and the failure of the no. 1 engine was such that it produced very little reverse thrust. The aircraft ended up collapsing the nose gear in the overrun area of the runway. Fortunately all escaped with only a few minor injuries from the evacuation.
The reason that the takeoff was rejected after V1 was that the captain misinterpreted the loud bang and vibration as potentially being structural failure rather than engine failure.
Yow From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2515 times:
Quoting CDNpax (Reply 3): However, kudos to the flight crew on a job well done. YOW to YVR requires a pretty hefty fuel load on an A320. Good thing there were 10,000 ft. to work with.
Yeah apprarently there were 139 pax onboard & crew, so only 1 empty seat.
Quoting YOWguy (Reply 14): Luckily he was using the 10,000 ft runway instead of the 8,500 ft runway, because like you say there would have been a cause for disaster.
Even if 07/25 the 8,500 ft runway were being used, it would have been a little more dicey, although it's been reported about 2/3 of rwy 32 was used, equating to around 6,700 ft. Working at the airport I can tell you there was a lot of little bits of debris on the runway...but it had re-opened by the following morning.