Wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4794 posts, RR: 17 Reply 4, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 33014 times:
Great. Two references to Saudia 163. Both wrong.
This was the flight where the captain was arguably the only even-remotely-competent person in the cockpit; the f/o was completely unable to support him during the emergency landing and evaluation of the potential fire situation due to virtually no experience in-type and the f/e, who was thought to be dyslexic, couldn't find various procedures in the manual. The captain landed the plane himself and tried to evaluate whether there was a fire without briefing the crew for evacuation. One the one hand, this accident was a model of CRM failure. On the other hand, it seemed like the Captain had good reason to try to do everything himself. But, in a command environment very different from US airlines, he hesitated to order an evacuation after successfully executing an emergency landing, and by then there was massive fire throughout the aircraft.
The issue wasn't that passengers waited while the crew went through the checklist, it was that the crew DIDN'T go through the checklist.
Passengers were doubtless screaming to get off the a/c and willing to pull emergency exists open even with the engines not shut down. However, the crew did not depressurize the aircraft and the doors henceforth could not be opened.
This was widely-considered to be a CRM issue. I think it was more of a training, competence, and *policies* issue.
Clearly, nothing to do with the accident being discussed here.
I am also glad to see that Robert Sumwalt has been sent to investigate by the NTSB. I did safety work with Robert several years ago and can say that he is top shelf and will do a great job working with the team to find the answers to not only what happened but how. We should know more soon.
Tbanger From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 266 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 32343 times:
(QUOTE from previous thread)
Quote: The 301 poor souls on board this aircraft waited while the crew went through the checklist.
I'll take my chances.
Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 4): Great. Two references to Saudia 163. Both wrong.
Thankyou Wjcandee...well said.
Things are different nowadays. The crew are trained to use their head more. Thanks to CRM the hosty is allowed to use their own brain as the Captain isn't always right.....or he could be incapacitated and the evacuation is commanded by those still standing. Hindsight might not be any use to those who perished in the past but it goes a long way in helping those in the future.
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 9): Hats off to the crew for executing their emergency responsibilities as they are trained. Their response was elemental to a successful evacuation.
I'll certainly make a toast to that crew this Chrissy.....and if any of you are reading this...BLOODY WELL DONE from OZ.
B707forever From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 459 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 31079 times:
I was surprised to see the starboard doors open consiedring the fire was clearly on that side of the plan. That will be interesting to read about in the final report. I couldn't tell if a passenger had opened the starboard emergency window over the wing from the picture. That would have been really bad if they did. This is the first picture of the starboard side which shows, for the first time, that the cabin was apparently engulfed in flames. You can't tell that from the port side shots.
Again, thank God everyone got out. Kudos to the crew though for getting everyone out and to Continental for how they're handling, from what I'm reading, the aftermath. Having worked at an airline during a crash, in this case where lives were lost, it's a terrible thing for staff. It seems CO is doing as good a job as can be expected. I look forward to reading the full report.
SLCguy From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 121 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 29430 times:
Wow, as reported the aircraft came to rest near the fire station, but if you look at the news helicopter videos, if it had come off the runway slightly earlier or at a bit more angle on it's cross country adventure (nearly 3000') it would have come right thru the front door of the fire station with disasterous results not only the people on the plane but the firefighters in the station. As it was the plane missed the station by about 200 ft. A lot of lucky people! Hoping for a quick recovery for those who were injured.
RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4609 posts, RR: 13 Reply 20, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 29316 times:
the WSJ Article quotes a pax discussing seeing the fire from inside the aircraft during the evacuation, I'm very curious as to how the close proximity to the ARFF station may have saved lives. The FAA required response time is no more than 3 minutes, but in this case the aircraft was only 200 yds away, and may have been just in time to prevent an explosion (see Air China 737-800)
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
Fsnuffer From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 240 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 29288 times:
I have seen some reports of passengers reporting a loud bang shortly before the aircraft veered off the runway and I thought of a compressor stall. Doing some “google” research, there are reports that a large crosswind can cause a compressor stall. For all you pilots out there, is this something you are normally concerned with during high crosswind takeoffs or is this just an urban legend?
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 29127 times:
Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 20): The FAA required response time is no more than 3 minutes, but in this case the aircraft was only 200 yds away, and may have been just in time to prevent an explosion (see Air China 737-800)
I admit not having read all the responses to this accident but first impressions :
I think in this case it didn't really matter. Everyone evacuated the aircraft and cleared it before the rescue teams arrived. Looking at the nature of this crash I think what helped :
- Gliding through cold snow iso dry ground absorbing a lot of the V2 energy
- The aircraft kept on course allowing the structure to absorb energy as designed for
- The crew & passengers apparently doing a text book evacuation
- The fuselage resisting the fire long enough for the aircraft to be evacuated.
Anyway I have the feeling we got away here lucky !
SLCguy From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 121 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 28901 times:
Don't think a compressor stall would cause the aircraft the aircraft to veer off. But the strong gusting crosswing could cause a loss of directional control and once the aircraft left the runway and safety area damage to the engine resulting in a fire could result. The passengers comments about suddenly getting a bumpy ride and maybe even getting airborne fit with the running off the runway, the land at DIA is not as flat as it looks, the aircraft was was probalby bouncing along the terrain and getting lauched a few times.
Starlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 16372 posts, RR: 66 Reply 24, posted (4 years 12 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 28807 times:
Quoting Warren747sp (Reply 16): The number 1404 in Chinese language means "Single death, zero death".
Good thing no one perished. maybe they should change the flight number.
I'm not an expert but it doesn't quite "mean" that. The word for the number 4 sounds like the word for death. The characters are different. So it can be interpreted as that if you are superstitious.
It's actually "worse", since 14 can be interpreted as "want to die" in Mandarin and "certainly die" in Cantonese.
But yes, a Chinese airline would probably change the flight number.
Quoting Fsnuffer (Reply 21): Doing some “google” research, there are reports that a large crosswind can cause a compressor stall. For all you pilots out there, is this something you are normally concerned with during high crosswind takeoffs or is this just an urban legend?
Not that I'm a pilot, but certainly it is possible. That's one reason why there are crosswind limits.
"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots." - from Citadel by John Ringo
25 SLCguy: Sorry about the spelling. Those two words should be crosswind and launched.
26 727forever: It is not urban legend but rare in today's modern Hi-Bypass Turbofan engines. Older low bypass, for todays standard, and straight turbojet engines we
27 Labswalker: Think of this, next time you want to ignore the safety briefing before departure! My hat is off to that crew for the outstanding job they did to evacu
28 Slider: Typically after an incident/accident flight, that specific flight number is retired permanently.
29 Sandyb123: Could it have been as simple as a double-right tire blow-out followed by reduced visibility resulting in veering off the runway? That's the first tim
30 DL752: I am very glad everyone evacuated and an absolute amazing job to the crew and passengers!! I couldn't imagine how scary and hard that must have been!
31 SlimShady: They will try to salvage everything they can. as long as it can be repaired and re-certified. Looking at this, a few things come to mind... Avionics,
32 Keesje: " target=_blank>http://www.telegraph.co.uk I think its clear from this picture the engines broke off when the aircraft crossed the road. Probably its
33 N6168E: I'm not sure about the LH engine (The RH engine is still attached) as is it in front of the wreckage, but I see wheel tracks before the road and a wi
34 Keesje: Maybe the LH main lDG broke of shortly after crossing the first road.. tracks could indicate so.. Anyway, will have a better look later on.
35 Contrails: After seeing the starboard side of the aircraft I have to say that a miracle happened at DEN Saturday night. The difference in the 2 sides is like the
36 D L X: I agree. I see wheel tracks before the first road, a dropoff where there are no tracks (probably a second or less of being airborne), wheel tracks fo
37 Mcdu: Do you believe everyone on this aircraft paid close attention to the safety briefing on this flight?
38 Wjcandee: None. The Fire Department was driving all over the airport looking for the plane before they finally found it. However, it was a convenient place to
39 Litz: Maybe those winglets, or rudder parts ... I doubt they will recover much from the interior - the heat was intense enough that the overhead bins were
40 EXCOASA1982: I bet the 2 commuting FAs onboard assisted as well.
41 D L X: No, emphatically. Reports now say that many passengers went up into the overhead bins to retrieve their luggage before taking it down the slides. I t
42 AndrewUber: One thing I found interesting (and IRRITATING) was an article on MSNBC yesterday, which one passenger gave his account of the accident. His story was
43 SlimShady: ...like the orange glow of the fire was difficult to spot at night.. (rolling eyes)...
44 Barney Captain: We were there that night. We landed approximately 30 minutes prior to the accident with standard DEN winds and light to moderate chop in the descent.
45 Smcmac32msn: What do you propose reduced their visibility??? The plane is no more than 20* off the angle of the runway, on what looks to be a slight downhill. If
46 September11: I am amazed by the very long tire skidmarks depicted in these photos.
47 Ultrapig: Luggage retrieval in emergency. I'v e always wondered what I'd do in this case if I saw people tryign to get luggage. Yell at them? Ignore them? Crew
48 FrmrCAPCADET: Perhaps a law that those found with bags after an emergency evacuation lose any rights to damages, and that it be either a serious misdemeanor, or fel
49 Wjcandee: Nope. That was some stupidity invented by someone (perhaps a reporter) who saw the fire station near the plane and made an "ass" by "ass"uming. The F
50 Wjcandee: You know, if you were standing right in front of me, I'm pretty confident you wouldn't have the...um...chutzhpah to make a comment like this. However
51 Spacecadet: Highly doubt it. Cathay Pacific, for example, has flight numbers 1427, 1411, 104, 1419, 1104, 7140, 604, 410, 1420, 400, 1428, and I could go on and
52 TVNWZ: It is called panic. People react in various ways. They might freeze. They might scream. They may act in all sorts of nonsensical and/or illogical way
53 Viscount724: For many years CP Air's flight numbers YVR-NRT-HKG were 401/402 (westbound/eastbound). A flight that turned around at NRT was 403/404. In later years
54 CO777ER: Agreed. I highly doubt the first thing in his mind was to ensure that the guy behind him made it off. He was worried about himself and family.
55 RL757PVD: Any confusion would be result of ATC, as its the ATC crash phone that notifies ARFF 1) Alert level ( typically3 stages ranging from minor problem, po
56 Rikkus67: Spacecadet had this to say in reply #158 of the first thread: "...Let's see, an airplane on fire off the runway, its engine and landing gear ripped of
57 EMBQA: There is a video on YouTube taken after an accident of people calmly open the overhead bins with the FA's screaming in the background to get off the
58 EWRCabincrew: First, the crew did a phenomenal job. It is what we are trained for and dread ever happens. They did fantastic. As for people getting their items out
59 Tommy767: I can't believe how decrepit that 735 looks in the aftermath. Some serious props to the crew on flight 1404 for getting everyone off the plane safely.
60 Viscount724: As a sidenote, that AC DC-9 wasn't totally destroyed. The wings were salvaged and the right wing later used to repair an Ozark DC-9 that struck a sno
61 Airtechy: I find it sorta hard to understand how the crew in the firehouse (I assume it was manned) failed to hear an airplane with its gear being ripped off on
62 EMBQA: What makes the winglets anymore important then anything else..? Your assuming the plane was on fire long before the fire dept found it. Given the fac
63 RL757PVD: Really makes you think twice about exiting over-wing!
64 Fiveholer: Was told by one of our captains that they were "about a million apiece" Dunno. Danny
65 Keesje: It looks like the left hand engine was dragged under the aircraft wing after it broke off. Luckely it continued to glide a bit after the aircraft came
66 EWRCabincrew: Always, always, always assess conditions. If the fire is too hot, the smoke is too thick or the water is too deep....do not use. It doesn't get any m
67 CODC10: Usually the series of commands flight attendants are trained to say includes "LEAVE EVERYTHING" to discourage going to overhead bins and "EXIT THIS W
68 Spacecadet: And not to excuse it but maybe to further explain it, the reality is a lot of people *do* have basically their entire lives entwined in their possess
69 Phatfarmlines: According to passenger accounts, the overwing exit on the starboard side was unusable due to fire present, otherwise you would have had a repeat of C
70 Dfanucci: As a former Firefighter, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to inform that individual. Enroute to a scene there is a ton of information you ar
71 United1: I haven't seen this mentioned yet but plane was photographed having a bit of a maintenance issue in EWR back in 2004, its probably a different engine
72 EMBQA: Starboard...?? This is aviation, not boats.. almost all of use left and right. I've been doing this 15 years and have never seen or heard it used exc
73 Micstatic: Actually much of aviation is derived from nautical origins. Starboard is a widely used term.
74 EMBQA: So the radome the bow, the tail the stern..? Maybe...but in all those years I've never once heard it used... except on here, and then by non aviati
75 Micstatic: I hear you. Hey it's not that bad. What really kills me is when people say "finals" instead of "final"
76 United1: Is that what that was? The caption made it sound like some engine issue, thanks for the heads up.
77 EMBQA: Oh yea..... For me its non-aviation types trying to be 'cool' and miss use the terms and information... We can chat all we want about this, nano pick
78 Philhyde: " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/photo/Conti...854/M Except, that isn't the plane that crashed as CO1404.
79 Dutchflyboi: Really? We are trained to say Aircraft Left and Aircraft Right. Meaning facing the cockpit your left is A/C left and your right is A/C Right, this is
80 JBLUA320: " target=_blank>http://www.airliners.net/photo/Conti...854/M This is ship 625. I believe the aircraft involved with 1404 is 611. Kudos to the crew! J
81 Cptkrell: If any of you are close to a TV, FOX news has a "live" update currently being broadcasrt by NTSB. regards...jack
82 Smeg: Strange, because on my ATPL's and subsequent training, we used port and starboard in many cases - Especially when referring to engines. Again, this w
83 Dutchflyboi: Going through initial training with New York Air and recurrent training for the last 22 years with CO, we never have used port and starboard, it has
84 United1: Airliners.net strikes again I used the "show me photos of the same aircraft" option at the bottom of the crash photo and that photo came up....never
85 IAHcsr: ... The craft in the photo is Ship 625... 1404 was Ship 611 ...