mxaxai wrote:

estorilm wrote:

That was a bizarre circumstance, and probably so early on in the FBW system/wiring/process/protocols (as in, in the sidestick wiring itself) that no computers could cross-check themselves. Simple problem though - left=right, right=left, check other stick and send priority to that one and let the other pilot land it.

In any event - nope.. the 190's ailerons are conventional and inputs are mechanical / hyd boosted.

(1) Getting the wrong result from your actions completely fucks with your muscle memory. Have you tried riding a bike with reversed controls?
(2) I don't know the 190's specifics but you can swap mechanical inputs. On some planes I've handled, it's super easy. That's why you (should) always check not only whether the ailerons move but also if they're moving in the right direction.

True story, I just meant once my sidestick did that the first thing I'd do is try the PNF's sidestick.

As for the 190 (or anything) - I thought any sort of control rigging / hydraulics for flight control surfaces required visual and/or flight tests by the mx crew? And yeah I'll never forget how crazy my CFI was about deflection DIRECTION during control checks.

With that in mind, according to info out there this was a post maintenance ferry flight for a C-check, so.... yikes.

rheinwaldner wrote:

mxaxai wrote:

(1) Getting the wrong result from your actions completely fucks with your muscle memory. Have you tried riding a bike with reversed controls?

I tried. And do you know how it functions right immediately? By crossing the arms and swapping left and right hand. I wonder whether they did that.

I have tried that too. It took me an hour or more to get some control, but it still was very easy to loose control. That is quite some years ago.

That about swapping left and right hand, that work somewhat on a bike, but not on a side stick and not on a yoke either I think. Those goes left/right whereas a bike handle goes back/forth.

Talked to a mechanic that's familiar with the 190 and the ailerons are very conventional cable-drive systems - said they're designed in such a way that it's impossible to cross them. Everything else is triple-servo redundant for each hyd system so even if something failed, it shouldn't result in everything reversing... with all of that in mind, unless someone left a cover on something somewhere (again) I'm not sure what it could be, but at that point we're into the FBW / software side of things again.

Must have been quite tramatic since they kept making the exact same request without understanding they were never getting closer to the water. Kinda glad they never made it to the ocean as their persistence paid off with a safe landing. Also very little detail given to ATC as to what they were actually experiencing. Maybe they were going into detail on the CVR in case they did not make it.

I agree with the earlier post that this would be an incident in many places. Doubt Portugal is that much different. Would expect a full investigation including pulling and analyzing the recorders. Those mechanics must be sweating too. Imagine if this was a revenue passenger flight with everyone tweeting, streaming Facebook live and all the other videos.

Airbus330CSTMT wrote:

Cunard wrote:

The aircraft was flying from Alverca to Cairo not Minsk, it was heading back to Astana in Kazakhstan with a tech stop in Cairo.

Minsk is in Belorussia not in Kazakhstan.

The aircraft was indeed flying to Minsk UMMS with Sheremetyevo UUEE as alternate. Was going back home after a C-check in Alverca.
Swapped aileron controls (so when a right input, the a/c would turn left and vice-versa). Only elevators, rudder and thrust available to control the aircraft. As far as I've heard from someone who talked to the crew when things were settled down on ground, no issues when the autopilot was connected, but as soon as they would disconnect it, the controls were lost everytime. One of the four tonneaux ended at around 4000ft on a 90º nose down attitude. Adding to these awkward conditions, the wheather here in Lisbon area have been awfull the whole day with pouring rain, heavy clouds and low ceiling, so they had no visual geographic references, plus they were unfamiliar with the terrain and there's where the F-16s came in, to guide the E190 to a safer place. After "learning" to control the plane, all calmed down a little bit, but they needed an airport with better weather/visual conditions and Beja was the best, which is also in a sparsely populated (thus the lowest FR24 coverage, adding to the fact that the a/c doesn't have ADS-B and only shows up in MLAT) area so in case of a crash, the possibility of having victims on the ground was much lower.
On the first landing attempt, the aircraft wasn't well aligned to the runway so a go around was performed. On the second attempt they were a bit too high and went around again, before finally successfully landing on the third attempt. Of the 6 pob, two were taken to a local hospital with minor injuries and a third person, someone from the administration of Air Astana was reporting some heart issued ans was also taken to the hospital, which all three left by the beginning of the evening.

On the YouTube video of the actual ATC recording that was previously posted your notice that at the beginning of the video at 00.07 seconds it states that the aircraft ''an Air Astana Embraer ERJ-190LR (PK-JCK) performing flight KZR1388/KC1388 from Lisbon LPPT to Cairo HECA''.

From the information I gained from that video is where I saw that the aircrafts destination was Cairo hence why I mentioned Cairo rather than Minsk.

After reading that the aircraft was heading to Cairo I had wondered why it was taking a rather long and indirect route back to Astana in Kazakhstan.

You obviously know different hence why Minsk was mentioned so Portuguese ATC are wrong or VAS Aviation that uploaded the YouTube video are incorrect with their flight information!

I'm standing up for myself by saying that I only quoted what I had clearly read on the ATC video.

Footage of the landing from the F16:

https://youtu.be/cv_f4vYpYiA

Notice the lock on the hottest part of the aircraft...

While the ailerons are cable driven, could this have been the differential spoilers being reversed? ie: when in normal operation, wanting to roll left, the left aileron/differential would go up and the right aileron would go down, but instead in this case, the spoiler went up on the right, not only causing the reverse intended roll, but hypothetically more dramatically.

LH648 wrote:

Footage of the landing from the F16:

https://youtu.be/cv_f4vYpYiA

Notice the lock on the hottest part of the aircraft...

Interesting... did not know the Portuguese Air Force had IRST pods for their F-16s (let alone equipped their QRA aircraft with them, although it makes sense they would do). It also answers one of the questions I had (whether the F-16s landed at Beja to refuel or went straight back to their base at Monte Real) - at the end of the video, you can listen to the pilot ask authorization to land and refuel.

It seems to me the F-16s took a while to do the intercept (not that it must be easy to intercept a flight that keeps going erratically all over the place...). Does anyone know if they went supersonic overland for the intercept?

Interesting that a day later and we still have no comments from the pilots? I'm intrigued what it was they were facing

Boeingphan wrote:

Interesting that a day later and we still have no comments from the pilots? I'm intrigued what it was they were facing

I am pretty sure they are needing some kind of psychological support now after their near-death-experience.

kearnet wrote:

While the ailerons are cable driven, could this have been the differential spoilers being reversed? ie: when in normal operation, wanting to roll left, the left aileron/differential would go up and the right aileron would go down, but instead in this case, the spoiler went up on the right, not only causing the reverse intended roll, but hypothetically more dramatically.

Interesting point - I'd hope there would be some design feature that prevented swapping them, but again there are multiple hyd systems that actuate those (I think) so they'd all need to be impacted, and even then those don't go near the cockpit AFAIK - that's strictly a FBW interface.

Still that shouldn't result in a very dramatic loss of control. A wing may drop (drag/loss of lift) but rotationally the aileron should keep things in check. Unless their required inputs to actually begin a roll just resulted in a wing stall?

Not sure I like that theory though - the bottom (and strangest thing about this entire situation) is that whatever happened, they were apparently able to fix it. I don't even think it was "impaired" or compromised slightly - it sounds like she just was normal at landing. That's the real head-scratcher. In my head that would tend to rule-out physical mechanical items being reversed or something of that nature.

estorilm wrote:

kearnet wrote:

While the ailerons are cable driven, could this have been the differential spoilers being reversed? ie: when in normal operation, wanting to roll left, the left aileron/differential would go up and the right aileron would go down, but instead in this case, the spoiler went up on the right, not only causing the reverse intended roll, but hypothetically more dramatically.

Interesting point - I'd hope there would be some design feature that prevented swapping them, but again there are multiple hyd systems that actuate those (I think) so they'd all need to be impacted, and even then those don't go near the cockpit AFAIK - that's strictly a FBW interface.

Still that shouldn't result in a very dramatic loss of control. A wing may drop (drag/loss of lift) but rotationally the aileron should keep things in check. Unless their required inputs to actually begin a roll just resulted in a wing stall?

Not sure I like that theory though - the bottom (and strangest thing about this entire situation) is that whatever happened, they were apparently able to fix it. I don't even think it was "impaired" or compromised slightly - it sounds like she just was normal at landing. That's the real head-scratcher. In my head that would tend to rule-out physical mechanical items being reversed or something of that nature.

It looks like they had control issues even when landing, as they don't land on the runway centerline but to the right, and later in the landing align the plane with the centerline.

It seems to me that at some point they realized what was wrong with the controls, and after that used only rudder and whatever was working and didn't use the abnormal controls at all. That allowed them to fly, although with reduced control of the aircraft.

DLHAM wrote:

Boeingphan wrote:

Interesting that a day later and we still have no comments from the pilots? I'm intrigued what it was they were facing

I am pretty sure they are needing some kind of psychological support now after their near-death-experience.

Agreed. They will most likely have medical follow-up at least for the next few months.

estorilm wrote:

the bottom (and strangest thing about this entire situation)

Agreed. Something in this event is rather curious/strange, not sure what..

That's why it's important to wait for the findings, or at least some kind of preliminary briefing, preferably after the content of the black boxes is checked..

Regards.

B8887

On the YouTube video of the actual ATC recording that was previously posted your notice that at the beginning of the video at 00.07 seconds it states that the aircraft ''an Air Astana Embraer ERJ-190LR (PK-JCK) performing flight KZR1388/KC1388 from Lisbon LPPT to Cairo HECA''.

I'd still say they flew from Alverca, that's where the Embraer maintenance facility is. It is on the river bank just a few km north of LPPT.

By the way, I read somewhere above they didn't have ADS-B, is it even allowed to fly like that in EU airspace? They'd have to request some derogation then?

Boeingphan wrote:

Interesting that a day later and we still have no comments from the pilots? I'm intrigued what it was they were facing.

German Aerotelegraph says the reasons for them being taken to a hospital were "stress symptoms", not physical injuries. Which is understandable when you just spent 120 minutes fighting for your life. Let's give them a couple of days...

I flew this morning from ALA to TSE with some of KC’s senior management. They were fairly (obviously) tight lipped about the incident. I would imagine there will be a serious review of the Portugese MRO who signed off on the aircraft.

There is also an article in the local news services about the Kazakh Pilot
https://tengrinews.kz/kazakhstan_news/i ... yi-357587/

Pyrex wrote:

LH648 wrote:

Footage of the landing from the F16:

https://youtu.be/cv_f4vYpYiA

Notice the lock on the hottest part of the aircraft...

Interesting... did not know the Portuguese Air Force had IRST pods for their F-16s (let alone equipped their QRA aircraft with them, although it makes sense they would do). It also answers one of the questions I had (whether the F-16s landed at Beja to refuel or went straight back to their base at Monte Real) - at the end of the video, you can listen to the pilot ask authorization to land and refuel.

It seems to me the F-16s took a while to do the intercept (not that it must be easy to intercept a flight that keeps going erratically all over the place...). Does anyone know if they went supersonic overland for the intercept?

Perhaps the F-16's were already airborne at the time of the incident. No need to have an armed F-16 at its side, it was clearly a mechanical failure.

Looks like the EMB190 landed off the side and the pilots corrected themselves after all the wheels were on the ground. Must be quite stressful after a stressful flight.

Dutchy wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

LH648 wrote:

Footage of the landing from the F16:

https://youtu.be/cv_f4vYpYiA

Notice the lock on the hottest part of the aircraft...

Interesting... did not know the Portuguese Air Force had IRST pods for their F-16s (let alone equipped their QRA aircraft with them, although it makes sense they would do). It also answers one of the questions I had (whether the F-16s landed at Beja to refuel or went straight back to their base at Monte Real) - at the end of the video, you can listen to the pilot ask authorization to land and refuel.

It seems to me the F-16s took a while to do the intercept (not that it must be easy to intercept a flight that keeps going erratically all over the place...). Does anyone know if they went supersonic overland for the intercept?

Perhaps the F-16's were already airborne at the time of the incident. No need to have an armed F-16 at its side, it was clearly a mechanical failure.

Looks like the EMB190 landed off the side and the pilots corrected themselves after all the wheels were on the ground. Must be quite stressful after a stressful flight.

From listening to the ATC, the F-16s were on the ground and we're scrambled to assist.

Lisbon Approach: "Understood, they're taking off now and they will be with you in around 4 to 5 minutes"

Video for reference below
https://youtu.be/evYLkhxoP3U

ktof wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

Interesting... did not know the Portuguese Air Force had IRST pods for their F-16s (let alone equipped their QRA aircraft with them, although it makes sense they would do). It also answers one of the questions I had (whether the F-16s landed at Beja to refuel or went straight back to their base at Monte Real) - at the end of the video, you can listen to the pilot ask authorization to land and refuel.

It seems to me the F-16s took a while to do the intercept (not that it must be easy to intercept a flight that keeps going erratically all over the place...). Does anyone know if they went supersonic overland for the intercept?

Perhaps the F-16's were already airborne at the time of the incident. No need to have an armed F-16 at its side, it was clearly a mechanical failure.

Looks like the EMB190 landed off the side and the pilots corrected themselves after all the wheels were on the ground. Must be quite stressful after a stressful flight.

From listening to the ATC, the F-16s were on the ground and we're scrambled to assist.

Lisbon Approach: "Understood, they're taking off now and they will be with you in around 4 to 5 minutes"

Video for reference below
https://youtu.be/evYLkhxoP3U

ok, thanks. I stand corrected.

Finn350 wrote:

...
Not sure I like that theory though - the bottom (and strangest thing about this entire situation) is that whatever happened, they were apparently able to fix it. ....

I'm not sure, maybe I got it wrong, but I think in the middle of ATC communication I heard a remark from the ground station that MX wants to talk to the pilot. But later I did not hear any communication like this.
If it happend in fact and simply was cut out or used a company channel ... maybe they got a hint by MX what could be wrong and acted accordingly?

Buyantukhaa wrote:

On the YouTube video of the actual ATC recording that was previously posted your notice that at the beginning of the video at 00.07 seconds it states that the aircraft ''an Air Astana Embraer ERJ-190LR (PK-JCK) performing flight KZR1388/KC1388 from Lisbon LPPT to Cairo HECA''.

I'd still say they flew from Alverca, that's where the Embraer maintenance facility is. It is on the river bank just a few km north of LPPT.

By the way, I read somewhere above they didn't have ADS-B, is it even allowed to fly like that in EU airspace? They'd have to request some derogation then?

I'm not doubting the airport that the flight originated from it's the aircrafts destination that was being queried!

I'm just quoting what was on the YouTube ATC recording when at 00.07 seconds where it clearly states that Cairo was the aircrafts next destination.

Can someone clarify this as some or should I say at least two other posters are declaring that it was Minsk!

asdf wrote:

Finn350 wrote:

...
Not sure I like that theory though - the bottom (and strangest thing about this entire situation) is that whatever happened, they were apparently able to fix it. ....

I'm not sure, maybe I got it wrong, but I think in the middle of ATC communication I heard a remark from the ground station that MX wants to talk to the pilot. But later I did not hear any communication like this.
If it happend in fact and simply was cut out or used a company channel ... maybe they got a hint by MX what could be wrong and acted accordingly?

I found this odd as well. I thought MX had their own way of communicating. That could explain the very long pause and subsequent straight flight instead of the constant circling observed before. I do not remember how long there was no communication, however at that time they had it at least partially stable. Will be very enlightening to see if the crew figured out the problem by troubleshooting or talked through the issues with maintenance and then found a solution.

I am shocked this did not get more attention. A complete loss of stable flight after maintenance check just days after an airliner may have crashed in the sea due to maintenance issues?

I want to just throw something out there... something I feel actually dumb for asking, however someone asked it on the Twitter feed of the video... Could there be any possibility the flight controls are able to be accessed or.... (sigh)... Hacked..... by some person or agency for nefarious purposes.
I gotta admit, I didn't think of it myself...but when I saw the question asked, it did get me wondering. I've heard people talk about this being a possibility in this day and age and given the entire bizarre nature of this incident along with the sudden climbs, dives, etc.. It seems just .....weird.
I totally get the reference to the similar TU-154 incident some time ago where there is excellent footage of an erratic control issue, however the cynic and slight conspiracist in me has me curious...

bhxdtw wrote:

I want to just throw something out there... something I feel actually dumb for asking, however someone asked it on the Twitter feed of the video... Could there be any possibility the flight controls are able to be accessed or.... (sigh)... Hacked..... by some person or agency for nefarious purposes.
I gotta admit, I didn't think of it myself...but when I saw the question asked, it did get me wondering. I've heard people talk about this being a possibility in this day and age and given the entire bizarre nature of this incident along with the sudden climbs, dives, etc.. It seems just .....weird.
I totally get the reference to the similar TU-154 incident some time ago where there is excellent footage of an erratic control issue, however the cynic and slight conspiracist in me has me curious...

Hardly think so. Also, why would you choose a nearly empty plane if your intentions are so bad? But never feel dumb about asking stuff, that's why a forum can exist in the first place.

Portuguese GPIAFF, entity responsible for the investigation, released a Aircraft Serious Incident Notice

Still pending confirmation from the undertaking of additional testing, the evidence that was possible to collect at the time of drafting this Note suggests the existence of failures in the aircraft roll controls configuration, consistent with possible disturbance during maintenance actions.

http://www.gpiaa.gov.pt/

Note: To see the report click on the first link:

2018-11-13
Nota Informativa do Incidente com o Embraer 190 - registo P4-KCJ, ocorrido no dia 11 de novembro, Aterragem no Aeroporto de Beja - Base Aérea n.º 11 (Novo / New)

Then click on:

Serious incident with Embraer 190, registration P4-KCJ from Air Astana, Emergency Landing at Beja Airport - Air Base n.º 11

AvHerald link: http://avherald.com/h?article=4c04438e&opt=0

Synoptic page shows inverted ailerons controls with roll spoilers working fine

Reading the AVHearld report that is some fantastic crew resource management. Well done up in the air fellas. That lat pic is crazy and explains plenty.

AvHerald:

A landing was intended on Beja's runway 19R, the aircraft needed to go around twice due to unstabilized approaches, approached runway 19R a third time and touched down on runway 19L due to being unable to correct the drift.

Yes, they touched down a bit off the centerline...

The big questions for me is first why didn't the maintenance found this issue... and second why didn't the crew spot this before takeoff... checklists???

Different plane but reminds me of this Tu 154 oscillating wildly.

I'm guessing the Tu154 pilots managed to land after understanding how to counteract the oscillations by using unusual inputs. I'm guessing these pilots also did the same.

https://youtu.be/mvgvIxpNMn0

Glad they managed to land safely. Must have been an absolute terrifying experience.

Excellent job by the pilots! I wonder if the aircraft has exceeded design G-loads during complete losses of control and is therefore a write-off?

edu2703 wrote:

AvHerald link: http://avherald.com/h?article=4c04438e&opt=0

Synoptic page shows inverted ailerons controls with roll spoilers working fine

So, normal spoilers, reversed ailerons?

Finn350 wrote:

Excellent job by the pilots! I wonder if the aircraft has exceeded design G-loads during complete losses of control and is therefore a write-off?

Impressive! First mention of write-off is Reply 131.

kalvado wrote:

AvHerald:

A landing was intended on Beja's runway 19R, the aircraft needed to go around twice due to unstabilized approaches, approached runway 19R a third time and touched down on runway 19L due to being unable to correct the drift.

Yes, they touched down a bit off the centerline...

That is quite some drift ...

http://avherald.com/img/astana_e190_p4- ... 11_map.jpg

(apparently we cannot URL link a .jpg, for some reason)

Cunard wrote:

Buyantukhaa wrote:

On the YouTube video of the actual ATC recording that was previously posted your notice that at the beginning of the video at 00.07 seconds it states that the aircraft ''an Air Astana Embraer ERJ-190LR (PK-JCK) performing flight KZR1388/KC1388 from Lisbon LPPT to Cairo HECA''.

I'd still say they flew from Alverca, that's where the Embraer maintenance facility is. It is on the river bank just a few km north of LPPT.

By the way, I read somewhere above they didn't have ADS-B, is it even allowed to fly like that in EU airspace? They'd have to request some derogation then?

I'm not doubting the airport that the flight originated from it's the aircrafts destination that was being queried!

I'm just quoting what was on the YouTube ATC recording when at 00.07 seconds where it clearly states that Cairo was the aircrafts next destination.

Can someone clarify this as some or should I say at least two other posters are declaring that it was Minsk!

Sorry man! I was aware of many videos regarding the event but I didn't watch them all. Now I understand your "confusion". I saw some entries of the flight plan, as I have a friend who has access to Eurocontrol and showed me that part of the text.
Second, for the other fellow quoted here, it was indeed departing from LPAR Alverca (which is indeed a few km from Lisbon, but still in Lisbon metropolitan area, so it was still departing from Lisbon (city, not airport though).
Regarding ADS-B, most Embraers don't have it (or at least with a position report). Most Embraers show up on FR24 in MLAT, even those from my country's flag airline TAP and those from Air Europa Express, which also fly here on a daily basis, thought I think there's one or two Air Europa's with ADS-B installed, as well as one or two from TAP.

Airbus330CSTMT wrote:

Cunard wrote:

Buyantukhaa wrote:

I'd still say they flew from Alverca, that's where the Embraer maintenance facility is. It is on the river bank just a few km north of LPPT.

By the way, I read somewhere above they didn't have ADS-B, is it even allowed to fly like that in EU airspace? They'd have to request some derogation then?

I'm not doubting the airport that the flight originated from it's the aircrafts destination that was being queried!

I'm just quoting what was on the YouTube ATC recording when at 00.07 seconds where it clearly states that Cairo was the aircrafts next destination.

Can someone clarify this as some or should I say at least two other posters are declaring that it was Minsk!

Sorry man! I was aware of many videos regarding the event but I didn't watch them all. Now I understand your "confusion". I saw some entries of the flight plan, as I have a friend who has access to Eurocontrol and showed me that part of the text.
Second, for the other fellow quoted here, it was indeed departing from LPAR Alverca (which is indeed a few km from Lisbon, but still in Lisbon metropolitan area, so it was still departing from Lisbon (city, not airport though).
Regarding ADS-B, most Embraers don't have it (or at least with a position report). Most Embraers show up on FR24 in MLAT, even those from my country's flag airline TAP and those from Air Europa Express, which also fly here on a daily basis, thought I think there's one or two Air Europa's with ADS-B installed, as well as one or two from TAP.

No worries! I had a look and saw that ADS-B will not be compulsory (at least retrofitted on older planes, as new ones must be fitted with it already) until 7 June 2020.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/20180515-sesar-ads-b-report.pdf

According to the latest FR24 article, the Air Astana incident in Portugal in December 18 was caused by the aerolon control into being fitted the wrong way round, inverting any input from the yoke.

Surprised this is even possible let alone signed off without checks.

https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/avta ... space-jet/

Sandyb123

sandyb123 wrote:

was caused by the aerolon control

You mean aileron.

GPIAA released their preliminary report on May 31st.

TLDR: Re-classified as an accident. Aileron control cable reversal confirmed related to MFR SB work. FLT CTRL EICAS warning generated during mx. Work procedures by MX provider deviated from established protocols. Flight crew failed to notice reversal before takeoff.

From AvHerald: http://avherald.com/h?article=4c04438e&opt=0

"The data collection during the initial investigation phase included a detailed examination of the aircraft flight controls and an incorrect ailerons control cable system installation was confirmed on both semiwings. By introducing the modification iaw Service Bulletin 190-57-0038 during the maintenance activities, there was no longer the cable routing and separation around rib21, making it harder to understand the maintenance instructions, with recognized opportunities for improvement in the maintenance actions interpretation. The message “FLT CTRL NO DISPATCH” was generated during the maintenance activities, which in turn originated additional troubleshooting activities by the maintenance service provider, supported by the aircraft manufacturer. These activities, which lasted for 11 days, did not identify the ailerons' cables reversal, nor was this correlated to the "FLT CTRL NO DISPATCH" message. From the investigation process carried out so far, it also resulted in the identification of deviations to the internal procedures by the maintenance service provider, which led to the error not being detected in the various safety barriers designed by the regulators, aeronautical maintenance industry and within the maintenance service provider implemented system. The ailerons incorrect operation caused by the control cables reversal, was not identified in the aircraft operational checks (flight controls check) by the operator crew. The GPIAA reported the damage: From the preliminary analysis to the condition of the aircraft after the event flight, significant structural damage in both semi-wing, fuselage and flight control surfaces was verified, which led the GPIAAF to change the initial classification of serious incident to accident, following ICAO Annex 13 recommendations."

Picture of the modified cable support/routing: https://aviation-safety.net/photo/10086 ... 0LR-P4-KCJ

raylee67 wrote:

sandyb123 wrote:

was caused by the aerolon control

You mean aileron.

Yes, I do!

Sandyb123

That’s some scary stuff. I really wonder how this wouldn’t be caught by the crew in the normal flight control checks. Odd.

kabq737 wrote:

That’s some scary stuff. I really wonder how this wouldn’t be caught by the crew in the normal flight control checks. Odd.

For the crew operating the flight they probably saw what they were expecting to see and didn't notice the actual fact it moved opposite to what it should. Why it didn't get caught before a crew even stepped in to fly the airplane is the real worrying part.

That’s one of my nightmares. In GA planes I was taught to put my hand on the yoke/stick with my thumb pointing straight up and whichever aileron is up should be where my thumb is pointing. Harder to do in a big plane though

This should be impossible to do by design.

fabian9 wrote:

This should be impossible to do by design.

Or to rephrase: "It should be designed for this to be impossible."

Tugg

Btw, what happened to P4-KCJ, the plane involved in this incident? I couldn't see any recent flights on FR24. I can imagine that they scapped it due to it having "experienced" these high g-loads.

kabq737 wrote:

That’s some scary stuff. I really wonder how this wouldn’t be caught by the crew in the normal flight control checks. Odd.

Just for fun, as Captain during the control check ... say "Ailerons left" but apply "Ailerons right", see if the F/O catches it. I find about 1 in 5 do.

Not the same thing here, I acknowledge, especially as ailerons were not the same orientation as the roll spoilers on one wing. But it goes to show that crewmembers may not actually be looking at what the flight control page is specifically showing. That is ... until they read this accident report!

This isn't the first time this has happened on the ERJ family. It is also possible to reverse pitch control.

Hi: Thanks God it was only an incident.
Too many savvy aviation rules ignored. For instance, after Maintenance on Heavy Checks, a final check was use to be perform and SIGNED by a Certifying Technicians and an Inspector!, to be able to discover any introduced in the Check, error.
Before first day’s flight, a crew performed a Flight Control Check, with full flight crew on place and a a Technician on ground with Head set on, telling crew about any surface movement and checking, at the end for any discrepancy or leak on FC.
Nowadays, when people who participate on aircraft maintenance had evolved and are mistakes-free, a reduction on man power with a $ criteria, this “non necessaries” task, are gone..
What I dislike the most is that “Money Counters” will never appears on the authorities reports.

Rgds