Tan Flyr wrote:

well, once all the investigations at the site are done, somehow transfer it to a hanger..finish the paperwork for the insurance.Then remove the usable/rotable parts (maybe the engines too??)
Then cut it up and send to the local salvage yard. Sad way for a great aircraft to end her career.

Nah, leave it right where it is and turn it in to an aviation themed bar. Front entrance has just been created.

IIRC, wasn't there an outdoor restaurant/bar in that corner of the airport before they built that taxiway extension?

B737MAX wrote:

Are you 100% sure about that, mcdu…?

Left reverser INOP with the left HYD system INOP, really?

From the QRH procedure:

HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
PRESSURE (L ONLY)

MESSAGE:
L HYD SYS PRESS

- ENGINE PUMP SWITCH
OFF
- ELECTRIC PUMP SWITCH
OFF

NOTE: Inoperative items:
L autopilot.
L thrust reverser.

NOTE: PTU power may not be available if hydraulic
fluid is lost. If the PTU is unavailable, the
following are inoperative items:

Automatic speedbrake.
Nose wheel steering.
Flaps and slats hydraulic operation.
Landing gear hydraulic operation.

TRAILING EDGE FLAP DISAGREE and GEAR
DISAGREE checklists will be required if PTU
unavailable.

Do not use autobrakes.
Ensure speedbrakes extend before using R thrust
reverser.
Use differential braking.

END OF PROCEDURE
NNC 9-2
FAA APPROVED
REV:
DATe.
18
03/01/07

flyPIT wrote:

wasn't there an outdoor restaurant/bar in that corner of the airport before they built that taxiway extension?

Yes, it was named "La Candela"... The candle.

SJOtoLIR wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

wasn't there an outdoor restaurant/bar in that corner of the airport before they built that taxiway extension?

Yes, it was named "La Candela"... The candle.

Is it still there? Was it a good place? I used to operate in to SJO years ago, always wanted to check it out but never made it over.

flyPIT wrote:

Is it still there? Was it a good place? I used to operate in to SJO years ago, always wanted to check it out but never made it over.

No, it was demolished when the extension of the taxiway-south began, some years ago.
It could be in service more than 25 years. I was never there.
That was a perfect place for enthusiasts of aviation, especially on Sundays.
Many photos from the datebase were taken at La Candela.

Regards.

Boeing757100 wrote:

Sad that a 757 just left our skies.

Anyway, sorry if it seems like a dumb question, but in video that an above user mentioned, I don't see thrust reversers deployed? The pilots claimed that they had failure in the left hydraulic system, which impaired the braking. But wouldn't they have been able to deploy thrust reversers? Even if they only deployed the right thrust reverser, could they have done it slowly and gradually so the asymmetric thrust isn't as much of a problem? Would they not have overran if they did that? Sorry if it seems dumb but I was just wondering.
https://twitter.com/xbmpro/status/15121 ... V7eORoTClw

The right thrust reverser was visibly in use in the video, and the left engine had no reverser open. I noticed smoke from the wheels was being pushed back by the left engine.

So hot take right here- what if the pilots treated both engines equally, and engaged both reversers in the flight deck and advanced both throttles. As a result of the left reversers being inop, the left engine was producing high thrust instead of reverse thrust. That would’ve created a huge imbalance of forces, leading to a spin out.

I usually hate to speculate but I couldn’t help but see what others thought about this idea.

I saw this video analysis on YouTube. The poster was a 757 pilot, explains in detail the hydraulic systems, flaps use, procedures to be used in such a landing. He does raise questions as to how the pilots acted but also notes the possibility of a mx issue. This flight had a hydraulic system issue a few flights before in MEX. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPk23hPooKY

B737MAX wrote:

mcdu wrote:

Boeing757100 wrote:

Sad that a 757 just left our skies.

Anyway, sorry if it seems like a dumb question, but in video that an above user mentioned, I don't see thrust reversers deployed? The pilots claimed that they had failure in the left hydraulic system, which impaired the braking. But wouldn't they have been able to deploy thrust reversers? Even if they only deployed the right thrust reverser, could they have done it slowly and gradually so the asymmetric thrust isn't as much of a problem? Would they not have overran if they did that? Sorry if it seems dumb but I was just wondering.
https://twitter.com/xbmpro/status/15121 ... V7eORoTClw

On the 757 is you lose the left Hydraulic system you have to land F20. Some spoiler panels are inoperative, left thrust reverser is inoperative, nosewheel steering is inoperative. Use of differential braking is allowed and at the airport elevation and max gross weight they would have needed around 5,500’ of available runway. It should not have wound up doing a ground loop. Perhaps they had additional failures that are not know at this time.

Are you 100% sure about that, mcdu…?

Left reverser INOP with the left HYD system INOP, really?

Yes, really.

CoThG wrote:

B737MAX wrote:

mcdu wrote:

On the 757 is you lose the left Hydraulic system you have to land F20. Some spoiler panels are inoperative, left thrust reverser is inoperative, nosewheel steering is inoperative. Use of differential braking is allowed and at the airport elevation and max gross weight they would have needed around 5,500’ of available runway. It should not have wound up doing a ground loop. Perhaps they had additional failures that are not know at this time.

Are you 100% sure about that, mcdu…?

Left reverser INOP with the left HYD system INOP, really?

Yes, really.

Interesting. Is this typical of other models from the same era (767, A320, 744.. )?

I believe the green channel on the 320 does the same for the LH reverser... curious how the modern 787 and A350 electric architecture look (heads to Google...).

ltbewr wrote:

I saw this video analysis on YouTube. The poster was a 757 pilot, explains in detail the hydraulic systems, flaps use, procedures to be used in such a landing. He does raise questions as to how the pilots acted but also notes the possibility of a mx issue. This flight had a hydraulic system issue a few flights before in MEX. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPk23hPooKY

That's not any old video analysis - that's Juan Browne man! If you haven't been on his channel for at least a few years you've been missing out big-time.

But in the Airport the Movie 1970 the skidding plane stays on the runway..................(.."right rudder'.....)

https://youtu.be/yJ244ligibk?t=258

flyPIT wrote:

B737MAX wrote:

Are you 100% sure about that, mcdu…?

Left reverser INOP with the left HYD system INOP, really?

From the QRH procedure:

HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
PRESSURE (L ONLY)

MESSAGE:
L HYD SYS PRESS

- ENGINE PUMP SWITCH
OFF
- ELECTRIC PUMP SWITCH
OFF

NOTE: Inoperative items:
L autopilot.
L thrust reverser.

NOTE: PTU power may not be available if hydraulic
fluid is lost. If the PTU is unavailable, the
following are inoperative items:

Automatic speedbrake.
Nose wheel steering.
Flaps and slats hydraulic operation.
Landing gear hydraulic operation.

TRAILING EDGE FLAP DISAGREE and GEAR
DISAGREE checklists will be required if PTU
unavailable.

Do not use autobrakes.
Ensure speedbrakes extend before using R thrust
reverser.
Use differential braking.

END OF PROCEDURE
NNC 9-2
FAA APPROVED
REV:
DATe.
18
03/01/07

Thanks for sharing this!

B737MAX wrote:

Flat like Funchal?

You don’t mean this one which is built like a cake or the « Cassandra crossing »?
« Toto, we are not in Kansas anymore! » Good heavens, not my cup of tea.

Jgsushi wrote:

The right thrust reverser was visibly in use in the video, and the left engine had no reverser open. I noticed smoke from the wheels was being pushed back by the left engine.

So hot take right here- what if the pilots treated both engines equally, and engaged both reversers in the flight deck and advanced both throttles. As a result of the left reversers being inop, the left engine was producing high thrust instead of reverse thrust. That would’ve created a huge imbalance of forces, leading to a spin out.

I usually hate to speculate but I couldn’t help but see what others thought about this idea.

Interesting thought, and something that crossed my mind as well seeing the engine thrust mixing up the tire smoke. So is that really a possibility then? If the hydraulics malfunction cannot open the reversers, will the engine trust still increase in that engine? If that’s the case that easily caused this issue when deciding to use thrust reversers. Should have just let that puppy roll out.

Quoted from local media: DHL plane suffered an emergency two weeks before the accident.
It states the 757 experienced issues on the pressurization system at 10 000 feet above sea level in March and immediately returned to SJO.
It landed safely.
Authorities are evaluating all the scenarios.



Source: La Nación newspaper. San José, Costa Rica. April 09th, 2022.




.

flyPIT wrote:

I used to operate in to SJO years ago, always wanted to check it out but never made it over.

Watching carefully the videos once again, the 757 stopped very close to the old outdoor restaurant La Candela.
Due to the development of the south taxiway, the roads outside from the airport were modified and impacted such place.

Regards.

SJOtoLIR wrote:

flyPIT wrote:

I used to operate in to SJO years ago, always wanted to check it out but never made it over.

Watching carefully the videos once again, the 757 stopped very close to the old outdoor restaurant La Candela.
Due to the development of the south taxiway, the roads outside from the airport were modified and impacted such place.
Regards.

OK thanks for the update

SJOtoLIR wrote:

Quoted from local media: DHL plane suffered an emergency two weeks before the accident.
It states the 757 experienced issues on the pressurization system at 10 000 feet above sea level in March and immediately returned to SJO.
It landed safely.
Authorities are evaluating all the scenarios.



Source: La Nación newspaper. San José, Costa Rica. April 09th, 2022.

It's certainly got a pressurisation issue now !

Well, makes unloading the cargo easier with the new rear cargo door.

Coffee just nearly came out of my nose! Good one!

JannEejit wrote:

It's certainly got a pressurisation issue now !

Just quoting what I've read on local newspapers.

Jgsushi wrote:

So hot take right here- what if the pilots treated both engines equally, and engaged both reversers in the flight deck and advanced both throttles. As a result of the left reversers being inop, the left engine was producing high thrust instead of reverse thrust. That would’ve created a huge imbalance of forces, leading to a spin out.
.

Except that's not how thrust reverser controls work...

Juan Browne explains that you can in fact use the right reverser alone to help slow the aircraft upon initial touchdown, but you then want to stow it as airspeed declines to the point that you lose rudder authority for steering. They do seem to be stowing it just prior to the loss of control.

Fuselage seems to be weak. Compared to Asiana 777 this was lower speed, but broke farther from the tail. Although could be impact angle or cargo causing this.

miegapele wrote:

Fuselage seems to be weak. Compared to Asiana 777 this was lower speed, but broke farther from the tail. Although could be impact angle or cargo causing this.

Are you talking about forward speed, backward speed, or vertical speed. I couldn't tell, but from the video, it looked like at the point where they went down, the plane may have been sliding backwards. I would think that in most plane crashes, the plane isn't usually going backwards.

miegapele wrote:

Fuselage seems to be weak. Compared to Asiana 777 this was lower speed, but broke farther from the tail. Although could be impact angle or cargo causing this.

Unlike Asiana 214, this DHL flight went down an embankment about the same height as the fuselage, where the aft fuselage got caught on the ground causing it to twist in a weird angle.

The 772's tail grazed the wall going forward and separated near the aft pressure bulkhead.

I recall an A320 crash landing from around 2008 or so where the plane went off the runway to stop in an embankment, and the fuselage broke in two. That crash may be more comparable to this one as you have odd forces on the fuselage from the plane falling into a ditch (your fuselage bent-over-terrain).

trnswrld wrote:

Jgsushi wrote:

The right thrust reverser was visibly in use in the video, and the left engine had no reverser open. I noticed smoke from the wheels was being pushed back by the left engine.

So hot take right here- what if the pilots treated both engines equally, and engaged both reversers in the flight deck and advanced both throttles. As a result of the left reversers being inop, the left engine was producing high thrust instead of reverse thrust. That would’ve created a huge imbalance of forces, leading to a spin out.

I usually hate to speculate but I couldn’t help but see what others thought about this idea.

Interesting thought, and something that crossed my mind as well seeing the engine thrust mixing up the tire smoke. So is that really a possibility then? If the hydraulics malfunction cannot open the reversers, will the engine trust still increase in that engine? If that’s the case that easily caused this issue when deciding to use thrust reversers. Should have just let that puppy roll out.

Not how reverser control works. Throttle is its own lever, reverser has its own lever. When the reverser lever is actuated (pulled back to detent) it locks out the throttle lever. Continuing to pull back on the reverser lever increases engine thrust, but only to around 1.30 EPR+/-. However if the reverser doesnt deploy, you wont get the reverse lever to go back any further.

What happens when you have a package on board?

flyPIT wrote:

B737MAX wrote:

Are you 100% sure about that, mcdu…?

Left reverser INOP with the left HYD system INOP, really?

From the QRH procedure:

HYDRAULIC SYSTEM
PRESSURE (L ONLY)

MESSAGE:
L HYD SYS PRESS

- ENGINE PUMP SWITCH
OFF
- ELECTRIC PUMP SWITCH
OFF

NOTE: Inoperative items:
L autopilot.
L thrust reverser.

NOTE: PTU power may not be available if hydraulic
fluid is lost. If the PTU is unavailable, the
following are inoperative items:

Automatic speedbrake.
Nose wheel steering.
Flaps and slats hydraulic operation.
Landing gear hydraulic operation.

TRAILING EDGE FLAP DISAGREE and GEAR
DISAGREE checklists will be required if PTU
unavailable.

Do not use autobrakes.
Ensure speedbrakes extend before using R thrust
reverser.
Use differential braking.

END OF PROCEDURE
NNC 9-2
FAA APPROVED
REV:
DATe.
18
03/01/07

Well that's a big whole long list of many things potentially inoperative that mostly would have helped prevent this airplane attempting a sports-car style drift turn.

CitizenJustin wrote:

What happens when you have a package on board?

It gets to you a little late. I remember in 2009 seeing First Class mail pieces in the clear plastic USPS 'body bags' a month or so after the US Airways 'Miracle On the Hudson' flight. The mail had obviously been soaked and then dried, but it was eventually delivered.

mga707 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

What happens when you have a package on board?

It gets to you a little late. I remember in 2009 seeing First Class mail pieces in the clear plastic USPS 'body bags' a month or so after the US Airways 'Miracle On the Hudson' flight. The mail had obviously been soaked and then dried, but it was eventually delivered.

And if the address becomes illegible?

LAX772LR wrote:

We'll dub this, "the Etihad Ouchie"

Yikes!

Yes but Etihad was brand new & engine run up test without the wheels chucked. Different issues. and it cut the head off instead of the.....

CitizenJustin wrote:

What happens when you have a package on board?

You say, "Well, at least it's not on "Ever Forward."

rbavfan wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

We'll dub this, "the Etihad Ouchie"

Yikes!

Yes but Etihad was brand new & engine run up test without the wheels chucked. Different issues. and it cut the head off instead of the.....

No one said the scenarios had to be the same... at the end of the day, all anyone sees is two aircraft sitting on slopes, broken in "half"

AirKevin wrote:

mga707 wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

What happens when you have a package on board?

It gets to you a little late. I remember in 2009 seeing First Class mail pieces in the clear plastic USPS 'body bags' a month or so after the US Airways 'Miracle On the Hudson' flight. The mail had obviously been soaked and then dried, but it was eventually delivered.

And if the address becomes illegible?

Not much one can do then except open the mail piece and see if there's a delivery or return address inside. If not, then it's dead mail. Have also seen burned mail in 'body bags' that had been in fiery crashes while being transported by truck. But the address was still legible.