Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Quoting Tu204 (Thread starter): The flight data recorder showed that the left engine was set to idle after landing but when Shabanov decided to shorten the landing run on the wet runway and turned on the reverse of the right engine, the left engine went to Maximum Thrust. |
Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 3): This isn't a malfunction of the engine. This could very well be an aircraft control system fault combined with crew error. P&W have no fault in this crash other than their engines were powering the aircraft. |
Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4): When thrust reversers are selected after landing, doors move into place to direct engine thrust forward (instead of backwards). Also, the engine power increases to takeoff/go-around thrust. |
Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 9): Well Mika, I'm an A&P mechanic so I do happen to know a little about what parts are engine parts provided by the engine manufacturer and what parts are airframe parts provided by the airframe manufacturer. Crashes are almost always a chain of events. Remove any link in that chain and the crash doesn't happen. I understand that the crew may not have had time to react in this situation but it still could've been caused by something they did in the first place. Notice that I didn't say this is what happened. I said this is what could have happened as all speculation is. The original poster is immediately blaming the engine manufacturer for what appears to be a fault in an airframe system or component. Now then, its also possible that some procedure wasn't followed by maintenance personnel when they locked out this reverser. The engine responded to an input. That input wasn't the desired input but it came from an airframe system, either something mistakenly selected by the pilots or not. The engine itself isn't the cause of this crash. |
Quoting Tu204 (Thread starter): Why this happened must now be explained by the american engine manufacturer. (P&W) |
Quoting Mika (Reply 7): I sincerely doubt that you are in any position to make statements like that. |
Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 9): |
Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 1): It is cruel to judge in the comfort of an air-conditioned hotel room chilling out but it can't have been difficult to establish that assymetrical reverse thrust was the reason the aircraft wasn't doing what it was supposed to do. |
Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4): When thrust reversers are selected after landing, doors move into place to direct engine thrust forward (instead of backwards). Also, the engine power increases to takeoff/go-around thrust. |
Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4): Let me stress restraint and ask everyone to wait for ALL the facts to come out. Speculation will do no good in honoring the memories of those who have died. Strides in aviation safety have always come at the expense of people's lives. Let's hope something beneficial can come out of this. |
Quoting CruzinAltitude (Reply 20): Quoting Aviator27 (Reply 4): Let me stress restraint and ask everyone to wait for ALL the facts to come out. Speculation will do no good in honoring the memories of those who have died. Strides in aviation safety have always come at the expense of people's lives. Let's hope something beneficial can come out of this. All who second this motion say Aye! |
Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 9): Well Mika, I'm an A&P mechanic so I do happen to know a little about what parts are engine parts provided by the engine manufacturer and what parts are airframe parts provided by the airframe manufacturer. Crashes are almost always a chain of events. Remove any link in that chain and the crash doesn't happen. I understand that the crew may not have had time to react in this situation but it still could've been caused by something they did in the first place. Notice that I didn't say this is what happened. I said this is what could have happened as all speculation is. The original poster is immediately blaming the engine manufacturer for what appears to be a fault in an airframe system or component. Now then, its also possible that some procedure wasn't followed by maintenance personnel when they locked out this reverser. The engine responded to an input. That input wasn't the desired input but it came from an airframe system, either something mistakenly selected by the pilots or not. The engine itself isn't the cause of this crash. |
Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 9): Well Mika, I'm an A&P mechanic so I do happen to know a little about what parts are engine parts provided by the engine manufacturer and what parts are airframe parts provided by the airframe manufacturer. Crashes are almost always a chain of events. Remove any link in that chain and the crash doesn't happen. I understand that the crew may not have had time to react in this situation but it still could've been caused by something they did in the first place. Notice that I didn't say this is what happened. I said this is what could have happened as all speculation is. The original poster is immediately blaming the engine manufacturer for what appears to be a fault in an airframe system or component. Now then, its also possible that some procedure wasn't followed by maintenance personnel when they locked out this reverser. The engine responded to an input. That input wasn't the desired input but it came from an airframe system, either something mistakenly selected by the pilots or not. The engine itself isn't the cause of this crash. |
Quoting Miamiair (Reply 11): What qualifications do you posess that allow you to make that judgement? |
Quoting LTU330 (Reply 18): Further to my previous post, as extra information, the Engine is only re-directing cold first stage fan air. None of the 'hot' air, as in air that has passed through the main compression stages and turbine stages is redirected |
Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 19): If it's true, it wouldn't be the first time that thrust reverser problems on PW powered aircraft contributed to an accident. |
Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 27): But we also know the SU incident, were over Siberia, a SU 310 crashed, because the pilot let his children into the cockpit, and his son deactivated the LNAV, meaning that the plane started to veer off to the right in a steep turn. And the plane eventually crashed. But all the Captain had to do was release the sitck, and the FBW would of put the plane back into proper flight position. |
Quoting Scarebus03 (Reply 29): A310 is not a fly by wire aircraft. The co/pilot in the crash you mention had the seat too far back from the controls to reach them in the ensuing dive after the inadvertent disconnection of the autopilot. |
Quoting Flaps (Reply 24): In addition, in order for the reversers to be engaged the throrttle must be lifted up and pulled back into the detent in order for the buckets to deploy. |
Quoting Tu204 (Thread starter): Why this happened must now be explained by the american engine manufacturer. (P&W) |
Quoting WildcatYXU (Reply 15): If it's true, it wouldn't be the first time that thrust reverser problems on PW powered aircraft contributed to an accident |
Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 3): This isn't a malfunction of the engine. This could very well be an aircraft control system fault combined with crew error. P&W have no fault in this crash other than their engines were powering the aircraft. Control systems, thrust reversers included, are airframe components made by the airframe manufacturer, not the engine manufacturer. |
Quoting Jeb94 (Reply 19): The engine didn't fail. It didn't hiccup. It didn't burst into flames. It didn't throw blades. It simply went to full power. Turbine engines don't go to full power on their own. They are commanded to go to full power. |
Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 1): It is cruel to judge in the comfort of an air-conditioned hotel room chilling out but it can't have been difficult to establish that assymetrical reverse thrust was the reason the aircraft wasn't doing what it was supposed to do. |
Quoting DIA (Reply 33): Name one incident -ever- where an engine went to full power unprovoked (basically, on its own with no a/c systems (or human) telling it to do so). |
Quoting BoeingFixer (Reply 36): Ok... The JT8D FCU has a fail safe feature that if the FCU internal governor fails it goes to full power with no way to control it other than to shut it down. We were doing a post 'C' check run-up on a 737-200 and when starting #2 engine it accelerated straight through idle and right up to max power. It's a very startling thing to happen but is a safety feature of the engine and we shut it down immediately. I know you were probably looking for a NTSB incident but I can tell you it happens and has happened in the air resulting in shut-downs. |