Oops!
[url=http://avherald.com/h?article=4a2a6d90&opt=0]
http://avherald.com/h?article=4a2a6d90&opt=0[/url]
Looks like a new landing gear and 2 Engines to be replaced. Probably plenty of structural damage. Serious $$$.
Looks like a mishandled low speed rejected take-off due to asymmetric thrust.
If you end up in a situation where you have a huge amount of asymmetric thrust at low speed the [b]only[/b] thing you can do is cut the thrust to regain directional control. Rudder doesn't work at low speed and the nose wheel steering will be over powered by the asymmetric thrust.
This isn't trained even though it is a lot more difficult to handle than the standard engine failure at V1. You need to be quick or you're off the runway.
Engines can and will accelerate at different rates - which is why a lower thrust is initially set and when all engines stabilise at this setting you can advance the thrust to the take-off setting. (Example:- on the CFM 56 we set 50%N1 and when all engines are stabilised we set FLEX or TOGA thrust).
Just Another Day in Asia - Holiday Edition
-
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 am
Not in the books? = Don't know.
Not trained? = Don't know.
It's the "Monkey See - Monkey Do" approach to training. Seen it first hand at a S Asian Flag Carrier.
The only thing that surprises me is that the region doesn't see more accidents.
The solution (told to me by an airbus rep) is "more automation".
What could possibly go wrong?
Not trained? = Don't know.
It's the "Monkey See - Monkey Do" approach to training. Seen it first hand at a S Asian Flag Carrier.
The only thing that surprises me is that the region doesn't see more accidents.
The solution (told to me by an airbus rep) is "more automation".
What could possibly go wrong?
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 7 Replies
- 5063 Views
-
Last post by Slick Goodlin
-
- 3 Replies
- 2956 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 3 Replies
- 1547 Views
-
Last post by Colonel