TomcatViPThere is the Hypo that poor drainage of fuel system (omissions / no time or quality carb) might have resulted in the engine stopping. Hence, the Pilots might have seen the No. 2 shutting off after it sputtered (see FDR graphs) and then right after that seen the same thing occurring on No. 1 The immediate reaction of a pilot would certainly be to reduce the gas on nbr1 to prevent another engine shut-off (what we see on the graphs).
Also, if the Chief pilot ordered its second to restart the malfunctioning engine (n°2), the co-pilot seated on the right seeing that the engine on his side was still turning (feathered but propeller still turning ) might have thought that his chief pilot was wrong. Hence the restart sequence of nbr2 during 50 seconds before the Crew chief realizes the error of his second.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235160[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235161[/ATTACH]
The ATR72-600 IMA (Integrated Modular Avionics) is also derived from that of a jet (single action shut down in contrast with a two step for a turbo (feathering)). There might be something there to investigate.
The ATR 72–600 avionics suite is based on a latest-generation integrated modular avionics (IMA) concept certified for the Airbus A380 programme. IMA modules acquire and exchange data and can host multiple applications, and the modular architecture means that hardware and software can be developed independently. Compared with the shipsets for previous ATR aircraft, Thales has reduced the number of equipment items required, leading to significant gains in direct maintenance costs at the same time as optimising communication between the different systems.
Source:
Thales Group
TomcatViPI think I get the gist of the methodolgy used: basically when a component fix is deemed effective, failures for the preceding unfixed component are no longer logged. According to the report, though, as Obligatory cites: “Failures of the older component were not being counted in the metrics at all anymore, but flight hours from all 100 aircraft were counted.”
I am not a statistician but I am an analyst programmer by profession and sometimes need to produce statistics. If I had come up with an analytical method whereby part of one set of data was discounted (pre-fixed component failures in this instance) but the related data (time element associated with that discounted data set) continued to be used in calculating the failure rate per hour of another data set (fixed component failures in this instance), I would have been sacked on the spot by any responsible principal.[…]
With all due respect, I think You didn’t catch something important here:
-1st: This is a gov monitoring program that trace its roots at a political level. They have merely always been dephased in time and number of occurrence. This is normal. They are not going to employ the same nbr of technicians and engineer as LM does! As I have said on an other forum, the way you observe affect what you see. Here they have been focusing too much on the details (due to the original needs and intentions), parting things that were not meant to be or had a degree of synergy (see Eisenberg principle).
-2nd: They are not fixing the prototypes/Pres-series/Intermediate bloks. Hence they are not tracking data of those. They are focused on the series. The one that would end to be built in large number. And this, as always during such a process, is a floating standards. Some form of it are in the prototypes, some flying in the initial blocks and some on the production line… This is what they are after.
TomcatViPThe text bellow is pasted from the A320 gone Missing (QZ8501) thread:
The pilot should be trained to fly and manages “situations”, not to react to an increasingly complex Automated system. Monitoring Software have come a long way from all over the horizon of the tech. It’s now time to to bring all this in an appropriate manner in our planes.
It doesn’t makes sens that a 20+ year old with 6 month training can ctrl a UAS from the other side of the globe when a 20+ years experienced Captain standing behind the yoke can’t. Something is wrong.
Then […] we see that the pilot range of responsibility will evolve toward coping mainly with “Situations” . As envisioned, candidate profiled and screened for their 3D Space Awareness, trained in a flight simulator… flying and kept proficient throughout in-flight classes (instead of spending their time monitoring the FCS).
It could be something like that
– Level0: FCS as seen today
– level1: FCS Monitoring software (plane maker) – this where the liability and responsibility of the plane maker stop – this to ease the industries dialog toward a more responsible procedure (no more finger pointing b/w companies, Pilots association and Maker) and protect IP.
– Level2:Industry Monitoring Software (FAA) – Supervisor / Coordinator / Innovation – and secured database (open architecture and Mil grade anti hacking, regulations enforcement, flight route coordination etc.. all data refreshed before each flight via a cassette like hardware (security, safety, responsibility) ))
– Man-machine interface (simple) to rapidly de-activate totally or partially the FCS and reset the plane in a Fully controllable state (Frd CG etc…).
– Level3: Pilot
TomcatViPFragged seems more propable. Why would his wingman had used any A2A weapon ?
Source:
CBS News
Also:
Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh said Thursday’s military offensive is just the beginning.
He responded to the idea of sending in ground forces to battle ISIS.
“And we are not going to release our plans but it’s not just about increased air campaigns or sorties or combat sorties, it’s with everything that we have,” he said.
He made clear that Jordanian troops, which held joint exercises with U.S. forces in 2013, will take a lead role against ISIS militants.
“This is our fight,” he said.
TomcatViPI totally agree.
The pilot should be trained to fly and manages “situations”, not to react to an increasingly complex Automated system. Monitoring Software have come a long way from all over the horizon of the tech. It’s now time to to bring all this in an appropriate manner in our planes.
It doesn’t makes sens that a 20+ year old with 6 month training can ctrl a UAS on the other side of the globe and 20+ years experienced Captain standing behind the yoke can’t. Something is wrong.
Then, as praised in the “Stuntman” thread, we see that the pilot range of responsibility will evolve toward coping mainly with “Situations” . As envisioned, candidate profiled and screened for their 3D Space Awareness, trained in a flight simulator… flying and kept proficient throughout in-flight classes (instead of spending their time monitoring the FCS).
It could be something like that
– Level0: FCS as seen today
– level1: FCS Monitoring software (plane maker) – this where the liability and responsibility of the plane maker stop – this to ease the industries dialog toward a more responsible procedure (no more finger pointing b/w companies, Pilots association and Maker) and protect IP.
– Level2:Industry Monitoring Software (FAA) and secured database (open architecture and Mil grade anti hacking, regulations enforcement, flight route coordination etc.. all data refreshed before each flight via a cassette like hardware (security, safety, responsibility) ))
– Man-machine interface (simple) to rapidly de-activate totally or partially the FCS and reset the plane in a Fully controllable state (Frd CG etc…).
– Level3: Pilot
Note: the pilot, does not have to be seated in front, thus providing extra space for increased revenue with a fully exploited floor length. The pilot is alone or backed-up by a second member of the crew as spare.
TomcatViPSomewhat true, engine #2 failed, crew switched off fuel to #1…
Thank you Blue. Really interesting.
TomcatViPCase Closed: U.S. moves rescue assets to Iraq in fight against Islamic State
The United States has sent search and rescue assets to northern Iraq in recent days, bolstering its ability to recover coalition personnel in the U.S.-led air campaign against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria, U.S. officials said on Thursday.
Let say that they can react quickly. This is not an administration, this is a six barrel shot !
Meanwhile in Europa: ??? another peace plan in tri-partie (Ger/Fr and somewhat Ukr)…
And around the Euphrates river: The Kingdom Strikes back !
Jordanian fighter jets pounded Islamic State targets in Syria on Thursday, before roaring over the hometown of the pilot killed by the militants while King Abdullah consoled the victim’s family.
A statement from the Jordanian armed forces said tens of jets were deployed in the attacks, which destroyed ammunition depots and training camps run by the Islamic State.
Witnesses overheard the monarch telling the pilot’s father the planes were returning from the militant-held city of Raqqa.
(all) Sources:
Reuters
TomcatViPFrom my experience flying the OV-10 I can see this as a well understood phenomenom. In the OV-10, the propwash over the wing at takeoff (low speed, high power) contributed about 40% of the lift. If you suddenly lost one engine for whatever reason the natural human tendency was to maintain or increase power on the other engine. The result is to lose almost half the lift on the bad side while generating max lift on the good side. Looks like the same effect here. Lose the left, keep power on to try to maintain flight, try to hold the nose up, slow and approach the stall, the right wing generates a roll because of the lift imbalance and over you go.
Not a problem with enough altitude to ease the pitch and keep airspeed until you stabilize for single engine flight, but low and slow is a killer.
Another example from YouTube if it attached properly… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH5hs0B5Oks
Thanks for your testimony.
I had a similar opinion at first but tyhen watching the video two things made me swicth my mind toward the explanation above:
.1st: There is no sign of any yaw angle when the plane pass the building. At that slow speed, if only one engine was functioning it should be seen on the video given the angle of sight. I made the hypo that a fuel pump failure might have cut both engines (remember they just took-of)
.2nd: when the plane rolls 90deg, if there had been a trust assymetry with one engine at full power at the other dead and some rudder applied, th roll won’t have looked that much as axy symetric. It is noteworthy for me that the plane rolled around it’s axis and I can’t see anty reason for the pilot to have tried to keep manually the plane on that axis like an airshow pilot. IMOHO, this means that the plane had no trust on both side.
Best regards,
Tom
TomcatViPLooking at the plane diagrams, we can guess that they kept the same chord for the root of the external panel section and the same ailerons settings (chord ratio, span, geo). But as they extended the span of the wing, the chord length was also decreased in value.
My guess is that, as the pannel is made of composite, they modified the mold to keep cost down and reused all the same other parts. It seems there is also no twist or washout if someone can confirm this hypothesis.
Problem is that by keeping the same aileron, the changed the chord ratio b/w the wing and its aileron. The lifting (upward) force the pilot hence needs to apply requires more downward deflections for a given bank angle. With increased lift and increased L/W ratio, obviously, the local AoA is greater and the air is more decelerated above the rear portion of that section of the wing (Drag=F(Lift)).
This is aggravated by the less swept geometry. Less mass flow is washed over the aileron exacerbating the deflection of the aileron for a given result.
I think this is why also aggravated Icing was observed on the dash 600 in comparison of the 42. The airstream is more accelerated (camber with aileron deflection) and then decelerated faster (ratio of aileron vs chord at the tip) favoring the local condensation of the moisture.
This might have led to the stall of one wing prematurely if we do consider that the Pilot Manuals were not updated as can be seen in the extract cited by JBoyle above. Stall margin were not identical with the local pressure condition (pressure-> mass flow -> acression in the case of Icing and Aileron deflection in this case).
IMOHO, there might be some design flaw to suspect.
But by the way, here we have another heroic crew managing the impossible with an exemplary dedication to the value of human life. Those should score high on the Stuntmen scoreboard.
RiP
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235120[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235119[/ATTACH]
TomcatViPUAE pulled out of IS fight after pilot capture: report
The UAE foreign minister, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, asked Barbara Leaf, the new US ambassador, why the United States had not put proper resources in northern Iraq for rescuing downed pilots, a senior administration official said, according to the Times.
The divide between the United States and the United Arab Emirates is significant because the country has been the United States’ most stalwart Arab ally in the fight against the Islamic State. The country, a collection of oil-rich principalities, conducted more missions in the beginning of the air war than any other member of the international coalition. Its collection of F-16s attacked the militants in northern Iraq and Syria from the Al Dhafra air base in the United Arab Emirates.
The country was one of the first to join the coalition. In early September, even before President Obama had recruited the first members at a NATO summit meeting in Wales, Yousef Al Otaiba, the United Arab Emirates’ ambassador to the United States, issued a statement that his country stood ready to join the fight.
Source:
Yahaoo via TangoIII
TomcatViPThe problem with TP is the level of of vibration from teh engines. And the longer the fuselages are the stronger the level of vibration.Of course, there is now active damping such as in teh ATR and Q400. However, with bigger turboprop, the problem would be serious (think at the Tu95 crew).
Prop fan have never reached the market simply because the market can’t regulate itself for teh next 40 years in term of emissions just like noticed by a RR manager lately (I have to found the link alrdy posted somewhere). And it is more easy to improve an enclosed system than an open fan. But the tech is ready.
I have also noticed on the Mil thread a number of R&D project at long term toward the renewal of propfan studies through new tech in Russia. Maybe this will reach the civil market at one time or another.
TomcatViPyes. It seems that both engines lost power.
the video show that the pilot tried to maintain alt with a very low power setting but then stalled (passing that last building?).
The airplane took off from Taipei-Sung Shan Airport’s runway 10 at 10:51 hours local time and turned right, climbing to an altitude of 1350 feet. Instead of continuing the climbing right hand turn, the airplane turned left and began losing altitude and speed. Meanwhile, about 10:53, the flight contacted the Sung Shan Tower controller declaring a Mayday and reporting an ‘engine flameout’. It then turned to the right before banking almost 90 degrees left again as it hit a taxi on a viaduct. Parts of the left hand wing broke off upon hitting the barrier of the viaduct. The airplane impacted the Keelung River and came to rest inverted.
Source:
http://aviation-safe…p?id=20150204-0
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235115[/ATTACH]
TomcatViP……..really, an INCREDIBLE thing !!!..
here you can see it ‘in move’ ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOrj2cSDO-M
friendly,
Etienne
and, ‘just a nice pic’ ; http://deg3d.biz/posts/deg3D_Sea_Dart_IF.jpg
Enjoy!
TomcatViPCongratulations to Embraer!
+1
And long life to the most sexy airlifter of the lot
TomcatViPThere was a recent use of small UAS to smuggle drug across the San Ysidro/Tijuana border lately (California/Mexico).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]235056[/ATTACH]
Source:
The gardian via Google
Sign In
