Nice launch!

"0 to -$2.5M in under 1 second"

 

Nice launch!

"0 to -$2.5M in under 1 second"

I can't stand all the bad drivers -- and their expensive cars -- on the road today.

 

​

Transair flight 810, a Boeing 737 cargo plane, ditched in Mamala Bay off Honolulu, Hawaii, after experiencing an engine anomaly after takeoff. The captain sustained serious injuries, the first officer sustained minor injuries, and the airplane was destroyed.

As the aircraft climbed to an altitude of about 390 feet, at an airspeed of 155 knots, the EPR of the right engine dropped and the aircraft then began to yaw to the right. The co-pilot corrected the tendency by using the left rudder. He stated that engine number 2 (right) had failed, which was confirmed by the captain. Upon reaching 2000 feet, the first officer (who was Pilot Flying) selected flight idle thrust. In the meantime, the captain radioed Honolulu Tower that they had an emergency.

The captain then took control of the aircraft. Although it was determined immediately after takeoff that the right engine had failed, the co-pilot then noted that the left engine had failed. The captain accepted the copilot's assessment and took no action to verify the information and he moved the throttle of the right engine forward. He then instructed the co-pilot to run the engine failure checklist.

The captain then began to steer the aircraft back toward the airport. The aircraft continued to lose altitude and airspeed due to the captain using the failed engine for thrust. The aircraft impacted the water, eleven and a half minutes after takeoff, 5.5 miles southwest of Honolulu Airport. Both pilots were able to escape from the sinking plane.

The wreckage sank to a depth of about 105 meters and was salvaged in October 2021. The subsequent investigation shows that two high-pressure turbine blades of the right engine had fractured. They failed by stress rupture resulting from a loss of loadbearing material due to oxidation and corrosion.

Directors of Operations: How do your crews train in the simulator to ensure proper identification of the engine problem? Best practices also include not only identifying the problematic engine but also protecting the good engine(s) and guarding these controls, so they are not reduced or cut-off.

This accident includes:

- Technical factors (engine failure due to turbine oxidation and corrosion),
- Possible organizational factors (possible ineffective training, apparent lack of proper engine maintenance),
- Human factors (poor CRM, loss of aircraft control), and
- Environmental factors (the ocean provided the crew with a soft landing which enabled their survival).

Summary thanks to Flight Safety Foundation

 

View attachment 327073​

Transair flight 810, a Boeing 737 cargo plane, ditched in Mamala Bay off Honolulu, Hawaii, after experiencing an engine anomaly after takeoff. The captain sustained serious injuries, the first officer sustained minor injuries, and the airplane was destroyed.

As the aircraft climbed to an altitude of about 390 feet, at an airspeed of 155 knots, the EPR of the right engine dropped and the aircraft then began to yaw to the right. The co-pilot corrected the tendency by using the left rudder. He stated that engine number 2 (right) had failed, which was confirmed by the captain. Upon reaching 2000 feet, the first officer (who was Pilot Flying) selected flight idle thrust. In the meantime, the captain radioed Honolulu Tower that they had an emergency.

The captain then took control of the aircraft. Although it was determined immediately after takeoff that the right engine had failed, the co-pilot then noted that the left engine had failed. The captain accepted the copilot's assessment and took no action to verify the information and he moved the throttle of the right engine forward. He then instructed the co-pilot to run the engine failure checklist.

The captain then began to steer the aircraft back toward the airport. The aircraft continued to lose altitude and airspeed due to the captain using the failed engine for thrust. The aircraft impacted the water, eleven and a half minutes after takeoff, 5.5 miles southwest of Honolulu Airport. Both pilots were able to escape from the sinking plane.

The wreckage sank to a depth of about 105 meters and was salvaged in October 2021. The subsequent investigation shows that two high-pressure turbine blades of the right engine had fractured. They failed by stress rupture resulting from a loss of loadbearing material due to oxidation and corrosion.

Directors of Operations: How do your crews train in the simulator to ensure proper identification of the engine problem? Best practices also include not only identifying the problematic engine but also protecting the good engine(s) and guarding these controls, so they are not reduced or cut-off.

This accident includes:

- Technical factors (engine failure due to turbine oxidation and corrosion),
- Possible organizational factors (possible ineffective training, apparent lack of proper engine maintenance),
- Human factors (poor CRM, loss of aircraft control), and
- Environmental factors (the ocean provided the crew with a soft landing which enabled their survival).

Summary thanks to Flight Safety Foundation

Interestingly, and coincidentally, the FAA grounded Transair's fleet on the same day as this crash (the crash actually happened before the grounding took effect, but the order was approved before it), based on preliminary findings of poor inspections and maintenance. Eventually their Air Operator's Certificate was revoked because of dozens of flights made with engines that weren't airworthy.

 

Interestingly, and coincidentally, the FAA grounded Transair's fleet on the same day as this crash (the crash actually happened before the grounding took effect, but the order was approved before it), based on preliminary findings of poor inspections and maintenance. Eventually their Air Operator's Certificate was revoked because of dozens of flights made with engines that weren't airworthy.

Ordinary people tend to think of the FAA as too severe, or even bureaucratic. And although I have I have no doubt about it being the latter, I think that their extreme emphases for safety inspections and certifications is more than justified.

 

Aftermath of Hurricane Beryl in Toronto, Canada, 16 July 2024.

 

Ordinary people tend to think of the FAA as too severe, or even bureaucratic. And although I have I have no doubt about it being the latter, I think that their extreme emphases for safety inspections and certifications is more than justified.

As a young Ch. Officer in the first years of my career I harbored a secret rejection to those bureaucrats with the added bonus of being most of the time from foreign countries. In merchant vessel, the scheme to keep a vessel classified so she can go at sea with no limitations is a heavy burden for crews sometimes.

Once, when a surveyor, in a port somewhere abroad, was actively inspecting our lifeboats I realized that he was actually working for me and my personal safety. I changed my mind radically since then. Having sailed, with one fortunate exception, always in very old ships, some of them in the verge of the horror I appreciated what they did in our benefit.

IMO regulations have improved a lot after I quit my last lady in Singapore 30++ years ago.

When your are alone in the middle of nowhere, no matter automated emergency call, satellites, NAVTEX and who knows what else, you are still alone.

 

 

Soda cans are exploding on Southwest flights due to sky-high temperatures


https://www.npr.org/2024/07/19/nx-s...plode-southwest-airlines-flights-extreme-heat

 

Dale “Snort” Snodgrass



NO, this image has not been photoshopped! and NO, the pilot was not grounded!​

 

Dale “Snort” Snodgrass


NO, this image has not been photoshopped! and NO, the pilot was not grounded!​

Snort was killed in a crash due to failing to properly perform the preflight inspection (a flight control lock was left installed) and failing to do the specified "flight controls free and correct" check before takeoff. Apparently, he was being rushed that day and became a bit complacent. It's an ever-present risk.

I almost became a victim of my own complacency for similar reasons when I flew a pre-crashed aircraft from the Colorado Springs Airport to the Air Force Academy one morning. I was ferrying the aircraft back to the Academy and the weather was closing in and we were in a hurry to get in the air -- the flight is very short with the engine running for all of about twelve to fifteen minutes. I was taken down to the airport by one of the flight instructors and the two of us did the preflight. We did the entire checklist, but both of us were so focused on completing the specific items of the checklist as quickly as possible (and expecting there not to be any problems), the both of us missed the very obvious damage to the left wing tip and left horizontal stabilizer. I climbed in, fired up, flew back to the Academy, and did a very nice landing into one of the stronger crosswinds I had ever done (it was right on the certificated limits). I then taxied the aircraft to the hangar and parked the aircraft, then went home and crawled in bed (I normally worked overnight and slept during the day). About an hour later I get a call telling me to get to the airfield right away because there's an issue with the aircraft I just flew. So I go in and they take me to the hangar as ask me to look at the aircraft and see if I notice anything different about it, at which point I immediately see the damage. They were operating on the assumption that I had smacked the wing and tail on the ground when I landed and then failed to report it. I told them that the flight had gone beautifully and that I certainly would not have flown the aircraft had I known there was that much damage, and acknowledged that there was no excuse for not seeing that kind of damage during the preflight. They asked me I could envision any mechanism by which the damage could have occurred after I put the aircraft in the hanger, and I told them that that seemed virtually impossible.

So they did an investigation, interviewing me and the flight instructor that took me down there and assisted with the pre-flight (her story completely agreed with mine -- we insisted that we had done the complete preflight, but admitted that we were being rushed by incoming weather). They interviewed the three sets of instructors and cadets that had been doing night flights at Colorado Springs the night before (which is why the aircraft was there, since the Academy isn't equipped for night operations). All three instructors and the first two cadets indicated no problems, but the final cadet said that they had been hit by a strong side gust while taxiing in after the final landing and that the aircraft tipped and the wing and tail hit the ground. He said that the instructor told him not to worry about it. So that, at least, explained how the damage had come about and that I was not responsible. The final result was that I was grounded for thirty days, the instructor and I both had to take remedial training on proper preflight inspection techniques (and we both agreed that it was a reasonable and appropriate penalty and that we both actually learned a few useful tips on the proper attitude and perspective to approach the preflight with). I also had to give a safety briefing to the assembled pilots at the next monthly safety meeting on what had happened, what I had done wrong, what I should have done, and my recommendations for them so that they wouldn't repeat my sins. As for the instructor that failed to even enter the event into the aircraft's log or notify the aeroclub, and then lied about it to investigators, he was fired and had his instructor's certificate revoked.

For me, it was an eye-opening and humbling experience, but one that made me a better pilot.

 

As for the instructor that failed to even enter the event into the aircraft's log or notify the aeroclub, and then lied about it to investigators, he was fired and had his instructor's certificate revoked.

I'd agree that he got what he deserved ... but would one be able to recover said certificate if one did enough "penance" by attending extra courses and/or seminars or whatever ... or is said revocation permanent?

 

I'd agree that he got what he deserved ... but would one be able to recover said certificate if one did enough "penance" by attending extra courses and/or seminars or whatever ... or is said revocation permanent?

I forgot to mention that he had his commercial pilot's license revoked, too, but I seem to recall that his private pilot's license was not revoked (or maybe that was to be part of a later hearing, as I never heard anything more about him after that). My understanding is that a revoked license is permanently invalidated (unlike a suspended license which can be reinstated after the expiration of the suspension period). But, after a year, a pilot can reapply for a new license by repeating all of the exams, written, oral, and practical, and all training requirements that have time windows (such as so many hours within the two months prior to the flight exam). What I don't know is whether or not the designated examiner is allowed to take the revocation into account (or whether or not they are even made aware of it), but my suspicion is that they aren't.

 

I forgot to mention that he had his commercial pilot's license revoked, too, but I seem to recall that his private pilot's license was not revoked (or maybe that was to be part of a later hearing, as I never heard anything more about him after that). My understanding is that a revoked license is permanently invalidated (unlike a suspended license which can be reinstated after the expiration of the suspension period). But, after a year, a pilot can reapply for a new license by repeating all of the exams, written, oral, and practical, and all training requirements that have time windows (such as so many hours within the two months prior to the flight exam). What I don't know is whether or not the designated examiner is allowed to take the revocation into account (or whether or not they are even made aware of it), but my suspicion is that they aren't.

So what would've happened if he had reported the incident in the first place? ... I mean, of course I expect he wouldn't have been penalized or anything, but would he have had to pay for the repairs out of his own pocket or insurance?

 

So what would've happened if he had reported the incident in the first place? ... I mean, of course I expect he wouldn't have been penalized or anything, but would he have had to pay for the repairs out of his own pocket or insurance?

If he had done what he was supposed to, which was to enter the damage into the aircraft's log book (which is with the aircraft when it is being flown and which pilot's are required to review for open items before doing anything else), he would have been covered. He should also have reported it to the Academy Aeroclub at the first opportunity, which would have been the next morning at about the time we were getting ready to preflight the aircraft. I don't recall if the aeroclub had an answering machine or not (that was 09 Sep 2002), but it's unlikely anyone could have gotten word to us, since cell phones were uncommon then. What I would have done, in his place, is put some kind of big note on the pilot's seat or yoke saying that the plane was grounded due to damage to wings and tail. But there was no requirement that he do that. The Aeroclub would have reported it to the Air Force and probably the FAA, since I'm pretty sure it was considered a reportable mishap.

When he was called the next day and asked about the damage, he should have immediately acknowledged the incident and said that he forgot to make an entry in the logs. He probably would have gotten a firm talking to, since failure to do that set up what could have been a fatal mishap on our flight. As is so often the case, a number of minor failures by a number of people created a chain of events such that, if any one of them had not happened, would have made it so that the later flight would have never happened. But, apparently, he figured that he could avoid any blame at all by trying to claim that nothing had happened on his flight and that I had obviously caused the damage upon landing at the Academy and then tried to pretend I hadn't. I don't know how he thought he was going to get away with it. Perhaps he didn't think that the investigator would bother to question the Academy cadets, given that there is essentially zero chance of a cadet lying about something like this -- it would mean dismissal from the Academy if they did.

As for being held responsible for damages, that wouldn't have been the case. He was an employee of the aeroclub performing his assigned duties. The wind gust that caused the damage was beyond his control (plus, the cadet was at the controls at the time). The aeroclub's insurance paid for the repairs. If someone causes damage through willful abuse or gross negligence, the insurance company can go after them, but that wouldn't have been the case here.

Interestingly, I was caught in a similar situation at Colorado Springs one night when, after a night instrument lesson, we were taxiing back and a gust out of nowhere caught me and damn near ground looped the plane. I managed to keep the shiny side up and not bang anything, but my instructor asked me what the hell I did just as the ground controller made an emergency announcement to all aircraft about strong microbursts hitting the ramp areas, at which point my instructor just said, "Oh. Good job reacting. Let's get this thing tied down as soon as possible." I had already made the same assessment and stopped at the first row instead of going to the back row where they preferred that we park.

 

 

 

Brazen much?

Teen accused of derailing train, recording the crash and posting it online


​

The teenager, who reported the derailment to authorities, approached an investigator after the crash and asked what caused it. When the investigator said it was undetermined, he responded that “obviously a switch was flipped the wrong way,” according to court records.

He told the investigator he was a train enthusiast and showed him the video he had shot of the derailment, the records said.

 

RIP