Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 06:11:03 PM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  AWE1702 at KPHL Nose Gear Collapse on Takeoff
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: AWE1702 at KPHL Nose Gear Collapse on Takeoff  (Read 6623 times)
cptbrw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« on: March 13, 2014, 08:51:44 PM »

US Airways Flight 1702 was on takeoff roll when, at some point, the nose gear collapsed.  A statement from US Airways quoted by local news states that a tire blew on takeoff and the pilot elected to abort the takeoff.  The statement continued saying that the aircraft (Airbus A320) had left the ground when the pilot elected to put it back on the runway. One passenger was quoted as reporting the plane took off and then returned to the runway nose first - "we were airborne, then struck back down by the nose."  The aircraft was evacuated and there were no serious injuries among the 149 passengers and 5 crew.

The audio doesn't reveal a whole lot except that the tower controller had difficulty trying to discern what the problem was.  Clip is in real time from the point where AWE1702 is cleared for takeoff.  I couldn't find any real relevant.interesting comms on the other PHL channels covered.
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #1 on: March 13, 2014, 09:17:23 PM »

"A US Airways Airbus A320-200, registration N113UW performing flight US-1702 from Philadelphia,PA to Fort Lauderdale,FL (USA) with 149 people on board, was accelerating for takeoff from runway 27L when one of the nose gear tyres blew causing the aircraft to veer off the runway. The crew rejected takeoff, the aircraft came to a stop off the runway with the nose gear collapsed. The aircraft was evacuated."

From:

http://avherald.com/h?article=471583da&opt=0

Sounds like she never left the ground...The nose gear tire blew, causing the aircraft to veer off the runway. The gear probably collapsed when it left the paved surface...
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
scott523
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2014, 10:54:11 PM »

Initial reports say the aircraft was rotating or in the process of rotating. A plane with a lot of fuel, it should have taken off rather than RTO. If the crash was worse than it was, a major fire could have resulted.

Also noticed the controller got ahead of himself and cleared the next aircraft after the crash. It wasn't until a pilot noted the crash that he cancelled the takeoff clearance. He should've wait until the aircraft was airborne before clearing the next.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2014, 11:05:36 PM by scott523 » Logged
KiloYankee
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 12


« Reply #3 on: March 13, 2014, 11:17:25 PM »

Initial reports say the aircraft was rotating or in the process of rotating. A plane with a lot of fuel, it should have taken off rather than RTO. If the crash was worse than it was, a major fire could have resulted.

Also noticed the controller got ahead of himself and cleared the next aircraft after the crash. It wasn't until a pilot noted the crash that he cancelled the takeoff clearance. He should've wait until the aircraft was airborne before clearing the next.

According to a witness who first reported the story on A.net (before any news was carrying it): "Whoa. I just saw what I think was a US A319 or 320 get airborne, bounce once, then come down again and the nose gear collapse on takeoff on runway 27L, watching from the US lounge in A-West."  So I think the controller did wait until the aircraft was airborne.
Logged
scott523
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2014, 01:17:47 AM »

According to a witness who first reported the story on A.net (before any news was carrying it): "Whoa. I just saw what I think was a US A319 or 320 get airborne, bounce once, then come down again and the nose gear collapse on takeoff on runway 27L, watching from the US lounge in A-West."  So I think the controller did wait until the aircraft was airborne.

Perhaps he did.

I think he wanted to clear the departures ASAP without delay by timing it right, assuming he could instruct RPA3297 to start rolling and RPA3398 to line up in 15 seconds while AWE1702 is safely airborne.

I would wait 15 more seconds before issuing takeoff clearance to make sure the aircraft taking off is clear of the RSA and safely airborne.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2014, 01:49:23 AM by scott523 » Logged
klkm
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 55


« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2014, 08:56:27 AM »

Clearly the controller was anticipating having plenty of separation on the next departure, and in fact, the delay was long enough for the pilot/controllers to notice at roughly the same time to abort the next takeoff.  You wait an extra 15 seconds between every plane you are dropping a 60 departures an hour rate down to 48/hr, you will be running hour plus delays every day in no time. 
Logged
tyketto
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 913


« Reply #6 on: March 14, 2014, 01:37:21 PM »

Clearly the controller was anticipating having plenty of separation on the next departure, and in fact, the delay was long enough for the pilot/controllers to notice at roughly the same time to abort the next takeoff.  You wait an extra 15 seconds between every plane you are dropping a 60 departures an hour rate down to 48/hr, you will be running hour plus delays every day in no time. 

This is correct. In fact, he was implementing 3-9-5 and 3-9-6 from the .65:

Quote
3-9-5. ANTICIPATING SEPARATION

Takeoff clearance needs not be withheld until prescribed separation exists if there is a reasonable assurance it will exist when the aircraft starts takeoff roll.

3-9-6. SAME RUNWAY SEPARATION

Separate a departing aircraft from a preceding departing or arriving aircraft using the same runway by ensuring that it does not begin takeoff roll until:

a. The other aircraft has departed and crossed the runway end or turned to avert any conflict. (See FIG 3-9-1.) If you can determine distances by reference to suitable landmarks, the other aircraft needs only be airborne if the following minimum distance exists between aircraft: (See FIG 3-9-2.)

1. When only Category I aircraft are involved- 3,000 feet.

2. When a Category I aircraft is preceded by a Category II aircraft- 3,000 feet.

3. When either the succeeding or both are Category II aircraft- 4,500 feet.

4. When either is a Category III aircraft- 6,000 feet.

In this case, the A320 and E170 are in the came category. so 6000ft would have insured enough separation to give RPA their takeoff clearance.

BL.
Logged
ridejumpfly
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #7 on: March 14, 2014, 07:01:47 PM »

IF the crew elected to abort after beginning to rotate then they are done. This violates everything your taught. I get that with a dual engine failure it's the only option but a blown nose tire..... I choose to think they were prior to v1 and pulled the nose up to reduce weight on the wheel. With the speed and acceleration maybe they over did it and got airborne, at the same time engines are being pulled to idle and the plane dropped out from under them causing the Bounce and subsequent collapse. But I am only guessing.


Justin whetstone
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!