Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 21, 2014, 06:24:49 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: NEW Follow LiveATC updates on Twitter and Facebook


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Listener Forum (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  Continental Airlines Flight jet skids off runway 38 hurt
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Continental Airlines Flight jet skids off runway 38 hurt  (Read 5755 times)
kyle172
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162



« on: December 21, 2008, 01:29:40 AM »

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/20/colorado.plane.fire/index.html
Logged

If you don't see it first then I probably will..
KILG
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #1 on: December 21, 2008, 05:29:03 AM »

This is just sad. I would love to hear some opinions about this.  Here's a a speculating question. IF the engine caught fire couldn't the pilots used the fire suppression system to put it out and continue with the take off instead of trying to abort? And climb out on the 1 engine and turn around to land? Either way no matter who's fault it was I think the pilots did a heck of a job. Theres not to many plane crashes with survivors.
Logged
swayze84
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2008, 01:19:40 PM »

Kudos to the crew in getting everyone out somewhat safely (shy of some broken bones and a couple of serious injuries).

Witness accounts are all over the map so speculating on the accident may not be well advised until we get some solid facts.  The fractured fuselage and separation of the port side engine indicate that things could have been much worse.

One of the passengers on the flight twittered as the events were unfolding.  For those interested, it starts on page two: http://twitter.com/2drinksbehind (caution, strong language in his first post on the crash).
Logged
ZippinZim
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2008, 07:28:21 PM »

Theres not to many plane crashes with survivors.

Are you kidding?  MOST crashes have 100% survivability.  You just don't hear about them.  And MANY MANY terrible crashes have some survivors.  Let's be careful making statements like this.  Keep in mind the media dramatics that make things "newsworthy".
Logged
Check Pilot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2008, 12:41:30 AM »

It appears that on the take-off roll something happened ( and thankfully everyone got out) but the video's show that they had """Lost and Engine""" tongue
Logged
jrsx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 39



« Reply #5 on: December 22, 2008, 01:13:07 AM »

but the video's show that they had """Lost and Engine""" tongue

video's ?
Logged
Check Pilot
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2008, 01:38:31 AM »


Not videos but a lot of photos.

http://www.9news.com/9slideshows/gallery.aspx?slideshowname=Continental1404&N=8
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2008, 08:08:10 AM »

An NTSB representative today discussed the fact that up to a 30 knot crosswind existed at takeoff roll.  A strong crosswind gust that may have caused a loss of control at takeoff and possible engine failure on the left side were two of the more prevalent theories being investigated.

Oh, and the odds of surviving a commercial aircraft accident have never been higher.  Over 90% of all accidents result in most or all passengers surviving these days.  Here is one cite:     http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,59770,00.html

edit:  statistic
« Last Edit: December 22, 2008, 08:15:23 AM by KSYR-pjr » Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
mhawke
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 106


« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2008, 10:09:44 AM »

the video's show that they had """Lost and Engine""" tongue

There aren't any video's of the event happening that anyone has seen or admitted to.


Really have to wait until the Voice recorder and data recorder are read an analyzed.  Even eye witness accounts are generally not realy reliable (as anyone who does accident investigations will tell you).

Some people have taken that the left engine is off the wing as a sign that it lost the engine.  The engine mounts are designed to break if the stress becomes too high for the wing to handle.  Its preferable for the engine to break free rather then tear the wing off the plane.


I was surprised to hear in some of the eyewitness acounts that people stopped to grab their luggage on the way out.  (Guess I shouldn't be surprised, based on the number of people who don't pay attention to the safety briefing or think seat belt signs don't apply to them).  If someone between me and the door stopped to pull their luggage out of the overhead or the seat in front of them, I would crawl right over the head to get out.

Logged
atsugi
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #9 on: December 24, 2008, 08:40:41 AM »

Quote
I was surprised to hear in some of the eyewitness accounts that people stopped to grab their luggage on the way out.

That bothered me as well. My life is more important than a piece of luggage. It kinda makes me sad that people would put worldly possessions above their safety.
Logged
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #10 on: January 04, 2009, 12:28:47 PM »

Aero-news just posted an article about the NTSB report speculating about the winds that day as a possible contributor to the crash:

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?contentBlockId=00e5831e-e7db-4727-891e-a20b5de5fa52
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
otto_pilot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



« Reply #11 on: January 04, 2009, 01:55:31 PM »

OK if the winds were 290 @ 24 g 32. the magnetic runway heading was 350 so they were takingoff a Boeing 737-500 with winglets in a 24 knot crosswind. for that plane with the winglets the max demonstared cross compent is 32 knots. Lets all remember as well any pilot knows that the atis is not updated as much as it should be sometimes. So what I'm getting at is the winds could have been stronger at the time. Now i know these guys are professionals but i feel the winds could have been an issue. it just seems logical with the information that is known. I have know idea how hard it is to take a 737 off in 24 knots, all i know is a C-172 is a B**ch to takeoff or land in an 8 knot crosswind and the demonstrated for that plane is 15kts, but who am i. I'm not a pro or a test pilot.  So i could be very very wrong
Logged

tower: right delta ground point niner
pilot: Uh tower did you mean to say ground point 8 or do you want us to try them on point 9.
tower: Oh yea point 8 would work better, wouldnt it
KSYR-pjr
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1722



« Reply #12 on: January 04, 2009, 02:22:10 PM »

Lets all remember as well any pilot knows that the atis is not updated as much as it should be sometimes. So what I'm getting at is the winds could have been stronger at the time.

It is indeed true that the ATIS is not always "fresh" but controllers have access to instruments that show them winds right at that moment and the tower controller will issue the most recent winds (presumably from this wind readout instrument, not from the ATIS) with the takeoff clearance.

Based on what little I have read of this accident it was not the sustained winds but rather the gust factor that may have been the concern by the NTSB.
Logged

Regards, Peter
ATC Feed:  Syracuse (KSYR), NY
otto_pilot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



« Reply #13 on: January 04, 2009, 10:05:37 PM »

see you have a point with the winds being given at takeoff. i don't know about every airport but the ones i fly to or from do not always do that. I can think of a few times they did for me. Even when the do that and I'm flying a c172 mind you its tough to think about that current NEW information when running a line up checklist. As long it is not too different from whats herd on atis I would dare to say most especially GA (i know this is not a GA accident) would barely think twice on that info. Let me pose this question to you. You get the atis and your about three out for the runway and call for a wind check, would you say every pilot out there finds the exact cross compent or is just looking for a ballpark number. That info is given to you by a controller when your workload is especially high. the gust factor is an issue and what i would assume could have very easily caused the crash. Gusts can be tough to deal with.(At least in a small plane.) But as i said before i am only a young GA pilot at this point in my life so who am i to say. 
« Last Edit: January 05, 2009, 09:08:02 AM by anthonychibnikC172 » Logged

tower: right delta ground point niner
pilot: Uh tower did you mean to say ground point 8 or do you want us to try them on point 9.
tower: Oh yea point 8 would work better, wouldnt it
Planemusic
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2009, 02:03:26 PM »

One thing that was not mentioned in forum is Density altitude.  Denver airport is over 5200 feet.
The aircraft appeared to rotate after less than 2000 feet down a 12000 foot runway.
Considering the gust factor, I suspect the density altitude was not calculated.
Any pilot knows that he must take a longer takeoff run in thin air.   It appears once the nose gear
lifted the gust spun the plane.
The NTSB has been silent.  Let's see what they find as probable cause.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 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!