Jump to content

CO Incident at DEN

blues deville

By blues deville
in Airline Aviation Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest rattler

Guest rattler

Posted
Posted

Update:

DENVER - As a new day dawns on the wreckage of Continental flight 1404, which skidded off the runway on Saturday, investigators prepare to get their first look in the daylight.

The Houston-bound Boeing 737-500, packed with 110 passengers and five crew members, skidded off Denver International Airport's runway 34-Right and into a ravine at 6:18 p.m. on Saturday, at the height of the holiday travel season.

Authorities say the crash injured 58 people, two of whom are listed in critical condition. Several ambulances responded to the scene, transporting the injured passengers to a number of local hospitals. Broken bones, wrenched backs and shortness of breath were among the injuries reported from the accident.

The National Transportation Safety Board will investigate the aircraft, which veered 200 yards off the runway and caught fire as it tried to take off.

Firefighters say they were met with heavy flames as they arrived on scene - the entire right side of the aircraft was engulfed. The flames soon spread inside the aircraft and were so hot, they melted the overhead luggage bins, which dripped onto the seats below.

Denver Fire Chief Patrick Hynes described the aftermath as "like a movie scene."

"Our rescue crews responded immediately," said Jeff Green, a spokesman for DIA. "The crash actually happened near one of our four airport fire houses."

Green says the fire crews train at least weekly at a minimum on situations like the one that unfolded on Saturday night. Firefighters practice extinguishing jet-fuel fires, and practice entering aircraft of various configurations, in case they need to fight a fire onboard, as was necessary on flight 1404.

"I think the story speaks to the training, not only of the airport rescue crews, but also of the airline crew onboard the airplane and acting quickly to deploy the chutes and get everyone off the plane as safe and as quickly as possible," said Green.

The NTSB will be on scene on Sunday, along with officials from Continental Airlines, who will be part of the investigation.

Among the items which will be under review includes whether the aircraft every got airborne. Some passengers believe it did, briefly.

Hynes says judging from the debris scattered across the runway, it appears the plane did get into the air. He says the wheels of the jet were sheared off.

Investigators will also try to determine whether the jet was ablaze before or after it skidded off the runway.

Meanwhile, the airport says it plans to operate as best it can, but Green advises passengers to check their flight status and to give themselves as much time as possible.

Following the accident, the west airfield of DIA was closed, but Green says one of those three runways has since reopened. He says they hope to have a second runway on the west airfield open Sunday morning, which would mean the airport would have five of its six runways operable.

"We're hoping to keep delays at a minimum, at least as far as airport operations are concerned," said Green.

(Copyright KUSA*TV, All Rights Reserved.)

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?sto...06332&catid=339
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest rattler

Guest rattler

Posted
Posted

The slide show clearly shows the flaps to be deployed, per normal ops. Local news report says there was a 37MPH cross wind at the time of take off but then goes on to state that the crosswind component was within limits for the aircraft.

Slide Show:

http://www.9news.com/9slideshows/gallery.a...inental1404&N=8

The fact that all got out before the fire enveloped the passenger cabin underscores how well trained Flight Attendants are and the real reason they are onboard.

Can you just imagine, night time, violent crash, fire, panicking passengers............

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blues deville

blues deville

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The daytime video looks bad. The plane is a writeoff. Only one engine appears salvageable. The hull is split. Bad outcome. Hope all recover mentally as well as physically.

Do you mean the one stting on its side 20 feet from its mounting bolts or the one with the cowling open ready for its next pre-flight inspection?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Check Pilot

Check Pilot

Posted
Posted

A bit of an update:

NEW YORK, Dec 21 (Reuters) - Braking problems may be to blame for a Continental Airlines (CAL.N) flight running off a runway in Denver, Colorado this weekend, according to an online report in The Wall Street Journal on Sunday.

On Saturday, a Continental-operated Boeing 737 failed to take off from Denver en route to Houston. The jet subsequently ran off the runway, dramatically catching on fire, and leaving an estimated 38 of those on board with injuries.

The Journal, citing people familiar with early data gathered by investigators, said preliminary indications point to a braking malfunction.

No safety officials have officially commented, according to the report.

Neither Continental or Boeing was immediately available for comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Specs

Specs

Posted
Posted

Listening to some of the passenger comments on CNN I think it's the umpteenth time I've pax complaining about other passengers retrieving stuff from the overhead bins.

Perhaps locking bins during t/o and landing should be looked at.

It would certainly increase the use of underseat stowage. Not sure if that raises a whole other bunch of issues though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blues deville

blues deville

Posted
  • Author
Posted

'a braking problem' could be many things, including forgetting to arm the RT0

Do you mean having problem below V1 and forgetting to arm the RTO brakes or something else? By the way, what is the Boeing max. demonstrated x-wind for a 737-500 series aircraft?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
Do you mean having problem below V1 and forgetting to arm the RTO brakes or something else? By the way, what is the Boeing max. demonstrated x-wind for a 737-500 series aircraft?

RTO has nothing to do with it.

If you need brakes, you stand on them.

Let's see what the investigator's find.

Ain't it great being an armchair quarterback...Glad all will be around for Christmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest rattler

Guest rattler

Posted
Posted
Do you mean having problem below V1 and forgetting to arm the RTO brakes or something else? By the way, what is the Boeing max. demonstrated x-wind for a 737-500 series aircraft?

Not sure how accurate this site is but for what it is worth:

There is a small difference in rotation rate for aircraft with winglets installed and, as a result, the crew needs to be cautious of pitch rate. There is approximately a ½ unit take-off trim change between non-winglet and winglet aircraft so the green band is slightly different for winglet aircraft. Finally, the dry “maximum demonstrated” crosswind limit is slightly reduced with winglets to 34kts
http://www.b737.org.uk/winglets.htm
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don Hudson

Don Hudson

Posted
Posted

handyman;

...more likely the combination of a thrust issue and strong cross wind or just an excessive gust without compensation by the crew for one reason or another.

The crosswind was not especially strong - between 13kts and 24kts, from the left - nothing that wasn't well within the capability of the airplane and, likely, the crew.

The distance the aircraft travelled after leaving the runway, even given the snow-covered ground, is substantial so the speed the a/c had achieved would have been quite high.

The outcome was extremely fortunate. Given slightly different in-field terrain or a slightly earlier departure from the runway, (ironically colliding with the fire hall), this could have been another Madrid. (Photographs show that the slats and flaps were extended, btw.)

post-5-1229958586_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest rattler

Guest rattler

Posted
Posted

Don regarding the crosswind, apparently it was higher than originally reported.

Airport Officials said, the airplane experienced 30 knots cross wind during its takeoff run.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4120efc0&opt=0

Apparently though still within limits.

Another report has said the wind was gusting at the time of takeoff and yet another questioned the wind cocking effect of the winglets.

This time around however, the crew (thankfully) and the flight recorders are both available and able to report the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Don Hudson

Don Hudson

Posted
Posted

rattler - re xwind - Hm, I'm not sure I'd take "airport officials" word on a technical matter - somehow I don't think they would know how to calculate a crosswind and are just looking at the windspeed. I was just using the published METARS closest in time to the accident, (01:18Z):

KDEN 210053Z 28011KT 10SM FEW040 SCT100 M06/M16 A2997 RMK AO2 PK WND 29027/0000 SLP202 T10561161

KDEN 210134Z 29024G32KT 10SM FEW040 SCT100 M04/M18 A2998 RMK AO2 PK WND 28036/0123

Rough crosswind calculation would be:

340deg - 290deg = 50deg xwind angle; Sine of 50 deg = 3/4's, or 0.766 approx, x 32kts = 24kts, approx.

KDEN 210153Z 30018G28KT 10SM FEW040 SCT100 M05/M17 A3000 RMK AO2 PK WND 28036/0123 SLP202 T10501172

KDEN 210253Z 29018KT 10SM FEW040 BKN100 M05/M18 A3002 RMK AO2 SLP205 T10501178 51027

The DFDR and the QAR, (Quick Access Recorder - Continental has a vibrant FOQA program with which Flight Operations is fully engaged and has been for over a decade), will have the most accurate data of course.

Photo of the right side:

post-5-1229961481_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...