There was a rumour that the controllers kept the longer runway free because a Polish bishop was flown home resting for ever in a coffin. Consequently LH2904 and other aircraft were sent to the shorter cross wind runway.

 

Interesting. I was referring to "something else" specifically weather related, but that's an interesting additional factor.

I'm still curious as to how the weather was "old."

I was referring to "something else" specifically weather related

 

I know...

 

The German wiki says: 'Auch die Mannschaft des Towers in Warschau wird im Unfalluntersuchungsbericht belastet. Sie habe keine aktuellen Wetterdaten besessen, da die Windinformationen nur mit Verspätung beim Tower eintrafen.'

 

about: 'Also the tower crew in WAW was blamed. They did not have actual weather data at hand, since weather infomation came in only with delay.'

I'm afraid I have never heard of that Robin, and something that has never been brought up with any of the outfits I have been involved in. It has always been to do with spool times.

 

What types are you refering to, also do you have link? very interesting, i will do some research myself.

 

Edit- well hey, you learn something new everyday, thanks for that info. I could only find a bit of info regarding a potential failure of one reverser. Is there anything further you can provide?

 

Cheers

That advice came as a result of a couple of accidents where thrust was put against a thrust reverser in-flight. The most notable was the Air Lauda crash in 1991. As a result one airline made it SOP that if you pull reverse on landing, go-around is no longer an option. This applied to any aircraft with reverse thrust capability.

 

Prior to the crash, the accident 767 had several incidents of REVERSE UNSAFE condition. On the accident flight it finally deployed during climb, spinning the aircraft. The thrust reverser on the 767 was modified as a result.

 

Another change was that if you get a REVERSER UNSAFE alert in flight, to shut down the affected engine. Previous advice was to idle it, and to continue operation if the alert disappeared. That was the result of a Fokker 100 that had uncommanded thrust reverser deployment in the cruise. There was a REVERSE UNSAFE alert, then the airflow grabbed the bucket and forced it into full reverse with an almighty bang. As the reverser mechanism is mechanically linked to the throttle in the cockpit, the lever went from cruise settting to the reverse position. What happened next defies belief, but basically one of the pilots (Captain I think) wedged himself between the aft bulkhead and the throttle lever, and forced it forward to full power with such force that he broke the mechanical linkages. This of course, put full power against the thrust reverser, and with that the aircraft stalled and crashed.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

I was aware of the Lauda 767 crash, will see if I can download the Fokker 100 crash report.

 

Thanks again, I'm wondreing if this whole thrust reverser on go around debate is still applicable on FADEC equiped aircrart? Anyway great to learn something new.

 

Kind regards

Yes.

 

It is just to mitigate the problem of the reverser not being locked after deployment during go-around, as the power can come on before the mechanism is locked.

 

Here is an interesting link: http://www.skybrary....t_Crew_Guidance

 

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Thrust_Reversers:_Flight_Crew_Guidance#Accidents_and_Incidents

 

Best regards,

Robin.

Great links Robin although I am pretty sure a software modification exists for FADEC equiped aircraft, I dont have access to my own docs till next week however a quick search brought this up.

 

Sorry for the long post..

 

It has been found during an actual landing operation that the re-stow of the thrust reverser

may not happen as desired if the throttle lever is moved back out of the reverse range, immediately (that is, within less than 0.2 seconds) after the thrust reverser has been commanded. Although unlikely, if a pilot subsequently chooses to perform a take-off, the airplane may get airborne with a partially deployed thrust reverser, which is an unsafe condition.

Since this condition exists and may occur in other airplanes of the same type and affects

flight safety, a corrective action is required. Thus, sufficient reason exists to request compliance with this AD in the indicated time limit.

 

REQUIRED ACTION:

Inclusion of a temporary limitation to the ANAC-approved Airplane Flight Manual

(AFM) to prohibit a throttle movement into the forward thrust range immediately following a thrust

reverser application; and installation of new engine Full-Authority Digital Engine–Control (FADEC) software.

COMPLIANCE:

Required as indicated below, unless already accomplished.

(a) Within the next 7 days after 21 Apr. 2006, the effective date of the original issue of this AD, revise

the Limitations Section of the ANAC-approved AFM to add the following statement:

"After applying thrust reverser, do not move the throttle back to the forward thrust range,

unless the REV icon on the EICAS is shown amber or green."

This may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the referred section of the AFM.

NOTE: The above limitation / procedure is not required if the engine FADEC software version

is the 5.30 or higher

The updated software probably prevents thrust above idle in the forward range until the reverser is stowed. That has two effects:

 

1) Delayed thrust response

 

2) If one engine locks ahead of the other, could result in undesired asymmetric thrust.

 

If go-around is still permitted, I'd wait for both REV indications to vanish before applying TOGA if I really had to do so.

 

Back on topic for a moment - I assigned the spoiler to an axis, and at the time where I got the call "NO SPOILERS", I had the spoiler FAIL to extend! It seems it being assigned to an axis does affect its operation. IT SOUNDED like it operated, but it seems it only disarmed itself. IT did work OK the time before (I landed without autobrake then went-around to try it again)

 

Best regards,

Robin.

I belive the F100 accident was TAM. When I was going through F100 school we learned about a few human error accidents that happened with the F100 all of which were done by TAM.

I didn't know that. Very interesting.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

1) Delayed thrust response

 

Yes, which is what I initially mentioned and what seems to be taught by operators. Btw I have always had a spoiler axis assigned so the problem must go deeper, although likely on the right track.

 

Kind regards

I haven't had a chance to really test this yet - I did one touch and go and it was after this that the spoilers failed to deploy, but also the aircraft touched down on the right mains first (not sure if FS knows the difference?) during the failed deployment.

 

I noticed the spoiler axis seems to be quite wide, with the spoiler only going to the next detent when passing through a certain value, so I'd be surprised if the axis itself had anything to do with it.

 

Best regards,

Robin.

It would be nice if PMDG comented on this but obviously they are very busy with the 777.

 

I have a feeling they coded quirks in this aircraft to mimic the real thing, the flare for example is very similar to the real machine.

 

I'd do some more tests but I'm traveling for a couple of weeks.

 

Lots of good ideas to try though

I haven't tested this enough to be 100% sure but it appears that every time I land after using the spoilers in flight at least once they seem to deploy automatically on landing. If I don't use them, somewhere around touchdown the spoiler handle disarms and I get no spoilers. I've been deploying them briefly even if I don't really need them and it seems to be the trick to making them work on landing. Maybe others can test my theory to see if it is a fluke.