4 ms·
The avherald reporting is better. And has photos of the damage. Currently they're calling this an accident, not an incident, and per 49 CFR 830.2 that's because
by cmurf 8y ago
The avherald reporting is better. And has photos of the damage. Currently they're calling this an accident, not an incident, and per 49 CFR 830.2 that's because of the substantial damage to the wing.
http://avherald.com/h?article=4c68c5a8&opt=0 http://avherald.com/h?article=4c68c5a8&opt=0
A passenger, who they confirmed was on the flight, says the pilot announced "a major computer failure".
The runway heading and wind conditions mean a crosswind takeoff. The plane would have a natural inclination to weather vane toward the wind (yaw right) and the right wing to have more lift (roll left). Proper crosswind takeoff counteracts this with right aileron and left rudder and slightly higher rotation speed. The left wing should have lifted sooner, not later, the idea being to bank into the crosswind to keep the airplane from drifting; and as the plane lifts off immediately establish a crab into the wind which then permits wings level flight and climb out while compensating for the cross wind in order to maintain a runway heading ground track. Anyway, the exact opposite happened.
I'm not sure which surprises me more, pilot error or computer error. Both seem incredible to me, and this report is eyebrow raising. Dragging a wing on takeoff is extremely dangerous, regardless of the frangibility of airport signage.
- mc32 8y agoIt looks like another plane’s jet blast from a 90 degree angle could be a possibility causing it to veer while taking off. [Speculation by poster Trixie on avherald]
- cmurf 8y agoFrom where? Takeoff runway is 31L, reportedly from intersection KE, therefore 04L isn't a factor, and it puts rotation around intersection PA. No one is going to be at takeoff power over there and not on a runway. Idle power wouldn't do this. If there's an uncommanded roll before V1, I'd expect aborted takeoff. So it's more plausible this happened after V1, and before Vr, which means the instigator was present for some distance.
- FPGAhacker 8y agoFrom a comment on avherald: > It is being discussed at American that as the aircraft was at rotation, JFK Ground had cleared a heavy jet into the ramp and he used a great deal of power to get moving. His jetblast, coming from a 90 degree angle to flight 300 on takeoff, is being considered a factor in the roll of the Airbus as it lifted off causing the displacement from the runway and the wingtip drag. > Powerful taxi thrust could most certainly be an factor. Many years ago I witnessed a DC-10 literally blow a small aircraft up and onto its nose, then onto its back during landing with the thrust of those DC-10 engines powered up while exiting the runway and turning 180 degrees.
- tyingq 8y ago"The avherald reporting is better. And has photos of the damage." The damage pics in the pprune thread are better. You do have to scroll a bit. Here's a direct link to the detailed pics: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/620410-aa-a321-takes-off-after-smashing-ground-sign-3.html#post10450077 https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/620410-aa-a321-takes-off...