Centurion

We need a Federal Law that says 30 days in jail for going down a a emergency slide with any luggage. You have to appear before a judge to get sentence reduced to a minimum of 24 hours.

scottsam66

Bag envy???

scottsam66

So you sacrifice comfort every time you fly, for a one in a million chance you'll have to be evacuated in an emergency situation?? A bit irrational, IMHO. but then again, I find the doomsday preppers to be crazy too.

scottsam66

Delete

pa3lsvt

I sacrifice a *small* amount of comfort (nothing different than how I walk around all day, phone and wallet in pocket).

Now, if I said I left my coat, hat, and gloves on during takeoff from cold climates - that would be irrational. Carrying my phone and wallet in my pocket isn't.

I also leave my seat belt on at all times when seated and actually take the time to read the emergency card and locate the nearest two exits any time I fly on unfamiliar equipment. To me, to do otherwise is irrational.

Feel free to do as you choose, but please read the report posted earlier in this thread about the dangers of pax with bags during an evac before you fly next.

Staymates788

This. I landed back home at SNA one day... turn off the runway and you hear a few belts unbuckle. Out of no where (as stuff typically happens) plane brakes HARD. Comes to a complete stop VERY quickly. What happened to the people who took off their belts? Face planted the back of the seat in front of them.

What happened? Almost ran over a small Cessna (we were in a 737).

BoeingBoy

I wasn't there so can't assess the FA's behavior, but they're trained to assess the situation outside before opening the door. It may have been the tail-high attitude that caused her to not open either rear door, although he/she should be shouting "turn around, go forward, these exits are unusable". However, this may have been their first real evacuation and one never knows how anyone will react until they're actually in the situation.

The NTSB will get everyone's contact information and be interviewing those passengers it deems necessary. But that will be in the days ahead, not within minutes/hours after the accident.

Jim

BoeingBoy

I've never seen that, but V1 can have a calculated reduction when there is extra runway available while Vr is not reduced so there would generally be a bigger difference, not a reversal of the two speeds.

One only needs to remember what the two speeds mean:

V1 = in theory the speed at which it takes the same amount of runway to stop as to get airborne. Generally it assumes an engine failure at V1 - the worst case for continuing the takeoff. Winds don't enter into the calculation as best as I remember.

Vr - the speed at which the nose is raised to the initial take-off attitude. Keeping the nose gear on the runway helps acceleration - having the nose up adds aerodynamic drag so reduces acceleration. So the plane shouldn't be airbourne at a speed less than Vr plus a few kts for the time it takes to raise the nose.

You mentioned DEN I believe and in the summer that's a good airport to watch planes taking off. Because planes fly on true airspeed and the indication in the cockpit is indicated air speed, you'll see almost all transport sized planes lift the nose at indicated Vr then roll along on the main wheels until reaching the true airspeed Vr. On the old 727 the difference was about 1000-1500' of runway.

Jim

phlwookie

A post over here indicates a tail strike was involved: http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/5...-at-phl/page-4

I can't verify the source or the picture of the tail strike being of N113UW, but I also have no reason to disbelieve it. A tail strike could have occurred on initial rotation before the accident sequence got my visual attention. I haven't seen accounts from those on board indicating a tail strike, and a hard one should have been noticed on board.

BoeingBoy

It could have also happened on the first bounce if whoever was flying pulled back hard at the last moment in an attempt to slow the sink rate - the trajectory of the plane doesn't change instantly due to inertia.

I can't put a number on the attitude required, but tail strikes usually happen with the longer A321 on takeoff since the shorter A320 can tolerate more nose up without hitting the tail - IIRC, the A321 has a replaceable skid pad on the bottom of the tail to prevent fuselage damage. On a normal landing the attitude is nowhere close to striking the tail.

Given that there would be some collapsing of the sheet metal with a cushioning effect and the mains hitting at almost the same time, it's not too surprising that the reports from people on board didn't mention it.

Jim

Survivor1702

I would like to thank phlwookie for posting this thread with your eye witnessed details. As a passenger on this plane, I've been searching for more details to what happened. What has been posted in the news leaves out A LOT of detail and made this crash seem as though it was a little skid down the runway. I was starting to believe I was going nuts, literally. What happened on that flight was extremely traumatic and it was a CRASH, twice!

Our flight began with the usual safety talk/demo. Our pilot came on welcoming us aboard, discussed ft. Lauderdale's weather, etc. and prepared us for a bumby ride the first 10min. Or so of flight.

As we speed down the runway for take off our plane had a huge shift/jerk to the left, at this time I think we were off ground or at least the very beginning of that. After that jerk I looked at my friend and said "that's not normal." Right after that we accelerated, which to me did not seem like the normal acceleration. It's hard to explain, as I know nothing about planes. But the acceleration was very forceful but at the same time felt as though skipping gears (does this make sense?) my initial thought to this was the pilot hit turbulence, which he prepared us for and was trying to get the plane through it. We then plummeted what felt straight down as I was in the back of the plane. After we hit ground we then accelerated much like the acceleration from the first crash. And my thought was "why the f--- is he still trying to get us in air." We then smashed the ground a 2nd time...hard. I believe I blacked out at this 2nd impact, as I do not remember the rocking back and forth and skidding as another passenger stated in a previous post.

The next thing I remember is the person in front of me standing up and screaming "what the f was that?"

It was then 30-60 sec. Before the pilot came on and in a monotone voice said evacuate the plane now. I say 30-60sec. Because there was enough time for the girl in front of me to turn to us and ask if this was our phone she found on the ground. There was enough time for passengers to remove their safety belts and start standing up. Then the mid section of the plane had passengers saying we're ok, everything is ok, calm down. I believe this what made some people to start gathering their belongings because of people saying we're ok. Honestly, both impacts hit the ground at a lot of force, there is no way anyone was thinking logically. We were all in shock.

The passengers in the rear of the plane however saw and smelled smoke and started to scream to get off the plane. This is when the pilot came on....

We then turned to the stewardess who looked like a deer in head lights. I don't fully blame her because I do believe she was in shock, however her passengers were looking to her for help and assistance and she was unable to deliver. She did hesitate for awhile. I do believe it was a passenger who finally opened the door for us.

Again, thank you phlwookie!! At this point I still am looking for answers as to what caused this.

Majuki

Thanks for your account of what happened. I am wondering if because some people started saying "everything's ok" is what started people to go and grab their bags? Many on here were quick to condemn those who grabbed their bags, but with the shock and then everyone seeming to be ok other than shaken after the landing there might not have been as much urgency to evacuate unless you were at the rear of the aircraft and smelled the smoke.

BoeingBoy

My guess is that they were using a reduced thrust takeoff due to the runway length and then pushed the thrust levers up to full takeoff thrust if not more. The normal reaction would be for the pilot flying to just push the thrust levers forward because they're looking out the windscreen and not at the thrust gauges - let the other pilot fine tune the thrust as time permits.

Jim

phlwookie

And thank you for your account, and I hope you're doing alright.

I also sent you a private message as an FYI.

DaviddesJ

It takes a lot longer than one might think for a jet engine to significantly increase or decrease its thrust. Several seconds.