Herkeng130 Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 From what I have read about 148895 it is believed to have had #1 and #4 decouple on take off (or flame out depending on what you read) Anyone know any more or what they found to have been the problem? Thanks in advance, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herkeng130 Posted November 20, 2007 Author Share Posted November 20, 2007 no one knows anything about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lkuest Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20020211-0 That\'s all I\'ve found on it. I would highly doubt that the engines decoupled during takeoff. The engine indications would be similar to a flameout, except for the actual flaming out part. The engines were designed to decouple due to excessive negative torque. The only way that could happen on takeoff is if the engine flamed out in the first place and the engine started windmilling like crazy due to airspeed. If they did decouple without flaming out, there is a good chance of recoupling if the engine is still running. Sorry I don\'t know any good facts about this particular incident, only that two engines failed at a critical stage of flight, and I doubt that simply decoupling was the root cause of the problem. Edit- This website keeps adding _ in certain locations of a weblink, making it not work. To use the link, just highlight the link, copy and paste it to your browser, then delete all the _\'s in the link and it will take you right to the aviation-safety.net database for this incident. :laugh: It\'s doing it again. Can you say website BUG? Edited by Casey www.aviation-safety.net I just typed it in and it worked. --Casey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjvr99 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Lkuest, the only time I ever saw/heard of decouple on take-off, was a safety coupling that disintegrated. As you say, highly unlikely at T/O power unless engine had already flamed out and prop was driving the engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cot900 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Saw one engine decouple on take-off roll but again, was a mechanical failure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 I have seen more than a couple decouple with power on. It always worked out to a failed safety coupling. Its a mechanical device and like all mechanical devices they have just so much life. I have never heard what the cause for this crash was but strangely enough these guys were crashing within a few hours of 213 crashing in the Stan. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjvr99 Posted November 24, 2007 Share Posted November 24, 2007 Nice pics Dan, these guys don\'t look too stressed out, do they ? By the looks of things, #1 & #4 blades are at in-flight angles, while #2 & #3 are at feather-shutdown position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herkman Posted November 25, 2007 Share Posted November 25, 2007 Was this airplane returned to duty Thanks Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herkeng130 Posted November 25, 2007 Author Share Posted November 25, 2007 nope, she was relieved of further duty... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herkeng130 Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share Posted November 26, 2007 I was given the findings report...very interesting to say the least. It was too large to post so, I will downsize it a bit without taking out the meat and potatoes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herkeng130 Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share Posted November 26, 2007 This has been cut down but I believe I have left all the important information... [file name=USMC_29_Palmscut.doc size=117760]http://herkybirds.com/images/fbfiles/files/USMC_29_Palmscut.doc[/file] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Wilson Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 Well reading that is very informative. Seeing as they are Marines, did the flay the skin off of the FE - SLOWLY - as they should have? Its really amazing, the FE has to most hours on the crew (with all but the AC having significantly less than a 1000 hours) and he should have been the linchpin to keeping everybody on the same sheet of music and failed miserably, but then again he apparently caused the malfunctions in the first place. I am firmly convinced that Murphy makes things like these happen every few years so the CRM instructors occasionally have new material to teach. You wont hear me say this often but I really feel sorry for the AC on this plane, sure he made mistakes but the climate was worse than a single seat aircraft - his crewmates were working against him! You would think the FE would have enough balls to fess up in the first place but he pulls the Regan \"I dont recall\" routine, I have never had any respect for that crap. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herkeng130 Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share Posted November 26, 2007 The FEs hours shocked me as well... I would have expected that from a guy with 200 hours...not 2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.