> CamChi wrote: > Since this happened right after takeoff I'm not sure they would have > had the space required to get speed back up fast enough to be going up > instead of down, even if they did start it back up. > > Interesting development though. >
That and they likely didn't know/realize it in the panic; it's only now when the NTSB is reviewing the data that it's been discovered. It's actually a common error too. In the mid 80s a fully loaded & fueled NWA "3 holer" (727) had an uncontained engine failure on take off. It launched chunks of the compression blades up the side of the fuselage and right in front of the intake of number 2 which sucked 'em in. Luckily the intake is an "s" kinda thing and not all the parts went in, but enough did to start to fry the engine and put it into compressor stall. The runway ends just before a huge river valley, which gives you about 100 feet of drop. The pilot gave full throttle to number 1 and 2, took out a few runway lights and dove down into the river valley for speed. #2 is shooting fire going BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! Listening to the cockpit tapes, the FE is screaming, "should I shut down #2?!?! should I shut down #2?!" The pilot responds, "don't you fncking touch those throttles!" The pilot does a big arc over the frozen river valley and pops back up just at runway height and lands. It is pretty widely thought that the smidgen of thrust that #2 put out was enough to save the flight. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:295921 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
