Jeepers that’s an emotive article! Going around because the runway is occupied isn’t great but it’s more in the “inconvenience” category rather than “Oh My God Tenneriffe!”
Radio interference at a busy airport can be a problem though and it highlights the importance of active two way communication. ATC gives the clearance, aircraft reads back the important parts of the clearance “cross 28L, line up 28R”, ATC listens and confirms that what was read back aligns with the clearance, then they move on to their next task. It’s all too easy to move on to the next task too soon without listening to the read back properly and just hearing what is expected.
And Jalopnik is always such a reliable and level-headed source of information. Well, at least their automotive coverage remains totally clear of clickbait and is 100% accurate.
IMO blocked radio calls are one of the largest remaining unmitigated sources of confusion and mistakes. We have spent jillions installing hardware and adding training for mitigations to far far less common problems. Yet somehow this one never seems important enough to address.
I was in college, not even in ROTC yet when that happened and here I am on the cusp of retirement and we still hear a blocked transmission several times during every taxi operation at a non-trivial airport, at least a couple times during every arrival and departure airborne, and at least hourly during cruise. And for cruise phase, the busier and more critical the situation, the greater the rate of blocked transmissions. And that’s the time an unnoticed block has the greatest potential to convert to a loss of separation or other severe outcome.
It is absolutely criminal that the safety recommendations after Tenerife to install non-blocking radios were not followed up on. In fact they have been steadfastly thwarted by vested interests for 45 years now. This was 99.9% solvable for low incremental cost back in 1977. And for truly negligible incremental cost since the 1990s. Had non-blocking radios been demanded then as forward-fit only, with no retrofit mandate, it’d still be 20+ years now since the last old blocking radio went to the boneyard on the commercial / professional GA fleet.
Why yes, you did trigger my greatest aviation safety shortfall hobby horse. How could you tell?
Seems to be some commentator confusion in that article. What they said was only half-right. Which also makes it completely wrong for this circumstance.
I have never been trained on the Bus. Of course @Richard_Pearse flies them right now, so should have a fully informed thought on this.
But per the current A321 flight manual I have:
The overwing exit hatches on a 321 do not open out and forwards as the floor-level normal and emergency exit doors do. Instead they are hinged at the top and open outwards and upwards. With a monster spring to push them up & hold them up. The airloads from forward flight would probably if anything help to push and hold the door open, once it had cleared the various latches.
There is an electrical interlock / deadbolt that should prevent them being opened in flight. Presumably that had malfunctioned on this door and it was bad luck the lunatic was sitting there. It’s unclear from the documentation available to me whether there is any indication to the cockpit crew of interlock malfunction on any door(s).
FWIW the B737 has similar overwing exits and similar electric locking. Precisely because unlike all the other doors, you can’t count on airloads from forward flight holding those doors closed once they’re unlatched. So you need a different backup method to prevent mistaken or crazy people from opening the door. The 737 does have an indication if the flight interlock fails to engage on any door. I’ve never seen it indicate a problem.
I asked about Bernoulli in FQ. I didn’t watch the video, so I assumed that a pressure differential might be enough to let the door become ajar. From the reply, it sounds like the door was fully open.
The quoted bit from your post reminds me of a time in my dad’s Skyhawk. The window wasn’t fully latched, and it blew open (outwards and upwards) in flight. Got my attention!
I could not get the video to play. I’d not be surprised to see that it began after the door was open. Nothing much to record before then, so little reason for somebody to be pointing a vid camera at it unless there was already an altercation in progress before the door is opened.
And even then I’m sure we’ve all been frustrated by YouTubes of events where the editor cuts the vid so tightly that 2 critically informative seconds before and after the main event are left off. So even if the original vid covers the whole event I’d not be surprised to see CNN has clipped it to uselessness for our purposes.
My point is that the moment the latches are released, the small differential cabin pressure will push the door outward & upwards some, like an inch or two. Meanwhile the door opening springs will be pushing like mad to swing the door fully open.
Given that in normal approach and landing maneuvering the fuselage is pointed 3 to 5 degrees above the vector of motion, the relative wind along the fuselage will be directed upwards, pushing the door up, not down.
A complicator is that overwing exits are, by definition, over the wing. Which will have a somewhat different flow field around it. Even in the couple of feet closest to the fuselage, that flow field will be less upwardly inclined. I don’t see Bernoulli having much of anything to do with this; it’s purely relative wind vector as applied to the barn door of an exit hatch.
Anyhow, as this vid clearly shows this was one of the floor length forward-opening doors. Which was damaged in the opening. Now I am very interested to eventually learn how this happened.
Some airplanes’ emergency exits have a power-assist feature, whether that’s springs, compressed air, or an electric motor to really whip a door open if the slide is armed and the [open] handle is activated. This is meant to hurry the opening process and to overcome at least minor airframe deformation during a crash landing.
By whatever process, that door got opened and pushed parallel to the slipstream upwind 3 feet to then latch in the open position. And here we are.
I’m surprised the door moved forward in the slipstream. Even if it was propelled open with an explosive charge. That’s a 140 knot wind pushing against it.
I was surprised too. But as noted upthread here or in the other dedicated thread, Airbus doors aren’t hinged like Boeing doors.
Boeing doors simply swing broadside to the wind through 180 degrees of pivot then latch against the fuselage forward of the door opening with the inside face of the door facing away from the fuselage.
Airbus doors instead translate straight outwards concentric with the fuselage then translate straight forward edge-on to the airstream then latch when fully outside the fuselage mold line and fully forward of the doorway. That’s a vast reduction in wind resistance to being forced fully open v. the Boeing design.
The evidence we have is that the Airbus emergency egress door-opening assist mechanism is able to overcome those edge-on freestream airloads at low speeds and low differential pressures and drive the door upstream until it latches open. Oops.
From 700 feet? You can do a more impressive BASE jump from many locations.
Now trying the same trick at serious altitude with serious differential pressure against the door opening and serious IAS against the door translating forward to latch. Not happening.
I’m imagining that IF one could arrange for depressurized slow flight in the mid 30K feet altitude range one could get the door open then jump out. Although it might be simpler / safer to leave the door open from pushback & climb to altitude with it open. Or even better yet, have the maintenance staff remove it completely and take off with the gaping open doorway in the side. Noisy & chilly, but you don’t have to worry about the door falling off and breaking the tail as it goes by.
Sure, open the door at 700 ft, climb to 3000. What’s not to love about that? Easy entry into the record books. Have everybody land in the world’s largest Yorkshire pudding. Try and beat that record.
How beholden are pilots to their check-lists in an emergency?
I was watching a video on the crash of the Learjet golfer Payne Stewart was in. The best guess is the plane lost pressurization and everyone passed out before they were able to solve the problem. After that there was no one conscious flying until the plane ran out of fuel.
I thought it was drilled into pilots that if there is a pressurization issue get those masks on ASAP and before doing anything else. Hypoxia occurs very quickly. There is no more important thing than getting those masks on. That was enough time to let them pass out.
Is there something in flight school that makes pilots beholden to their quick reference handbook? I get it is an important tool when trouble occurs and should be followed but to the point that the pilot misses the obvious (in this case a pressurization warning)?