Air Accident / Incident thread

Comhrá

On March 11, flight #AF423 departing from Bogota to Paris almost missed its takeoff from Bogota with 275 passengers and crew on board.

For a reason still unknown, the Airbus A340-300 took the entire length of the runway, before taking off in extremis at the end of the asphalt runway at only 1.5 meters height.

http://www.airlive.net/news-air-france-and-bea-investigate-flight-af423-serious-incident-at-bogota/

Comhrá

Can a B747 survive a landing like this without sustaining major damage?

http://www.airlive.net/video-hard-landing-of-boeing-747-cargo-at-amsterdam-schiphol/

Stovepipe

id imagine there'd be some questions asked! Not to mention dental treatment for the pax to get thousands of teeth refitted!

Buffman

Here's an interesting scenario from Japan.

A CH-47 Chinook took off without clearance across the runway prompting a departing 738 to reject takeoff. A 734 was on short final and was already cleared to land.

The arriving 734 saw the departing 738 and airborne helicopter, but only noticed the 738 stopping as it was about to flare, and chose to continue landing rather than risk a go around. ATC instructed it to go around, but only after it had already landed and had thrust reversers deployed. It landed normally with a minimum 570m of separation between the two 737s on the runway.

Incident: Japan TransOcean B734 at Okinawa on Jun 3rd 2015, continued landing onto occupied runway despite instruction to go around

The JTSB analysed that the captain of the B734 was aware of the previous departure and, when they received landing clearance, observed the B738 in the departure roll. Shortly afterwards he observed the helicopter crossing the runway, focussed on the departing Boeing and did not notice any slow down. The first officer, seeing the helicopter flying away to the west, thought the Boeing would continue takeoff, both pilots therefore concluded a go around was not necessary and continued the approach.

Just when the first officer of the B734 was about to initiate flare for landing the captain realized the B738 was still on the runway, took control of the aircraft and, judging from his experience of aircraft performance on both aircraft types, concluded they could continue landing safely, they were cleared to land, they could not fully determine the flight trajectory of the helicopter and therefore continued landing.

Without wanting to be a 'Captain Hindsight' armchair expert, I think the 734 captain did well with his split-second decision making. It does show the hazards of ATC giving landing clearances for occupied runways in those countries that do it.

EchoIndia

Stovepipe wrote: »

id imagine there'd be some questions asked! Not to mention dental treatment for the pax to get thousands of teeth refitted!

Cargo is not so sensitive so I think the airline is OK on that score.

GBX

Dashcam Video Of Plane Crash Is Right Out Of A Movie
Incredibly, the pilot and his passenger escaped unscathed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/plane-crash-terrifying-video-gif-mukilteo_us_5909782be4b0bb2d0873260a?utm_campaign=hp_fb_pages&utm_source=main_fb&utm_term=nosplashcard&utm_medium=facebook&ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

AndyBoBandy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6gkdNmOrhc

Gamebred

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4472666/Terrifying-moment-passenger-jet-falls-18-000-feet.html


Presume this is more Dailyfail exaggeration, how does a plane ''fall 18,000ft'' out of no where?

martinsvi

Gamebred wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4472666/Terrifying-moment-passenger-jet-falls-18-000-feet.html


Presume this is more Dailyfail exaggeration, how does a plane ''fall 18,000ft'' out of no where?

they dropped 18000 feet in 8 minutes which gives you 2250 ft/min descent rate, that's a fairly standard descent rate. Fair enough, I take it going from positive rate of climb to negative in short space of time will give some sense of weightlessness for a moment, but jeez the drama on that article..

BeardySi

Gamebred wrote: »

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4472666/Terrifying-moment-passenger-jet-falls-18-000-feet.html


Presume this is more Dailyfail exaggeration, how does a plane ''fall 18,000ft'' out of no where?

Summary of whatever sh!te they're spouting for those of us who won't click on their links?

martinsvi

BeardySi wrote: »

Summary of whatever sh!te they're spouting for those of us who won't click on their links?

• plane experiences issues with pressure at 25000 ft, we have no information whether that was a rapid decompression or just failure to maintain differential cabin pressure, anyway, they descend to 7000ft
  
• some passengers either claim or are grossly misquoted saying the plane fell for 18000 ft, either way FR24 shows it's a lie
  
• some kids apparently got ear pain, other than that no injuries to anyone, no one got hypoxia, yet article seems to focus on oxygen masks that didn't deploy. Again we have no information whether the cabin altitude actually went above the safe limits and whether the masks had to deploy in the first place
  
• crew, allegedly, didn't communicate with their pax very well

Gaoth Laidir

...and now for some reality on that event...

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a87b2e0&opt=0

Mebuntu

This is an extraordinary read with the latest conclusion (5th May 2017) of:

The aircraft manufacturer did not account for the transient elevator deflections that occur as a result of the system flexibility and control column input during a pitch disconnect event at all speeds within the flight envelope. As such, there is no assurance that the aircraft has sufficient strength to withstand the loads resulting from a pitch disconnect. [Safety issue]

https://avherald.com/h?article=470e13a6&opt=0

Dardania

Mebuntu wrote: »

This is an extraordinary read with the latest conclusion (5th May 2017) of:

The  aircraft manufacturer did not account for the transient elevator  deflections that occur as a result of the system flexibility and control  column input during a pitch disconnect event at all speeds within the  flight envelope. As such, there is no assurance that the aircraft has  sufficient strength to withstand the loads resulting from a pitch  disconnect. [Safety issue]

https://avherald.com/h?article=470e13a6&opt=0

Not a FBW aircraft? Seems that could be a way to provide envelope protection...

Simon Gruber Says

Report now out on the Challenger that encountered wake turbulence from an A380, and was subsequently written off by the damage.

https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Interim_Reports/IR2017/I1-Report_17-0024_CL600A380_ArabiaSea.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

smurfjed

Scary report made even scarier by my training colleague who thinks that we should fly at 340/350 rather than 400/410!

martinsvi

Would you fly a citation jet in English countryside class G airspace at 3500ft doing 240kt? bit of a WTF..

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-40770048

https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2017/New_assessed_reports/Airprox%20Report%202017036.pdf

AndyBoBandy

martinsvi wrote: »

Would you fly a citation jet in English countryside class G airspace at 3500ft doing 240kt? bit of a WTF..

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-40770048

https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2017/New_assessed_reports/Airprox%20Report%202017036.pdf

F**k me!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't TCAS work in pairs? as in, if the smaller of the 2 aircraft didn't have it fitted (which it didn't in this case), the TCAS in the larger plane won't react? or does it react to radar contacts?

martinsvi

AndyBoBandy wrote: »

F**k me!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't TCAS work in pairs? as in, if the smaller of the 2 aircraft didn't have it fitted (which it didn't in this case), the TCAS in the larger plane won't react? or does it react to radar contacts?

if you have TCAS on both planes, you will have resolution advisory, as in, it will tell exactly what to do to both pilots. If only one has TCAS, it will receive the transponder signals from other planes and give you a traffic advisory - it will tell you the traffic is there, but wont tell you how to avoid it.

If you are in Class G airspace, you are not required to have a transponder - many light aircraft either don't have them completely or have them in-operational.. thus shooting through class G airspace in high speed relying on TCAS is absolutely stupid and reckless

Irish Steve

That section of airspace in the South East of the UK is very congested, I did a lot of my Multi Engine training in that part of the world, and over a 9 month period, we had 3 close encounters at various times.

One was close, Midhurst VOR doing practise holds, we ended up 150 Ft from an opposite direction BAC1-11 that was operating on the 2500 Ft base of the TMA, ATC mistake, the controller that routed it through on the base had selectively suppressed some transponder returns, so he didn't see us operating completely legally at 2400 Ft, and put the 1-11 over the top of us at 2500Ft. We were warned very late by the radar service that was monitoring us (way before TCAS), and able to take suitable avoiding action, but it was a graphic illustration of how easily things can go wrong. The TMA controller did subsequently contact my instructor and apologise for his mistake, which helped.

During ILS training at Lydd, we were flying the approach pattern at 1500 Ft in marginal weather, in communication with the controller, and had a warning about a possible conflict with an aircraft that was en route to Biggin Hill at 1500 Ft after crossing the channel. We saw it, popped out of a cloud about 200 metres in front of us, and carried on his way without even seeing us, or communicating with the airfield who's approach he'd violated, in theory in VFR, in practise, he wasn't VFR or clear of cloud. He was "spoken to" by the ATC at his arrival airfield.

Third was over Goodwood VOR, always a pressure point due to the base of the TMA, a lot of VFR traffic operates at 2000 Ft as a result, we were warned about opposite direction traffic, and adjusted our height to give us some comfort space, and he never even saw us or acknowledged the warning from the controller. We'd dropped to 1900 Ft as a precaution, and it was just as well we did, at 2000 Ft it would have been very close indeed, and the TC was capable of cruising at anything between 160 and 200 Kts depending on what you were doing, so at higher speeds, you didn't have long to see, recognise and avoid other traffic.

It was an interesting period of time, and one that did a lot to encourage me to use whatever ATC services were available even if it did increase the workload a little. A higher workload was preferable to an in flight collision! The advent of TCAS has very much changed the risks in that area, but at that time, the risk of collision in Class G airspace was a serious issue.

smurfjed

Remember the first time that i flew into Farnborough in a G4, we routed overhead MID VOR from the south, next thing we knew what ATC telling us descend to 2000 feet, radar service terminated, contact FAB...... we were happily doing 250 KCAS below 10,000 feet and were quite shocked to be told that we were now supposed to "look and see". I really wasn't impressed and it was the first time that I had ever flown this jet outside controlled airspace without radio communication with other traffic. Once only has to look at the Phenom crash in Blackbushe to see that this sort of traffic mixing was stupid.
It was the same on the way out, we had to climb outside controlled airspace pending permission to enter.
I believe that the procedures have changed due to the number of aircraft that were "surprised" by this little ATC procedure.
Also if you look at Jeppesen 10-2A, it states MAX SPEED 250, reducing to 220.

martinsvi

it's this bit there that shocks me -


At 1326:30 the pilot of the C525 had requested to leave controlled airspace and route direct to
Biggin Hill whilst still with Swanwick Area Control (AC).
(..)
Some members wondered whether the
Swanwick controller should have offered to transfer the C525 pilot to Farnborough Radar rather than
London FIS but controlling members pointed out that the decision to deviate from the planned route
and operate outside controlled airspace with London FIS would have been the C525 pilot’s, and this
was probably something that he would regularly do to save time and fuel

Bsal

Pilot killed in Wales on Wednesday

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-41180580

Lustrum

http://avherald.com/h?article=4accb6aa&opt=0

This is bananas, how it didn't occur to anyone to yell "GO AROUND" is beyond me

AndyBoBandy

Lustrum wrote: »

http://avherald.com/h?article=4accb6aa&opt=0

This is bananas, how it didn't occur to anyone to yell "GO AROUND" is beyond me

"The controller then cleared the ATR for take off"
After it had been struck by a 737!!

Unbelievable Jeff!!

Gaoth Laidir

Awful performance by the controller, but then also by the second guy who took over.

HTCOne

Whatever about not challenging the incomplete readback of the ATR, you've been told there may be debris on the runway, and you ignore it. Negligence of the highest order.

Gamebred

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/908082274456961024

smurfjed

@gamebred, you might be extremely surprised at how often this type of thing happens.

Gamebred

smurfjed wrote: »

@gamebred, you might be extremely surprised at how often this type of thing happens.

presume guilty party is guaranteed the sack?

smurfjed

Hopefully not as it goes against the concept of SMS. If someone hits something and hides the fact based on the fear of getting sacked, its worse then admitting the fact and allowing people to check the damage.
We had an aircraft hit two weeks ago in Cairo, the driver of the car ran away:)

Locker10a

Gamebred wrote: »

smurfjed wrote: »

@gamebred, you might be extremely surprised at how often this type of thing happens.

presume guilty party is guaranteed the sack?

Why should they, they might not be at fault. It could be lack of ground markings, or poor training etc could be 100 reasons for it. If there's one particularly carefree employee who's not following procedures and taking risks then I'd expect they get brought into the office and given warnings first, then if necessary demoted or fired if attitude doesn't change.

HONKEY TONK

How can a Front wheel fall off a plane

Ryanair plane forced to make emergency landing after losing front wheel after take-off
The flight from London Stansted to Copenhagen had to land at East Midlands Airport this morning at around 9.15am

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ryanair-plane-forced-make-emergency-11177405

duskyjoe

Gamebred wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TomPodolec/status/908082274456961024

How this happens is beyond me, especially in a tiddly winker of a yolk with a limited wing span.

la ultima guagua

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59c2302140f0b60d848fd9ad/AAIB_S2-2017_C-FWGH.pdf

Shedite27

la ultima guagua wrote: »

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59c2302140f0b60d848fd9ad/AAIB_S2-2017_C-FWGH.pdf

My reading of that is probably pilot error but we'll keep digging just in case we find anything .

"The N1 required to achieve the required takeoff performance was 93.3% but 81.5% was used instead. Independent assessments by the AAIB and operator showed that the only credible way for this to have happened was for an error to have been made whilst entering the OAT into the FMC..... The investigation will consider how such a data entry error could have been made, and whether actual aircraft performance matched that which would be expected given the N1 power setting used."

el tel

Anyone else hear about the incident at Belfast International in May that's just come out?

737 barely lifted off the end of the runway with tyres knocking over a 35cm high light 29m beyond the end of the runway. Crew ****ed off to Crete and stayed schtum about it.

They are alleged to have entered wrong temperature data into the FMC and took off majorly under powered.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4ac18a5b

Walt Grace

Hey all....first time poster here.

Was on a Ryanair flight from Warsaw to Dublin yesterday afternoon and what at first I thought was a drone (my second thought was a missile) flew within 10/15 meters under the wing of the plane.
This was about an hour into the flight so we were up at cruising altitude if that would make a difference to what exactly it was.
Anyone ever experiences something like this before? Or is there any way of finding out what this was?!

Was pretty freaked out by it!

JCX BXC

North Korea up to their antics again

From experience, I'd suggest that it was just a plane a few thousand feet below you!

View Profile

Probably another aircraft in the cruise a thousand feet below. Completely normal, safe, and common occurrence.

Walt Grace

View Profile wrote: »

Probably another aircraft in the cruise a thousand feet below. Completely normal, safe, and common occurrence.

I hope so! But I'm not sure.....

Probably no way of actually finding out too I guess.

JCX BXC

Remember European airspace is extremely busy, so if you were to be extremely focused and looked out the window the entire flight you'd likely see several aircraft pass within 1000-3000ft below/above you.

martinsvi

1 hour into a flight you should have been about 35 to 40 thousand feet up, none of the consumer drones fly that high, not even close. As for the military, who ever owns something that can fly that high will not take any chances putting it close to a passenger jet

Irish Steve

If you have the flight details, (times and flight number), and the approximate time of the event, it should be possible to use something like Flightradar24 to see what other aircraft were in the same area at that time. opposite directions traffic at 1000 Ft separation looks incredibly close, and the speeds are also high, so they literally appear to flash past, I know from experience that if you see a close flight, there's usually not enough time to even tell a companion in the next seat before it's gone out of sight.

Sterling Archer

As an example, here's how it looks out the front - https://youtu.be/0L9vyp-meeU?t=11s - now factor in your limited view out the window and "not being aware" the aircraft would be passing like the pilots would be, also factor in it may have been much smaller than the 747 in the clip

Also this clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQGKnZwqj84

Walt Grace

Shane_ef wrote: »

As an example, here's how it looks out the front - https://youtu.be/0L9vyp-meeU?t=11s - now factor in your limited view out the window and "not being aware" the aircraft would be passing like the pilots would be, also factor in it may have been much smaller than the 747 in the clip

Also this clip - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQGKnZwqj84

That second clip is quite like what i saw actually! It was that quick it was hard to tell what it was.
Thanks for putting my mind at ease guys!

Mech1

linking this to here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057790438

Mech1

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-an-eurofighter-typhoon-jet-crashed-into-sea-during-airshow-at-terracina-italy/

Pero_Bueno

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41379085

A car was seriously damaged when part of an aeroplane's wing landed on it in the Japanese city of Osaka.
The piece, which weighed more than 4kg (9lb), fell from a KLM Royal Dutch Airlines plane shortly after it departed Kansai International Airport on Saturday.
It damaged the car's roof and smashed its rear window after falling more than 2,000 metres (6,500ft).
No one was injured in the incident but KLM has launched an investigation.
The piece broke off from the wing of a Boeing 777 which had more than 300 passengers on board. The flight landed safely at Amsterdam's Schiphol airport later on Saturday........

Looks like an Embraer in the photo ... If I were them I'd be asking BBC to change that photo to a KLM 777 !!

Comhrá

http://www.airlive.net/breaking-air-france-af66-a380-just-diverted-to-goose-bay-yyr-due-to-disintegrated-engine-4-cowling/