Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Air Accident / Incident thread

1235719

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,817 ✭✭✭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.

    Vista_ae%CC%81rea_Aeropuerto_Internacional_Eldorado_Bogota%CC%81_SKBO-BOG_8203507991.jpg

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,817 ✭✭✭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/




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,984 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭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.

    FYI, if you move to a 'smart' meter electricity plan, you CAN'T move back to a non-smart plan.

    You don't have to take a 'smart' meter if you don't want one, opt-out is available.

    Buy drinks in 3L or bigger plastic bottles or glass bottles or cartons to avoid the DRS fee.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,069 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,018 ✭✭✭✭GBX




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,721 ✭✭✭✭AndyBoBandy




  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,269 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭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..


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


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

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 911 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭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...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,033 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,270 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭martinsvi




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,721 ✭✭✭✭AndyBoBandy


    martinsvi 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?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭martinsvi


    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


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,270 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,776 ✭✭✭Bsal




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 758 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,721 ✭✭✭✭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!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 893 ✭✭✭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.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,269 ✭✭✭Gamebred




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,270 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


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


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,269 ✭✭✭Gamebred


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


    presume guilty party is guaranteed the sack?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,270 ✭✭✭✭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:)


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,185 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 779 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 643 ✭✭✭duskyjoe


    Gamebred wrote: »

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


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,428 ✭✭✭Shedite27



    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."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭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!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,228 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭View Profile


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭Walt Grace


    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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,228 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭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


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,252 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 106 ✭✭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!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,116 ✭✭✭Mech1




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,116 ✭✭✭Mech1




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 502 ✭✭✭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 !!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,817 ✭✭✭Comhrá




  • Advertisement
Advertisement