LATAM A320 ground collision at SPJC
Besides the runway incursion (incorrect presence) whether 'authorised' or not, there are questions about the length of time it appears to take to start an evacuation which should have been completed in 90 seconds per CS25.803. There is footage of pax still leaving the aircraft after ARFF has knocked down and then extinguished the fire. (Hats off to them, it must have been obvious that their colleagues had been involved, which would have been a real distraction. The footage also shows - yet again - people evacuating with cabin bags and stopping to take video...
With the info that the crew would have had initially, front of mind concerns for me is, minus an engine, serious wing damage, fire/smoke. Having seen how fast aircraft skin will burn through in previous examples, rear passengers certainly at risk. Looking at the footage, it appears the area 1L/R is clear for an immediate evacuation.
Had they have conducted an evacuation, likely people would have died/serious injuries. Had they not have conducted an evacuation, every chance the rear will burn through and people will start to die as the fire spreads. I would be interested to see any interior photos in the last 10 rows.
The NEO held up well regardless.
Originally Posted by Fortissimo
evacuation which should have been completed in 90 seconds per CS25.803.
In real world conditions, things are obviously very different. All manner of influences are going make the 90 seconds irrelevant in a real-world evacuation. For example, what if only one door was available?
From the pov where aircraft is filmed moving right to left in frame, the truck appears to be travelling parellel to runway, makes a right turn, proceeds for a few seconds then makes a further turn a second before the impact.
From this angle there is a trail of presumably either dust or exhaust from the trucks.This is also visible from the camera on the tarmac.
If it is dust is could there have been a loss of control/skid to capture the drivers attention?
Also, the ground camera where the trucks pass right to left, reveals how the vision between driver and to the left and right is compromised by large exterior mounted rear view mirrors, which create a blindspot.
From this angle there is a trail of presumably either dust or exhaust from the trucks.This is also visible from the camera on the tarmac.
If it is dust is could there have been a loss of control/skid to capture the drivers attention?
Also, the ground camera where the trucks pass right to left, reveals how the vision between driver and to the left and right is compromised by large exterior mounted rear view mirrors, which create a blindspot.
The new fire station is south of the runway.
The whole area there seems to be under construction, so only unpaved roads, marked with cones.
In my humble opinion this is a contributing factor for this tragic event.
The whole area there seems to be under construction, so only unpaved roads, marked with cones.
In my humble opinion this is a contributing factor for this tragic event.
One thing on the first video surprised me, if that the Fire chief ( the pick-up car) is rather far behind the 2 fire trucks. Not really the norm.
One of the R/T transcript poste earlier, it is difficult to draw a correct picture as we canot hear the requests or responses made . The trucks ( Rescue6 ) were cleared to stop 90m from runway axis , by some cones. That is in fact the only part which is clear. .
One of the R/T transcript poste earlier, it is difficult to draw a correct picture as we canot hear the requests or responses made . The trucks ( Rescue6 ) were cleared to stop 90m from runway axis , by some cones. That is in fact the only part which is clear. .
The runway incursion audio alert I was referring to is vehicle fitted, not in the VCR. It gives the vehicle driver an audio alarm that they are approaching the runway strip. A system like might have given the vehicle crew an earlier warning/reminder re entering/crossing the runway and they had no clearance, (my assumption) to do so. In that event earlier braking or turn may have minimised or avoided the physical contact. As you correctly say we only have partial coms to make guesses from at the moment.
Depending on individual RFFS’ equipment and capability the Fire Chief doesn’t always deploy in a separate faster vehicle, they can be in one of the fire trucks, so in my experience I wouldn’t necessarily consider that to be the ‘norm’.
Does anyone knows if in Lima the ARFFS were (operating/operates) on the same frequency of the ATC and departing Airbus (ATC aeronautical Freq), or it is/was a closed trunking like in many airports nowadays only between ATC and ground vehicles but "unknown" to aircraft&pilots?
I still emphazise on this question cause i think IMHO its pretty relevant here!
Tks
I still emphazise on this question cause i think IMHO its pretty relevant here!
Tks
A confusion whether this was a training exercise or real emergency tells me that the fire dept and atc don't talk to each other.
I see sometimes similar at work where emails don't cc: relevant people for whatever reason.
I see sometimes similar at work where emails don't cc: relevant people for whatever reason.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were 2 press conferences this week end , one by the CEO of LATAM in Peru , who declared the a/c was cleared for take off , but they ( whoever is "they") were not informed of the exercise.
The other by the LIM airport manager , wo said the fire trucks were only authorized to make their exercise in an area clear of the active runway .
With those 2 info, if they are confirmed by the investigation , it would seem that the briefing made before the exercise, and possibly the position of the warning cones could have played a role here. there is a blame game being played openly which is never good to get people talking to investigators.
@jumpseater :
I am not aware that such a system exists. Not difficult to introduce in an airfield equipped with multilateration of SMGCS I would imagine. But not heard there is one on the market , and if there is none I am not sure there is market for it to justify development and certification costs.
Again, seen the speed at wich the truck enters the runway on the videos , I am not sure if would have helped. Good briefings and strict procedures are cheaper and work 99,999% of the time
Poor briefings on staff operating near active runways seems to be the common point in many of the runway incursions . (e.g. Vnukovo. Luxemburg , etc.) We will see here if this is the case again.
The other by the LIM airport manager , wo said the fire trucks were only authorized to make their exercise in an area clear of the active runway .
With those 2 info, if they are confirmed by the investigation , it would seem that the briefing made before the exercise, and possibly the position of the warning cones could have played a role here. there is a blame game being played openly which is never good to get people talking to investigators.
@jumpseater :
The runway incursion audio alert I was referring to is vehicle fitted, not in the VCR. It gives the vehicle driver an audio alarm that they are approaching the runway strip.
Again, seen the speed at wich the truck enters the runway on the videos , I am not sure if would have helped. Good briefings and strict procedures are cheaper and work 99,999% of the time
Poor briefings on staff operating near active runways seems to be the common point in many of the runway incursions . (e.g. Vnukovo. Luxemburg , etc.) We will see here if this is the case again.
@jumpseater :
I am not aware that such a system exists. Not difficult to introduce in an airfield equipped with multilateration of SMGCS I would imagine. But not heard there is one on the market , and if there is none I am not sure there is market for it to justify development and certification costs.
Again, seen the speed at wich the truck enters the runway on the videos , I am not sure if would have helped
SNIP
I am not aware that such a system exists. Not difficult to introduce in an airfield equipped with multilateration of SMGCS I would imagine. But not heard there is one on the market , and if there is none I am not sure there is market for it to justify development and certification costs.
Again, seen the speed at wich the truck enters the runway on the videos , I am not sure if would have helped
SNIP
It may have helped here, the alarm activates at CATI or as specified. Thus at 75m from the runway the alarm may have triggered a response from the driver to turn earlier and might have turned this into a near miss, or less severe accident.
It's no good people banging on about airside staff being trained not to enter runways without permission. We train pilots not to crash aeroplanes but they still do it, and far more frequently than ground staff cause accidents by entering active runways or maneuvering areas. Clearly several factors as a minimum came into play here, we need to know what, why, to ensure we're not being complacent.
Join Date: Mar 2022
Location: Low Orbit
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Poor briefings on staff operating near active runways seems to be the common point in many of the runway incursions . (e.g. Vnukovo. Luxemburg , etc.) We will see here if this is the case again.
A very sad event which could have been avoided by applying routine procedures. A whilst it is no consolation to the family and friends of the RFFS crew involved - to whom one can only offer condolences and wishes for the survivor - it is fortunate that so few injuries were suffered by those on the aircraft.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the poor briefings :yes in both Vnukovo and Luxembourg examples I mentioned (but I could have included more like the Dublin lawn mower for instance) , poor préparions and lack of proper briefings played the major role . You can also add or even replace to poor briefing , by poor training, or lack of understanding how the whole system works if you prefer . But the root cause is there
. In my (old) days as a TWR controller is was mandatory that the crew chief of any intervention planned in the manœuvre area or any of the runways came physically to the TWR to discuss what was planned with the TWR supervisor , which included info passed to the crew chief on planned departures and arrivals during that time .
Today time is money , and this is long gone .
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wasn’t a training exercise - there was a plane near the terminal with a problem which the firies were responding to. We don’t know enough yet, but either they crossed the active runway without clearance (unlikely), or ATC messed up and both the aircraft and the firies were given clearance at the same time.
If the firies were in emergency mode to get to the other plane it’s possible they didn’t hear ATC telling them to stop at the runway, or the call wasn’t made. All speculation of course, I’m assuming the plane was given takeoff clearance.
Terrible accident, but there are processes in place to stop this so somebody made a mistake. I hope it was the firies because at least they don’t have to live with the guilt, as horrible as that is.
If the firies were in emergency mode to get to the other plane it’s possible they didn’t hear ATC telling them to stop at the runway, or the call wasn’t made. All speculation of course, I’m assuming the plane was given takeoff clearance.
Terrible accident, but there are processes in place to stop this so somebody made a mistake. I hope it was the firies because at least they don’t have to live with the guilt, as horrible as that is.
Airbus Accident Lima Peru 18 Nov 2022
Received a call from my wife who is in Peru,and then checked with Reuters who are reporting an accident last week on 18 November at 1511 local time at Lima Intl Airport, Peru.
An airport firetruck taking part in an exercise at the LIM/SPIM airport was hit by an Airbus (model unknown) but operated by LATAM. The aircraft was one minute into its takeoff run and the collision killed two firemen and injured some 20 pax on the aircraft. No crew or passengers were killed on the aircraft.
No further info as yet.
See: Reuters: Peru airport says firetruck on arranged drill before fatal collision | Reuters
An airport firetruck taking part in an exercise at the LIM/SPIM airport was hit by an Airbus (model unknown) but operated by LATAM. The aircraft was one minute into its takeoff run and the collision killed two firemen and injured some 20 pax on the aircraft. No crew or passengers were killed on the aircraft.
No further info as yet.
See: Reuters: Peru airport says firetruck on arranged drill before fatal collision | Reuters