PK-KAR,
I agree about the issue of speed of response. The video seems to give a pretty clear idea of the response time, at least as far as response on the ‘field is concerned. I can’t remember the layout of access gates to off field at Yogya from when I was there. Given the apparent response time ‘on field’, the crash site ‘off field’(rice field with tegalan), the criticism by media and others always seemed a little unfair if not invalid. I recall an incident here a few years ago, where civil fire engines needed to gain access to the airfield through an access gate, which, by chance, was only a couple of hundred yards from the incident. The local fire crews turned up at the gate, as indicated by emergency planning directions, but the gate couldn’t be opened……….involving travelling back down a public road to another gate about half a mile away. The unlockable gate would have been the crucial one for the evacuation of injured if the incident hadn’t had a favourable outcome!
This all seems to mirror the criticism flung at the cabin crew, some of which was thrown only hours after the crash.
The issue of ‘stopway’, is a little bit of a distraction for us and the media, I think. I recognise that this would be an obvious point to include from the investigators’ perspective and could/should be part of the contributory factors. Of course there is a technical breach of regulations concerning requirements. I agree, between the road and stopway consideration, it most likely was a major factor in the severity of the crash. But from a pilot decision making perspective, with (I assume) Yogya being a regular destination for an experienced GA captain – I would regard the lack of ‘stopway’ as being an intrinsic part of landing there. But then I have always regarded the stopway as being critical in terms of takeoff calculations(when operating in the limiting extreme for the most part) and not an ‘assumption’ or ‘given’ for the landing (baulked or messed up) case – in terms of ‘LDA’ and no (or small) stopway declared on charts. I understand “familiarity breeding contempt” in a lot of circumstances, but, as you’ve previously described Yogya’s peculiarities – this would seem a strange place to ‘get sloppy’.
From another perspective. I’m curious to consider the Min ICAO requirement and what you think about the following:
I’m curious to get an indication of speed when she left the tarmac. Should then be able to make a reasonable ‘guesstimation‘ of the difference the min’ run-off requirement would have made. If we assume the same geography – position of road, rice field(tegalan and embankment) – the effect of the extra 30m min requirement as displacing the entire runway or just the initial contact point. Considering the energy at the tarmac end-point (as you observed earlier from lack of damage on road divider, embankment – enough energy to ‘float’ that gap – 70, 80 kts or a lot more ????) – would it really have made much of a difference?..........I could see that putting us into a “more direct” conflict with that embankment! – maybe even more serious consequences?
I think the critical understanding will come along if and when the full FDR data is available.
I’m focusing on the min requirement, because 260m sounds really nice – but Indonesia doesn’t have a monopoly on having airports than don’t or can’t meet the recommendation.
From the flap/speedbrake info – without going into the area of good airmanship and energy management. Since it seems he was determined to ‘give it a try’ after the first F/O intervention – another question arises as to why he never used speedbrakes (albeit from 2500’, speed 272kts, for example
) – I believe on type -400 with AD’s, etc, legally they would have been available up to flap 15 and down to 500’ in vmc.
------------------------------------
Markf – how do you know what the report says – unless you have a copy?....you’re not…………. by any chance……… a journalist???
Theamrad in particular
Funny that for a first post here you’ve singled me out for personal attention ‘in the third person’
, despite the obvious fact that others indicate the SMH’s attempts at ‘trying to accurately dissect events’ are a BIT short of the mark with statements like: “nearly double normal landing speed”
– You won’t, of course, mind me returning the favour.
poke fun at the coverage of
no – I’m not poking fun, sorry you think it’s meant as a joke!
It’s a full frontal attack on journalistic quality – I’m giving my opinion on their lack of journalistic integrity – in common with SOME other elements of media coverage on this accident. If you, or anyone else want to debate/discuss the factual issues about the crash, I genuinely welcome it. Conversely, if you, or anyone else, don’t like criticism of media coverage – tough 
!
attempting to accurately dissect events
‘to each his own’ – I think you’ll be of the opinion that I’ve done a hell of a lot worse, if you read the entire thread. If you’re happy with media performance on this one, others, or indeed in general, then I’m pleased for you. Sorry I can’t/won’t agree with you. Maybe IF they have the report – they SHOULD report accurately what it contains and they SHOULDN’T be editorialising it, or adding a ‘cause/blame’ section on, or stating fictional remarks like “pilot's claims of a massive down draught” as fact?
the report criticises the type of foam and hoses available, and the lack of an internal access road to the crash site.
Yeah…………. But the SMH doesn’t leave it at that!
lack of an internal access road to the crash site.
Possibly the aircraft itself was to blame by not having the ‘goddam’ courtesy to come to rest in a more convenient place – amazing how often this happens…. by the way – this is a criticism of media presentation on the matter – not of the report itself! I could be really obnoxious here with a statement along the lines of: 'every rice field should be fitted with an internal access road prior to any possible event……..just in case'. I’m not quite sure where this leaves ‘adamair lost contact’, Air India over the Atlantic, etc. At the end of the day, this, like any other preliminary or final report is purely written from a ‘presentation of facts’ point of view – NOT OF BLAME. An important distinction which most here understand – but most of the media doesn’t!
Please tell me more about the winds
- Read the thread.
The ‘down*******’ issue and it’s origins have been discussed, clarified, etc, etc, ad nauseum. I have total sympathy for /agreement with PK-KARs feelings on the matter. It’s a classic media ‘red herring’ from the very people you think are ‘trying to accurately dissect events’. I’m afraid they, themselves, without any help from little me, have proven the point: “Accuracy again - obviously the Sydney Morning Herald has not had the benefit of browsing this thread! “. Simply by mentioning the downdraught myth – SMH have ,themselves, demonstrated the common ability to imitate a parrot – just repeating what everyone else is waffling – while, in all probability, NONE of them even remember where they heard it first. Whatever happened to the idea of 'two verifiable sources'?...........
the actual story stated the 60 metre safety run-off ANd the failure of emergency services....could have contributed to the crash AND the number of fatalities
well actually, in fairness, SMH used the phrase "raises the prospect"
But to be brutally honest - I couldn't give a rats what the story says - I'd rather know what the report actually says without the journalistic filter.
---------------------------------------------
alf5071h - Hi there, just saw you got your post in before me - can't read it right now - hope I'll get back to you later