Do we even know whether this incident was the result of a rejected takeoff, or an attempt to land? If the pictures show the reversers aren't deployed, maybe the airplane is in the takeoff roll prior to a rejected attempt.
As far as landing on runway 35. I fly 747-400s into Quito on a fairly regular basis. As part of our safety audit of this airport, I spent 3 hours in the control tower watching the overall operation. In that time period of heavy arrivals, not one airplane- big or small - landed at the ILS glideslope intercept point. All airplanes landed in the first 3,000 feet. I understand the overall need to stay on the ILS glideslope all the way to touchdown, but there are some problems with this particular runway in doing so: There is a fairly steep crown in the runway just after the ILS touchdown point, sloping downwards after the crown; All of the paint, representing the touchdown zone markings -starts on the first brick of the runway surface through the first 3,000 feet. Therefore, if you stay on the ILS glideslope, as you start your flare, the paint will disappear behind the airplane and you will have difficulty determining how much runway you're using in the flare. If you float, it would be difficult to tell when you've used so much runway in the flare that you need to go around. Furthermore, the last 3,000 feet of the runway is coated with rubber deposits and paint, becoming slick in rain, exacerbated by volcanic dust deposits on the runway. It's definitely safer to land the airplane in the first 3,000 feet as far as stopping distances are concerned. But we need to publish a procedure or techinique that allows us to perform a normal landing in the first 3,000 feet that doesn't in effect result in a "duck under" maneuver.
Last edited by Globally; 22nd Nov 2007 at 01:23.