737-200 ZS-SIK lands short
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: your sisters house
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737-200 ZS-SIK lands short
Hi all
I read in the accident/incident log that ZS-SIK landed short of a runway somewhere and was damaged. Any info on how/when/where etc? I understand it's an AVSTAR aircraft?
I read in the accident/incident log that ZS-SIK landed short of a runway somewhere and was damaged. Any info on how/when/where etc? I understand it's an AVSTAR aircraft?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: your sisters house
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4 engine/TC: I refer you to the Dennis Jankelow accident and incident log for May 2010. Page 19 of SA Flyer in the Flightcom section in the magazine. Also on their website. Please confirm what orifice you speak out of before posting further. Your co-operation in this regard would be greatly appreciated
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: your sisters house
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to an employee of the company involved it happened on 18th May at Walvis Bay, Namibia. Said employee had no other info for me as they weren't on the flight itself. Anyone got any more info?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Agde
Age: 75
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny That!!
From Dennis Janckelow's website:
18-mai-10 CA18/3/2/0789 Safair / SA Express
Boeing 737-200 ZS-SIK 22590
Namibia / FYWB 35 + 7 None
PL Aircraft landed short of runway.
(PL=Partial Loss)
18-mai-10 CA18/3/2/0789 Safair / SA Express
Boeing 737-200 ZS-SIK 22590
Namibia / FYWB 35 + 7 None
PL Aircraft landed short of runway.
(PL=Partial Loss)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: your sisters house
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do believe what reputable firms like DJA write, yes. But i'm sure as an ex 4 engine engineer and DFO of such a reputable firm as yours i'll believe you instead.
Anyhow here is the CAA (maybe I shouldn't believe what they say either) case number and associated file reference:
18-May-10 CA18/3/2/0789 Safair / SA Express Boeing 737-200 ZS-SIK 22590 Namibia / FYWB 35 + 7 None PL Aircraft landed short of runway.
But thats enough wasting my copious time replying to you, anyone else with anything constructive to say?
Anyhow here is the CAA (maybe I shouldn't believe what they say either) case number and associated file reference:
18-May-10 CA18/3/2/0789 Safair / SA Express Boeing 737-200 ZS-SIK 22590 Namibia / FYWB 35 + 7 None PL Aircraft landed short of runway.
But thats enough wasting my copious time replying to you, anyone else with anything constructive to say?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: south africa
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little Mo
Here is the story just for you!!
In FYWB there is a displaced threshold due to work in progress. But I’m sure you know this being the airman that you are.
Crew was informed by the tower that full runway was available prior to landing. Aircraft landed normal and after landing the tower informed the crew that the displaced threshold was still in place. There was no damage to the Aircraft. That’s the information that I received.
I must reiterate, don’t believe everything you read!!!!!!!!! Or assume that you know everything.
Here is the story just for you!!
In FYWB there is a displaced threshold due to work in progress. But I’m sure you know this being the airman that you are.
Crew was informed by the tower that full runway was available prior to landing. Aircraft landed normal and after landing the tower informed the crew that the displaced threshold was still in place. There was no damage to the Aircraft. That’s the information that I received.
I must reiterate, don’t believe everything you read!!!!!!!!! Or assume that you know everything.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: your sisters house
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC:You stated in post 5 that 'there was no incident!!!!!' Clearly there was an incident. There's a CAA incident report with a reference number. Therefore an INCIDENT report was filed. I wasn't aware of the runway status as the aircraft I fly are slightly too large to go to Walvis but I'll take your word as the esteemed backseater you are. This is my last posting as arguing with you is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The R of SA
Age: 53
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the crew should have been a bit more up to date with the notams. Same sort of thing got Hydro into cr@p in Lagos. They believed the ATC instead of the notams. If the displaced threshold was still notamed {not sure if it was} then surely the crew should have known about it. ATC on the other hand should also have been a bit more awake. Advising them after the fact does not really help anyone.
Sorry! Fuc**n sorry!
111
Sorry! Fuc**n sorry!
111
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: through the door, left
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I happened to be on the apron at FYWB that day and witnessed the 'non-incident'.
At that time, RWY 27 threshold was not displaced, but RWY 09 threshold was (as it was mentioned in the notams), due to work close to that portion of the rwy.
To make it even more visible I guess, there has been a truck trailer parked just infront of the rwy.
Despite that and the big white crosses painted onto that rwy section, the crew of ZS-SIK landed way before the displaced threshold 09 and managed under heavy breaking to bring the a/c to a stand still before running into the bright orange/red plastic cones that were placed just before the displaced threshold, with not much more than a meter to spare. The emergency breaking capabilities of a 732 are quite impressive with reverse thrust up to almost standstill. I wouldn't call it a 'normal' landing, though. I guess anybody with their seatbelt not tightened would have come rather close to the backrest infront...
Several upset workers and a/p marshal raced to the scene and finally removed the cones, so SIK could taxi to the apron.
But since none of that happened according to Mr. 4 motor pilot, it might just be part of my vivid imagination. Cheers!
At that time, RWY 27 threshold was not displaced, but RWY 09 threshold was (as it was mentioned in the notams), due to work close to that portion of the rwy.
To make it even more visible I guess, there has been a truck trailer parked just infront of the rwy.
Despite that and the big white crosses painted onto that rwy section, the crew of ZS-SIK landed way before the displaced threshold 09 and managed under heavy breaking to bring the a/c to a stand still before running into the bright orange/red plastic cones that were placed just before the displaced threshold, with not much more than a meter to spare. The emergency breaking capabilities of a 732 are quite impressive with reverse thrust up to almost standstill. I wouldn't call it a 'normal' landing, though. I guess anybody with their seatbelt not tightened would have come rather close to the backrest infront...
Several upset workers and a/p marshal raced to the scene and finally removed the cones, so SIK could taxi to the apron.
But since none of that happened according to Mr. 4 motor pilot, it might just be part of my vivid imagination. Cheers!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: south africa
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Little Mo.
Being that you know me. And you seem to have a bit of a gripe with me; I don’t know why that is as I don’t know you. But with all that said I stand corrected on this case.
I was informed on the events of this case by the concerned party.
But as there was a witness (DAFLY) to this I will stand up and be corrected.
Goes to show never believe everything you hear.
Being that you know me. And you seem to have a bit of a gripe with me; I don’t know why that is as I don’t know you. But with all that said I stand corrected on this case.
I was informed on the events of this case by the concerned party.
But as there was a witness (DAFLY) to this I will stand up and be corrected.
Goes to show never believe everything you hear.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Still looking for a place
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Pay
Some useless information what I heard in the office today...
Apparently the chineese who did the work on the runway had actually finished the work and had taken the crosses away..........then they found they had not been paid.....an argument on payement ensured, so they went back and put the crosses back on the runway, which they cud legeally do as they were still in charge, (due to them not being paid), of the runway.
Hope that does help as to why the crosses were still there.......I do not know whether the Notam had been withdrawn at the time when the crosses were suddenly put back and the crew honestly did not have any knowledge of the displaced threshhold.
Goffel.
Apparently the chineese who did the work on the runway had actually finished the work and had taken the crosses away..........then they found they had not been paid.....an argument on payement ensured, so they went back and put the crosses back on the runway, which they cud legeally do as they were still in charge, (due to them not being paid), of the runway.
Hope that does help as to why the crosses were still there.......I do not know whether the Notam had been withdrawn at the time when the crosses were suddenly put back and the crew honestly did not have any knowledge of the displaced threshhold.
Goffel.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: through the door, left
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether it was in the notams, or not, would you land on big white crosses? Visibility was excellent that day, not like braking clouds at minimums...
Maybe I'm wrong, but when I see those rwy markings, I either try and stretch the approach until reaching the displaced threshold or do a go-around and double check with the tower.
Maybe I'm wrong, but when I see those rwy markings, I either try and stretch the approach until reaching the displaced threshold or do a go-around and double check with the tower.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Still looking for a place
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crosses
Not condoning nor condeming as to why the alleged incident happened............just thought I wud give the apparent reason as to why the crosses were there.
Goffel...
Goffel...
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: through the door, left
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard the same type of rumor regarding the cross issue from different sources around that time of the incident. Sounds very possible, since that part of the rwy has been closed for weeks without any visible work going on on the rwy itself.
I went into WVB twice in the pst two weeks or so, the first day tower was operating and reminded us no less then three times about the displaced threshold. The contractors were on the radio the second time and also reminded us of the displaced threshold. It is also in the notam. The big white X's do stand out though...! Friendly place at least.