Skyservice damage

[STN Ramp Rat]

Usually I am an observer and not a poster but I have seen some interesting pictures of a skyservice B767 in the carribean, it seems to have suffered extreme skin damage to the forward fuselage as a result of a hard landing, I cannot identify the aircraft but I understand it to be and old First choice machine. anyone any idea what actually happened?

[BRS_Dispatch]

If it has Sunquest titles on the rear its the ex My Travel aircraft G-SJMC

[DanielP]

Oh dear....that didn't last very long!

Saw it take off from Filton freshly painted a while back...looked smart!

Photo of damage in here somewhere:


Daniel

[nonickname]

A/C landed at PUJ, Punta Cana. WX ok, wind calm, no rain.

Landed main gear first, bumped back in the air, then landed nose gear first. 11 G on impact, at least thats what they told me.

[Jacamar]

Who's THEY. Is it reliable source. Some more facts needed

[Speedtape]

SkyService? :yuk: :yuk: Now why does that not surprise me! :rolleyes:

[deadeye]

Does anyone have more information? The photos appear to have disappeared from the web site.

[Jerricho]

Speedtape - very constructive :rolleyes:

Care to share the basis for your comment?

[CD]

This incident is also being discussed in the Canada forum where there is a picture posted:

Hard Landing (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=176142)

[HotDog]

Qantas did a similar stunt in the early sixties at Paya Lebar in Singapore in a 707. FO flying, with Check Capt. in l/h seat; landed heavy on it's nosewheel on RW 02, bounced and went around. They were very lucky to get away with it as the impact tilted the VG platform racks, giving them false pitch attitude indications, it was a night flight. Damage was substantial with torn skin in section 41. An engineering team from Sydney eventually cobbled it together and it was ferried back to base unpressurized.

[Farmer 1]

Can this be right? Let me start by confessing my wide-ranging ignorance of the aircraft, but could it survive an 11g touch-down and remain in one piece?

I believe the maximum take-off weight for the 767 is something over 200 tonnes. If it landed at half that weight - don't know whether that is reasonabe - 11g equates to 1,100 tonnes.

What is the nose gear stressed to? And the passenger seats? A triple seat, with three passengers at 80kg each, gives 240kg, plus the weight of the seat. At 11g that gives something like 2.75 tonnes.

Or have I picked the wrong tree up which to bark?

[IANESSAR]

184,612 Kg MTOM actually.

Don't bother with sums, You'll only get a headache plus you don't know if the force was straight down or at an angle. !?

Sadly I flew this aircraft a week or so before it left the UK...

[Farmer 1]

Thanks, Ianessar.

I have a certain fascination for numbers, but I appreciate your advice. I understand your sadness, and I sympathise. However, things could have been worse for you - the incident could have occurred a week or so earlier.

I rounded down the figure quoted by the manufacturer, actually. Maybe you are both right, it isn't important. But 11g is 11g, no matter in which direction it is applied.

Like I said, my lack of knowledge of the aircraft is profound, but I would have thought that if you applied that force to the nose gear it would make a pretty large dent in the fuselage roof, or side.

If anyone can enlighten me I would be grateful.

[Flyingphil]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/660213/L/

Take a look at this one.
As far as I understood the situation this plane suffered is comparable to the one of Skyservice.

Therefore there ist still some hope to see the Skyservice one in the air again ;)

[admiral ackbar]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/SSVB767.jpg

[thefunky1]

Forgive me if i'm talking nonsense, but i was under the impression that military pilots had to spend months training to withstand forces of approx 7-8g albeit for sustained periods. Surely a 767 full of average joes sustained to 11g would "land" with some rather pained and possibly uncoinscious passengers??:yuk:

[egsc_h17]

"Surely a 767 full of average joes sustained to 11g would "land" with some rather pained and possibly uncoinscious passengers"

Yes, but it wasn't sustained. In your fast jet example the problem is transference of blood from the head into the limbs, which can cause loss of consciousness within a few seconds, but not in the few milliseconds of an impact.

In that instance the problem is traumatic injury, however 11G isn't all that severe. A car crash at 30mph into an immovable object can subject the driver to around 50G for a very short time (which is definitely a problem). I'd say it is more likely that the pax and crew in this case would have been subjected to extreme discomfort rather than serious injury.

In any case I believe it was stated that the 11G shock was sustained by the nose gear. The tyres, dampers and deformation of the airframe would all have reduced the force experienced by the pax and crew.

Rob

[nonickname]

thefunky1,

Think before you speak! egsc_h17 covers it all, thank you.

Again I confirm, 11 G on impact, thats for sure!

[E cam]

I've experienced a 2g landing. It was very unpleasant but it didn't do any damage. Based on that, my feeling is that 11g would leave the aeroplane in little bits!

[Grazzhopper]

Someone has stated that the impact was 11g. How did they determine this? Were they onboard the aircraft with a G-meter?

[Doors to Automatic]

Just out of interest how does 11g compare to say, a greaser, a normal landing, a firm landing and a real thumper?

[Safety Guy]

nonickname:

State your source, otherwise stop rumour mongering.

[CosmosSchwartz]

Grazzhopper - The same thought occurred to me, but I guess they could calculate it from the FDR.

[BOAC]

Ageing brain seems to recall that the BA 737-400's (with ACARS) could be prompted to produce landing 'g' if asked.

I would have thought that 11g would exceed the design limit for a nosegear, but perhaps someone could comment - was this covered in the report on the Britannia 757 accident in Spain? 11g on the mainwheels would probably produce some pax and crew injuries.

[Grazzhopper]

I imagine that the impact force can be calculated or at least estimated from the FDR data. However, I question how someone can make this 11G claim so soon after the incident; probably before the FDR data has even been read. If the FDR data has even been read as of today, has this data been released to the public by the TSB or whoever is doing the investigation. I doubt that it has.

The question remains: How can you substantiate this 11G claim?

[thefunky1]

I hear what folks are saying and i apologise for the poor wording of my post, i didn't mean that the force felt on landing would be sustained and actually i worded it pretty crap so i apologise. Also understandably a large amount of force would be sustained by the nosewheel etc so the force felt by the pax and crew would be reduced.
However 11g is still pretty big even if it is partially aborbed and it's illegal for theme park rollercoasters all of which carry health warnings etc to exceed 4g and that's rarely sustained for more than a few secs so if the 11g claim is accurate and even if over half is absorbed by the gear that is still a pretty big force to slam into someone so i still think that some injury could be expected.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I'm a bit confused, and I'd appreciate some clarification from someone with more grey matter than I possess. (Note: I'm not trying to start a flame war here - I'm just asking questions out of curiosity!)

The shape of the wrinkles in Admiral Ackbar's photo is certainly consistent with a heavy nosewheel-first impact. But nonickname reportsLanded main gear first, bumped back in the air, then landed nose gear first. 11 G on impactJust how hard could the nosewheel have impacted on a second contact, after a first (main gear) impact which appears not to have caused any buckling of the fuselage?



One other small (pedantic?) point: egsc_h17 suggestsIn any case I believe it was stated that the 11G shock was sustained by the nose gear. The tyres, dampers and deformation of the airframe would all have reduced the force experienced by the pax and crew.Would not the deformation of the airframe only have tended to protect those pax and crew who were aft of the point of deformation?

JC

[JamesT73J]

If it was 11g I'm not sure I'd like that transmitted straight up my spine..there has to be potential for very serious injury there.

[Farmer 1]

Most of us seem to be asking the same question - how can the 11g claim be substantiated?

Any g-meter fitted is not going to be fitted to the nose gear, I wouldn't think. If the figure comes from the FDR, I'm pretty sure that has a g-switch, which I'm also pretty sure would operate way below 11g and isolate the device. We had to brief our handlers to load freight carefully because the FDR was fitted inside the freight compartment, and it was not unknown for the switch to be triggered accidentally. And the freight I'm talking about is of the order of toolbox size, easily loaded by one person.

I hadn't got as far as thinking of the passengers, I'm afraid, my second name being Schardenfreude. No I was thinking of the airframe, and there are still questions arising from that figure of 11g. At what sort of loading would the tyres be expected to burst, for instance?

11g seems to me to be an awful lot of g's.

[rsavage]

We (the passengers of flight 5G560) have been paying a great deal of attention to your site. Many of us are starved for answers, and I think this has been the most interesting discussion thread so far.

We've set up a web site for ourselves to to exchange information: http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/

I think we'd welcome input on our site from a professional pilot.

Thank you.

Richard Savage

[763 jock]

Richard. I am a professional pilot who flies the same type of aircraft as the incident aircraft. Can I respectfully suggest that the best course of action is to wait for the report that will be produced by the accident investigators. It is they (and only they)that will have full access to the flight and voice recorders as well as any other "contributory factors" that may be relevant. There are literally dozens of possible factors that the investigators will want to examine/eliminate prior to publishing a report. I appreciate that you will be keen to get answers, but accident investigation is a long and thorough process and it will be some time before a report is produced.
Whilst many professional pilots will have theories surrounding what happened, the hard facts need to be established and this can only happen after a full and thorough investigation.

[admiral ackbar]

From the site Robert mentionned, this picture shows the damage better than the one I posted before :oh:

http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/images/magda_1.jpg

As 763 jock states, the Canadian TSB has a very good reputation at getting to the bottom of things. It will take a while as these investigations are very thorough, but you will get the whole picture eventually.

Sorry to hear about your bad experience.

BTW, I am not a pilot, just a very frequent flyer who likes aviation. Out of respect to the professionals on the board, I don't engage in speculation or theories.

[RoyHudd]

Is this a/c going anywhere, or is it just destined for the nacker's yard?

[Rhys S. Negative]

Not an airline pilot - just and engineer with a scrappy piece of paper...

The 'g' seen by the nosewheel could be a lot different from the aircraft as a whole. 'G' is a measure of acceleration (or in this case, deceleration). The vertical velocity of the nosewheel at touchdown comprises both the rate of descent and the pitch rate.

Some guesses:

Rate of descent = 10ft/s
Pitch rate = 5deg/s nose-down
Nosewheel is 70ft ahead of the point of rotation (not necessarily the CG)

would give a nosewheel vertical velocity of about 16ft/s. If this is arrested on contact with the runway in 0.1s, that's a 5g deceleration (160ft/s/s); if it only takes 0.05s, it would give 10g.

Comments anyone?

[rsavage]

Thanks gentlemen. I think that's great advice.

We'll continue to monitor what you folks have to say. You are doing some good thought experiments (I'm not mistaking them for fact).

[Idle Thrust]

Admiral Ackbar wrote:

"As 763 jock states, the Canadian TSB has a very good reputation at getting to the bottom of things."

Actually Admiral if you read 763 Jock's post again, he makes no comment on the reputation of the TSB. Thorough, yes, but its reports have produced some very questionnable conclusions, the most notable recent one being the Swissair 111 crash.

Still, his advice is sound - lets' wait for the report.

[Inuksuk]

As I said in the Canada forum, Richard Savage and his fellow passengers should await the results of TC TSB's report, and use those factual conclusions as the basis for whatever path they wish to pursue, and not get involved in wanton and needless speculation. TC TSB will publish the truth, and will either produce recommendations or directives as a result of the investigation.

Some of the other passengers on the service who have also chosen to post on this forum, are extremely childish, and I would respectfully suggest they refrain from doing so in future.

As another contributor has indicated, the associated alleged lack of care of the airline towards the passengers is the seemingly biggest issue, and it is turning into a bit of a PR nightmare - with the correct one-on-one from Skyservice Management, a lot of this tittle tattle could have been avoided.

PS Most of us who read any incident report TSB, AAIB or whatever, might disagree with the conclusions. In the absence of hard evidence on Swissair 111 or any other incident where we are not directly involved, it's speculation - and not directly related to this topic of a hard landing.

[Lost in Saigon]

Many of the passengers felt the aircraft was going too fast.

I wonder which runway they landed on and also what the wind direction and speed was at the time of the accident.

[RoyHudd]

Lots of conjecture, but is the a/c going to fly or is it a write-off? That is the most important issue for the airline right now, accident report comes later.:}

[Duff beer]

Many of the passengers felt the aircraft was going too fast.

Thats it. First thing tomorrow im ripping out the ASI and flying my next approach on passenger speed calls from the back.

:*

[Tan]

The instigators of this Sky Service scam should be black listed for future travel on all commercial aircraft. Their only interest was getting their vacation trip paid for by any means possible and guess what, they were successful. I would suspect that these folks can now refer to themselves as the new prostitutes of the sky.

Any one with half a brain realizes this incident has no merit in fact and would never stand up in court.

[BusyB]

Well, my it only takes a part of half my brain to think that if you've managed to crease the hull you must be pushing your luck to say nothing happened!

[411A]

Hmmm, looks like that aeroplane needs the Boeing structural team...pronto.:}

[Tan]

It's rumoured to have been written off..

[airbuff]

Interesting, where did you hear that...boeing, the insurers, skyservice?

Skyservice Airlines
Statement to Media
June 3, 2005



Skyservice Airline’s top priority is the safety of our passengers. We regret that those aboard flight 560 from Toronto to Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, on May 22 experienced what is known in the industry as a hard landing. Our dedicated professionals strive to ensure that all our flights are as smooth and comfortable as possible, and we apologize to flight 560 passengers for not meeting that standard. On June 2, we sent a letter of apology and a travel voucher for $500 to all those whose addresses we have on file.

Skyservice is taking this matter very seriously and is fully cooperating with the authorities that are investigating the incident to determine the cause. The results of the investigation will be made public in due course. We are aware that the flight-data recorder has been sent to the Canadian Transportation Safety Board on behalf of the Dominican authorities who are conducting the investigation.

The facts indicate that the Boeing 767 aircraft conducted a normal approach, but, for reasons presently unknown, the landing resulted in damage to the fuselage. The aircraft was taxied to the designated parking area where passengers deplaned in a normal manner. No injuries were reported at that time.

Skyservice has always maintained a strong safety record. Transport Canada’s most recent safety audit, conducted in 2003, resulted in no major findings.

We pride ourselves on the highest customer care and sincerely hope that these valued customers will allow us to welcome them onboard future Skyservice flights where they will experience the level of service we are proud to offer.

[Inuksuk]

Anyone who has viewed Savage's internet site on the the Skyservice incident will see it is populated with utter drivel, aside from one or two comments from professional aviators who have tried to put them straight.

I can only assume, the dizziness that the contributors to the site allege to feel is caused by the rolling dollar signs in their eyes...

http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/

[airbuff]

Isn't that the truth:yuk: Looking closely at the news footage and photos one can see the sheer panic in the eyes of them and look at all those ambulance lights. People being carried off on stretchers, supporting eachother. Still haven't seen anyone on that website in fact identify themselves as being injured to anyone there nor seeking medical attention while on holiday. Oh brother, what a sad statement on our society. As they nestled into bed they drifted off to a peaceful sleep with visions of $$$$'s dancing through their heads. :rolleyes: Perhaps some of them could focus on finding a job instead of trying to put others out of one.

[Tan]

This is a copy and paste from another web forum however in this instance I know of this poster who is a very straight arrow;

b767jetmec
Rank 0



Joined: 03 Jun 2005
Posts: 5
Location: North of Nowhere
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of my co-workers happened to be on that flight with his wife. He is an AME with another Canadian Airline. By his accounts, yes the landing was harsh, some overhead bins and O2 masks did open and deploy. The mood was generally calm, until one of the passengers thought, hey wait a minute, we can sue and get large coin. This was done in the terminal area . Everyone walked out by themselves, and no one complained about pain or injury until one dumbass decided lets all get together and sue Skyservice. Now my co-worker claims that he has been getting nothing but calls from Skyservice and their lawyers along with the group action lawyers. He was originally offered $500 to forgive and forget, along with the reimbursement of the cost of the trip. He has now heard, though unofficially, that the offer now stands at 5 Grand. He has yet to confirm this with company lawyers.

[armada]

A response to the post below:

Their forum clearly states: "As clearly noted on this site and upon registration, this discussion forum is for the sole use of passengers of Skyservice Flight 5G560 landing in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic on Sunday, May 22nd, 2005. Use by any other parties is strictly prohibited.

Although we appreciate posts from experts such as pilots that are unbiased, posts from outsiders that are a detriment to the board and the passengers of Flight 5G560 will be deleted and the user banned without warning"

So much for free speech and reason.


Reading the comments in their survey posted on site, one person writes to the effect:" "At least they would have given us free headsets, snacks, on the return flight".
Wait, if this is the case, that free snacks will placate them, when why the need for the lawsuit? Does not make sense.
Secondly, they all seem to want emotional comfort from the crew>
(source: http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/survey.php )


The crew is not a mommy or therapist! What is wrong with these people. Flying is RISKY and people DIE! If your back is so bad that you may easily injure it, then do not fly or drive. These risks are clear.
Yes no one expects this kind of thing to occur. But maybe you should read www.airdisaster.com to see what has happened, and what will continue to happen.






We (the passengers of flight 5G560) have been paying a great deal of attention to your site. Many of us are starved for answers, and I think this has been the most interesting discussion thread so far.

We've set up a web site for ourselves to to exchange information: http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/

I think we'd welcome input on our site from a professional pilot.

Thank you.

Richard Savage

[Speedtape]

We can't really blame anyone for trying to gain financial recompense from SkyService. Yes, it is a sad inditement on today's society but I challenge anybody to deny, that given the same opportunity to benefit from someone else's carelessness, they wouldn't do exactly the same thing themselves.
Skyservice do leave themselves open for such things to happen as they do not have much of an unblemished safety or accident record and having worked with them, I have first hand experience as to some of the reasons why this may be so.:yuk: :yuk:

[armada]

She/he is very naive about how the world works.

" Skyservice needs to stand up and say, "Yes, we crashed a plane and yes people were hurt"

No one will admit to anything without a full investigation with all the FACTS. This is not a game, in any case like this one, millions of dollars are at stake here - both from any legitimate injury claims and from greedy lawsuit golddiggers . Secondly, such an investigation also has a huge impact on the airline and pilots livelihoods.

Other than fluffy PR statements, no one in their right minds would make any sort of final comment until an investigation is complete. I believe we refer to this as a DEMOCRACY. :*




crys8494

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 8

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:07 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honestly, I couldn't care less about money or coupons. Yes, it was offered, I would take it. I would be stupid not to. My issue though is accountability. Even if a suit was not won, I would be happy just knowing that Skyservice was splashed everywhere. I am so appaled and upset with everyone calling it a hard landing because it has not made news nor have many heard about it except for from word of mouth. Skyservice needs to stand up and say, "Yes, we crashed a plane and yes people were hurt" and stop with this BS about it just being a hard landing and everyone being fine.

Ok...that was my rant. I am just sick over this whole thing.



__________________--

Ok I had to edit this post to post an ingnorant comment from crys8494, it totally belittles the facts that pilots are highly trained professionals who have at their disposal finely tuned instruments.



crys8494



Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 8

Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:50 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't speak as someone who has flown much, but my husband can. And I remember, just before it all happened, him saying in a paniced voice, and beleive me, he was very paniced to say anything that might scare me, and inexperienced flyer, "We are coming in on the wrong angle and too fast."

I agree...it probably is hard to judge. But you will have an idea if you have flown many times. You get the backseat perspective, which is different from that of the pilots up front. I would have to say, again, just an opinion, but frequent flyers who are not pilots are probably better at judging speed from the back that a pilot is, simply because the pilot is usually in the front. Granted, it is all relative, and different planes land at different speeds, but he has said over and over that the speed did seem excessive. But, like my husband said, the black box information shall point this out.


Should be banned from flying, now she attacks cabin staff for lack of a window seat, but this seat could somehow "comfort" her


crys8494



Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 8

Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:42 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I suffered a lower back, neck and shoulder injury in a car accident in September 2003. Physio was ended on this in November 2003 as I had made a complete recovery. I have been stiff and sore since the accident, some days better than others.

As for where the buckle in the plane was, we were in row 8, the buckle was behind us. We had figured that the buckle was at around row 12, judging by the photos and the window placement.

Sorry, I should say that we is my husband, Larry and myself Crystal.

I cried on Friday and Saturday nights before we left to come home. I was also crying on the bus on the way to the airport and while we were walking on the tarmak to the plane. Some of you may have seen the "innappropriate outburst" that my husband and I had on the plane returning home. I had lost all emotional control by this time and my husband was stressed over my reactions and that he could do nothing about it except reassure me. When we got on the plane and had no window seat, he lost it, because guarenteeing me the window was one of the only things he could do to comfort me at that point. We had paid for prearranged seating to ensure a window both ways. Skyservice personal at that time threatened to leave me in the Dominican (to which I said yes with all seriousness. Had my husband not been sitting on the outside, I would have walked off of the plane) I was told by the flight attendent that "landings like that happen all of the time" like they are in the habit of crashing planes on landing.

I am terrified to fly and not sure if I will ever get on a plane again.

[Avman]

What an injustice all this drivel is to people who have survived real and horrific air accidents and despite deep and real trauma, have got on with their lives. As has been mentioned this is all about $$$ and nothing more. These people serve to remind us just how twisted modern day society has got.

[rsavage]

You know the group of passengers is not one collective lump. There are many different views represented.

I'm running a poll on the web site (http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20) to see who's behind the lawsuit, and who thinks it's premature. Please look at it before you continue to generalize.

I'm on record saying many times that I'm not interested in a lawsuit. I do want the company to be held accountable for its actions after the landing. I honestly think that if they performed good follow-up people wouldn't be kicking up the fuss they are now.

Thank you.

[RoyHudd]

And somewhat representative of the blame-culture existing in Canada today.

Suggest that all the plaintiffs' "winnings" go into an Air Safety fund, or to an appropraite charity, and see how much energy the do-gooders then expend on their class action.

[j_davey]

what is this fool crys8494 talking about..... frequent flyers have a better idea of speed my a**e! funniest thing ive heard all year.

something tells me that the plethora of instruments in a cockpit gives the pilot a slightly better idea of what is going on than any gobs***e in 13A ......

if u havn`t guessed im a little bothered at the lack of reality in some passengers minds these days.

[armada]

OMG!! She admits this lawsuit is not about the landing, rather about poor service! Suing for poor service?
I sincerely hope the judge dismissed the claim. :yuk:

And I say it once more, had Skyservice stepped up, right away, this would never have been an issue for us! We could have moved past it. For us, my husband and I, the lawsuit is not about the CRASH landing (it was not a hard landing, please stop calling it that), it was about the poor survice that we received in light of it


http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5&start=30

[airbuff]

HARD LANDING HARD LANDING...That Crystal is a piece of work. If you are so afraid of flying now, don't blame the airlines. Im sure those $$$'s dancing through your head will assist in conquering your fear.

[PAXboy]

I do want the company to be held accountable for its actions after the landing. Uumm, so the hard landing is now history and you are irritated that the company did not handle things too well in the mêlée afterwards?

Some of the postings by the folks involved show such a lack of understanding of how commercial travel operates that it is no surprise that they get into automobiles every day without any concern for what may happen. The one certainty is to wait for the official report.

The folks clamouring for compensation might care to remember that they are alive and well. Yes, it was unfortunate but they are ALIVE. Life doesn't get much better than that. If they really want to benefit from this event, whilst waiting in an intelligent fashion for the official report, they should go and visit their friends and family. Play games with their grandchildren and know that life can be pretty darn good.

[TURIN]

Rhys S. Negative

"just an Engineer"??

Don't do yourself down son! There are plenty out there that will do that for you.:rolleyes:

Back to the thread.

I remember seeing an AA B767 at LHR that had had a heavy nose wheel first landing. The top of the fuselage was severly creased. The BA engineers ended up putting external formers across the top and then it was flown back to Boeing for a full rebuild.

:ok:

[Final 3 Greens]

I think that it is high time that some sanity was input to this thread.

Yes, no-one was killed, but at the same time the aircraft was returned to terra firma hard enough to cause damage that appears sufficient for it to be a reportable incident and possibly written off.

This far from the normal experience that a pax can reasonbably expect. In nearly 30 years of pax travelling and about 100 segments per year, over the past few years, I have never experienced such an incident, thank God.

I've only seen three go arounds and never even experienced an engine shut down, let alone an arrival (I decline to call it a landing) that deformed the hull as depicted in the pix of this incident.

If 250 people are placed into a situation where they are scared, it is to be expected that they will react in different ways.

Some will go away and reflect quietly, others will take a more vocal line. Some may choose to seek financial redress.

Whatever some of the posters here think, the people on this flight were involved in a reportable incident and IMHO, they have every right to seek redress for the case they are making. The court system in Canada is mature and will decide, in due course, whether there is any merit in the claim.

Some of the comments from the other website are obviously "wrong", if we look rationally at the facts and understand the operation of aircraft. However, I can understand why people have made the comments that they have. They deserve sympathy and understanding, not invective.

Many people are nervous flyers and it is natural that they assume the worst.

Personally I find Crystal's comments understandable and deserving of empathy under the circumstances and it does little merit to those who ridicule her.

Those wannabes and others deriding the pax would do well to remember who pays the bills at the end of the day.

Before anyone flames me, please re-read my post and note that I do not speculate about cause and do not apportion blame.

[Priority BOTH!]

Good post final,

Some observations:

I've been a professional pilot on big jets for a lot of years and whatever the cause this aeoplane was bent. It takes a lot of force to bend aeroplanes as they are incredibly strong as you will know if you've ever watched film of them being tested.

Judging the speed of an approach is incredibly difficult from the cockpit without instruments, let alone looking through a small cabin window. Your perception depends mainly on how close objects are to you just like in a car on a motorway, with close objects like trees and buildings tending to exacerbate the impression of speed. I've often though how fast I seem to be coming in at only to be reassured by the ASI - the mind plays tricks sometimes or is fooled by external cues.

Whiplash injuries in motor vehicles and the like frequently do not manifest themselves until some days after the accident and, because this is well known in personal injury litigation, the fact that everyone walked away certainly does not mean that there have been no injuries. There is also the psychological element of course. Plenty are terrified of flying even with good landings and I have to say that it seems unlikely that in an incident of this kind there would genuinely be zero injuries. I think those who are claiming that dollar signs are the only motivation here are being a little unrealistic - of course there are those that will seek to take advantage of the situation, but that is all part of the world in which we now live and why your third party car insurance premium is very nearly the same as that for comprehensive cover these days.

The standard recovery for a bounced landing is to go around on many big jets (e.g. airbuses) and I wonder what the Boeing manual says for the B767. It is notoriously difficult to fly a bounced aeroplane back onto the runway given the unusual speed, pitch attitude and rotation rate and applying full go around thrust will often avoid (or at least greatly reduce) the possibility of the nosewheel impacting the runway first after the bounce, quite apart from the danger of eventually settling on to the runway with considerably less tarmac left than you bargained for (granted, PUJ is 10,000 ft long). Much better to throw it away and have another go than risk bending the aeroplane in general, but there may have been good reasons why this was not done in this case (e.g. movement of hold freight that may have made the aircraft unflyable). Still I'm a bit surprised no-one seems to have mentioned this.

[In The North]

I hear what Final and Priority Both are saying. Of course this would have been a frightening experience for those passengers on board. I would not be at all surprised if there were/are injuries that surfaced after the fact. (This could well be true for the operating crew as well) The problem is in the many statements suggesting that HAD Skyservice handled things differently, then there would be no law suit. This is where I get confused. If what Crystal says (and I'm not targeting her, I am merely using her as an example because of her postings) is true, that her biggest issue is with the way Skyservice handled the accident (both by the crew and by head office itself) then are we to believe that the injuries sustained would have disappeared? No doubt there are injuries and I believe that people have the right to be compensated for medical care, loss of income etc, but there appears to be a very grey area as to whether the lawsuit is due to poor customer service or injuries. The two really do not go hand in hand. The more vocal individuals of that flight seem more or less intent on laying blame prematurely, and in doing so are discrediting those who may well have a valid claim. Many professionals, out of compassion and understanding, have attempted to shed light on either what MAY have happened, why the crew reacted as they did, why it is called a Hard Landing and not a CRASH landing etc , but for many it appears that although they were 'starving for answers", (Just quoting you Richard, not singling you out) unless those answers are the ones they want to hear, they are not interested. I think this is why people are quite frankly disgusted by the whole thing. Although there may well be only a few of the "lottery hopefuls", they happen to be the most vocal.

Having said all that, for those who truly did suffer (either emotionally or physically) from this, I wish you all the best.

[Jerricho]

Ah ha!

True colours are starting to show over there:

(Talking about the lawyer taking on the case)

I would never take an action that would net us such a low amount of money as if you think about it, $10,000,000 divided by 318 passangers is just over $30,000 per. However, a probable outcome would be an insurance settlement for much less, most probably less than half of that. Take away all the fees and disbursments and this lawyer is the only winner. The suit should not have been for any less than $30,000,000 and even that is probablly too low a number.

:rolleyes: Who's seeing dollar signs?

(I've been sent this quote by somebody else)

[rsavage]

An unidentified quote from an unnamed source taken to represent 318 people...hmm. Confess, are you from FOX News?

[Jerricho]

Actually Mr Savage, I've seen this very quote on the site (till the mods over there tore their party skirts and booted everybody else off that ddin't seem to agree with them). Tell me post isn't there and that he wasn't on the flight (I could use his name here if you like, I don't know if he would)

Don't try and score points mate..................or are you protesting too much?

[rsavage]

(till the mods over there tore their party skirts and booted everybody else off that ddin't seem to agree with them)

The discussion boards were frozen by the moderator for two reasons:
1.) People were treating each other poorly. Very much like your quote above. Things degenerate and it gets infectious.
2.) Some people were posing as passengers, and their IP's could be traced to the airline industry.

I'm not sure about the post you displayed, but it doesn't matter. You're using it like a brush to paint 318 passengers by, and that won't do.

[3holelover]

There was at least one Air Canada employee on board that aircraft as a passenger Mr. Savage.

[rsavage]

It was not Air Canada. I do know there was a very nice gentleman from Air Canada on the plane.

[Jerricho]

Actually Mr Savage, I think you'll find I am not insinuating all 318 pax are "painted with the same brush". That is an outright misstruth by yourself, and best you watch who you're calling a journalist.

I have simply stated "true colours are beginning to show", quoting a post by an individual who claims to be on the fight. Reading that, it seems fairly obvious THAT individual is definately seeing dollar signs.

People were treating each other poorly. Very much like your quote above. Things degenerate and it gets infectious.

Yes they were. And from what I could see there were several individuals who appear to display enough knowledge to indicate they were on the flight, and they were picking the crap out of each other as well.

However, as was addressed here on the thread in the Canadian forum (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1922556#post1922556), individuals that were on the flight had their posts deleted and were banned from the site. You've replied to that topic, hence you know what's going on. You came here and asked for professional pilots to check in and give their opinions. When a professional informed they were unable to tell what the speed of an aircraft was as a pax, the response equated to "well, you weren't there, so what would you know" :rolleyes:

Come on mate, show a bit of consistency.

(And don't talk crap about not being sure about the quote.......you've replied to the thread it's in)

[rsavage]

When a professional informed they were unable to tell what the speed of an aircraft was as a pax, the response equated to "well, you weren't there, so what would you know"

That wasn't my respoonse, so you don't have a point. Once again you're painting more than one person with the same brush. I'm sure you'll deny it later.

Yes they were. And from what I could see there were several individuals who appear to display enough knowledge to indicate they were on the flight, and they were picking the crap out of each other as well.

I already agreed with that, and that's a reason the moderator shut down the site.

(And don't talk crap about not being sure about the quote.......you've replied to the thread it's in)

Did I? Ok. The point wasn't about the quote. It was about what you were doing with it.

[Jerricho]

Mr Savage, I'm not going to sit here all night trading "tit for tat" posts with you, nor having you misquote me. You seem to be taking stuff that is being said about other individuals personally. You need to relax mate and realise it's some of the other input that is being questioned. Aside from my last post regarding your response to another thread, nobody is having a go at you. Your input on "that other site" is very level headed and quite a steading influence...........why the change of face here?

I'll leave you with something you said on the previous page......

You know the group of passengers is not one collective lump. There are many different views represented.

Nobody is mate, nobody is.

[rsavage]

I think we're suffering from the problem inherent in email. You can't see the person's face, and you can't hear how they say what they say.

You think I'm off my level. I think you're flaming ("tore their party skirts," and all that).

We're probably both a couple of idiots. Can we agree on that?

[TightSlot]

Don't be too hard on yourselves now! ;)

Maybe we could move on from this?

[rsavage]

I'm for that.

Thanks.

[Jerricho]

I think you're flaming

I have not yet begun to flame :E :E

But I 100% agree. Sorry.

[Onan the Clumsy]

flaming?

:} :} :} :} :}