Air India Plane Skids off Runway

[oxide]

An AIA 747-400 skid off the runway at Mumbai Airports this morning in heavy rain. It was apparently flight AI127 from Bangalore.

The aircraft was carrying 333 pasengers and they are all safe.

The airport has been "partially" closed. The same runway is still being used with restricted TORA it seems for the smaller aircraft. TakeOff's only. Although some airlines are not conmfortable departing on the same runway and have opted not to.

Any more details about what exactly happend?

[Farrell]

Bombay is hell on earth at the moment with the rains.

Would there be a chance of a runway being damaged with a torrent like that?

940mm was what someone quoted earlier.

[RatherBeFlying]

Even if the runway had dried out after the flooding, any residual silt or mud would not help the braking action.

Any moisture content or clay component in the sediment would worsen the situation.

[9Ws]

Landing earlier this morning on Mumbai's RWY 14 (notorious for its displaced threshold, reduced LDA and many upslopes and downslopes along it's length!) in heavy rain, she skid, slipped and danced her merry way to a stop at the far end... and the nose wheel apparently over-ran the concrete by a few feet. Aircraft is in perfect shape from what I hear. That's the news out as of now.

But whatever the outcome, knowing that runway very well, I say congratulations to the Captain for a great job done under very obvious trying conditions. I'm sure many pilots flying in and out of Mumbai have nightmares of landing on 14 with winds always either cross and >15kt or tail and ~10kt after a bumpy approach. Add heavy rain to it, reduced visibility, that nasty "bump" and the TDZ plus the always unspoken-of Rubber Deposits at the TDZs and you have the perfect recipe for what happened today.

Why can't Mumbai's runways be better maintained (or simply rebuilt elsewhere!)? On a few odd days, it's a disaster just waiting to happen.

Personally I would have gone around or diverted knowing Rwy14 and the conditions, but I wouldn't take anything away from the AI captain as one is always trying to make it in somehow, especially at your home base airport with... the main runway 09/27 closed... AND many passengers stranded for days together after the devastation of the floods... AND 14 being the ONLY runway out of FOUR that is open and available for landing (the rest of the airport being still fairly water-logged or very wet and the ILS-es of the other runways still not up and running).

But that's best left for another discussion to decide what was right or wrong.

As per TV reports, SQ had earlier decided not to operate to Mumbai since they cannot land there. Guess 14/32 isn't very popular among most of the foreign carriers... understandably too.

Yes, 940mm in 24 hours that day. 630mm of that fell in just 12 hours. It WAS hell on earth. I know... I slept the night on a cold, hard marble staircase on the 3rd floor of an office building I "found" while escaping the 5-foot floods :ouch:

Was in pitch darkness with the electricity switched off all over the city. Later in the morning I found "my staircase" overlooked the threshold of Rwy 14 ;) ....and then walked 10km home amidst the devastation.

Hope Mumbai recovers fast. Loads of garbage remains to be collected from the roads, carcasses of dead animals too, horrible stench in some areas. Watch out for diseases Mumbai, and good luck with the repair!

[robin747]

The Minister has already pointed blame at the Pilot.[ Yawn....tell me more ]

But it seems that the following could have been a contributory factor:

1. Shorter runway with light tail winds, Pilot landing deeper.

2. At the end of Rwy14, outside the perimeter wall flows a river, the same is used as a dumping place for used commercial oil in huge quantity and recent overflowing of the river and flooding could have led this oil slick to remain on the Rwy. The Airport guys don't have any Friction measurement system, to save their skin now they are broadcasting Rwy condition as 'poor' - the morons should know that the Rwy in that case should be closed !

[9Ws]

Just had a listen to the latest ATIS

"E" 1410z (that's 1940hrs local time)
ILS 14
270/15
2200 meters
Moderate Rain
Few 1200'
Sct 1800'
Few CB 3000'
Bkn 10000'
26/21
1001
CB to East, tops 6km
Tempo 1500 meters in XXRA

[oxide]

I remember being in an AI A310 into Rwy14 .. we did not skid nor slip out way to the end but we bounced from one wheel to the other after being struck by a really sudden and strong crosswind.

Dno't know how many have seen that TAP A320 video where they had to go-around .. this was exactly the same.. only we were lower and no go-around. Passengers on wing seats reported that we almost had wingtip scrape!! Scary as hell!! :ugh:



What's the length of Rwy14 ?

I was a bit surprised that 737's were going off that Rwy after the incident. It would have been an even better show had one of them needed to do a RTO!! :ooh:

[9Ws]

Think the AI captain might just have nailed himself.

Got a first hand report from a colleague who had a "balcony seat" view of the entire incident from the Holding Point Rwy14 while AI was landing.

Coming off the approach, the "flare" became a "float" (exactly what 14 approaches tend to do to you). The "Queen of the Skies" touched down somewhere near the intersection with Rwy 09/27. Scrambled for a stop and the rest we already know... nose wheel went over the edge by a few feet.

Against him :
He floated and landed deep instead of going around.

In his defence (if he officially ever has one!) bar-room talk would go like this :
Poor chap. Rwy14 is a nasty approach from 500' to touch down. Winds are never what they should be for that runway (always tail-cross) easily inducing "floats". We all know to come in 3-reds 1-white on Rwy14, but who'd do that on a 747 etc., etc...

Oxide, Rwy 14 is about ~9500'. Knock off some ~1500' for the displaced threshold and you're left with ~8000'. Say you touch down AT the 1000' marker (never!) you're left with 7000' to stop the aircraft.

AI apparently touched down near the 09/27 intersection and I venture an educated guess that would leave them some ~5000' to stop. Not nearly enough to stop a heavy 747, huh? :suspect:

[Jordan D]

Is this the reason for the late AI121 into LHR this evening? Just asking as a casual observer.

Jordan

[Joles]

Guys,
I quote extensively from Rediffmail.com that carries the Minister's statements
QUOTE

"Preliminary reports suggest that the pilot did not apply full brakes to avoid skidding on the wet runway. He had estimated that the plane would come to a stop before the end of the runway. It did so, but the nosewheel went out of the runway by a few feet," he told reporters in New Delhi.

Patel said the Air India pilot was a senior executive pilot who had decided not to apply hard brakes, which could have increased the chances of skidding when torrential rains were on.


The secondary runway had taken the load of 500 flights since operations resumed at the Mumbai airport on Thursday afternoon, he said. "The secondary runway is always used when the main runway is not available," he said.

Replying to questions on the recent flooding of the airport, Patel said as the runways were submerged due to the heavy rains, the highly-sophisticated electronic instrument landing system and navigational aids were under water and
slush.

UNQUOTE

Your views ???????

Cheers
Joles

[ManaAdaSystem]

The rest of us would under the circumstances use a healthy amount of autobrakes, blissfully unaware that this would increase the chance of skidding.
To brake, or not to brake, that is the question...

[a_320busdriver]

Was sitting in my cockpit observing from stand 62 and I did see the plane touchdown before the 09/27 intersecion. just wanted to say that after all this happened we were not allowed to take off from Rwy 09/27 because as per the ground controller the navaids were inop - anyone care to explain that mind boggling one! After waiting for two hours during which time we all (30 odd a/c) questioned various sources over the r/t and the phone to clarif this, we were allowed to go using our take off alternates. Is using take off alternates not common there? During the waiting period the r/t over ground was hilarious and the ground controller once replied to a query about an aircrafts sequence by saying 'now the sequence has gone for a six' :D

[willfly380]

why dont we pilots get together and refuse to use this runway when it is wet.all airlines all pilots getting together through the union or what ever.
the minister can say the airfield is operational,like hell it is. a six o clock flight takes off at 1030. the atc has no idea about LTOM.they have no idea when the main runway will be available.and i want to meet the gentleman who refused to land on rnwy 09 saying strong tail winds. hello you want to land on rnwy 14 with the same winds[almost] . are you insane , rnwy 09 is the longest rnwy at mumbai. rnwy 14 is the worst rnwy in the world.they should close the airfield down, imagine the plight of the pax and the staff.
the touch down zone of 14 is like a ski jump.dont laugh at the poor captain please,that is a job of the dgca.

[jpsingh]

The following is an extract in brief from " The Hindu" Newspaper of today (NOT verbatum )



An Air India 747-400 went off the runway using RW 14 for landing. RW 27 at BOM has been unavailable for landing since 26 JUL afternoon due to heavy rains and nonavailability of ILS for all runways. The runway 14 is 9596 feet but as the landing threshold is displaced, the LDA is reduced to 8258 feet.On using the ILS the touchdown point is further extended and LDA is 7229 feet.
The conditions prevailing at the time were runway wet and winds 270/12 Kts. A colleague who landed a couple of hours earlier reported seeing 22 Kts tailwind at 100 feet reducing to 13 kts at touch down using Autobrakes 3 and Max reversers on a 737 ng landing at 57 Tonnes landing weight.
We all know that a wet runway takes up 30% penalty for stopping and the tailwinds can play havoc. Combined with the slush and standing water for the time prior to this aircraft landing could have been contributory factors.
Some additional observations on BOM.
1. Every monsoon BOM weather radar is declared unseviceable.
2. Through the year RW 27 is in use because it being the RW with serviceable ILS
3. RW 09 ILS has been installed but the Glide has been Not available since God knows when.
4 Earlier the ATIS used to give the Friction Coefficient but a few years back during monsoons Saudia Jumbo diverted to MADRAS and since then this info is not transmitted on ATIS anymore. :{

[Alpha Leader]

9Ws:

Whenever you raise the issue of poor maintenance or service in India, you will invariably be told that "we are short of hands".

This, of course, in a country with millions of unemployed, is pure BS. The true meaning is that "not enough palms have been greased".

[ManaAdaSystem]

But BOM is ISO certified!

God knows what kind of weird new local procedures they will introduce after this incident.

[Alpha Leader]

ManaAdaSystem :

Do you know how much (or rather: how little) an ISO certificate costs in India and China?

And even if it is legitimate, it only means you have systems in place to verify quality and rectify faults, so that your quality is consistent. It has no bearing whatsoever on the absolute level of quality.

[alf5071h]

Perhaps the crew should have read this first; some knowledge that we all could refresh.
Managing the Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing (http://www.flightsafety.org/ppt/managing_threat.ppt) from the Flight Safety Foundation (2.7 Mb download powerpoint presentation - right click, save as).

I have also seen an excellent presentation and separate video on ‘Adverse Weather – The Indian Monsoon’ produced by the Indian ALAR Task Force and Indian FID – DGAC. Does anyone have a web link or CD of these?

[DirectAnywhere]

Haven't been there for a while. Can anyone please explain why the long runway isn't available?

Is it available for departures?

Ta.

[Airbubba]

And if they swap ends of the runway, you get the breathtaking views of Trombay Hill on the VOR to 32.

As mentioned earlier, 9-27 is no picnic when it's wet with all the rubber buildup. A jumbo seems to slide off every year or two. The slums and infamous public "facilities" at the approach end of runway 27 are supposed to be relocated. Sadly, the rains may have moved them with tragic results. The Sahar Airport Road was in the process of being cleaned up, it is the visitor's first impression leaving the terminal of the poverty, suffering and filth that is street life in BOM. Hopefully some of this new wealth buying Rolls Royces in Bandra will filter down to those who need it most...

[facelac]

Have been operating regularly in/out of BOM last 4 month .. on contract here. Used to quite marginal winter ops in scandinavia from previous experiense.
Operating with little margin to limts, it's imperative that information which decisions are based on are correct. I personally found windinfo from BOM to be quite unreliable (reported windspeed often on lower side) and as stated ealier there is no means of measuring friction coefficient or B.A.. I never saw rwy-info like standing water or water patches either (only info wet or dry).
If airport-authorities are not able to give precise info on rwy state above regular wet and windinfo not reliable, they should close the rwy rather than pushing crews into last second surprises with little or no time to react and decide.

Facelac

[old747man]

HEY THIS ISNT THE FIRST TIME ITS HAPPENED , IT HAPPENED IN 1999 TOO THAT WAS AN AIR INDIA 747 300 COMBI.ALSO OVER RAN ,DIFFERENCE IS THAT THERE IS NO UNION TO GET THIS PILOT BACK, HAVING FLOWN IN AN OUT OF BOMBAY ON 747 I GOT TO SAY THERE ISINT ANY ROOM FOR AN ERROR OR A SMOOTH LANDING ON THAT RUNWAY, EVEN IN DRY CONDITIONS....POOR CAPTAIN OF THIS FLIGHT TAIL WIND ,CONTAMINATED RUNWAY AND FLOWN THE WHOLE NIGHT ,ANYTHING CAN BE SAID NOW SITTING IN OUR ROOMS BUT WHEN YOU THERE YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT GOES THROUGH,....AND THE MINISTER AND THE PUBLIC REALATION MANAGER ARE SAYING THINGS EVEN WITHOUT A PRIMARY ENQUIRY BEING DONE ......SAD STATE OF AFFAIRS.....:}

[Jordan D]

Seems mismanagment is once again the issue at hand - I hate to say it, but why am I not surprised?

Jordan

[robin747]

Well Rwy 27 has been in service
for Dep and now from today they have approved a Spl Visual App with viz req of 1500m, with this they are using Rwy 27, but believe its still scary and braking action is bull ****, but then, its still better then the ski-slope Rwy 14.
Happy Landings!;)

[A330AV8R]

From what I heard the guy did a go around first before landing and I must say he did a mighty good job of not using brakes and only reversers for the obvious !.... the deep landing was probably the main cause of the overshoot but then again I say quedos to the capt .

:ok:

[BlueEagle]

Assuming a level runway, nil wind, ISA etc. etc. a heavy 747-400 pax aircraft at max landing of 285 tons requires about 6700'

Coming from Bangalore he may have been quite light, (for a Jumbo), and this may have exacerbated the float too.

Hated that runway, very happy when our company forbade its use!

[Centaurus]

Manadasytem. Interesting comment of yours re autobrakes will cause skidding. Are you suggesting that manual brakes will not cause skidding? Assuming both applied at touch-down? Isn't that why there is anti-skid systems on modern aircraft - so the wheels won't skid period?

[Analyser]

Well today was worse in terms of landing.Moderate to heavy rain over the field.
RW09 was in use with tailwinds of 35-40kts from 1000ft till touchdown and poor braking action.TO quote the ATC "very very poor braking action reported past the intersection of rw 09/27 and 14/32 and previous landing aircraft reported tailwinds of 35 kts at 200ft, say intentions".
Pretty harrowing experience and had about 4 aircrafts going around.Finally landed when tower observed winds were 310/09 kts.
This is a disaster waiting to happen and ATC should suspend operations into Mumbai or get the ILS for 27 opertional ASAP.
As far as our minister and officials are concerned they are as clueless as a toddler in a strip bar and should refrain from opening theirs gobs.

[9Ws]

There is some very intellegent and useful input coming in on this thread about the conditions at Mumbai airport, especially from those who have regularly flown in and out of busy VABB.

I suggest you keep them coming in and in a while email this link to the DGCA for a read. With any luck a Flight Inspector might read it and be armed with some first hand input on practical everyday issues to take this topic up further with the DGCA, Aviation Ministry and Airports Authorities of India.

Mumbai airport IS an accident waiting to happen and facilities need to be improved dramatically and very soon (before Monsoon 2006).

It's a shame to know the number of aircraft Diverting from a major city like Bombay or Holding and burning precious expensive fuel only because they cannot be accommodated for an approach for absurd reasons.... or having to go-around (or go off the runway!) only because information given to them (wind, visibility/RVR) was incorrect or non-existant (braking action, friction co-efficient).

[ManaAdaSystem]

Quote:

Patel said the Air India pilot was a senior executive pilot who had decided not to apply hard brakes, which could have increased the chances of skidding when torrential rains were on.

I was responding to this post, which to me makes absolutely no sense. We have anti skid so we CAN brake, manually or automatic under all conditions. The statement above is pure rubbish!



Alpha Leader

I thought an ISO certification ment they were really thorough with everything. After all, MAA (Chennai), another Indian ISO certified airport, and according to NOTAM they have been loading new software for the terminal radar since 1999!
I will never respect any ISO certification ever again!

As an airport, BOM is a dump. All runways are of poor standard, slippery and uneven, inadequate navaids and weird procedures. Security is non existent with people and dogs wandering around the manouvering area.
The same can be said about a number of Indian airports, but the dogs seem to prefer BOM.

[arrow1]

There can be no doubt that the current state of affairs is not desireable. While these posts might be an input for the Flight Inspectors, I would imagine that some of them would have flown in/out of Mumbai in the last week, and hopefully things improve. I think the operators too have a responsibility, both towards their crew and impressing upon the "authorities" the need for quick action.

[hasell]

As someone who deals with ISO (9001) matters on a day to day basis (one of my day jobs) for my organsation... When conducting an audit for ISO9001 -the 'gameplan' is to take a sample of an organisations processes/procedures. That really is the best one can do. It also depends how long the auditors spent and which areas they focused on.
Maybe when re-certification comes around the auditors should take note of the comments above by various posters here and audit this part (landing aid systems?) of Mumbai's operation more closely. This could be achived by the experiences of flight deck crew being sent onto the DGCA??
A search on google also reveals the Commander and co-pilots names of this flight (from various press articles).
I wont bother posting the names here. So much for annonimity...
How about asking this question. If the airport is ISO certified was this aspect of their operation audited??

Just my 2p worth..

Has.

[facelac]

9W and all

Agree totally that only way to keep airport authorities maintaining standards is to report, report and report all irregularities and anything below standard. This goes for flightdeck crew and in turn operators that ultimately should suspend operations for rwy's in question.

Rgds facelac

[Pax Vobiscum]

I don't deal with ISO9001 certification, except indirectly as part of my work in helping organisations achieve BS7799 security certification, but my understanding is that (summarising several hundred pages of standard into two lines) ISO9001 requires that:
(a) all procedures within the organisation are fully documented
(b) documented procedures are followed consistently.

It has very little bearing on whether those procedures are 'good' or not! Apologies for derailing the thread ...

[ManaAdaSystem]

You are not derailing the tread.
In Mumbai's case this makes perfect sense. Rubbish procedures and they stick to them 100%.

[Analyser]

Facelac....I do agree that reporting will help but in this country you need to grease palms as well and that unfortunately is the only way for things to get done,even though it is the correct course of action.
Dogs,men are all a menace and a month back a crocodile was run over at runway in the town of Vadodara(Formely Baroda VABO).Heavy rain over the field and was run over by an ATR.It had come onto the runway due flooding of the river.
I do hope that this link is sent to some of the flight operation inspectors and especially to those at our so called Airport authorties.

[rsoman]

Things have atleast started moving in the right direction.....
BOM and DEL the airport modernisation contracts should (hopefully) be finalised by the end of the year. Major players are in the fray including Fraport/ADP/?Hochtief/Changi........

BLR and HYD, things are already moving and both should be over by mid 2008. BLR has Unique with a stake while HYD has Malaysian Airports.

And best of all both these new airports will not be AAI managed......(although ATC will still be with them.).

[gofer]

Best summary I've seen about ISO 9001 - congrats.

It is the "guaranteed consistant poor quality and stupid procedures standard". Also heard it call the 'McDumb' standard.

:(

[rsoman]

A relevant article appeared today on The Hindu on the topic
(www.Hinduonnet.com)

http://www.hindu.com/2005/08/10/stories/2005081005841100.htm

Cheers

[Alpha Leader]

Gofer :

Good to hear from you......sorry, been so bl00dy busy.

[Rockhound]

Capt Ranganathan, in his article in The Hindu, should be more careful in what he writes. The Air France A340 that overran the runway in Toronto earlier this month touched down nearly halfway along a 9000 ft runway - not recommended practice even under dry conditions.
Rockhound

[Tripper]

Rockhound

The reference to AF A340 is only about wet runway overrun. If you bothered to read the rest of the article, you will find that it explains what happens on a wet runway, in lay man's language.

AF might have landed half way down the runway, but is the enquiry complete? don't become an armchair critic!!

[Rockhound]

Tripper,
The article clearly implies that the AF 340 overran the runway because it was wet. Agreed, the investigation of the accident is not yet complete but the investigation board has already concluded that touchdown was so late (far down the runway) that the aircraft could not have stopped before reaching the end, i.e. landing long, not water on the runway, was the main reason for the overrun.
Rockhound

[Tripper]

Rockhound

The touch down was late. Agreed. But the investigators are also wondering why there was no decelleration. the aircraft lost only around 64 kts in 5000 feet!!?

Don't crucify the pilots , yet. They had 25000 hrs of flying between them.

Rockhound

read "alf5071h" posting in the AF 340 thread

[Rockhound]

Tripper,
I was merely suggesting that Capt Ranganathan should not have cited the AF358 crash in his article on wet-runway overruns because we have no proof that this incident is relevant due to the fact that, as you rightly observed, the accident investigation has not been completed. However, preliminary findings indicate the principal reason for the overrun was insufficient runway for a safe landing being available following touchdown even had it been dry.
I read alf's post on the other thread with great interest. It is the sort of post which educates me, a non-professional pilot, and forms one of the reasons I participate in PPRuNe.
I have no desire to "crucify" the two AF pilots. However, I'm sure you'll admit that, in the vast majority of cases, accidents such as this are due to human (usually pilot) error. The crucial question (for me) is, why was the error made? In this case, two highly experienced pilots flying a heavy jet with over 300 sobs apparently touched down and decided to complete the landing with only 1500 m of runway remaining? Did they recognize their situation? Did they believe attempting to complete the landing was preferable to entering a thunderstorm on a GA? There may be several reasons for them committing the error but error it surely was. In this case, we'll probably find out why the error occurred. In no way do I (a non-professional) crucify the pilots. I thank God that they and their passengers survived.
Best wishes.
Rockhound