View Full Version : Crash landing in KRT

EK Snorkel
10th Jun 2008, 19:44
CNN reports crash landing in Khartoum -KRT.

First pictures show a narrow body or smaller wide body on fire on/ near runway.

CNN claims up to 180 people on board.

Could not identify the tail/ airline but it is for sure not QR / EK.

God bless

10th Jun 2008, 19:52
plane veered off the rwy after ldg.most of people could escape,acc to CNN

10th Jun 2008, 19:53
Al Jazeera now reporting that a Sudan Airways acft caught fire after landing; Channel 4 news (reporting Al-J story) reported about 200 on board.

Presumably A300-600 - only acft ST would have of this capacity?

Carbon Bootprint
10th Jun 2008, 19:59
CNN International here in Berlin says plane overshot runway on landing, supposedly many are believed dead. Plane was reportedly arriving from Amman, Jordan. Live photos show hull completely ablaze. About 180 reported aboard, have not heard aircraft type announced.

10th Jun 2008, 20:01
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F3271464-6EF1-4281-A8EA-E63867AF1942.htm Al Jazeera.

10th Jun 2008, 20:06
Acft was indeed A310; operating flight from AMM. Only one A310 (ST-AST, -322 model) operated by ST (and three A300-600s).


EK Snorkel
10th Jun 2008, 20:12
Yes the winglets indicate A310 or A300 it can not be an A330.

Sudan Airways operates 3 A300-600 and 1 A310 however it is unclear if it is a Sudan Airways plane.

10th Jun 2008, 20:12
Sudan Tribune with painful news:

more than 100 fatalities. 203 + 14 o/b


10th Jun 2008, 20:18
very bad wx indeed with heavy rain

10th Jun 2008, 20:22
on TV,and the tail looks like grey colour on the top and white on the belly

10th Jun 2008, 20:26
Looks like a A310. There seem to be no markings on the tail, so it could be ST-ATN (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Sudan-Airways/Airbus-A310-324/1346444/M/):

10th Jun 2008, 20:52
Hsss/krt Khartoum
Sa 101930 13009kt 9/9l Few050 Cb To All D Sct056 Q1009=
Sa 101900 14007kt 9/9 Few050 Cb Ts Toe Sct056 30/19 Q1010 No Sig=
Sa 101830 15010kt 9/9 Few050 Cb Ts To E Sct056 Q1010=
Sa 101700 27002kt 9/9 Ts Ra Ovst Few050 Sct056 Bkn140 26/26 Q1013
No Sig=
Sa 101430 12013kt 3000 M Ts/ra Few050cb Sct056 Bkn140 Q1011 No
Sa 101230 27011kt 8000m Q1007=
Sa 101100 22014kt 8000 41/17 Q1008 Nosig =
Sa 101030 24013kt 8000 Q1009=
Ft 101818 24008g18kt 9999 Sct040 Bkn140
Tempo 1822 6000 Tsra Few045cb =
Fc 101803 24008g18kt 9999 Sct040 Bkn140
Tempo 1822 6000 Tsra Fwe045cb=

10th Jun 2008, 20:58
Al-Jazeera television station said it was a Sudan Airways passenger jet, and Najib confirmed the plane was from a Sudanese airline. Video showed emergency escape chutes deployed at the side of the aircraft.
Spokesmen for the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board in Washington could not immediately provide any details of the incident on Tuesday afternoon, but said they were continuing to monitor the situation.
Sudan has a poor aviation safety record. In May, a plane crash in a remote area of southern Sudan killed 24 people, including key members of the southern Sudanese government.
In July 2003, a Sudan Airways Boeing 737 en route from Port Sudan to Khartoum crashed soon after takeoff, killing all 115 people on board.
After that crash, Sudanese officials blamed sanctions for restricting vital aircraft parts. The U.S. State Department said there was no ban on equipment needed for aviation safety.
In 1997, then President Clinton issued an executive order barring the export of goods and technology to Sudan because of the country's "support for international terrorism, ongoing efforts to destabilize neighboring governments, and the prevalence of human rights violations.

10th Jun 2008, 21:06
Seem like it was this plane, http://www.planesregister.com/aircraft/a310-548.htm
18 year-old plane, former owner Air India and Singapore Airlines.

10th Jun 2008, 21:11
Looks like a diverted flight to alternate (Port Sudan) which re-tried to land at KRT later. I remember numerous incidents and accidents (KLM & PA crash, the largest air incident in history at Tenerife as an example) after such diversions. Yes, the operation hours might be within limits and regulations, but why are incidents closely correlated to diversions and delays?

10th Jun 2008, 21:20
NOTAM Released :

RWY CLOSED. 10 JUN 19:04 2008 UNTIL 11 JUN 06:00 2008. CREATED: 10 JUN 19:06

RIP All Affected

10th Jun 2008, 21:55
Some more details emerging...


10th Jun 2008, 22:01
It's sad to see so strong signs of wind, so few chutes and no signs of firefighters on the CNN video.

Austrian Simon
10th Jun 2008, 22:08
Report, IAPs, Video, METARs ...


Coleman Myers
10th Jun 2008, 22:09
What a tragedy - this aircraft was brought in only recently. Talk of a technical failiure of some kind on approach.The wind is certainly strong but not unuasual for KRT.

Very sad

10th Jun 2008, 22:15
I see a strong tailwind blowing over the acft, but maybe it turned around when it went of the rwy.

10th Jun 2008, 22:16
ITV just reported a "quote" from the Airport Manager who said the problem occured whilst the aircraft was taxying after landing safely.

No idea if this is accurate - would certainly be unusual.

Flight Safety
10th Jun 2008, 22:29
Several reports from mulitple sources are saying an explosion occurred somewhere on the right wing after the aircraft landed and was taxying.

10th Jun 2008, 22:37
I flew in and out of Khartoum regularly in the late 70's/early 80's and the standards of firefighting/rescue kit was abysmal then and that was when BA (VC-10), Air France (707) and Lufthansa (727) were operating weekly services to the strip.

On start up you were lucky if a 'fireman' stood by with an extinguisher but even then you knew it was empty.

I doubt these poor souls stood a chance when you consider the decades of neglect Sudan has suffered since.

10th Jun 2008, 22:55
From the aviation herald:
The director of the airport, Yusuf Ibrahim, told local TV stations, that the airplane had landed normally, the flight crew discussing the taxi route with the tower, when the explosion occured.
So they got taxi instructions... (and is doesn't sound like something that he made up), this would indeed suggest a normal landing and that something happened after that.

10th Jun 2008, 23:01
An incident such as this highlights the need to keep gangways clear to facilitate rapid exit if necessary.
Doubtful if external firefighters could have influenced the result (at least from the available videos, though who knows how quickly the fire developed?).

Austrian Simon
10th Jun 2008, 23:06
Several reports from mulitple sources are saying an explosion occurred somewhere on the right wing after the aircraft landed and was taxying.

Flight Safety,

indeed, surviving passengers now report, that there were about 2-3 minutes between the landing and the right hand engine catching fire.


Servus, Simon

ex dog
10th Jun 2008, 23:17
BBC , News reporting pax jet landing in a sandstorm and rain (a bit dubious both at the same time) belonging to Sudan Airways , many killed burst into flames

Sudan Airways , doesn't really suprise you really !!!!!!!!

10th Jun 2008, 23:28

Doors to Automatic
11th Jun 2008, 00:04
Watching SKY News it looks to have come to rest in an area of rough ground and there's what appear to be approach lights close by.

11th Jun 2008, 00:13
Given the strife in the area, is it just possible that this could have been a terrorist attack? Aircraft landed, taxying, suddenly No 2 catches fire. Seems odd.

11th Jun 2008, 00:14
One video showed the aircraft sitting with at least the nose and left main landing gears down, the fuselage seemed in one piece, although hard to tell after it had oviously been been burning for some time. If just the right main collapsed and the fire broke on the right side, I would think that more people would have escaped as in previous similar accidents.

11th Jun 2008, 00:14
Wonder if it hit something after landing?

11th Jun 2008, 00:32
BBC News 24 now reporting that Sudan have revised loss of life to at least 28. ( twenty eight)

White Knight
11th Jun 2008, 03:36
daikilo - don't be surprised that there are no firefighters to be seen.... TIA

Red Top Comanche
11th Jun 2008, 07:31

11th Jun 2008, 07:59
Nothing has changed Eagle 402.

"On start up you were lucky if a 'fireman' stood by with an extinguisher but even then you knew it was empty."

They still do it- if your lucky! :)

Flying into KTM you can expect the unexpected. Not to talk to ATC some times until your 300 miles from KTM. Perhaps 1-2 hours of no area ATC. Being cleared for an ILS approach when its on test and if it's not working. Dubious ATC clearences. Horrendous weather, Thunderstorms and dust storms. Limited parked and in very tight spaces.

And the man with ground to air machine guns still sits by the runways.

Oh David Learmount was talking on TV saying in this modern day this kind of accident shouldn't be happening! He has obviously never operated into a airfield in Sudan! :ugh:

RIP to all those who died.

And apart from being 'dry' KTM is quite a nice nightstop with very friendly people. ;)

11th Jun 2008, 08:29
When I first went into KRT about three years ago. There was no paint on the runway at all and an aircraft that appeared to have overun the threshold & come to rest had people camped under the wing.

They have spent some money and painted markers and have had radar installed but I sometimes wonder as to whether they know how it works.

As said, everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt there. Best to do the procedure, ignore the 'vectors' and as for the 'latest' tower wx, it could be anything. More than two aircraft at a time and the ATC can't cope.

What ever the cause, the place and everything that goes on there is shonky.

It's the same in a lot of venues out that way.

11th Jun 2008, 08:46
we were approaching Khartoum yesterday afternoon at the same time as the Sudan Airways flight. A C-130 that landed reported severe turbulence on final. With this the Sudan Airways flight decided to divert to Port Sudan. We continued to KTM and came over head the field at 8000', took a visual, did a short approach and landed. There was a small clear radius around the field that was clear but the weather surrounding it was bad and closing in. There was an extreme amount of standing water on the runway when KLM landed 20 mins after us, we were suprised that no one had gotten flame outs on the rollout.
We got home, threw on the news and couldn't believe our eyes.

11th Jun 2008, 09:26
It would appear that some survivors were able to leave the airport without the authorities being aware, so unable to confirm the numbers of survivors!

11th Jun 2008, 10:15
Thats how its always been. and i am afraid it will carry on for a long time unless lots of things change.
its the airline i always wanted to fly for since i was a kid. but i dont think i will ever go there. my brother worked there and when they have a technical problem they tell them GO AND GOD WILL LOOK AFTER YOU!!!!!!!
and the captains never say no if they know there is a night stop and extra money.
can't wait to see how the new airport is gonna be like. not like the current one i hope.

this crash is a bad one. my heart goes out to all the people that lost someone.

reverse thrust problem may be?????? we will have to wait and see.

the airline is already in trouble and now they lost an aircraft god knows whats gonna happen.

11th Jun 2008, 11:38
Indeed, very sad for all involved and the families too.

Not had much time to read up all posts, but any news on the crew?

11th Jun 2008, 12:52
any news on the crew?

The Washington Post is reporting "The civil aviation authorities said all but one of the crew had been found alive."

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061100411_2.html

Spaced Out
11th Jun 2008, 13:29
That is the problem with crashes, the amount of reports filed and the 'perceived' causes, is cause for concern.

Latest is, to high an approach caused the break-up.

Sad though, regardless. :(

11th Jun 2008, 14:01
Reuter have a pic this morning showing the port u/carriage (extended) and the port engine (intact on the wing) the wheels up to the axles in sand and grass......taxying to a stand would not appear to be the case??? such a loss to all concerned.........

Broomstick Flier
11th Jun 2008, 15:55
On a side note, what kind of wx reporting standard they use there?
HSSS 101900Z 14007KT 9/9 FEW050 CB TS TOE SCT056 30/19 Q1010 NOSIG=
What's 9/9 ? Visibility I guess but in what unit?
And "TOE" ?


11th Jun 2008, 16:39
In another METAR same day TOE is shown as TO E and I think this is to the East. i.e. Thunderstorms to the East of the airfield.

11th Jun 2008, 18:17
Aircraft entered service with SIA in 1990 as 9V-STU.


Served with Air India from 2001 to 2007, as VT-EVF.


Entered service with ST in Sept 2007.

Flight Intl reports that acft had approx. 52,000h and 21,000 cycles.

11th Jun 2008, 18:55
Latest news and some interesting details emerge, see:
http://www.aero.de/Sudan_Airways_Airbus_bei_Landung_in_Khartum_verunglueckt_663 4.htm


live 2 fly 2 live

12th Jun 2008, 03:07
AP story I'm reading right now quotes PX to the effect that the plane touched down, and then veered to the right "as though the wing hit something" at the same time the engine erupted in fire.

Could have drifted in wind - could have made a wrong turn in the sandstorm(?). At any rate the engine came in contact with and swallowed something that didn't agree with it.

Or so it sounds to me based on the reported facts to date.

Dixons Cider
12th Jun 2008, 03:20
at the risk of speculating before all the facts are out, just have one comment -

Don't take the clearance to taxi statement too literally. Its very common in KRT for the tower to issue a taxi clearance while you are still high speed on the landing roll.

12th Jun 2008, 10:53
Has anyone seen a crew list?

12th Jun 2008, 11:04
I quote from the Allgemeine Zeitung in Namibia (translated):It apparently happened just after the landing after the critical phase of a landing was over. This is what Jusuf Ibrahim, chief executive of Khartoum Airport, where the latest airline accident on African soil occurred, insists.

According to Ibrahim, the Airbus A310 of Sudan Airways landed at Khartoum after a severe sandstorm without any major problems. As the pilots were in contact with the tower about their parking position, the right turbine exploded. Within minutes the flames had spread across the wing, the front of the plane and to the cockpit.

However, other eye witnesses report that the landing of the to Port Sudan diverted flight was extremely hard. This could have led to, in opinion of several flight experts, several cylinders (??) bursting and causing an explosion.

There was much confusion yesterday as to how many passengers burned to death on the plane. After initial reports of over half of the 210 passengers on board escaping by using escape slides, the authorities in Khartoum spoke of 30 deceased. The reason for this radically revised number is apparently that many passengers fled the burning wreck into the night. The fate of 15 passengers is still unclear.

The article expands on how the sky in Africa is becoming more dangerous (but that's irrelevant to this discussion).

12th Jun 2008, 12:31
I spent a year flying Comets out of Khartoum, judging by the comments there hasnt been much improvement.
...My first thoughts are,,,,,, 2 man crew, long working day extended by diversions and go arounds, pretty difficult landing, maybe hot and long , maximum braking, wheel fire with tyre bursts while taxying........what is the brake temp indication on the Airbus?

12th Jun 2008, 13:39
Some up close and personal pictures at this link:-


(Sorry if these have already been shown via different links above - I haven't read them all.)

12th Jun 2008, 14:08
Some up close and personal pictures at this link:-


From these pictures, it definitely looks like the bus was somewhat "off-piste"! Tyres in muddy ruts, Grass underwing, engine dug-in to sand etc. Or maybe the "piste" was covered in sand?

12th Jun 2008, 14:54
"off-piste" or off taxyway? By all accounts they were following taxi instructions after landing when N0.2 blew up. Not having operated into Khartoum but imagine there would be plenty of sand adjacent to the taxyways.

12th Jun 2008, 17:05
what is the brake temp indication on the Airbus

Seems like all A310's have brake temp indications on each wheel, some have tire pressure indication and/or brake fans to cool the brakes.

Austrian Simon
12th Jun 2008, 18:54
With the help of a pilot, who was "caught" in Khartoum after the crash, The Aviation Herald could determine the exact position of the wreckage and get additional pictures of the site:


Servus, Simon

12th Jun 2008, 19:00
From the pictures, it looks like the crashed aircraft did indeed have brake fans.

12th Jun 2008, 20:06
It also looks as if the wind was blowing from the tail to the nose after the aircraft stopped

Mr Trim
12th Jun 2008, 22:13
Not that it actually was a contributing or causal factor of the accident, but it is an interesting fact that in January 2007 Aerolineas Argentinas was considering to lease this A310. After carrying out the inspection of the aircraft and its maintenance records the Technical Commission of the company recommended NOT to carry out the transaction based on the awful condition of the aircraft (that apparently included a lot of corrosion) and improper maintenance logs.

13th Jun 2008, 10:38
Just back from KRT.

The photos on the previous page have summed it up. Aircraft wreckage is 100-200m off the northern end of the runway.

Aircraft landed on 36. Spoke to the ramp agent. Sounds like they touched down half way down the 9000 odd foot runway in the wet. Reading the Metar on previous page, with what looks like a tail wind.

Brake fans, bursting cylinders?! My two cents worth is they couldn't stop & ran off the end into the approach lights and grass/sand.

The ILS on both runways is notamed not calibrated at the moment so they probably did the VOR approach. Also the radar they had last time I was there has 'gone'

Leaving this morning we had two russian turbo props under take us on the apron as we were starting number one engine. There was a follow me car sandwiched in between, trying to hide under our wing, not the go! The tower endorsed it all and I still can't believe it happened. It's chaos.

Definitely not my favourite place to fly into.

13th Jun 2008, 12:44
:ugh:Totally agree with YELLOSUB its a nightmare of a place,ATC awfull and thats if they answer you at all.

Think the controllers are ex fighter controllers as they are very good at getting you as close as possible to other aircraft!!!!

More accidents to come!!

Doors to Automatic
13th Jun 2008, 19:34
Just back from KRT.

The photos on the previous page have summed it up. Aircraft wreckage is 100-200m off the northern end of the runway.

That's what I thought when I saw the SKY news clip just after the crash and saw what I thought were the approach lights.

So what was all this nonsense about the aircraft having landed safely and taxying in when the explosion occured?

Looks like a standard third-world over-run caused by a hot and high approach in wet conditions!

14th Jun 2008, 07:59
It amazes me why so called first world airlines to continue to operate into this place.
Everything about the airport is questionable, its time the flight safety depts stood up to the clowns in the commercial dept before this happens again.
How many incidents does it take before action is taken?

Austrian Simon
14th Jun 2008, 10:33
So what was all this nonsense about the aircraft having landed safely and taxying in when the explosion occured?

So far there are two apparently conflicting statements:

- the police chief of Khartoum said, the airplane veered off the runway, broke up in two, and burst into flames.

- the airport chief said, that the airplane had safely landed, the crew was talking to ATC regarding taxi, when the airplane burst into flames.

The statements by the airport chief were supported by all accounts of surviving airplane occupants, who even said, that there was a time span of 2-3 minutes from landing to start of the fire.

Now, what if BOTH statements are true?

Note, that I am in pure speculation now, which may be very off the reality. But this speculation explains all observations so far associated with this accident.

I assume, that the airplane landed, overran the runway end, and stopped just short of the approach lights, with the crew being unaware of the overrun. I assert, that the airplane was undamaged at that point and nothing out of the usual was noticed by the crew.

They now talk to ATC regarding taxi back to the apron and probably get cleared to backtrack the runway. Now the airplane turns to the left to backtrack - and now the right wing hits the approach lights.

The fuel tank gets ruptured and fuel spills to the ground. Fumes of the fuel get ignited by the engine exhaust, the fire starts at the right hand engine, and approaches the fuselage through the fuel on the ground (as the flames are being blown _AWAY_ from the fuselage).

Alternatively, the wing could have struck a pole of the approach lighting, breaking it off, and the right engine ingesting that pole causing the fire.

Now, this makes both, so far conflicting statements true and merge them into a possible scenario. But at the same time, this scenario explains the 2-3 minute time span between landing and the start of the fire and it explains, why the flames were seen being blown to the right and forward of the airplane in the live coverage of the blaze, but not towards the fuselage as it would have been if the airplane was still more or less aligned with the runway. The wind, remember, was coming from 140 degrees, so it needed the airplane almost perpendicular to the runway centerline to have this observed direction of flames.

Once again, we are in pure speculation at this point, that may well prove wrong. This is one of many more thinkable scenarios, but is a scenario that does not stand in conflict with any of the statements and evidence we have received so far. It is just a speculation, that perhaps may turn into a theory or may be disproven in an hours time. I stand to be corrected.

Servus, Simon

Doors to Automatic
14th Jun 2008, 18:38
I assume, that the airplane landed, overran the runway end, and stopped just short of the approach lights, with the crew being unaware of the overrun.

I would have thought that even the most Mickey Mouse of Third World crews would have known that they had run out of runway!

The lack of lights, rough ground under-wheel and bits of fence, approach light, localiser antennae and clouds of dirt etc filling the windshield would be a bit of a giveaway!

But an interesting theory none the less - I might well stand corrected!

14th Jun 2008, 18:58
Lets face facts here.
Khartoum is no better, nor worse, than any other African destination.
Having personally operated to KRT dozens of times with B707 and (especially) TriStar equipment, I never found it all that difficult....even when the runway was considerably shorter, and no ILS existed.

In short, you have to pay attention to what the hell you are doing...and if you don't, expect rather large problems.
ATC...not bad, by African standards.
Can be very accurate, if the right folks are on duty.

For those crews that expect European standards with ATC...better fly somewhere else, especially during haboob season.

Sorry, them's the facts.


14th Jun 2008, 20:08
Sorry 411 I have to disagree,... everything about KRT is substandard.
I certainly dont expect it to have Euro standards however it should provide basic safety standards and it does not.

A place to be avoided...even if you are paying attention to what you are doing!

15th Jun 2008, 00:48
The uninformed simplest explanation is brake fire,while they consider the situation. That would cook up nicely in a couple of minutes, with the 2 tyre bursts as well.

15th Jun 2008, 04:37
411 must agree its an African Airport ??? Not EU or North America what do people expect. Rock star parking will cost all of 10-15 SPD per stay. This is a country full of corruption second only to the DRC in my experience. Glad to see that so many survived. The A/C mentioned earlier was an AN12 of Juba Air Cargo crashed after an engine out on T/O and a poorly executed return. There are many > 10 other crashed AN12 in this fine land , see WAU(HSSW) Nyala (HSSN) and perhaps HSOB El Obeid.

15th Jun 2008, 08:54
I see no comments about the damage to the outer left wing and undercarriage which shows no fire damage but appears from the pics to have hit something hard.. and the gear seems out of line with the engine nacelle.not to mention the condition of the tyres.had there been no fire was there enough of the aircraft left intact to taxi it back to the apron???

15th Jun 2008, 09:36
I would have thought that even the most Mickey Mouse of Third World crews would have known that they had run out of runway!

Have you forgotten the "Mickey Mouse" from Ranair in VFR CAVOC overunning (trying to taxi)
beyond the runway end in Lodz few weeks ago...

He just got suck.

How about doing the same in the night and in tropical storm.

Mickey Mouse ???

15th Jun 2008, 11:32
I don't recall any ILS or Radar at HSSS.Are we talking about the same place?

Doors to Automatic
15th Jun 2008, 12:02
How about doing the same in the night and in tropical storm.

How about diverting?

15th Jun 2008, 21:00
I don't recall any ILS or Radar at HSSS.Are we talking about the same place?

Haven't been there for awhile, have we?
Yes, KRT has both...sadly it would appear that either a few folks don't actually know how to use same or, in the case of some 'foreign' airlines (according to a few comments received here), it is non-existant.
It would seem that a few European operators do not plan for the unexpected , ahhh, have to say, whose fault is that, I wonder...?:uhoh:
Those who operate to KRT on a regular basis, know the score, one wonders just why those 'others' have been...'left in the dark.'?

Answers on a postcard.:}

16th Jun 2008, 10:30
They have 2 ILS but it does not work and is on Test since years. You have VOR approaches with high minimas, 1600m, unusable if you have strong winds inducing sandstorms. WX is absolutly unreliable, forecasts useless. Radar Vectoring is sometimes available but not very useful, be aware of mistakes. Otherwise constant altitude/DME callouts required, ATC is generally terrible, lots of noise on the frequency. The run no center lights, way is rough, rubber deposits and large waterpuddles after rain. The shoulders of the taxiways are soft and there are large potholes. Alternates are far away and Port Sudan is another story. :eek:
Yep I agree, a place to avoid.

16th Jun 2008, 12:23
A310 cpt seven yrs in the tropics. We had several ex-air india birds. Pratt engines as I recall. Real bad about compressor stalling/flameout in reverse with crosswind or standing water. Typical scenario: Third World ATC has too many diversions and can't handle the traffic (meaning more than one target at a time.) Everybody winds up high for the approach, low on gas. In my case a virtual lake was standing on the runway in the dark after a typhoon. Atis said CAVOK and no rekmarks. But the truth was no visable runway lights at all since they were submerged. We never knew it was there. After two bad vectors inside the marker for us, and Polar went around complaining that his machine "wasn't built to do that" told ATC never mind we'll do a 360 to the left and vector ourselves. Splashdown; brakes useless, number two started barking fire against the FADEC-type reverse limit because gentlemen: It is not a boat motor; it cannot compress water. Number two flamed out abruptly a few thousand feet later, and we slid the length of the runway. Witnesses were sure we had caught fire on the rollout. Massive yaw occurred when one stayed in max reverse and the other quit. Due to nothing but superior f***ing airman-ship on my part, only crew under-shorts were ruined: I slammed both reversers to idle to regain runway alignment and then reapplied the good one about two thirds max against full rudder and was just barely able to stop. The A310 rudder has a crosswind limit of exactly 28kts. Not 29! Ten months later a company A310 did the same thing and went through the freeway injuring motorists.

Could this be what happened to the above A310? These are the usual suspects for what is otherwise a great airplane. The post accident fire might have happened independently and been due to overun damage off the pavement. Fuel tanks leak when trunion gears punch up into the intregal tanks. I've seen overrun 310's. The damage is incredible. Usually the Nose gear is ripped backwards and shoved up into the e and e compartment.

The moral of this story: The devil with the company automation policy, click the thing off every chance you get and hand fly it. :ok: Even if they make fun of you and call you "Hand Job." At least you'll be used to planning the vertical nav while you're saturated with stick and rudder skills that, I dare say, most modern day aviators no longer possess. :=

Not something the bus salesman likes to tell flight departments when he's peddling his "flys itself" products for lease to low time flight crews! :yuk:

pac - out

16th Jun 2008, 14:49
I Don't know why people keep talking about the airport and not the real issue.
the airport is fine if you know your s**t :mad: you can fly there no problems. but it seems like every one wants ATC to do the job for them while they sit there pressing the buttons.
it is a third world country and guess what the airport is not like london heathrow but if you are a good pilot it shouldn't bother you.
90% of the time the weather in KRT is CAVOK. so don't complain about the weather.
it seems like a pilot error. they did not allow for the tail wind, wet runway high approach, and they touched down at the middle of the runway. and with an LDA of 9000 foot or so you are not going to stop and your plane will burst into flames. it doesn't matter if its at HSSS or EGLL .

every one in the airline hates that captain and don't think he is good enough to be a skipper. but he has contacts and thats how he made it to the top. i don't know who was the handling pilot at the time. so i suppose we will have to wait and see before we blame someone.

16th Jun 2008, 20:14
Via a colleague who has been there since the accident:

ATC told them of a headwind. It was a 15 knot tailwind and the runway was "flooded" after a TS. They landed long due to the tailwind and overran.
Ingested FOD which damaged the engine.


16th Jun 2008, 22:43
"I Don't know why people keep talking about the airport and not the real issue.
the airport is fine if you know your s**t you can fly there no problems. but it seems like every one wants ATC to do the job for them while they sit there pressing the buttons."

If your theory is correct there would be no need to invest in any airport or airplane infrastructure, just leave all airports and ATC in Third World crap status and hire astronaut pilots that can do the job. :E

17th Jun 2008, 05:33
Good point Croc,

But even in this perfect world you desire, a real driver can't depend on everything working as advertised all the time. :cool: This is why they pay electric jet pilots the big bucks: In the case of this first generation glass A310: to cross-check the Huge Groundspeed readout right in front of both pilot's faces in the corner of the ND display. Turning final, slow to ref 150, if it's GS170 instead of GS130 something's wrong. But you electric jet pilots are too busy putzing around with the FMS to look at any raw data. :uhoh: Maybe they trained you to run both sides in map mode without the Pilot flying switching to rose mode to check and see which way the reported quartering head/tail wind should be influencing that last turn against the raw data..... Maybe you electric jet pilots are always on the autopilot so you can't feel that the last turn happened too fast warning you of either bad, bad wind shear coming or of a transposed wind direction from ATC.

Huh? Am I right? :( :( :(

You bet your sweet tail skid I'm right.

A310 Airbus automation was hawked to reduce crew workload, when in fact, it greatly increased it (ref: AW&ST July 1995? IIRC.) Thousands of new Waypoints each month slowed the greenbox down to a crawl, but to have a new faster chip required Multi-million dollar FAA recertification of the whole airplane, which nobody could pay for and which mama bus wanted a kings ransom to get involved with. In seven years I almost never witnessed anybody's head out of the cockpit under ten. "Please Wait" and "Button push ignored" were the two most common messages in the scratch pad. Midairs waiting to happen. Better to just quit dicking with building the tinker-toy map on a non-precision approach, set up the raw data and HAND FLY. (because on every missed approach one guy has to rebuild the damn thing in slow motion, talk to the gov idiot on the ground, configure the flying pilots calls for config changes...set up his instruments and pretend to listen to a briefing... talk about being out of the loop. You're lucky if he even knows which way the ship is headed when he gets done with all that. It goes without saying that in off-track-FMS vetored autoflight the Pilot Not Flying is not doing a manual three percent descent calculation in his head, e.g. five miles track to go?: damn were high!)

Oh, sacrilege you cry! Hand Fly? That's Cowboy stuff! Shame! Shame! That's so John Wayne! We all know we're supposed to sit up straight, couple it up and pretend to be scanning out the windshield for traffic! Our sacred automated duty! (when in reality: you're watching the FMS typing like a hawk out of the corner of your eye because you know that dumb new sonofabiiitch is going to dork it up bigtime!)

Barring any additional revelations forthcoming out of the upcoming finger-pointing investigation, this accident and many others like it, must be laid where it belongs, not on ATC or some defered items or phantom cell pone interference, but at the door of :mad: management and the door of :mad: government. This model of early glass was an experiment in the 1970's where the automation was designed around the computer not the pilot. As long as you understand that, and click down to a lower level of automation at the first sign of overload, you're fine. But the coupled A310 is not for kids; as many tail-slide incidents and accidents attest. It can get away from you rather quickly.

Now who's going to tell em? Whose going to tell management and government that they (the authorities) are wrong and that pilots should manually hand-fly every opportunity they have? (how about one of you Sudan pilots?; you'll either be fired or promoted to chief pilot!) :}

Some things in Aviation never change.

Thanks for your indulgence, my fellow aviators, in reading my favorite WARSTORY.

pac - Out


17th Jun 2008, 08:33

you should be able to land your plane any where in the world as long as there is a runway.
investing in airports is good. it makes our job easy.
but if its a third world country and they don't have the money to provide everything you need. it shouldn't stop you from doing your job.

17th Jun 2008, 10:20
Excellent post, you are absolutley right, that is exactly what is happening in the Airbus cockpits. And a combination of an inexperienced Captain and new cadet FO and a Third World airport and horrific WX we can see the results.

I loved your war stories, you were lucky to get away just with stained underwear mate :eek:

And to you Sudan. In KRT they have the equipment and the money. But these idiots have the ILS on test since years. :yuk:

17th Jun 2008, 12:09
gotta love it,

Just over ran the runway, hit a pole and didn't notice.

The burnt out wreckage is 200m off the threshold in the sand, the tail was sitting on a trailer.

Hand flying/old school/new school. I'd far rather take the next generation out anyday.

'F**king superior airmanship on my behalf'

17th Jun 2008, 18:26
you should be able to land your plane any where in the world as long as there is a runway.
investing in airports is good. it makes our job easy.
but if its a third world country and they don't have the money to provide everything you need. it shouldn't stop you from doing your job

Looks like Sudan19 knows the score.
It would appear that the rest are button pushers who never learned how to operate a heavy jet...manually.
I would suggest these folks refrain from operating to Africa...leave it to the professionals.

17th Jun 2008, 23:33
I'll take a lot of convincing that it is safer to hand fly a non-ILS approach in a big jet.

I don't mean build the fanciest looking map, but simply use (on B744) the rwy c/line display to aid your tracking if there in no ILS in the data base. Then use the A/P in HDG SEL and V/S modes. Now you have another "pilot" you can rely on flying the A/C while you monitor and think. You may be lucky and have a suitably coded approach in the data base to give you LNav and VNav. Either way, A/P is the safe way.

18th Jun 2008, 03:04
Hi Mustafagander,

Agree with your FMS technique. Haven't flown the -400, jumpseat only. But it looks like your Honeywell box is a lot faster responding than the early airbus units. Flew the 741 and 742 for four years without FMS and we did some of both on NPA's: hand fly and A/P in hdg sel and v/s. Hand flown NPA's were frightening if you didn't do them very often :ooh: Later with the bus, we were based at a field were an iffy Vor was all we had. Sometimes the co-located ADF was the only thing working. We became fairly good at these and all noticed that our sim NPA's had become easy. IMHO, the 747 automation had a more logical interface, was more predictable and caused a lower monitoring workload when coupled than the A300 series or even DC-10. "What's it doing now?" was a common phrase you heard in an airbus jumpseat with both guy's heads down and traffic zipping by the windscreen.

I'm not arguing a blanket statement for all models and situations that it's safer to hand fly a Non Prec apprch as opposed to a coupled monitered one. It's probably not. I am arguing however, that the proficiency benefit is of sufficient value that voluntary hand flying on a regular basis should be permitted as policy (at the discretion of the PIC of course.) In allowing some white knuckle driving, you could virtually wipe out these type of accidents that result most likely from over-reliance on automation. We lost two airframes due to guys being essentially afraid/reluctant to disconnect and get control early and then not going around when they found themselves high and fast (similar overrun accidents to the above.)

I question the tyranny of strict standardization where we must pretend that every pilot is identical in skill, proficiency and capability. Some come back from vacation and need to hand fly. Some just aren't very good pilots and need to stay practiced. A very few are natural flyers who can ride around on A/P for years pushing buttons and when it quits are able to hand fly 2 Eng Out NP approach like nothing happened. Most of us though, need the currency and gain nothing by fighting the boredom of supervising Otto.

I am also inclined to believe that hunching over staring at a slow, thirty year old FMS unit in the terminal area is unsafe. There's just gotta be a better way.


18th Jun 2008, 05:08

It's called "airmanship".

The PIC is meant to determine the safest way to execute an approach.

I venture to say that a pilot who chooses not to hand fly a non-ILS approach when conditions are perfect is a bit of a dope. One of these days you will have to do it for real when the chips are down.

I apologise to all the "naturals" reading this. :bored: I have to work at it, I'm not a gifted aviator. :{

tubby linton
18th Jun 2008, 08:41
"I am also inclined to believe that hunching over staring at a slow, thirty year old FMS unit in the terminal area is unsafe. There's just gotta be a better way."
If you think the old Honeywell is bad try a Smiths fms of similar vintage!It makes the Honeywell look like a super computer.:eek:

18th Jun 2008, 10:06
as a pilot you should always be ready for the unexpected (as we all know).
manually flying your bird is good every once in a while. that way you know your always at the top of your game. not saying that you will be perfect (because no one is) but if something goes wrong you will be ready to react confidently.
i know some pilots that can't even maintain straight and level flight (basic ppl stuff. any 17 year old with 15 hours can do that) and thats one of the consequences of automation.
one day everything could fail on you. and if you can't fly manually,navigate and do the rest of the duties all together at the same time. we know what will happen.
flying in Khartoum could be really nice at times because you get to do lots of things that you can't do anywhere else. especially when the weather is right.
if you come there in April/may you would love it.
Happy flying!!!!

18th Jun 2008, 11:06
well I am astonished but for the first time I agree with 411a. I am very experienced in these regions and HSSS is not much different to any African airport although there have been improvements.
You do need to plan ahead and have a plan B if ATC make mistakes. They did to us a couple of nights ago after re opening.
Radar was obviously not working as they were constantly asking for position and level. Gave us direct to VOR then after we kept saying approaching etc, now overhead, now passed gave us the VOR approach by saying report out bound. Luckily it was a clear night so we had to improvise using the non-working? ILS for assistance and our plan B which was to know exactly where we are at all times and what we are going to do if they mess up.
However, this is not unusual and you are really only using ATC as a guide in this country, it is often better to tell them what you are going to do. ( if you know):E

We were only doing a fuel stop, and as usual of course they managed to lose our outbound plan!!:ok:

Doors to Automatic
25th Jun 2008, 16:30
Watching videos like this it is not difficult to see why aircraft operated by third-rate airlines like this often end up in a heap beyond the end of the runway.

YouTube - Mahan Air Airbus A300 Landing At Dubai - Cockpit view (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PypCqkbBiSU)

Note the 23 second delay between crossing the threshold and touchdown!

Absolutely appalling! (regardless of runway length available)

25th Jun 2008, 20:58
Doors to Automatic

Watching videos like this it is not difficult to see why aircraft operated by third-rate airlines like this often end up in a heap beyond the end of the runway.

YouTube - Mahan Air Airbus A300 Landing At Dubai - Cockpit view

Note the 23 second delay between crossing the threshold and touchdown!

Absolutely appalling! (regardless of runway length available)

Well of course your comments enticed me to watch the video.

Why do you suppose that the video was created and posted?

Was it to entertain us with how real pilots do it, or was it to seek comments like "How's my Flying"?

I just can't see how one could judge the caliber of third world airlines by a non-descript video posted on U-tub

26th Jun 2008, 00:29
I think I'm somewhat puzzled also. I've read your posts for some time and so I linked the YT to take a look. I had expectations of seeing some gross mishandling or bust of ATC or other. Outside of noticing an "S" turn with a max roll of 3-5 degrees (?) at 2 miles, I'm still wondering. Did you miss link? He stopped past the High Speed but short of the red ones and Freq. switch and subsequent radio chatter was not informative of anything unusual. Considering how wobbly the cam was throughout, at T/D it may well have been a greaser.


Doors to Automatic
28th Jun 2008, 11:03
My point was the ridiculously long flare and late touchdown occuring 5000ft+ past the threshold.

Granted the runway at DXB is long but this is sloppy airmanship. That was my point.

28th Jun 2008, 18:26
well I could,nt see anything wrong with it either !!!! the 500 ft rad alt call, the 200 ft and then the subsequent 30 ft, 20 ft and 10 ft all appeared to be at the correct times..... if it continued shouting "10" or " 5" then he's floating down past the touchdown markers , but there wasnt so he didnt :ugh: