737-200 ZS-SIK lands short

[LittleMo]

Hi all

I read in the accident/incident log that ZS-SIK landed short of a runway somewhere and was damaged. Any info on how/when/where etc? I understand it's an AVSTAR aircraft?

[four engine jock]

What a load of crap.
There was never a so called accident/incident . its stuff like this that makes this place messed up.

[LittleMo]

4 engine/TC: I refer you to the Dennis Jankelow accident and incident log for May 2010. Page 19 of SA Flyer in the Flightcom section in the magazine. Also on their website. Please confirm what orifice you speak out of before posting further. Your co-operation in this regard would be greatly appreciated

[LittleMo]

According to an employee of the company involved it happened on 18th May at Walvis Bay, Namibia. Said employee had no other info for me as they weren't on the flight itself. Anyone got any more info?

[four engine jock]

So then little whatever you call yourself.
You believe everything you read? You have way too much time to write junk.
There was no Incident!!!!!

[lambert]

From Dennis Janckelow's website:

18-mai-10 CA18/3/2/0789 Safair / SA Express
Boeing 737-200 ZS-SIK 22590
Namibia / FYWB 35 + 7 None
PL Aircraft landed short of runway.

(PL=Partial Loss)

[LittleMo]

I do believe what reputable firms like DJA write, yes. But i'm sure as an ex 4 engine engineer and DFO of such a reputable firm as yours i'll believe you instead.

Anyhow here is the CAA (maybe I shouldn't believe what they say either) case number and associated file reference:

18-May-10 CA18/3/2/0789 Safair / SA Express Boeing 737-200 ZS-SIK 22590 Namibia / FYWB 35 + 7 None PL Aircraft landed short of runway.


But thats enough wasting my copious time replying to you, anyone else with anything constructive to say?

[Sir Osis of the river]

Maybe FEJ was poling the thing at the time?? he seems awfully defensive

[four engine jock]

Little Mo
Here is the story just for you!!
In FYWB there is a displaced threshold due to work in progress. But I’m sure you know this being the airman that you are.
Crew was informed by the tower that full runway was available prior to landing. Aircraft landed normal and after landing the tower informed the crew that the displaced threshold was still in place. There was no damage to the Aircraft. That’s the information that I received.
I must reiterate, don’t believe everything you read!!!!!!!!! Or assume that you know everything.

[LittleMo]

TC:You stated in post 5 that 'there was no incident!!!!!' Clearly there was an incident. There's a CAA incident report with a reference number. Therefore an INCIDENT report was filed. I wasn't aware of the runway status as the aircraft I fly are slightly too large to go to Walvis but I'll take your word as the esteemed backseater you are. This is my last posting as arguing with you is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

[Unlucky Nelson]

Sounds like the crew should have been a bit more up to date with the notams. Same sort of thing got Hydro into cr@p in Lagos. They believed the ATC instead of the notams. If the displaced threshold was still notamed {not sure if it was} then surely the crew should have known about it. ATC on the other hand should also have been a bit more awake. Advising them after the fact does not really help anyone.

Sorry! Fuc**n sorry!

111

[nugpot]

the aircraft I fly are slightly too large to go to Walvis

LittleMo,

You fly the Space Shuttle?

[DaFly]

I happened to be on the apron at FYWB that day and witnessed the 'non-incident'.
At that time, RWY 27 threshold was not displaced, but RWY 09 threshold was (as it was mentioned in the notams), due to work close to that portion of the rwy.
To make it even more visible I guess, there has been a truck trailer parked just infront of the rwy.
Despite that and the big white crosses painted onto that rwy section, the crew of ZS-SIK landed way before the displaced threshold 09 and managed under heavy breaking to bring the a/c to a stand still before running into the bright orange/red plastic cones that were placed just before the displaced threshold, with not much more than a meter to spare. The emergency breaking capabilities of a 732 are quite impressive with reverse thrust up to almost standstill. I wouldn't call it a 'normal' landing, though. I guess anybody with their seatbelt not tightened would have come rather close to the backrest infront...
Several upset workers and a/p marshal raced to the scene and finally removed the cones, so SIK could taxi to the apron.

But since none of that happened according to Mr. 4 motor pilot, it might just be part of my vivid imagination. Cheers! :E

[four engine jock]

Dear Little Mo.
Being that you know me. And you seem to have a bit of a gripe with me; I don’t know why that is as I don’t know you. But with all that said I stand corrected on this case.
I was informed on the events of this case by the concerned party.
But as there was a witness (DAFLY) to this I will stand up and be corrected.
Goes to show never believe everything you hear.

[Goffel]

Some useless information what I heard in the office today...

Apparently the chineese who did the work on the runway had actually finished the work and had taken the crosses away..........then they found they had not been paid.....an argument on payement ensured, so they went back and put the crosses back on the runway, which they cud legeally do as they were still in charge, (due to them not being paid), of the runway.

Hope that does help as to why the crosses were still there.......I do not know whether the Notam had been withdrawn at the time when the crosses were suddenly put back and the crew honestly did not have any knowledge of the displaced threshhold.

Goffel.

[DaFly]

Whether it was in the notams, or not, would you land on big white crosses? Visibility was excellent that day, not like braking clouds at minimums...

Maybe I'm wrong, but when I see those rwy markings, I either try and stretch the approach until reaching the displaced threshold or do a go-around and double check with the tower.

[Goffel]

Not condoning nor condeming as to why the alleged incident happened............just thought I wud give the apparent reason as to why the crosses were there.

Goffel...:8

[DaFly]

Heard the same type of rumor regarding the cross issue from different sources around that time of the incident. Sounds very possible, since that part of the rwy has been closed for weeks without any visible work going on on the rwy itself.

[Pandabear]

I went into WVB twice in the pst two weeks or so, the first day tower was operating and reminded us no less then three times about the displaced threshold. The contractors were on the radio the second time and also reminded us of the displaced threshold. It is also in the notam. The big white X's do stand out though...! Friendly place at least.

[spacedaddy]

Maybe I missed it earlier but which airline was ZS-SIK operating for?

[DaFly]

SA express, I think.

[spacedaddy]

Any confirmation on that? Black eye to a good IOSA carrierif so.

[nugpot]

I used to think that IOSA meant something, but having had something to do with it, I am now convinced that it is a paper exercise checking up on paper-pushers.

As long as your paperwork is up to date, you can operate any way you want and pass the yearly inspection........

Just my opinion.

[Maurice Chavez]

Didn't Interair had something similar a few weeks ago into FYWB? :E:E

[mainbearing]

Yes SA Express, Dafly you were right (in more ways than one!)
Four Engine Jocks, a bit outa line there, " Sometimes better to remain silent........" something like that.
Yes, it did happen damaged one mainwheel tire I hear, resulting in a delay.

[spacedaddy]

nugpot, You should continue to think that IOSA means something. If you've had something to do with IOSA before then you know that the ISARPS go way beyond what is required by CAA's. The problem is that IOSA carriers lease in non-IOSA airlines. There is nothing wrong with this practice as long as an audit is performed to ascertain that the leased airline meets the same standards. I can guarantee that unless an airline "IS" Iosa they do not meet the same standards. SAA leased an aircraft for the world cup that didn't have EGPWS which is an IOSA requirement. It was stated above that money is the deciding factor, probably followed closely by sweetheart deals. Just how far should safety be compromised?

[AirwayBlocker]

SAA leased an aircraft for the World Cup???

What aircraft was that?

(excuse the thread creep)

[Unlucky Nelson]

Safair 737

111

[spacedaddy]

Avstar without EGPWS