PDA

View Full Version : Airbus lands short at Palermo


starling60
24th Sep 2010, 19:09
Have already posted this in Italian thread: just heard a last minute on Italian news, Rome -Palermo flight Airbus off rwy, injuries reported, sorry was away from tv and could not hear from which airline.
Anyone has more news?

Blind Squirrel
24th Sep 2010, 19:20
"An Airbus 300 aircraft with 143 passengers and 6 crew-members belonging to Wind Jet departed the runway on landing at Palermo's Falcone-Borsellino airport. The flight number was Wind Jet LV243, a code share with Meridiana Fly, which departed Fiumicino [FCO] at 19:08 [local, presumably], slightly behind schedule.

The aircraft ran off the runway at 20:13 on account of a very heavy rainstorm at Palermo at the time. Emergency procedures were immediately implemented and passengers were deplaned via the emergency chutes and taken inside the airport building. GESAP, the airport management company, said that three persons had been taken to hospital with minor head and nose injuries. The National Agency for Aviation Safety (ANSV) has begun an investigation."

Blind Squirrel
24th Sep 2010, 19:53
LICJ 241920Z 19015KT 9999 SCT022 BKN030 21/18 Q1001
LICJ 241850Z 18010KT 4000 TSRA FEW018CB SCT020 BKN028 20/18 Q1001 RMK VIS MIN 4000
LICJ 241820Z 07006KT 4000 TSRA FEW018CB SCT022 BKN030 20/18 Q1000
LICJ 241750Z 06014KT 4000 TSRA FEW018CB SCT022 BKN030 20/18 Q1001 WS RWY 20 RMK VIS MIN 400


http://www.vatita.net/download/planning/files/LICJ_ils25.pdf



Not difficult to see how this might have happened. After dark; poor vis; heavy rain; crosswind coming off a bloody great ridge a few hundred metres upwind of the runway...

maxalphaboy
24th Sep 2010, 19:59
Accident: Windjet A319 at Palermo on Sep 24th 2010, runway excursion (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4315b792&opt=0)

White Knight
24th Sep 2010, 20:07
Not difficult to see how this might have happened. After dark; poor vis; heavy rain; crosswind

Mmmmm - hold and let the TSRA pass maybe? Or go elsewhere? Not difficult to use other options:rolleyes:

PaperTiger
24th Sep 2010, 20:20
Three passengers received minor injuries in the evacuation.

Here we go again :oh:

Blind Squirrel
24th Sep 2010, 20:30
"'We heard a loud bang, like an explosion. It all happened in an instant. Now my back hurts dreadfully,' said Cinzia Orabona, a 31-year-old Palermo resident, who was aboard the Wind Jet Airbus 300 that ran off the runway this evening while landing at Falcone-Borsellino Airport in Palermo....'The aircraft left Rome on time,' she said, 'and there was some turbulence enroute, but nothing to worry about. After the landing we exited via two escape hatches; the rear of the aircraft was damaged. I don't recall having seen any serious injuries, just scrapes and bruises.' But the young woman also complained: 'We passengers were left standing in the rain and had to make our own way to the terminal on foot.'"

Blind Squirrel
24th Sep 2010, 21:24
Pilot "one of the most experienced at Wind Jet"; aircraft "ran off the runway after touch-down"; according to passengers "the undercarriage may have collapsed...witnesses speak of the aircraft sliding 600 metres on its belly and finishing up on the verges next to the runway."

GESAP now saying "about 20 people taken to hospital," though none with serious injuries; 123 pax on board. Aircraft an A310-200. According to Wind Jet, "wind shear" was the cause. Dr Francesco Scorza, Red Cross physician on scene: "I provided first aid...about a dozen people came to me for treatment of minor cuts to their limbs and head, probably sustained while coming down the emergency chutes."

"After the off-runway landing there were scenes of panic and screaming on board. The overhead lockers opened and lots of stuff fell out. I was hit in the head," said Salvatore Lauro, 46, engineer..."I saw the cowlings of the right-hand engine open," he added. "After violently impacting the ground the oxygen masks deployed. Then they opened the chutes. Before we could get out of the aircraft several passengers blocked the exits for quite a few minutes because they wouldn't leave their hand baggage behind. But the crew prevailed upon them to deplane without their wheelie-bags." Lauro complained about "the delay before the emergency services arrived. We had to walk along the runway for about fifty metres before the shuttle-buses turned up." Afterwards he received medical treatment in the infirmary. "I'm going home now," he said, "and thank goodness nothing happened that can't be taken care of. Among those who were more badly hurt than I, I did see a man who seemed to have a dislocated shoulder."

Blind Squirrel
24th Sep 2010, 21:41
Says the pilot made a mobile 'phone call beside her on the ground; in her version he said to whomever he was speaking, "I didn't see the runway" ("non ho visto la pista").

Well, it is a rumour network...!

Jetset320
24th Sep 2010, 22:23
Aircraft an A310-200.

Windjet fly A320 and A319.

Palermo is a no-no in our Airport Manual with winds from the southern end over 15 kts. Windshear is a real threat at this airport, even without thunderstorms.

Even the control tower is evacuated (hence aerodrome closed) with winds over 40 kts.

Glad nobody was badly hurt.

Blind Squirrel
25th Sep 2010, 00:45
An A319, Irish reg, EI-EDM.

Herewith the first picture, from "Giornale di Sicilia." Looks like it's shed the mainwheels, right enough...

http://www.gds.it/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/CRONACA/128419_album/petlo76.jpg (http://www.gds.it/gds/multimedia/cronaca/gdsid/128419/#tsmmedia)
http://www.gds.it/gds/multimedia/cronaca/gdsid/128419/pg/4/
http://www.gds.it/gds/multimedia/cronaca/gdsid/128419/

I-2021
25th Sep 2010, 07:37
Might be a hard landing following a low level ws. As many said, palermo can be very tricky.

decurion
25th Sep 2010, 08:59
Runway excursions are a very common problem in aviation safety. There are about 2 excursions per week worldwide with commercial and executive operations. (see NLR-ATSI: Runway excursions (http://www.nlr-atsi.com/smartsite.dws?ch=ATS&id=14562)). Currently we are working in Europe to make an action plan for the prevention of runway excursions. We also have plans to organise a free safety seminar on runway excursions next year.

See also: http://www.nlr-atsi.com/eCache/ATS/14/919.pdf

A37575
25th Sep 2010, 13:28
We also have plans to organise a free safety seminar on runway excursions next year.

I hate to sound cynical, but free seminars don't stop some pilots from pressing on regardless in dodgy weather and runway conditions. There is already some excellent flight safety material available on the internet to those pilots who are seriously interested in reading it. But for every pilot that reads this material, there are probably two dozen who couldn't care less.

daikilo
25th Sep 2010, 18:45
As I understand, PIC might have landed heavy or early and wiped out landing gear.

fly_antonov
25th Sep 2010, 19:10
Can' t wait to read in the final report whether the P2F aspect of the airline played any role in this.

It would be a good opportunity to get media and EASA involved in this unacceptable practice.

Blind Squirrel
25th Sep 2010, 22:22
Aircraft touched down 300-400 metres before the runway threshold, in a ploughed-up area. Initially, ATC thought it had come down in the sea and called out four coastguard patrol boats. Vis at the point of touchdown stated to be "5 metres"; an Alitalia pilot waiting at the holding point never saw the landing Airbus. Once it was determined that the aircraft had in fact come down in the vicinity of the runway, the lack of visibility meant that the emergency services had a great deal of difficulty finding the crash site.

Some passengers said they had to walk for 20 minutes before reaching the terminal area. (Sig. Lauro's complaint, then, might be more explicable: it appears he stood around in the rain for that period of time, then gave up, started walking, and met the shuttle buses 50 metres away.)

Pilot quoted as saying to Wind Jet management: "I felt like the aircraft was sinking" on final approach. PF has more than 15,000 hours experience.

After the impact, the aircraft took out the glideslope antenna, along with various other obstructions. It'll take three weeks to repair the ILS. The a/c is now resting to the left of the RWY 07 threshold, with its nose pointing east. (Photo below: arrows indicate visible damage.)


http://www.ilmessaggero.it/MsgrNews/HIGH/20100925_palermo-windjet.jpg

broadreach
25th Sep 2010, 22:57
Please excuse a lame attempt at humour, seeing that the premature touchdown in itself caused no injury, unless broken noses came about as a result thereof (how, one wonders, would one get a broken nose evacuating by slide?).

With all the damage pointed out by Blind Squirrel, the paramount question amongst the non-pilot types must be will it be a CTL or will it fly again. In the latter event, would it not be an idea to keep those lamps embedded in the nose cone, turn them around and wire them up to shine when required?

SplashDown
26th Sep 2010, 00:34
Am I still right in thinking its a VOR approach to 07???

Tricky place LICJ especially when the wind is from the south around the 'big rock'!

Glad not more serious. Will be interesting to see the outcome of the accident

Splashdown

Type1106
26th Sep 2010, 11:26
Yes, it's still VOR only for R/W 07.

If the time was 19.08 local, that would make it 17:08 Z, and we don't seem to have the METAR for 16:50 z - which would be the most relevant -but it would seem that the wind was easterly around that time. I guess that's why he wasn't on the ILS for 20.

Windshear and TS in the 17:50 METAR - classic combination?

RatherBeFlying
26th Sep 2010, 14:01
I would put this in the same category as the AF overrun at YYZ. Landing in or near a thunderstorm, anything can happen.

Doug E Style
26th Sep 2010, 20:21
VOR approach + Vis at the point of touchdown stated to be "5 metres" = this.

kilstron
27th Sep 2010, 10:57
LICJ 242350Z 20020KT 9999 -DZ FEW018 BKN030 21/17 Q0999 RMK VIS MIN 9999
LICJ 242320Z 20020KT 7000 -RA FEW018 BKN030 21/18 Q0999
LICJ 242250Z 19021KT 7000 -RA FEW018 BKN030 21/18 Q1000 RMK VIS MIN 7000
LICJ 242220Z 19020KT 7000 -RA FEW018 BKN030 21/17 Q1000
LICJ 242150Z 19020KT 9999 FEW020 BKN060 21/17 Q1000 RMK VIS MIN 9999
LICJ 242120Z 19019KT 9999 FEW020 BKN060 22/17 Q1000
LICJ 242050Z 20015KT 9999 FEW020 BKN060 21/17 Q1000 RMK VIS MIN 9999
LICJ 242020Z 20013KT 9999 FEW020 BKN040 21/17 Q1001
LICJ 241950Z 20015KT 9999 FEW020 BKN030 21/18 Q1001 RMK VIS MIN 9999
LICJ 241920Z 19015KT 9999 SCT022 BKN030 21/18 Q1001
LICJ 241850Z 18010KT 4000 TSRA FEW018CB SCT020 BKN028 20/18 Q1001 RMK VIS MIN 4000
LICJ 241820Z 07006KT 4000 TSRA FEW018CB SCT022 BKN030 20/18 Q1000
LICJ 241750Z 06014KT 4000 TSRA FEW018CB SCT022 BKN030 20/18 Q1001 WS RWY 20 RMK VIS MIN 4000
LICJ 241720Z 14009KT 070V180 6000 TSRA FEW018CB SCT022 BKN030 21/16 Q1002
LICJ 241650Z 19017KT 4000 RA BR SCT022 BKN030 21/17 Q1002 WS RWY 20 RMK VIS MIN 4000
LICJ 241620Z 19020KT 6000 RA SCT022 BKN030 22/17 Q1002 RMK WS RWY 20
LICJ 241550Z 18020KT 9999 -RA FEW025 BKN070 23/16 Q1002 WS RWY 20 RMK VIS MIN 9999
LICJ 241520Z 18020KT 9999 FEW025 BKN070 25/14 Q1002 RMK WS RWY 20
LICJ 241420Z 18018KT 9999 -RA FEW025 BKN070 23/15 Q1003
LICJ 241350Z 19012KT 9999 FEW025 SCT070 25/14 Q1004 WS RWY20 RMK VIS MIN 9999
LICJ 241320Z 18011KT 9999 FEW025 SCT070 25/13 Q1005 RMK WS RWY20
LICJ 241250Z 17010KT 140V210 9999 FEW025 SCT070 25/13 Q1005 WS RWY20 RMK VIS MIN 9999
LICJ 241220Z 16013KT 9999 FEW025 SCT070 25/13 Q1006
LICJ 241150Z 19012KT 9999 FEW025 SCT070 25/14 Q1006 RMK VIS MIN 9999
LICJ 241120Z 21013KT 9999 FEW025 SCT070 24/16 Q1008
LICJ 241050Z 20009KT 9999 FEW025 SCT070 24/15 Q1008 RMK VIS MIN 9999

who is used to fly pmo knows that southerly wind means "sure windshear" due to the big mountain south of airport. In this case wind turned east, probably for the tunderstorm around the field, and that's why they used rwy 07 (metar 1650z still has pilot-report windshear on rwy 20...)

now, nobody can say exatly what happened, but my personal experience is really ambiguous; you have no report and experience shar on final, than some reports and no relevant speed variation on final... :confused:

on this airport you have 4 rwys, mountains, winds, sea breeze, obstacles,... nothing really important alone, but really odd whwn you mix it all

local experience helps a lot (those guys had it...) but sometimes make things more trikky (grammar correct? :O) because rely on your previous background and that day can be different fm all previous

stikying strictly to the rules is always a good habit, but pmo, believe me, make decision making really interesting sometimes; quite uncommon to find a clear "no go" situation, except for wind coming fm south with rwy 20 closed...

so, we will wait for the ANSV report, may be in few months, but expecially for the gnd windshear detector system, that they were to deploy on site since 2007... they tried some expensive tecnical solution but without finding really helpfull it won't be the final device, but better that not having it!

Alfredo Li Pira
27th Sep 2010, 19:20
well, from what I understood, he was on the Cat II ISL approach to RWY 25, *not* on the VOR approach to RWY 07. The plane ended near the 07 threshold by skidding, but it was landing on 25. I have no clue to what approach he was using, of course, but 25 has an ILS approach!

Type1106
27th Sep 2010, 19:32
ALP

Who or what gave you the impression he was on an ILS to 25?

Alfredo Li Pira
27th Sep 2010, 19:33
I stand corrected -- got confused, he was effectively on a non-precision approach to RWY 07. Wow.

Blind Squirrel
27th Sep 2010, 23:37
The first reports in the Italian press did say he was on an instrument approach to 25 (presumably they jumped to the conclusion that he must have run off the far end). They also had the aircraft type as an A312, and the number of pax on board as 143. All wrong, of course, but initial reports nearly always are.

Greenpilots
28th Sep 2010, 08:58
Are the navaids in PMO working again? Last time I was there, basically everything was offline...

saucy jack
28th Sep 2010, 10:18
The ILS approaches to runway 25 are suspended (there is no CAT 2 approach) but other navaids are serviceable. As there is no published VOR approach to 25 the ILS25 is replaced by VOR 07 plus circling, or visual, and notammed thus for at least a month.

The tire tracks on the runway 07 clearly indicate that the plane departed to the left of the runway just after the intersection with 02/20 with landing gear intact, then stopped rapidly when the main gear presumably collapsed in the soft ground.

The plane is now parked in the grass by the holding point for runway 25 as a reminder to all that this airport should be treated with respect.

FBW390
28th Sep 2010, 20:35
Yes, treat Palermo airport with respect! TSRA on airfield? Windshear suspected? Hold!!! Wait for the shower to leave the airport! Then only start the approach!
As said above: information on rwy overruns is good, but some will listen, some won' t...

Echo_Kilo
28th Sep 2010, 21:44
According to one of the Pilots. They had been caught by a windshear at 100 feet.
TOGA had been selected. Maybe one of the reasons, the Airframe didnt came apart...

Cheers,

The Ancient Geek
28th Sep 2010, 23:41
TOGA had been selected.


This leads me to question the inability of turbine engines to respond to urgent power demands. Some are better than others but they all take too long to spool up in this kind of situation.

Surely it should not be beyond the wit of man to provide virtually instant power for such situations. There is probably no completely satisfactory answer but what, for example, would be the tradeoffs be in optimising an engine design for rapid response.

PEI_3721
29th Sep 2010, 01:29
The Ancient Geek, your question and hope only matches the problems of the air mass in which we fly with the problems of the air mass which enable flight (engine and airframe).
Some engines / aircraft do not have the capability to escape the conditions once encountered, particularly at low altitude
A better solution might be found in early detection and avoidance of such situations.

A limiting Case? (http://www.scribd.com/doc/35984283/Windshear-Incident)

FBW390
29th Sep 2010, 06:36
"A better solution might be found in early detection and avoidance of such situations. " Yes, of course! You have WX radar to detect; and it is written in every SOPs to AVOID landing with CBs in the vicinity: risk of windshear! Hold! Wait a bit...
Fast response engine = fighter jet! It' s not the same fuel burn:=

Obi Wan Kirk
29th Sep 2010, 07:19
Anyone know the names of the pilots?

everynowandthen
29th Sep 2010, 09:31
....incoming. Take cover!

kilstron
29th Sep 2010, 10:20
i read: "it is written in every SOPs to AVOID landing with CBs in the vicinity: risk of windshear! Hold! Wait a bit...
""

ok guys, be realistic; last month i came to gatwick... there was a thunderstorm in vicinity, some shear (not too strong, but it was..) and everybody was landing! dozens of flights!

now, of course "wait a bit" is the best course of action, but everyday experience say to the pilot when is "good" and when is not...

palermo is very special airport with the weather, as is genova and reggio calabria (this one more than the others); nothing requesting NASA experience, but can be demanding

in this case looks like (but looks... we wait the official report) that the AZA flight before them made a go-around; if it's true that was real signal for the crew that something was odd

but the final solution there can only be the ground windshear detector system, we are waiting it from years; otherwise most of the aircraft should simply respect the books strictly and divert every day... that's the real story, because all the time the southerly winds prevail it's a game to guess what will be the situation on final. the ATC winds are related to the field, but the final is just on the downwash of the mountain...

now, of course, is quite simple say "they should go-around"; of course they should, but how many times we (everybody) started an approach because "doesn't look so bad, we don't have clutter on the scope..."?

now guess what? they (ENAC-Judges) will blame the Captain, then they will allocate a lot of money again to study a "reliabe system brand new!" and in two years we will se a notam "gnd winshar system on test-not avaible"

sorry being so long, but i did already see this sad story...

EXCIN
11th Jun 2011, 07:06
2 days ago (9 june 2011), I've landed in Palermo and I saw the A320 still standing next to the runway. Completely painted white. Main gear collapsed, engines badly damaged and standing on its tail. I wanted to know more about the crash and to my surprise, it happenend on 24 september 2010.
Is it normal that takes so long to remove this aircraft? Or is it because it is Palermo... :E
Good for the public relations of the airport and nice for aircraft passengers afraid of flying...

Mimpe
11th Jun 2011, 08:15
It does sound a bit like unexpected windshear

davionics
11th Jun 2011, 09:14
You know what? If a/c had JATO rockets, and an emergency system of activation (in windshear conditions at low altitude) - slow spool ups and low altitude windshears would be less of a worry. :ok:

saucy jack
11th Jun 2011, 09:38
Rumour has it that Windjet are planning to attach a poster under the co-pilots window saying "For 60,000 euros your son could be sitting here!"

It is a fitting monument to crap pay-to-fly companies everywhere.

Graybeard
11th Jun 2011, 11:27
You know what? If a/c had JATO rockets, and an emergency system of activation (in windshear conditions at low altitude) - slow spool ups and low altitude windshears would be less of a worry. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

You know what? All Mexicana 727 until the latest with JT8D-17R engines had four 1000 lb JATO bottles in the aft fuselage that could be deployed by the pilots. XMEX is at 7300 ft, and often hot, and lots of TS.

The JATO were deployed once by a copilot hitting the wrong button on approach. They said the noise was a lot more noticeable than the thrust.

The other time they used JATO was during the slide after a gear up landing doing pilot training in Acapulco at 3am. They only made things worse.

I believe they were the only airline to buy JATO.

GB

ross_M
11th Jun 2011, 15:24
That aircraft will be a writeoff, right? Looks pretty bad. :sad:

ross_M
11th Jun 2011, 15:29
What can we do to make pax behave better during evacs? Each accident has horror stories of people trying to shove luggage with them. Makes me cringe. Fine people after evacs for taking bags? Central lock the overhead bins and announce pre-evac? Crappy ideas, I know. Any better ones?

PS. Is there a stereotype? i.e. are some routes (Germans?) more disciplined at evacs than others....

kbrockman
11th Jun 2011, 23:02
The only way I could see for modern engines (high BPR, relatively large engine diameter) to have emergency power available within the blink of an eye would be with the aid of some sort of hydrazine backup system which could deliver such sudden powersurge almost instantly.

There would be issues however with the volatilety and toxicity of it being on board an airliner on a permanent base, maybe only enough for a 1 time kick in the pants option, and that's it.

Shore Guy
12th Jun 2011, 04:03
Yep, that is baggage being thrown out during the EVAC.....


YouTube - ‪FedEx DC-10-10F Flight 647 Crash Witness Video‬‏

yssy.ymel
12th Jun 2011, 04:33
@kbrockman

There was intended to be a hydrazine fuelled APU fitted to Concorde for use at airports that didn't have air start available. That idea was thrown out when one day a drop of hydrazine leaked and left a crater in the hangar floor. :)

I don't think that would be a good idea to fit hydrazine powered anything to RPT aircraft.....:E

ross_M
14th Jun 2011, 06:36
Isn't hydrazine what they used as starter injections on the Blackbird? I think it was some ridiculously small amount; in mililitres i I am not mistaken.

Sunnyjohn
14th Jun 2011, 08:55
Before we could get out of the aircraft several passengers blocked the exits for quite a few minutes because they wouldn't leave their hand baggage behind.
I agree, ross M. Overhead bins should be locked. Just as well there was no fire.

Mechta
14th Jun 2011, 09:23
What can we do to make pax behave better during evacs? Each accident has horror stories of people trying to shove luggage with them. Makes me cringe. Fine people after evacs for taking bags? Central lock the overhead bins and announce pre-evac? Crappy ideas, I know. Any better ones?

Given that passengers (the people that keep airlines in business) pay to travel to their destination for a purpose, and that purpose might be a meeting of very significant worth to them or their company, is it any surprise they might want to retrieve their laptop or whatever?

An all-airline policy that hand baggage will be retrieved and returned at the very earliest opportunity, if announced in every safety briefing might go someway to reducing what goes down slides.

In the wake of the Heathrow Terminal 5 opening, in which we saw 'unidentified' baggage being sent to Italy and auctioned off, despite items inside which were clearly traceable to their owners, very few passengers believe that the safety and security of their baggage is of as much concern to airlines and airport operators as it is to themselves.

JohnMcGhie
14th Jun 2011, 09:25
This leads me to question the inability of turbine engines to respond to urgent power demands. Some are better than others but they all take too long to spool up in this kind of situation.

ANCIENT GREEK: A modern turbine goes from flight idle to full power in close to one second. No piston engine does much better!

The problem is they have no propellers to speed the airflow over the wings. You have to wait for the whole aircraft to increase speed before you get any more lift.

Of course, you could always land at full noise like they do on the aircraft carriers... Imagine the whiplash claims down the back when they hit the arrester wires :-)

Tell you what: Let's mandate "longer, wider runways" for RPT, and "Navaids down = airport closed". Simple, low-tech, proven solutions.

Wouldn't work so well at my home airport: SYD is owned by an investment bank: they would only spend money if it created an opportunity to install more shops...

Daermon ATC
14th Jun 2011, 09:30
2 days ago (9 june 2011), I've landed in Palermo and I saw the A320 still standing next to the runway. Completely painted white.


This seemed a bit odd to me... is it usual to paint them so that the other passengers can not see which company it belongs to?

I mean, I know it is obviously very bad publicity, but hey, if you want to avoid it, then don't crash and if you do, then face the consecuences (bad publicity should be the least of your worries IMHO)

:ugh:

ross_M
14th Jun 2011, 12:28
A modern turbine goes from flight idle to full power in close to one second. No piston engine does much better!


I am confused. Didn't people mention 4-7 seconds needed to spool up? Is that different from Idle to Full Power?

Overhead bins should be locked. Just as well there was no fire.


I've never been through an evac as a PAX but does the CC even mention this in a pre-evac briefing? Maybe there need to be more reminders about "Leave bags behind"

Perhaps PAX are doing this impulsively and if reminded of the hazard would refrain?

lomapaseo
14th Jun 2011, 12:43
It's always amusing to read technical redesign suggestions in threads like this, but flat out incorrect factual statements like below need to be contested.

ANCIENT GREEK: A modern turbine goes from flight idle to full power in close to one second.

The AvgasDinosaur
14th Jun 2011, 13:07
I've never been through an evac as a PAX but does the CC even mention this in a pre-evac briefing? Maybe there need to be more reminders about "Leave bags behind"

Perhaps PAX are doing this impulsively and if reminded of the hazard would refrain?

In my experience as reasonable high time S.L.F. Most pax ignore safety announcements especially the pre recorded ones. My last flight a quick look round showed approx 10-15% actually looking at the screens. So not a lot of hope there.:ugh::ugh::mad::ugh::ugh:
Be lucky
David

ross_M
14th Jun 2011, 13:34
In my experience as reasonable high time S.L.F. Most pax ignore safety announcements especially the pre recorded ones. My last flight a quick look round showed approx 10-15% actually looking at the screens. So not a lot of hope there.

Of course. I didn't mean the pre-recorded routines. I meant during whatever time (if) you have between an evac ordered and the actual evac start.

On a lighter note, PAX sure are surprisingly rational sometimes: On the Hudson river ditching incident I don't remember too many bags on the wings. Maybe PAX decided their bags would be safer in the dry cabins than out in the Hudson. :D

PPRuNe Dispatcher
14th Jun 2011, 15:58
ANCIENT GREEK: A modern turbine goes from flight idle to full power in close to one second. No piston engine does much better!

Wrong. It takes an RB211 Trent 900 series engine 5.6 seconds to spool up from flight idle (15% thrust) to takeoff power (95% thrust). Source: European Aviation Safety Agency Type-certificate data sheet.

PPD

stepwilk
14th Jun 2011, 16:34
is it usual to paint them so that the other passengers can not see which company it belongs to?

Been done for ages. At the very least, an airline will quickly paint over its logos.

punkalouver
24th Oct 2011, 03:46
I guess there was a bit of a leak of info.


"17/11/2010

September 24th air accident in Palermo: disclosure of CVR (Cockpit Voice Recorder) contents the ANSV (Agenzia nazionale per la sicurezza del volo, Italian flight safety agency) position


Referring to the information reported by the press, relative to the partial contents of the CVR of the A319, registration marks EI-EDM, involved in the accident occurred in Palermo on September 24th, ANSV with no intent to comment on the reliability of the information, as its investigation is still undergoing remarks nevertheless that the disclosure of CVR contents contravenes international regulations provisions on the matter (Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, relative to safety investigations). ANSV therefore, as in similar previous circumstances, reserves to take all initiatives in order to protect the content of CVRs, which shall be used with the sole objective of prevention within the limits indicated in the above mentioned Annex 13"

Gentle Climb
24th Oct 2011, 10:25
I am not sure that the spool up time from idle to 100%N1 is relevent. Final approach N1 is about 57%. How long does it take to firewall from here? Fairly quick I would suggest. At some stage someone has got to command additional thrust sources. That takes time during a period of high activity.