View Full Version : Peruvian B733 accident, runway excursion, all gear collapsed, aircraft caught fire

28th Mar 2017, 23:57
Hull loss. The aircraft was evacuated, all occupants are alive.

Accident: Peruvian B733 at Jauja on Mar 28th 2017, runway excursion, all gear collapsed, aircraft caught fire (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a6d72d8&opt=1)

29th Mar 2017, 02:24
141 POB..... "_ _ _ coming to a stop after skidding on fire for some distance."Job well done, to the crew for getting everybody off unharmed!

29th Mar 2017, 02:50
Great job by the fire service in making sure the grass doesn't burn too much!

Severe Clear
29th Mar 2017, 06:26
I was impressed that the fire-fighters followed long established rules of fire survival...they did not skirt the fire track and head to plane...they extinguished it all along the track to the plane and in so doing drifted their spray all along the way and into the plane fire assuring it did not restart behind them and run in once again.
Well done all around. A frightening scenario handled by a bundle of cool folks.

29th Mar 2017, 07:13
Hmm seems this was a daylight landing with decent weather conditions... any idea what went wrong?

blue up
29th Mar 2017, 07:17
Met report shows "Wind calm", doesn't it? Looks like quite a tailwind in the video.

29th Mar 2017, 07:29
If it was a hard landing, it must have been a really hard one. The gear on a 733 is built of girders. There must be more to this than we know. Congratulations to the crew and fire service for the fact everybody survived.

Super VC-10
29th Mar 2017, 07:44
Meanwhile, over at Wikipedia...


29th Mar 2017, 07:58
That's the quickest Wikipedia entry ever.

29th Mar 2017, 08:23
In one of the videos, a young woman (supposedly a passenger & happy with herself to be a "journalist") tells the AC "took land right wing first, then BROKE and caught fire" -this translated directly from Spanish.

29th Mar 2017, 08:55
What I don't understand is why few (if any) of the passengers have their hand luggage with them?

Super VC-10
29th Mar 2017, 09:22
That's the quickest Wikipedia entry ever.

Nope, was created almost 8 hours after the accident. :*

What I don't understand is why few (if any) of the passengers have their hand luggage with them?

Maybe they didn't have any?

29th Mar 2017, 10:01
What I don't understand is why few (if any) of the passengers have their hand luggage with them?

Passengers leaving overwing exit carrying bags https://youtu.be/jF4Rr7nVgAU?t=3 despite fire and smoke obviously visible on starboard side.

Just a few seconds later, there is a small explosion on the starboard side which spooks the camera lady, and then when she pans back to a/c the fire is burning more fiercely, there are several passengers/crew near front exit, and passengers running from the rear exit. A close call.

Tech Guy
29th Mar 2017, 11:26
I am guessing that the "flames-run away vs its ok-retrieve luggage" equilibrium swung sufficiently far into the "run away" part of the equation.

Good job by all concerned though. :)

29th Mar 2017, 12:33
The gear on a 733 is built of girders
I was on an Indian Airlines 732 that bounced twice when landing at Poona (Pune) India. Nothing broke.

29th Mar 2017, 14:03
We (us older ones) comment about people taking video with their cameras at disaster scenes, however they are good to watch and actually provide valuable information.

29th Mar 2017, 14:39
So far I've seen one report say the starboard wing struck the perimetre fence, one say that the wing touched down first when they landed, and now this:

The fire likely started when the wing scraped the runway, Interior Minister Carlos Basombrio said.

"The plane couldn't stop on the runway and they made a manoeuvre to stop it with the wing and that appears to have caused the fire," Basombrio told reporters on local broadcaster RPP.

I find it difficult to imagine the manoeuvre to stop a 737 with the wing, let alone the pilot who would attempt it...

29th Mar 2017, 14:56
Non-aviators (in this case Interior Minister Carlos Basombrio) do make us laugh :rolleyes::

29th Mar 2017, 16:43
In this video (bad sound) the pilot Dennis Khan says almost nothing except that all pax and crew were evacuated in a safe condition.

29th Mar 2017, 18:10
Obviously very glad to see everyone walking this one out. To a certain extent it would qualify as a successful landing!

That being said 24h after the event there doesn't seem to be even the beginning of a narrative as of what happened...

29th Mar 2017, 18:59
I suspect the crew are saying nothing (I don't know about that youtube video). I would say nothing until I had a union rep and a lawyer handy.

30th Mar 2017, 01:41
ABC Evening News (USA) reported the speedy, safe evacuation was helped by pax following safety advice: They didn't try to retrieve hand luggage.

This I find a little suspect. :rolleyes:

Video: FF to 2:45

30th Mar 2017, 02:23
Landing view from passenger seat min. 2:22. Tire burst?


30th Mar 2017, 05:27
That looked a little fast but that wasn't a hard landing.

30th Mar 2017, 08:08
It appears that the aircraft departed to the right soon after touchdown and encountered soft ground and a drainage ditch. I think reports that the a/c struck a fence are incorrect. Steering issue seems likely.

30th Mar 2017, 08:43
Sounds like another case, like the DHL A300 at Bratislava, where what could have been a relatively damage-free incident was exacerbated by poor airfield design which placed ditches, drains and culverts in close proximity to the runway edge.

Hotel Tango
30th Mar 2017, 10:41
Steering issue seems likely.

Looking at the video taken from the cabin, it seems to me that the right gear collapses just after touchdown. It is perhaps only at that point that the aircraft begins to depart to the right.

Mr A Tis
30th Mar 2017, 15:31
Please correct me if I am wrong, but this is not the first Peruvian B733 to have a RH gear collapse. Cuzco Oct 2015 ?)

30th Mar 2017, 15:46
The Air contractor DHL A300 incident at Bratislava was caused by the NLG collapse (Improper maintenance) during rollout. Nothing to do with the airfield design. BTW, the a/c is still there, parked at taxiway D along the rwy 22...

Sounds like another case, like the DHL A300 at Bratislava, where what could have been a relatively damage-free incident was exacerbated by poor airfield design which placed ditches, drains and culverts in close proximity to the runway edge.

30th Mar 2017, 15:50
At that altitude, you don't want to land too slow...seems like a normal landing to me as well, followed by a gear collapse...

That looked a little fast but that wasn't a hard landing.

30th Mar 2017, 15:59
Both parts of the error chain:The runway excursion was due to the incorrect and undetected re-assembly of the nose gear torque links.

the absence of clear and detailed instructions in the text of the manufacturer’s AMM ...contributed to the incorrect assembly

The absence of any regulation requiring that equipment in the immediate vicinity of a runway or of a runway overrun area be designed so as to limit as much as possible any damage to aeroplanes, in case of a runway excursion, contributed to the accident.

Off topic out.

30th Mar 2017, 16:11
The Air contractor DHL A300 incident at Bratislava was caused by the NLG collapse (Improper maintenance) during rollout. Nothing to do with the airfield design.

From the investigation report:

"The main landing gear touched the runway about 700 m from the threshold of runway 22. The crew deployed the thrust reversers. About six seconds after the nose gear touched, the crew felt strong vibrations that increased as the speed dropped. At 85 kt, the thrust reversers were retracted. The aeroplane veered towards the left. The PF explained that he applied energetic braking and tried in vain to counter the rocking by using the rudder pedals then the nose gear steering control. He added that the sequence occurred so quickly that he did not think to use differential braking (2) to try to keep the aeroplane on the runway.

The aeroplane exited the runway to the left at a speed of about 45 kt. Its nose gear struck a concrete inspection pit and collapsed. The aeroplane skidded for a few dozen metres before coming to a stop. The crew evacuated the aeroplane. Between the start of the vibrations and the aeroplane stopping, it had rolled about 400 metres."

Lateral runway excursion during landing roll, nose landing gear collapse (https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2012/ei-c121116.en/pdf/ei-c121116.en.pdf)

30th Mar 2017, 16:23
METAR Calm, but clearly a tailwind at time of accident.

Do foreign Met services generate a CRASHOB as routine when an incident/accident occurs?

Certainly the British service did/does?

30th Mar 2017, 16:26
:ok: You got me there

From the investigation report:
Lateral runway excursion during landing roll, nose landing gear collapse (https://www.bea.aero/docspa/2012/ei-c121116.en/pdf/ei-c121116.en.pdf)

30th Mar 2017, 17:01
Don't worry about it. I'm guessing you may have been misled by the Avherald report on the incident where, in typical fashion, they manage to contradict themselves in the space of a few lines.

First, they assert that "after touch down and during roll out the nose gear collapsed" and then that "the aircraft exited the paved surface of the runway at about 45 knots, the nose gear struck a concrete inspection pit and collapsed".

Accident: Air Contractors A30B at Bratislava on Nov 16th 2012, nose gear collapse on landing, runway excursion (http://avherald.com/h?article=4591cb7d)

I'd be confused too if I was reading that. :O

30th Mar 2017, 20:38
In what seems to have been a very brief interview with the captain, Dennis Kahn, he is quoted as saying:

"The runway had nothing to do [with the accident]; it seems to have been a technical fault. Up until touchdown everything was normal (...). I tried to stay on the runway but the imbalance of the aircraft to the right overcame me."

“La pista de aterrizaje no tiene nada que ver, aparentemente ha sido una falla técnica. Hasta no pisar suelo todo estaba normal (…) Traté de mantenerme en la pista pero el desequilibrio del avión a lado derecho me ganó”, afirmó.

The link is at Piloto de Peruvian admite desequilibrio en aeronave incendiada en Jauja - Portal de Turismo - Noticias de Turismo, Hotelería, Aviación y Viajes del Perú y el Mundo (http://portaldeturismo.pe/index.php/regiones/item/7027-piloto-de-peruvian-admite-desequilibrio-en-aeronave-incendiada-en-jauja)

31st Mar 2017, 02:53
Looking at the terrain (from the video taken from inside), it seems that the area has a lot of surrounding water, hence the requirement for a lot of drains etc.

It also seems the approach was quite fast?

Hotel Tango
31st Mar 2017, 10:42
Anilv, I believe that at an elevation of 3400 metres you will find approach speeds are faster than we are accustomed to at the more conventional sea level or close to sea level airports that you and I may generally fly into.

31st Mar 2017, 20:21
New video evidence available:

Flaps 5/10 or 15?


1st Apr 2017, 00:21
Looked like a good landing until the RH LNDG collapsed.

1st Apr 2017, 04:07
Nor sure but it appears that the higher speed may also be due to a reduced flap landing. Sometimes performed due to missed approach climb gradients and higher density altitude locations.

fox niner
1st Apr 2017, 08:32
That is certainly flaps 15. The go-around climb gradient could very well be the reason for the flap setting.
I always wondered how those high altitude ops worked out. My FCOM says that the max landing/takeoff altitude is 8400' for the 737. Above that, there must be a special ops book somewhere that explains it. Anyone with experience in that?

1st Apr 2017, 08:39
Could this be a factor? (from The Aviation Herald),

“According to local sources there was work in progress on theleft hand side of the runway, the right hand runway half, width 22.5 meters,was available only, however the width was declared 30 meters. No related NOTAMswere published, however.”

1st Apr 2017, 15:01
It looks like a pattern of "hard landings" for 733, 734 types. Latest occurrences:

Taban B734 at Ardabil on Mar 27th 2017, right main gear collapse on landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a6d1bda); video (https://youtu.be/6sxyPncw5EA)

Safi B734 at Kabul on Dec 10th 2016, hard landing causes right main gear collapse (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a1e576e)

AerCaribe B734 at Bogota on Nov 9th 2016, structural main gear failures on landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a083b07)

ASL B734 at Belfast on Oct 4th 2016, partial main gear failure and burst main tyres on landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=49ee2c18)

Trigana B733 at Wamena on Sep 13th 2016, hard landing results in main gear collapse (http://avherald.com/h?article=49deae9a)

1st Apr 2017, 15:21
Looking at the videos it certainly looks like a RH gear collapse.

I wouldn't have said the landing was particularly hard.

1st Apr 2017, 15:55
I was down there a week ago. At 11,000 feet ground speed on landing is noticably higher and both landings and departures are regularly done downwind because of surrounding high terrain. It takes forever to stop and to get to takeoff speed.

1st Apr 2017, 16:37
Here a video from a landing in Cusco (Peru) 10700ft according to the title with a 200. Also using flap 15 (as it seems) and full flap after spoilers up.


2nd Apr 2017, 01:30
From the video, there is a strong vibration immediately after the spoilers come up and the weight settles onto the gear followed by the starboard main gear collapsing and the aircraft departing the runway.
There appear to be issues with the torque links on the early 737 aircraft.
From a November 1998 B773 incident that seems to be representative of the issue:

NTSB short summary:

A loss of torque on the apex nut of the shimmy damper for undetermined reason(s), which resulted in a failure of the shimmy damper, and the subsequent failure of the lower torsion link of the right main landing gear.

NTSB synopsis:

The Boeing 737-300 touched down under the control of the first officer, and the pilots felt a vibration or shimmy. The captain reported that he took control of the airplane, and stopped it on the runway. Examination disclosed that the lower torsion link on the right main landing gear had failed, and the wheels had rotated 45 degrees outboard. Metallurgical examination of the failed torsion link revealed it had failed in overstress. According to a Boeing 737 Service Letter, this had happened before and was traced to excessive play at the torsion link apex joint, which rendered the shimmy dampers ineffective. The shaft on the shimmy damper was bent about 20 degrees rearward, and the apex nut which held the upper and lower torsion links together was loose on the shaft. The damage precluded a check of the apex nut for proper torque. Not saying that this was a cause of the Peruvian accident, but it seems to fit the pattern. Perhaps some of the engineers (both types) would like to weigh in on the subject?

2nd Apr 2017, 03:06
I think you are onto something.

Peruvian B733 at Cuzco on Oct 23rd 2015, right main gear collapse on landing (http://avherald.com/h?article=48e3d460)


"The airport reported the aircraft suffered a maintenance problem and became disabled on the runway after a part in the landing gear fractured.
On Dec 14th 2016 the NTSB reported, that 8 seconds after touchdown vibrations were felt, the right hand landing gear collapsed later in the landing sequence. It was found in addition, that the left hand main gear had a fractured shimmy damper actuator and a fractured torsion link."

2nd Apr 2017, 08:57
Simplified attempt to explain the NORMAL higher speed (in relation to the ground !) at high altitude.

To be able to fly, an aircraft needs to let a certain amount of air particles pass the wings, during a specific time period. So, it needs to travel at a certain speed through the air.

The density of the air at a higher altitude is less. The AIR PARTICLES are at a GREATER DISTANCE from each other. This distance increases with altitude.
In other words: When you go higher, the PATH from one AIR PARTICLE to the next will be LARGER.

If the same aircraft (as above) would fly at a higher altitude, the aircraft needs to go, in the same time period, a larger distance to be able to pass the same amount of air particles.

The number of air particles that passes, is a measure for the (Indicated) Airspeed (IAS).
The IAS is measured by the pitot tube. The pitot tube 'eats' the air particles and sends 'the amount eaten' to the pointer of the Airspeed Indicator.

At high altitude, in the same time period, the tube needs to 'eat' exactly the same amount of air particles to keep the aircraft flying as it needs at sea level. So, in reality, it needs to go faster (in relation to the ground). But the Indicated Airspeed will be the same . . .

The airport altitude is around 11.000 feet. The speed increase effect is, except for pilots doing this on a routine basis, way beyond what one would expect and quite significant. :ooh:

Kind regards, learner . . . ;)

2nd Apr 2017, 10:57
Assuming zero wind, groundspeed (GS) equals true airspeed (TAS), which is indicated airspeed (IAS) corrected for density error, an increase of roughly 2% for each 1000 feet above sea level. The aerodynamic properties of aircraft relate to IAS. A typical approach IAS for a B737 (Vref + 5) is in the region of 130 knots. At 11,000 feet density error will be approx 22%, so the TAS (and zero wind GS) will be approx 160 kt.

If for some reason the approach is made with Flaps 15 (rather than 30 or 40) the Vref will be increased by approx 10 kt, as will therefore TAS and GS.

(Source: 'How Airliners Fly' by Julien Evans)

2nd Apr 2017, 11:56
Thanks for the above posts. Given the altitude (and relatively high temperature?) of the airfield what would be the typical touchdown ground speed for a 733?

2nd Apr 2017, 13:06
Looked like a good landing until the RH LNDG collapsed.

Similar accident happened a couple of years back with a 737-300 at Honiara, Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands. Shortly after smooth touchdown the right landing gear collapsed. For logistical reasons the 737 written off.

2nd Apr 2017, 23:34
Judging from the very dynamic landings that these high altitude landing aircraft seem to be experiencing (High Approach Speeds) it appears that the landing gear is taking more of a beating than their lower altitude operating cousins. As a result, the landing gear is going to need a higher frequency of inspections and maintenance. The Apex bolts on the landing gear scissors seem to need particular attention.

Here is a link to another incident report on the subject with a pretty explicit write up on details of the failures.

The Safety recommendations in the link worth noting.
Safety Recommendations
There have apparently been a substantial number of MLG torsion link fracture cases brought about by severe shimmying over a period of years. While none of the previous cases resulted in injury, it is clear that such events are likely to have a significant effect on the aircraft's steering capability, could inhibit use of the wheelbrakes in the event of shimmying and are likely to result in wheel, tyre and brake damage. A runway departure could possibly be the eventual result of such an event.
Additionally, it appears that the substantial oscillatory loads associated with MLG shimmy, both before and after torsion link fracture, could potentially cause undetected damage to the aircraft structure.
Changes to relevant sections of the AMM and MPD, together with a number of messages from the manufacturer emphasising the recommended maintenance, have apparently failed to prevent recurrence. It is considered that further measures, including an assessment of the need for improved methods of checking for excessive play in the torsion link apex joint and an increased check frequency, improvement to relevant sections of the AMM and assessment of the need for modification of the joint, need to be implemented. It has therefore been recommended that:
Safety Recommendation 2004-103
The Federal Aviation Authority and the Boeing Commercial Airplane Group should take effective measures aimed at preventing further cases of Boeing 737 main landing gear shimmy and resultant torsion link fracturing brought about by excessive play in the anti-torque links apex joint.