Air Niugini Aircraft crash, Truk Lagoon [Archive]

View Full Version : Air Niugini Aircraft crash, Truk Lagoon

Pages : [1] 2

Cool banana

28th Sep 2018, 01:59

Air Niugini Boeing737 has a overrun while landing in Micronesia ending up in the sea at Truk Lagoon PTKK.

Plane overshoots runway in Micronesia and lands in ocean - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-28/flight-lands-in-a-lagoon-off-micronesia/10316434)

Cool banana

28th Sep 2018, 02:08

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/700x467/32fa555d_9278_461f_b0e6_4f8ee01e7af1_dfb913b5596650a11479f27 735f3c75cf364977a.jpeg

Max Tow

28th Sep 2018, 02:34

Probably just coincidence but flight history of this aircraft shows diverted on last two ops to this airfield (21 & 27 Sep).

rationalfunctions

28th Sep 2018, 02:40

Apparently it's now underwater https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/28/air-niugini-plane-overshoots-runway-micronesia-and-lands-in-ocean

On another note - can the evac slides on 737's detach and act as life rafts? If so will be interesting to see if they were used here

Wizofoz

28th Sep 2018, 02:54

On another note - can the evac slides on 737's detach and act as life rafts?

No, they aren't slide-rafts. A separate life-raft has to be carried for over-water operations.

Oakape

28th Sep 2018, 02:56

On another note - can the evac slides on 737's detach and act as life rafts? If so will be interesting to see if they were used here

The slides detach, but are not rafts. I would imagine it carries separate life rafts, as do most, if not all, 737’s flying around the pacific.

Just a Grunt

28th Sep 2018, 04:46

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/924x660/5bad937fb6bff_image_06bc9c05497b597652e2409bfd7d8fafef913bf9 .jpg

Max Tow

28th Sep 2018, 05:31

Useful passenger interview by Matthew Colson on Facebook confirms undershoot. 11 crew seems OTT?
https://www.facebook.com/matthew.colson1/videos/1834720419915622/

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 06:18

Useful passenger interview by Matthew Colson on Facebook confirms undershoot. 11 crew seems OTT?
https://www.facebook.com/matthew.colson1/videos/1834720419915622/

If that's an undershoot, where's the runway ?

megan

28th Sep 2018, 06:31

confirms undershoot Certainly does, when the pax saying they came in low, hit hard and looked down to see a hole with water gushing in.

Approach plates.

https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/PTKK/IAP/all/pdf

Special mins.

https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/PTKK/MIN/all/pdf

Looking now like they landed long with the inevitable result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_EyexZapqQ

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 06:38

Airline has now released a statement advising that the aircraft "landed short of the runway":

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/459x330/air_niugini_statement_88873801e5ebcb92cfe9a79566d750a6dd7264 d4.jpg

fluglehrer

28th Sep 2018, 07:14

any info on weather at time of accident?

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 07:25

Airline has now released a statement advising that the aircraft "landed short of the runway":

Which is clearly now b*ll*cks, in fact the end of 04 is visible at the centre right of the above video, with the aircraft about 150m beyond.

bbrown1664

28th Sep 2018, 07:42

Which is clearly now b*ll*cks, in fact the end of 04 is visible at the centre right of the above video, with the aircraft about 150m beyond.

With one of the engines acting as a sea anchor, it is quite possible that the aircraft is now facing 180 degrees away from where it was originally especially as it was floating at the time. Someone with the FR24 trace may be able to confirm this.

B-757

28th Sep 2018, 07:59

With one of the engines acting as a sea anchor, it is quite possible that the aircraft is now facing 180 degrees away from where it was originally especially as it was floating at the time. Someone with the FR24 trace may be able to confirm this...Exactly..Also a floating plane will turn into the wind..The vertical stabilator will do it´s job..

Fly safe,
B-757

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 08:06

With one of the engines acting as a sea anchor, it is quite possible that the aircraft is now facing 180 degrees away from where it was originally especially as it was floating at the time. Someone with the FR24 trace may be able to confirm this.

Play the video above.

1:15: "They did hit the runway, but my understanding is that the landing was very far down the runway, not at the beginning of the runway ... Apparently the plane shot off into the lagoon ...".

There doesn't appear to be a FR24 trace, presumably no data feeder on Chuuk.

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 08:18

Exactly..Also a floating plane will turn into the wind..The vertical stabilator will do it´s job.

Er, wouldn't that mean it would end up pointing in the direction of flight (i.e. towards the runway, if it had been an undershoot) ?

But it didn't.

c_coder

28th Sep 2018, 08:24

B-757,

Does that imply that the aircraft landed with a tail wind?

Max Tow

28th Sep 2018, 08:24

27/2250 VRB/05kts doesn't give much of a clue to r/wy in use.
https://flightaware.com/resources/airport/PTKK/weather
Final position of aircraft - the Lion Air 904 water undershoot at Bali in 2013 ended up at 90 degrees to r/way heading.
Given that it took 4 hrs for Air Niugini to make a website statement, it seems strange that the circumstances wouldn't be known to them (or perhaps not...)

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 08:30

B-757,

Does that imply that the aircraft landed with a tail wind?

I suspect Chuuk doesn't see many 737 tailwind landings on its 6000', often wet runway with a watery overrun. :O

fdr

28th Sep 2018, 09:01

I suspect Chuuk doesn't see many 737 tailwind landings on its 6000', often wet runway with a watery overrun. :O

PTKK wind was SW/15Kts from 0800-1200 from windy.com model. It ain't perfect, but it is pretty good normally as a model.

If everyone got out and just had a swim, then that was fortuitous. The question will be if the airline can recover from their calamitous financial position, and their curious industrial relations stance.

When the OEM's (brand B...) dropped reference ground speed from the repertoire of wind shear protection method, the discipline of knowing a ballpark minimum ground speed target also gave an expected sink rate on descent as a logical aside. That would give a large hint to someone flying an approach with a tailwind or conditions that are not as considered before the approach. Brand A achieves the same with GSmini, however the cognitive process is subsumed by the automatics rather than being a part of the scan of performance instruments.

Clean living obviously paid off for the pax on this one.

The video is post #12 shows the remains of the landing craft that is south of the RWY04 threshold. That puts the plane in the H2O southwest of the runway. If it was an undershoot into the brine, then it was on RWY04, alternatively a long landing and off piste off RWY22.

rog747

28th Sep 2018, 09:04

AVherald reports the 737 came in too low and hit the water - seems not an overrun but an under shoot into the sea as first reported

The aircraft came too low and touched down into the sea about 150 meters ahead of the runway and was rapidly slowed by the water. The aircraft was evacuated, all passengers and crew were able to leave the aircraft. A few serious injuries (bone fractures) are being reported, however, no critical injuries.
Passengers reported the aircraft was on final approach to Chuuk when they thought they had a hard touch down until they realized they had landed in the sea. The aircraft floated long enough for everybody to leave the aircraft and be rescued by locals in their boats.

So, is this the case then?

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 09:14

METAR:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/196x92/ptkk_metar_272340z_22bd6871943af2d23e9fa878eead19a9f8c758b6. jpg

Accident occurred around 2330-0000Z (reports vary).

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 09:18

AVherald reports the 737 came in too low and hit the water - seems not an overrun but an under shoot into the sea as first reported

That could only be the case if, after the aircraft came down, it weathercocked and ended up turning through 180° from its original heading.

If so, it must have done so very quickly (notwithstanding the light/variable wind), because none of the myriad of photos of it on the 'Net (some showing the rescue in progress) show it in any orientation other than its final position pointing away from the runway.

gulliBell

28th Sep 2018, 09:24

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 09:38

The aircraft is pointing at Fono Island. That means the runway is behind the aircraft, with the aircraft roughly aligned with 04. So it's either landed long on 04 and run off the end and stayed straight, or it landed short on 22 and done a 180 during the deceleration in the water.

No, there is little doubt that it ended up SW of the runway, pointing SW, as per fdr's post, so it can only be an 04 undershoot (with a 180) or a 22 overrun.

The video is post #12 shows the remains of the landing craft that is south of the RWY04 threshold. That puts the plane in the H2O southwest of the runway. If it was an undershoot into the brine, then it was on RWY04, alternatively a long landing and off piste off RWY22.

I'd be very surprised if it landed directly in the sea without touching down anywhere on the runway first.

I would, too.

B-757

28th Sep 2018, 09:40

Er, wouldn't that mean it would end up pointing in the direction of flight (i.e. towards the runway, if it had been an undershoot) ?

But it didn't... Well, look at the WX-condition at the time of the accident..CB´s / passing rainshowers..Wind direction and velocity can change within minutes..

Fly safe,
B-757

Fortissimo

28th Sep 2018, 09:42

There was an ATR 72 accident a couple of months ago where the aircraft hit the water during a go-around (at 3.9g) leaving a hole in the underbelly. No injuries, crew landed off the next approach. Not sure of the location (far East), but it was certainly water contact prior to reaching the runway. Speculation only for that event, but perhaps something to do with the reported 1500fpm+ in an attempt to get below a 600ft overcast.

B-757

28th Sep 2018, 09:50

B-757,

Does that imply that the aircraft landed with a tail wind?..No, it does not..

gulliBell

28th Sep 2018, 09:58

No, there is little doubt that it ended up SW of the runway, pointing SW, as per fdr's post, so it can only be an 04 undershoot (with a 180) or a 22 overrun.

My initial thought is it's NE of the runway and pointing NE. SW of the runway pointing SW there is nothing in front of that but ocean for miles. If it is SW of the runway and pointing SW, all that land in front of it is confusing the heck out of me. SW of the runway and pointing NE sort of makes sense also.

fdr

28th Sep 2018, 10:04

My initial thought is it's NE of the runway and pointing NE. SW of the runway pointing SW there is nothing in front of that but ocean for miles. If it is SW of the runway and pointing SW, all that land in front of it is confusing the heck out of me. SW of the runway and pointing NE sort of makes sense also.

I thought that as well on the background, however the LST wreckage is on the coast south of the airport, which makes it look like it is at the south end of the field.

Local CB weather would change the local wind and would only come up on the local met weather, while the trade is from the SW, a cell to the NE would give a NE wind for a period of time.

Interesting images

https://postcourier.com.pg/px-big-bird-crashes-landing-update/
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/28/air-niugini-plane-overshoots-runway-micronesia-and-lands-in-ocean
https://twitter.com/burebasgal

One take away from this is the SLUF ditches quite well even with the gear down.

These events make a good safety case for HUD's. The HUD gives great cues for the flight path of the aircraft vs the target, which would assist in keeping the aircraft barnacle free. The additional benefit of a HUD is when used they can reduce the number of hard landings that a fleet achieves, as long as they are unstowed and used.

nicolai

28th Sep 2018, 10:28

There are some reports of broken hip and pelvis injuries. Are those an expected consequence of rapid deceleration when seated with a lap belt?

fdr

28th Sep 2018, 10:44

The video in post #12 at time 1:18 shows the islands that are to the west of the airport. The view is aligned with a point to the left of the first image below, you can observe a transit of the Shichiyo Islands, of the closer island against the further out island. Hill 1453 on TOL-PATA is almost aligned with the UDOTS high ground.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x326/95633267_49f32016d394436f36e7b27d9009dadba1b4630e.jpg

The lower image is from the N/NE of the aircraft, looking back south to the main island to the west of the end of the rwy.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x743/screen_shot_2018_09_28_at_8_11_39_pm_8817a871a70bd5a7b3749b7 4559cc2a0e38189d4.png

Who stole my meds

28th Sep 2018, 10:44

Having seen first hand what some of the PX drivers are capable of when flying into bad WX into PNG highland ports (which don't have useful instrument approaches) it wouldn't surprise me if they got down low, visually navigated their way around below the cloud base but on this occasion the water got to them first.
Moral of the story, if you do an instrument approach and you're not visual at the missed approach point, GO AROUND.

TimGriff6

28th Sep 2018, 10:48

There are some reports of broken hip and pelvis injuries. Are those an expected consequence of rapid deceleration when seated with a lap belt?
If you have a loose belt which catches you as you accelerate into it - probably. If you have a tight belt that doesn't allow movement - probably not

guadaMB

28th Sep 2018, 10:52

There are some reports of broken hip and pelvis injuries. Are those an expected consequence of rapid deceleration when seated with a lap belt?

It depends on the injures...
Also where were the injured inside the AC (forward, rear...)
Apparently it was a regular approach at its last seconds before taking land, so all had to be sitting and belts fastened...

Pilot DAR

28th Sep 2018, 11:12

There are some reports of broken hip and pelvis injuries. Are those an expected consequence of rapid deceleration when seated with a lap belt?

Yes, It happened to me. Then the seat belt fitting ripped out of the plane, and I traveled more. I had been wearing a three point harness.

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 11:22

rightstuffer

28th Sep 2018, 11:34

Was it an undershoot or an overrun? Someone must know by now, Shirley.

Squiffy Pussy

28th Sep 2018, 12:01

I once had a seat on a small aircraft, can't remember type, completely collapse on me on a heavy landing on a Greek Island. I was fine but it woke me up.

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 12:07

Was it an undershoot or an overrun? Someone must know by now, Shirley.

Doubtless they do, but we're not yet privy to that information.

The sources that support the undershoot theory don't seem to agree on how the aircraft ended up pointing away from the airport (we're told that it could have spun round 180° when it hit the water, or that it might have been gradually blown round by the wind).

A photo of the aircraft on final approach, or in the water on the runway heading would back up that theory, but we haven't seen any yet.

olderairhead

28th Sep 2018, 12:16

Captains should never talk to the CEO after an accident who then authorise press releases about landing short.

Rob Bamber

28th Sep 2018, 12:47

The sources that support the undershoot theory don't seem to agree on how the aircraft ended up pointing away from the airport A landing 737 has an awful lot of momentum. As that's scrubbed off hitting the water, it would be almost inconceivable that some of it isn't converted to angular momentum in the process.

If it's an undershoot, doesn't it represent either remarkable flying or remarkable luck that it didn't break up? Although, one of the photos suggests to me it's lost its port winglet.

megan

28th Sep 2018, 13:16

You can always believe the press, right? Some are reporting it was take off that ended badly. I remain to be convinced. :sad:

Sobelena

28th Sep 2018, 13:50

You just gotta love pprune, 3 pages so far just trying to establish if it was an overshoot or undershoot! :rolleyes:

India Four Two

28th Sep 2018, 14:01

From ASN:

The aircraft was approaching runway 04 in rain when it hit the water short of the runway.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20180928-0

Sailvi767

28th Sep 2018, 14:15

If the aircraft floated for even a minute or two it could end up facing any direction depending on wind and current. Pretty much meaningless to try and draw any inference from its direction in the pics.

OldLurker

28th Sep 2018, 14:28

Eboy

28th Sep 2018, 14:56

U.S. Navy Sailors assigned to Underwater Construction Team (UCT) 2 rendered immediate assistance to the passengers and crew of Air Nuigini flight PX56, after it crashed into the lagoon near Chuuk, Federated States of Micronesia, International Airport, Sept. 28.

U.S. Navy UCT 2 Renders Assistance Following Plane Crash in Chuuk > Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet > Display (http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Media/News/Display/Article/1647405/us-navy-uct-2-renders-assistance-following-plane-crash-in-chuuk/)

gulliBell

28th Sep 2018, 14:58

If they couldn't see where they were going at 2.2nm to run then obviously they shouldn't have ended up where they did. And if they could see, they shouldn't have ended up where they did either.

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 15:42

You just gotta love pprune, 3 pages so far just trying to establish if it was an overshoot or undershoot! :rolleyes:

Arguably that's one of the strengths of PPRuNe, where you get professionals who are rightly sceptical about accepting blindly what the mainstream media publish.

Particularly when, as in this case, you get conflicting reports in the press that it was an undershoot, an overrun or even (according to some reports) an RTO - so they can't all be right. :ugh:

I'm just waiting for someone to post the other sage advice we always get following an incident: "we should wait for the investigation report and avoid speculating in the meantime" - where's the fun in that ? :O

Golden Rivit

28th Sep 2018, 16:24

100 feet of water,should have answers soon,U.S. Navy UCT 2 Renders Assistance Following Plane Crash in Chuuk > Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet > Display (http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Media/News/Display/Article/1647405/us-navy-uct-2-renders-assistance-following-plane-crash-in-chuuk/)

Derfred

28th Sep 2018, 16:27

Photos on AvHerald show the aircraft floating tail down with wings under the surface; rear door obscured by a raft but must be nearly submerged. Exit would have been only via the front doors and perhaps the over-wing exits. Just as well there were only 47 on board.
Accident: Niugini B738 at Chuuk on Sep 28th 2018, touched down in sea short of runway (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4be42f25)

Boeing ditching procedure on a 737-800 is to leave rear doors closed, so yes, the only exits available in a ditching are front doors and overwing exits.

The photos show why!

robmckenna

28th Sep 2018, 18:43

The Airport also reported this as an undershoot. Considering the reported weather and the net result, could this be shades of Westjet at St Maartens?

underfire

28th Sep 2018, 19:25

One of the reasons so many passengers might have survived before the airline sank into 100 feet of water is the quick work of Navy sailors.
Members of Underwater Construction Team 2 were conducting operations near the lagoon and sailors immediately began shuttling passengers and crew to shore using their inflatable boat, according to the 30th Naval Construction Regiment.
The crew’s chief hospital corpsman rendered medical aid to at least one passenger who sustained minor injuries, Navy officials added.
UCT 2 is working to revamp Chuuk’s wharves and restore the coral reefs that have been damaged by boat anchors.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x696/etefdyslfvae3fvm3og6mwqqvy_f3a0bc58560205ef8c6264818dbf33082 446839d.jpg

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/09/28/plane-crashes-in-pacific-lagoon/?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Socialflow+NAV&utm_source=facebook.com

fdr

28th Sep 2018, 19:33

The Airport also reported this as an undershoot. Considering the reported weather and the net result, could this be shades of Westjet at St Maartens?

maybe, maybe not. The GPS 04 Chart vs the NDB 04 chart raise the possibility that the crew were relying on the VNAV with a hard altitude at the MAP (HAMAX). That would be the codeing of the approach in the nav DB. The MAP is 2.2nm from the approach end of the runway. The lowest minima is not coincident with the normal continuous descent path to the runway for a 3 degree path. The lower MMA places the aircraft below the 3 degree path. (this minima has a required gradient in the event of a missed approach). In reduced visibilty, a crew that is busy and passes MMA with surface contact (and visibility...) needs to adjust the ROD or level off in order to intercept the correct path. The vis requirement would give the runway in sight at MMA, but any delay in recognition of the low path from the reduced MMA could put the aircraft close to the water.

Have seen a few too many of these recently, may be time for a change to some of our approaches.

MitrePeak

28th Sep 2018, 19:59

Having flown for many years in the Pacific, the reality is that sometimes the lines between IFR and VFR gets blurred...it shouldn't,..but it does....it's how you get the job done. 99.9% of the time it's fine because you use local knowledge and experience to achieve the result. Not ideal but it's the reality. If you've flown in the Pacific or Africa, you'll know what I mean. …...from the photo in the (2) above post, look how low the cloud base is.... suspect these guys were trying to get under the base when they hit the water ?

portmanteau

28th Sep 2018, 20:42

PEI_3721

28th Sep 2018, 21:16

EGPWS should detect and alert an undershoot in the area - distance from the runway as deduced from the photographs.

Did this aircraft / operator use EGPWS or some other type of TAWS ?

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 22:39

just to be clear are we clear now that this was an undershoot into the sea on approach to 04, ie the pics fooled us into thinking it had run off the end of 22? They say never believe a sailor but I'll make an exception this time.

A quick Google finds rather more hits for "Air Niugini Chuuk overrun" than it does for "Air Niugini Chuuk undershoot", but that may well be because the earlier reports tended towards the former.

As for the photographic evidence and eyewitness reports, they are equally inconclusive.

I'm guessing that, given the airline, the FDR may well go to Australia for analysis. If that's the case, we will know one way or the other soon enough.

Lord Farringdon

28th Sep 2018, 22:39

DaveReidUK

28th Sep 2018, 22:58

Is that the left winglet poking up just in front of the VS fillet?

Yes.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1020/winglet_065be4e68251403c07f57a35202acddc35b2a091.jpg

AirMicronesia

28th Sep 2018, 23:37

If they couldn't see where they were going at 2.2nm to run then obviously they shouldn't have ended up where they did. And if they could see, they shouldn't have ended up where they did either.

It’s common to bust published minimums going into those islands. You simply build your own VNAV/LNAV approach and fly Pacific IFR (I Follow Reef). Perhaps this crew wasn’t as familiar with Pacific IFR procedures.

AirMicronesia

28th Sep 2018, 23:40

gulliBell

28th Sep 2018, 23:42

..I'm guessing that, given the airline, the FDR may well go to Australia for analysis. If that's the case, we will know one way or the other soon enough.

I'm not so sure about that...the operator gets no choice where the FDR/CVR from their bent aircraft gets sent. Quite possibly it will go to the NTSB in the US.

gulliBell

28th Sep 2018, 23:46

..That’s my guess as well from operating in that theater.

Maybe so. However. If they descended below the MDA without having the required visual reference the crew is going to get crucified for this one. And if they intentionally descended below the MDA doing a plan of their own design they are going to get crucified twice. "Trying too hard" for the company to get the job done is going to be a career ending effort.

gulliBell

29th Sep 2018, 00:07

It’s common to bust published minimums going into those islands...

I've flown as a commercial air passenger in PNG for many years. I don't recall any instances of PX pilots inventing their own thing, and I never felt uncomfortable flying with them. However, Airlink and APNG, time and time again I remember transitioning through the bottom of the gloop into the tops of the coconut palms when I knew full-well the MDA was much higher than tree top level. I complained about it. Nothing was ever done about it. Then Kokoda happened. Problem of their own making.

chimbu warrior

29th Sep 2018, 00:12

It’s common to bust published minimums going into those islands. You simply build your own VNAV/LNAV approach and fly Pacific IFR (I Follow Reef). Perhaps this crew wasn’t as familiar with Pacific IFR procedures.

Air Niugini crews are very professional and very familiar with Pacific weather, and they don't "build" their own procedures. 45 years of safe operations in a very demanding environment is testament to that.

What is commonly misunderstood about Chuuk (and several other Pacific destinations) is that it is a cloud break procedure; although a 3 degree profile is published, it takes you to the MDA at the MAP. From this point you either need to fly level (if visual) to acquire the PAPI or follow the missed approach procedure (if not visual). Simply continuing to descend on the same profile (even if visual) is not an option.

I don't have the IT skills to post the GPS or NDB approaches to 04 here, but I'm sure someone does.

gulliBell

29th Sep 2018, 00:37

...What is commonly misunderstood about Chuuk etc etc.

Exactly. It's not rocket science. Just do what the chart says to do.

Centaurus

29th Sep 2018, 01:18

Air Niugini crews are very professional and very familiar with Pacific weather

Brings a whole new meaning to the tem "Ducking Under.."

daelight

29th Sep 2018, 01:47

Brings a whole new meaning to the tem "Ducking Under.."

I think the term you are looking for is 'dive and drive' In this case more dive, unfortunately. At least everyone got out of it.

MitrePeak

29th Sep 2018, 03:02

The swirling waters from multiple boats arriving on the scene could well have turned the a/c 180 degrees in the water..?

gulliBell

29th Sep 2018, 03:13

P2-PXC about to leave POM with the company doctor and management cavalry to render assistance on Webo Island.

harrryw

29th Sep 2018, 04:22

Air Niugini crews are very professional and very familiar with Pacific weather, and they don't "build" their own procedures. 45 years of safe operations in a very demanding environment is testament to that.

What is commonly misunderstood about Chuuk (and several other Pacific destinations) is that it is a cloud break procedure; although a 3 degree profile is published, it takes you to the MDA at the MAP. From this point you either need to fly level (if visual) to acquire the PAPI or follow the missed approach procedure (if not visual). Simply continuing to descend on the same profile (even if visual) is not an option.

I don't have the IT skills to post the GPS or NDB approaches to 04 here, but I'm sure someone does.
The NOTAM gives the PAPI as out of service.

JPJP

29th Sep 2018, 05:14

it is a cloud break procedure; although a 3 degree profile is published, it takes you to the MDA at the MAP. From this point you either need to fly level (if visual) to acquire the PAPI or follow the missed approach procedure (if not visual). Simply continuing to descend on the same profile (even if visual) is not an option.

Well, that may clear up why there’s another 737NG in the water. Again. A “cloud break procedure” ? In LNAV/VNAV, with a glide path ? Lion Air, West Air and now Air New Guinea.

Touch wood.

gulliBell

29th Sep 2018, 06:04

Well, it's not clear to me...if you stick to the rules and follow the PROC as it's published you don't end up flying a perfectly good aircraft into the sea....assuming this was a CFIT.

JPJP

29th Sep 2018, 06:17

Well, it's not clear to me...if you stick to the rules and follow the PROC as it's published you don't end up flying a perfectly good aircraft into the sea....assuming this was a CFIT.

Sorry GB,

I was attempting some artful sarcasm, mixed with irony. Finished with a hint of ‘I hope I don’t do that’. But; you’re correct of course. Normally this should not end in the water.

I was curious about the “cloud break procedure”. Which sounds like (If I may be frank) bull****e, masked as technique.

rog747

29th Sep 2018, 06:26

I think the term you are looking for is 'dive and drive' In this case more dive, unfortunately. At least everyone got out of it.

Seems one person is missing - from NZ press reports

Air Niugini said in a release that as of Saturday afternoon, it was unable to account for a male passenger. The airline said it was working with local authorities, hospitals and investigators to try to find the man.
We are presently working with the embassy and the passenger’s travel facilitator to contact his family, as well continuing to work with on ground responders to locate this man. Locating him, as well as providing ongoing support to the other passengers, crew and families is and remains our primary concern. We will provide updates as they are available.
The airline did not immediately respond to requests for more details about the passenger, such as his age or nationality.

2Bad2Sad

29th Sep 2018, 06:54

Further confirmation here (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/sep/28/air-niugini-plane-overshoots-runway-micronesia-and-lands-in-ocean?CMP=twt_gu), were any still required, that the aircraft ended up off the SW end of the runway. It quotes an employee who watched the aircraft sinking from the rooftop of the High Tide Hotel, which is just off the LH edge of fdr's photo (south of the red-roofed building):

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/500x326/95633267_49f32016d394436f36e7b27d9009dadba1b4630e_c6e872d32d 51d136807b60a72f5887a13723df20.jpg

As to how the aircraft ended up there, presumably once it's hauled out of the lagoon we'll be able to see if it has reversers deployed, which would support the overrun theory.

First off look at the RWY length very short.
Thrust reverse are never used to compute landing distance as they may not deploy.
Chukk is a difficult airport.
Straight in landing but winds at the end.
Touch down long and no help stopping before the end.
Ask many airlines how many tires they have to change there due to thermals.
United seems to do well, Asia Pacific does not, many tire changes there.
They changed the regs FAA before claimed grooved runway was considered dry
Thank God FAA stepped in and said its wet even if grooved.
It was a accident just waiting on a time to happen.
Flew in there many times .

Max Tow

29th Sep 2018, 07:17

...but it was an undershoot, so none of that is relevant unless the crew were twitched into getting down on or before the piano keys. Will be interesting to see whether same crew as diverted on the previous evening if the FR aircraft movement history is correct.
By the way, over 24hrs ago Jimmy Emilio, general manager of Chuuk Airport at Weno in Micronesia, told Reuters by telephone that “it was supposed to land but instead of landing it was 150 yards short and she went down,” so I'd say he should know.

Bergerie1

29th Sep 2018, 07:48

FlightGlobal also say it is an undershoot:-
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/air-niugini-737-submerged-in-sea-after-chuuk-undersh-452267/

DaveReidUK

29th Sep 2018, 08:28

US Navy bodycam footage from on the wing and inside the cabin:

oNZZJln2pkY

Car RAMROD

29th Sep 2018, 09:41

The NOTAM gives the PAPI as out of service.

Was the NOTAM created before or after the aircraft ended up in the water?
Could be a factor. Or maybe not.

fdr

29th Sep 2018, 10:06

Impressed that they would enter the fuselage of the aircraft. Brave move. The video looks like the hull (its floating) is completely survivable, I hope that suggests the airline just has a manifest count problem rather than a lost pax. Strange things happen, but this looks like it should have been survivable for all on board.

chimbu warrior

29th Sep 2018, 10:12

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/550x582/ptkk_f51b119937e349b0134d85ca49a93314e275fc9a.jpg

I was curious about the “cloud break procedure”. Which sounds like (If I may be frank) bull****e, masked as technique.

It is neither BS nor technique.

As the above extract from the approach plate shows, the 3 degree profile brings the aircraft to the MDA (420 feet) at the MAP, which is 2.2 nautical miles from the threshold. Simple maths tells us that a 3 degree profile should have the aircraft at 700 feet when 2.2 nm from the threshold. As per the dashed lines (circled on the plan form view) there is then a visual segment (provided the aircraft is visual) of almost 1 mile to intercept the 3 degree profile at about 1.3 nm from the threshold.

It is unfortunate that the profile view of the procedure suggests that the descent from the MDA to the touchdown zone is coincident with the 3 degree path. It is not. If the aircraft descended on a 3 degree path from the MAP, it would very likely land short.

I'll let the NTSB do the investigating, but just point out that such procedures are not uncommon in this part of the world.

Pirrex

29th Sep 2018, 10:16

Wet and short runway with variable winds, so presumabely crew knows there is not much extra runway, and wants to touchdown maybe slightly earlier than usually. PAPIs U/S or not, water refraction creates the illusion of being high, resulting in a more shallow glidepath. Any other lights than PAPIs will strenghten the illusion even further.

Edit: Seeing the plate above, those REILs would appear to be much closer than they actually are in moderate rain.

gulliBell

29th Sep 2018, 10:50

..It is unfortunate that the profile view of the procedure suggests that the descent from the MDA to the touchdown zone is coincident with the 3 degree path. It is not. If the aircraft descended on a 3 degree path from the MAP, it would very likely land short.

Huh, I don't see any such suggestion in the way the diagram is drawn...seems blatantly obvious that 3 degrees gets you from the FAF to the MAPt and nowhere else (as you correctly point out).

Capt Fathom

29th Sep 2018, 11:08

If you flew 3 degrees from the FAF at 1700 feet, you will not get to the 420 ft MDA before the MAP. You would reach HAMAX (MAP) at 745 ft.
If you want to increase your chances of getting visual, you have to go below the 3 degree profile to get to 420ft and fly level to the MAP or continue visually.
Hence the mention of a ‘cloud break’ procedure. Not ideal, but it’s there.

Max Tow

29th Sep 2018, 11:12

I find CW's point entirely reasonable. On first glance at the chart, it would indeed appear that an extrapolated 3 degree path beyond MAP would lead to the runway, but this is misleading as the scale for the 5 & 3nm segments is changed drastically for the final 2.2 nm......

fox niner

29th Sep 2018, 11:23

Wow. That is incredible footage. Standing on a wing, going in and out of a sinking aeroplane.

rockarpee

29th Sep 2018, 12:56

Cloud break procedure is a valid instrument arrival to a visual manoeuvre, just check Mt. Hagen PNG and surrounding terrain, we used the cloud break back in the late 80,s. That procedure was a let down AWAY from the runway with the visual manoeuvre back.

krismiler

29th Sep 2018, 13:18

The preference is generally for a constant descent angle approach without intermediate level offs and no driving along at the minima. Possibly the spot height at the right of the red circle necessitates having the MAP further back then normal which would require a low level segment to reach the runway.

This would require a careful briefing of the relatively non standard approach procedure. In this case I believe it would be safer to have a CDA approach to the threshold and accept the higher minima that this would entail.

Super VC-10

29th Sep 2018, 13:53

gulliBell

29th Sep 2018, 15:29

Why would PNGAIC be the investigating authority? The accident didn't occur in PNG.

DaveReidUK

29th Sep 2018, 17:33

Why would PNGAIC be the investigating authority? The accident didn't occur in PNG.

The PNGAIC, representing the State of Registry, will be entitled to appoint an accredited representative to the investigation, as will the NTSB as State of Manufacture. The investigation will be the responsibility of the State of Occurrence (Federated States of Micronesia).

AFAIK the report on the last accident in the FSM (a runway overrun at PTPN by an Asia Pacific AL B722 freighter in 2008) is still awaited, so don't hold your breath.

britannia49

29th Sep 2018, 18:56

Technically this is a CRASH....................Ditching procedures advise: Gear Up and Outvalve(s) closed plus the engines should usually detach !
Yes, 737 fwd doors will be above water level when ditching .
Well done Boeing!

Retired Boeing Engineer

JPJP

29th Sep 2018, 19:13

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/550x582/ptkk_f51b119937e349b0134d85ca49a93314e275fc9a.jpg

It is neither BS nor technique.

As the above extract from the approach plate shows, the 3 degree profile brings the aircraft to the MDA (420 feet) at the MAP, which is 2.2 nautical miles from the threshold. Simple maths tells us that a 3 degree profile should have the aircraft at 700 feet when 2.2 nm from the threshold. As per the dashed lines (circled on the plan form view) there is then a visual segment (provided the aircraft is visual) of almost 1 mile to intercept the 3 degree profile at about 1.3 nm from the threshold.

It is unfortunate that the profile view of the procedure suggests that the descent from the MDA to the touchdown zone is coincident with the 3 degree path. It is not. If the aircraft descended on a 3 degree path from the MAP, it would very likely land short.

I'll let the NTSB do the investigating, but just point out that such procedures are not uncommon in this part of the world.

Regarding “Cloud Break procedure” - The point I was making was this; There is no such thing in ICAO (gone) AIP, AIM or any other Instrument Approach manual or regulation. Africa and Papua are the only places that I’m aware of it remaining on approach charts. If it’s in Air Niugini manuals then I bow to your superior knowledge. What you’re describing to me is the visual segment post MDA/DDA/DA. ie. the portion of an Instrument approach where the aircraft is maneuvering to landing. It may have a level segment, it may even be a curved one (RNAV RNP 01).

Terminology

- If this RNAV GPS approach is flown to an MDA of 420 in LNAV/VNAV the missed approach is conducted at 420ft, If the runway isn’t in sight. If it is, continue and land. If a portion is flown level to intercept the (missing) PAPI or visual path then so be it.

- If flown in VS (dive and drive, or continuous descent) then in is flown to a MAP.

There is no MAP in an RNAV GPS flown in LNAV/VNAV. It’s an MDA that triggers the missed approach or Visual segment. How long have Air Niugini been doing RNAV RNP Approaches in the 73NG ?

JPJP

29th Sep 2018, 20:09

Addendum:

For what it’s worth; the only Cloud Break Procedure reference that I could find was an old NZ Advisory Circular (2012). It doesn’t appear relevant to a 737-800 on an IAP for a number of reasons. ‘Category’ would be one.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1536x1188/6e301bc9_ce31_40cd_8d65_c0f2a09da273_6d15d9b29fa46f7b2481fbb 82d7239accd663121.jpeg

Cheers.

Pastor of Muppets

29th Sep 2018, 20:41

“Cloud break procedure” as opposed to the instrument approach procedure that keeps you in cloud?

hans brinker

29th Sep 2018, 22:11

fdr

30th Sep 2018, 02:14

IMHO and not necessarily related, I always felt dive and drive appropriate for situations where the visibility was good, base above the MDA, and especially when doing non-straight-in approach. Anytime on a straight in approach in limited visibility a CDA approach is preferable.

Dive and Drive places the operation at risk of making a single sequencing error for a crossing height. Recall Katmandu's first Airbus accident etc, or Asianas loss in SW S Korea. A single error places you at high risk. Flying a continuous descent with an FMC giving VNAV guidance is generally much safer, In this particular approach however, if the FMC NDB throws up a fix height of the reduced minima at the MAP, then there is a potential for an unstabilised approach to result from that. Notwithstanding that setup, the crew are obliged to have visual reference at the MMA on a CDFA approach, and in this case would be required to have sufficient visibility to see the runway end. The evidence of the submerged aircraft hints that all was not well from that respect, or the crew were working on their seaplane ratings. If windshear wasn't involved, then the whole question of compliance with procedures will be the main center of investigation.

The pax are paying for the flight to be done in accordance with the procedures. If the procedures end up with diversions, that is what it is supposed to be. Making up rules as you go along is great until the wheels fall off the wagon, and people who are paying for a particular standard get left with the result. Normalisation of deviation hurts the flight crew as much as anyone else. They believe they are doing the right thing, and may accept deviations as they are achieving the outcome that the company wants from a short game commercial perspective. Playing the odds however will prove statistics in the end.

I hope that the data finds there was something else going on here, I really do, but cases of planes missing the airport is pretty untidy. Extenuating circumstances should include the design of the approach in this case, but once you go below MDA/DA, then the rest is up to the integrity of the flight crew complying with the requirements to continue a descent below MMA.

This is not meant as a criticism of the particular flight crew in this event, it is a sad lament on the number of events of this type that keep on keeping on, and which indicate that there is a level of normalisation that we as a collective group appear to not be mitigating fully. It is also not a regional or specific concern, it happens in Europe, in Indonesia, with a Canadian carrier in the Caribbean, and sundry other locations. Years ago, I pax'ed on a U.S. airline from LAX to YVR, a Boeing 3 holer, and we landed there in CAT IIIB conditions. I asked the crew afterwards when was their equipment upgraded to do such procedures, and they said it wasn't. Years later, at an airport that is only CAT I, in weather that was certainly CAT III, the aircraft that we were going to operate out, arrived. It was the only aircraft that did that morning, and they system just shrugged it's shoulders. Non compliance is a universal human trait.

The investigating bodies invariably allocate causation to "Pilot Error", I dispute that is really the basic cause; the pilots do not go out there intending to erroneously break the rules, the rules are being bent by the collective and the normalisation is resulting in the odd wild ride. We have seen one of these recently where the pilot's cognitive ability appears to have been impaired through emotional disruption, but otherwise, healthy crews have driven tubes carrying punters into the brine.

Descending towards water below minima without a runway threshold somewhere in the near future is not a perception error, either there is a runway out there that you are looking at a specific aiming point on, or there is not. Wave tops are poor aiming points.

A carrier if interested in ceasing non compliance could do so within days, but would be fighting the unions to do that, and I suspect that the status quo works out reasonably well for the airlines, their pax more often than not get to destination in these events with little or no awareness of the risks involved.

We can stop these events happening, but only if the profession acknowledges that the problem is us, and gets serious about ceasing the practice. I doubt that we have the will or interest in doing so, we naturally assume that the guys/girls who will get caught out are different to us, we do it better etc....

fdr

30th Sep 2018, 03:15

“Cloud break procedure” as opposed to the instrument approach procedure that keeps you in cloud?

or at least a "lets miss the water and turf" procedure. Below MMA, you have specific requirements which is great, if you comply with them.

Wild blue yonder

30th Sep 2018, 03:33

gulliBell

30th Sep 2018, 05:09

My guess is they were on a 3 degree vertical profile at FASPO and just kept on it when they reached HAMAX and splash down came as a complete surprise....I assume in the B738 there is no ground proximity warning when in a landing configuration on final approach to destination airport, right?

megan

30th Sep 2018, 05:19

2Bad2Sad

30th Sep 2018, 06:50

In one of the TV reports it has a company statement that the weather was poor with heavy rain. Of the scenarios put forward I'm going with the long touch down and off the end by the quoted 150 metres, coming to rest pointed in the direction of travel.

If Indeed weather was poor this is a bad runway to attempt to land on.
Its almost a uncontrolled airport have to call approach on decent to get current weather no atis they rarely answer.
All this controller knows is yes runway is clear united landed 15 min ago etc.
Or go into holding as another aircraft will be departing at your arrival time.
Then if you do make it in have to call SF to confirm landing on HF.
Bet the Truk hotel was full that day.
Good so many survived at such a bad situation that they were put into.

Duck Pilot

30th Sep 2018, 07:38

Anyone know exactly what the weather conditions where when the aircraft was on the approach?

If the PAPI was U/S as previously reported and if there was rain on the approach path they may have certainly still had the required visibility passing the MDA, with the threshold in sight and lost visual reference in the visual segment due to a moving squall line or rain shower.

If they done a dirty duck dive at the bottom of the approach they more than likely would have been very unstable and the injuries and damage to the aircraft would have been a lot worse IMHO. It certainly appears that the vertical flight path of the aeroplane was under control when they contacted the water.

DaveReidUK

30th Sep 2018, 08:27

In one of the TV reports it has a company statement that the weather was poor with heavy rain. Of the scenarios put forward I'm going with the long touch down and off the end by the quoted 150 metres, coming to rest pointed in the direction of travel.

Interesting that the ASN/FSF report is now hedging its bets, too:

From ASN:
The aircraft was approaching runway 04 in rain when it hit the water short of the runway.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20180928-0

The above assertion has now been removed from ASN's report and replaced with

Air Niugini stated that the aircraft "landed short of the runway". Other reports suggest the aircraft overshot the runway on landing. The position of the aircraft relative to the runway, suggests the overrun to be a more plausible scenario.

fdr

30th Sep 2018, 10:00

We do it better?
we do it better etc....

2B2S, my comment is that the collective "WE" presume that when there is a bad outcome, it is because the other party involved is somehow different, as in incompetent, foolhardy, risk taking, or just stupid, We have better "_______ " planes, people, rules, beer etc... fill in the blanks. The truth is collectively, WE appear to be frequently pushed into actions through real or perceived pressure, and sometimes that ends badly. Your post indicates experience of variations on the theme as well, and you are hardly alone with a basketball called Wilson on that score.

My concern goes well beyond say, Hofstede's observations, I really don't think the issue is cultural or a consequence of cultures differences, it is endemic in the industry, a universal issue and we keep on putting bandaids on the matter. I believe that there is merit in the industry taking a hard look at itself, perhaps in the vein of Reason, but probably more in depth, such as Ladkin or preferably Hollnagel, to assess how dysfunctional the industry is behind the polish. For a number of years I was involved in getting airlines (and regulators) through compliance audits. The truth is that you can put lipstick on the pig relatively easily, and pass the audits, particularly when the auditors do not bother to look closely at the evidence of non compliance that usually litters the system.

DaveReidUK

30th Sep 2018, 11:45

DaveReidUK

30th Sep 2018, 12:37

Another survivor interview I hadn't seen before:

When his Air Niugini flight crashed into the waters of a lagoon on Weno island in Chuuk state Friday morning, Dr. Victor Wasson said, "The first thing in my mind was, 'Thank God, I'm still alive.'"

His next thought was, "I got to get the hell out of here."

Wasson was seated on the right side of the plane, near the wing when, he believes, the plane struck the end of the runway at Chuuk International Airport.

"We had more than one impact," said Wasson, who described "one big thud" and "then the second one, and then we stopped."

"It's highly likely that the back part of the plane hit the edge of the rocks at the end of the runway," he said.

Seconds before the plane hit the water, Wasson said one of the flight attendants "shouted out, 'Brace for impact!' Before she finished her sentence, we hit the water." He said the plane crashed "about 150 meters from the rocks."

Wasson is a psychiatrist at Pohnpei State Hospital and the national psychiatrist for the government of the Federated States of Micronesia.

Little warning

"I was surprised because there was no mention of like an emergency," he said. "We just suddenly hit the water. We were not informed. ... There was nothing like that."

Wasson said he spoke to the pilot after the crash.

"I asked them, 'Was it an engine problem?'" and he responded, "'No.' He told me it was bad weather."

But Wasson said weather conditions weren't that bad.

"It was a little bit rainy and there was some cloud cover" but "it wasn't like a thunderstorm. ... It was just the usual rain."

"The pilot unfortunately could not see the landing strip," he said. "So he overflew the landing strip and we crashed into the water.

"However, even people who aren't aviation experts would know to circle around if the runway weren't visible, Wasson said.

"Most definitely, human error," he said. "I think the airline needs to make a formal apology."

Panic on board

Passengers were panicking, Wasson said.

"A few of them hit their head, so they were dazed; they were in shock."

Water then began pouring into the plane."Within three minutes it was halfway up my shin, toward my knee," Wasson said, and "it was putting on water quite fast.

"One of the passengers managed to open the emergency exit over the wing; a self-inflating raft deployed, and "all of us just jumped into the raft," he said.

"We had to help the elderly come out," he said. "One needed to be carried out; the guy with the broken pelvis."

Outside the plane, Wasson saw a "big crack" in the fuselage of the plane "right through, just behind the wing ... horizontally, from the top to the bottom of the aircraft."

Local rescue

Dozens of small skiffs manned by local fishermen sped to the scene and helped evacuate passengers as the Boeing 737 slowly sank into 100 feet of water.

A team of U.S. Navy sailors assigned to Underwater Construction Team 2 also happened to be near the crash site and joined the first responders.

"I need to officially thank these people," Wasson said, and suggested that Air Niugini do the same. "The locals here ... actually saved (lives). ... Those without life jackets could have drowned."

Earlier Friday, the Federal Aviation Administration stated the crash had involved Flight 73. The Navy later stated it was Flight 56, the airline's return flight to Chuuk from Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Flight 73 flies from Chuuk to Port Moresby.

Guam Daily Post (https://www.postguam.com/news/local/survivor-thank-god-i-m-still-alive/article_87239f36-c2f0-11e8-aaaf-0f730a02827e.html)

underfire

30th Sep 2018, 14:24

Just noticed this....

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/602x373/starp8e_2845c890f33370385d54dc85d1115ad7b3e6d2d5.jpg

lomapaseo

30th Sep 2018, 14:41

Just noticed this....

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/602x373/starp8e_2845c890f33370385d54dc85d1115ad7b3e6d2d5.jpg

Shows up quite well in the Navy footage in the post or two above.

DaveReidUK

30th Sep 2018, 16:03

Audio from the passenger interview referred to in my previous post:

Guam Daily Post interview (https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/postguam.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/f8/7f86cb6c-c2f1-11e8-8fbb-8b32f618fada/5baddcc2cb0b1.audio.mp3)

Grateful thanks to an Avherald reader comment for the pointer to the Guam Daily Post, though the comment in question seems now to have disappeared from AH, which continues to lead with the 04 undershoot scenario.

2Bad2Sad

30th Sep 2018, 18:06

2Bad2Sad WTF? Thought we were discussing ANG into the lagoon at Weno? Where did that go?

Yes did get off topic here will delete that post

lucille

30th Sep 2018, 21:25

So, 3 days later and no one knows (for sure) whether it was an undershoot or an over run. I’m beginning to wonder if the crew even knows.

Well, on the positive side everyone survived. And there is now a new dive site in Truk. Was getting a bit bored of all those underwater photos of divers sitting in the cockpits of sunken Zeroes.

DaveReidUK

30th Sep 2018, 22:21

So, 3 days later and no one knows (for sure) whether it was an undershoot or an over run. I’m beginning to wonder if the crew even knows.

Then it's a good job airliners have FDRs. :O

But you make a good point. The main reason we're still asking the question is that there have so far been no eyewitnesses coming forward who say that they saw the aircraft as it hit the water.

We have plenty of photographic evidence that the aircraft ended up SW of the airport, on the runway centreline and pointing away from the runway.

That doesn't necessarily preclude an undershoot on 04, but it would require that the aircraft rotated neatly through 180° before anyone had a chance to take a photo of it.

We've had suggestions from posters that it drifted round as a result of winds and/or currents after it had settled in the water, in the few minutes before the US Navy team arrived on the scene with their cameras, or that it spun round due to impact forces when it hit the water. The latter sounds less likely now that we have an interview from a passenger who made no mention of that, only of a double impact.

We have a report from the airport GM who says it came down short of the runway on final approach, but who doesn't claim to have actually seen it happen.

We have a report from a hotel employee who says he heard (but didn't see) the aircraft making what he thought was a normal landing, from a location 350 m from the runway (and 700 m from the aircraft's final position), suggesting that he had heard reverse thrust being deployed, only to be told later that it had gone into the water.

The only thing we can say for sure is that the jury's still out on this one ...

7478ti

30th Sep 2018, 22:41

After having flown the Pacific for a whole career, as well as known the extraordinary terrific capability of RNP and GLS/GBAS, to always provide a safe path to take a jet to the runway TDZ,... always (not even considering supporting LAND2 or LAND3 or DUAL, or AIII), ...and how easy it would have been to implement both RNP and GLS/GBAS at PTKK (just like CAL once tried), it's unthinkable to me why we are still are incurring unnecessary hull losses like this, even if there is an unexpected loss of visual reference, or CB induced windshear.

PS. Thank goodness for the B737. It's one tough bird.

clark y

30th Sep 2018, 23:05

Fully agree with the above.

Laughed when I watched the video above with the Navy workers approaching the aircraft. The first rescued was a backpack. Then there did not seem any steady pax flow out the exit. Admittedly I don't know what was happening on the other side but there didn't seem too much urgency. Must be on island time.

gulliBell

1st Oct 2018, 00:04

The USN video shows an engine still attached, so it couldn't have splashed down that hard...I thought somebody above reported the engines are designed to separate on water contact? Makes me suspect again much of the landing energy was dissipated into the runway (i.e. landed long).

Anyway, the latest reporting...high praise to the pilots and crew from the PX Chairman.

https://postcourier.com.pg/passengers-return-pom-special-flight/

RogueRivered

1st Oct 2018, 05:52

Based on what that last passenger in the Guam newspaper interview said it sounds like it wasn't an undershoot or an overrun, but an OVER-shoot, like they missed the runway completely and hit the tail on the rocks after flying over the whole runway, and then splashed into the water, facing the correct direction as shown in the pictures.

HPSOV L

1st Oct 2018, 06:47

Passenger accounts, however sincere, are notoriously unreliable. And 737 fuselages break into sections if you so much as look at them funny.

Capt Fathom

1st Oct 2018, 06:58

And 737 fuselages break into sections if you so much as look at them funny.
It appears no one gave it funny look then!

HPSOV L

1st Oct 2018, 07:10

Have a closer look (and listen to the pax account)😉

fdr

1st Oct 2018, 10:25

Shows up quite well in the Navy footage in the post or two above.

That is an interesting bit of damage. It appears as both a compression and torsional deformation, which hints of the same sorts of loads that occurred with the Ethiopian B767 off the Comorros. In that case, the stabiliser hits the water early on (just after the wingtip, and has an large asymmetric loading from the left stab being in water, the right stab being in the air, and tears the tail off in torsion. This looks like the load at PTKK was upwards at the tail and towards the right, there may have been a pretty good body angle at impact putting the stab into the brine early in the impact sequence. Lucky though, the distortion of the tube doesn't look like it was severe from the video inside taken by the USN.

gulliBell

1st Oct 2018, 11:17

Jeez, if you're gonna drop the burner in the brine somewhere that was the best place to do it, in warm tropical water with USN divers and a rescue flotilla on the scene within seconds...
Is it SOP in a ditching to only crack open one of the forward hatches when she's in maritime mode?

Capt Fathom

1st Oct 2018, 11:26

Opening of doors is a decision made by the flight attendants based on what their assessment of that exit is.
Unfortunately, the opening of the overwing exits is the realm of the passengers... unless a flight attendant just happens to be nearby and takes charge of that area. Not always possible.

pattern_is_full

1st Oct 2018, 11:53

I put very little weight on the "direction the aircraft is pointed" in the after-accident photos. If one goes back to the first still photos of Sully on the Hudson, that aircraft has almost immediately rotated 90° to point its nose at Manhattan, while the pax are still lined up on the wings, and before the (quite rapid) rescue response has arrived. One gets the feeling that some here would consider that strong evidence that Sully touched down in New Jersey, and slid into the river.

Similarly, many insisted that LionAir 904 must have been an overrun, from its final postion with tail to the runway. That turned out to be - wrong. LionAir landed short (interestingly, on an NPA through a tropical rain column that obscured the runway) and rotated 180° while bobbing in the water/on the rocks. In similar conditions (NPA/rain) WestJet/St. Maarten avoided the same by only 20 meters or so.

(Coincidentally, the LionAir 738's tail broke away in the same location that the Air Niugini plane shows those skin creases. I seem to see an little excess "whaleback" to the fuselage roofline of the AN plane in that area, but it could just be telephoto perspective).

AH reports the aircraft "was cleared to land runway 04." Not definitive (source is likely the same airport manager who also said it landed short), but is there any evidence/suggestion it was cleared to land on 22?

There is also this gentleman, who seems pretty level-headed and knows Micronesia, who says "We came in low - we came in very low," and mentions he was told they hit the seawall.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/survivor-of-air-niugini-plane-crash-speaks-of-fear-after-aircraft-overshot-chuuk-runway/video/3d945808a39530f33d689c913dbd6491

He's not an aviation professional, of course. But the only aviation professionals we've actually heard from are the airport guy and the airline. Both of whom say "landed short, in the water." My guess as to why we haven't heard much further is the 1) Chuuk is not exactly the "news capital of the world," and 2) the folks there don't think there is any mystery - it landed short.

Derfred

1st Oct 2018, 12:04

Is it SOP in a ditching to only crack open one of the forward hatches when she's in maritime mode?

It appears that they launched only one liferaft, which would have been sufficient for the POB, particularly with multiple vessels arriving on scene. Why would you open more doors?

portmanteau

1st Oct 2018, 12:11

According to airport information Weno does not have a control tower, " comms being provided by Truk Radio on 123.6".
Info also lists 3 ft high Berms ( material unspecified)1 ft from runway (presumably edges) and concrete Berms ( height unspecified) at both ends.

Bend alot

1st Oct 2018, 12:28

It appears that they launched only one liferaft, which would have been sufficient for the POB, particularly with multiple vessels arriving on scene. Why would you open more doors?
I saw two - one had one guy in near the tail the other empty and loaded on a boat heading back to shore.

Derfred

1st Oct 2018, 12:53

You may be right, but in the circumstances, with a low number of POB, I would think moving the pax into a liferaft at L1 with other doors closed sounds sensible providing the aircraft is not sinking faster than you can board pax into the raft(s). It doesn’t take long to open R1 if the need arises. The practicality on a B737 is that to launch a second raft at R1 actually delays the evacuation of the pax onto the raft already launched at L1. The second raft needs to be removed from the overhead mid-cabin stowage, and carried down the aisle. This requires the aisle to be clear, so all pax remaining seated. Why would you waste time with that if you already have a 56 person liferaft launched at L1 (and a few dozen fishing boats circling your aircraft)?

It is also my understanding that Boeing now recommends all life rafts be launched one at a time through the front door(s), despite earlier recommendations that liferaft #2 and #3 be launched from the overwing exits. This presumably comes from analysis of the best chance of evacuating a full load of passengers, the estimated body angle in the water, and the possibility of raft rupture due to debris around wings. Looking at the body angle in this accident, I’d say they are on the money. The overwings start to flood while the forward exits are still quite clear of the waterline.

rexxxxxy

1st Oct 2018, 14:49

Confirmation of one death.

PRESS STATEMENT

It is with deep sadness I confirm that the body of a male passenger was discovered by divers today as they conducted a further search of P2-PXE and the surrounding area in the Chuuk Lagoon.

This is the unaccounted passenger from the aircraft. Our outreach team is in touch with the man’s family and we are making arrangements to repatriate his body.

The circumstances surrounding this accident are now a matter for relevant authorities as they begin their task of investigating the events that led to the incident and the actions which followed. We are committing all required resources to ascertain the factors that led to this accident.

We express our deepest sympathy to his family. We are and will continue to provide support to his family in this time of loss.

Ends…//

Tahawar Durrani
Chief Executive Officer
Air Niugini Limited

lomapaseo

1st Oct 2018, 14:51

Relative to body angle. I noted the fracture in the right rear fuselage through a window slot in the USN body cam footage. This would have accentuated the aft flooding and body angle as well encouraging aft passengers to move forward in the aisles soonest. (lots of variations in a water impact)

scifi

1st Oct 2018, 20:27

DaveReidUK

1st Oct 2018, 20:38

Is there anyone still on-scene that can say if the aircraft is still afloat..? With the fuel tanks almost empty, they would act as buoyancy aids and perhaps keep the aircraft afloat indefinitely..
Maybe by now someone has towed it into shallow water.

It was reported as having sunk within a few hours of going into the water.

The aircraft was on its way back from Pohnpei to Port Moresby viak Chuuk, so it may have been carrying fuel for the onward TKK-POM sector (around 1000 nm).

mauswara

1st Oct 2018, 20:56

Sad day for PNG & the National Carrier .No longer a "Fatality free Airline, Not surprising,given the massive loss of experienced aircrew over the past few years,due to the Airline Management's draconian Industrial Relations stance.Looks like PM O'neill's PR team has swung into operation, the Minister of Civil Aviation, in todays Post Courier, calling this a "Major Aircraft Incident" & that all Passenger Social media Interviews,thus far, are "Fake news". Might be difficult to "Spin" this accident into a "Sully & The Miracle on the Hudson" story.

svhar

1st Oct 2018, 21:37

I flew for some months out of POM. It was "interesting". Most of the ground equipment, like VORs and NDBs, was unservisable most of the time. The locals dug up the cables to steal and then sell the copper almost immediately after they were replaced. So they stopped bothering replacing them. This is what the local pilots told me but this was about 10 years ago. Hopefully they have improved.

lomapaseo

1st Oct 2018, 23:50

Might be difficult to "Spin" this accident into a "Sully & The Miracle on the Hudson" story.

depends on who does the spinning. The public always needs a hero for fears outside their control, the news is always willing to fill this request. Meanwhile we on the discussion boards tend to analyse things a bit.

EEngr

2nd Oct 2018, 01:28

It was reported as having sunk within a few hours of going into the water

TV news has shown footage from the navy divers (same ones first on scene) diving on the fuselage 70 feet underwater. They were the ones who recovered the one fatality as well.

armchairpilot94116

2nd Oct 2018, 01:48

TV news has shown footage from the navy divers (same ones first on scene) diving on the fuselage 70 feet underwater. They were the ones who recovered the one fatality as well.

I thought they went in to the aircraft while it was still floating and made a sweep to check for passengers. Where was this passenger? How come he was missed?

robmckenna

2nd Oct 2018, 05:34

SnowFella

2nd Oct 2018, 05:34

Looking at the video's of when they got there the fuselage was already partially submerged so there's a chance the victim was already under water when before they arrived. Be pretty dark and hard to see down the back so rather hard even for a UTC diver without gear to check every seat by hand while the thing rather quickly is sinking.

DaveReidUK

2nd Oct 2018, 06:30

I thought they went in to the aircraft while it was still floating and made a sweep to check for passengers. Where was this passenger? How come he was missed?

Missing PX passenger found dead (https://postcourier.com.pg/indonesian-mans-body-recovered-plane/)

"Local Chuukese video blogger Matthew Colson reported last night that the Federated States of Micronesia police yesterday confirmed that the man had died.

Mr Colson, said to be an American Baptist pastor, who is fluent in the Chuuk local language, has been credited with reporting live from the crash scene.

He said the FSM police had confirmed the details with him. He reported that body of the man was recovered from the sunken plane. It was believed the man was trapped somewhere in the back section of the plane and he was reportedly still alive when the evacuation took place.

US Navy divers posted a video showing some of their personnel entering the plane after the crash but it seemed they did not venture into the aft section of the Boeing 737 800 jetliner."

Slow and curious

2nd Oct 2018, 07:48

If he was still alive when they evacuated, he must have been unconscious.

DaveReidUK

2nd Oct 2018, 08:29

If he was still alive when they evacuated, he must have been unconscious.

Or incapacitated and overlooked.

LeadSled

2nd Oct 2018, 08:42

Folks,
A statement of the bleeding obvious, perhaps, but Lady Luck played a big part.
If the aircraft had landed short closer to the runway, and hit something a lot harder than the water, the outcome might have been very different.
Tootle pip!!

portmanteau

2nd Oct 2018, 08:51

Air Nuigini's site reporting today that body was recovered from the area around the aircraft.

readywhenreaching

2nd Oct 2018, 09:47

gulliBell

2nd Oct 2018, 09:52

"Plans are underway for recover the black box from the submerged airplane. The FSM investigator in change said Papua New Guinea’s Aircraft Incident Commission has offered to assist FSM in downloading, decoding and analyzing the data from the black box once it is extracted from the airplane."

I wonder if that offer was accepted.

portmanteau

2nd Oct 2018, 10:08

DaveReidUK

2nd Oct 2018, 11:17

readywhenreaching: That's only what the headline writer wrote. Re-read it to see what the airline actually said ( from which it could be inferred that the discovery could have been inside or outside the aircraft). Never place any credence on headlines only.

If he had made it out of the aircraft, the chances of him having drowned in sight of all the rescuers seem fairly remote.

harrryw

2nd Oct 2018, 13:10

Airline confirms passenger was found inside the aircraft (https://www.pacificislandtimes.com/single-post/2018/10/02/Air-Niugini-confirms-body-was-found-inside-aircraft)

This is the 1st ever fatality for Air Niugini in 45 years of flying. A remarkable safety record.
Amazing considering the terrain and weather conditions there and the get there atitiude that at least used to exist there that there were not more.. I have not been there for 40 years but as a passenger there were times it was a good thing the bar at Jacksons was close to the airport. (or the aero club one.)

double_barrel

2nd Oct 2018, 17:37

Actually, I don't see any unambiguous reports that the body was found inside the aircraft, and I read somewhere* that the person was found in the water outside the aircraft and that they had been seen to board a rescue boat.

*sorry, can't find it now

DaveReidUK

2nd Oct 2018, 17:53

Actually, I don't see any unambiguous reports that the body was found inside the aircraft

Link to such a report, albeit unconfirmed, in post #145

and I read somewhere* that the person was found in the water outside the aircraft and that they had been seen to board a rescue boat.

Those reports now appear to have been premature. It's hard to believe that he made it as far as a rescue boat and then fell overboard without anyone noticing.

Shaman

2nd Oct 2018, 19:11

red.sky@night

2nd Oct 2018, 19:49

Checkpoint on Radio NZ today interviewed the passenger Bill Jaynes,......."

https://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ckpt/ckpt-20181002-1727-body_of_male_passenger_found-128.mp3

pattern_is_full

2nd Oct 2018, 21:38

So, he says that the truck stop and the dock could be seen out of a LHS window; this should enable those who know this airport to conclude whether the approach was on to RW 04 or RW 22.

Well, that's - entertaining! The Truk Stop (not truck - Truk is the former name of Chuuk) is a hotel, and it and the dock are close together south of the approach end to rwy 4.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Weno/@7.4490296,151.8366927,2957m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x6667a63efec31fa5:0xf51b4e1c8d6c092 5!8m2!3d7.4399983!4d151.8584892

But if the aircraft was still airborne - and they were visible off the left or port side, the plane had already missed the airport altogether - an overshoot of 22, not an overrun.

Unless one assumes Mr. Jaynes got his left and right confused in the heat of the moment. :confused:

fdr

2nd Oct 2018, 21:55

Checkpoint on Radio NZ today interviewed the passenger Bill Jaynes, Editor of the local Kaselehlie Press. He made the following observations regarding the landing and the misinformation being published: "...I could see the truck stop, dock, which is about a mile and half away [on the Port side of the aircraft], it was not raining, as the pilot claims, and every passenger and every rescuer will tell you that, and my thought as I was watching the vapour trails off the wing as we descended was, usually when we are this low we are on the runway but that's not happened, and then we were in the water. But I didn't know we were in the water, My personal opinion and the opinion of many of the passengers I have talked to is: Pilot error, he was too low, and at the last moment he made the most of a bad situation that perhaps he had created..."

The eyewitness account appears to be from a person who knows Weno well. If so, then looking out the "left" side of descending aircraft, which then you note apparently obvious landmarks placing the aircraft beyond the airport and still descending towards the water (you can see 1.5 miles, vs water immediately out your window) would probably have led to the realisation that they were about to go swimming. LEFT=RIGHT?

DaveReidUK

2nd Oct 2018, 22:13

Well, that's - entertaining! The Truk Stop (not truck - Truk is the former name of Chuuk) is a hotel, and it and the dock are close together south of the approach end to rwy 4.

But if the aircraft was still airborne - and they were visible off the left or port side, the plane had already missed the airport altogether - an overshoot of 22, not an overrun.

Unless one assumes Mr. Jaynes got his left and right confused in the heat of the moment. :confused:

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/852x1084/truk_stop_2_edecb343b44ee6c5585e4e53d3b69cc637eb467f.jpg

MitrePeak

2nd Oct 2018, 22:54

Some more US Navy footage, taken as they were approaching the aircraft:

qNZP8hpByhY

Note that the forward doors are still well clear of the water at this point, with the emergency exit just starting to be broached.

Also clearly visible is the deformed rear fuselage.
I appreciate there would have been the shock factor, but can't believe the forward exit doors weren't opened immediately. what were the flight attendants doing ?
No urgency here at all...

gulliBell

3rd Oct 2018, 00:01

The FDR has been recovered by civilian divers and it's being sent to POM to be downloaded by PNG AIC. The CVR still in the brine.

EEngr

3rd Oct 2018, 00:45

At 0:55 in the video (post #163), is that a passenger's carry-on backpack being tossed into the Navy raft?

gulliBell

3rd Oct 2018, 00:46

At 0:55 in the video (post #163), is that a passenger's carry-on backpack being tossed into the Navy raft?

Yeah, this was discussed earlier...

lucille

3rd Oct 2018, 03:47

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/852x1084/truk_stop_2_edecb343b44ee6c5585e4e53d3b69cc637eb467f.jpg

Amazing! Five days on and still there’s no definitive answer as to whether it was an undershoot or an over run.

News that the FDR is on its way back to Moresby may not be a good thing for the transparency of investigation and its resultant findings.PNG is, to put it politely, a tad challenged when it comes to corruption and good governance,

gulliBell

3rd Oct 2018, 03:52

PNG AIC is trying to be an Authority of excellence in the South Pacific for air accident investigation. Vanuatu has conferred on them full Annex 13 for accidents in that country. PNG AIC have the tools for downloading the FDR and CVR. I think we will get a preliminary statement of facts out of them sooner than later.

gulliBell

3rd Oct 2018, 03:54

Amazing! Five days on and still there’s no definitive answer as to whether it was an undershoot or an over run.

That NZ radio interview of one of the passengers on board, where he said he was on the left side of the aircraft, they were very low, and he saw the Truk Stop Hotel out the window, that can only be an overshoot of 22.

Max Tow

3rd Oct 2018, 05:34

Here's a pax from Fiji who seems to be saying it was an overshoot...
Fijian Survives Air Niugini Chuuk Flight | Fiji Sun (http://fijisun.com.fj/2018/10/02/fijian-survives-air-niugini-chuuk-flight/)

DaveReidUK

3rd Oct 2018, 06:25

Here's a pax from Fiji who seems to be saying it was an overshoot...
Fijian Survives Air Niugini Chuuk Flight Fiji Sun (http://fijisun.com.fj/2018/10/02/fijian-survives-air-niugini-chuuk-flight/)

Yes, see posts #111 and #114 from a 3 days ago for the transcript and audio of an earlier interview with the passenger in question.

megan

3rd Oct 2018, 06:25

“The plane overflew the runway and landed 150 metres past the retaining wall at the end of the runway, which opened directly into over 80-90 feet of water.“There was panic in the plane despite the senior flight attendants attempting to reassure everyone … some passengers were climbing over seats to get to the exit … water was flowing into the plane quite rapidly.
“In the first few minutes water was already halfway up to my knees.
“A lot of passengers were attempting to get their bags in the overhead compartments, but due to the panic, rate of rising water and passengers pushing against each other many were not able to get their carry-on bags.”From the above link. Worrying about bags in the overhead? Don't think pax will ever get the message. Imagine the chaos with a full load, rather than the handful that were on board.

Even landing on water it must take more than 150 metres to come to a stop, seems incredibly short, what did Sully take, though the difference is he didn't have the gear down?

DaveReidUK

3rd Oct 2018, 06:29

I appreciate there would have been the shock factor, but can't believe the forward exit doors weren't opened immediately. what were the flight attendants doing ?

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/680x365/air_niugini_accident_680x365_c_d71810b96b16ac127534134ec8eae 69245a5ec1e.png

arketip

3rd Oct 2018, 07:29

Worrying about bags in the overhead? Don't think pax will ever get the message. Imagine the chaos with a full load, rather than the handful that were on board.

Unfortunately not all passengers are as cool as you in a panic situation.

fdr

3rd Oct 2018, 09:13

From the above link. Worrying about bags in the overhead? Don't think pax will ever get the message. Imagine the chaos with a full load, rather than the handful that were on board.

Even landing on water it must take more than 150 metres to come to a stop, seems incredibly short, what did Sully take, though the difference is he didn't have the gear down?
'
Maybe.

2g deceleration would stop the plane in about 6.7 seconds, and 185 meters
3g gives about 4.5 seconds, 130 meters
6g is 2.5 seconds, and about 70 meters
Peak loads could be easily 3 -5 times or more of these values for very short periods, and probably were with the gear being down.

Those are within reasonable limits for the seat design (Part25.561) which requires demonstration of 9g forward design load for compliance.

9g stops in around 1.5 seconds, and about 45 meters.

The body can survive much higher short period loads, (McKenney, 1970) but that is also when using proper restraint which includes shoulder harnesses. The pilots do OK, other than being first to the scene, pax get to see up close and personal the objects in front of their lap.

(the Ethiopian B767 hijack ditching off the Comoros stopped in about 5 seconds, from a higher speed, with mean decelerations around 5g, stopping in around 220 meters but involving high lateral loads as well and massive kit setting of the structure. Peak lateral loads were severe, as were the longitudinal loads. Vertical peak load was lower than the longitudinal load).

McKenney, William R,, Human Tolerance to Abrupt Accelerations: A summary of the Literature. Dynamic Science Report 70-13, May, 1970

DaveReidUK

3rd Oct 2018, 09:23

Amazing! Five days on and still there’s no definitive answer as to whether it was an undershoot or an over run.

Still from a YouTube video shot from an aircraft lining up on 04 at Chuuk, view looking roughly south. The aforementioned Truk Stop Hotel is visible in the distance just under the 737's wingtip.

Clearly there is no way the Truk Stop could be seen from a portside window when airborne unless viewed from a departure, go-around or overshoot on 22.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/709x476/ptkk_04_end_5c345e29b1f73c21a1660d55c19c2715e3812887.jpg

Bhd2M7vpWP0

portmanteau

3rd Oct 2018, 10:26

Perhaps interesting to speculate as to the damage caused by ploughing straight in on finals for 04 compared to overflying 22, not going around for reasons unknown and then going into the water. Either way it seems it would have come to an abrupt stop. Gear down presumably for 04 but possibly up or the way up in the 22 case? What counts of course is that In the event it looked to be almost a textbook ditching.

gulliBell

3rd Oct 2018, 11:15

..What counts of course is that In the event it looked to be almost a textbook ditching.

Yeah, the textbook ditching you have when you don't know you're ditching....

73qanda

3rd Oct 2018, 11:35

“But when we overflew the runway there was an announcement to ‘brace for impact’, but everything occurred really quick that many were unable to react in time
It would be interesting to know who made the BRACE call. If it was a FA then that shows exceptional SA.
If it was a pilot then there is more to this than meets the eye.

DaveReidUK

3rd Oct 2018, 11:37

Perhaps interesting to speculate as to the damage caused by ploughing straight in on finals for 04 compared to overflying 22, not going around for reasons unknown and then going into the water.

The damage is interesting.

We've already seen parallels drawn with US1549, and although the circumstances were very different it's still valid to compare the damage to the 737 with that to the A320.

In the case of the Airbus, most of the damage occurred to the rear fuselage. That's hardly surprising, given that it ditched in a nose-up attitude and so the rear would have hit the Hudson first. Having said that, the passenger cabin remained intact.

The 737 also had a damaged rear fuselage, but this took the form of a more substantial structural failure. Clearly it had also hit (something) in a tail-down attitude.

The 737 ended up in the water. The question is: did the impact with the water cause that damage? We all know the old saw about "water is like concrete if you hit it going fast enough" - but it isn't, in a number of respects.

I don't believe that A320s are substantially stronger than 737s (nor vice versa). So would the 737 have to have hit something more solid, initially, than just the water in order to cause that degree of structural damage?

Answers on a postcard.

RVF750

3rd Oct 2018, 13:38

Don't need a postcard. The wheels leave the runway and the tail would scrape on all the furniture in the undershoot of 04. Lighting, rocks, you name it.

DaveReidUK

3rd Oct 2018, 15:10

Don't need a postcard. The wheels leave the runway and the tail would scrape on all the furniture in the undershoot of 04. Lighting, rocks, you name it.

Yes, I would imagine that could ruin your entire day.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/887x200/ptkk_04_finals_bdddf12e466b925b3f03912eab7c27989a4d7af8.jpg

India Four Two

3rd Oct 2018, 15:31

Worrying about bags in the overhead? Don't think pax will ever get the message.

megan,

You need to appreciate that in the third world, passengers may have some or all of their worldly wealth in their carry-on bags. It's unfortunate behaviour but understandable.

portmanteau

3rd Oct 2018, 17:32

DaveReidUK

3rd Oct 2018, 17:44

Thought I was about to solve the which runway mystery......Flightradar24 today shows the PX73 flight of 28 SEP from Pohnpei PTPN to Chuuk PTKK but tracking stops halfway. Perhaps someone else would like to try. FR24 shows 7 day history so tomorrow is last day.

As discussed very early in the thread (post #16, in fact), there is no landing track for the flight on FR24.

Contrary to popular belief, FR24 doesn't have universal coverage, being dependent on having enthusiasts feeding ADS-B data from their vicinity. It appears there aren't any spotters on Weno.

portmanteau

3rd Oct 2018, 20:52

DR Tks missed that.

lucille

3rd Oct 2018, 21:10

Don't need a postcard. The wheels leave the runway and the tail would scrape on all the furniture in the undershoot of 04. Lighting, rocks, you name it.
Maybe so. But you cannot be certain just yet.

But there’s been no mention of damage to airport or even of paint scrapes on the rocks.

To date all inferences have been drawn by one passenger stating that he saw the Truk Stop Hotel out of the port side of the aircraft. I also read another account (perhaps from that same pax) stating that it was not raining at the time.
Meanwhile, the airline still has not corrected its assertion that it landed short of the runway.

olderairhead

3rd Oct 2018, 21:18

Magnetomick

3rd Oct 2018, 21:27

Today Podt Courier p.1 & p.3 quoting investigators that contractors & USN divers have recovered EGPWS and divers attempting “to search for the recorders in an area below the floor that is crushed and difficult to access”.

Also radio interview with Minister of Aviation on ABC at 0700 this morning... and ANG no comment to date

JPJP

3rd Oct 2018, 22:02

If you flew the approach to 22, then circled Nth (left downwind to 04). You might see the Truk Stop from the left side of the aircraft as you turned base for 04 ? I’m not sure what circumstances would lead to that choice though.

The METAR for a brief period around the time of arrival was very poor. However; there seems to be varying reports of the exact time that the aircraft ‘arrived’.

DaveReidUK

3rd Oct 2018, 22:06

divers attempting “to search for the recorders in an area below the floor that is crushed and difficult to access"

The PNG press reports that the FDR has already been retrieved and is being sent to Port Moresby for downoading and analysis.

Passenger’s body found in cabin of crashed plane (https://www.thenational.com.pg/passengers-body-found-in-cabin-of-crashed-plane/)

princeville06

3rd Oct 2018, 22:09

Maybe so. But you cannot be certain just yet.

But there’s been no mention of damage to airport or even of paint scrapes on the rocks.

To date all inferences have been drawn by one passenger stating that he saw the Truk Stop Hotel out of the port side of the aircraft. I also read another account (perhaps from that same pax) stating that it was not raining at the time.
Meanwhile, the airline still has not corrected its assertion that it landed short of the runway.

Do you know where the passenger states he was on the port side of the aircraft? I listened to the audio linked in post #157 and at 1:02 he says after impact he "looked over" and saw water coming in the port side of the plane, which could imply he was looking over from the right side. Then at 1:28 he says he could see The Truk Stop dock out his window, but does not mention which side of the plane his window was on. Is there another interview out there that clarifies this detail?

DaveReidUK

3rd Oct 2018, 22:12

To date all inferences have been drawn by one passenger stating that he saw the Truk Stop Hotel out of the port side of the aircraft.

No, if you re-read the thread there are a number of other reports which, while not conclusive, are more consistent with an overrun/overshoot than an underrun.

megan

3rd Oct 2018, 23:17

fdr, thanks for putting me straight, you'd think a FW (prop) carrier qualified guy would have thought of that. :O

fdr

4th Oct 2018, 04:33

fdr, thanks for putting me straight, you'd think a FW (prop) carrier qualified guy would have thought of that. :O

:}

You asked re USAir 1549's impact. The NTSB report does not provide the DFDR readout however the following is the basic info:

last recorded speed at 12' 128kts. (not specified as CAS or GS, either could have been used in the reconstruction).
Time to stop from impact: 5 seconds approximately
Sink rate at touchdown 12.5 FPS (750FPM)
Certified ditching sink rate 3.5FPS (210FPM)
Wind was a crosswind (recorded at central park)

2.2g average deceleration gives 200 meter from impact to stop. Peak longitudinal g loads would occur at first contact and at the point the nose enters the water. vertical load was substantial at touchdown, the aircraft was in alpha protection, about 3 deg AOA less than stall AOA and being protected by the control laws.
Video from approximately normal to the flight path shows the aircraft comes to a halt in around 5 to 6 fuselage lengths, the fuse is 37.57m in length.

Sully's decision to go into the river was a good decision. The consequence of a failed attempt back to LGA or to try for TEB would have been devastating to the pax and to the city. The ATSB report shows that with the decision time needed for real crew to respond to a sudden emergency, LGA/TEB were not likely to be successful.

In Lion Air and PX, we have seen the results in inadvertent ditching (crashing into the water) with the gear down. In both cases, the outcome has been much better than would be expected from a gear down ditching.

In your turboprop, there is a near certainty that the props are going to take the gearbox and prop off the front of the engine unless feathered. If there is power on at impact, they are going to go walking, and a US type RH rotation prop is going to to have the left side props walk off towards the fuselage. :{

gazumped

4th Oct 2018, 05:27

Whilst there is still some conjecture whether this was an overrun or undershoot, I feel compelled to comment on the content of several posts regarding “operating in this area” ,the necessity to mix IFR and VFR.
I too have had many years experience in this area, and I can confirm that there is a tendency for some crew to do this, and I would like to state that is PRECISELY the reason accidents happen.
Mixing IFR with VFR always increases risk unnecessarily. I can already hear the bold saying, “but if you don’t break the rules you won’t get in” .
My response, THAT IS WHAT AN ALTERNATE IS FOR.
Many years of C&T, several posts as CP, taught me when you do an instrument approach, if at the minima you look ahead and it is not BANK OF ENGLAND SAFE, go around. You will discover that there is never any obstacles above the minima to collide with.
let me be perfectly clear, you cannot hit anything doing a standard MAP.
Having said all that, I believe the accident is yet to be determined as an undershoot.

LeadSled

4th Oct 2018, 06:18

Folks,
Regardless of whether it is an undershoot or off the end, according to today's papers of other passengers accounts, somebody named Allan, surname unknown, apparently an Australian, should be lined up for a significant medal --- according to one eyewitness, he opened doors, got at least one liferaft out and inflated, and organised a substantial part of the evacuation -- in short one person changed chaos into a largely orderly and successful evacuation.
It would seem that many lifejackets were missing, a problem not unknown in this part of the world, including Australia --- there are lots of Qantas lifejackets on boats in Sydney harbour -- based on personal observation, and I doubt they were all time expired and sold legitimately.
Tootle pip!!

Oakape

5th Oct 2018, 04:10

It would seem that many lifejackets were missing

I always check to make sure the lifejacket is there when I'm paxing, regardless of the airline. Found one missing on Air New Zealand once. Flight attendant was stunned when I asked her to get me one. I had to tell her to get one of the spares that they carry on board.

Kiwiconehead

5th Oct 2018, 06:21

Folks,
according to one eyewitness, he opened doors, got at least one liferaft out and inflated, and organised a substantial part of the evacuation -- in short one person changed chaos into a largely orderly and successful evacuation.

You can hear an Aussie voice giving some direction in the US Navy footage, thought it might have been an Aussie on exchange with them but if it was a passenger then he certainly seemed to be doing pretty well having just been in a crash.

portmanteau

5th Oct 2018, 17:27

04 or 22? To recap, PX 73 schedule is Dep PNI 0850 LT Arr TKK 0855 LT ( pni 1 hour ahead of tkk). Chock to chock time of 1 hour 5 minutes. On 28 Sep departure was delayed 31 minutes to 0921, thus ETA TKK was now 0926 as confirmed by Emilio,TKK Airport Mgr who also said it went into the lagoon at 0930 which sounds possible. The 0850 Metar (wind vrb 05 kts, if picked up by PX73 would have been halfway into the flight . Metars at 0940 and 0955 (wind 040 07 kts) were after the flight arrived/crashed. That wreckage visible in the USN video, engine cowling or some fairing from fuselage bottom?

DaveReidUK

5th Oct 2018, 19:18

That wreckage visible in the USN video, engine cowling or some fairing from fuselage bottom?

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/710x661/cowl_wreckage_a04be7cbcf3877db67c289c8acb1bad1fbb40c93.jpg

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/665x660/open_cowl_93b01404955031fe042eefd558acb1a6c84d68ec.jpg

Just a Grunt

6th Oct 2018, 01:46

Extract from an article in today’s Australian newspaper (which is paywalled). I’ll leave it to the experts to say whether this bloke’s describing an overrun or overshoot.

“As a regular traveller, Mr Milburn knew to expect a heavy landing when stopping over in Chuuk but it quickly became apparent this landing was heavier than usual. Mr Milburn said his initial thought was “damn it they’ve damaged the plane on landing and we won’t be going through to Port Moresby”.

“That was half a second before ‘this isn’t right, we’re not slowing down’,” the former Royal Australian Navy clearance diver said. “Then it was kind of all over the place and everyone made head contact with the seat in front.”

It was not until the plane came to a stop that cabin crew told passengers to brace. “I thought ‘we’re past that point’ and I instinctively stood up,” he said.

After helping nearby passengers don life jackets, Mr Milburn said he was concerned there had been no further announcements.

“There was no ‘stay calm, we’re going to get you out’,” he said.

“So I went down to the over wing exit and jumped out on the wing. There was a fantastic guy there, Rodney, a PNG fisherman, who’d got the liferaft down on to the wing.”

With no crew around to assist, the two men inflated the raft by which time some of the passengers had started coming through the exit door on to the wing.

A flotilla of local fishing boats helped ferry passengers back to shore and on to hospital.

“The bravery and the selflessness of the Chuukese people can’t be questioned. They were doing their absolute best,” he said.

With the 47 people on board believed to be out of the plane, Mr Milburn returned for a final check as US navy divers entered the cabin.

He found the rear of the plane filled with headhigh water and debris, and asked if one of the divers wearing a face mask could take a closer look.

“They decided it wasn’t really safe,” he said. “We didn’t know how much longer the plane was going to be floating and I think it would’ve been easy to get trapped.”

cooperplace

6th Oct 2018, 05:08

really impressed by these US Navy divers. it must be a difficult job that requires skill and courage.

filejw

6th Oct 2018, 14:07

really impressed by these US Navy divers. it must be a difficult job that requires skill and courage.

Helps to be 25 and fearless , never mind the military training . I’m sure young men from AU JP or PH would have done the same .

LeadSled

8th Oct 2018, 04:24

Folks,
Re. my previous post, "Allan" was/is Adam.
His own description of his post crash actions is very modest, compared to other passenger's descriptions of his vital contribution.
Tootle pip!!

PEI_3721

8th Oct 2018, 06:38

Might be worth dusting off the accident report on the ‘go around’ accident, B777 EK 521 in Dubai.

gulliBell

8th Oct 2018, 11:42

It's pretty clear from this passenger account that it was an overshoot and the tail hit the end of the runway before taking a permanent dip in the lagoon.

https://www.thenational.com.pg/air-niugini-crash-survivor-tells-of-how-he-helped/

lomapaseo

8th Oct 2018, 11:58

I'm not sure whether the landing gear was even down, but the DFDR/CVR should tell a lot about the details

gulliBell

8th Oct 2018, 12:21

If the landing gear wasn't down they would have had a terrain alert, right?

Ascend Charlie

8th Oct 2018, 18:46

After all this time, nobody can tell if it was 130kt into the water at the approach end, or 60kt off the far end after a bounce and a skid?

Had reverse thrust been armed/selected?

Had the "pilots" bounced and tried for a go-around?

Where are the answers?

India Four Two

8th Oct 2018, 19:06

Extract from a post on the US 7th Fleet website - my bold:
Flight PX56 crashed approximately a quarter mile short of the runway, near where UCT 2 was conducting operations. The Sailors assisted local authorities by shuttling passengers and crew to shore using their inflatable boat prior to the plane sinking in approximately 100 feet of water. UCT 2’s embedded Chief hospital corpsman provided medical attention to at least one passenger who sustained minor injuries.

U.S. Navy UCT 2 Renders Assistance Following Plane Crash in Chuuk > Commander, U.S. 7th Fleet > Display (http://www.c7f.navy.mil/Media/News/Display/Article/1647405/us-navy-uct-2-renders-assistance-following-plane-crash-in-chuuk/)

DaveReidUK

8th Oct 2018, 19:24

Extract from a post on the US 7th Fleet website - my bold:
Flight PX56 crashed approximately a quarter mile short of the runway

Fair point.

If there were military eyewitnesses who saw the aircraft enter the water, that would be strong evidence of an undershoot.

But the report doesn't mention that, only what the Seabees did in the aftermath.

They also got the flight number wrong, though that's by the by.

olderairhead

8th Oct 2018, 20:48

"following the plane crashing into the sea on its approach"

Sobelena

8th Oct 2018, 20:57

I refer to my post on page 3. I've since been away for a week and on my return find we're now on page 11 and still not agreed on whether it was an undershoot or overshoot!

DaveReidUK

8th Oct 2018, 21:05

I refer to my post on page 3. I've since been away for a week and on my return find we're now on page 11 and still not agreed on whether it was an undershoot or overshoot!

Well OK, you tell us - short of an FDR/radar/ADS-B trajectory plot, what would you consider as indisputable evidence of either the undershoot or overshoot scenario ?

Have you seen any such evidence yet ?

gulliBell

8th Oct 2018, 21:19

It was an overshoot. The tail hit the end of the runway before splashing down in the lagoon.

https://www.thenational.com.pg/air-niugini-crash-survivor-tells-of-how-he-helped/

Capt Fathom

8th Oct 2018, 22:02

Right! According to one passenger.
Ask the other 30 passengers what happened and you’ll get another 30 version of events!

I particularly liked this bit... ‘The pilot turned the plane quickly and crash landed on the water.‘

Tooheys

8th Oct 2018, 22:53

Well done Rodney and Phillip,

“I need to be commended for the bravery I displayed at that time in utilising my skills to save lives”

so humble as well
:ugh:

gulliBell

8th Oct 2018, 23:09

Yeah, there is probably a cultural aspect to that, and fishing for a reward.

Flingwing47

8th Oct 2018, 23:37

" Yeah, there is probably a cultural aspect to that, and fishing for a reward. "

well, he is a fisherman !!

double_barrel

9th Oct 2018, 05:35

Well done Rodney and Phillip,

“I need to be commended for the bravery I displayed at that time in utilising my skills to save lives”

so humble as well
:ugh:
I suggest that it is likely that the journalist asked: “Do you think you should be rewarded the bravery you displayed at that time in utilising your skills to save lives”

And he replied '...sure...'.

Journalists love to put their own ideas and preconceptions into the words of their interviewees.

SnowFella

9th Oct 2018, 06:31

Afrijet

9th Oct 2018, 07:19

If the landing gear wasn't down they would have had a terrain alert, right?
a “too low gear” and a persistent horn if the flaps are greater than 15 I believe.

USN O6

9th Oct 2018, 16:09

Well done Rodney and Phillip,

“I need to be commended for the bravery I displayed at that time in utilising my skills to save lives”

so humble as well
:ugh:

I'm thinking he could be looking for monetary commendation.

Hotel Tango

9th Oct 2018, 19:20

In answer to the Sobelena post you replied:

Well OK, you tell us - short of an FDR/radar/ADS-B trajectory plot, what would you consider as indisputable evidence of either the undershoot or overshoot scenario ?

Have you seen any such evidence yet ?

I think you failed to grasp Sobelena's point ;)

Loud Handle

9th Oct 2018, 20:21

I suggest that it is likely that the journalist asked: “Do you think you should be rewarded the bravery you displayed at that time in utilising your skills to save lives”

And he replied '...sure...'.

Journalists love to put their own ideas and preconceptions into the words of their interviewees.

Your generosity leads me to believe you have never been anywhere near PNG.

DaveReidUK

9th Oct 2018, 21:35

I think you failed to grasp Sobelena's point ;)

Well feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but he/she appeared to be remarking on the fact that,10 days on from the accident, there doesn't seem to be universal agreement on the circumstances:

I refer to my post on page 3. I've since been away for a week and on my return find we're now on page 11 and still not agreed on whether it was an undershoot or overshoot!

I simply pointed out that the evidence that's going to resolve that unambiguously (FDR traces, for example) hasn't yet been published.

What do you think he/she meant, and how would you have responded ? You still have time.

svhar

9th Oct 2018, 21:59

I have been in PNG long enough to know that if you ask the time, the closest answer you get is that it's October.

Hotel Tango

9th Oct 2018, 23:12

What do you think he/she meant, and how would you have responded ?

My interpretation from his/her original post was that it was simply a little humourous sarcasm. I smiled at it and moved on.

DaveReidUK

10th Oct 2018, 18:20

Press release today from the FSM IIC, which explains the continuing delay in downloading the FDR and CVR:

Press Release by the FSM Investigator-in-Charge / October 10, 2018 at 6:00 PM / No. 7

The aircraft accident investigators from the FSM, PNG and the USA arrived in Port Moresby from Chuuk on Sunday 7 October and immediately commenced work preparing the recorders for data download and subsequent analysis and analyzing records.

PNG AIC is using state of the art download electronic equipment specially brought to PNG from Canada for this accident investigation.

Because the aircraft crashed into the Chuuk Lagoon the recorders had been immersed in salt water. The AIC investigators have today completed the disassembly of the recorders to remove the data memory chip boards while they remain immersed in water. They have painstakingly cleaned them in distilled water to ensure no salt water and other contaminants remain on the boards.

The FDR and CVR boards are being dried in an oven for between 18 and 36 hours to ensure all traces of moisture have been removed before being connected to the downloading electronic equipment.

The international teams from PNG and the USA have been diligently assisting the FSM investigators. The Government of the Federated States of Micronesia is grateful for their support to achieve the best possible safety outcome for aviation globally and particularly in our region.

The FSM Government is pleased to learn that the PNG AIC is buying the 21st century technology MARS recorder download and analysis system and the Insight Flight Animation Software. This will ensure the AIC is at the cutting edge of this technology and will be equipped to conduct flight recorder downloading and analysis for years to come. This is vitally important for aviation safety throughout Pacific Region.

Official update to the media will be issued by the FSM Investigator in-charge.

DaveReidUK

13th Oct 2018, 20:58

Further press release yesterday, 12th October:

Press Release by the FSM Investigator-in-Charge / October 12, 2018 at 6:00 PM / No. 8

On Wednesday October 10, 2018 investigators from the PNG Accident Investigation Commission (AIC) successfully downloaded the data from the Flight Data Recorder from the Boeing 737 that crashed in Chuuk lagoon of September 28, 2018. This was followed on Thursday October 11 with the successful download of the data from the Cockpit Voice Recorder.

The meticulous preparation and cleaning and drying of the data chip boards by the AIC investigators and the use of the state of the art MARS recorder download and analysis system brought in from Canada, was instrumental to the success of the downloads, and speeded up what would otherwise have been a much longer process. This process was conducted in the AIC’s Flight Recorder Laboratory in Port Moresby in the presence of an investigator from the FSM.

The data will now be jointly analysed by the FSM TC&I investigators and investigation teams from the US NTSB and the PNG AIC to determine the factors that contributed to this accident.

The AIC will analyze the data using the latest version of the Insight Analysis software and the Flight Animation System (FAS). This will provide the FSM Investigation team with a high quality animated visual reproduction of the recovered data.

Our respective Nations’ resources are finite, so it is important that small countries such as PNG and FSM share resources and draw on available expertise in the interest of aviation safety improvement. The people of FSM and PNG are assured that their safety is paramount whether they are travelling in FSM, PNG, or flying beyond our borders.

The Government of the Federated States of Micronesia is grateful for the ongoing support from the PNG and USA Governments to achieve the best possible safety outcome for aviation globally and particularly in our region.

Official update to the media will be issued by the FSM Investigator in-charge.

DType

13th Oct 2018, 21:09

Jings, I thought FDR and CVR were sealed units, and salt water would not normally get inside them?

packapoo

13th Oct 2018, 21:23

Niugini aircraft used the other ones....

portmanteau

14th Oct 2018, 22:07

DType, put "are flight recorders waterproof" into google.

SysDude

15th Oct 2018, 00:01

DType, put "are flight recorders waterproof" into google.

Regardless of water damage, the data is recoverable.

My evidence is anecdotal, but I have recovered "water resistant" equipment soaked in 50-100 ft salt water before.

When I was a radio technician I restored many Motorola radios (surface mount, close spacing between traces, pre-MIL-STD-810C) to service after being immersed in salt water for weeks before the divers got around to harvesting them. I had a 100% recovery rate by flushing them and soaking them in distilled water, followed by a flush/soak of about 10% isopropanol and an low-temp oven bake. (They usually became corroded and unreliable after a year or so).

In this case, a rinse and bake after a week or two if immersion will certainly allow for full data recovery in short time.

DaveReidUK

15th Oct 2018, 06:21

In this case, a rinse and bake after a week or two if immersion will certainly allow for full data recovery in short time.

As indeed it already has done, according to the report.

India Four Two

15th Oct 2018, 18:10

Micronesia is a “United States (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) associated state (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_state)”. Why is the NTSB not investigating this accident?

DaveReidUK

15th Oct 2018, 18:22

India Four Two

15th Oct 2018, 18:49

Dave, I know that but given their association with the USA, I’m surprised that the NTSB was not invited to be the lead investigator.

lomapaseo

15th Oct 2018, 19:53

Dave, I know that but given their association with the USA, I’m surprised that the NTSB was not invited to be the lead investigator.

Lots of other considerations like

country of accident
country with most passengers/citizens involved
issues relating to operation, Weather, ATC, Airport, pilot training etc.
issues relating to airworthiness of aircraft or engines
Availability of pertinent facts or investigating expertise including manpower

DaveReidUK

15th Oct 2018, 21:13

Lots of other considerations like

country of accident
country with most passengers/citizens involved
issues relating to operation, Weather, ATC, Airport, pilot training etc.
issues relating to airworthiness of aircraft or engines
Availability of pertinent facts or investigating expertise including manpower

The state of occurrence has responsibility for the investigation, as per Annex 13. Other interested parties - the state where the aircraft is registered, the state of manufacture, etc - are entitled to be affiliated to the investigation, in this case PNG and the USA. That doesn't prevent the responsible state from delegating part or all of the investigation (but not the responsibility for it) to any state of its choosing.

We know, for example, that the FDR and CVR have gone to PNG for analysis (overseen by FSM investigators), whereas the EGPWS has gone to the manufacturer in the USA.

Regardless of who is carrying out various parts of the investigation, the protocol is that the lead state (FSM) is responsible for release of any information on its progress. That, so far, has taken the form of 8 press releases at the last count, plus an undertaking to publish the usual interim report within the prescribed 30 days.

DType

16th Oct 2018, 11:56

portmanteau
Thanks.
It makes sense that what is normally "waterproof" may not be waterproof after an abnormal event, which event is the reason for accessing the data.
However, this event appears to have been relatively gentle, hence my (ignorant) surprise.

Icarus2001

17th Oct 2018, 04:39

what is normally "waterproof" may not be waterproof after an abnormal event, which event is the reason for accessing the data.

A crash may be abnormal but certainly not unplanned for.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_recorder

Have a read.

longlegs

24th Oct 2018, 21:50

Home (http://www.kpress.info/) One survivor’s firsthand account of the crash of Air Niugini PX 073 (http://www.kpress.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1119:one-survivor-s-firsthand-account-of-the-crash-of-air-niugini-px-74&catid=8&Itemid=103)By Bill Jaynes

The Kaselehlie Press

October 10, 2018

FSM—On Friday morning, September 28, Air Niugini flight PX 073 crash landed in the lagoon short of the runway in Chuuk. I was aboard. It was the worst experience in my life but I am glad to be alive, thanks in large part to Chuukese locals who risked their own lives to save us passengers.

“I” is a very strange letter when it stands alone in a news article. “I”’m not sure I know how to handle that particular letter as a journalist but then “I”’ve never been involved in a plane crash before. “I” still don’t know how to handle that fact, neither in my life nor in this article. Still, “I” know, and have heard from many, that despite the fact that my face and voice were all over international news for almost a week, people will want to hear from me, though “I” most certainly was not the only passenger aboard nor even close to the most significant. I just ended up being one of the most visible. It’s such a strange situation in so many ways and I’m not sure I know how to handle it. Maybe I never will.

From the Top

I’ll start at the beginning.

The Indonesian government, who recently reached out to the FSM after many years of diplomatic relations between the two countries, invited me and a few other Pacific Islands journalists for an informational tour of their country. I was heading to Indonesia when I boarded Air Niugini, flight PX 073 on the morning of September 28 after finally having received my flight arrangements only a day and a half earlier.

I was the last passenger through the security checkpoint before they said it would close. The flight crew started arriving ten to fifteen minutes later. The flight was scheduled to depart at 8:50 but at that time, boarding hadn’t even begun.

Once aboard, my seat, 24F on the right side of the rear of the plane was comfortable and the flight attendants were courteous and pleasant. The safety briefing was pretty much like every safety briefing I’ve ever heard with one variance from my experience. Instead of instructing passengers on how to use the exit doors, the briefing said that a crew member would open the doors in the event of an emergency. I thought that was odd at the time but didn’t think much more of it.

Descent begins

When one of the cockpit crew members made the announcement that we were beginning our descent into Chuuk, the flight attendants immediately had the passengers open their window shades, fasten seatbelts and put seats in the upright position. It seemed quite a bit early as there was still 25 minutes left in the flight at that point but it took nothing to comply.

As the Chuuk lagoon islands began to appear among aqua sea set against blue sky and white fluffy clouds, I began to search the lagoon for white caps. The evening before my flight a friend posted a weather report for Chuuk on Facebook that indicated a low pressure system with possible cyclonic activity so I was vigilant. It carried a travel advisory for boaters. I don’t know what I thought I’d do if I saw white caps but the lagoon was calm so I relaxed into the descent.

As we approached the runway, ominous grey clouds appeared and I watched the vapor trails coming off of the wing. I could clearly see the lagoon islands in the distance and spotted the Truk Stop dock as we continued to descend, and descend and descend. I had just thought that we were much lower over the water than on any of my many previous landings in Chuuk when the left wing dipped a little bit as, in my experience sometimes happens as pilots adjust to cross winds on approach to the runway.

Suddenly there was impact, an extremely hard impact, and an amazingly quick stop. My first thought was that we had just experienced the hardest landing and fastest braking I’d ever experienced on any runway but I couldn’t reconcile the rending, tearing sounds in my mind. I was stunned and looked around. When I saw a hole in the other side of the plane across the aisle, I knew we hadn’t made the runway. Water was coming in fast, rushing from the nose of the plane toward the rear. The water initially ran out through the hole but very quickly water also started coming in from there as well.

Some have said that there was an announcement to “brace” before the impact came, but if there was, I never heard it or if I did hear it, it was not sufficient for me to have understood that we had been about to crash land and I cleared it from my memory. The cockpit recorder will tell that part of the story.

Exit stage left

I reached under my seat for a life preserver but could not find one. As I got up from my seat and started walking in what was then thigh deep water, deeper on those people who are not 6’4” tall, there was pandemonium. Some passengers were trying to retrieve their bags from the overhead compartments, an absolute no no during an emergency evacuation as it slows evacuation. Some passengers scrambled over the tops of the seats. Flight attendants in my section of the plane were screaming for people to calm down. It wasn’t working. Meanwhile the attendants were running back and forth in the aisles, pushing passengers out of the way. I checked under three other seats on my way out but still could not find a life preserver. I can’t speak to the experience of others but I was not the only passenger who did not have a life preserver when we went out the exit.

A young man of Asian descent who was behind me as I tried to walk toward the exit while making way for passengers who were more injured than I began to push hard. I turned around and grabbed his shoulders. Making eye contact with him I asked him to calm down. I told him that we would get out but only if we did it calmly. He did calm down, though I’m not sure if he actually understood my words.

By the time I arrived at the exit door, the pathway was clear. I stepped out onto the wing where the water was approximately waist deep. A raft was waiting there and people were jumping into it. I stood aside so that others could get in first. Someone finally yelled at me to get into the raft and I complied. As two passengers I didn’t identify carried a Chinese man, who I later learned had a broken pelvis, to the raft, a female Chuukese passenger turned to me and asked in a panicked voice if she had her life preserver on correctly. After it inflated, she was having a hard time breathing as it pushed her head backward. Others experienced the same problem and none of us could figure out how to let a bit of air out of them to give them some relief. Another man in the raft who had passed me as I stood on the wing seemed to have a broken forearm.

Chuukese heroes

As I lay on the bottom of the raft wondering what would happen next and wondering what had happened to my passport that had been in my shirt pocket, I looked at the plane which at the time was only half submerged. I incorrectly thought that we were in shallow water and that during the recovery effort, after we were all safe, someone would be able to retrieve all of my camera gear and laptop from the overhead baggage compartment in working order. I had no idea that we were in approximately 90 feet of water and that the plane was in danger of sinking at any time. Had I known, I may easily have been one of those who panicked. I didn’t have time to notice that the plane was sinking because within no more than two minutes of getting into the raft, a boat driven by a local who had seen the crash nudged the raft.

People helped the very injured man into the boat, and again, I stood back knowing that the raft would keep me safe and that others needed to be evacuated more quickly than I. By that time there were several boats surrounding the plane. I could have taken another boat but the boat driver would not take no for an answer and I boarded as the last passenger aboard that boat.

I will never forget the efforts of the Chuukese locals who, either foolishly, or bravely immediately rushed out to the downed plane to help get us safely to shore. A week and a half later, I still get tears of gratitude in my eyes whenever I think of their selflessness and bravery, and I have thought of it many times every day since the morning of Friday, September 28.

Unfortunately, since that time, some have tried to make an issue of whether or not Chuukese locals or US Navy Seabees were the first to arrive on the scene. Quite frankly, from videos I later saw, I believe it was the Seabees who were there first but if so it was only by moments. I don’t know. I never saw them. I quite frankly, don’t care. All of the responders were heroes and calling one group of responders heroes does not at all minimize the heroics of another group. For me, on that day, it was Chuukese locals who whisked a boat load of wet and frightened passengers, me included, to the Transco dock in Weno.

Passenger heroes

Since we are on the subject of heroes, now would be the time to talk about two passenger heroes I will never forget. One is Adam Milburn, an Australian who currently lives in Pohnpei. He will not call himself a hero but I watched his calm demeanor as he assisted passengers through the exit door. In the video of the US Navy response to the crash, Mr. Milburn is the man in the blue wind breaker, calmly standing on the wing at the exit door helping passengers out. He also re-entered the plane to help make sure that there were no passengers left aboard but by then, the tail section of the plane was head high underwater. Only after he did that did he decide to go ahead and grab his own bag from the baggage compartment. It had not been safe to do so while passengers were evacuating.

I didn’t learn of another hero until later in the day when I met Rodney Nogi of Papua New Guinea at the Truk Stop hotel where Air Niugini had placed some of the passengers. He very quietly and reluctantly told me that he had been the one to open the exit door when flight attendants didn’t do so. He mentioned that he also mobilized and inflated the raft from that door. Milburn later told me that when he got onto the wing, the raft had been mobilized and that it had been Nogi who had done it and who also made sure that it stayed where it could be useful and didn’t float away. Nogi said that he had been to a fisheries university where he had been taught sea rescue techniques and those techniques helped him.

On that Friday evening he was humble and unassuming about his role though that could have been because he was sharing a table with a man 33 years his senior. We’ve all gone through changes since that day and if a story in PNG’s The National newspaper is accurate, he is now saying that Air Niugini owes him a pat on the back. I don’t know if Air Niugini will ever give him that pat on the back but I certainly will.

Efficient medical response

Once at the Transco dock, I could hear sirens in the distance. They took a while to get there but that was a function of the roads in that area and of the snarled traffic. As far as I am concerned, the response was immediate. I used the time to call my wife as I always do when I land in Chuuk, the last place where my FSMTC cell phone will usually work on my travels. My wife was effervescent when she heard my voice. She hadn’t yet heard the news. I was glad to be able to tell her that I had survived before she heard that the plane had crashed.

On a triage basis, ambulances whisked passengers to the Chuuk State Hospital. I didn’t feel I needed to go but didn’t know where else to go so took the free ride in the ambulance to the hospital. The scene there was truly incredible to watch in every positive way I can think to describe it. Temporary cots had been placed in the waiting room and the place was a flurry of activity as doctors, nurses and others attended to passengers. Again, I have nothing but good things to say about the hospital response in Chuuk. I’ll be honest and admit that I was pleasantly surprised to see it and experience it.

As I nearly always do during times of stress, I laughed and joked with those who were able and inquired about the health of every passenger I met even if they couldn’t understand me, even if just to give a questioning “thumbs up”. I met and talked to passengers from Singapore, Vietnam, Indonesia, China, Chuuk, Australia, the United States, Papua New Guinea, and the Philippines, all with various levels of injury and all in various states of shock. Outside the hospital I gave an interview with my first impressions which, I was told ran on television, radio and newspapers around the world on that day. I was NOT the only passenger aboard. I wasn’t even close to the most significant. I did end up being one of the most visible because of that interview and on that basis alone, I assume.

Human after all

Any other good journalist would have remembered that he had a cell phone in his pocket, albeit underwater, and would have tried to snap photos or take video. It never even occurred to me. I almost never use my cell phone for news purposes and it rarely crosses my mind even for personal purposes. I almost always shoot with DSLRs but those are now gone.

I didn’t speak with the pilots or crew at the hospital nor at the airport as they were getting ready to leave on Saturday morning’s rescue flight to Port Moresby. As a human and not a journalist, I found myself unable to even look at them, much less speak to them. I regret that lost opportunity, especially after I confirmed with US Navy Seabees that the rumor spread by a passenger that the cockpit crew was the first off the plane was completely false. The members of the cockpit crew were in fact, nearly the last off the plane and were hesitant to leave even then.

At the Truk Stop Hotel where some of us were placed, I found it nearly impossible to be alone for any period of time. I only went to my room when there was no one left awake to talk to. I listened to eyewitness accounts from passengers, the US Navy Seabees crew who saw the plane go down, and everyone who had an opinion to share. Where there were rumors, and there were many, I spent time during the next few days trying to substantiate them with proper authorities and eyewitnesses rather than relying on second hand information. Most of the rumors were complete fabrications.

Home again

After a series of miscommunications with Air Niugini, I finally arrived home in Pohnpei on Monday, October 1 aboard United Airlines flight UA 155 having entirely missed the purpose for my trip and probably having mashed the armrests of my seat as we landed smoothly in text book fashion.

Since I carried only a small plastic bag containing two shirts I’d bought in Chuuk, and a pair of zorries, I was one of the first through the exit door at the Pohnpei International Airport where my wife waited for me. I had already cried on seeing Pohnpei for the first time since my plane went down in the Chuuk lagoon as I have done many times since. But when I saw my wife I was a goner and the waterworks flowed again freely as we hugged each other tightly in the airport.

We went to Joy Restaurant for lunch after which she dropped me at the office where I immediately began responding to emails and trying to correct erroneous news reports I had not been able to see in Chuuk where for two days, I had little to no internet access.

That afternoon I learned that the body of Eko Cahyanto Singgih had been found on board the wreckage of the fuselage that had finally been located 90 to 100 feet below the surface of the water. The young man had been returning to his home in Indonesia after having worked as a fisherman aboard a Luen Thai fishing vessel. I had earlier learned that he had been sitting only a couple of rows in front of me. A diver from Pohnpei told me that he had recovered his body only two rows in front of where I had been sitting. We may never know precisely what happened to him but it haunts me in my quiet moments to think that I may have walked by him without seeing him as I was escaping the plane.

Cause of crash and investigation

Many people have asked me my opinion about what caused the water landing. I do have a strong opinion about that based on my observations. At no time did I feel a sudden drop indicating loss of lift. There was just that one small dip of the left wing and then we were down. I am not a pilot in any way shape or form but as a passenger, my opinion is that the pilot came down at the wrong vertical angle of approach and was far too low. I believe that, realizing that error, he then did the best he could do in a very bad situation. Because he landed in the water instead of trying to pull up and try again, I believe he averted a worse tragedy that would have resulted in many more deaths had he hit the headwall at the beginning of the runway.

I’m told that the pilot said that it was raining so hard that his windshield wipers couldn’t keep up with it, and that the visibility was low. My observations do not bear that out. It was not raining when passengers were evacuating and visibility, at least at water level was fine as all of the photos I have seen of the response show.

FAA inspectors have confirmed that all runway strobes were properly working at the time.

All of the various recording tools aboard the aircraft have now been recovered. As of this writing, the chips in the black box are still being dried at a lab in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea so data has not yet been recovered for analysis. FSM Investigator-in-Charge, Master Halbert is on the scene in Port Moresby. He has said that the FSM anticipates having its preliminary report out by the end of the month. Meanwhile, he will be releasing press releases as needed through The Kaselehlie Press. Those can be found at The Kaselehlie Press Facebook page, our easiest way of posting those press releases quickly. As of today, there have been six.

Investigatory arms of the FSM, the United States, and Papua New Guinea are involved in the investigation of the circumstances surrounding the crash.

I cannot speak to whether or not Air Niugini has contacted other passengers regarding compensation arrangements. As of today, I have had no contact from them since I left Chuuk for Pohnpei.

MickG0105

25th Oct 2018, 00:12

Thanks to Bill Jaynes' eye witness account (seated in 24F and observing the Truk Stop dock out of his window on approach) I think that it is now pretty clear that this was indeed an undershoot for RWY04.

pattern_is_full

25th Oct 2018, 02:41

Indeed - glad someone finally confirmed both their seat position (right side) and the view of the hotel (right side).

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2018, 08:03

Indeed - glad someone finally confirmed both their seat position (right side) and the view of the hotel (right side).

Except that he didn't:

seated in 24F and observing the Truk Stop dock out of his window on approach

That's a misquote. Read the article again.

He confirmed he was on the RHS of the aircraft in 24F. We infer that he was therefore looking at the coastline through a window on his side of the aircraft (and that may well be correct), but he didn't actually say that.

It's immensely frustrating that, nearly a month after the accident, we still haven't seen or heard:

a) results from the FDR/CVR/EGPWS analysis
b) eyewitness testimony from either of the pilots
c) eyewitness testimony from anyone on the ground who saw the aircraft as it hit the water

Pending the interim report (due in a week or so), we're still at the speculation stage.

lederhosen

25th Oct 2018, 10:04

The eyewitness gives an excellent account of what happened from his perspective. However his impression of good visibility is almost certainly different from the view through the cockpit windows. As an experienced captain on type I am struck by the similarity to the Lion Air crash in Bali and indeed the WestJet near miss at St Maarten. On a non precision approach if you lose sight of the runway or the approach becomes unstable it should be an immediate go-around. However this is a manoeuvre that for many pilots is quite rare outside the simulator. I may not be typical but cannot remember performing a go-around below minimum more than a couple of times in the last ten years and those were in tailwind going out of limit situations, so not much startle effect. On the 737 when you go-around you push the Toga buttons and then need to advance the thrust levers. If you are a bit slow remembering the last bit then the aircraft will rapidly lose energy and whilst raising the nose may reduce the sink rate I could imagine a scenario similar to the one described at Truk.

MickG0105

25th Oct 2018, 12:04

That's a misquote.
It's not a "quote" so it can't be a misquote.

Look at a seating plan for a B737-800, look at where 24F is located, look at where the aircraft came to rest in Chuuk Lagoon, draw a line from 24F to the Truk Stop dock, apply some basic geometry and common sense. If the aircraft was not on an approach to RWY04 but was instead overshooting RWY22 the only way that a passenger in 24F could see the Truk Stop dock on descent would be if they had X-ray vision. There's a marked difference between a reasoned conclusion and speculation.

Sailvi767

25th Oct 2018, 12:29

He very carefully describes the touchdown also. It’s clear this was not on a runway.

lomapaseo

25th Oct 2018, 14:36

He very carefully describes the touchdown also. It’s clear this was not on a runway.

He was too careful in his descriptions, not what I would expect from a traumatic experience.

I will await the investigation findings

DaveReidUK

25th Oct 2018, 16:59

He was too careful in his descriptions, not what I would expect from a traumatic experience.

And equally there are eyewitnesses who describe more than one impact. Here's one:

When his Air Niugini flight crashed into the waters of a lagoon on Weno island in Chuuk state Friday morning, Dr. Victor Wasson said, "The first thing in my mind was, 'Thank God, I'm still alive.'"

His next thought was, "I got to get the hell out of here."

Wasson was seated on the right side of the plane, near the wing when, he believes, the plane struck the end of the runway at Chuuk International Airport.

"We had more than one impact," said Wasson, who described "one big thud" and "then the second one, and then we stopped."

"It's highly likely that the back part of the plane hit the edge of the rocks at the end of the runway," he said.

Seconds before the plane hit the water, Wasson said one of the flight attendants "shouted out, 'Brace for impact!' Before she finished her sentence, we hit the water." He said the plane crashed "about 150 meters from the rocks."

Wasson is a psychiatrist at Pohnpei State Hospital and the national psychiatrist for the government of the Federated States of Micronesia.

Arguing about which eyewitness to believe simply illustrates why we have flight recorders. :O