Aircraft off runway at LPL

[Flap 80]

Maybe the incident was caused by the crew failing to follow the RET centreline when vacating the runway and instead hugging the Northern edge on the RET only to encounter the notch in the RET where concrete suddenly becomes grass.
The notch is clearly visible on the AIP plates and Google Earth.
If this were the case it is similar to the incident to a Gulfstream at Biggin Hill in 2014 which commenced its takeoff run on 03 from the edge of the paved surface and then ran into the grass.
Just don’t tell Greta Thunberg it only had one Transatlantic passenger!

[sellbydate]

Maltese registered to Vistajet

[B787register]

Looks like the airports open now

[phiggsbroadband]

Looks like the Rabbit Exit Taxiway does run out of Tarmac just after the curved part...
****** (Switch to Satellite Maps if you get a white screen.)*******

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-2.854/centery:53.334/zoom:19

[standbykid]

Originally Posted by phiggsbroadband

Looks like the Rabbit Exit Taxiway does run out of Tarmac just after the curved part...
****** (Switch to Satellite Maps if you get a white screen.)*******

https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-2.854/centery:53.334/zoom:19

Accident waiting to happen?

[paperHanger]

Thats ... quite a big aircraft for a single pax ...

[Good Business Sense]

Originally Posted by standbykid

Accident waiting to happen?

You know everyone bangs on about health and safety and risk assessments - the construction of that turnoff is insane - simply unbelievable !!!

[B787register]

I would love to see if that sudden end to the tarmac played a part in this, we would need over head shots though

[Magplug]

Not much point in painting a yellow centreline on that RET if pilots don't follow it.

Looks like someone was taking the 'racing line' hugging the RH edge of the RET for a quick right turn down taxiway 'A' to the GA apron

[Airbubba]

Photos from social media, the first one apparently taken by Thom O'Donnell.

Originally Posted by B787register

I would love to see if that sudden end to the tarmac played a part in this, we would need over head shots though

I'd say that missing pavement is a prime suspect according to the pictures above.

[filejw]

Originally Posted by Airbubba

Photos from social media, the first one apparently taken by Thom O'Donnell.



I'd say that missing pavement is a prime suspect according to the pictures above.

True but if you stay on the centerline its not an issue B744 to C-150...........

[Water pilot]

I wonder how a self driving Tesla would have handled that particularly brilliant example of lane striping. The notch isn't the worst part, the worst part is the white lane marker that disappears. You know that is going to get somebody.

[B787register]

Looking at the local TV news it's looks like it is a full 30-40 foot to the right (basically a full taxiway width I would say) of the actual taxiway so have they lost control under braking perhaps??

[Joe le Taxi]

Difficult to conceive why anyone would deliberately taxi way off the yellow line, close to the edge of the tarmac.

[MAN777]

BBC Look North West reporting that there is no guarantee the airport will open tonight.

Not having a go but Why is it taking so long ?

[Airbubba]

Originally Posted by MAN777

BBC Look North West reporting that there is no guarantee the airport will open tonight.

Not having a go but Why is it taking so long ?

Latest estimate in this cryptically formated NOTAM is the airport will be closed until at least 7:30 pm.

C6636/19 NOTAMR C6633/19 Q) EGTT/QFALC/IV/NBO/A /000/999/5320N00251W005 A) EGGP B) 1912111803 C) 1912111930 E) AIRPORT CLOSED DUE TO AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT

Wonder if the gear is stuck in the turf off the pavement and they are trying to move the aircraft without causing millions more in damage?

[LookingForAJob]

Not having a go but Why is it taking so long ?

Down to two reasons really, in a case like this. First the Air Accident Investigation Branch is likely to have to give its approval before the aircraft or any debris can be moved/removed - if there is any question of a mechanical failure contributing to the event it is likely that permission will not be granted until someone from there has seen the aircraft in situ. Second, there may be a need to get special lifting equipment on site to remove the aircraft without causing further damage. Although most airports will have some aircraft recovery equipment, the reality is that it is primarily suited to moving a wrecked aircraft, chopping it up, if necessary. And if the aircraft is recoverable intact, it will usually need the agreement of insurers before anything is done (but I guess this is true for an obvious write-off too, it's just that the insurance company(ies) will want to ensure that a repairable aircraft is removed in a way that satisfies them and their technical experts).

[LookingForAJob]

Originally Posted by RoyHudd

Pathetic.

Maybe so in your view, but it's the way it is. In response to a question, I was simply explaining a couple of the issues that the airport operator will have to deal with, and which will take time.

Originally Posted by RoyHudd

Promptly moving the plane out of the way is a safety issue.

If there is nowhere else for an inbound aircraft to go, agreed, otherwise it is a business issue.

Originally Posted by RoyHudd

Depleting a number of airliners' fuel reserves is a bad idea. Unplanned holding/diversions are not good.

Well, empirically, it is true that an aircraft with 1 kg more fuel on board is more safe than the same aircraft with 1 kg less, in most situations, anyway. But, then again, the reserves are there for just such an eventuality.

Originally Posted by RoyHudd

Not an insurance issue...

I beg to differ, especially if there is any more damage done to the aircraft - someone will be liable and no-one wants it to be them if it's not necessary. I've been there and done that and I couldn't even get anyone to attach a tractor to the aircraft to tow it off the runway until insurance waivers were signed and in the handling agent base manager's hand. Your profile indicates that you fly something substantial - does your company not have certain expectations of you if you are the commander of one of their aircraft that is disabled in some way on an airport?

Originally Posted by RoyHudd

....and not an AIB issue either.

That you would have to take up with the AAIB. However, I'm not a lawyer but I think regulation 996/2010, article 13, para 2 is fairly clear.

Originally Posted by RoyHudd

Political correctness again. UK leads in this field, sad people.

Not really sure where political correctness comes in, but it's been like this for the last 40+ years since I started in this business.

Originally Posted by witttonless

lets bulldozz the heap of junk into the mersey, its costing everybody timne and money

What we need is Joe Patroni. Still like that film.

[foxmoth]

So, if the delay is for the insurance company to avoid more damage will they be paying the bill for the diversions and loss of revenue to the airport?? Really it should be up to them - move the aircraft with damage costs you £xx, keeping the airport closed while you move it with less damage £xxxx/hour while it is closed!

[alfaman]

A second hand Global 6000 retails at over $50 mil: I doubt very much that a couple of hours worth of diversions come anywhere close to the cost of writing it off...