aircraft crash in Stord, Norway
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: chavistan
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that this is something that may have been commented on before, but surely pragmatism would recommend against a runway that is so unforgiving? I know that Flight Crew are amongst the most highly trained and proffesional folks of any industry anywhere in the world and that is why incidents (of any description) are so rare. However incidents do occur, and with terrain like that pictured the outcome of a misjudgement or meterological effect or mechanical failure (or whatever it turns out to be) can clearly be tragic. Surely better to identify a strip of land with "ample" room for overrun, and if not available then no runway built.
I know that an overrun on any terrain can still have disatrous consequences, but I bet there have been many slight overrun's that have resulted in little more than damaged landing gear.
I am not a pilot.
I know that an overrun on any terrain can still have disatrous consequences, but I bet there have been many slight overrun's that have resulted in little more than damaged landing gear.
I am not a pilot.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The same problem was seen with the Airfrance A340 last year. a clear area instead of a ditch would have made a big difference. (luckily no injuries there!)
But the problem remains of course when there is not much room. Do you build a shorter runway with a clear area, or do you use up all the space and use everything for concrete.....
Spuis
But the problem remains of course when there is not much room. Do you build a shorter runway with a clear area, or do you use up all the space and use everything for concrete.....
Spuis
I recall reading in either a UK or JAA advisory document that when landing on runways where the standard of the overrun area is less than normally accepted, then operators should adjust the landing distance required; can anyone direct me to the reference? It could have been a JAA discussion document where the assumptions made about the formulation of landing distance are outlined. Operators rarely see or fully understand these assumptions, particularly when embedded in regulations e.g use / availability of thrust reverse, speed margin at touchdown.
Reviewing the statistics of landing overrun events, they are dominated by the environmental conditions (wet runways) and crew behavior (judgment, landing long and fast) and not aircraft type. Yet again this year we should revisit the advice given in Managing the Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing.
From a poor picture on Google Earth the runway appears to be concrete, or at lest part concrete. This might be a factor – see note on wet concrete runways in the link.
Reviewing the statistics of landing overrun events, they are dominated by the environmental conditions (wet runways) and crew behavior (judgment, landing long and fast) and not aircraft type. Yet again this year we should revisit the advice given in Managing the Threats and Errors during Approach and Landing.
From a poor picture on Google Earth the runway appears to be concrete, or at lest part concrete. This might be a factor – see note on wet concrete runways in the link.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captaink - Just curious, as a non-pilot
How could the lack of thrust reversers be an issue if the aircraft has been certified to make 5.5 degree approaches onto a runway the length of London City, with water at the end of it? Surely, if it can manage that safely for all these years it must have ample stopping ability?
.4
How could the lack of thrust reversers be an issue if the aircraft has been certified to make 5.5 degree approaches onto a runway the length of London City, with water at the end of it? Surely, if it can manage that safely for all these years it must have ample stopping ability?
.4
A couple of years ago, at considerable expense, they were dug up and replaced with concrete overruns. There was no LDA or TORA benefit as a result of this work. There must have been a very valid reason for LCY to get rid of them.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 146 doesn't have thrust reversers and that is not the cause of this accident. It can land on very short runways.
The person who sees the similiarity to YYZ Air France A340 would seem to be right on.
Does anyone know if the tail speed brake had been deployed during approach?
this plane can land so smoothly, one wonders if the spoilers deployed.
The person who sees the similiarity to YYZ Air France A340 would seem to be right on.
Does anyone know if the tail speed brake had been deployed during approach?
this plane can land so smoothly, one wonders if the spoilers deployed.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Politics play a major part in the runway lenght game in Norway. Many regional airports are bulit in rocky terrain, and there is often no level ground beyond the concrete. There is massive pressure on the CAA to make excemptions from rules regarding RESA for many regional aiports, because of the massive cost of improvement.
(I can think of several with similar layout, massive drops close to the runway.
We have allmost 3km of concrete at Bardufoss, but if you go past the over run area on RWY10 you are a dead man.)
In my humble opinion this was only a matter of time, we have had many rwy excursions in Norway in the past. Many of the STOL aerodromes, but on larger ones as well.
Hope this will put the last nail in the "we don't need to comply with international standar because it's a small airport" coffin.
(I can think of several with similar layout, massive drops close to the runway.
We have allmost 3km of concrete at Bardufoss, but if you go past the over run area on RWY10 you are a dead man.)
In my humble opinion this was only a matter of time, we have had many rwy excursions in Norway in the past. Many of the STOL aerodromes, but on larger ones as well.
Hope this will put the last nail in the "we don't need to comply with international standar because it's a small airport" coffin.
The "ditch" at the western end of the 24's was actually a ravine/gulley that had been filled in after another overrun accident in 1978 I believe involving a DC9-32. That aircraft literally "flew" over the edge and pancaked into the gulley...fortunately, no fire. The gulley may be filled in, but the Air France A340 was less than a fuselage-length away from the cement bases upon which the approach lighting towers were mounted...the towers themselves may be frangible but there is nothing frangible about cement.
Sorry for the slight thread-drift.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Condolences to those who have lost loved ones....
Having flown the 146 (all models, military and civilian) I have to agree that its sturdy build and generally lower energy levels on the runway contribute to its high survivability.
1500 meters is not particularly short for the 100/200, but as I recall the aircraft is generally landing distance limited in its STOL ops.
I've landed the TQF jets down to 1000m, and on short dirt strips, and all I can say is it's 'technique, technique...or go around'. You plonk it down and let its excellent trailing link gear do the work. However, if you burst a tire you're into 'ere be monsters' territory - can't stop/can't go. Add water to the equation and you're probably just along for the ride.
About reversers: generally not much use below about 100kts compared to brakes. A lightish 146 would touch down at about 105-110, and if it had rev would not have them deployed and powered-up until about 95kts. Therefore they were not needed - wheelbrakes and spoilers with correct technique are sufficient.
Having flown the 146 (all models, military and civilian) I have to agree that its sturdy build and generally lower energy levels on the runway contribute to its high survivability.
1500 meters is not particularly short for the 100/200, but as I recall the aircraft is generally landing distance limited in its STOL ops.
I've landed the TQF jets down to 1000m, and on short dirt strips, and all I can say is it's 'technique, technique...or go around'. You plonk it down and let its excellent trailing link gear do the work. However, if you burst a tire you're into 'ere be monsters' territory - can't stop/can't go. Add water to the equation and you're probably just along for the ride.
About reversers: generally not much use below about 100kts compared to brakes. A lightish 146 would touch down at about 105-110, and if it had rev would not have them deployed and powered-up until about 95kts. Therefore they were not needed - wheelbrakes and spoilers with correct technique are sufficient.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Press Release from Atlantic Airways
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rramjet
I agree with your views on landing the 146 and its strengths. indeed the only weakness I found was the engines early on circa 1989...
it is technique, precision of flying the approach, right on target speed and plunk onto the runway and not the last third either!
I flew into and out of a short runway airport in northern california...amazing takeoff performance (flaps 24 if memory serves) and we were easily off and clearing 50' in less than 1800feet of ground roll.
Landing, we never quite used a max effort for pax comfort, but certainly less than 2200' to complete stop.
when well maintained and properly flown, this type offers unique capabilities, but it is not a helicopter.
Why get rid of arrestor beds? My guess is that if you used one, you would have some repair bills, if you went off into designated over run that was normal concrete, you would have shame...or disaster!
Money is the answer. (again only a guess!)
I agree with your views on landing the 146 and its strengths. indeed the only weakness I found was the engines early on circa 1989...
it is technique, precision of flying the approach, right on target speed and plunk onto the runway and not the last third either!
I flew into and out of a short runway airport in northern california...amazing takeoff performance (flaps 24 if memory serves) and we were easily off and clearing 50' in less than 1800feet of ground roll.
Landing, we never quite used a max effort for pax comfort, but certainly less than 2200' to complete stop.
when well maintained and properly flown, this type offers unique capabilities, but it is not a helicopter.
Why get rid of arrestor beds? My guess is that if you used one, you would have some repair bills, if you went off into designated over run that was normal concrete, you would have shame...or disaster!
Money is the answer. (again only a guess!)
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Too Far North
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
120.4
It is 8 years since I have been there but the steep approach at LCY is (used to be) actually an advantage.
In the 146-300 that I flew it was assumed that the step approach would result in a smaller "scatter" in landing positions (compared to a 3 degree approach) therefore we were given a credit of 143m in LDA (ie assume that the runway is actually 143m longer than reality). From memory the -100 got 83m so I would assume that the -200 is somewhere in between.
It is 8 years since I have been there but the steep approach at LCY is (used to be) actually an advantage.
In the 146-300 that I flew it was assumed that the step approach would result in a smaller "scatter" in landing positions (compared to a 3 degree approach) therefore we were given a credit of 143m in LDA (ie assume that the runway is actually 143m longer than reality). From memory the -100 got 83m so I would assume that the -200 is somewhere in between.
Last edited by Flap40; 11th Oct 2006 at 09:15.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Survivors report hearing a loud bang on the left side of the aircraft at touchdown, followed by a slewing motion.
They allso claim the landing was harder then normal.
They allso claim the landing was harder then normal.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Sussex
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captaink
Q) Do you know where Atlantic Airways are based?
A) Vagar Airport.
Q) Do you know the runway length at Vagar airport?
A) 1250 metres.
Q) Do you know what type of aircraft this people have been operating in and out of there for several years?
A) The BAe146... and guess what?... without thrust reversers!
Q) Do you know where Atlantic Airways are based?
A) Vagar Airport.
Q) Do you know the runway length at Vagar airport?
A) 1250 metres.
Q) Do you know what type of aircraft this people have been operating in and out of there for several years?
A) The BAe146... and guess what?... without thrust reversers!