Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

A340 of Iberia skids off runway in Quito

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

A340 of Iberia skids off runway in Quito

Old 12th Nov 2007, 00:53
  #41 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,444
bluefalcon;

When I set "140" (kts) against "9000" (PA), the trusty Jeppesen CR2 shows "163" (kts) against a +12C temperature. Add eight knots or so for the 17008 wind and the groundspeed becomes 171kts, so "180" is close in a tailwind condition.

That said, is landing downwind at this airport done frequently, (in the sense that for other reasons, 35 is favoured over 17)? I would have thought at Quito, a downwind landing would actually be prohibited by operators, given the TAS alone.

PJ2
PJ2 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 04:54
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: near EDDF
Posts: 775
Originally Posted by lomapaseo
Good pictures in your post showing the difference. However in this event the damage to the tires does not look like either one.... so the investigation continues
You get the same look of my posted photo, if only one tire had problems with A/S because the 2nd tire on the axis prevent the damaged one of dropping completely down.

The 2nd photo here www.skyscrapercity.com shows Braking Flat signs when there is no "backup-tire".



But the damage on the other tire confuse me

Investigation report will show if my guess is right or not.

edit= photo-link corrected

Last edited by IFixPlanes; 12th Nov 2007 at 08:12.
IFixPlanes is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 07:23
  #43 (permalink)  

Freight God
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Just to clarify some misconceptions mentioned by various posters above:

- Daylight and night: Quito is still well into the tropics, so the dawn-time is something like 15 minutes in winter. It gets dark awfully fast. So during a 'slow' evacuation it is very well possible that you start during the day and end up at night.

- The A340 is build in good, trusty, proven aluminium. There is NO carbon fibre fuselage to damage. There are, however, a diverse number of fairings that are of non-metallic materials (mostly composites) which have shed off during the incident.

- The A340-600 is only operated into Quito by IBERIA. This is one of the cases you prefer to have a quad than an twin...
Hunter58 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 09:05
  #44 (permalink)  
28L
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 118
bluefalcon,
I'm definitely not qualified to argue the toss on IAS/EAS/RAS/CAS/TAS etc, but my guess is that your 5kts per 1000ft is for 250kts indicated. That's 2% per 1000ft, which is probably closer to the truth than my 1.5%, but will lead to a serious overestimate for 140ks IAS.
I'm just conjuring up the image of a hangglider leaping off a 10,000ft cliff and hitting 50kts in a nanosecond
Anyway, as I say, I'm not qualified & ain't going to argue!
28L is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 09:33
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Hunter 58 says- The A340-600 is only operated into Quito by IBERIA. This is one of the cases you prefer to have a quad than an twin..

Hunter...enlighten us all with your profound theory of the quad and its pro's going in Quito
Bearcat is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 10:20
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Right here
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Bearcat

It's probably more the going out of Quito (or go around), were the quad is preferable.
Miraculix is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 10:30
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
I dont think so, me thinks the 777 has sunk that argueement. Sorry we are getting off the topic.
Bearcat is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 10:40
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Right here
Age: 53
Posts: 76
Bearcat

Yes it is off topic, but its the one engine out performance I think hunter 58 is refering to.
Miraculix is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 12:47
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,296
But the damage on the other tire confuse me
Yes, it should test your assumption. Perhaps because the tire damage is akin to running into a curb with your car and there is tearing of the tread as well as bead dislodgement

best
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 13:52
  #50 (permalink)  

Freight God
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Well, yes, sorry, it's more the going OUT case (take-off performance) that I was referring to. But since you tend not to operate INTO somewhere without having some possibility of poerating OUT, I usually don't make a difference...

There are no 777s operating into UIO, there are however A340s that do it.

Hot and High (of which UIO is certainly one of the absolute top references) is still pretty much a quad affair for the heavier examples of the aircraft population.
Hunter58 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 14:31
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ecuador
Age: 36
Posts: 5
did you know...

the aircraft damaged the rwy 35 ILS (the only one in Quito airport)

the airport resumed its operations without ILS, with the damaged aircraft still at the end of the runway and without knowing for sure the causes of the accident





also, they are considering reducing the maximum takeoff/landing weight allowed in this airport
polea is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 14:53
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 21
I have heard a rumour that the underground structure that the aircraft has found itself on may not be able to take the weight for a significant period of time. Couple that with the weight of any moving/lifting equiment, is this the end of any further damage that this aircraft will suffer?
Lychee is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 15:48
  #53 (permalink)  

Do a Hover - it avoids G
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 87
Posts: 2,206
Hunter58.

Don't feel the need to apologise. Going out of Quito I feel that most pilots would prefer to loose 25% of their thrust rather than 50%. I have only operated the Harrier from there (for a week or so) but watching the airliners of the day (707s) rush along the ground at those hills gave me the willies.

JF
John Farley is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 16:15
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Blighty
Posts: 561
Air Madrid used to operate A330s out of quito.

Out of interest, what is the maximum airfield altitude that modern Boeing jets can operate up to these days?
springbok449 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 16:27
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: EU Airspace. Elev: 39000ft.
Posts: 86
PJ2; I agree with your statement, but by using an accurate device and having also checked other formulas.
I use the 5kt/1000ft or 2%KIAS *1000ft rule which although a bit inaccurate for these cases, they serve me well for more general cases involving higher flight levels.
Be aware though that having checked with a CR-2 and other formulas ( a good one which does it all for you;
http://www.paragonair.com/public/aircraft/calc_TAS.html
isnt always accurate, as I have calculated in both ways for another case:
Say at FL 390, M.78,240KIAS,-56, QNE. using that formula which someone else I think used before it comes out to 473KTAS. Using the 5kt*1000ft rule comes out to KTAS435kts, and the 2% of KIAS to even less. Well the real good answer is a near KTAS of 450, and that is with a B738 plane.
Then again its all a bit unprecise, In this case I would trust more in what someone who flies quite alot there has to say about the TAS on final app.
Regarding RWY 35 used with tailwind, as polea said bfore, It could be because its the only one with an ILS.
BlueFalcon.

Last edited by bluefalcon; 12th Nov 2007 at 23:29.
bluefalcon is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 17:41
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Shoreham
Posts: 30
Afraid the 777 can't operate out of UIO as its too high...
skywalking is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 18:48
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course
Posts: 2,113
I suspect that Boeing would happily certify the 777 to operate into Quito of anywhere else for that matter subject to the payment of an inordinate amount of greenbacks.
TopBunk is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 20:19
  #58 (permalink)  
Couldonlyaffordafiver
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Twilight Zone near 30W
Posts: 1,934
We used to operate the 777 into Bogota (8400 ft) without a problem. It reduced the MTOW by about 80 tonnes but otherwise performance was pretty respectable. The emergency turn (escape route) was quite entertaining on one engine though.

I've been into La Paz on a 757 belonging to AA and that's about as high as it gets, although I understand they're modified somehow or other.
Human Factor is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2007, 01:40
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,623
B742 freighters have operated into UIO for many years.
GlueBall is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2007, 08:17
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Blighty
Posts: 561
Glueball,

Thats why I said modern boeing jets...

Seriously though, I didnt think that the 777 was certified to those airfield altitudes even though I am sure that its only a matter of certification especially with the A340-300 operating out of Quito.
springbok449 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.