A340 of Iberia skids off runway in Quito
AlwaysOnFire
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: **** you PPRUNE!
Age: 24
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another A340-600 landed at Quito on 31st August 2007and burst a couple of tyres with the pax deplaned on the runway !!
Twice in a short space of time !!
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ain?id=3595457
link to first incident and pics
Any other A340-600 operators flying into Quito ?'[Quote]
Seem like Iberia are the only one, 4 accidents in 200-300 cycles with the A346 at Quito since 2005
is a lot, including the last one.
Twice in a short space of time !!
http://www.airliners.net/discussions...ain?id=3595457
link to first incident and pics
Any other A340-600 operators flying into Quito ?'[Quote]
Seem like Iberia are the only one, 4 accidents in 200-300 cycles with the A346 at Quito since 2005
is a lot, including the last one.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dublin
Posts: 1,806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well not necessarily Bearcat!
For a crew member to initiate an evacuation (well in my airlines SOP's anyway...dont know about Iberias but assume they are similiar) it must appear clearly catastrophic...ie, cabin broken up, fire, anything with an immediate danger to life onboard etc. Now an aircraft at an unusual attitude does not essential mean "catastrophic" and in a situation like this it would not be unheard of to remain alert but await further contact from the flight crew which is essentially what appears to have happened here.
Infact the cabin crew should be applauded for not going gun-ho into an evacuation as you can clearly tell from the video that an urgent evacuation was not required meaning that it was all very orderly, passengers had time to prepare, the crew were able to assist instead of just push and emergency personnel were onhand at the bottom of the slide to assist passengers off and away from the aircraft. Who knows how many unnecessary injury's were avoided as a result of this!
You guys may get a lot of stick but on this occasion.... well done Ibera Cabin Crew!!!!
For a crew member to initiate an evacuation (well in my airlines SOP's anyway...dont know about Iberias but assume they are similiar) it must appear clearly catastrophic...ie, cabin broken up, fire, anything with an immediate danger to life onboard etc. Now an aircraft at an unusual attitude does not essential mean "catastrophic" and in a situation like this it would not be unheard of to remain alert but await further contact from the flight crew which is essentially what appears to have happened here.
Infact the cabin crew should be applauded for not going gun-ho into an evacuation as you can clearly tell from the video that an urgent evacuation was not required meaning that it was all very orderly, passengers had time to prepare, the crew were able to assist instead of just push and emergency personnel were onhand at the bottom of the slide to assist passengers off and away from the aircraft. Who knows how many unnecessary injury's were avoided as a result of this!
You guys may get a lot of stick but on this occasion.... well done Ibera Cabin Crew!!!!
I wasn't there and it's probably not fair to second guess from the comfort of my easy chair, but a missing landing gear and bent engine cowlings spell a possible fuel leak and fire to me. I think I'd have called for an evacuation.
I fly a AA 757 into UIO more than a few times a year. Our 767's cannot fly into UIO, but are certified high enough for Bogota. I believe the 777 has a similar limit as the 767.
KLM (or Martinair?) had a morning MD11 arrival as we departed many times. More than a few DC-10 and DC-8 freighters have been present as well. Most of the outbound cargo is flowers so one might expect there should be plenty of power for those crews.
If IB did knock out the 35 ILS, it may only affect the non-RNAV approved operators. I believe the RW35 RNAV approach minimums are about <100 lower than the ILS.
KLM (or Martinair?) had a morning MD11 arrival as we departed many times. More than a few DC-10 and DC-8 freighters have been present as well. Most of the outbound cargo is flowers so one might expect there should be plenty of power for those crews.
If IB did knock out the 35 ILS, it may only affect the non-RNAV approved operators. I believe the RW35 RNAV approach minimums are about <100 lower than the ILS.
"B777 maximum takeoff and landing altitude is 9800 feet. It says so in my FCOM, Limitations. So operationally there is no problem for B777's to fly to Quito. "
fox niner,
I guess airport altitude limits are a "custom" item for Boeing. Our 777's and 767's have a 8400' foot limit. The 757's top out at 14500' for La Paz.
From experience, I know the 777 would rocket out of UIO at most weights. I witnessed a 3000' takeoff roll starting a 9 hour flight once
fox niner,
I guess airport altitude limits are a "custom" item for Boeing. Our 777's and 767's have a 8400' foot limit. The 757's top out at 14500' for La Paz.
From experience, I know the 777 would rocket out of UIO at most weights. I witnessed a 3000' takeoff roll starting a 9 hour flight once
Guest
Posts: n/a
Some video footage available here: http://www.ecuavisa.com/Desktop.aspx?Id=958&e=826.
Can't see any opened TR there, but on the other hand the quality isn't the best.
Can't see any opened TR there, but on the other hand the quality isn't the best.
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paddyintheuk.....your ideas re evacuations....well I hope i don't fly with you guys. The deal is a dire situation where one evacuates....well the pylons were smashed.....potential fuel leaks.....they are lucky the thing didnt go up in flames. The theory of a slow evacuation is cods wallop. please god it never happens me or any of us...but i would have fired out them immediately and then retire with immediate effect.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SEQU
KLM and Martinair operate the Mad Dog (MD11) to Quito almost daily.With its high approach speed it's quite a challenging approach for a MD11.Every pilot needs a yearly check to Quito with an instructor.Recently KLM headoffice informed if there could be a regular runway cleaning of all the rubber deposit in the two touchdown zones, since 35/17 is "slippery when wet" to say the least.But without spoiler deployment........
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compare this photo with spoiler deployment to the video screen shots, due to the low angle and poor quality, tough to really determine if there was spoiler deployment or not, any comments?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, compare it to the middle left and bottom right photos above and there does seem to be spoiler deployment. This would be automatic anyway, although I understand that on the Airbus FBW, the spoiler lever doesn't actually move on landing (even if spoilers are armed).
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: SW France
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, I just checked out the Ecuavisa video and there is some good footage of the A340 travelling down the runway from a variety of different cameras (probably CCV) and there does seem to be an abscense of moevement on the side of the engines and thus lack of reverse thrust?? for slowing down on what looks like a very wet runway.
I can't understand the hypothesis that the chaps are talking about as my lack of Spanish - any Spanish translaters out there who wish to enlighten the forum?
what do others think of the lack of reverse thrust idea? also the pics of the resting aircraft show engines in non-reverse thrust position- maybe on the engines on the startboard side, the pilots could of changed this on shutdown, but on the portside with the engines crumpled on the ground- would they/could they have done this?
I'm no air accident investigator.. but some of the evidence would point to lack of reverse thrust initiated.
Now waiting for some forum abuse to come my way... bring it on just my second post by the way!
I can't understand the hypothesis that the chaps are talking about as my lack of Spanish - any Spanish translaters out there who wish to enlighten the forum?
what do others think of the lack of reverse thrust idea? also the pics of the resting aircraft show engines in non-reverse thrust position- maybe on the engines on the startboard side, the pilots could of changed this on shutdown, but on the portside with the engines crumpled on the ground- would they/could they have done this?
I'm no air accident investigator.. but some of the evidence would point to lack of reverse thrust initiated.
Now waiting for some forum abuse to come my way... bring it on
just my second post by the way!
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I operated an MD-11 into Quito many times, from both seats, day and night, for Gemini Air Cargo a few years ago.
A big factor to consider: at ~600 feet on final you have to transition to the VASIs. This will take you 1 to 1.5 dots below glideslope. Saw an Air France 747 not do this once while I was on the ramp - they almost didn't stop....
Flying that approach at night, with ground speeds of over 200 kts, will stick in my mind forever. The departure was about as exciting.
A big factor to consider: at ~600 feet on final you have to transition to the VASIs. This will take you 1 to 1.5 dots below glideslope. Saw an Air France 747 not do this once while I was on the ramp - they almost didn't stop....
Flying that approach at night, with ground speeds of over 200 kts, will stick in my mind forever. The departure was about as exciting.