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 17th Nov 2007, 15:47
  #81 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,679
Yes I agree, spoilers appear to be deployed.
Dream Land is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 22:03
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 75
Posts: 792
Re the clip. The only really relevant part was the first interview, of an Ecuarorean pilot whose comments appeared to me, at least, to be very very much in the direction of "let's wait for more information". The interviewer asked about aquaplaning and said that local pilots, with "greater local knowlege therefore more caution" tended to fly under the GS; the interviewee promptly said that if they did so they'd be in breach of SOPs. He also said the very rapid fire truck response was reassuring.

The rest of the clip, with other interviewees, concerns Iberia's supposed lack of proper attention to distraught passengers, and a to-and-fro regarding the location/changes to the concession details of a new Quito airport; I switched off.
broadreach is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 01:58
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Madrid
Age: 43
Posts: 67
LDA

I had a chat with somebody who works in Ib. Im told that the runway is tight for a A340 at the best of times with many landings being " rough " . On previous occassions in the last months there have been long delays for IB with tests conducted on undercarraige.

I am a PPL so dont know what the shortfield approach procedure is in that plane . But it sounded to me like it was plonk it onto the runway as early and slow as possible. I am told that many of the landings there are a bit " bumpy " and thats not SLF bumpy but crew bumpy.

If the runways is tight in terms of LDA and they blew a few tires on a wet surface its easy to imagine how it all went pear shaped. Im not sure how one factor effects the other.

The plane is a write off with the airframe badly twisted.
thirtysomething is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 08:04
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
thirtysomething,

there is no such thing as a shortfield procedure on big airliners.

You are always expected to put it on the touchdown markers at Vref.

Of course, landing on a 4000m RWY at Sealevel gives you some distance to play with, and I tend to prolong the flare to achieve a smoother touchdown, but that is actually not in the book (meaning no SOP).

You never fly slower because of a shortfield, you should always be on your precalculated speed. My speedcontrol will get more focus on short RWY, but I will never fly deliberatly slower (my FO would call a goaround, if I did).

Same is true for contaminated RWYs.

Nic
Admiral346 is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 08:11
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
so that's two A340's in the bin within 2 weeks.
Bearcat is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 08:22
  #86 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,679
You are always expected to put it on the touchdown markers at Vref.
I may be doing it wrong but Vref is what I cross the fence at, not the speed at the touchdown.
Dream Land is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 11:28
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Madrid
Age: 43
Posts: 67
Hi, Thanks. I wonder what the landing distance required is versus LDA and if this was a factor in the "arrival". I dont have the skill to work that out but if it is tight as i was told , it appeared to me in the video that the plane landed beyond the touchdown markers ?
thirtysomething is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2007, 22:26
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Somewhere in the Tropics UTC+7 to 9
Posts: 450
Check the middle left frame just above the rear half of engine 4... spoiler deployment. It's "consistent" with the photo of spoiler deployment on the Virgin 346 shot (see the upper part of the wing and window line above the aft half of engine #1.

As to lack of reverse, again check engine #3 on the middle left frame... looks like partial deployment/stow.

PK-KAR...
PK-KAR is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2007, 05:55
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: the City by the Bay
Posts: 523
30something:

try telling rainboe that !
armchairpilot94116 is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2007, 09:55
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Sao Paulo
Age: 75
Posts: 792
There's been very little on the removal of the aircraft. However, there is a new clip on YouTube with footage I hadn't seen before and showing that it went straight off the end, not via the side. Look for:
LLEGA EQUIPO PARA RECUPERAR AVION DE IBERIA
broadreach is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2007, 13:44
  #91 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
Footage from inside the fuselage.
Huck is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2007, 14:01
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: England
Posts: 6
Surely not? The end section of the video, when they are off the slides, shows:
1. A beautiful sunny day (wasn't it pouring with rain)
2. The aircraft on the runway

Doesn't seem to fit the other pictures at all (or am I missing something?)

Edit - I have just looked at the comments - this is a video from 2002, NOT the recent Quito event.
Benny Lin is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2007, 14:03
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere out there...
Posts: 207
It's clearly a B747, and even the blurb under the video indicates that it refers to an evac after engine fire on a JFK-MAD flight.

Busbert is offline  
Old 19th Nov 2007, 21:21
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 726
Looking at the video, clearly the passengers weren't terrified enough by events in the air and the flight crew obviously did a smooth job of landing it, otherwise they'd have been out a lot faster. To keep up the A340 theme, think of the AF A340 at Toronto - no one stuck around once that stopped moving, and I suspect at Quito they had every incentive to get out pronto.
llondel is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2007, 03:32
  #95 (permalink)  
Trash du Blanc
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,184
Wrong accident. Much loss of face. Sorry.
Huck is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2007, 04:31
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,852
As previously mentioned, you do not stay on the glideslope operating into Quito.

Our procedure is to transition to the PAPI at 9900 feet, deliberately flying beneath the slope (this is an approved procedure)

That is if you want to stop on the runway..
stilton is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2007, 05:16
  #97 (permalink)  
PPRuNe supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,679
Our procedure is to transition to the PAPI at 9900 feet, deliberately flying beneath the slope (this is an approved procedure)
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this always true when referring to a CAT 1 ILS?
Dream Land is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2007, 07:49
  #98 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting home
Age: 42
Posts: 2,915
Originally Posted by thirtysomething View Post
Hi, Thanks. I wonder what the landing distance required is versus LDA and if this was a factor in the "arrival".
Iberia operates under the provisions of JAR OPS which states (1.515) that for jet aircraft the LD available must be at least 1,666.. times the LD required(dry) and for wet runways multiply by 1,15 on top of that - generally speaking.

Originally Posted by Dream Land
I may be doing it wrong but Vref is what I cross the fence at, not the speed at the touchdown.
I am quite sure that Vref to Vref -5 was the correct TD speed with that terminology. Now on the other hand, I, tough may have been trained poorly, attempt to cross fence at Vapp and flare to Vls, landing at Vls to Vls-7 Surely that is what you ment as well.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2007, 08:08
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Holland
Posts: 75
Quote:
Our procedure is to transition to the PAPI at 9900 feet, deliberately flying beneath the slope (this is an approved procedure)

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this always true when referring to a CAT 1 ILS?
No, correct procedure is to follow the glidepath all the way to the runway.

For some aircraft ( like 747) papi is giving wrong info ( below a certain height) due to the distance between glidepath antenna and cockpit.
slam_dunk is offline  
Old 20th Nov 2007, 15:13
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: RH base 36R
Posts: 33
Sorry slam_dunk, but stilton is right. For the approach to rwy 35 at Quito you do not stay on the glideslope. If you do that, you will touch down way too far, leaving you with insufficient runway to comfortably stop a widebody. After safely crossing over the last bit of granite that's in front of the runway (and you do that at approx. 9900ft on the GS), you leave the glideslope and "dive" towards the PAPI. This enables you to touch down at the normal touchdown point and hopefully stop the bugger in time - the word "comfortably" still not being applicable on a wet runway .
The correct visual glideslope for your 744 on the PAPI may well be 3 white/1 red - but that's a different story.
MoodyBlue 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.