Corendon off runway, AMS
More than just an ATCO
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Up someone's nose
Age: 75
Posts: 1,768
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
22 (aka de ARIbaan) 45 meters wide and 2014 long is available as and when WX demands it. Maybe the crosswind component made it a more attractive proposition cf 27. Not a lot of info available at the moment, although one newspaper is stating that the pilot didn't try to take the turn off (?)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: on the golf course (Covid permitting)
Posts: 2,131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some facts:
1. PREFERENTIAL RWY SYSTEM 06-22Z
LDG: 06, 18R, 36R, 18C, 36C, 27.
TKOF: 36L, 24, 36C, 18L, 18C, 09.
2. There is a published ILS approach to 22
3. I have flown into AMS about 100 times, and only once (back in 1994) landed on 22
4. 2000 metres is plenty of runway to land a 737 on - for heavens sake, hundreds if not thousands of 737 operations are performed onto and off runways in the 1600 metre range every day of the year given normal ops, and in this case, if the ops weren't normal, I have little doubt that they would have chosen a longer runway.
1. PREFERENTIAL RWY SYSTEM 06-22Z
LDG: 06, 18R, 36R, 18C, 36C, 27.
TKOF: 36L, 24, 36C, 18L, 18C, 09.
2. There is a published ILS approach to 22
3. I have flown into AMS about 100 times, and only once (back in 1994) landed on 22
4. 2000 metres is plenty of runway to land a 737 on - for heavens sake, hundreds if not thousands of 737 operations are performed onto and off runways in the 1600 metre range every day of the year given normal ops, and in this case, if the ops weren't normal, I have little doubt that they would have chosen a longer runway.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any over run is serious in these days of ptf etc.. another piece of tarmac we could have been looking at another situation altogether .. perhaps one deemed "newsworthy" by some commentators here.
Once again .. wait and see, there will be a report, and the conclusions may not be so simple as those jumped to here.
Once again .. wait and see, there will be a report, and the conclusions may not be so simple as those jumped to here.
e28 driver
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds more like a taxying misjudgement than an overrun to me. But if this lot are anything like mine they will be looking for a head on a platter, if only because it has made it into the papers. And we all know who that's going to be...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least he managed to remain within all the runways he landed on, in his 10.000 hours career without a proper licence.
Edmund
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something doesn't add up. Runway 22 is only used for GA traffic. Either the wrong runway was given in post 1 or they made a visual approach (unlikely)to the wrong runway. Nearest option to 22 would be 27. Too big a difference to confuse 22 for 27, plus I'm sure that they would have made an ILS to 27. Standing by for some more facts.
PM
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Feriton
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you say that? Everything I've seen specifically mentions a runway overrun. Such as "overran the end of the runway and came to a stop with the nose gear off paved surface." from the Aviation Herald.
Incident: Corendon B734 at Amsterdam on Oct 2nd 2010, overran runway on landing
Incident: Corendon B734 at Amsterdam on Oct 2nd 2010, overran runway on landing
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Age: 74
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a big deal
>Four metres off the end? Whoever insists on recording every single minor mishap in this industry, with that level of detail, seriously needs to get a life...
What if it hadn't been plain grass at the end of the runway?
Could have been a load of those really spikey bushes.
What if it hadn't been plain grass at the end of the runway?
Could have been a load of those really spikey bushes.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMS is my home airport and in 10 years I think I've landed on 22 twice. It's no big drama (the allocation of 22 for landing) except for the earlier point about noise over Amsterdam. I don't operate a 737 so have no clue as to the LDR for that type.
Anyone who genuinely thinks that this is not a big deal is either on a wind-up, or has never worked in a professional airline.
Every near accident or incident is a golden opportunity to learn and the mature safety culture within most airlines offers a framework to share and learn from all such incidents.
It's understandable that, to someone outside the industry, this might sound a little over the top - but to those of us in it, it's perfect sense.
That's what professional means.
Oh and I take your point TDK - it could be a taxy misjudgement, it's a little confusing in that area and these things are notoriously poorly reported. Let's see what the final report says..you may well be right..
Anyone who genuinely thinks that this is not a big deal is either on a wind-up, or has never worked in a professional airline.
Every near accident or incident is a golden opportunity to learn and the mature safety culture within most airlines offers a framework to share and learn from all such incidents.
It's understandable that, to someone outside the industry, this might sound a little over the top - but to those of us in it, it's perfect sense.
That's what professional means.
Oh and I take your point TDK - it could be a taxy misjudgement, it's a little confusing in that area and these things are notoriously poorly reported. Let's see what the final report says..you may well be right..
Last edited by 8846; 3rd Oct 2010 at 21:27. Reason: Homage to TDK!
closing a runway for eight and a half hours
AMS was reduced to mere 5 operating runways?!?I landed 320 on 22 once, when rwy was offered by ATC to get us on the ground quicker. Quick consultation with QRH confirmed there is plenty of room to land even when runway is wet. Goes without saying that proper landing technique has to be used.
Sounds more like a taxying misjudgement than an overrun to me.
Quiz time:
Who wrote "If you decide to proceed for some good reason then risk bogging the nose wheel rather than main wheels. It makes subsequent work much easier for the ground crews."?
This was a minor incident in that no-one was hurt and there was little damage to the aircraft. However as I stated in the Savannah Incident thread there have been a significant number of runway overrun incidents ranging from similarly minor ones to the disasterous event in India.
So whilst many of the individual incidents are relatively insignificant, the fact that there have been so many in such a short space of time IS a cause for concern and should be treated seriously by anyone with a remote interest in airline safety.
So whilst many of the individual incidents are relatively insignificant, the fact that there have been so many in such a short space of time IS a cause for concern and should be treated seriously by anyone with a remote interest in airline safety.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who genuinely thinks that this is not a big deal is either on a wind-up, or has never worked in a professional airline. It's understandable that, to someone outside the industry, this might sound a little over the top - but to those of us in it, it's perfect sense. That's what professional means.
There is a difference between safety awareness and sensationalism, although some people have their wads so deeply tied to the journos that they can't see it.
Making mountains out of molehills is the exact reverse of professionalism because a key element to professionalism is a sense of perspective.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gweriniaeth Cymru
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have to remember that although in this situation the end of the runway is mud and therefore no serious damage occurred to the a/c or pax. My local airport has the sea at the end of the runway, this would have been rather more serious.
So don't just look at the actual outcome(muddy nose-gear), think also of the potential outcome(broken fuselage/pax injuries/open seawater) - then decide if it is a serious event or not. Open your eyes a little people!
So don't just look at the actual outcome(muddy nose-gear), think also of the potential outcome(broken fuselage/pax injuries/open seawater) - then decide if it is a serious event or not. Open your eyes a little people!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MB - I think (?) you are mistaking me for an apologist for sensational journalism.
I am not.
Those of us in the industry take a calm measured and analytical approach to incidents/accidents however small they are. We try to make reasoned judgements based on years of experience, which go on to increase the level of safety in civil avaiation.
I believe that you are getting exercised about the journos/sensationalist reporting of 'minor' incidents. Nothing will change that - it is part and parcel of our modern world.
The difference between safety awareness and sensationalism is something most industry professionals are accutely aware of - it is our job. We are not in the business of making tommorrows fish and chip wrapping..
Thankfully this incident will be digested and analysed by people who don't subscribe to hyperbolic and sensational language and..hopefully the result will be improved safety. And that..is professionalism.
I do not need a lesson a lesson on perspective.
N1 - well said my friend.
I am not.
Those of us in the industry take a calm measured and analytical approach to incidents/accidents however small they are. We try to make reasoned judgements based on years of experience, which go on to increase the level of safety in civil avaiation.
I believe that you are getting exercised about the journos/sensationalist reporting of 'minor' incidents. Nothing will change that - it is part and parcel of our modern world.
The difference between safety awareness and sensationalism is something most industry professionals are accutely aware of - it is our job. We are not in the business of making tommorrows fish and chip wrapping..
Thankfully this incident will be digested and analysed by people who don't subscribe to hyperbolic and sensational language and..hopefully the result will be improved safety. And that..is professionalism.
I do not need a lesson a lesson on perspective.
N1 - well said my friend.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those of us in the industry take a calm measured and analytical approach to incidents/accidents however small they are.
An airplane crash is a big deal. This is not.*
*at least based upon the information we have right now.
So don't just look at the actual outcome(muddy nose-gear),
Any sensible safety system builds in a margin of error. The utilization of that margin of error is not a safety failure. It's a safety success.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: away...
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm... something a bit "off" here...
I don't operate B737 or anything similar, but I have in the past worked at a location where the only runway available for 737 ops was a 6000 foot runway. Those 737's have operated to/from that runway for in excess of 40 years without incident -other than a couple of very memorable bird-strikes on t/o, one of which I witnessed from the hold-point -impressive!
More to this than meets the eye.
I don't operate B737 or anything similar, but I have in the past worked at a location where the only runway available for 737 ops was a 6000 foot runway. Those 737's have operated to/from that runway for in excess of 40 years without incident -other than a couple of very memorable bird-strikes on t/o, one of which I witnessed from the hold-point -impressive!
More to this than meets the eye.
The safety concern is the reason as to how a safety margin of at least 3100 ft (6610 ft LDA – wet factor) was used up.
This is not to say that operators have to explain normal variability in operation (although this information is valuable in FOQA, etc), but operators must be prepared to explain how a full safety margin and an additional 12 ft happens to be used in circumstances, as known so far, were without failure.
There is a line in the sand (a fine and often indeterminate line) when ‘normal’ becomes an incident. It appears that this operation crossed this line in just the same way that others have done so, some with much more severe outcomes.
It is not the outcome that is important; it is the crossing of the line and the reasons why.
LULU. Look into the reasons why, Understand the issues, Learn from them, Utilise the knowledge gained.
This is not to say that operators have to explain normal variability in operation (although this information is valuable in FOQA, etc), but operators must be prepared to explain how a full safety margin and an additional 12 ft happens to be used in circumstances, as known so far, were without failure.
There is a line in the sand (a fine and often indeterminate line) when ‘normal’ becomes an incident. It appears that this operation crossed this line in just the same way that others have done so, some with much more severe outcomes.
It is not the outcome that is important; it is the crossing of the line and the reasons why.
LULU. Look into the reasons why, Understand the issues, Learn from them, Utilise the knowledge gained.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that this operation crossed this line
it is not the outcome that is important;
Upon what basis does it appear to you that this operation crossed the line if not the outcome? The outcome is at this point in time all anyone has to work with, unless you know something about this incident that others don't.
Or is it your position that negative outcomes are important (a wheel in the mud) while positive outcomes (passengers delivered safe and sound) are unimportant.