Air India at Jaipur last night
VNAV PATH
Thank you for the AIP link. Having checked the relevant section, no Differences from Annex 14 Standards are shown for Strip Dimensions, or indeed anything related to Runway Strips. Consequently, unless India has notified ICAO of Differences since 1 April 2012 (the eAIP date) it would appear that India has breached the ICAO Convention Article 38 by not reporting Differences.
One can only speculate that if the DGCA had enforced ICAO Annex 14 Standards (which had indicated to ICAO were the national standard in India) the damage to the aircraft may have been minimal (or possibly none) if the runway had been correctly safeguarded.
If you do have access to the final accident report, I would much appreciate it if you would share it with us.
Thank you for the AIP link. Having checked the relevant section, no Differences from Annex 14 Standards are shown for Strip Dimensions, or indeed anything related to Runway Strips. Consequently, unless India has notified ICAO of Differences since 1 April 2012 (the eAIP date) it would appear that India has breached the ICAO Convention Article 38 by not reporting Differences.
One can only speculate that if the DGCA had enforced ICAO Annex 14 Standards (which had indicated to ICAO were the national standard in India) the damage to the aircraft may have been minimal (or possibly none) if the runway had been correctly safeguarded.
If you do have access to the final accident report, I would much appreciate it if you would share it with us.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Tree
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did time in India and am well aware the north of the country is very prone to fogging out this time of the year.
I was in the sector of aviation where as Captain, you took the fuel you desired that would keep you out of trouble, no questions asked. That fuel uplift was well above the legal minimum in a lot of cases.
However the accountants don't seem to understand that leaving some payload behind in preference to more fuel, is much more beneficial. Preferable than banging up an aircraft and having it out of service for months on end because they were forced to land when they shouldn't have.
I was in the sector of aviation where as Captain, you took the fuel you desired that would keep you out of trouble, no questions asked. That fuel uplift was well above the legal minimum in a lot of cases.
However the accountants don't seem to understand that leaving some payload behind in preference to more fuel, is much more beneficial. Preferable than banging up an aircraft and having it out of service for months on end because they were forced to land when they shouldn't have.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: somewhere
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaipur runway strip non conformity
@ TCAS FAN
Seems even US airports do not meet standards: read paragraph 6.5
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...-kh10-plan.pdf
Seems even US airports do not meet standards: read paragraph 6.5
http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_s...-kh10-plan.pdf
VNAV PATH
The National Runway Safety Plan, which you have provided a link for, focussed on runway incursions, the Jaipur accident was a runway excursion.
However I do accept an interpretation that the presence of the tree (apparently within the 150 runway strip) could be viewed as an incursion - but one that the Airport Operator and the DGCA India should have resolved well before the accident happened, or at least highlighted the fact in the AIP India that 09/27 at Jaipur is not safeguarded as a Code 4 Instrument-Precision Runway.
The National Runway Safety Plan, which you have provided a link for, focussed on runway incursions, the Jaipur accident was a runway excursion.
However I do accept an interpretation that the presence of the tree (apparently within the 150 runway strip) could be viewed as an incursion - but one that the Airport Operator and the DGCA India should have resolved well before the accident happened, or at least highlighted the fact in the AIP India that 09/27 at Jaipur is not safeguarded as a Code 4 Instrument-Precision Runway.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a huge tree. But all it did was stop them before they hit the wall. Both wall and tree are surprisingly close to the runway- although I'd never really noticed 'til now...
Also, another ppruner reported that they had 2.3t left.
Not correct I think. They were nearly dry- according to my friendly source.
Same source reports Capt. was 'new'. If so, I really feel for him.
Actually, whether new or not.
Also, another ppruner reported that they had 2.3t left.
Not correct I think. They were nearly dry- according to my friendly source.
Same source reports Capt. was 'new'. If so, I really feel for him.
Actually, whether new or not.
AtomKraft
If there is anything, other than obstacles necessary for air navigation (ILS GP, PAPI, signs etc) within 150 metres of the runway centreline, the runway is not ICAO Annex 14 compliant for an Instrument-Precision runway.
If the Airport Operator or DGCA are not immediately going to do something to make it compliant, the runway should be downgraded to a Non-Instrument Runway (which reduces the Strip width to 75 metres) and instrument approach minima raised to the Circling Minima.
Alternatively, DGCA India admits to ICAO (and the outside world) that they have a Difference from Annex 14 Runway Strip dimensions, and take their chances as to the reaction of airlines and their insurers.
If there is anything, other than obstacles necessary for air navigation (ILS GP, PAPI, signs etc) within 150 metres of the runway centreline, the runway is not ICAO Annex 14 compliant for an Instrument-Precision runway.
If the Airport Operator or DGCA are not immediately going to do something to make it compliant, the runway should be downgraded to a Non-Instrument Runway (which reduces the Strip width to 75 metres) and instrument approach minima raised to the Circling Minima.
Alternatively, DGCA India admits to ICAO (and the outside world) that they have a Difference from Annex 14 Runway Strip dimensions, and take their chances as to the reaction of airlines and their insurers.
AtomKraft
I can only speculate what sort of reply I'd get, that's assuming that they would accept the call!
I await the Accident Report to see whether any contributory factors include lack of compliance with ICAO Annex 14. Suspect that the focus may be on the aircraft commander's actions, and the lack of adequate runway safeguarding hidden in the fog?
I can only speculate what sort of reply I'd get, that's assuming that they would accept the call!
I await the Accident Report to see whether any contributory factors include lack of compliance with ICAO Annex 14. Suspect that the focus may be on the aircraft commander's actions, and the lack of adequate runway safeguarding hidden in the fog?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: RIGHT SIDE OF GOD
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Planet Claire
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know the left tyres burst on touchdown but not if that was due to then being left of the C/L or just a hard touchdown.
I believe that's what dragged them off to the left though.
As you say, could have been a lot worse.
JAI undershoot and the area left of the runway are undergoing major landscaping at the moment....
I believe that's what dragged them off to the left though.
As you say, could have been a lot worse.
JAI undershoot and the area left of the runway are undergoing major landscaping at the moment....
