Qatar 77W at MIA
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 335
I do wonder whether the crew was really unaware of the incident until hours later. The damage to the approach lights was significant – would no-one have noticed an unusual sound? Dare I wonder whether the crew might conceivably have said to each other, we seem to be in one piece, no indications, let's carry on and avoid the hassle of going back (and we didn't say that, so don't pull the CVR breaker)? No, no, of course not ...
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 335
Deefer, there's also the old adage that if the real world you can see out of your window doesn't match what your computer says, reality is almost certainly correct. (That applies to your car's satnav too.)
On the one hand, you might think someone would have looked out at the runway and said, wow, isn't that a bit short for a max weight takeoff? On the other hand, it was dark or at least dusk, so the shortness of the available runway may not have been so obvious?
On the one hand, you might think someone would have looked out at the runway and said, wow, isn't that a bit short for a max weight takeoff? On the other hand, it was dark or at least dusk, so the shortness of the available runway may not have been so obvious?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by FullWings
I think that’s a little harsh. With the large variation in TORR between F5 derated and F20 full power, it’s not a given. With a headwind it might even be OK.
With Flaps 15 and an 11,000' runway we used full thrust with no ATM allowed.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,943
The damage to the approach lights was significant – would no-one have noticed an unusual sound?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Quote:
The damage to the approach lights was significant – would no-one have noticed an unusual sound?
The damage to the approach lights was significant – would no-one have noticed an unusual sound?
Airport lights are designed to be frangible , I.e breaking off easily. The mast arms cut off and the one bent that we see in the photo. , if in aluminum with a plastic fuse, will offer little resistance against a 350 tons aircaft. From the voice of the PNF on the frequency after departure my bet is that they did not notice anything.
Last edited by wanabee777; 21st Sep 2015 at 19:40.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,865
I do wonder whether the crew was really unaware of the incident until hours later. The damage to the approach lights was significant – would no-one have noticed an unusual sound? Dare I wonder whether the crew might conceivably have said to each other, we seem to be in one piece, no indications, let's carry on and avoid the hassle of going back (and we didn't say that, so don't pull the CVR breaker)? No, no, of course not ...
A discussion of this ANC incident from the PPRuNe archives:
China Airlines taxi-way take-off! [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums
Like the QR crew in MIA, CI was very fortunate to avoid disaster.
This article compares the China Airlines mistake with the SQ wrong turn at TPE, which was deadly, in a table at the end:
Aviation Today :: China Airlines' Takeoff Shows Breakdown in Situational Awareness
Unlike CI and SQ, QR at MIA knew where they were but it was the wrong place to turn onto the runway for a heavyweight takeoff.
Did the QR crew know something was wrong on climbout and chose to face the music back in Doha instead of reporting it to MIA departure? I don't claim to know.
I'm reminded of a saying from the 89th Airlift Wing, the outfit that operates Air Force One: 'You are allowed one mistake, and they won't fire you until you get back from the trip.'
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: WA
Age: 81
Posts: 23
On Sep 17th 2015 the FAA reported the aircraft struck approach lights on departure from Miami and continued to destination. The aircraft received substantial damage to its belly, the occurrence was rated an accident.
The above from the very first entry on the thread begs questions as to who first found the "substantial" damage, who it was reported to, and the like. The infamous "Who knew what, and when did they know it?"
"Substantial damage" would seem to have been obvious to bag handlers chocking the a/c at the arrival gate? Well, maybe. But surely seen by the first line mech to visit the scene whenever that was. But somebody informed FAA. When? The latter, however, would not have been the first people to be properly informed of whatever was found. Logic says, though, that the discovery had to have been made in time to preserve complete FDR data right there at the beginning when the a/c was first grounded. I don't know what exactly would be the investigatory protocol, but I can envision it would have begun very soon after landing, and would have resembled something like the proverbial "flies on stink."
The above from the very first entry on the thread begs questions as to who first found the "substantial" damage, who it was reported to, and the like. The infamous "Who knew what, and when did they know it?"
"Substantial damage" would seem to have been obvious to bag handlers chocking the a/c at the arrival gate? Well, maybe. But surely seen by the first line mech to visit the scene whenever that was. But somebody informed FAA. When? The latter, however, would not have been the first people to be properly informed of whatever was found. Logic says, though, that the discovery had to have been made in time to preserve complete FDR data right there at the beginning when the a/c was first grounded. I don't know what exactly would be the investigatory protocol, but I can envision it would have begun very soon after landing, and would have resembled something like the proverbial "flies on stink."
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,101
Logic says, though, that the discovery had to have been made in time to preserve complete FDR data right there at the beginning when the a/c was first grounded.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 23rd Sep 2015 at 00:41. Reason: Punc...
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Centre of Universe
Posts: 315
Have any photos of the damaged areas of the aircraft surfaced yet?
Strange that folk are expecting to see photo's, no need to elaborate surely?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: somewhere
Posts: 93
We will hear nothing further
Come on... Few years ago, a QR 777 made a landing on a closed runway by night on a visual approach in Osaka (ATC and markings quite not correct...)
The report is availble on Jap' NTSB. As said above, NTSB and FAA are in DOH; time to explose the " booze permit" !
We'll have a report, quite sure.
Come on... Few years ago, a QR 777 made a landing on a closed runway by night on a visual approach in Osaka (ATC and markings quite not correct...)
The report is availble on Jap' NTSB. As said above, NTSB and FAA are in DOH; time to explose the " booze permit" !
We'll have a report, quite sure.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Originally Posted by wanabee777
Have any photos of the damaged areas of the aircraft surfaced yet?
Originally Posted by Twiglet1
Don't expect to see photo's until the FAA report comes out in xx months.
Strange that folk are expecting to see photo's, no need to elaborate surely?
Strange that folk are expecting to see photo's, no need to elaborate surely?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,624
Originally Posted by wanabee777
Maybe the press got it all wrong and there, in fact, wasn't "substantial" damage done to the aircraft.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,448
At what point is the FAA required to relinquish control of the investigation process to the NTSB?
"anytime they are asked"
Fundamentally the FAA is a regulator and seeks information in order to act against it's regulations.
The NTSB is an investigator and seeks answers to causal chains and weighing of contributing factors. They also look for holes in regulations as well as unregulated procedures.
Together they do a pretty good job. In many cases the FAA action is taken even before an investigation is finished.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LONDON
Posts: 39
Come on... Few years ago, a QR 777 made a landing on a closed runway by night on a visual approach in Osaka (ATC and markings quite not correct...)
The report is availble on Jap' NTSB.
The report is availble on Jap' NTSB.
QATAR AIRWAYS
BOEING 777-300, A7BAE
ABOUT AN ALTITUDE OF 1,000 FT, 3.8 NM NORTHEAST OF
RUNWAY 24R, KANSAI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, JAPAN
AT ABOUT 21:55 JST, AUGUST 30, 2010
