Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Qatar 77W at MIA

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Qatar 77W at MIA

Old 21st Sep 2015, 18:04
  #81 (permalink)  
 
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 ...
OldLurker is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 18:10
  #82 (permalink)  
 
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?
OldLurker is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 18:18
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by FullWings View Post
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.
Did a max weight 777-300 takeoff yesterday at moderate temperature and no wind near sea level with about 30.00 on the altimeter.

With Flaps 15 and an 11,000' runway we used full thrust with no ATM allowed.
JammedStab is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 18:54
  #84 (permalink)  
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?
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.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2015, 19:05
  #85 (permalink)  
 
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?
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.
I would be curious as to what the Flight Attendants heard or felt.

Last edited by wanabee777; 21st Sep 2015 at 19:40.
wanabee777 is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 04:04
  #86 (permalink)  
 
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 ...
I'm reminded of the time Dynasty took off on a taxiway at ANC with an A340 and continued on to TPE. Surely they must have figured something was wrong even though there was little or no damage as they brushed a snow berm at the upwind end of the taxiway. Or, maybe 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.'
Airbubba is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 14:34
  #87 (permalink)  
 
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."
radken is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2015, 23:37
  #88 (permalink)  
 
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.
FDR data lives for many days after an event. It doesn't get wiped on landing.

Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 23rd Sep 2015 at 00:41. Reason: Punc...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 06:12
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Have any photos of the damaged areas of the aircraft surfaced yet?
wanabee777 is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 16:53
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,787
Made the Qatari local English and Arabic newspapers...no photos yet...4 expats...no news otherwise
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 17:32
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
We will hear nothing further.

Surely MIA will send Qatar a bill for repairs. If they do not pay it, or deny knowledge of it, either could start an interesting process.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 18:03
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Qatar
Posts: 89
FAA and NTSB are in Doha.
320goat is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 18:10
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Centre of Universe
Posts: 315
Have any photos of the damaged areas of the aircraft surfaced yet?
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?
Twiglet1 is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2015, 19:15
  #94 (permalink)  
 
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.
VNAV PATH is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 12:40
  #95 (permalink)  
 
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?
Maybe the press got it all wrong and there, in fact, wasn't "substantial" damage done to the aircraft.
wanabee777 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 13:17
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,624
Originally Posted by wanabee777 View Post
Maybe the press got it all wrong and there, in fact, wasn't "substantial" damage done to the aircraft.
"Substantial" is the FAA's assessment of the damage, based on subsequent inspection of the aircraft (which hasn't flown since).
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 13:26
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
At what point is the FAA required to relinquish control of the investigation process to the NTSB?
wanabee777 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 15:02
  #98 (permalink)  
 
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?
a simple sentence answer to a simple sentence question.

"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.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 15:09
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
So, in essence, both the FAA and NTSB will be investigating this incident but for different reasons.
wanabee777 is offline  
Old 24th Sep 2015, 16:13
  #100 (permalink)  
 
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.
It didn't land.

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
netstruggler 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 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.