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

ASL/DHL overrun LIME/BGY Italy

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

ASL/DHL overrun LIME/BGY Italy

Old 5th Aug 2016, 12:23
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: 41S174E
Age: 57
Posts: 3,077
Received 550 Likes on 155 Posts
Weather dude,
I've often wondered how heavy rain has to be before you get more than 3mm of surface water on a grooved runway as we are not supposed to land while that is the case at my outfit. Do you know what visibility in RA equates to 3mm deep of water on a grooved runway? 1500m? 1000m? 800m?
What about on a non grooved runway?
framer is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 12:26
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 2,372
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Almost certainly a write off as an old B734 won't be worth repairing.
Metro man is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 12:37
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Oklahoma
Age: 66
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by framer
Weather dude,
I've often wondered how heavy rain has to be before you get more than 3mm of surface water on a grooved runway as we are not supposed to land while that is the case at my outfit. Do you know what visibility in RA equates to 3mm deep of water on a grooved runway? 1500m? 1000m? 800m?
What about on a non grooved runway?
Framer, with the intensity of rain during the event of at least 40 mm of rain/hour you'll get definitely more than 3 mm on the RWY. We have experience correlating German Highways and their layers of water on them with rain intensity suggesting the layer of water on the runway at LIME would have been thicker by far. If you drive 100 clicks with the car and tried to brake, you would have no traction under those conditions.

What I don't know what the weight of the airplane does and if you guys always get to the concrete and push all the liquid stuff aside...but for sure the water depth exceeded 3 mm by far.

I ask myself why there is no trend info on the METAR - a BECMNG 31025G35KT +TSRA at 1.50 UTC may have helped - and if ATC looked on the radar at all. And since the pics I posted are from the Swiss radar, question if they have that radar imagery at all.

Last edited by weatherdude; 5th Aug 2016 at 12:43. Reason: Grammar
weatherdude is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 12:43
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: away from home
Posts: 904
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Looking at the video in post #15 it would seem they left the runway at a very high speed... must have been a heck of a ride. Amazing if uninjuired.
oceancrosser is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 12:48
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The a/c would have been light, I assume. Parcels weighting less than pax + baggage.
While parcels are usually lighter and more volume-limited than general cargo, it is not 100% rule. Keep in mind that weight-wise, cargo-converted aircraft has much higher payload than pax aircraft: no seats, overhead bins, coffee heaters, ovens, magazines, less toilets, jump seats, etc.
FlyingStone is online now  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 12:50
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: scotland
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nothing to complicated here,04:00Hrs approx' Let's call it human factors,just to be gracious!
ericsson16 is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 13:11
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: ZRH
Age: 44
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Apparently they touched down somewhere between taxiways D and G which would leave them with what, 300 metres of RWY?
flight_mode is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 13:12
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: -
Posts: 1,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That's not confirmed, just a rumour coming from someone in BGY.
RedBullGaveMeWings is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 13:31
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EIKY
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Sure, a rumor but given the multiple impacts which are very evident in daylight, this a/c most likely touched down very, very late along the runway.
daelight is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 15:39
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for those who commented about the Landing weight. I was wondering if a light weight might have lent itself to floating, especially with tailwind. However, both seem to be discounted, expect a gust/burst from the TS's might have caused a momentary tailwind.

Slightly off the direct topic, but relevant. It has been said many times, and also recently on the Emirates gear collapse in Dubai topic, that all engine G/A's are often the most messed up manoeuvre and the least practiced. Considering the number of overruns from long landings: it is possible in very a/c I've flown to execute a G/A from the runway until the TR's are selected. It is a scenario I have never practiced in 35 years of Boeing flying; yet many overruns could have been avoided by doing just that. Busting the gate at 500' is one thing, flaring and floating is another opportunity to G/A, even after touchdown it is possible to G/A BUT takes huge amounts of courage & awareness to change the mindset of landing. I'm certain that once experienced, in the sim, that doubt/fear would be reduced significantly. Yet, none of my airlines had seen fit to include it in an recurrency training. DAFT. There's a real world out there, but some of the 'training?' does not seem the most relevant.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 16:43
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 72
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rat5
Spot on. I could convince our training manager, long time ago, to include in one recurrent session a situation that necessitated a GA, well after the decision to land was taken. The results were rewarding, in that it needed to repeated in quite some sessions.
However after T/D it was a different ballgame, as our first action was to aggressively pull reverse. Once the REV handles were pulled back, a GA was not allowed any more. But counting in that the touchdown was anywhere near the TD point.
Double Back is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 16:51
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 72
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
messed up all engine GA's. (GAs ?)

Yes, having flown mostly long sectors, GA's were rare in my career. From the maybe three I made, only one was AS+ quality. The others soso. Mostly because ATC interfered and amended the published and briefed GA procedure, necessitating altitudes to be reset, headings to be changed. In a time that workload was high, as was the climb rate at light weight.
Double Back is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 17:27
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Mordor
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
https://postimg.org/image/i7j19bsn5/

Not sure if that's real or fake, but made me chuckle - apparently that's the post-accident statement of the driver that was hit by plane...
Sidestick_n_Rudder is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 18:21
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Double back: I have had the 'mandatory' wave off at 50'. It is a TR training item. It is briefed in advance, but not warned of. It was rarely repeated in training afterwards. In LVO training the 50' G/A using autopilot is a trained manoeuvre. The a/c may bounce but the automatics do not. That's the education.
What has never been done is a G/A after touchdown. That's the training I'm calling for. It's a possibility & reality, so why not trained for.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 18:24
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Two hundred baro
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks like the ILS was off.....


A5413/16 - INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS) RWY28 UNSERVICEABLE. REF AIP AD 2 LIME 1-8. 05 AUG 05:26 2016 UNTIL 06 AUG 16:00 2016. CREATED: 05 AUG 05:25 2016
CAT1 is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 18:26
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: La Napoule
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RAT

I would completely agree as well. I always brief it's one of the hardest manoeuvres we do. Why...because it can be unexpected and it's not sufficiently trained on sim details. It can be due to W/shear...baulked landing...or discontinued approach or a combination (each requiring different mindsets and rapid assimilation) and invariably a startle factor.

I can count the number of go arounds (non training) in my career on one hand.

One of those was recently in perfect flying conditions....

Was fatigue a factor..Yes. Was experience a factor....yes. Was the outcome of the manoeuvre ever in doubt....no.

But and it's a big but, the holes in the cheese are slowly lining up and I'm not alone in that viewpoint.
Binder is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 18:29
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Italy
Age: 62
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No, it's a joke...

Originally Posted by Sidestick_n_Rudder
https://postimg.org/image/i7j19bsn5/

Not sure if that's real or fake, but made me chuckle - apparently that's the post-accident statement of the driver that was hit by plane...
Italian speaking SLF... It plays with some dialectal expressions of the Bergamo area... Can't be too explicit in translating the word "pota" down left...
bikeframe is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 18:31
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Looks like the ILS was off.....


A5413/16 - INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS) RWY28 UNSERVICEABLE. REF AIP AD 2 LIME 1-8. 05 AUG 05:26 2016 UNTIL 06 AUG 16:00 2016. CREATED: 05 AUG 05:25 2016
Is it a joke or am I missing something? The NOTAM is created about an hour after the ILS was run over by an aircraft.
172_driver is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 18:36
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Switzerland ... oh wait: Swaziland
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looks like the ILS was off.....
It was working until they destroyed the localizer antenna. The NOTAM was created after the accident (at 0525 UTC). Their fellow aviators will remember them fondly while diverting somewhere from BGY in the coming weeks (as no precision approach will be available).
TBSC is offline  
Old 5th Aug 2016, 19:14
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 72
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Rat5
I would disagree on training that. The most likely cause would be a long landing, but that would be the first mistake then. Landing long and THEN deciding to GA would be two mistakes in a row.
It gets into the field of aborting after V1, even on a long RWY.
Double Back is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.