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

Air Niugini Aircraft crash, Truk Lagoon

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

Air Niugini Aircraft crash, Truk Lagoon

Old 3rd Oct 2018, 01:01
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,270
The FDR has been recovered by civilian divers and it's being sent to POM to be downloaded by PNG AIC. The CVR still in the brine.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 01:45
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Seattle
Posts: 653
At 0:55 in the video (post #163), is that a passenger's carry-on backpack being tossed into the Navy raft?
EEngr is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 01:46
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,270
Originally Posted by EEngr View Post
At 0:55 in the video (post #163), is that a passenger's carry-on backpack being tossed into the Navy raft?
Yeah, this was discussed earlier...
gulliBell is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 04:47
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: sierra village
Posts: 314
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK View Post
Amazing! Five days on and still there’s no definitive answer as to whether it was an undershoot or an over run.

News that the FDR is on its way back to Moresby may not be a good thing for the transparency of investigation and its resultant findings.PNG is, to put it politely, a tad challenged when it comes to corruption and good governance,
lucille is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 04:52
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,270
PNG AIC is trying to be an Authority of excellence in the South Pacific for air accident investigation. Vanuatu has conferred on them full Annex 13 for accidents in that country. PNG AIC have the tools for downloading the FDR and CVR. I think we will get a preliminary statement of facts out of them sooner than later.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 04:54
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,270
Originally Posted by lucille View Post
Amazing! Five days on and still there’s no definitive answer as to whether it was an undershoot or an over run.
That NZ radio interview of one of the passengers on board, where he said he was on the left side of the aircraft, they were very low, and he saw the Truk Stop Hotel out the window, that can only be an overshoot of 22.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 06:34
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Downunder
Posts: 288
Here's a pax from Fiji who seems to be saying it was an overshoot...
Fijian Survives Air Niugini Chuuk Flight | Fiji Sun
Max Tow is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 07:25
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,315
Originally Posted by Max Tow View Post
Here's a pax from Fiji who seems to be saying it was an overshoot...
Fijian Survives Air Niugini Chuuk Flight Fiji Sun
Yes, see posts #111 and #114 from a 3 days ago for the transcript and audio of an earlier interview with the passenger in question.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 07:25
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,544
“The plane overflew the runway and landed 150 metres past the retaining wall at the end of the runway, which opened directly into over 80-90 feet of water.“There was panic in the plane despite the senior flight attendants attempting to reassure everyone … some passengers were climbing over seats to get to the exit … water was flowing into the plane quite rapidly.
“In the first few minutes water was already halfway up to my knees.
“A lot of passengers were attempting to get their bags in the overhead compartments, but due to the panic, rate of rising water and passengers pushing against each other many were not able to get their carry-on bags.”
From the above link. Worrying about bags in the overhead? Don't think pax will ever get the message. Imagine the chaos with a full load, rather than the handful that were on board.

Even landing on water it must take more than 150 metres to come to a stop, seems incredibly short, what did Sully take, though the difference is he didn't have the gear down?
megan is online now  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 07:29
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,315
Originally Posted by MitrePeak View Post
I appreciate there would have been the shock factor, but can't believe the forward exit doors weren't opened immediately. what were the flight attendants doing ?

DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 08:29
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: europe
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by megan View Post
Worrying about bags in the overhead? Don't think pax will ever get the message. Imagine the chaos with a full load, rather than the handful that were on board.
Unfortunately not all passengers are as cool as you in a panic situation.
arketip is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 10:13
  #172 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 798
Originally Posted by megan View Post
From the above link. Worrying about bags in the overhead? Don't think pax will ever get the message. Imagine the chaos with a full load, rather than the handful that were on board.

Even landing on water it must take more than 150 metres to come to a stop, seems incredibly short, what did Sully take, though the difference is he didn't have the gear down?
'
Maybe.
  • 2g deceleration would stop the plane in about 6.7 seconds, and 185 meters
  • 3g gives about 4.5 seconds, 130 meters
  • 6g is 2.5 seconds, and about 70 meters
Peak loads could be easily 3 -5 times or more of these values for very short periods, and probably were with the gear being down.

Those are within reasonable limits for the seat design (Part25.561) which requires demonstration of 9g forward design load for compliance.

9g stops in around 1.5 seconds, and about 45 meters.

The body can survive much higher short period loads, (McKenney, 1970) but that is also when using proper restraint which includes shoulder harnesses. The pilots do OK, other than being first to the scene, pax get to see up close and personal the objects in front of their lap.

(the Ethiopian B767 hijack ditching off the Comoros stopped in about 5 seconds, from a higher speed, with mean decelerations around 5g, stopping in around 220 meters but involving high lateral loads as well and massive kit setting of the structure. Peak lateral loads were severe, as were the longitudinal loads. Vertical peak load was lower than the longitudinal load).

McKenney, William R,, Human Tolerance to Abrupt Accelerations: A summary of the Literature. Dynamic Science Report 70-13, May, 1970

Last edited by fdr; 3rd Oct 2018 at 10:34.
fdr is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 10:23
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,315
Originally Posted by lucille View Post
Amazing! Five days on and still there’s no definitive answer as to whether it was an undershoot or an over run.
Still from a YouTube video shot from an aircraft lining up on 04 at Chuuk, view looking roughly south. The aforementioned Truk Stop Hotel is visible in the distance just under the 737's wingtip.

Clearly there is no way the Truk Stop could be seen from a portside window when airborne unless viewed from a departure, go-around or overshoot on 22.




DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 11:26
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Perhaps interesting to speculate as to the damage caused by ploughing straight in on finals for 04 compared to overflying 22, not going around for reasons unknown and then going into the water. Either way it seems it would have come to an abrupt stop. Gear down presumably for 04 but possibly up or the way up in the 22 case? What counts of course is that In the event it looked to be almost a textbook ditching.
portmanteau is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 12:15
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,270
Originally Posted by portmanteau View Post
..What counts of course is that In the event it looked to be almost a textbook ditching.
Yeah, the textbook ditching you have when you don't know you're ditching....
gulliBell is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 12:35
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Nz
Posts: 415
“But when we overflew the runway there was an announcement to ‘brace for impact’, but everything occurred really quick that many were unable to react in time
It would be interesting to know who made the BRACE call. If it was a FA then that shows exceptional SA.
If it was a pilot then there is more to this than meets the eye.
73qanda is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 12:37
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,315
Originally Posted by portmanteau View Post
Perhaps interesting to speculate as to the damage caused by ploughing straight in on finals for 04 compared to overflying 22, not going around for reasons unknown and then going into the water.
The damage is interesting.

We've already seen parallels drawn with US1549, and although the circumstances were very different it's still valid to compare the damage to the 737 with that to the A320.

In the case of the Airbus, most of the damage occurred to the rear fuselage. That's hardly surprising, given that it ditched in a nose-up attitude and so the rear would have hit the Hudson first. Having said that, the passenger cabin remained intact.

The 737 also had a damaged rear fuselage, but this took the form of a more substantial structural failure. Clearly it had also hit (something) in a tail-down attitude.

The 737 ended up in the water. The question is: did the impact with the water cause that damage? We all know the old saw about "water is like concrete if you hit it going fast enough" - but it isn't, in a number of respects.

I don't believe that A320s are substantially stronger than 737s (nor vice versa). So would the 737 have to have hit something more solid, initially, than just the water in order to cause that degree of structural damage?

Answers on a postcard.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 14:38
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Nearer home than before!
Posts: 475
Don't need a postcard. The wheels leave the runway and the tail would scrape on all the furniture in the undershoot of 04. Lighting, rocks, you name it.
RVF750 is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 16:10
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,315
Originally Posted by RVF750 View Post
Don't need a postcard. The wheels leave the runway and the tail would scrape on all the furniture in the undershoot of 04. Lighting, rocks, you name it.
Yes, I would imagine that could ruin your entire day.

DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Oct 2018, 16:31
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYWH (Victoria)
Posts: 5,439
Worrying about bags in the overhead? Don't think pax will ever get the message.
megan,

You need to appreciate that in the third world, passengers may have some or all of their worldly wealth in their carry-on bags. It's unfortunate behaviour but understandable.
India Four Two 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 © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.