Air Niugini Aircraft crash, Truk Lagoon
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NZ
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No urgency here at all...
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,
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,
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.
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.
Here's a pax from Fiji who seems to be saying it was an overshoot...
Fijian Survives Air Niugini Chuuk Flight Fiji Sun
Fijian Survives Air Niugini Chuuk Flight Fiji Sun
“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.”
“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.”
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?
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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
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 09:34.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
“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
If it was a pilot then there is more to this than meets the eye.
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.
