Air Niugini Aircraft crash, Truk Lagoon

[RogueRivered]

Based on what that last passenger in the Guam newspaper interview said it sounds like it wasn't an undershoot or an overrun, but an OVER-shoot, like they missed the runway completely and hit the tail on the rocks after flying over the whole runway, and then splashed into the water, facing the correct direction as shown in the pictures.

[HPSOV L]

Passenger accounts, however sincere, are notoriously unreliable. And 737 fuselages break into sections if you so much as look at them funny.

[Capt Fathom]

And 737 fuselages break into sections if you so much as look at them funny.

It appears no one gave it funny look then!

[HPSOV L]

Have a closer look (and listen to the pax account)😉

[fdr]

Originally Posted by lomapaseo

Shows up quite well in the Navy footage in the post or two above.

That is an interesting bit of damage. It appears as both a compression and torsional deformation, which hints of the same sorts of loads that occurred with the Ethiopian B767 off the Comorros. In that case, the stabiliser hits the water early on (just after the wingtip, and has an large asymmetric loading from the left stab being in water, the right stab being in the air, and tears the tail off in torsion. This looks like the load at PTKK was upwards at the tail and towards the right, there may have been a pretty good body angle at impact putting the stab into the brine early in the impact sequence. Lucky though, the distortion of the tube doesn't look like it was severe from the video inside taken by the USN.

[gulliBell]

Jeez, if you're gonna drop the burner in the brine somewhere that was the best place to do it, in warm tropical water with USN divers and a rescue flotilla on the scene within seconds...
Is it SOP in a ditching to only crack open one of the forward hatches when she's in maritime mode?

[Capt Fathom]

Opening of doors is a decision made by the flight attendants based on what their assessment of that exit is.
Unfortunately, the opening of the overwing exits is the realm of the passengers... unless a flight attendant just happens to be nearby and takes charge of that area. Not always possible.

[pattern_is_full]

I put very little weight on the "direction the aircraft is pointed" in the after-accident photos. If one goes back to the first still photos of Sully on the Hudson, that aircraft has almost immediately rotated 90° to point its nose at Manhattan, while the pax are still lined up on the wings, and before the (quite rapid) rescue response has arrived. One gets the feeling that some here would consider that strong evidence that Sully touched down in New Jersey, and slid into the river.

Similarly, many insisted that LionAir 904 must have been an overrun, from its final postion with tail to the runway. That turned out to be - wrong. LionAir landed short (interestingly, on an NPA through a tropical rain column that obscured the runway) and rotated 180° while bobbing in the water/on the rocks. In similar conditions (NPA/rain) WestJet/St. Maarten avoided the same by only 20 meters or so.

(Coincidentally, the LionAir 738's tail broke away in the same location that the Air Niugini plane shows those skin creases. I seem to see an little excess "whaleback" to the fuselage roofline of the AN plane in that area, but it could just be telephoto perspective).

AH reports the aircraft "was cleared to land runway 04." Not definitive (source is likely the same airport manager who also said it landed short), but is there any evidence/suggestion it was cleared to land on 22?

There is also this gentleman, who seems pretty level-headed and knows Micronesia, who says "We came in low - we came in very low," and mentions he was told they hit the seawall.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...689c913dbd6491

He's not an aviation professional, of course. But the only aviation professionals we've actually heard from are the airport guy and the airline. Both of whom say "landed short, in the water." My guess as to why we haven't heard much further is the 1) Chuuk is not exactly the "news capital of the world," and 2) the folks there don't think there is any mystery - it landed short.

[Derfred]

Is it SOP in a ditching to only crack open one of the forward hatches when she's in maritime mode?

It appears that they launched only one liferaft, which would have been sufficient for the POB, particularly with multiple vessels arriving on scene. Why would you open more doors?

[portmanteau]

According to airport information Weno does not have a control tower, " comms being provided by Truk Radio on 123.6".
Info also lists 3 ft high Berms ( material unspecified)1 ft from runway (presumably edges) and concrete Berms ( height unspecified) at both ends.

[Bend alot]

Originally Posted by Derfred

It appears that they launched only one liferaft, which would have been sufficient for the POB, particularly with multiple vessels arriving on scene. Why would you open more doors?

I saw two - one had one guy in near the tail the other empty and loaded on a boat heading back to shore.

[Derfred]

You may be right, but in the circumstances, with a low number of POB, I would think moving the pax into a liferaft at L1 with other doors closed sounds sensible providing the aircraft is not sinking faster than you can board pax into the raft(s). It doesn’t take long to open R1 if the need arises. The practicality on a B737 is that to launch a second raft at R1 actually delays the evacuation of the pax onto the raft already launched at L1. The second raft needs to be removed from the overhead mid-cabin stowage, and carried down the aisle. This requires the aisle to be clear, so all pax remaining seated. Why would you waste time with that if you already have a 56 person liferaft launched at L1 (and a few dozen fishing boats circling your aircraft)?

It is also my understanding that Boeing now recommends all life rafts be launched one at a time through the front door(s), despite earlier recommendations that liferaft #2 and #3 be launched from the overwing exits. This presumably comes from analysis of the best chance of evacuating a full load of passengers, the estimated body angle in the water, and the possibility of raft rupture due to debris around wings. Looking at the body angle in this accident, I’d say they are on the money. The overwings start to flood while the forward exits are still quite clear of the waterline.

[rexxxxxy]

Confirmation of one death.

PRESS STATEMENT

It is with deep sadness I confirm that the body of a male passenger was discovered by divers today as they conducted a further search of P2-PXE and the surrounding area in the Chuuk Lagoon.

This is the unaccounted passenger from the aircraft. Our outreach team is in touch with the man’s family and we are making arrangements to repatriate his body.

The circumstances surrounding this accident are now a matter for relevant authorities as they begin their task of investigating the events that led to the incident and the actions which followed. We are committing all required resources to ascertain the factors that led to this accident.

We express our deepest sympathy to his family. We are and will continue to provide support to his family in this time of loss.

Ends…//

Tahawar Durrani
Chief Executive Officer
Air Niugini Limited

[lomapaseo]

Relative to body angle. I noted the fracture in the right rear fuselage through a window slot in the USN body cam footage. This would have accentuated the aft flooding and body angle as well encouraging aft passengers to move forward in the aisles soonest. (lots of variations in a water impact)

[scifi]

Is there anyone still on-scene that can say if the aircraft is still afloat..? With the fuel tanks almost empty, they would act as buoyancy aids and perhaps keep the aircraft afloat indefinitely..
Maybe by now someone has towed it into shallow water.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by scifi

Is there anyone still on-scene that can say if the aircraft is still afloat..? With the fuel tanks almost empty, they would act as buoyancy aids and perhaps keep the aircraft afloat indefinitely..
Maybe by now someone has towed it into shallow water.

It was reported as having sunk within a few hours of going into the water.

The aircraft was on its way back from Pohnpei to Port Moresby viak Chuuk, so it may have been carrying fuel for the onward TKK-POM sector (around 1000 nm).

[mauswara]

Sad day for PNG & the National Carrier .No longer a "Fatality free Airline, Not surprising,given the massive loss of experienced aircrew over the past few years,due to the Airline Management's draconian Industrial Relations stance.Looks like PM O'neill's PR team has swung into operation, the Minister of Civil Aviation, in todays Post Courier, calling this a "Major Aircraft Incident" & that all Passenger Social media Interviews,thus far, are "Fake news". Might be difficult to "Spin" this accident into a "Sully & The Miracle on the Hudson" story.

[svhar]

I flew for some months out of POM. It was "interesting". Most of the ground equipment, like VORs and NDBs, was unservisable most of the time. The locals dug up the cables to steal and then sell the copper almost immediately after they were replaced. So they stopped bothering replacing them. This is what the local pilots told me but this was about 10 years ago. Hopefully they have improved.

[lomapaseo]

Might be difficult to "Spin" this accident into a "Sully & The Miracle on the Hudson" story.

depends on who does the spinning. The public always needs a hero for fears outside their control, the news is always willing to fill this request. Meanwhile we on the discussion boards tend to analyse things a bit.

[EEngr]

Originally Posted by DaveReidUK

It was reported as having sunk within a few hours of going into the water

TV news has shown footage from the navy divers (same ones first on scene) diving on the fuselage 70 feet underwater. They were the ones who recovered the one fatality as well.