Pegasus accident in SAW; just reported
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: here and there
Age: 68
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
granular data
from FR24 granular data ADS-B for PGT87R
the runway length is 3000m
the distance from threshold of 06 to the last blue marker is almost 2000m ! (2/3)
With a heavy thunderstorm over head, wind reports become unreliable as speed and direction can shift markedly within a few seconds. Use the reported wind as a guide to the intensity of the storm rather than a means of determining if it falls within limits as a 10kt headwind can soon become a 20kt tailwind. A rapid succession of differing wind reports from the tower should be ringing alarm bells on the flightdeck.
Aquaplaning may well have been a factor with such a high touch down speed.
I remember being told on my CPL ground school 30 years ago that if there was a thunderstorm overhead, "wait for half an hour", if you haven't got the fuel to do that then divert.
Aquaplaning may well have been a factor with such a high touch down speed.
I remember being told on my CPL ground school 30 years ago that if there was a thunderstorm overhead, "wait for half an hour", if you haven't got the fuel to do that then divert.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lake1952
I am mystified that when a B738 runs through a localizer antenna and then over a 20+ meter cliff at 60+ kts, people on this board are concerned at how the fuselage broke up!?
Originally Posted by Lake1952
I am mystified that when a B738 runs through a localizer antenna and then over a 20+ meter cliff at 60+ kts, people on this board are concerned at how the fuselage broke up!?
Originally Posted by YRP
It is similar to the comments on how the Asiana 777 crash at SFO showed how strongly built the plane was... you know, apart from the tail breaking off.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: redditch
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lake1952
I am mystified that when a B738 runs through a localizer antenna and then over a 20+ meter cliff at 60+ kts, people on this board are concerned at how the fuselage broke up!?
Originally Posted by YRP
It is similar to the comments on how the Asiana 777 crash at SFO showed how strongly built the plane was... you know, apart from the tail breaking off.
Lousy design - obviously we need to design fuselages not to fail when they hit a brick wall
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by vmandr
the runway length is 3000m
the distance from threshold of 06 to the last blue marker is almost 2000m ! (2/3)
the distance from threshold of 06 to the last blue marker is almost 2000m ! (2/3)
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Under the radar, over the rainbow
Posts: 707
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
Lets see, the 777 tail breaks off after it hits a rock sea wall, a 737 fuselage breaks after it goes over a cliff and hits a brick wall.
Lousy design - obviously we need to design fuselages not to fail when they hit a brick wall
Lousy design - obviously we need to design fuselages not to fail when they hit a brick wall
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 67
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tdracer , you’re doing the same thing you always do . Using extensive experience and deep knowledge to come to a rational conclusion. That’s not what this site is about!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,568
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again many folks like to pick at technical point figuring that it's easy to design better (by brute force if necessary)
But what are we protecting? the aircraft for re-use or the passengers for re-use?. You see if you continue to beef up the aircraft you wind up saving only the non-functioning passenger bodies who can't take the G-loads generated by the forces. At high impact loads you actually aid the passengers by expectations of some breakup (fusing?) and in survivable event it also provides a access point or two.
The keys to risk in these events, are avoid trapped by fire or smoke and get out although cut and damaged. With a too strong aircraft you may have a lot more shock trauma (aortic collapse) and stay trapped longer awaiting the fire to take hold)
I vote to stay with what we got now, at least it sometimes work to some advantage.
But what are we protecting? the aircraft for re-use or the passengers for re-use?. You see if you continue to beef up the aircraft you wind up saving only the non-functioning passenger bodies who can't take the G-loads generated by the forces. At high impact loads you actually aid the passengers by expectations of some breakup (fusing?) and in survivable event it also provides a access point or two.
The keys to risk in these events, are avoid trapped by fire or smoke and get out although cut and damaged. With a too strong aircraft you may have a lot more shock trauma (aortic collapse) and stay trapped longer awaiting the fire to take hold)
I vote to stay with what we got now, at least it sometimes work to some advantage.
Originally Posted by George Glass
tdracer , you’re doing the same thing you always do . Using extensive experience and deep knowledge to come to a rational conclusion. That’s not what this site is about!
On a more serious note, maybe it's time for some airports to look into installing EMAS - it's saved a few aircraft (and likely some lives) on this side of the pond. I've heard that there isn't a single EMAS installation outside of North America - if true that's borderline criminal.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
I've heard that there isn't a single EMAS installation outside of North America - if true that's borderline criminal.
From Wikipedia:
Non U.S installations
Of the 15 Non-U.S. installations, 8 were provided by Zodiac Arresting Systems (2 in China, 2 in Madrid, 1 in Taiwan, 2 in Norway & 1 in Saudi Arabia), 6 were provided by RunwaySafe (1 in Switzerland, and 3 in overseas departments of France - 1 in Reunion Island, 2 in Mayotte), 1 in Japan and 1 in Germany. 1 provided by Hankge (China)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine...rrestor_system
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tdracer
Yea, I know, I need to stop being so logical.
On a more serious note, maybe it's time for some airports to look into installing EMAS - it's saved a few aircraft (and likely some lives) on this side of the pond. I've heard that there isn't a single EMAS installation outside of North America - if true that's borderline criminal.
On a more serious note, maybe it's time for some airports to look into installing EMAS - it's saved a few aircraft (and likely some lives) on this side of the pond. I've heard that there isn't a single EMAS installation outside of North America - if true that's borderline criminal.
When a stable approach is flown and the touchdown made in the "touch down zone" then performance calculations should be such that the aircraft will remain "on the hard surface" (with all systems operating normally) at the end of the landing roll.
Local airport authorities are probably not going to install EMAS for cost or for other reasons, but some Air force bases in Greece do have "an arrestor system" for their fighters, such as Heraklion, I believe, and these airports are also used for domestic/charter flights.
The CVR transcript will highlight HF and SA performance, if it will be released.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 70
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting. In my B744 days I showed many a F/O, during X-wind landings, how the wind vector on the ND or PFD changed dramatically as soon as the PF decrabbed the beast, or when the A/P decrabbed it. I told them to stop reading the wind out loud as it only brought false info. As far as I can see here in the discussion the much newer systems still don't provide for side slip in calculating the actual wind.
Regarding 737 fuselage breaking up..
I doubt if many other current airliners would have fared much better, would an A320 still be substantially intact after a similar "rough landing"?
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Kopavogur
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Double Back
Interesting. In my B744 days I showed many a F/O, during X-wind landings, how the wind vector on the ND or PFD changed dramatically as soon as the PF decrabbed the beast, or when the A/P decrabbed it. I told them to stop reading the wind out loud as it only brought false info. As far as I can see here in the discussion the much newer systems still don't provide for side slip in calculating the actual wind.
