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

Air India Runway Excursion

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 India Runway Excursion

Old 10th Aug 2020, 16:03
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 967
This guy has never seen a 737 upclose. "Boeing reduced the amount of flaps you can use for landing and takeoff when the 737 was stretched" Flaps 40 has been there since day 1 and unlike the 737-300/400/500, which can use 1 (not -400), 5 and 15 for takeoff, NG and MAX can also use 25.

A320, which is a much newer design that the 737, also proves very well that there's no problem having only four main gear wheels on a narrowbody aircraft even with much higher MTOWs than 737-800.
FlyingStone is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 16:31
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 146
Originally Posted by vilas View Post
It appears you are not fond of reading.
I can read, Just don't do BS. How much Boeing knowledge do you really have (not just the Wikipedia time). You are short of facts. But there again, an Airbus Fanboy wouldn't want to acquaint themselves with ACTUAL Boeing facts.
Stick Flying is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 18:02
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,723
Don't worry I was a training captain on the big boy the B747 and have also flown the mother of B737 the B707. So don't preach.
vilas is online now  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 18:08
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,723
Originally Posted by Stick Flying View Post
I can read, Just don't do BS. How much Boeing knowledge do you really have (not just the Wikipedia time). You are short of facts. But there again, an Airbus Fanboy wouldn't want to acquaint themselves with ACTUAL Boeing facts.
Here I produce evidence of what I said. This is a work around not something great, just like the MCAS.
vilas is online now  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 19:07
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,996
Re position of the throttles - anything is possible here as to why pedestal controls are in the position they are - it is possible that the separate of fuselage sections pulled the cables sufficiently to change throttle positions...
Given that the 737-800 uses FADEC engines, it would be rather difficult for the throttle cables to move the thrust levers since there are no throttle cables...
It is possible that the g-forces of impact could have moved the throttles (not to mention flying debris). However if the T/R piggyback levers are lifted, it mechanically locks the throttle levers at idle so it suggests the reversers were not deployed.
tdracer is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 20:20
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Tring, UK
Posts: 1,501
Or that if they were deployed, they were cancelled? Having recently done several rejected landings (in the sim I hasten to add), you are not far off flying speed and it doesn’t take that much time and distance to become airborne again. If you had touched down, autobrakes kicked in, selected reverse then realised it wasn’t working and tried to unravel all that you are in a whole different ballgame.

I think it's reasonable to assume that if an overrun was looking likely and you were still trying to stop, you would be bending the TRs backwards all the way to the end of the runway and beyond. As pointed out above, thrust levers out of idle means no reverse.
FullWings is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 20:34
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EARTH
Posts: 124
I read an Indian newspaper article where it says that a ground personnel saw the aircraft bounce twice before it went off the runway.

Some of the above posts mention flaps 1 setting, the flap lever is at 40. Looks like they did not move the flap lever if they were indeed trying to go around or they simply didn’t have the time before it went off the runway.
gottofly is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 21:29
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: EUR
Posts: 12
According to Boeing FCTM after T/R deployed it's a FULL STOP LANDING!!



B737Capt is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 21:51
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 489
Some good speculation here and some bad. In defence of the pilot I wonder about the elephant in the room and that is aquaplaning. 9 x the square root of the tyre pressure. I have only flown the 200/300/400. On the 400 we ran the tyres around 220psi. This gets very close to a common Vref. Add water and no grooving and a little tail-wind for good measure. I have flown four different Boeings and the 737 is the only one I have experienced aquaplaning and it very nearly was my undoing once. A strange sensation and a horrible feeling of accelerating.
By George is offline  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 22:02
  #170 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,337
If only the glide slope runway 28 was serviceable, a successful landing might have occurred.
parkfell is online now  
Old 10th Aug 2020, 23:43
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,835
Originally Posted by gottofly View Post
Some of the above posts mention flaps 1 setting, the flap lever is at 40. Looks like they did not move the flap lever if they were indeed trying to go around or they simply didnít have the time before it went off the runway.
I agree, an earlier picture looked to me like perhaps flaps 1, the later picture shows the pin on the flap actuator handle in the 40 notch.




Airbubba is online now  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 00:49
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
FullWings

The FCTM tells us to continue with normal go around procedures after a baulked landing. That’s assuming they didn’t select reverse thrust after touchdown. Another member has very kindly uploaded a screenshot of the FCTM page where Boeing says in no uncertain terms that safe flight is NOT possible if a go around is initiated after you select reverse thrust.

Since the FR24 data shows them coming in hot, and (eyewitness reports?) then bouncing twice, they may have finally touched down with very little runway remaining to stop. However the spoilers would be raised for the duration of their ground roll (assuming they were armed for landing) until the moment they advanced the thrust levers for the go around. The DFDR will reveal the actual facts. Also worth noting is the wet muddy patch of the area past the paved surface of the runway may have slowed them down sufficiently to prevent reaching Vmcu /airborne.

It’s worth noting that whenever I use Autobrake 3 on both the B737CL or B737NG, the braking provided in combination with max reverse is fantastic on both dry & wet runways. I can’t comment on contaminated runways because my operation manual prohibits taking off or landing from contaminated runways/whenever braking action is reported as poor. So they may have slowed to ~ 100kts before realising that they were running out of runway. Again, these are just my 2 cents.
C310driver is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 02:59
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,835
An update on the investigation from the Hindustan Times.

Weather dismissed as factor in deadly Air India crash The Boeing Co. 737 appeared to touch down near the middle of the 9,000-foot-long (2,743-meter-long) runway at Kozhikode, the person said, before skidding off the end and careening down a slope, breaking into three parts.INDIA Updated: Aug 10, 2020 18:38 IST

Bloomberg | Posted by Arpan Rai


Weather conditions were within safe ranges and pilots were briefed about them by controllers just before the Air India Express jet they were flying crashed at a southern Indian airport Friday, killing at least 18 people and injuring more than 100, according to a person with direct knowledge of the matter.

The Boeing Co. 737 appeared to touch down near the middle of the 9,000-foot-long (2,743-meter-long) runway at Kozhikode, the person said, before skidding off the end and careening down a slope, breaking into three parts. The captain was experienced, with 11,000 flying hours, while the co-pilot had 2,000 hours. Neither one made a distress call, and both died in the crash. Visibility, precipitation and tailwinds were within acceptable guidelines for landing, the person said, asking not to be identified because the investigation is ongoing.

A playback on the FlightRadar24 website shows a first attempt to land the plane was aborted before another effort was made from the opposite direction. The flight-tracking site shows visibility at the airport was 1,500-to-2,000 meters, and winds were blowing at 12-13 knots, which is a moderate breeze on the Beaufort scale. Indian officials say 800 meters is sufficient visibility for landing.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india...7kWYRbwyJ.html

Last edited by Airbubba; 11th Aug 2020 at 17:06.
Airbubba is online now  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 03:08
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,835
From the New India Express.

Kozhikode plane crash: Did Air India flight land at speed higher than normal?It is suspected that the reverse thrust mode used to reduce the speed after landing probably didn’t work, which could indicate a technical fault.

Published: 10th August 2020 09:31 AM | Last Updated: 10th August 2020 09:31 AM
By Dhinesh Kallungal

Express News Service THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Air India Express plane involved in the accident at the Kozhikode airport on Friday night that claimed 18 lives approached the runway at a speed higher than what is ideal for a safe touchdown, sources at the airport revealed.

Also, it is learnt that the aircraft touched down on the runway well beyond the threshold mark, making it a risky landing.

Besides, it is suspected that the reverse thrust mode used to reduce the speed after landing probably didn’t work, which could indicate a technical fault.

“Normally, aircraft approach the runway at a speed range of 220-240kmph (120-130 knots). But this plane descended on the runway at over 300kmph,” said a reliable source in the Airport Authority of India.

Further, the aircraft touched down on the 2,860-metre runway (which includes the 240-metre Runway End Safety Area) at the 1,300-metre point.

The Boeing 737 with 190 on board skidded and fell off the edge of the table-top runway while landing in bad weather.

The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau and the Directorate General of Civil Aviation have launched an investigation into the accident.

An inspection of the accident site also raised suspicion whether the aircraft engine had really worked in reverse thrust — a process of temporarily diverting the engine’s thrust against the forward travel to provide deceleration. According to experts, even aircraft that touchdown beyond the threshold mark can be effectively stopped if the engine is in the reverse thrust mode.After landing, the plane crossed Runway End Safety Area and broke the instrument landing system lights.

The officials who inspected the site told Express the splinters of the landing system lights were strewn on the tarmac.

“If the aircraft was in the reverse thrust mode, the splinters would have been lying on the front side,” one of them said.

“Further, around 90 metres of the sand-filled portion ahead of the runway remained almost intact, showing no signs of reverse thrust,” said an official.

The official, however, said it’s hard to believe that a senior pilot in command, who used to train Air India Express pilots, did not put the plane in reverse thrust mode in a distress condition.

“Maybe something beyond one’s judgment or imagination would have happened. We have to wait till data from the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (black box) are decoded, which can give a clear idea about what happened in the last minutes,” the official said.

Meanwhile, airport sources told Express that the runway surface tailwind during the time of landing was 8 knots, while a Boeing 737 can withstand a tailwind of up to 15 knots. The sources also confirmed that when the pilot aborted the first attempt to land on Runway 28, he cited heavy wind as the reason.

Later, he approached Runway 10 after the takeoff of a Delhi aircraft from the same runway. No distress signal was sent to the air traffic control unit of the airport from the cockpit even after landing, sources said.

https://www.newindianexpress.com/sta...l-2181339.html
Airbubba is online now  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 04:59
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: MCG
Posts: 139
Looking at the above graphic a net barrier would not of split the aircraft in two.
Turnleft080 is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 05:55
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 902
Lots of things would not have split the aircraft in two.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 06:12
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Clouds
Posts: 5
masalama

But why so many reversals?? Even when there was not flight scheduled for departure during that period? If someone looks at historical data, there are fewer 'reversals' when attempting landing of RWY28 as compared to RWY10. The only edge RWY10 has is that there is no obstacle upto 10 kms from RWY10 whereas RWY28 has a mast ELEV 621 ft. DIST. 7017m from beginning of RWY28 Bearing 104o 15' (M)
TopGunMaverick is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 08:11
  #178 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,337
How are ‘reversals’ relevant to the tragic crash?

1. Concentrate on landing deep into the runway with a tailwind.

2. Runway contamination / braking action.

3. The inadequate RESA and the steep slope / airfield boundary wall.

4. CRM / decision making by the crew. Was Command gradient a factor?

5. G/S “u/s” RW 28.

These so far are some of the relevant factors, from a non exhaustive list.


Item 3 caused the fatality

Last edited by parkfell; 11th Aug 2020 at 09:42. Reason: syntax
parkfell is online now  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 08:13
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 3
1. Cannot compare approach and landing performance of an ATR with a B737-8.
2. What about the wind component at the moment of landing?
3. Runway contamination?
4. Where did they made contact with the runway? (how deep into it)?
Choky is offline  
Old 11th Aug 2020, 08:30
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Qatar
Posts: 2
If it was a very long landing, - Reports say the aircraft touched down near the center of the runway- at any phase of the final approach, the aircraft should have not been calibrated with the glideslope parameter. It should have flown way too high. Then it is obvious that the pilot must have attempted to increase the descent rate. But here the transponder data from various sources indicate that the descent rate of the aircraft was within normal limit! The last known position of the aircraft was at 945 ft Calibrated altitude, 175 kts Groundspeed, and descending at a rate of 896 ft/mint. Normal except the ground speed. (It seems way too a high speed at that point even if the 12 kts tailwind is considered) .... Then the Pictures of the broken cockpit shows a fully advanced thrust liver, a disengaged reverse thrust, a completely up Spoilers Arm, and a flap setting of 40... !! Strange and Extremely confusing.

Last edited by Physel Poilil; 11th Aug 2020 at 08:53.
Physel Poilil 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.