|
Egyptian plane in landing accident, IST
|
Rumoured to be an AMC MD-83 e/r to Poland.
|
Reportedly belly-landing, no fatalities. The airline's last MD-83, the previous loss of its sister ship was in a rwy overrun in Juba, Sudan in June 2006.
http://www.md80.net/yabbse/index.php?topic=3920.0 |
SU-BOY confirmed:
fuselage broken, a write off. 3rd overran occurence for AMC´s MDs within 3 years. Worth to take a closer look in terms of operating safety... www.jacdec.de/news/news.htm |
Hmmmmm
Errrr....dodgy, definitely dodgy.
This lot got any MD-82/3's left flying? :uhoh: |
|
What a joke of an airline... just have a look at their website and have a laugh.
How likely is it b.t.w. to retract flaps after a crash landing?? |
That is a silly comment. At least bother to use the link in post # 4 - I quote:
“Earlier, the pilots elected to discontinue their cruiseflight after an unspecified technical problem occured.” So we don’t know yet whether the technical problem included flaps/slats as well as gear. No use to speculate until we have some more details from (hopefully) reliable sources. |
I know the captain on that plane. He is not Egyptian. Seems like he did a good job getting the thing on the ground in one piece..More or less.
|
Some pics
|
Z powodu awarii systemu elektrycznego ....
Due to electric system failure.... Jak relacjonowała jedna z pasażerek, najpierw nastąpiła awaria oświetlenia, nie działała też klimatyzacja i zaczęło się robić gorąco. W związku z problemami technicznymi maszyna obrała kurs na Stambuł i zrzuciła po drodze paliwo. As one of the passengers reported, first the cabin lighting failed, then the air conditioning stopped operating and it became hot in the cabin. Due to technical problems the machine took course for Istambul dumping fuel on the way... Norweski kapitan powiedział po lądowaniu, że wykonanie tego manewru było możliwe tylko dlatego, że było bezchmurne niebo. The Norwegian Capitan said after landing, that the manoeuvre was possible only due to clear sky. It could indicate the navigation system failure, with VFR aproach and landing... Congratulations to the Crew. :D :D :D Well done. :ok: |
According to some informants the gear was down but flaps up,
he just overrun the runway and lost the gear in the grass. You can see on the pictures, front still standing, main in pieces laying around... "...AMC operates one single MD-83 registered SU-BOY. The airline lost its sister ship in a runway overrun in Juba, Sudan in June 2006, after having a rwy overrun in Poznan, Poland the year before, in May 2005. " |
As one of the passengers reported, first the cabin lighting failed,
then the air conditioning stopped operating and it became hot in the cabin. Due to technical problems the machine took course for Istambul dumping fuel on the way... Dumping fuel from a MD-80? Burning off fuel perhaps... |
Some video clips from the scene
|
Several sources have been referring to loss of cabin lighting, initially when it all started. Then, we can all see they landed flaps-up, with nose gear extended. One source quoted the captain saying "that the manoeuvre was possible only due to clear sky" , indicating loss of nav equipment.
Taking a Mythbuster approach to the various bits of information: Belly landing: Busted Flaps-up landing: Confirmed Loss of nav equipment: Probable Engine fire (insinuated by one pax): Unconfirmed Rwy overrun: Probable, (they did not neccessarily land on a rwy) Electrical failure: Probable Hydraulic system failure and electrical failure and engine failure/fire seems improbable, to say the least. Over to you. |
According to this Norwegian newspaper they landed on the grass next to the runway as the gear would not come down:
Piloten landet på gresset ved siden av rullebanen - uten landingshjulene ute. - Det elektriske systemet virket ikke og gjorde at landingshjulene ikke kom ut. Pilotene valgte da å nødlande på gresset like ved rullebanen, sier den polske konsulen i Istanbul, Marcin Wilczek, til nyhetsbyrået PAP, ifølge VG. Brannen oppsto som følge av at flyet traff baken med buken først. Never flown a MD-80 or DC-9, but would think gear operatation is hydraulic and alternate extension electric...? So with electric failure, no alternate extension, but they must have lost the hydraulics in the first place to need alternate extension..? (This is not speculation, but rather a question to the MD-80 drivers out there) At any rate, good thing nobody got killed or severly injured...:D |
AMC
|
Dang it sure gets confusing picking between all the conflicting reports.
I did appreciate the long video though One of the passengers seems to describe an engine surge pretty accurately after the descent:confused: The nose gear is down and so is the mains, can't tell if they are locked or not. The lack of flaps is a mystery to me. Also hard to sort out from the news whether there is a loss of electricity and/or hydraulics. A runway overrun is one thing, but a departure off the side of the runway is quite different, so in this case which is it? |
One of the pics shows a ?Localiser aerial just in front of the a/c nose - if so they probably ran off the end.
TP |
My respects to the crew. A job well done.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:59. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.