Yes I agree, spoilers appear to be deployed.

Re the clip. The only really relevant part was the first interview, of an Ecuarorean pilot whose comments appeared to me, at least, to be very very much in the direction of "let's wait for more information". The interviewer asked about aquaplaning and said that local pilots, with "greater local knowlege therefore more caution" tended to fly under the GS; the interviewee promptly said that if they did so they'd be in breach of SOPs. He also said the very rapid fire truck response was reassuring.

The rest of the clip, with other interviewees, concerns Iberia's supposed lack of proper attention to distraught passengers, and a to-and-fro regarding the location/changes to the concession details of a new Quito airport; I switched off.

LDA
 

I had a chat with somebody who works in Ib. Im told that the runway is tight for a A340 at the best of times with many landings being " rough " . On previous occassions in the last months there have been long delays for IB with tests conducted on undercarraige.

I am a PPL so dont know what the shortfield approach procedure is in that plane . But it sounded to me like it was plonk it onto the runway as early and slow as possible. I am told that many of the landings there are a bit " bumpy " and thats not SLF bumpy but crew bumpy.

If the runways is tight in terms of LDA and they blew a few tires on a wet surface its easy to imagine how it all went pear shaped. Im not sure how one factor effects the other.

The plane is a write off with the airframe badly twisted.

thirtysomething,

there is no such thing as a shortfield procedure on big airliners.

You are always expected to put it on the touchdown markers at Vref.

Of course, landing on a 4000m RWY at Sealevel gives you some distance to play with, and I tend to prolong the flare to achieve a smoother touchdown, but that is actually not in the book (meaning no SOP).

You never fly slower because of a shortfield, you should always be on your precalculated speed. My speedcontrol will get more focus on short RWY, but I will never fly deliberatly slower (my FO would call a goaround, if I did).

Same is true for contaminated RWYs.

Nic

so that's two A340's in the bin within 2 weeks.

I may be doing it wrong but Vref is what I cross the fence at, not the speed at the touchdown. :confused:

Hi, Thanks. I wonder what the landing distance required is versus LDA and if this was a factor in the "arrival". I dont have the skill to work that out but if it is tight as i was told , it appeared to me in the video that the plane landed beyond the touchdown markers ?

Check the middle left frame just above the rear half of engine 4... spoiler deployment. It's "consistent" with the photo of spoiler deployment on the Virgin 346 shot (see the upper part of the wing and window line above the aft half of engine #1.

As to lack of reverse, again check engine #3 on the middle left frame... looks like partial deployment/stow.

PK-KAR...

30something:

try telling rainboe that !

There's been very little on the removal of the aircraft. However, there is a new clip on YouTube with footage I hadn't seen before and showing that it went straight off the end, not via the side. Look for:
LLEGA EQUIPO PARA RECUPERAR AVION DE IBERIA

Surely not? The end section of the video, when they are off the slides, shows:
1. A beautiful sunny day (wasn't it pouring with rain)
2. The aircraft on the runway

Doesn't seem to fit the other pictures at all (or am I missing something?)

Edit - I have just looked at the comments - this is a video from 2002, NOT the recent Quito event.

It's clearly a B747, and even the blurb under the video indicates that it refers to an evac after engine fire on a JFK-MAD flight.

:)

Looking at the video, clearly the passengers weren't terrified enough by events in the air and the flight crew obviously did a smooth job of landing it, otherwise they'd have been out a lot faster. To keep up the A340 theme, think of the AF A340 at Toronto - no one stuck around once that stopped moving, and I suspect at Quito they had every incentive to get out pronto.

Wrong accident. Much loss of face. Sorry.

As previously mentioned, you do not stay on the glideslope operating into Quito.

Our procedure is to transition to the PAPI at 9900 feet, deliberately flying beneath the slope (this is an approved procedure)

That is if you want to stop on the runway..

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this always true when referring to a CAT 1 ILS?

Iberia operates under the provisions of JAR OPS which states (1.515) that for jet aircraft the LD available must be at least 1,666.. times the LD required(dry) and for wet runways multiply by 1,15 on top of that - generally speaking.

I am quite sure that Vref to Vref -5 was the correct TD speed with that terminology. Now on the other hand, I, tough may have been trained poorly, attempt to cross fence at Vapp and flare to Vls, landing at Vls to Vls-7 :) Surely that is what you ment as well.

No, correct procedure is to follow the glidepath all the way to the runway.

For some aircraft ( like 747) papi is giving wrong info ( below a certain height) due to the distance between glidepath antenna and cockpit.

Sorry slam_dunk, but stilton is right. For the approach to rwy 35 at Quito you do not stay on the glideslope. If you do that, you will touch down way too far, leaving you with insufficient runway to comfortably stop a widebody. After safely crossing over the last bit of granite that's in front of the runway (and you do that at approx. 9900ft on the GS), you leave the glideslope and "dive" towards the PAPI. This enables you to touch down at the normal touchdown point and hopefully stop the bugger in time - the word "comfortably" still not being applicable on a wet runway :bored:.
The correct visual glideslope for your 744 on the PAPI may well be 3 white/1 red - but that's a different story.