I know this is not the same situation, but again, the same doubts raised by that ill fated TAM Airbus ... this time around the spoilers have deployed, but not the reversers... if this runway was similar to CGN we would be talking about a great number of fatalities here. I've also noted that the runway overrun ocurred at similar speeds.

The lack of manual override of fully computerised systems is a bit worrying.

If you smash up the input system then any computer will give you an unpredictable output. Did not the Brittannia 757 not do strange things with its engines after they managed to break the fuselage, and that was only with a 3.1G touchdown.

Even if the reversers had activated I doubt it would have made a significant difference to the outcome given the high groundspeed, relatively short runway and the absence of at least 33% of the braking capacity.

Two things to consider:

- Reversers will only give you another 100-200m - And the plane only
needed 200m to stop from 85kt because the gear was ripped off.

- Wasn't there a Lauda 767 that did a roll and crashed after one reverser
was deployed in flight ... - Every thing has to sides: The Airbus
logic might have prevented the accident 767 while Boeing logic (= able to reverse
manually) might not have prevented this overrun but might have helped
to decelerate a bit more. Same for the LH A320 Crash in Warsaw.

EDML

She's out of the mud now and parked on GA ramp with no 3 & 4 engines removed... Pic here: http://www.elcomercio.com/noticiaEC....&id_seccion=11

Great cctv video of landing & recovery at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7AnV24-RLQ

Further info: http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/sh...0&page=5&pp=25

Any A346 experts out there, who´s the subcontractor that make the landing gear, Goodrich, http://www.wheelsandbrakes.goodrich....cts/a340.shtml seem to make the wheels and brakes not the landing gear, http://www.lgd.goodrich.com/product_apps.shtml
What are the specs that Airbus give to them which g-force tolerance are specified?
How heavy was the aircraft when it landed, fuel left?

So heard some rumors from Spain that it is a write-off, anyone can confirm that?

An ex-Airbus; it has ceased to be ...
 

It appears so; a Spanish poster on A.net said that the decision has been taken to write it off; presumably IB doesn't want to say anything publicly.

Is there any news on this aircraft? Is it a write off? The a/c scrapped already or still waiting in a corner?

Confirmed as a write-off
 

Regrettably, but not surprisingly, it has been decided that EC-JOH has been written off.

Parting-out is expected to commence at Quito within the next few days and should take about three weeks.

Maybe a Friday night glass of Rioja has made me sentimental but there is something indefinably sad about a virtually new aircraft being written off.
I flew MAD-UIO last summer on another Iberia -600. They're equipped with a real - time camera in the vert stab and it is breathtaking to watch the approach. What a shame.

Pinkman

pinkman....
Its a shame they (IB) f...ed-up!

testpanel: maybe you´re right, maybe not...

I´ve been to Quito and I surely dont want to go there in bad weather with wet runway in a very heavy aircraft.

Maybe that aircraft is too big for that airport?

Busbert, very interesting information there.

Just one small correction:
The Quito A340 did deploy spoilers after - touchdown would be the wrong wording, woudn't it? - as the conditions for this were met (for a very short time).

Could you elaborate on this ? I was under the impression that this was a non reversible condition.

Although apparently the wiring transmitting the wheight-on-wheels signal was severed, it seems that it just came through on touchdown, thus satisfying the ground spoiler extension condition: they deployed.

Reverse Thrust, as per SOP, was probably only selected after touchdown, when the WoW-signal was no longer available, and since this is one of the conditions for RT deployment, RT was unavailable. So was autobrake, apparently. Although to my knowledge AB is triggered by the same signal as the Ground Spoilers, its continuing operation may depend on other conditions, which were lost.

I conclude from this, if it is accurate for the -600 model, that once the ground spoiler extension condition has been satisfied, they stay extended, until the retraction conditions are met, independent of the WoW condition, to avoid spoiler retraction during a bounce.

Conversely, Reverse Thrust actuation depends on continuous aircraft-on-ground-signal from at least one LGCIU, so in its absense, RT will not activate, and a deployed reverser would be stowed.


Bernd

In view of the above and the tragic TAM accident I am still believing that a "panic stop" button (or more to the point some sort of procedure to get maximal breaking performance from the automation systems regardless of what they "think" of the pilot intentions or actual plane condition) could be a welcome enhancement.

Granted such a system would generate it's own problems (such as possible unwanted activation) but I can't help but shudder about those AB pilots sitting in front of their glass cockpit and just watching the end of the runaway approaching in panic while desperately trying to obtain some breaking ! In both cases there where "good" reasons for the systems refusing reverser / spoiler / auto break but the lack of manual override is unnerving.

Just my 2c

Automatism play tricks on us, I agree ... but the "panic stop" button you mention may well be standard equipment already: TOGA ... especially when Thrust REV did not yet deploy.
It won't end the ride though, but still, a nice alternative.

Good point, although in Quito I'm not sure anyone would have wanted to go airborne again... :rolleyes:

Warsaw
 

The whole thing is sadly reminiscent of the Lufty 2904 accident in Warsaw.

They landed in a strong tailwind on a wet runway on one leg. Reverse and Spoiler only became available when the second gear landed, by which time it was too late.. Some sort of manual override would have been helpful here too.

To be sure, the right descision would have been to put the throttles to TOGA.

OORW

Warsaw
 

OutOfRunWay,

The accident at Warsaw prompted a design change, namely to deploy spoilers partially with only one MLG on the ground to dump some lift and assist in getting the second MLG down as soon as possible to get Full Ground Spoilers and Reverse Thrust.


Bernd