A340 of Iberia skids off runway in Quito
 

Many links available ... here's one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21714854/

Looks pretty bad, the plane is quite beaten up, possible write off?

http://www.elperiodico.cat/default.a...seccio_PK=1007

Pictures:
http://www.elperiodico.cat/info/gale...&idgaleria=969

Looking at these, both right engines seem to have torn from the wing or at least severely bent. Only one slide deployed, may suggest they only evacuated after a while, so that may explain why nobody was hurt (according to the sources).

Looking at the situation, they seem to have been quite lucky to stop where they did. There is quite a drop a few planelengts further on.

AN2 Driver.

They're very lucky they stopped when they did. The fuselage doesn't seem to be damaged or bent at all; the No2 pylon is presumably repairable, so I would be surprised if it's a write-off.

UIO's altitude is about 9,000', hence a significantly higher landing speed - and a greater chance of tyrebursts.

The number 1 engine looks at a strange angle too!

How many hours did it take to evacuate this aircraft???? The evacuation started in daylight and continued into the night?

Here is another clear picture a lot off damage if you ask me!


http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6104979

Quote from the Jetphotos.net photographer:

More pics here "aircraftfire" http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/sh...d=1#post524208

***WARNING***
 

In order to try and keep some sense of relativity to the theme of this forum, I have moved a copy of this thread to another forum where the armchair experts can willy-wave to their delight about their expertise in insurance damage assessment. If one more person posts on THIS thread, the one in R & N, with their 'expert' opinion on insurance write-off's then they are inviting a forum ban for making me have to go in and move even more posts around.

The same applies to the Neanderthals who feel it is necessary to point out that one or more of the pilots may be a female. It is fairly obvious by their posts that they have no experience of operating airline flights as they would have known that, even though it is not a factor in itself, they don't even know who was the handling pilots. Knuckle draggers of this sort are not welcome on this forum and will soon find themselves relegated to Jet Blast forum where they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are indeed descended from the missing link! :*

This thread is for discussing operational factors and analysis of what happened here. Neanderthals, PC flight sim 'experts' and other 'wannabethoughtofasarealpilot' types can click here where they can get all moist at their leisure. :rolleyes:

More photos:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=515

Well, I think we can all agree you wouldn't want to be the one paying the bill for it!

Any info on what happened yet? What was the weather like at the time?

Here is the wx:

SEQU 092300Z 00000KT 4000N 6000S RA VCFG FEW005 BKN016 OVC100 12/11 Q 1025 NOSIG

SEQU 092209Z 17004KT 3000S 4000N RA VCFG FEW005 BKN023 OVC100 12/11 Q1024 BECMG AT2230 4000

SEQU 092200Z 17008KT 3000S 6000N RA VCFG FEW005 BKN023 OVC100 12/10 Q1024 BECMG AT2230 4000

SEQU 092100Z 33008KT 4000S 9999N -RA VCFG FEW005 BKN023 BKN100 14/10 Q1023 TEMPO 3000

The accident happened at 2206Z (1706LT)

Cheers
BF

Tough call to make on the non-evacuation. Its a lot of damage to be looking out of the window at without running away.

Have a look at the video here:
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/inter...lpepuint_1/Tes
They weren't evacuating at the same speed as they would have if there would have been a risk of fire (more like one person every 15 seconds).
PM

Two points from the photographs:

1) Thrust reversers seem to be stowed, would they retract automatically on a 346 at a set speed

2) A lot of the carcon fibre (or GLARE) bit from underneath the aircraft seem to have cracked and / or broken rather than bent like aluminium would, should this give us pause when thinking about full CF fusalages

That's the remains of the belly fairing. It's not primary structure, and is just there for aerodynamic purposes - fairing the wing to the fuselage and containing the landing gear, packs and much of the hydraulics systems.

No, as composite structure absorb so much more energy, that while their final appearance may be more damaged than aluminium / metals, their ability to protect life is far, far greater.

Hi RTFI,

The thrust reverse would only deploy on command from the throttle, i.e. independent of speed. On the pictures I've seen so far, looks like the T/R's were stowed. Maybe a tire burst distracted the crew from deploying the thrust reversers? Would (could??) a tire burst result in the crew being distracted from deploying the thrust reversers? Does a tire burst result in significant asymmetry to the A/C roll down the runway? Although hard (impossible) to know at this stage, was the burst reported on the nose or main landing gear??

I wouldn't be surprised at seeing CFRP debris. I'd imagine most of the gear doors (& belly fairing??) are CFRP and would be expected considering the damage we've already seen to the main landing gear.

Regards,

P2C

Some interesting comments at this photo, http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5624603
"5th landing ever of the A346 at Quito, probably the highest airport that recieve this aircraft" date 15th of october 2005. Anyone knows how many
cycles as been made to Quito with the A346?
Seem like 300-400 cycles are a good estimate, with 4 accidents including this one.

This accident again, appears to raise the issue of runway safety areas. Whilst the distance of the aircraft from the runway end is not clear, the terrain in overrun area appears less than ideal – downhill slope towards a road (?) and a brick/concrete wall.
On the positive side, soft grass is a good stopping medium. Although this cannot always be relied on, the instances of overrun on wet runways might correlate well with a wet/soft overrun area.

Ref: Landing Threats.