Vietjet runway excursion VVTS Saigon
 

Vietjet Air (A pay to fly airline) A320 VN-A657 flight PQC-SGN was involved in a runway excursion today at 12.24 local time. Airline statement blames rainy weather for the accident.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c48e5a710a.jpg

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4dd7c64a39.jpg

It would appear that the (Pay to Fly) Pilot got confused by the location of the airstairs in the field.

(Not sure why Pay to Fly is relevant at this point).

VVTS 140530Z 30010G26KT 230V340 7000 2000E +SHRA SCT013 SCT015CB 26/26 Q1007 BECMG TL0550 3000 TSRA RMK CB OVER RWY=

Weather was not that great...

Just in time for tea and biscuits with the training department!

In my part of the world, we're required to carry holding fuel or alternate fuel when TS are on the TAF.

So it’s confirmed the plane landed because it did not have fuel to divert ? Or you assuming he landed because he had no fuel to divert ?

No, but in some parts of the world we have properly paid pilots, and not self paying interns in the right seat, clue less. Sign of the times.

Someone mentioned 10 knots gusting 26 knots. Well, that's nothing in this region. Not a place for noobs and single pilot ops.

Got an FR24 alert that EVA air was holding for 4 hours as a result of runway closure- what’s with that? 4 hours of holding??

My guess... likely he was tankering ...

Learning to wait
 

Thunderstorms in the VVTS, VDPP and VDSR region are severe but short in duration. You just need 2 things: Extra fuel and patience. Most of the time, within 30 mins you will be able to continue the approach. Thankfully no one was seriously hurt

Did the burst main gear tire, cause the excursion or was it caused by the excursion?

Except if you are caught right when the show starts! Not a nice place to be ! You are then required airmanship, and that can't be bought

Recency may have been a factor, 3 months on the ground doesn’t do much for your handling skills.

Recency shouldn't problem for a decent crew. A decent, non-current crew would have briefed at the beginning of the day that they were not recent and therefore should fly with an abundance of caution. Landing on a very wet runway with a thunderstorm overhead is clearly not the wisest option for a crew that is out of recency.

We're all going to be rusty and will need to re-build our skills gradually. Attacking a thunderstorm in an A320 is a foolish endeavor at the best of times, let alone if it's your first flight in 3 months. This is simply no excuse for failure or mistake. A decent pilot should realise their limits and stay on the right side of them.

Threat
Error
Mitigation

The CRM tools are there empower pilots to stop this kind of cock-up, failure to utilise those tools is simply the difference between a professional pilot, and an ameteur.

If lack of recency is the reason for this accident, then the captain should hang his head in shame and hand over his license.

I'll end with making it clear I have no idea what the crews recency actually was - that will come out in the wash - but if it was a serious factor; they might have considered excercising a little more caution!

I’m still surprised they did not have a fatal accident yet. Vietjet is famous to recruit pilots who have failed in other airlines. Most of the direct entry captains who have been fired during training in our company due to poor flying skills ended in Vietjet within few weeks.

What I'm inferring to is that if they had holding fuel, then they could have had the option to wait it out until the TS had passed the airport.

Thankfully a survivable event.
Do we actually know what the crews flying experience was in the last 7/28/90 days?

Given the met information available before departure, good old fashioned AIRMANSHIP would have dictated that sufficient extra fuel would be sensible course of action to take.

It is evident that the THREAT ERROR MANAGEMENT process was not successfully utilised, and only lip service was paid to the SOPs.

“Pony Express” mentality is never a sensible style to adopt.

As ever the buck stops with the crew, or should I say the aircraft commander. The CRM aspects, crew interface as PF/PM, together with the airlines culture needs to be explored.

Unless there were technical faults with the aircraft, this has all the hallmarks of a wholly avoidable accident.

Will this event concentrate the minds of management, and the Regulator?
Hopefully not a habitual style where accidents are regarded an occupation hazard.....

Airmanship and Pay to Fly it’s an oxymoron....

There have been previous incidents with faults in the nose wheel steering of the A320 and I'm sure we've all seen the video of Jet Blue. In this case I would be leaning towards weather and lack of recency rather than a technical issue, though their long list of events include plenty of those. Airmanship obviously called into question as well.

The Aviation Herald

Is there evidence that a technical fault existed in this accident?

Non sequitur aka. ‘ a red herring ‘ ?

Is there evidence that a technical fault existed in this accident?

Ah, but is there any evidence that it didn't?

You might get a better appreciation by looking at AVHerald.com

The operator made no mention of a mechanical issue ~ simply skidded off the runway during heavy rain.
There are other remarks made by other commentators which include landing in tropical storm NURI, windshear, flooded runway etc.

The human factors involved will hopefully be dissected in the accident report, including the training regime.
The PF/PM (crew) protocols started to fail at the moment the refuelling decision was taken.

To quote a phrase said to me by an old hand many moons ago:
”if you think training is expensive, wait until you have an accident”

That it skidded off the runway in wet weather is self evident, but why is, at this point in time, not. I have in the past seen many dubious statements made by airline "officials" in that part of the world. Let's not hang the crew until the full facts are known.

Love it!

So every time it rains this kind of incident is the norm?

Why hang them out ..... at all?

There is rain and then there is ‘rain’ generated by a tropical storm with its associated characteristics.

All airline cultures emanates from the top. They set the style and tone which cascades all the way down through the employees and contractors.

The answer as to why the aircraft came off the paved surface may well be revealed by studying, inter alia, the HUMAN FACTORS of this incident from a Report Time ( or even before ) to the end of the crews working day. They would clearly be feeling wretched and sick as to what occurred, and wish they could rewind the clock.

Start with management’s style and then work down to the ‘shop floor’.

Normal mindset
 

So every time it rains this kind of incident is the norm? … … or not.

'Normal Mindset' is part of the problem. Rain and TX may be normal; follow the SOP, but no reason not to check how far conditions deviate from the Standard, and change Operational Procedure depending on the actual conditions.

Runways are often wet - SOP based on wet performance plus % safety margin, autobrake level 'x', reliance on reported braking action, normal reverse.

But if the 'normal' SOP does not encourage (allow) change, or require a check of the actual runway conditions, calculating the actual landing distance required for both wet and flooded, reassessment and increasing the % distance safety margin, considering the runway surface type and condition for every runway end, crosswind effect, tyre tread on that particular flight, adjusting autobrake setting for each flight, use manual brake, mentally noting the distance still available after slowing down, areas of puddles.

Then without thinking about these issues - a new normal will be established with each overrun; opposed to improving experience on each and every flight.

It doesn’t exist by default. It’s original, normal state. Technical fault requires evidence.

There is no end to airlines that foster a culture of "Real men don't go around." With these operators, unless directed to go around by ATC, a go-around is seen as a loss of face. That is why it is unheard of in these cultures for the copilot to take control from the captain for the purpose of going around. It has ever been thus and always will be.