Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

B747 runway overrun (Video)

Wikiposts
Search
Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

B747 runway overrun (Video)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 14th Jun 2006, 19:21
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In my own little world
Posts: 776
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
B747 runway overrun (Video)

Don't know if this has been posted on here, tried a search but couldn't find owt.

A Tradewinds 747 over ran the runway at MDE last week causing substantial damage. Apparantly had some kind of engine problem warrenting an aborted take off, but failed to stop before running off the end of the wet runway.

The over run was captured on video by an airport security camera :-

http://ds1.thatvideosite.com/streamv...key=1150207070

5 crew members onboard all evacuated safely.

A/c was carrying a cargo of flowers and was destined for MIA.

Leezyjet is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2006, 05:56
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RNG is the airport, "Rio Negro," a town outside Medellin; MDE is the downtown airport.
GlueBall is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2006, 07:35
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well he's got no reverse untill maybe the very last second. That would explain the overrun in wet conditions.
Daysleeper is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2006, 05:30
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Australia.
Posts: 308
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually, not achieving full reverse thrust until right at the last moment doesn't explain why the B747 ran off the runway. Take-off performance data assumes no reverse thrust. Only brakes and spoilers are used in their calculations. Any reverse thrust is a bonus.
Also the fact that the runway was wet should have been accounted. So too if the runway was contaminated with standing water up to 13 mm.
Blip is offline  
Old 16th Jun 2006, 07:43
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Take-off performance data assumes no reverse thrust.
Not quite, DRY data assumes no reverse, WET data assumes full credit for reverse. At least our UK books do so not using reverse would compromise their take off stop performance.
Daysleeper is offline  
Old 17th Jun 2006, 15:57
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Tellus
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Assuming "wet" data was used symmetrical reverse thrust on 2 enginges is accounted for in the performance calculations.
Mudhut is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2006, 19:09
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ft, Lauderdale,FL
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Odds are really good that you are going sailing off the end if you are bumping up against the runway limit. The airplane is 35 years old and the data was compiled using test pilots from boeing with a brand new airplane with brand new brakes. Even with the built in error margins,assuming he did everything right, it's a tricky proposition on a wet runway.
Raas767 is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2006, 22:26
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>>Not quite, DRY data assumes no reverse, WET data assumes full credit for reverse<<

Don't be so sure, Daysleeper, the aeroplane was operated to FAA regulations, not CAA/JAR.

Many differences, old boy.
411A is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2006, 06:16
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Varies!
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
411A

Daysleeper did refer to 'UK books' old boy!
BYMONEK is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2006, 07:27
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Downunder
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The books that I've used since 1981 assume no credit for reverse.
skol is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2006, 10:24
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK, In the middle at the bottom and sometimes in LHR!
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They will definitely be in for tea and bickies with the guv'nor!!

M.
mackey is offline  
Old 20th Jun 2006, 16:02
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thumbs up

OUCH!

p.s. i don't know how that thumbsup appeared... I don't think it something for thumbs up... very glad all aboard made out fine

Last edited by rhovsquared; 23rd Jun 2006 at 21:20.
rhovsquared is offline  
Old 21st Jun 2006, 17:26
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Northport, NW England
Age: 44
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe he stopped exactly where he should have.

Actually has anyone considered that he was always going off the end of the runway?

Perf A RTO Performanc only gurantees you'll stop within the "Accelerate Stop Distance Available" (the ASDA ) and that is not neccessarily within the Paved surface of the runway, but can be in the stop end beyond the usable Take Off Run Available (TORA).

Admittedly in this case if there is a Stop Way it doesn't look much up to weight bearing capability.

Only thought here is that he used the wrong data i.e. Dry instead of wet or even a TESCO instead of an ASDA ? (sorry guys but thats a Ground school Classic in the UK)
World of Tweed is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2006, 16:01
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Has anyone considered that they don't know exactly what happened and maybe they shouldn't speculate about what the crew actually did or did not do?

And, if you're going to post about performance data assumptions and procedures, at least be CORRECT.
Roadtrip is offline  
Old 22nd Jun 2006, 17:02
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
World of Tweed TESCO ??? not an American classic. what is it as compared to asda?
rhovsquared is offline  
Old 23rd Jun 2006, 13:32
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Bishops Castle
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They both promise distance for your money but ultimatlely you end up with nothing at the end.
CV Donator is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2006, 16:28
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Bernardino
Age: 39
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
$5 says that was a write-off.
DAL2728 is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2006, 05:12
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yep, it's a write off.

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5757287

http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=5757284

DAL2728, think you'll have trouble winning that bet as these photo's were posted the same day
SMOC is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2006, 09:00
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If full credit for reverse thrust is included for a wet runway, then dispatch with a thrust-reverser locked out would be a no-go item in the MEL, which it is not. However, full reverse must be available for landing on a slippery/contaminated runway.
skiesfull is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2006, 14:01
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Down under land
Posts: 307
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
skiesfull,
not exactly correct - if you have a thrust reverser inoperative you must use the chart/corrections for wet runway with T/R INOP takeoffs. You'll find that the MEL refers to use applicable performance data. You'll see that in a field lenghth limited runway there is a significant weight penalty.
Watchdog is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.