AirPhilexpress cowboys - rwy excursion.
Discussion
This what happens when there is a ditch at the end of the runway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2R_6Zi75M8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2R_6Zi75M8
A lex said:
Seems like I will have to spell it out. They got away with it; not because it was a good, calculated decision, but because they were lucky and there was a decent grass over-run at the end of the runway. There is a growing problem of 'saving face' in certain Asian and Far-Eastern airlines, they'd rather stick on the runway at all costs rather than go around and try again. Either that or they are grossly incompetent.
This was absolutely 'life and death' - different runway, with a ravine at the end, or built up with a drop-off and the outcome would have been completely different.
Or a really soft run off that would have taken the undercarriage off.This was absolutely 'life and death' - different runway, with a ravine at the end, or built up with a drop-off and the outcome would have been completely different.
A lex said:
This was absolutely 'life and death' - different runway, with a ravine at the end, or built up with a drop-off and the outcome would have been completely different.
Yes it would but the important word is different, There wasnt a ravine so how is that relevant?(I'm not saying it wasnt a stupid mistake continuing that landing though)
A lex said:
Because if their had been a ravine, ditch, embankment, building, road, hell anything do you really think it would have altered their decision to do what they did?
It thought it was a simple enough point, but apparently not.....
No I don't know if it would have changed their minds, but neither do you, it is a simple point, but that doesn't make it right. It thought it was a simple enough point, but apparently not.....
Just wondering, but do these pilots suffer from some sort of landing fixation?
Despite the rational thing of going around again, as per text book, do they get so consumed with the close proximity of the ground, that their head tells them it will be fine once they're on the tarmac, even though they might not have enough of it left on which to stop..
They'd make st carrier pilots, that's for sure.
Despite the rational thing of going around again, as per text book, do they get so consumed with the close proximity of the ground, that their head tells them it will be fine once they're on the tarmac, even though they might not have enough of it left on which to stop..
They'd make st carrier pilots, that's for sure.
baldy1926 said:
A lex said:
Seems like I will have to spell it out. They got away with it; not because it was a good, calculated decision, but because they were lucky and there was a decent grass over-run at the end of the runway. There is a growing problem of 'saving face' in certain Asian and Far-Eastern airlines, they'd rather stick on the runway at all costs rather than go around and try again. Either that or they are grossly incompetent.
This was absolutely 'life and death' - different runway, with a ravine at the end, or built up with a drop-off and the outcome would have been completely different.
Or a really soft run off that would have taken the undercarriage off.This was absolutely 'life and death' - different runway, with a ravine at the end, or built up with a drop-off and the outcome would have been completely different.
Once the crew commited to a landing they couldn't make they were little more than passengers as well.
Out of interest how are go arounds seen in the industry. Is it better safe than sorry or a meeting with a middle management desk telling you not to scare passengers and waste company fuel (as you may tell, I don't do a job that peoples lives depend on... ...which is probably quite lucky for everyone)
G600 said:
A lex said:
Because if their had been a ravine, ditch, embankment, building, road, hell anything do you really think it would have altered their decision to do what they did?
It thought it was a simple enough point, but apparently not.....
No I don't know if it would have changed their minds, but neither do you, it is a simple point, but that doesn't make it right. It thought it was a simple enough point, but apparently not.....
It was patently not, as they came off the runway, and that is inherently dangerous. OK they were luck enough to get away with it, but in reality they should have gone around.
I can't find it possible to imagine a conversation in the cockpit "OK we are landing late, but that's OK we can use the overrun".
surveyor said:
G600 said:
A lex said:
Because if their had been a ravine, ditch, embankment, building, road, hell anything do you really think it would have altered their decision to do what they did?
It thought it was a simple enough point, but apparently not.....
No I don't know if it would have changed their minds, but neither do you, it is a simple point, but that doesn't make it right. It thought it was a simple enough point, but apparently not.....
It was patently not, as they came off the runway, and that is inherently dangerous. OK they were luck enough to get away with it, but in reality they should have gone around.
I can't find it possible to imagine a conversation in the cockpit "OK we are landing late, but that's OK we can use the overrun".
surveyor said:
So you are saying that because they used the overrun this was a safe landing!
It was patently not, as they came off the runway, and that is inherently dangerous. OK they were luck enough to get away with it, but in reality they should have gone around.
I can't find it possible to imagine a conversation in the cockpit "OK we are landing late, but that's OK we can use the overrun".
No not at all, I'm just saying why bring the danger of ravines etc into it when they weren't there!It was patently not, as they came off the runway, and that is inherently dangerous. OK they were luck enough to get away with it, but in reality they should have gone around.
I can't find it possible to imagine a conversation in the cockpit "OK we are landing late, but that's OK we can use the overrun".
maffski said:
Exactly, front wheels dig in and get ripped off. Aircraft drops, one of then engines is taken off its mount, fuel everywhere and it's a video we never get to see.
Once the crew commited to a landing they couldn't make they were little more than passengers as well.
Out of interest how are go arounds seen in the industry. Is it better safe than sorry or a meeting with a middle management desk telling you not to scare passengers and waste company fuel (as you may tell, I don't do a job that peoples lives depend on... ...which is probably quite lucky for everyone)
In the outfit I work for (and I'm sure every decent European carrier) management will (within clearly - you can't do it just because you fancy it......) never question the decision to go around and try again. Any outfit that does is simply starting the process of leading their crew into an incident.Once the crew commited to a landing they couldn't make they were little more than passengers as well.
Out of interest how are go arounds seen in the industry. Is it better safe than sorry or a meeting with a middle management desk telling you not to scare passengers and waste company fuel (as you may tell, I don't do a job that peoples lives depend on... ...which is probably quite lucky for everyone)
G600 said:
A lex said:
Because if their had been a ravine, ditch, embankment, building, road, hell anything do you really think it would have altered their decision to do what they did?
It thought it was a simple enough point, but apparently not.....
No I don't know if it would have changed their minds, but neither do you, it is a simple point, but that doesn't make it right. It thought it was a simple enough point, but apparently not.....
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that this was an appalling occurrence and a terrible piece of airmanship.
I think what some people are objecting to is the slightly Daily Mail-esque "it was a life and death situation because there might have been a ravine at the end of the runway". You can't label a situation as life and death on the basis of a non existent geographic feature. Aviation professionals are the first to complain about such sensationalism in the media (usually it's "plummetting" and "schools" that are involved, not "ravines").
I think what some people are objecting to is the slightly Daily Mail-esque "it was a life and death situation because there might have been a ravine at the end of the runway". You can't label a situation as life and death on the basis of a non existent geographic feature. Aviation professionals are the first to complain about such sensationalism in the media (usually it's "plummetting" and "schools" that are involved, not "ravines").
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff