AirPhilexpress cowboys - rwy excursion.

[davepoth]

Would have helped if the pilot had used the first half of the runway really, wouldn't it? I'm amazed he didn't go round.

[mattdaniels]

There is no ravine at the end of Kalibo Airport runway.

[Eric Mc]

This what happens when there is a ditch at the end of the runway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2R_6Zi75M8

[anonymous-user]

A lex said:

PAX seem blissfully unaware that the jokers upfront nearly killed them.

.

Really, it overshot but it wasn't life or death..

[baldy1926]

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.

[G600]

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)

[anonymous-user]

I don't understand why you are pushing this so hard (and quite aggressively and sarcastically to other posters), whether they got lucky or not, it simply was not a life and death situation, they over ran onto some grass.

[G600]

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.

[mattdaniels]

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.

And if your auntie had balls she'd be your uncle.

[pacman1]

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.

[G600]

Imagine if the terminal was at the end of the runway!

[pacman1]

Been posted before, but a pretty good effort from the pilot here.

Illushyn aborted takeoff

[maffski]

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.

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)

[surveyor]

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.

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".

[Flanders.]

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.

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".

Im not going to bother stopping for the junction at the bottom of my road later. If nothing coming its going to be perfectly safe right?

[Eric Mc]

I like this one -



"Fill 'er up and I'll have some screenwash as well".

[G600]

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!

[JWH]

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.

[JWH]

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.

I think Alex needs some defence here - the point he's making is that no flightdeck crew sit there floating down the runway, the touch downzone whistling past their backsides thinking 'ah well, we'll continue with this one because there's a nice flat, firm grass overun area so if we do roll off the end of the tarmac nobody'll get hurt'. A commercial jet falling off the end of the runway is categorically disastrous for both their careers and the airlines finances irrespective of what's at the end. I'm confident therefore in saying these chaps f**cked up royally by reacting innappropriately to this situation, I'm also confident in saying that their actions would've been no different if there'd been a bl**dy great cliff at the end of the runway. They simply either thought they could still stop in the space remaining or, even worse, didn't know how to react to the situation. Their error wasn't in deciding that on that runway it'd be okay, it was making either the wrong decision or (possibly worse) no decision at all.

[mattdaniels]

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").