Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5734382/

Topic: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: Gonzalo
Posted 2013-04-09 14:16:34 and read 14443 times.

Two A330 of Aeroflot has been damaged by FOD after using, in two different days, the same runway at the Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky airport. I honestly fail to understand why the runway wasn't inspected after the first incident, on April 6th. The second incident ( where there is more serious damage, with 111 dents in flaps and fuselage ) , on April 7th, could be avoided if someone ( as it should be ) inofrms about the first incident. Now the cost of repair this two A330 will be much higher than a small concrete patch in a remote airport.

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4607d5f4&opt=0

http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4607d519&opt=0

Rgds.
G.

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: TheAviator380
Posted 2013-04-09 14:39:05 and read 14292 times.

I guess it's just negligence and bad attitude. In ideal world like you said, they should have done inspection of runway after first incidence....big lesson for them !

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: mesaflyguy
Posted 2013-04-09 14:39:13 and read 14292 times.

What I want to know is why the damage went three days without being noticed (from Apr 6- Apr 9) when a postflight inspection found it.

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: LuftyMatt
Posted 2013-04-09 15:43:13 and read 13973 times.

I hope SU makes the airport pay them for the damage. FOD is a big problem at a lot of airports and causes millions of pounds/ dollars etc in damage. When it could be all be avoided by someone employed to pick it up around the airport, this always baffles me why airports don't make FOD a bigger priority.

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: teneriffe77
Posted 2013-04-09 18:36:22 and read 13565 times.

FOD can also be downright dangerous as shown by the 1970 crash of a TI DC-8-63CF at JFK when a piece of asphalt covered stone caused a loss of pitch control killing all 11 aboard
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19700908-1

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: LuftyMatt
Posted 2013-04-10 04:38:12 and read 11691 times.

Quoting teneriffe77 (Reply 4):

Very true. Aviation regulatory bodies (EASA, CAA, FAA) etc, need to be clamping down on this important issue! Instead the responsibility for FOD always seems to be passed around at airports. The airport leaves it to handling agents, handling agents leave it to the airport.

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: AA777
Posted 2013-04-10 06:43:15 and read 10027 times.

Please, please, please...enough with the abbreviations. Drives me (and I'm sure lots of others) nuts, spell it out somewhere first so we don't have to look up what FOD is.

In any case... hopefully they will repair the runways quickly. Someone mentioned the issue of permafrost making the runways more likely to degrade... interesting issue, I wonder how the weather makes if more difficult to make repairs when necessary...

-AA777

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: Navigator
Posted 2013-04-10 06:50:56 and read 9870 times.

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 3):
this always baffles me why airports don't make FOD a bigger priority

Most airports in the world do put FOD high up on their priority list. All scandinavian airports do inspections at regular intervals at all runways and taxiways in use.

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: aircatalonia
Posted 2013-04-10 08:38:26 and read 7976 times.

This is a section of the runway on Google Earth as of 09/05/2012:

http://i49.tinypic.com/2hptyqw.jpg

It doesn't look too good.

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: TS-IOR
Posted 2013-04-10 08:51:52 and read 7734 times.

The common practice is to complaint about it. Did Aeroflot pilots informed their company about the situation there so it contacts the authorities for urgent repairs ?! Or is it the chaotic Russian administration ?!

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: SXDFC
Posted 2013-04-10 10:19:49 and read 6225 times.

Quoting AA777 (Reply 6):
Please, please, please...enough with the abbreviations. Drives me (and I'm sure lots of others) nuts, spell it out somewhere first so we don't have to look up what FOD is.

Although I agree with you, unfortunately that wont go very far, as much of the aviation industry is filled with abbreviations..

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: LuftyMatt
Posted 2013-04-10 11:21:38 and read 5274 times.

Quoting AA777 (Reply 6):
spell it out somewhere first so we don't have to look up what FOD is.


I agree that there are too many abbreviations in aviation, and it can be annoying sometimes.

FOD= Foreign Object Debris (bits and bobs laying around on the taxiway, aprons and runways.) Basically rubbish.
EASA= European Aviation Safety Agency
CAA= Civil Aviation Agency
FAA= Federal Aviation Agency

Hope this helps  

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-10 11:41:07 and read 4962 times.

Quoting AA777 (Reply 6):
Please, please, please...enough with the abbreviations. Drives me (and I'm sure lots of others) nuts, spell it out somewhere first so we don't have to look up what FOD is.

Relax, it's not all that bad. You'll forgive those of us who have lived most of our lives before there was an Internet for not being able to work up too much sympathy.  

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: 26point2
Posted 2013-04-10 12:13:31 and read 4498 times.

I have used Petro as a tech stop a few times and the runway is in horrible condition. It's comprised of giant concrete slabs with substantial seams between the slabs. It feels like hitting a speed bump at every seam. It's an old Soviet era relic that has seen little improvement and is surely hard to maintain to any sort of operational suitability.

I must say this is about the worst runway I have operated to/from in my career. The old rugged Soviet built planes could handle it but not so sure about the Western built types. Can't be good. I was in a biz jet and thankful each time to be airborne at last. We always checked for damage after each use of that runway.

Incidentally, UHPP is on the Pacific Coast...it can get very cold there but I'm not so sure this is a permafrost region. Could be wrong though.

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: awthompson
Posted 2013-04-10 13:55:23 and read 3152 times.

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 11):
FOD= Foreign Object Debris

In the Royal Air Force, I always knew FOD as Foreign Object Damage.

Does anyone know which SU A330s are affected? I flew recently on VQ-BPI HKG to SVO (for those who don't like abbreviations, Hong Kong to Sheremetyevo.)

We have had an issue at Belfast International in the last few days with EXS (Jet2) B733 having received engine damage and withdrawing some flights until assurance received that problem would not recur. Flights were moved temporarily to Belfast City and City of Derry. However, phased runway re-surfacing is ongoing and could explain the higher incidence of debris.

A few months ago, also at BFS on an EZY (Easyjet, again for abbreviation dislikers) A319, after pushback a ramper noticed a foreign object in a front tyre which was described as a nail or small bolt. When extracted, the tyre started to deflate. We had to taxy back onto stand and have a wheel change before resuming flight to AMS (Amsterdam) over an hour delayed. So one does not need to go to Russia to experience FOD.

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: awthompson
Posted 2013-04-10 14:02:36 and read 3052 times.

Further to my previous, I have just read the links. My VQ-BPI was indeed one of the aircraft affected. Also very coincidentally, the other aircraft, VQ-BMY was the aircraft I should have flown on from SVO-HKG but missed the flight due to fog delay on my connecting SU flight out of AMS. They put us on VP-BAZ (a B763) to Hanoi instead. That was fun!

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: RussianJet
Posted 2013-04-10 14:17:12 and read 2858 times.

FOD is an extremely common abbreviation. Easy to look up too. Not a big deal at all.

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: peterjohns
Posted 2013-04-10 14:44:30 and read 2664 times.

Quoting awthompson (Reply 14):
We have had an issue at Belfast International in the last few days with EXS (Jet2) B733
Quoting awthompson (Reply 14):
A few months ago, also at BFS on an EZY (Easyjet, again for abbreviation dislikers) A319

What does "A" and "B" mean in your text- ( A319, B733) ??!!

Sorry, I couldnĀ“t resist!!  

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: Gonzalo
Posted 2013-04-10 15:04:07 and read 2613 times.

Quoting 26point2 (Reply 13):
Incidentally, UHPP is on the Pacific Coast...

And to be honest, is in a very remote peninsula, thousands of miles away from Moscow, and every single thing they need to build and maintain infrastructure is probably hard to get and expensive.

Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 11):
FAA= Federal Aviation Agency

No to be nitpicking, but is Federal Aviation Administration, not "agency".


http://www.faa.gov/

Rgds.
G.

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: hivue
Posted 2013-04-10 15:10:26 and read 2578 times.

Quoting awthompson (Reply 14):
Quoting LuftyMatt (Reply 11):
FOD= Foreign Object Debris

In the Royal Air Force, I always knew FOD as Foreign Object Damage.

Yes, the big problem with FOD is that it can result in FOD.  

Topic: RE: Two SU A333 Damaged By FOD At The Same Airport
Username: LuftyMatt
Posted 2013-04-11 05:02:14 and read 2201 times.

Quoting Navigator (Reply 7):
Most airports in the world do put FOD high up on their priority list. All scandinavian airports do inspections at regular intervals at all runways and taxiways in use.

I know Scandinavian airports are well run, and other airports around Europe and the world should follow their example. Unfortunately other airports around the world don't place FOD as high a priority as they should.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/