Soups From Ghana, joined Jun 2004, 3438 posts, RR: 13 Posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 8229 times:
'' Dutch Caribbean Exel flight that was departing Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport on Tuesday, operated by this L1011, was forced to abort its takeoff resulting in at least 7 blown tires and a fire in the brakes. The aircraft ended up stuck on the runway for hours.''
anyone knows where the flight destination was?
Next destinations, Suarabaya, beirut, paris, Accra
BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 3013 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7658 times:
I am not sure about any other Air Luxor L1011 incidents, they only had a nose gear collapse on an A320 recently at Funchal.
You might have heard about some aborted take-offs and other L1011 incidents that happened at LIS with Yes. Yes also operates L1011s (2 of them, and that's their entire fleet, see http://www.yes-charter.pt/English/fleet.html). Both Air Luxor's and Yes' L1011 fleet are former TAP aircraft. Yes is owned by TAP and a Portuguese travel agency. TAP has an excellent safety record and probably does the maintenance on the Tristars still - so I was surprised about those reports from LUSA:
"Yes Falha Terceiro Voo no Prazo de Uma Semana
Terça-feira, 02 de Dezembro de 2003
A transportadora charter Yes, participada a 51 por cento pela TAP, falhou ontem o seu terceiro voo no prazo de uma semana, devido a problemas técnicos relacionados com os seus aviões. Ontem, o voo Lisboa-Cancun (México) previsto para as 11h00 foi abortado devido a uma "alteração dos parâmetros de um dos motores", segundo informou a própria companhia."
Yes aborts third flight within one week (2 dec 2003).
The charter airline Yes, 51% owned by TAP, yesterday aborted its third take-off within one week, due to technical problems on its planes. Yesterday, the take-off of flight Lisbon-Cancun with STD 11.00 (operated by EuroAtlantic, however) was aborted due to a "alteration of the parameters of one of the engines" according to the company.
Wietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 7646 times:
There was no Emergency landing, considering the fact it never even got of the ground.
During takeoff run the number 3 engine flamed out, causing panic in the cockpit. They hit the brakes, blocking several if not all wheels, which resulted in 7 flat tyres and fire in the brakes. The brakediscs were so hot, they got melted into the gear itself. runway 06 was blocked for the rest of the day because the wheels were completely blocked.
JBirdAV8r From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 4500 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7016 times:
During takeoff run the number 3 engine flamed out, causing panic in the cockpit.
Flight crews train for this sort of event all the time, and I do mean ALL the time. There IS no panic in the cockpit in this situation.
RTO's can certainly result in blown/deflated tires (and extremely hot brakes, sometimes leading to wheel fires) if done close enough to V1, and especially if the aircraft is particularly heavy (that would be a fairly long flight for the L1011). It's happened before and it will assuredly happen again.
I suggest you do a bit more research before wording something like that. Flight crews do not "panic" in situtations such as this.
YEGPIX From Canada, joined Mar 2002, 159 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 4 days ago) and read 5774 times:
I have a picture of what I believe to be the same airline and aircraft type in the que right now which I took at AMS Schipol the day after this incident. But I don't know how to post it up here in the forums so we can view it. Kevin
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5592 times:
You are probably thinking of Luxor Air. A completely different company which was in trouble with the authorities in France.
And not just France. France was in fact one of the few countries they were still allowed to fly to before the crash...
Most anyone else had already revoked their landing rights due to the unsafe operations of the airline.
Shortly after the accident the company was dismantled.
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 10645 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5299 times:
For your information,
The L-1011 only has 6 tyres in total (4 main landing gear & 2 nosewheel tyres), so 7 blown tyres is not even possible. According to the local newspaper in Curaçao, only 4 tyres were blown in the incident. Anyway, yesterday when I went to work, I still saw the L-1011 parked at KLM Cargo's freight terminal. Anyone knows when it will be fixed? Or is it fixed already?
Sabenapilot From Belgium, joined Feb 2000, 2743 posts, RR: 44
Reply 22, posted (11 years 7 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4019 times:
Those Air Luxor L-1011s surely do have a lot of engine problems lately.
A few months back, SN Brussels Airlines chartered the same Air Luxor L-1011 for a few weeks when one of their A330-300s was in heavy maintenance and guess what? You're right: it suffered an engine problem in BRU! Bad luck you say, but wait...
As if that was not enough, a few days later the same plane had to come back to Brussels because the A/P did not work properly....
And the best of all:
on the return flight from FIH - LAD, visibility at BRU was apparently too bad to land (the plane is only CAT I) so the crew decided on their own (without calling SN Flight Ops!) to divert to Frankfurt and wait there on the ground for improvement without informing SN! Only when the crew was out of duty did they inform SN they were stuck at Frankfurt! (a destination SN does not serve, so you can imagine the nightmare to bring those pax back to BRU!) Obviously, they should have called before diverting, then they would have been instructed to go to some closer airport or at least an airport SN serves.
Wing From Turkey, joined Oct 2000, 1600 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (11 years 7 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3915 times:
ok, maybe not panic in the cockpit, but they completely misjudged the situation. They ended up with 1/4th of the runway left. They could have just braked a little easier.
Before making any comments about what the flight crews "should" do we must have access to information about what had happened in the cockpit during the incident.Also having some qualified information about what the procedure is for a rejected take off will help.This comment surely doesn't have both.
Before all T/O's all data required for a RTO is calculated according to the days temp,rwy lenght,AC weight etc.So its neither panic nor misjudgement involved to stop earlier than the rwy end.Its really hard to stop and accelerating beast to a halt on a hot day,the tyre burst isn't a remote posibility.
There are situations that the pilots have to decide and act quickly and correctly.A fire for example.In such situation you wont think about bursting tire,your priority is to stop the airplane quickly ,fight the fire and decide and order if an evacuation is necassary.No pilot will think about using the all runway to save tyres when stopping is possible.
The time is very important in such situations.A few seconds may differ between life and death for passengers.No one will appreciate you saving 6 tyres,but killing some people on the other end.The Saudi Arabian accident is a very good example for this.Instead of stopping as quick as posibble crew continued taxying while there is a fire in the cabin,with emergency crew trailing the AC,resulting all passengers and crew to die.
follow me on my facebook page" captain wing's journey log"