Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LOT 767 Emergency - What Happened To The Runway?  
User currently offlineabrown532 From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Feb 2008, 152 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 11894 times:

Even though the landing without gear was excellent and very smooth, surely whilst sliding to a stop, the aircraft would have severely damaged the surface of the runway. I wonder how long the runway was out of service for.

It's the same with all gear-up landings. Surely it must cost the airport considerable cost/time to repair the runway after a gear-up landing.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBuyantukhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2872 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11782 times:

Quoting abrown532 (Thread starter):
I wonder how long the runway was out of service for.

About 1,5 day if I recall. I was on one of the first planes to land after the airport reopened and I think I saw some scratches still, but it may have been my vivid imagination at 6am.



I scratch my head, therefore I am.
User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3038 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 11688 times:

Remember there was some sort of material laid on the runway before the landing. I don't know much about it, but that surely would have protected the runway as well.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineawthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7177 times:

It seems few people are posting today, maybe recovering after eating/drinking too much on Christmas day! I just ate too much chocolate, that's all, so I don't feel too bad today!

I would also be interested to know more about your question. I believe part of the runway (but not all) was sprayed with foam before the emergency landing. I believe the main purpose of foam in this situation is to suppress possible sparks which could ignite any leaked fuel however foam would not prevent runway surface damage.

If the runway was in use again within a day and a half as suggested by Buyantukhaa (above) then any repairs would have been confined to replacement of damaged lights and some quick repainting of lines and markings after removel of all loose debris. This short time span would certainly not have permitted actual hard surface replacement / regrooving. Clearly there would have been some surface scrapes and damage to grooving during the event however perhaps not serious enough to prevent the runway being used until it would next be due for re-surfacing.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I have would elaborate from past experience in other incidents around the world.


User currently offlineAirlineCritic From Finland, joined Mar 2009, 699 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 7049 times:

The aircraft is made of aluminium a few millimeters thick, the runway is thick concrete or asphalt. The gear-less aircraft is in contact with the runway throughout its landing but any individual spot in the runway is in contact with the aircraft only as it passes by. I would expect there to be some scratches to the surface material, but nothing that would prevent even immediate use, as long as the aircraft and any debris was removed from the runway.

Runway lights might have suffered, however. They are in modules that can be lifted out and replaced, which I assume they did. I'd give pretty good odds for no lights being damaged either, however.

If anyone have pictures of the aftermath showing the runway surface that would be nice. But in general, I would expect runway - aircraft collisions to end up being won by the runway.


User currently offlinehorstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 244 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6572 times:

Quoting awthompson (Reply 3):
This short time span would certainly not have permitted actual hard surface replacement

a few years ago one runway at frankfurt airport was reconstructed literally over night. they had a time frame of just a little more than 7 hours to remove tranches of 15x60x0,6m of concrete each night and replace it with asphalt before the runway was fully in use the next morning.
so it actually is possible to to repair a runway in a short time span.

but i would agree to this:

Quoting AirlineCritic (Reply 4):

I can´t imagine there is much more than a few scratches. this landing was very smooth i think.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4381 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6470 times:

Quoting abrown532 (Thread starter):
Even though the landing without gear was excellent and very smooth,

Yes, a very smooth completely unnecessary gear up landing..



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11615 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6115 times:

It is part of an airport's emergency plan to have organisations on call to deal with any infrastructure damage arising, plus to remove stricken aircraft from the runway.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5283 times:

Quoting abrown532 (Thread starter):
the aircraft would have severely damaged the surface of the runway.

Runway pavement is incredibly thick and strong...we're talking equivalent to bunkers and other construction designed to withstand bombs (this is why air forces had to invent special runway cratering bombs). Sliding a bunch of aluminum and steel chunks across the surface without any particularly high pressure contact is going to mess up the lights and paint but not a whole lot else.

Tom.


User currently offlinekl911 From Ireland, joined Jul 2003, 5120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4702 times:

So who was to blame, the airplane or the runway?  


Next trip : DUB-AUH-CGK-DPS-KUL-AUH-CDG-ORK :-)
User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9726 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4608 times:

Yes, I agree with the posts as well. The runway shouldn't have gotten damage other than scratches as the material used on a runway is very strong (combination of concrete and asphalt). The runway's PCN value should tell you exactly of what material the runway is built. I certainly wouldn't have expected a lot of damage to the runway or none at all.

A388


User currently offlineawthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4134 times:

Quoting horstroad (Reply 5):
a few years ago one runway at frankfurt airport was reconstructed literally over night. they had a time frame of just a little more than 7 hours to remove tranches of 15x60x0,6m of concrete each night and replace it with asphalt before the runway was fully in use the next morning.
so it actually is possible to to repair a runway in a short time span.

Yes it certainly is frequent practise to relay runway in sections during night/closed hours at airports, then the next night ar a few nights later, cut the grooves. However such an operation is the culmination of (at the very least) a financial appraisal, a tendering process to select a contractor, then a planning process involving numerous meetings between contractor(s) and airport operations before the plan is put into action (you would know I work in management.) This is why I am pretty confident it did not happen at WAW in such a short notice situation.

The above said, large airports or airports with single runway operations would of course have an ongoing contract renewable every two or three years for short notice emergency type runway repairs.


User currently offlineScooter01 From Norway, joined Nov 2006, 1199 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3935 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

NO PROBLEM -WE FIX!

Signed: Polish skilled handymen in Norway.....

Scooter01   



"We all have a girl and her name is nostalgia" - Hemingway
User currently offlinepspfan From Netherlands, joined Mar 2008, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3720 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The most vulnerable part of the runway is the lighting. The cases I witnessed where other parts of an aircraft than the tyres made contact with the runway, it always damaged the lights. The centreline lights are almost a centimeter above the surface. And are not made of the strongest metals either.

Another thing that is probably damaged is the anti-skid layer. When applied. But that is not a critical point for closing a runway.

From what I heard the runway centre line lights were out, due to the scratching belly, and had to be replaced. Hence the closure for a day.

PSPfan



Fixit002Heavy
User currently offlineSASDC8 From Norway, joined Mar 2006, 743 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3689 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Max Q (Reply 6):
Yes, a very smooth completely unnecessary gear up landing..

But of course.. Please enliten us why exactly.



2-3-2 is NOT a premium configuration
User currently offlineawthompson From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3360 times:

Quoting SASDC8 (Reply 14):
Quoting Max Q (Reply 6):
Yes, a very smooth completely unnecessary gear up landing..

But of course.. Please enliten us why exactly.

I have not studied this in much detail yet but the following extract on Wikipedia suggests that although there was a hydraulic leak leading to a failure, a simple popped circuit breaker prevented the alternate gear extension procedure from functioning and if the crew had known about this or had been made aware of it's presence by LOT maintenance, the gear could have been lowered succesfully if the said circuit breaker had been reset by a simple press:

"Shortly after the evacuation, a team from the Polish State Commission for Aircraft Accident Investigation arrived, and discovered that the C829 circuit breaker, which protects a number of systems including the alternate landing gear extension system was "popped". The C4248 breaker for the alternate landing gear remained closed. Once the aircraft had been lifted off the runway, the C829 circuit breaker was closed, and the landing gear was able to be extended, using the alternate system. This allowed the plane to be towed to the LOT maintenance hanger for repairs and investigation."

If correct, this is indeed very unfortunate and I feel sorry for the crew and indeed passengers who had to go through this lengthy and frightening ordeal. While the crew were not aware of the circuit breaker which protected a number of other systems including alternate gear extension, I am a bit taken aback that no-one on duty in LOT maintenance (with whom the crew were in discussion by radio for many hours before the emerency landing) knew of it's presence or had relevant manuals on hand to look it up.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Happened The The Evion Refreshers On Swiss posted Thu Aug 19 2004 23:29:01 by IslipWN
Air New Zealand 767 Tail, What Happened..? posted Sun Mar 24 2002 18:31:49 by Baec777
What Happened To The LOT Krakow - London Service? posted Fri Jan 19 2007 17:31:28 by 8herveg
What Happened To The Turkmenistan 767? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 18:44:41 by LXLucien
What Ever Happened To The Runway Expansion At FLL? posted Thu Sep 28 2006 00:36:42 by FLLspoter
What Happened To Kenya Airways And The 767-400 posted Wed May 12 2004 08:30:58 by Ua777222
What Happened To The 767 Named "Wolfgang Mozart"? posted Tue Jun 25 2002 17:55:00 by Bobcat
What Happened To The Cockpit Crew Of NA 27? posted Tue Oct 25 2011 14:54:13 by 747400sp
Etihad. What Happened To The Bullrun? posted Tue Dec 21 2010 02:28:41 by kevin
What Happened To AA 767 - Stuck In GRU? posted Thu Nov 18 2010 15:10:31 by Aeroflot001