ABQopsHP From United States of America, joined May 2006, 879 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2619 times:
Im guessing after that first impact where they went airborne again, that all 3 must have incurred some back injury. That upward bounce had to have put strain on their backs and neck. I also noticed after it went over the wall you could tell the engines were still running since it stirred up lots of dust. Or was that the fire bottles going off?
PPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 9045 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 2615 times:
PR-MRG Citation CJ3, inbound from FLN. The dust being kicked up has been confirmed as being from the still powered engines. Pilot (66 yrs old) banged his head pretty hard and might be going through neurosurgery. Copilot has a broken nose. One pax with minor injuries.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 5): And if must have been scary for the people nearby - that has to be either the place or the parallel runway where the TAM aircraft over ran the runway.
TAM went off 35L, I am pretty sure this was 35R.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
bohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2617 times:
They're lucky the plane came to rest where it did and not on the freeway. If the plane continued onto the freeway it would have collided with a number of vehicles and the outcome could have been deadly. Thank God nobody was killed in this accident.
mcr From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 135 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2616 times:
Very lucky not to end up killed or seriously injured, obviously.
Where do you draw the line between an "emergency landing" and a crash? IMHO that looks more like a crash than any sort of landing. I assume the aircraft is no longer useful other than perhaps breaking for spare parts?
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 32
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2618 times:
Quoting mcr (Reply 8): Where do you draw the line between an "emergency landing" and a crash?
My assumption is that "emergency landing" means the aircraft was flying and had to set down on the runway due to an emergency.
The runway overrun and destruction of the aircraft would then be a continuation of the need to land due to the emergency.
If it was simply landing long or a problem with the brakes after landing - then it would be a crash, not an emergency landing in my opinion.
The OP does say this occurred upon landing, so it would not be a rejected takeoff overrun. (Yes, I know it looks like they would have been past V1 if it was an RTO, but sometimes taking the overrun is necessary even above V1. The key knowledge factor being knowing the plane will crash - the pilots just choosing where to crash.)
The English writeup with the video only talks about the aircraft failing to stop on the runway and does not indicate there was any emergency until the overrun. However I have no idea what was said by the TV announcer in the video in Portuguese?
If the aircraft used Rwy 35R which is only 4,680 ft long - he was still going awful fast when it left the end of the runway. Certainly faster than 50 kts but less than 100 kts would be my guess from the video.