SQ325 From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 1451 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 2527 times:
this accident happened after touch down in Poland.
The brakes didn't work and the plane crashed over the end of the runway. the F/O died. I'm not sure if there where more fatalties.
As far as I know this Airbus had problems with the autobrake sensors. The autobrake only works if a minimum pressure of ? tons work on the gear.
But this time the sensor was blocked so came the overshoot!
PolAir From United States of America, joined May 2001, 893 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 2475 times:
Altough i am from WAW originaly i did not pay attention to this accident because at the time i was 11, and "aviation did not infect my blood" yet, i remembersome LH autorities saying that runway in WAW was a factor. They said it was in very bad condition.
Airsicknessbag From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 4723 posts, RR: 33
Reply 6, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 2430 times:
As always, there were many small causes which contributed to the crash of the "Kulmbach":
1) Shortly prior to touch down the wind had turned. ATC did not inform the crew of this so they landed, unbeknownst to the, with a tailwind.
2) Due to the bad state of the runway there was water on the runway. This water turned into steam when the plane touched down because of the heat caused by touching down. The wheels floated on the stem, thus not rolling, and consequently the aircraft´s computer didn´t allow braking. Braking became possible only when the steam had evaporated; by then, an overshoot was inevitable.
3) This would have been not fatal but for an earth wall piled up directly by the end of the runway into which the plane crashed and burned out.
The ONLY fatality beside the F/O was a passenger who had unbuckled immediately upon touch down.
The F/O died because the captain turned the a/c to the left just before imfacting the earth wall. He did so in order to increase the chances of survival for the passengers (apperently successfully).
The F/O was actually a captain checking the real captain who was returning from a very long sick leave.
The captain continued flying for LH a few more years. Then he decided to quit flying altogether and became a painter. I don´t remember whether the crash contributed to his decision, I watched some interviews of his.
Rabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 1007 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (12 years 11 months 2 days ago) and read 2425 times:
As far as I remember the accident was partially caused by aquaplaning. By the time of the accident there was a lot of water on the RW so the tyres got no grip and the computer considered this lack of grip as a sign of "not being landed" thus refused to deploy thrust reversers. However, this would have been the only means to stop the plane.
I remeber that the media said that there was more water on the RW than would have been allowed according to what standards whatsoever.
Katekebo From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 704 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (12 years 11 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2345 times:
Airsicknessbag is partially right.
There were other details. The pilot flying (which was the FO) landed at higher speed that prescribed in the flight manual. This contributed the extend the landing distance.
Another problem was the logic in the airplane software. The Airbus software was designed to extend spoilers and start braking after the speed of BOTH landing gears reaching a certain minimum. However, due to aquaplanning the wheels did not reach the required speed until well into the ground roll. I think the software of the Airbus planes was modified after this accident more in-line with the logic used by American planes (which is usually based on the shock absorber pressure),
The investigation concluded that the main causes of the accident werê:
1.- Pilot's fault due to landing at considerably higher speed than prescribed in the flight manual
2.- A contributory fact was the design of the airplane's software.
Sharpnfuzzy From Canada, joined Jun 2001, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 11 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2326 times:
My cousin-in-law is a firefighter in Warsaw and he and his unit responded to the crash. They have lots of pictures of the incident in their fire station. He said that there weren't more casualties because the all the passengers managed to escape before the fire spread, and that most of the damage was done when there was no one onboard.
Also you guys almost have it. The crash was caused by the late deployment of reversers by the computer, but it wasn't only due to hydroplanning. The crash occured during heavy rain and substantial windshear, so they were fast because they compensated for the windshear, which is one of the faults attributed to the crew. Also when the plane touched down, the right gear actually touched down first, then 9 seconds later, the left. Then only after the left touched down, the computer deployed the reversers. Then for four seconds the plane hydroplanned and both wheels slowly got to a speed of 72kts that's when the wheel braking was activated. But by then the pilot already knew he couldn't stop, so he turn the aircraft off of the runway.... the plane then skidded for 90 meters and hit the embankment