Aeroméxico E190 Accident in Durango July 31

PPVRA · Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:03 pm

That definitely looks like wind shear / microburst. Scary stuff.

trpmb6 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:19 pm

The resting place of the engines - both in the median grass way to the left of the runway being used - is a little odd. Odd that BOTH ended up there, but might also support the huge wind shear suggestions. Wind was coming from starboard side. Video is being taken from starboard side. It appears there was lift off but it could just be the right wing gaining lift due to the increased wind speed. As soon as they lost that increased wind speed the aircraft overcorrected and lost lift causing it to slam back down. with both engines being dropped.

Who has final say on departure? Would the tower revoke clearance for a take off based on radar indications? What was going through PIC and FO minds? Surely they saw that weather. Probably didn't even have enough visibility to see the end of the runway based on that video.

Venatt · Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:54 pm

AM744 wrote:
I'm inclined to think windshear was a contributing factor. I don't think there are many (any?) Doppler radars in mexican airports, let alone in a small airport as DGO.
Which begs the question. What is the procedure in such scenarios? I'd think that in the absence of reliable information, erring on the safe side (i.e. delay the flight) would be the standard?

I'm pretty sure some airports in Mexico have doppler radars, like Mexico City, Cancun, Tijuana, Monterrey, Guadalajara, Toluca, and maybe some others, but yes some small airports like Durango don't have it.

RobertS975 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:59 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
The resting place of the engines - both in the median grass way to the left of the runway being used - is a little odd. Odd that BOTH ended up there, but might also support the huge wind shear suggestions. Wind was coming from starboard side. Video is being taken from starboard side. It appears there was lift off but it could just be the right wing gaining lift due to the increased wind speed. As soon as they lost that increased wind speed the aircraft overcorrected and lost lift causing it to slam back down. with both engines being dropped.

Who has final say on departure? Would the tower revoke clearance for a take off based on radar indications? What was going through PIC and FO minds? Surely they saw that weather. Probably didn't even have enough visibility to see the end of the runway based on that video.

The PIC has the final say as to whether to accept a takeoff clearance or not. The tower is responsible for separating aircraft/ground vehicles in time and space.

Varsity1 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:59 pm

ramsesbaez wrote:
PatrickZ80 wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
Tail looks intact. Maybe an overrun.

I wouldn't call this intact.

That plane will never fly again. It's totally wrecked.

Just hope for the best for everybody that was on board.

He said the tail. he was correct!

I can't be correct. It's against the laws of a.net.

atcpeter · Wed Aug 01, 2018 6:59 pm

trpmb6 wrote:
Who has final say on departure? Would the tower revoke clearance for a take off based on radar indications? What was going through PIC and FO minds? Surely they saw that weather. Probably didn't even have enough visibility to see the end of the runway based on that video.

The PIC always is the final authority. He or she may elect not to depart, even with a takeoff clearance from the tower, if they're not comfortable with the conditions (aircraft indication, weather, etc). Controllers are required to provide pertinent weather information (winds, observed precipitation on radar, etc), but that depends on the equipment available. Some towers in the U.S. have ITWS displays that show indications of downbursts, microbursts, gust fronts and other small-scale hazardous weather phenomena. Any tower with a STARS-level radar display can show at least a few levels of precipitation intensity, but not precipitation type or presence of lightning unless directly observed. Again, I have no idea if the tower in Durango has any comparable equipment beyond real-time wind observations.

trpmb6 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 7:29 pm

Thanks for the responses. This was a very avoidable event which has me more irked than normal about these types of events. Unfortunately we do not currently know how much information about the conditions the PIC had.

Let this be a lesson to all of us to not be upset if the PIC delays departure due to weather. Could be saving you from having to deplane from a burning aircraft into the rain. That wouldn't be very convenient.

TheRedBaron · Wed Aug 01, 2018 7:36 pm

Just seeing the video posted before one can see how bad visibility goes from start of take off till the accident.....It goes from Bad to Holy Cow in span of 15 seconds...

TRB

trnswrld · Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:23 pm

WOW that video is pretty intense. It is crazy how one end of the runway looks fairly normal, then just absolute zero visibility and rain and who knows what else on the other end.
It looks like the plane did get airborn a little then slammed back onto the runway.
Yes yes I know I wasn’t there, but I’m absolutely amazed though that the pilots took off into that. Surely they had to see the torrential down pour on the other side of the runway. Also, the controllers you would think would have had a good view of that as well.

Thank god there were no structures, large trees, or crazy terrain off the runway because the results would have surely been different.

xaapb · Wed Aug 01, 2018 8:33 pm

Another video from inside the plane, this one from the left side of it.
https://twitter.com/Enel_Aire/status/10 ... 0528076800

Greetings

Samrnpage · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:06 pm

How the hell nobody died is a miracle. The plane clearly takes off and then dips left into the ground.

PlanesNTrains · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:11 pm

Samrnpage wrote:
How the hell nobody died is a miracle. The plane clearly takes off and then dips left into the ground.

Fortunately it didn't catch a wing and cartwheel.

joeblow10 · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:15 pm

One would hope the tower in Durango would have alerted the pilot to the rapid change in conditions from one end of the airfield to the other, but I guess not? Are they equipped with some of the microburst/wind shear detection airports in the US are?

spacecadet · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:30 pm

Yeah that is not a "runway overrun", that's a full on plane crash. That thing was definitely airborne and came back down. Probably never got out of ground effect.

Both videos have a high pitched squealing sound - is that people screaming, or is that something mechanical? On my computer, it's hard to tell. It almost sounds like some kind of motor whining, and I'm just wondering what it is.

We really still cannot jump to conclusions about the weather being the direct cause of the accident. Since the plane doesn't seem to have gotten out of ground effect, it could be an early liftoff (given the conditions), engine failure *combined* with weather (that would have otherwise not been a problem), or a number of other things. It's rare for any crash to be down to one cause, so I'd be surprised to see the eventual cause listed simply as "microburst".

ubeema · Wed Aug 01, 2018 9:57 pm

Kudos to M. Parsa and Ms Garcia for having the courage to keep filming during this traumatic event. The videos offer a powerful insights of the anatomy of a crash.

On my count I think almost 30 seconds (starting ~0:44) elapsed between the airplane falling of the sky and finally stopping. That was a freaking roller coaster!

Honestly this demonstrates how much safer aviation have become. This accident reminds me a lot of AF358 in Toronto and Asiana 214 in San Francisco, except this was a takeoff. Looking forward the final report of the accident investigation.

Thanks god for everyone involved coming out alive. Wish all the injured a quick recovery.

SuperGee · Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:26 pm

Some interesting comments:

>>David Gleave, a U.K.-based crash investigator and air safety consultant, said the absence of fatalities reflected the relatively low speed of the impact, as well as decades of work in improving aircraft design.

“It’s not a miracle,” he said. “This is a design-based accident that should be survivable. We’ve worked long and hard in the industry to ensure that an event like this is something that people can walk away from, that the seats don't slide forward on impact, that limbs are protected. The safety of passengers is no accident.”

He added: “The grassy area you see around an airport is not just wasteland, it is deliberately kept free of obstacles such as ditches or power lines. It is designed to allow a landing that people can walk away from.”<<

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/aero ... ed-n896431

slcguy · Wed Aug 01, 2018 11:17 pm

Finn350 wrote:
Good news that everybody survived!

Are there any precedents to this kind of accident (that the plane takes off and immediately after take-off slams to the ground due to the weather and apparently not any mechanical failure)?

Aug. 15, 1975 at DEN (Stapleton), Continental 426 (B-727-200) encountered wind shear after lift off and settled back into the ground. Thunderstorm in vicinity of the airport at the time. Everybody survived but aircraft was damaged beyond repair. Seems very similar to this accident except the Continental didn't catch fire.

WkndWanderer · Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:11 am

slcguy wrote:
Finn350 wrote:
Good news that everybody survived!

Are there any precedents to this kind of accident (that the plane takes off and immediately after take-off slams to the ground due to the weather and apparently not any mechanical failure)?

Aug. 15, 1975 at DEN (Stapleton), Continental 426 (B-727-200) encountered wind shear after lift off and settled back into the ground. Thunderstorm in vicinity of the airport at the time. Everybody survived but aircraft was damaged beyond repair. Seems very similar to this accident except the Continental didn't catch fire.

Also, Pan Am 759 at MSY in 1982 "Flight 759 lifted off the runway, climbed to an altitude of between 95 and 150 feet (29 and 46 m), and then began to descend. About 2,376 feet (724 m) from the end of runway, the aircraft struck a line of trees at an altitude of about 50 feet (15 m)....The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the probable cause of the accident was the aircraft's encounter with microburst-induced wind shear during the liftoff, which imposed a downdraft and a decreasing headwind"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_759

NearMiss · Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:18 am

Seeing how visibility went from "Hey, we can actually see something" to "Holy cow, I'm blind", in a matter of seconds, it looks like a windshear related incident or possibly a microburst. Are microbursts "common" in that area?

Gatorman96 · Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:32 am

xaapb wrote:
Another video from inside the plane, this one from the left side of it.
https://twitter.com/Enel_Aire/status/10 ... 0528076800

Greetings

Fascinating video. You can see that right before the aircraft impacts the runway, they exit the back-end of the localized thunderstorm. There is definitely downdraft/outflow from the storm as you can see the precipitation being "pushed" out from the rear of the storm.

usxguy · Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:59 am

In the Twitter video, you can hear the person praying at about 0:05 in. So they knew something was happening. This definitely wreaks of a downburst/microburst.

aa87 · Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:28 am

Given everything already known, anyone think cause was something other than windshear ? If flaps weren't set (and in video I see at least the slats are down, I assume flaps had to be set at T/O as well), it would lift off and become unstable, like the NW MD80 in Detroit. If a single engine failure, E190, like any modern twin, should be able to climb to a safe altitude. The fact that the plane never lifted off more than 50-100 feet (just like the PA 727 in New Orleans) but remained wings level enough for a mostly controlled crash landing, to me means only 3 possibilities - flaps weren't set, windshear or horizontal stabilizer failure. My guess is if latter, it would not have rotated at all. Given the weather and profile of windshear accidents, I'm ready to vote right now: classic windshear, but thank G-d nearly best possible outcome for a bad event. Hoping for swift and full recovery for all injured..

MSJYOP28Apilot · Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:22 am

If this was the result of a microburst or thunderstorm induced windshear, the question will be why did the pilots decide to take off in such weather? When there is weather in the area, pilots usually take a look at their onboard radar before taking off. Did the crew do that and if so what did they see? Was this storm one that didnt look so bad when they started the takeoff roll and intensified as they rolled down the runway?

Also, what pressure were the pilots under? Is there a culture at this airline of braving bad weather instead of being conservative and waiting it out?

gatibosgru · Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:11 am

SuperGee wrote:
Some interesting comments:

>>David Gleave, a U.K.-based crash investigator and air safety consultant, said the absence of fatalities reflected the relatively low speed of the impact, as well as decades of work in improving aircraft design.

“It’s not a miracle,” he said. “This is a design-based accident that should be survivable. We’ve worked long and hard in the industry to ensure that an event like this is something that people can walk away from, that the seats don't slide forward on impact, that limbs are protected. The safety of passengers is no accident.”

He added: “The grassy area you see around an airport is not just wasteland, it is deliberately kept free of obstacles such as ditches or power lines. It is designed to allow a landing that people can walk away from.”<<

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/aero ... ed-n896431

Cannot be stressed enough!

spacecadet · Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:43 am

aa87 wrote:
Given everything already known, anyone think cause was something other than windshear ?

As I alluded to earlier, the cause these days is never just "windshear". Windshear is a known quantity; we understand it, we have instruments to detect it (if installed, but if not, then that's potentially the root cause). If a plane crashes due to windshear in 2018, then windshear is probably not the cause any more than square windows or unattended baggage would be. It's just not an unknown thing at this point; it's something that everybody in aviation understands. Lack of proper equipment to detect it, a decision to take off in known windshear conditions beyond the airplane's capabilities, a mechanical issue that coincidentally happened in windshear conditions, or other issues would be the root cause.

We'll see... clearly they were taking off in bad weather, but lots of planes take off in bad weather. Something caused *this* plane to crash. Whether they really shouldn't have been taking off (which would be the cause in itself) or something else happened coincidentally, we'll still have to see.

Newbiepilot · Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:02 am

gatibosgru wrote:
SuperGee wrote:
Some interesting comments:

>>David Gleave, a U.K.-based crash investigator and air safety consultant, said the absence of fatalities reflected the relatively low speed of the impact, as well as decades of work in improving aircraft design.

“It’s not a miracle,” he said. “This is a design-based accident that should be survivable. We’ve worked long and hard in the industry to ensure that an event like this is something that people can walk away from, that the seats don't slide forward on impact, that limbs are protected. The safety of passengers is no accident.”

He added: “The grassy area you see around an airport is not just wasteland, it is deliberately kept free of obstacles such as ditches or power lines. It is designed to allow a landing that people can walk away from.”<<

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/aero ... ed-n896431

Cannot be stressed enough!

Yes very true. Both engines breaking off at the same point implies that the fuse pins worked. The goal is for the engines to breakaway at a certain load so that there is less fire risk. Fuel exposed to atmospheric pressure and normal temperatures doesn’t ignite. I think this accident does show how much safer modern designs are and how the engineering works.

NASBWI · Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:24 am

spacecadet wrote:
Yeah that is not a "runway overrun", that's a full on plane crash. That thing was definitely airborne and came back down. Probably never got out of ground effect.

Both videos have a high pitched squealing sound - is that people screaming, or is that something mechanical? On my computer, it's hard to tell. It almost sounds like some kind of motor whining, and I'm just wondering what it is.

We really still cannot jump to conclusions about the weather being the direct cause of the accident. Since the plane doesn't seem to have gotten out of ground effect, it could be an early liftoff (given the conditions), engine failure *combined* with weather (that would have otherwise not been a problem), or a number of other things. It's rare for any crash to be down to one cause, so I'd be surprised to see the eventual cause listed simply as "microburst".

I have had the privilege of both working in and flying on E190s. The “squealing” noise you hear as the plane rotates initially is the sound commonly heard near the emergency exit hatch as the plane begins to pressurize. At least, that’s my best uneducated guess. You only hear it if you’re seated at the emergency exit row, or seated a row before or behind it. It’s also only heard as the plane rotates on takeoff, and also briefly right after touchdown on landing.

From what I can tell from the footage from both passengers, they’re both seated overwing, at the exit row (or nearby).

wiggy · Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:54 am

embraer 190 according to mr chui

vahancrazy · Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:12 am

usxguy wrote:
In the Twitter video, you can hear the person praying at about 0:05 in. So they knew something was happening. This definitely wreaks of a downburst/microburst.

oh c'mon! There are people who fly even though they are scared of flying and there are people who think praying will help them... there is no way to determine someone of the passengers new that was going on just because you hear a person praying.

juliuswong · Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:36 pm

I just watched this video shared on FB

https://www.facebook.com/809414247/post ... 136644248/

Sh1t, it is scary! Can't imagine what the crew and pax went through. Miracle happened, glad everyone got out alive. Speedy recovery for all injured.

estorilm · Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:43 pm

Well, I'll admit my earlier observations and ideas were completely wrong it would appear I did say "wind gust" from starboard but.... damn.

Shortly after entering the storm, that thing got SLAMMED into the ground like a paper airplane! I'm even more shocked that everyone survived.

I'm a little surprised there isn't a more defined "impact" mark on the overhead shot of the crash site/runway.

Also surprised that the little plane survived the initial impact, remained wings-level, and coasted that far without engines or gear while remaining in one piece. Wow..

trnswrld · Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:44 pm

^^^obviously I could be wrong here, but maybe the “impact” isnt as bad as we think and that’s part of the reason the aircraft remained mostly intact and was able to eventually slide to a stop. The reason I say this is because I have seen hard landing videos that produce basically that exact sound and result.....basically a very loud thump along with the camera being dropped or pulled away from the window. So there is no doubt the airplane hit back down hard, but might not have been as bad as it seems. Whether the gear collapsed on the initial impact or were ripped off on the soft ground after the overrun I’m not sure.

cat3appr50 · Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:53 pm

Given the calculated E190 AR normal loading data for this flight route (there was certainly adequate runway 03 length for this takeoff), information in various takeoff videos, the review of weather including radar at MMDO at the time of takeoff (2030Z), IMO the loss of control and subsequent accident was most likely due to a microburst and/or a significant wind shear encounter just after Vr/liftoff.

Per the videos it appears that the aircraft did liftoff from the runway but then came back down and impacted the runway (or the ground just left of the runway) resulting from IMO a microburst or wind shear event, leading to the engines (and likely gear) detaching from the aircraft, and the subsequent accident evolution and eventual fire. All just my opinion.

D L X · Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:02 pm

This makes me an EMBRAER fan! Well done, little guy! Impacted the ground at >Vr, and stayed intact enough for long enough for everyone to get out safely. Who knew this little guy was so strong?

As for the videos, I don't see this as being "slammed" back to ground. It looks like it lost some lift and floated back down. ("Float" is not the _best_ word, but the fall appeared to be about as steep as the rise was.)

Others have said it, but this really does remind me of the PA 727 at MSY. Windshear on takeoff. Pilots reacted to a headwind, then the sudden shift to a tailwind launched the plane forward and knocked out the plane's lift. Also reminds me of the US1702 accident at PHL. Did this crew reject the takeoff late? Look at how fast the conditions deteriorated from the beginning to the end of the takeoff roll. Was the initial impact on the runway?

richierich · Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:48 pm

wiggy wrote:
embraer 190 according to mr chui

I think we are well beyond identifying the aircraft type involved in the crash, wiggy. We're in full-on speculation mode now.
Unlike some accidents, we have video to help make our armchair assessments on this one. Sure looks to me like weather was a factor but there are many questions yet to be answered.

GmvAfcs · Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:44 pm

spacecadet wrote:
aa87 wrote:
Given everything already known, anyone think cause was something other than windshear ?

As I alluded to earlier, the cause these days is never just "windshear". Windshear is a known quantity; we understand it, we have instruments to detect it (if installed, but if not, then that's potentially the root cause). If a plane crashes due to windshear in 2018, then windshear is probably not the cause any more than square windows or unattended baggage would be. It's just not an unknown thing at this point; it's something that everybody in aviation understands. Lack of proper equipment to detect it, a decision to take off in known windshear conditions beyond the airplane's capabilities, a mechanical issue that coincidentally happened in windshear conditions, or other issues would be the root cause.

We'll see... clearly they were taking off in bad weather, but lots of planes take off in bad weather. Something caused *this* plane to crash. Whether they really shouldn't have been taking off (which would be the cause in itself) or something else happened coincidentally, we'll still have to see.

Well, there are several unrecoverable types of windshear. Current modern systems can detect them, and sometimes avoid them. But some windshear types you can only diminish the impact effects on the ground, because there is nothing you can do to continue climbing. So the best thing you can do is minimize the ground impact with the least energy as possible.
Now there are some modern volumetric weather radars which can do the predictive windshear detection. But not all aircraft types have them installed. Most are reactive windshear detection and avoidance types.

dopplerd · Thu Aug 02, 2018 7:14 pm

Could the engines have just quit producing thrust due to the amount of water they were ingesting? The really heavy rain hits right at rotation and even though the plane clears the rain cell before contacting the ground the engines may not have had enough time to spool back up if their output was diminished by the torrential rain.

bluefltspecial · Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:39 pm

Curious, another avjunkie and I were discussing this earlier. I had actually operated on that aircraft weekly when it was with Republic / Midwest operations as N167HQ, while a number of people didn't care for the Ebirds, I loved the E190.

One of the things we both pointed to was whether the gear was up or not. If not, and it had remained out, we both feel that the possible "slamming" of the aircraft back into the ground would mean that the gear took most of the impact allowing the airframe itself to remain mostly intact, this allowing escape/evac.

Anyone know anything about this? Just a thought.

aerolimani · Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:56 pm

bluefltspecial wrote:
Curious, another avjunkie and I were discussing this earlier. I had actually operated on that aircraft weekly when it was with Republic / Midwest operations as N167HQ, while a number of people didn't care for the Ebirds, I loved the E190.

One of the things we both pointed to was whether the gear was up or not. If not, and it had remained out, we both feel that the possible "slamming" of the aircraft back into the ground would mean that the gear took most of the impact allowing the airframe itself to remain mostly intact, this allowing escape/evac.

Anyone know anything about this? Just a thought.

Unless the crew were severely breaking the rules, they would have to achieve positive climb rate before calling for gear up. There's no way that was achieved in the very brief time they were airborne.

bluefltspecial · Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:23 am

aerolimani wrote:
bluefltspecial wrote:
Curious, another avjunkie and I were discussing this earlier. I had actually operated on that aircraft weekly when it was with Republic / Midwest operations as N167HQ, while a number of people didn't care for the Ebirds, I loved the E190.

One of the things we both pointed to was whether the gear was up or not. If not, and it had remained out, we both feel that the possible "slamming" of the aircraft back into the ground would mean that the gear took most of the impact allowing the airframe itself to remain mostly intact, this allowing escape/evac.

Anyone know anything about this? Just a thought.

Unless the crew were severely breaking the rules, they would have to achieve positive climb rate before calling for gear up. There's no way that was achieved in the very brief time they were airborne.

Thanks, that's what we both were thinking, too short of a window to saw positive climb.

Until the actual findings are released, it's only speculation at this point.

I'm just incredibly happy there was no loss of life, just the aircraft, and one I remember well. She was the one I first flew into SBA with from DEN.

32andBelow · Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:33 am

[twoid][/twoid]

joeblow10 wrote:
One would hope the tower in Durango would have alerted the pilot to the rapid change in conditions from one end of the airfield to the other, but I guess not? Are they equipped with some of the microburst/wind shear detection airports in the US are?

Does the airport even have a tower?

aerolimani · Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:47 am

32andBelow wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
joeblow10 wrote:
One would hope the tower in Durango would have alerted the pilot to the rapid change in conditions from one end of the airfield to the other, but I guess not? Are they equipped with some of the microburst/wind shear detection airports in the US are?

Does the airport even have a tower?

ltbewr · Fri Aug 03, 2018 1:49 am

I wonder if this plane was at the limits of weight for take off and a possible factor in its crash. This was apparently a full aircraft, likely with a full load of luggage, throw in weather and it might have put in in position to crash.

32andBelow · Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:05 am

aerolimani wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
joeblow10 wrote:
One would hope the tower in Durango would have alerted the pilot to the rapid change in conditions from one end of the airfield to the other, but I guess not? Are they equipped with some of the microburst/wind shear detection airports in the US are?

Does the airport even have a tower?

Oh ok. I was looking on google earth and I couldn’t see one. Explains why.

aemoreira1981 · Fri Aug 03, 2018 2:59 am

ltbewr wrote:
I wonder if this plane was at the limits of weight for take off and a possible factor in its crash. This was apparently a full aircraft, likely with a full load of luggage, throw in weather and it might have put in in position to crash.

No way it would have been at MTOW since, even accounting for an elevated airport, this flight was only about 430 nmi. Even with an acceptable alternative, it likely only needed fuel for about 750 nmi.

Venatt · Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:12 am

aerolimani wrote:
32andBelow wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
joeblow10 wrote:
One would hope the tower in Durango would have alerted the pilot to the rapid change in conditions from one end of the airfield to the other, but I guess not? Are they equipped with some of the microburst/wind shear detection airports in the US are?

Does the airport even have a tower?

Most Airports in Mexico have very short towers except for the one at Cancun which is quite tall and the new Mexico City Airport will even have a taller one, but even the current Mexico City tower is not tall, however this Durango tower is extremely short.

Also according to a passenger the plane was met by hail during take off: https://es-us.noticias.yahoo.com/103-pa ... 28558.html

Venatt · Fri Aug 03, 2018 3:32 am

I found this article from November of 2016 where it says they are (or were) planing on doing some upgrades to the airport because it is way to small to handle the current number of passengers. Supposedly it has (or had) direct flights to Chicago and LA. (picture on the article is from Mexico City Airport).

http://durangopress.com/plantea-sectur- ... 6/11/2016/

AR385 · Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:03 am

The Captain is still in the hospital because even though the doctors were able to decompress the marrow. The doctors have warned him sternly that any movemennt of his neck will result in rendering him a paraplegic. The girl will be discharged soon, her injuries are not that severe. She has 1st. and 2nd degree burns in her legs.

The EMT who got him out said he was literally underneath what remained on the cockpit. He also mentioned that he kept asking "How many people did I killed" He oly stopped saying that until he was sedated in one of the hospitals.

Cebo29 · Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:59 am

The fact that nobody died in this accident is a real miracle.......Praying did.......work!

stratclub · Fri Aug 03, 2018 7:47 am

SpeckSpot wrote:
For what it's worth, some journalists have used language like "fell" and "went down". Which would suggest that it got airborne. I don't know whether to believe that or chalk it up to incompetent journalism, but accurate reporting would be nice.

Assuming that journalist have any kind of credibility is like assuming a car salesmen is completely honest, transparent and always has the customers best interests at heart.

I am thankful that everyone survived. It sure could have ended up a lot worse.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net