Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
NeperQiell
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:22 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:30 pm

cedarjet wrote:
stl07 wrote:
NeperQiell wrote:
I have personally flown them and had very pleasant flights.

Sure, I'm not saying they are a bad airline, just that they have a bad safety culture.

If they can’t guarantee safe transport, they’re a bad airline. I don’t see how you can exempt the most basic criteria when judging this airline. “Food and service was great but the passengers were incinerated in the arrival runway.” Yeah I’ll stick with BA Qantas JAL and the rest of the grown ups thanks.

Sorry for the late response, just noticed it. By ''pleasant flights'' i was refering to safety, not food and service as you are unreasonably assuming. My flights were calm and smooth and operated by brand new aircraft, with normal interiors. The crew followed all normal safety regulations. Comparing Pegasus A320neos with Allegiant MD 80s is an exaggeration. Again, i speak from my personal experience, no one has to rely on my comments to judge this airline.
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2468
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:37 pm

NeperQiell wrote:
cedarjet wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Sure, I'm not saying they are a bad airline, just that they have a bad safety culture.

If they can’t guarantee safe transport, they’re a bad airline. I don’t see how you can exempt the most basic criteria when judging this airline. “Food and service was great but the passengers were incinerated in the arrival runway.” Yeah I’ll stick with BA Qantas JAL and the rest of the grown ups thanks.

Sorry for the late response, just noticed it. By ''pleasant flights'' i was refering to safety, not food and service as you are unreasonably assuming. My flights were calm and smooth and operated by brand new aircraft, with normal interiors. The crew followed all normal safety regulations. Comparing Pegasus A320neos with Allegiant MD 80s is an exaggeration. Again, i speak from my personal experience, no one has to rely on my comments to judge this airline.

They must have improved a lot. I have heard in their older days their flight door was always open and people were smoking. This was like 2010...
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:39 pm

PlymSpotter wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Lot's of people have died in 319,320,321 landing accidents as well. I don't think they cared whether or not the fuselage was in 1, 2 or 3 pieces.


The trouble is, you keep making these claims, when they demonstrably are not true.

Nobody has ever died in an A319 landing accident, because there has't even been a fatal A319 accident full stop (impressive in itself for the near 1,500 produced). Same can be said for the A318 too. The A321 meanwhile has incurred three fatal incidents - two due to terrorism and one CFIT so, again, no landing accidents.

That leaves just the A320 - where LH, TACA and TAM have had fatal landing accidents. In the case of TAM, the horrific circumstances of a near 100 knot overrun were unsurvivable in any aircraft, whilst in the case of LH and TACA, the fact that the fuselage didn't disintegrate into multiple pieces was noted as having saved lives - so yes, you can be sure that those passengers really did care how many pieces the aircraft was in. Same for those in the Air Canada A320 which somehow survived what was basically a CFIT intact, or the Air Phillipines A320 which ploughed through a housing area.

Very true.

When I first saw a close-up picture in a news story my mind immediately connected the cracked fuselage behind the wing to being a NG. Had to read way down in article to confirm the type. That my first instinct was it was a 737 and not an A320 says volumes about how common the 737NG fuselage failures are.

it worries me that the-10 is even longer than the -9.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
CO764
Posts: 281
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 5:50 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:45 pm

NeperQiell wrote:
By ''pleasant flights'' i was refering to safety, not food and service as you are unreasonably assuming. My flights were calm and smooth and operated by brand new aircraft, with normal interiors. The crew followed all normal safety regulations. Comparing Pegasus A320neos with Allegiant MD 80s is an exaggeration. Again, i speak from my personal experience, no one has to rely on my comments to judge this airline.


I really can't see how an experience as a passenger leaves one in any position to evaluate the safety culture of an airline.

You say that the crew followed all "normal safety regulations." Were you sitting in the cockpit jumpseat making sure that the pilots were flying safely and by the book, or are you just basing that statement on the thoroughness of the cabin crew's safety demonstration?
 
WIederling
Posts: 9310
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:53 pm

OA940 wrote:
Why are we even talking about the overrun statistics? Quite literally - and with no exception - every single serious overrun involving either an NG or a bus (and almost every single runway overrun involving any type of aircraft ever) has been attributed to pilot error. Doesn't matter if the 737 has more problems with tailwinds than the A320. If the pilots aren't inept you won't have an accident. Why is that so hard to understand


Because this is not a "black and white" thing but a "50 shades of gray" thing.

Things multiply. With a less benign airframe behavior tolerance for pilot errors is diminished.
plane splitting at the seams in crashy environment is another fatality multiplier.

In context: read up the NTSB report on the 2017 Washington train derailment.
Definitely an "extended pilot error" ( systemic, human actually )
but the report also waxes lyrical about crash worthiness of the carriages.
"The outcome of the crash could have been more benign".

interesting read actually, a bit over focused on non US design features maybe ...
.. and the basic shortcomings of US train control don't get enough coverage, again imho...
Murphy is an optimist
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10728
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:00 pm

morrisond wrote:
I was going to say A320 but I just included the other two types to indicate the series. You missed Indian Airlines 605.


No, I didn't - 605 was classified as a CFIT during approach. And we'll file that one beside the multiple A320s in pieces claim.

morrisond wrote:
I can't find any A320'series landing incidents that resulted going badly either from landing the wrong way or that went down an 60M embankment. That may just be the luck of the draw.


One thing passengers will agree with, is that the circumstances leading up to your predicament are largely irrelevant to your survival - whether it's a tailwind, high speed RTO, or whatever, you are still travelling at excessive speed across / towards the ground, not a runway. At this point it's how the airframe performs and maintains its integrity that counts and saves lives.

And there are multiple examples of high energy ground impacts right in front of you here - in the LH accident which I refer to, the aircraft left the runway at 70 knots and hit an embankment, in the TACA crash I also refer to, the aircraft overran at 50 / 60 knots and ran down a steep embankment, then you have Air Canada who flew an A320 into a snowy embankment so hard it bounced twice, and the Ural Airlines A321 which slammed into a field at a high rate of descent. There was one fuselage break between all of those - which is incredible.

With multiple cases of 737s breaking up in various accident scenarios and basically zero cases of A320 Series aircraft breaking up in broadly equivalent scenarios, the apparent trend is undeniable.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
asdf
Posts: 696
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:06 pm

morrisond wrote:
asdf wrote:
morrisond wrote:

That is false - the 16G rule is in relation to the seats - it's nothing to do with the hull.


the 16G rule is in relation to the seats
the 737 by far can not meet that specification because the floor is way to weak
because the floor is to weak the hull has less stability and breaks first before and behind the wing
so the 16G rule definitely has to do with the hull


I fully understand but it's not a 5G to 16G hull. That is a gross exaggeration. It seems like most of the 737 Hull break-ups are due to downwind landings that leave the runways.

The simple solution is the pilots just have to be trained better so they don't try to land downwind on a rain slicked runway. This is common sense.

No pilot has to accept the instruction from the tower to land downwind.

Yes the A320 has a system that allows this type of poor airmanship to not result in as many losses - but that still doesn't make it a good idea to land any aircraft with a big tailwind.

Assuming something like a 30Knot wind and 140 knot final approach speed that makes it a 170 knot touch down speed downwind vs 110Knots into the wind.

Which do you think is safer?


this is not a real question, we all know the answer

on the other hand one can not ignore that the 737 has a lot more landing incidents and accident
and if they are seriouse, their hull break more often than the hull of other types

it is a chain of things bringing some 737s to that point - very often in bad weather situations

if you have bad waether ... in a plane without fly-by-wire you have to fight the controlls
no problem for a pro
and there are thousands of them up there
but if you are a novice you simply focus on the controls and dont have much concentration left for comms for procedures for the things you are supposed to observe ... like speed, like glide angle..... like a change of the wind direction

in a FBW plane you do not fight controls. you use the stick to tell the plane where you want to go. no fight.
enough time to make desitions, to get a complete picture of the situation you are in
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:14 pm

The 737 is an old design, has its flaws, blah blah

But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10728
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:22 pm

DeltaMD90 wrote:
But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh


I don't think people are. That decision, clearly, appears to have been fatal.

The debate surrounds whether the B737 is more likely to break apart than the A32S in similar instances.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14487
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Thu Feb 06, 2020 11:28 pm

PlymSpotter wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh


I don't think people are. That decision, clearly, appears to have been fatal.

The debate surrounds whether the B737 is more likely to break apart than the A32S in similar instances.


Perhaps I’ve missed this upthread, but to me the absolute numbers seem so low that this is a difficult argument to support statistically. I think the 343 is 1 for 1 on breaking up during a “severe” overrun (AF 358). Is it the last safe aircraft out there?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10728
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:08 am

Cubsrule wrote:
Perhaps I’ve missed this upthread, but to me the absolute numbers seem so low that this is a difficult argument to support statistically. I think the 343 is 1 for 1 on breaking up during a “severe” overrun (AF 358). Is it the last safe aircraft out there?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the A340-300 in AF358 broke up during the excision and impact, only post fire - which (along with the exemplary evacuation) was one of the reasons so few injuries occurred.

It's fortunate that the numbers we're talking about aren't huge, but among those instances there is a noticeable trend for 737 fuselages to break or rupture / bend in the same two places.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
Passedv1
Posts: 665
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:40 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:27 am

THS214 wrote:
Passedv1 wrote:
Thunderbolt500 wrote:
Opps


You're going to have to explain this one. O--P-P's, Are you quoting Naughty-By-Nature? if so what does that have to do with this crash?


This is an aviation site and its civil aviation where we talk about an airplane accident. Therefore opp means operations.


But O-P-E-R-A-T-I-O-N-S has only one P, so it is may be a European thing? But in any case in my experience Operations is abbreviated OPS, except at one airline somebody graffitied an extra 'O' on the door so it was "OOPS" for awhile...but anyway, thanks for the clarification.
 
AirWorthy99
Posts: 1092
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2020 7:57 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:34 am

PlymSpotter wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh


I don't think people are. That decision, clearly, appears to have been fatal.

The debate surrounds whether the B737 is more likely to break apart than the A32S in similar instances.


I don't think airplanes are designed keeping in mind how they break apart on an overrun, they are built to fly and land normally (all of them). I think.
“It’s easy to confuse ‘what is’ with ‘what ought to be,’ especially when ‘what is’ has worked out in your favor.” Tyrion Lannister
 
zkncj
Posts: 3873
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:35 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
The 737 is an old design, has its flaws, blah blah

But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh


An new aircraft would of likely provided the pilots with more warnings etc to no land, but then again it should still be on the pilots to land or not.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:46 am

asdf wrote:
morrisond wrote:
asdf wrote:

the 16G rule is in relation to the seats
the 737 by far can not meet that specification because the floor is way to weak
because the floor is to weak the hull has less stability and breaks first before and behind the wing
so the 16G rule definitely has to do with the hull


I fully understand but it's not a 5G to 16G hull. That is a gross exaggeration. It seems like most of the 737 Hull break-ups are due to downwind landings that leave the runways.

The simple solution is the pilots just have to be trained better so they don't try to land downwind on a rain slicked runway. This is common sense.

No pilot has to accept the instruction from the tower to land downwind.

Yes the A320 has a system that allows this type of poor airmanship to not result in as many losses - but that still doesn't make it a good idea to land any aircraft with a big tailwind.

Assuming something like a 30Knot wind and 140 knot final approach speed that makes it a 170 knot touch down speed downwind vs 110Knots into the wind.

Which do you think is safer?


this is not a real question, we all know the answer

on the other hand one can not ignore that the 737 has a lot more landing incidents and accident
and if they are seriouse, their hull break more often than the hull of other types

it is a chain of things bringing some 737s to that point - very often in bad weather situations

if you have bad waether ... in a plane without fly-by-wire you have to fight the controlls
no problem for a pro
and there are thousands of them up there
but if you are a novice you simply focus on the controls and dont have much concentration left for comms for procedures for the things you are supposed to observe ... like speed, like glide angle..... like a change of the wind direction

in a FBW plane you do not fight controls. you use the stick to tell the plane where you want to go. no fight.
enough time to make desitions, to get a complete picture of the situation you are in


What's a novice doing trying to land a commercial jet on a rain slicked runway with a 37 knot tailwind?

Watch A320 landing Video's from the cockpit in big crosswind's on windy days - they are putting some input into the controls.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6078
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:49 am

IIRC, stats and risk analysis show that overruns at greater than 70 knots are catastrophic. That is, survivors are lucky.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:49 am

PlymSpotter wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh


I don't think people are. That decision, clearly, appears to have been fatal.

The debate surrounds whether the B737 is more likely to break apart than the A32S in similar instances.


It's irrelevant - People may have died even if the fuselage didn't break apart. The reason for the crash was the pilots poor decision to try and land the plane under those conditions. That is why they are dead.
 
alasizon
Posts: 2598
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:10 am

zkncj wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
The 737 is an old design, has its flaws, blah blah

But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh


An new aircraft would of likely provided the pilots with more warnings etc to no land, but then again it should still be on the pilots to land or not.


Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

Technology is no replacement for properly flying an aircraft no matter what.

As for those talking about whether or not a 320 would have broken up on landing. AFAIK, this is the first overrun where the aircraft proceeded to hit multiple concrete walls/barriers; you can't compare this 737 overrun to any of the prior ones simply because they didn't have the same circumstances (i.e. basic overrun).
Airport (noun) - A construction site which airplanes tend to frequent
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:14 am

morrisond wrote:
What you are not getting is that by landing downwind the Pegaus flight was vastly beyond the normal landing speed relative to the ground - if it was gusting 37 knots that's almost equivalent to an 75knot overrun vs landing into the wind. It's amazing that more didn't die.


There wasn’t a 37 kt tailwind on touchdown, there was an automatic measurement taken when they landed and it was 290/22 which gives 14 kts tail. Thee is something else at play here, for example were the spoilers armed.

The Boeing onboard performance tool says it should have had enough room SAW, RWY06, BA MED, weight MLW, GND speed 174kts, Boeing Operational landing distance is 2539m.

Pegasus has 45 A320s 32 B737NGs aircraft, and 3 runways overruns in the smaller fleet.

I would like to know how much fuel these guys are landing with.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
AngrySquid270
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:33 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:37 am

bikerthai wrote:
asdf wrote:
the 16G rule is in relation to the seatsthe 737 by far can not meet that specification because the floor is way to weakbecause the floor is to weak the hull has less stability and breaks first before and behind the wing so the 16G rule definitely has to do with the hull


The 16G rule does apply to the seats and seat attachment. That means the seat tracks. Not sure about the floor beams. The 16G rule is also a dynamic load test though some have told me it is static also. That is why when seats are tested, they do it on a sled.

Monuments also mounted to the seat track but also are attached to the fuselage are still 9G. Haven't heard about any sled test for monument.

Now, there are some occasions when customers like the US Navy wants 16G for their monuments. Then the design have to be analyzed to verify the loading. Typically that mean the floor loading must be reduced (spread the monument load over more area). Not sure if this have been flowed to the commercial aircraft. If it have through the FAR, then all aircraft must meet the same requirements: 737 or A320.

Your reasoning for why the fuselage break before and behind the wing point to the wrong logic. The reason why you see the break of the fuselage before and behind the wing is pretty basic.

The wing box being the junction of the fuselage and wing is the strongest part of the aircraft. That is why the main landing gear typically is located near there. In a dynamic situation such as this, the forward and aft fuselage is acting like a cantilevered beam with the wing box being the fixed point. Like any cantilevered beam, the highest stresses will be at the "clamped" joint, in this case the fuselage join at the wing box. As with any cantilevered beam section during bending the highest stresses are at the top/bottom of the beam, aka the crown and the keel of the aircraft, and not at the center-the floor beams.

Now, the A320 does have a slightly larger fuselage than the 737. That provides additional stiffness through the larger moment of inertia. But how that impact into the overall stress equations only the A320 and 737 stress analysis knows.

bt


I'll add on a few things here:

All of these loading conditions are discussed in exhausting detail in the FAR

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR ... 25-561.pdf

24.561 covers the static loads for and Emergency Landing Condition. Designed occupant forces are 3g Upwards, 9g Forwards, 3g Sidewards, 4g Sidewards for the seat, 6g downwards, 1.5g rearwards. In addition "seats and items of mass (and their supporting structure) must not deform under any loads up to those specified". This is for a 170lb man, so that 340lb man behind you may potentially become a 340lb projectile at half those g-ratings.

24.562 which was introduced in 1988 addressed the mythic '16g' rating. It's a dynamic load that only applies to seats. I saw that there was an implication that since the 737 was an old design it does not conform to this requirement. That is not accurate. Compliance with 24.562 is stated in the 737-700/-800/-900 Type cert, see page 32: https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guid ... Rev_54.pdf


Loads on the hull can't be distilled down to a simple '16g' rating. If you browse through Subpart C you'll find a dozens of very specific load conditions, from specific flight loads to specific ground loads. There is no blanket hull rating. None of those load conditions covers falling off a cliff in a runway excursion. I don't mean to be dismissive of it - I do hope Boeing and the FAA take a close look at these breakups - I'd hope they're asking themselves how preventable this is and consider future changes to address it.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:47 am

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
What you are not getting is that by landing downwind the Pegaus flight was vastly beyond the normal landing speed relative to the ground - if it was gusting 37 knots that's almost equivalent to an 75knot overrun vs landing into the wind. It's amazing that more didn't die.


There wasn’t a 37 kt tailwind on touchdown, there was an automatic measurement taken when they landed and it was 290/22 which gives 14 kts tail. Thee is something else at play here, for example were the spoilers armed.

The Boeing onboard performance tool says it should have had enough room SAW, RWY06, BA MED, weight MLW, GND speed 174kts, Boeing Operational landing distance is 2539m.

Pegasus has 45 A320s 32 B737NGs aircraft, and 3 runways overruns in the smaller fleet.

I would like to know how much fuel these guys are landing with.


Given the weather I'd expect them to be carrying a fait bit of extra fuel, but if they weren't perhapa that's why they continued with the landing instead of rejecting it despite landing deep.

The normalisation of deviance seems to be creeping in with some operators. You might get away with landing half way down a 4,000m runway, but pull the same stunt by landing half way down a 2,500m runway contaminated with standing water and a 14kt tailwind and it doesn't matter what you calculated as a stopping distance; it becomes irrelevant when you touch down outside of the touchdown zone. That's where mandatory go-arounds for main gear touchdown outside of the touchdown zone are essential regardless of runway length, one day it'll save a runway excursion.

But just like the AA737 at Kingston, AF A340 at Toronto and this one, if you land halfway down a wet runway with a tailwind you're asking for trouble. The stable approach criteria apply all the way to touchdown, not just at a snapshot at 1,000ft or 500ft.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8928
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:17 am

PlymSpotter wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh


I don't think people are. That decision, clearly, appears to have been fatal.

The debate surrounds whether the B737 is more likely to break apart than the A32S in similar instances.

Yes, I understand, I still think it's a silly debate. A 737 flying off a cliff at 60 knots and breaking into 3 pieces vs an A320 flying off a cliff and... breaking up into just 1 or something?

There is plenty to discuss in the 737 vs A320 debate but I think it's kinda pointless to think how another airframe would handle flying off this cliff


zkncj wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
The 737 is an old design, has its flaws, blah blah

But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh


An new aircraft would of likely provided the pilots with more warnings etc to no land, but then again it should still be on the pilots to land or not.

I was not in the cockpit and as a pilot, I really hate judging the actions of pilots in mishaps before the facts are known (and even then, I am cautious.)

That being said, I highly doubt the pilots DIDN'T know there was a strong tailwind and the runway was wet. I am certain they knew and get-there-itis kicked in and their luck ran out. A new plane that yells "go around idiot!" is good and all unless it is ignored.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:22 am

BA777FO wrote:
pull the same stunt by landing half way down a 2,500m runway contaminated with standing water and a 14kt tailwind and it doesn't matter what you calculated as a stopping distance; it becomes irrelevant when you touch down outside of the touchdown zone.


Bit more than 2500 m

Image

BA777FO wrote:
That's where mandatory go-arounds for main gear touchdown outside of the touchdown zone are essential regardless of runway length, one day it'll save a runway excursion.


I don’t agree with that, eg EK in DXB had 3100 m in front of them after they touched down at normal speed on a benign day on a dry runway, it would have been safer to compete the rollout.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:25 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
[A new plane that yells "go around idiot!" is good and all unless it is ignored.


No such feature on the 737, only Airbus call their pilots retards every landing, sometimes multiple times if they deserve it.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
BA777FO
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:34 am

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
pull the same stunt by landing half way down a 2,500m runway contaminated with standing water and a 14kt tailwind and it doesn't matter what you calculated as a stopping distance; it becomes irrelevant when you touch down outside of the touchdown zone.


Bit more than 2500 m

Image

BA777FO wrote:
That's where mandatory go-arounds for main gear touchdown outside of the touchdown zone are essential regardless of runway length, one day it'll save a runway excursion.


I don’t agree with that, eg EK in DXB had 3100 m in front of them after they touched down at normal speed on a benign day on a dry runway, it would have been safer to compete the rollout.


This is what I mean by the normalisation of deviance. It's irrelevant how long the runway in Istanbul is. If you land halfway down a runway thinking it's safer to land than go-around then eventually you'll start doing it on wet runways, and wet runways with tailwinds. And shorter and shorter runways.

The Emirates crew were landing long, bounced it, the initiated a go-around where the PM had no FMA awareness and the PF wasn't covering the controls/thrust levers. There's nothing unsafe about going around - there's plenty wrong with not knowing how far down the runway you are when you finanlly touch down and thinking it's okay.

You don't fly commercial airliners, do you? I don't mean that as a slight, but the normalisation of deviance is exactly why we have hard rules around things like stable approach criteria, safe landing policies etc. The normalisation of deviance leads to crews thinking like you: it's safer to land halfway down a runway than go-around. It's not. All of a sudden you're in an AA 737 going off the end of the runway in Kingston because you landed half way down. You're in an AF A340 going off the end of the end of the runway because you landed half way down. Now you're in a 737 going off the end of a 3,000m because you landed half way down the runway.

The vast majority, or nearly all, runway excursions are the result of an unstable approach and/or landing beyond the touchdown zone. Going around/rejected landings are the way to prevent a hull loss in this situation. Not being able to fly a go-around is a poor excuse.
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:54 am

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
What you are not getting is that by landing downwind the Pegaus flight was vastly beyond the normal landing speed relative to the ground - if it was gusting 37 knots that's almost equivalent to an 75knot overrun vs landing into the wind. It's amazing that more didn't die.


There wasn’t a 37 kt tailwind on touchdown, there was an automatic measurement taken when they landed and it was 290/22 which gives 14 kts tail. Thee is something else at play here, for example were the spoilers armed.

The Boeing onboard performance tool says it should have had enough room SAW, RWY06, BA MED, weight MLW, GND speed 174kts, Boeing Operational landing distance is 2539m.

Pegasus has 45 A320s 32 B737NGs aircraft, and 3 runways overruns in the smaller fleet.

I would like to know how much fuel these guys are landing with.


Yes but the METAR said it could have been gusting to 37 (equivalent to about 30 on the tail) would you as a professional pilot continue that approach or ask for another runway?
Last edited by morrisond on Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:56 am

BA777FO wrote:
You don't fly commercial airliners, do you? I don't mean that as a slight, but the normalisation of deviance is exactly why we have hard rules around things like stable approach criteria, safe landing policies etc.


I do, I am only of those pesky pilots that train other pilots. I am going to have to disagree with you over the EK accident, their biggest failing there was lack of awareness of what they had in front of them.

I teach stabilized approach criteria, landings to people who never flown an airliner before, techniques to be used on wet runways, landing with tailwinds etc. What I emphasize is what is actually available in front of you, and a landing can be rejected right up to the point where reverses are selected.

Flying a stabilized approach does not guarantee a safe outcome, nor does an unstable approach always result in an accident. There is no single stabilized approach criteria either, every airline seems to have their own views. We use 1000 ft in all conditions, so at least over a minute before touchdown, others use 500 ft which is not much time.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:04 am

zeke wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
[A new plane that yells "go around idiot!" is good and all unless it is ignored.


No such feature on the 737, only Airbus call their pilots retards every landing, sometimes multiple times if they deserve it.


That made me laugh hard. It brought back memories. I flew one of the AC A320 sims one time and thought that was one of the funniest things.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:08 am

morrisond wrote:
Yes but the METAR said it could have been gusting to 37 (equivalent to 30 on the tail) would you as a professional pilot continue that approach or ask for another runway?


Continue the approach. METARs and TWR winds are not the instantaneous winds, they are taken as averages. The airport may have something like 10 sensors around the airport. It is not uncommon for one end of the runway to have different winds to the other. I would have a look, if it’s within limits land, if not go around.

Btw 290/37 would be 23 kts tail.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:17 am

zeke wrote:
morrisond wrote:
Yes but the METAR said it could have been gusting to 37 (equivalent to 30 on the tail) would you as a professional pilot continue that approach or ask for another runway?


Continue the approach. METARs and TWR winds are not the instantaneous winds, they are taken as averages. The airport may have something like 10 sensors around the airport. It is not uncommon for one end of the runway to have different winds to the other. I would have a look, if it’s within limits land, if not go around.

Btw 290/37 would be 23 kts tail.


Makes sense - I was just extrapolating your numbers to get the 30. I didn't feel like finding my old flight computer.
 
Flaps
Posts: 1651
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2000 1:11 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:36 am

zkncj wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
The 737 is an old design, has its flaws, blah blah

But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh


An new aircraft would of likely provided the pilots with more warnings etc to no land, but then again it should still be on the pilots to land or not.


Any pilot that attempts to land with a 30+ knot tailwind on a wet runway isn't going to be saved or swayed by more warnings.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:55 am

OA940 wrote:
Why are we even talking about the overrun statistics? Quite literally - and with no exception - every single serious overrun involving either an NG or a bus (and almost every single runway overrun involving any type of aircraft ever) has been attributed to pilot error. Doesn't matter if the 737 has more problems with tailwinds than the A320. If the pilots aren't inept you won't have an accident. Why is that so hard to understand


It isn't hard to understand at all, but it's not looking at ALL ways in which we can improve safety, which is not what this industry is supposed to be about.
 
BA777FO
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2018 2:58 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:16 am

zeke wrote:
BA777FO wrote:
You don't fly commercial airliners, do you? I don't mean that as a slight, but the normalisation of deviance is exactly why we have hard rules around things like stable approach criteria, safe landing policies etc.


I do, I am only of those pesky pilots that train other pilots. I am going to have to disagree with you over the EK accident, their biggest failing there was lack of awareness of what they had in front of them.

I teach stabilized approach criteria, landings to people who never flown an airliner before, techniques to be used on wet runways, landing with tailwinds etc. What I emphasize is what is actually available in front of you, and a landing can be rejected right up to the point where reverses are selected.

Flying a stabilized approach does not guarantee a safe outcome, nor does an unstable approach always result in an accident. There is no single stabilized approach criteria either, every airline seems to have their own views. We use 1000 ft in all conditions, so at least over a minute before touchdown, others use 500 ft which is not much time.


I am stunned that you condone landing beyond the touchdown zone, especially if you're a TRI/TRE. You're absolutely correct that a rejected landing can be flown right up until reverse selection, so why engage in a normalisation of deviance? A rejected landing is safer than a landing beyond the TDZ. Where do you draw the line? Happy landing halfway down a dry 3,000m runway? What about a wet one? A wet one with a 10kt tailwind? 2,500m with a 10kt tailwind? How would you determine that you're not beyond halfway down the runway when the TDZ markings have long disappeared behind you?

Interesting interpretation of the Emirates incident though; their failing was hitting TO/GA expecting the thrust levers to advance despite the AFDS TO/GA mode being unavailable at low radio altitudes. The PF didn't monitor the FMAS, otherwise he'd have realised he didn't have THR / TOGA / TOGA. The PF didn't follow the thrust levers otherwise he'd have realised his selection of TO/GA did nothing. Neither of them had the N1 in their scan, the FMAs or thrust lever position. Their lack of awareness was in flying the aircraft, not how much runway they had infront of them.

How many flights have experienced a runway excursion when the aircraft met the stable approach criteria at 1,000ft and maintained them all the way to touchdown and landed within the touchdown zone? Just about every excursion I can think of was either the result of an unstable approach, a touchdown beyond the touchdown zone or both.

We use 1,000ft too, the crucial point is that you don't just have to meet it at 1,000ft but continually to touchdown - and main gear touchdown within the touchdown zone.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5371
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:56 am

The 737 lands fast. Much faster than anything else its size. In fact, I'm pretty sure it lands faster than many widebodies, especially the -900. It needs to dissipate more energy with no more ways of doing so than any other narrowboy (4 wheel brakes, 2 reversers and ground spoilers)...

That, in itself, is not an issue as long as the airplane is operated within operational parameters and using sensible landing performance assessment methods.
The problem is that, in the real World, stuff happens. There's bad weather, sub-par and challenging runways, the occasional slightly fast/high approach or the long flare, or any and all of these combined.
This would mean that when it does happen, all else being equal, the 737 will have much less of a margin to recover from the errors that led to a deep/fast landing.
I believe that this is why we tend to see more of them lying in the dirt/water behind runway thresholds than A320s or others, particularly among operators with weaker safety practices.

Those short legs sure seem to be a curse for the poor 737.

That said, I believe the A321 would be a fast lander as well. Not sure how it compares with a 739.
Last edited by Francoflier on Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3413
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:07 am

Does anyone know what kind of stringers are on the A320? The 737 have hat sections.

bt
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
bspc
Posts: 252
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:07 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 5:22 am

[code][/code]
zeke wrote:
No such feature on the 737, only Airbus call their pilots retards every landing, sometimes multiple times if they deserve it.


Best reply in this topic :lol:
 
THS214
Posts: 340
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:01 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:17 am

DeltaMD90 wrote:
The 737 is an old design, has its flaws, blah blah

But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh


The big question is, under the same conditions what would have happened to an A320?
 
Virtual737
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 6:29 am

THS214 wrote:
DeltaMD90 wrote:
The 737 is an old design, has its flaws, blah blah

But I can't believe people are blaming the 737 for the pilots choosing to land with an outrageous tailwind on a wet runway and it flying off a cliff at like 60 knots. Yeah, of course the 737 broke apart, duh


The big question is, under the same conditions what would have happened to an A320?


...but you can't ask that, because the answer *might* be no. That might lead to questions being asked about 1950s designs being allowed to be grandfathered into what is effectively a brand new type, and that might put production at risk which might affect jobs which is always bad...

... as we strive for improved safety.
 
StTim
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:04 am

It seems to me there are two separate topics under discussion here.

1. Whether the pilot should have continued with the landing given conditions and touch down point.

For this I need to let the pilots debate I cannot change my actions based on this.

2. Is the 737 susceptible to breaking into three sections on “relatively” mild crash scenarios?



I am very interested in the answer to this as I want to know, if true, which parts of the plane not to sit in on my next 737 flight.

Anecdotally the 320 does seem to retain structural integrity in a wider set of scenarios.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15107
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 7:44 am

StTim wrote:
2. Is the 737 susceptible to breaking into three sections on “relatively” mild crash scenarios?
.


I would not call going down an through antennas, lights, an embankment, and then a wall mild. In my mind it’s a miracle the crew are alive.

Instead of focusing on this, look at what went as designed, the gear and engines appear to have detached which releases a lot of energy.

It will be worth reserving judgement on this until the report is out. I would like to see how many people that sustained injuries were not wearing seatbelts.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 706
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 8:40 am

I did not read everything here so I hope this is not a repetition:

Does the 737 has a system that warns the pilots that the remaining runway is too short? I know Airbus aircraft have such systems so I guess Boeing does too. It kind of shows really bad training if you land when the aircraft tells you it will not work.

If the 737 does not has such a system it comes down to bad training and decision making but that said, implementing a system that tells you not to attempt a landing might then be a good idea for future aircraft designs.

The more aircraft you want to sell the higher the chances one day a bad pilot or a good pilot with a bad day will make a bad decision. Under this assumption every bit of help from automation will safe life.
 
Virtual737
Posts: 732
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:16 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 9:23 am

StTim wrote:
It seems to me there are two separate topics under discussion here.

1. Whether the pilot should have continued with the landing given conditions and touch down point.

For this I need to let the pilots debate I cannot change my actions based on this.

2. Is the 737 susceptible to breaking into three sections on “relatively” mild crash scenarios?



I think you are missing an additional point that is more important than your point 2, which is, if pilots of any type are equally likely to make a bad decision, what is it that SEEMS to cause 737s to overrun more often than other types, regardless of what they overrun into and how many pieces they may or may not break in to?
 
BrianDromey
Posts: 2717
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 2:23 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:11 am

Bhoy wrote:
Just for balance, Pegasus have been flying 737s (they started with -400/500s before moving to the -800) for 30 years, the A320ceo (of which they have 15) was only introduced to the fleet just over 6 years ago. The Neo is obviously an even younger fleet, so comparing a snapshot of the 737 only comprising 40% of their fleet now isn’t quite historically accurate.


It is worth considering why one airline, with a fleet of 82 narrow-body aircraft has had 3 runways excursions since 2018, 2 in the space of a month. Their fleet is roughly split 50/50 between two aircraft types, of similar type - i.e. they are modern, narrow body, twin engine aircraft. There are thousands of flights safely competed every day, on both types, all over the world.
On the face of it three events seems a lot for a single operator. It is curious that all the incidents are confined to one type in the fleet and that they have been operating the 737 for 30 years yet laterally begin to have runways excursion events. So there may be a training and operational issue on the 737 fleet.
Equally the A320 seems to have a lower rate of runway excursion. Ryanair and easyJet both fly similar fleet sizes, the primary difference being aircraft type. To my knowledge FR have had one excursion with the 738, easyJet have had none. Given the regulatory environments that FR and U2 operate in, their T&C's and source of pilots you would expect the pilot pools to be comparable - the huge numbers employed should normalise variables like age and experience. Granted the numbers of incidents are small and there are a lot of variables - but looking at the rate of excursion is not unreasonable.

A cluster of incidents could be explained by "bad luck". I work in an extremely litigious branch of medicine. I have read report after report which assumes "bad luck" in what are actually symptoms of underlying failures in training, communication, risk assessment and management. Sometimes the equipment is an issue - but human factors and poor training uncover poor design or redundancy. Ignoring clusters is a bad decision, understanding the reasons for the clusters and redesigning processes, training and equipment is vital for improving safety. If that means that old techniques and equipment have to be replaced, that is what must be done. Playing with the statistics isn't the way forward. Most statistics can be brought to a normal range by selecting a long enough time to study.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10728
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:32 pm

DeltaMD90 wrote:
Yes, I understand, I still think it's a silly debate. A 737 flying off a cliff at 60 knots and breaking into 3 pieces vs an A320 flying off a cliff and... breaking up into just 1 or something?

There is plenty to discuss in the 737 vs A320 debate but I think it's kinda pointless to think how another airframe would handle flying off this cliff


I disagree - it absolutely is not pointless when a crash in which the aircraft maintains structural integrity is more likely to be survivable than one where the fuselage breaks apart.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
morrisond
Posts: 2731
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 12:22 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:44 pm

StTim wrote:
It seems to me there are two separate topics under discussion here.

1. Whether the pilot should have continued with the landing given conditions and touch down point.

For this I need to let the pilots debate I cannot change my actions based on this.

2. Is the 737 susceptible to breaking into three sections on “relatively” mild crash scenarios?



I am very interested in the answer to this as I want to know, if true, which parts of the plane not to sit in on my next 737 flight.

Anecdotally the 320 does seem to retain structural integrity in a wider set of scenarios.


Good list and valid - However the statement "relatively mild crash scenarios" is a very large understatement in this case.

Ask yourself how likely you would be to survive in any car even with Airbags and crumple zones if you left a Road at over 100km/h and went down a 60M embankment.

It's a miracle it didn't end up a lot worse than it did.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3423
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 1:50 pm

The EASA, FAA and other civilian aircraft regulatory agencies around the world need to be contacted immediately. This 'trend' of 737 fuselages breaking apart on overrun incidents must be stopped.

Image
You are here.
 
StTim
Posts: 3715
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:26 pm

morrisond wrote:
StTim wrote:
It seems to me there are two separate topics under discussion here.

1. Whether the pilot should have continued with the landing given conditions and touch down point.

For this I need to let the pilots debate I cannot change my actions based on this.

2. Is the 737 susceptible to breaking into three sections on “relatively” mild crash scenarios?



I am very interested in the answer to this as I want to know, if true, which parts of the plane not to sit in on my next 737 flight.

Anecdotally the 320 does seem to retain structural integrity in a wider set of scenarios.


Good list and valid - However the statement "relatively mild crash scenarios" is a very large understatement in this case.

Ask yourself how likely you would be to survive in any car even with Airbags and crumple zones if you left a Road at over 100km/h and went down a 60M embankment.

It's a miracle it didn't end up a lot worse than it did.



OK relatively mild is an understatement. I am also amazed and tell people what a large proportion of people actually survive quite violent plane crashes.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 343
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:31 pm

If we do not like comparisons how about absolutes. What speed and conditions should the plane be able to handle?
 
User avatar
bikerthai
Posts: 3413
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 1:45 pm

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:48 pm

I would like to look at this A320 - 737 comparison from a different vector. Having somewhat some experience in fuselage design, (some 25 years ago) and the optimization airframe must go through to meet regulations and payload capabilities,. My opinion is that both frames would perform the similatly under similar circumstances.

If you want different result, you use different materials. Like the 787 - for good or for bad.

My tangent would be to ask:. How is the visibility out the 737 vs the A320 and would that affect he pilot decision making process when deciding whether there is sufficient runway to land or go around?

bt
Last edited by bikerthai on Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Intelligent seeks knowledge. Enlightened seeks wisdom.
 
User avatar
bgm
Posts: 2450
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:37 am

Re: Pegasus Airlines Flight PC2193 Runway Overrun at Istanbul (SAW)

Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:48 pm

Interesting article from a pilot who has flown both the 737NG and the A320 series.

Speaking of landings, the Airbus is much easier to land smoothly and, for pilots, it goes a long way to stroke our already-inflated egos. If you can consistently grease a 737NG landing, you’re a better pilot than most. The problem with that airplane, especially the long-bodied models, is that it lands so fast. Because tail strikes are a big threat for the long, low-slung airplanes, approach speeds are in the 150- to 160-knot range, which is about 40 knots or more above stall speed. All that extra speed keeps the long-bodied 737s flat to avoid tail strikes, but it also causes them to skip right back in the air at initial touchdown—just a few inches. It’s just long enough for the ground-spoiler system to sense wheel spin, at which point the spoilers deploy—right now! And it’s that second plop to the ground that makes the NGs one of the more difficult airplanes to consistently land well.

This also brings up a safety issue. There have been more than a few runway overruns in long-bodied 737s. They are heavy, they land fast, and they have only four main-wheel brakes—unlike a 757, which has eight brakes. Pilots who like to use all of the runway’s touchdown zone trying to squeak out a good landing are playing with fire in this airplane, especially on wet or contaminated runways. Remember, style points don’t count if you run off the end of the runway.


https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ilot/t_bva
Really? Four more years of this?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos