flybynight wrote:

2020 just isn't a good year at all.
RIP to those who didn't make it and speedy recovery to all the others.

It seems like most of these types of accidents fall hard on the pilots, but so sorry to hear they both passed away.
In the few pictures I've seen the cockpit seemed to look fairly OK, but I could be wrong. Maybe something similar to the Turkish 737 that crashed in Amsterdam, where the pilots were killed by falling panels inside the cockpit (if memory serves me correct),

Just saw a frontal picture of the jet. The nose section hit a concrete wall of some sort at the bottom of the ravine and was crushed pretty bad with the windows popped out.

Antarius wrote:

ranold76 wrote:

It will be interesting to know what the first go-around was for and if there was a 2nd go-around attempt...

Does not appear to have been a second attempt based on the altitude and airspeed from here https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AXB1344

But not sure, just trying to judge based on a graph

To me it doesn't look like two approaches all the way to the runway, but there are two times where they came down to and leveled or a bit around 3775 Feet. The first one looks like they hit it and then climbed back out (can't know whether that was ATC drive, or Pilot driven). The second time they continued from there to the runway.

kraz911 wrote:

Hello all,
First off, RIP to the pilots and those killed. Hoping the dead numbers are low considering the aircraft went down a cliff and those injured. It’s all too soon and it’s dark there but I would suspect the people lost were towards the front. I don’t see the cockpit, the front fuselage is serrated aft of where the front doors would be. Also at that particular angle of footage there is light under the front fuselage where the front baggage compartment would be even with the floor. For the people onboard, it was sheer terror. Not knowing or speculating if they landed long or fast, it will come out later, I would question why they would have max passengers and probably cargo/baggage on this flight coming into a tricky airfield during known heavy/monsoon rains. Also I can’t help but mention that this 737-800 looks like same three piece breakup of this type in recent history the Pegasus flight being the most recent...

Even with max passengers, a 2800m runway is more than enough to stop a 738 at max landing weight which it likely was not at - there will be other factors that come to light indicating what actually happened. There is also another 240m overrun safety area.

I highly doubt the 737's design is going to be a factor in the crash as a 320 likely would have broken apart under the same circumstances - it appears to be about a 40-50 foot drop off and one of the pictures shows the nose section up against the airport concrete barrier wall. which is another 150-200 feet from the bottom off the hill.

kraz911 wrote:

Hello all,
First off, RIP to the pilots and those killed. Hoping the dead numbers are low considering the aircraft went down a cliff and those injured. It’s all too soon and it’s dark there but I would suspect the people lost were towards the front. I don’t see the cockpit, the front fuselage is serrated aft of where the front doors would be. Also at that particular angle of footage there is light under the front fuselage where the front baggage compartment would be even with the floor. For the people onboard, it was sheer terror. Not knowing or speculating if they landed long or fast, it will come out later, I would question why they would have max passengers and probably cargo/baggage on this flight coming into a tricky airfield during known heavy/monsoon rains. Also I can’t help but mention that this 737-800 looks like same three piece breakup of this type in recent history the Pegasus flight being the most recent...

RIP to the deceased. Aviation safety is based on incident/ accident analyses, statistics and openness.

I did a quick google -737 crash break-up. I won’t make a list, but there’s a remarkable one. It seems all at the same places. We discussed before.

-Independent- specialists maybe should analyze / do some statistics, optionally review the crashworthiness certification history, back to the short 737-100.

zuckie13 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

ranold76 wrote:

It will be interesting to know what the first go-around was for and if there was a 2nd go-around attempt...

Does not appear to have been a second attempt based on the altitude and airspeed from here https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AXB1344

But not sure, just trying to judge based on a graph

To me it doesn't look like two approaches all the way to the runway, but there are two times where they came down to and leveled or a bit around 3775 Feet. The first one looks like they hit it and then climbed back out (can't know whether that was ATC drive, or Pilot driven). The second time they continued from there to the runway.

I haven't seen a proper close up of the cockpit. Since they both died there was obviously a pretty severe impact tor the two of them. Sad.

keesje wrote:

-Independent- specialists maybe should analyze / do some statistics, optionally review the crashworthiness certification history, back to the short 737-100.

Only a matter of time before the silly and agenda starts coming out.

Multiple aircraft that zips off the runway and falls off an edge breaking into pieces is not somehow multiple data points. its the same situation with predictably similar results.

Every time a 737 has an accident we have to read the same posts "OMG another 737 crash", trying to put the blame on the design, performance or characteristics of the 737. Truth is, with only a few exceptions ( for example the two MAX crashes or USAir 427 ), 99 % of all the 737 crashes through history had nothing to do with the 737 design or performance...The "hundreds" of 737 crashed through time are the logical consequence of thousands of airframes built, and having those frames flying very often in countries with horrible safety standards/culture regarding aviation.

Rgds.
G.

I'm suspecting a late touchdown again, not unlike when IX812 overran the runway and plunged off the IXE runway after a very late touchdown on another tabletop runway. Both IXE and CCJ are tabletop runways capable of handling mainline aircraft, along with the other tabletop runway in India, AJL in the far east, and KTM in Nepal (those round out the four tabletop runways capable of accepting mainline aircraft).

kraz911 wrote:

Hello all,
First off, RIP to the pilots and those killed. Hoping the dead numbers are low considering the aircraft went down a cliff and those injured. It’s all too soon and it’s dark there but I would suspect the people lost were towards the front. I don’t see the cockpit, the front fuselage is serrated aft of where the front doors would be. Also at that particular angle of footage there is light under the front fuselage where the front baggage compartment would be even with the floor. For the people onboard, it was sheer terror. Not knowing or speculating if they landed long or fast, it will come out later, I would question why they would have max passengers and probably cargo/baggage on this flight coming into a tricky airfield during known heavy/monsoon rains. Also I can’t help but mention that this 737-800 looks like same three piece breakup of this type in recent history the Pegasus flight being the most recent...

The 737-800 fuselage has a weird habit of snapping in the same places every time of these runway incidents occur. Also seems that in recent history every runway overrun seems to be specifically a 737-800.

CCJ handles Saudia A330 on a regular basis, so the runway is more than capable of handling a loaded B737

It seems like it skid off the runway midway due to slippery conditions rather than reaching the end of it and overshoot

I can't find a backup but a air safety commentator for USA - ABC network suggested that a lot of tire rubber on the runway, at or after the touchdown point, could make the service slippery, especially in heavy rain conditions. I wonder if this should be a factor in this crash.

That drop off at the end is massive, plus the fact it doesn't have any sort of EMAS is a joke IMO.

ikolkyo wrote:

That drop off at the end is massive, plus the fact it doesn't have any sort of EMAS is a joke IMO.

It doesn't have a true EMAS but it does have a 240m overrun area which is the highest recommendation from ICAO. If you overrun a 2860m runway plus another 240m, the design isn't an issue at that point.

zuckie13 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

ranold76 wrote:

It will be interesting to know what the first go-around was for and if there was a 2nd go-around attempt...

Does not appear to have been a second attempt based on the altitude and airspeed from here https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AXB1344

But not sure, just trying to judge based on a graph

To me it doesn't look like two approaches all the way to the runway, but there are two times where they came down to and leveled or a bit around 3775 Feet. The first one looks like they hit it and then climbed back out (can't know whether that was ATC drive, or Pilot driven). The second time they continued from there to the runway.

Looking at the track log it appears that the accident flight first attempted to land on RWY 28, but aborted their approach at approximately (3,775 ft., or 1,500ft. AGL. They then went around and attempted to land on RWY 10 (the opposite direction). Their approach speed nearing the threshold of RWY 10 was very high, over 190kts., when a normal approach speed for a B738 is around 150-160kts.

Sorry if the following has been posted before.

12th July 2019 news:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cit ... 182867.cms

Based on the flight route and WX including winds aloft and stated passenger loading, calc. fuel and normal contingency, final reserves, etc. estimated landing weight would have been around 135,000 lbs. Estimated Vref30 would be around 143 knots, and with A’Br 3 in rain per VOCL METAR, it would provide an acceptable landing margin with the Rwy 10 LDA, even with a 12-13 kn TW (with landing in the TDZ).

Don’t know if they landed long as the Flightaware data stops at 6.9 DME Rwy10, so don’t know where touchdown was actually at on Rwy 10, or the landing speed. As a reminder, remember the SWA overrun accident at KMDW in Dec. 2005 primarily due to delayed thrust reverser actuation. What A'Br setting was actually used, were the spoilers armed, and were the thrust reversers engaged promptly?

There seems to be a lot of children on that flight, hopefully none of them died. Tragic event.

Will be interesting to know if most who died were sitting in the front section of the plane.

What's the point of table top runways like the one in CCJ anyway? What's the advantage of having one when, in case of an overrun like this one, the damage to the aircraft (and its occupants for that matter) will be even more severe than if you were to overrun the runway in e.g. HAM, EWR or LHR?

unnayan wrote:

CCJ handles Saudia A330 on a regular basis, so the runway is more than capable of handling a loaded B737

It seems like it skid off the runway midway due to slippery conditions rather than reaching the end of it and overshoot

I read on Wikipedia (I know, sketchy source at best) that widebody operations were banned for a while at CCJ, and that was not long ago. Now they're operating widebodies into CCJ again.

try to build runway in mountains another way

Antaras wrote:

I dunno that is it right if the 737s' fuselages are "softer" than the A320s, as I saw more 737s were broken into pieces in this kind of accident than the A320s.

There was a very similar discussion in the previous (and probably every other) similar occurence.

The plane broke apart - most planes would probably do similar in such a situation. The most concerning issue is the number of overruns, not the unsurprising fact that the fuselage breaks apart when it's put under stresses way outside its design limits. Being in an extremely solid metal tube that doesn't deform on impact would put all the energy into the passengers rather that into the frame, which also ends badly.

Stop the cause and you stop the effect.

Antaras wrote:

I dunno that is it right if the 737s' fuselages are "softer" than the A320s, as I saw more 737s were broken into pieces in this kind of accident than the A320s.

One of the Al Jazeera documentaries on Boeings quality control issues looked into it. It was claimed that poor quality of the parts in those areas play a role in the aircraft breaking apart at those locations.

The documentary is available on YouTube, if you search for it.

Virtual737 wrote:

Antaras wrote:

I dunno that is it right if the 737s' fuselages are "softer" than the A320s, as I saw more 737s were broken into pieces in this kind of accident than the A320s.

There was a very similar discussion in the previous (and probably every other) similar occurence.

The plane broke apart - most planes would probably do similar in such a situation. The most concerning issue is the number of overruns, not the unsurprising fact that the fuselage breaks apart when it's put under stresses way outside its design limits. Being in an extremely solid metal tube that doesn't deform on impact would put all the energy into the passengers rather that into the frame, which also ends badly.

Stop the cause and you stop the effect.

What I always found interesting is that Ural A321 didn't break apart when it crash landed. I suppose those cornfields softened the blow?

Blerg wrote:

What I always found interesting is that Ural A321 didn't break apart when it crash landed. I suppose those cornfields softened the blow?

Possibly. Almost certainly a different set of stresses. The Pegasus 738 which ended up nose down 45 degrees over a cliff didn't break up, but another did. This latest incident airframe seems to have hit a concrete wall or similar given the damage to the front end.

Vio wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Another landing incident with a Boeing 737NG in wet weather? Seems like a lot of these incidents in recent years.

You are correct. They seem to happen with more frequency. I think India, like Pakistan, needs to pay close attention whom it emits pilot licenses to.

Not to be rude, but please check the correct information before making such posts. The captain of the aircraft was a decorated ex-IAF officer with 40+ years of flying experience. All of these 737NG incidents (such as this year's Pegasus Airlines crash in Istanbul and 2019's SpiceJet overshoot in Mumbai) seem to be correlated to inclement weather and poor runway maintenance, especially in the case of IX1344.

LTU932 wrote:

Someone posted a tweet stating that the runway in CCJ is on a raised platform basically, almost like what to me looks like a dam or a dam-like construction. How does that affect an approach?

RIP to all who lost lives.

These are basically all they build in India these days in this type of location/need. They are a tiered built up earth surface with usually around 9,000-9,500" runway with another 30" runoff followed by a 30-50" drop at the end with around a 60 degree slope. I'd be willing to bet it had no grooving, and a good bit of rubber build up as well.

They can bee very challenging especially in WX like this one. They had a moderate tailwind as well. Land a bit long, no rain grooves, rubber buildup, not good.

Gods Speed to all.

I hope these photos can give some people a sense of how massive the drop off is at the end of the runway. A plane with some speed going off that is not gonna end well. My very short take is that these landed long pass the touch down zone and tried to not go around. A classic overrun.




https://twitter.com/airlivenet/status/1 ... 27042?s=21

AIX & Spicejet (both 737 operators) have had a number of overrun incidents. Infact, over the last decade or so, majority of the runway overruns in India were of 737NG aircraft (primarily 737-800).
This despite the fact that the number of 737's in Indian skies are disproportionately lower compared to the A320 family aircraft.
Number of A320 family currently in India is about 450 vs. 110 737's.
So I find it interesting how almost most overrun cases are still of the 737(-800's) in India.

Looks like all the slide packs were disarmed before egress. Assuming that both pilots were incapacitated, the purser would have made the call to evacuate after disarming the doors. Where is the purser normally seated for IX? Up front normally, right?

Dutchy wrote:

Another landing incident with a Boeing 737NG in wet weather? Seems like a lot of these incidents in recent years.

But more incidents than for Airbus aircraft or smaller BBD or EMB planes?

spinotter wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Another landing incident with a Boeing 737NG in wet weather? Seems like a lot of these incidents in recent years.

But more incidents than for Airbus aircraft or smaller BBD or EMB planes?

Seems like it. I heard a landing on a wet runway is more tricky with a Boeing 737NG than with an A320/A220 (BBD) or EMB. This might be due to the engine placement, low to the ground as they are. And if it is harder to land than of course the chances of an accident increases as well.
I do not have the statistics at hand, so perhaps someone with more knowledge than me could shed some light on it.

BOMFlyer wrote:

Vio wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Another landing incident with a Boeing 737NG in wet weather? Seems like a lot of these incidents in recent years.

You are correct. They seem to happen with more frequency. I think India, like Pakistan, needs to pay close attention whom it emits pilot licenses to.

Not to be rude, but please check the correct information before making such posts. The captain of the aircraft was a decorated ex-IAF officer with 40+ years of flying experience. All of these 737NG incidents (such as this year's Pegasus Airlines crash in Istanbul and 2019's SpiceJet overshoot in Mumbai) seem to be correlated to inclement weather and poor runway maintenance, especially in the case of IX1344.

ok, but the issue is, given the circumstances, is the Boeing 737NG more septical for wet runways than the A320? So do you need more skill to land a 737NG than an A320 under the same circumstances.

Blerg wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

Antaras wrote:

I dunno that is it right if the 737s' fuselages are "softer" than the A320s, as I saw more 737s were broken into pieces in this kind of accident than the A320s.

There was a very similar discussion in the previous (and probably every other) similar occurence.

The plane broke apart - most planes would probably do similar in such a situation. The most concerning issue is the number of overruns, not the unsurprising fact that the fuselage breaks apart when it's put under stresses way outside its design limits. Being in an extremely solid metal tube that doesn't deform on impact would put all the energy into the passengers rather that into the frame, which also ends badly.

Stop the cause and you stop the effect.

What I always found interesting is that Ural A321 didn't break apart when it crash landed. I suppose those cornfields softened the blow?

That plus the fact that it didn't drop off a cliff either.

Is there any info on where gears deployed correctly or was it belly landing.

Dutchy wrote:

BOMFlyer wrote:

Vio wrote:

You are correct. They seem to happen with more frequency. I think India, like Pakistan, needs to pay close attention whom it emits pilot licenses to.

Not to be rude, but please check the correct information before making such posts. The captain of the aircraft was a decorated ex-IAF officer with 40+ years of flying experience. All of these 737NG incidents (such as this year's Pegasus Airlines crash in Istanbul and 2019's SpiceJet overshoot in Mumbai) seem to be correlated to inclement weather and poor runway maintenance, especially in the case of IX1344.

ok, but the issue is, given the circumstances, is the Boeing 737NG more septical for wet runways than the A320? So do you need more skill to land a 737NG than an A320 under the same circumstances.

The 737 isn't a difficult airplane to fly or land. It does require basic fundamental stick and rudder pilot skills, much like a Cessna, which an A320 does not.

If you notice there aren't many (if any) 737 flying issues in Europe or the USA.

I'd be curious to see the FOQA data from A320 operators in these developing countries.

Think that’s a drop, check out the south end of SBSP in Brazil. It’s 120’ at least.

Dutchy wrote:

spinotter wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

Another landing incident with a Boeing 737NG in wet weather? Seems like a lot of these incidents in recent years.

But more incidents than for Airbus aircraft or smaller BBD or EMB planes?

Seems like it. I heard a landing on a wet runway is more tricky with a Boeing 737NG than with an A320/A220 (BBD) or EMB. This might be due to the engine placement, low to the ground as they are. And if it is harder to land than of course the chances of an accident increases as well.
I do not have the statistics at hand, so perhaps someone with more knowledge than me could shed some light on it.

This suggests that the MAX will probably be a magnet for overruns as well in the future, possibly even more with the more dramatic engine placement.

Overruns (repairable and hull loss) are to the Boeing 737-800 what Simon is to Garfunkel at the moment, any time I hear of an overrun it’s always an 800.

Is it still the 737's design "issues" if you land 1000m down a 2700m runway, in the rain?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/kozhikode-crash-ai-express-plane-touched-down-near-taxiway-1000-metres-from-beginning-of-runway/articleshow/77427990.cms

Varsity1 wrote:

The 737 isn't a difficult airplane to fly or land. It does require basic fundamental stick and rudder pilot skills, much like a Cessna, which an A320 does not.

If you notice there aren't many (if any) 737 flying issues in Europe or the USA.

I'd be curious to see the FOQA data from A320 operators in these developing countries.

But the approach speed is higher in the 737NG than the A320, right? Add in wet runways and tailwinds and a pilot missing his landing spot you have a combination of events, all the holes of a Swiss cheese lining up, that would suggest the model will be more susceptible to these type of events.

Flaps wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Virtual737 wrote:

There was a very similar discussion in the previous (and probably every other) similar occurence.

The plane broke apart - most planes would probably do similar in such a situation. The most concerning issue is the number of overruns, not the unsurprising fact that the fuselage breaks apart when it's put under stresses way outside its design limits. Being in an extremely solid metal tube that doesn't deform on impact would put all the energy into the passengers rather that into the frame, which also ends badly.

Stop the cause and you stop the effect.

What I always found interesting is that Ural A321 didn't break apart when it crash landed. I suppose those cornfields softened the blow?

That plus the fact that it didn't drop off a cliff either.

Well it did kind of fall from the sky

My understanding was that the 737 has a fairly high approach speed for an aircraft its size, due to a wing design that is optimized more for cruise than low-speed flight—this is reason for the 737-900/-900ER's notoriously long takeoff rolls. The -800 (non-SFP) & -900(A) typically have the highest approach speeds due to their increased weight, while the -900ER lands slightly slower because it's fitted with the SFP as standard. I would guess that this reduces the margin of error for runway overruns, and the seemingly greater incidence rate of 737-800 overruns relative to similar aircraft types—including other 737 models—would seem to reflect that. As a passenger, I'd say in my experience the A320 family tends to feel a lot more solid & stable during landing than the 737NGs, especially the heavier ones.

The safe vs. unsafe debate is a false dichotomy. In aviation, safety is looked at as a spectrum of risk tolerance, and achieving greater safety is about identifying & mitigating risks; few things, if any, are perfectly safe, nor completely unsafe. Some risk factors—e.g. operating an aircraft while intoxicated—are pretty much all the way on the "completely unsafe" end of the spectrum. But most lie somewhere in between the two ends of that spectrum, and just because something is closer to the "perfectly safe" end than the "completely unsafe" end doesn't mean it's not worth examining.

The 737NGs aren't inherently unsafe aircraft, but it's worth considering whether there are risk factors inherent to operating the aircraft that could be better addressed. For example, maybe training standards for the aircraft need to be improved in order to better equip pilots across the global fleet to handle it safely and more reliably avoid incidents such as this. These are the kinds of things that should be asked after incidents occur, and it doesn't make anyone a "hater" of a particular manufacturer, operator, or aircraft type.

j.mo wrote:

Is it still the 737's design "issues" if you land 1000m down a 2700m runway, in the rain?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/kozhikode-crash-ai-express-plane-touched-down-near-taxiway-1000-metres-from-beginning-of-runway/articleshow/77427990.cms

And you might add that he landed down wind. The early reports are now pointing the blame at the pilot who with all his experience made a mistake and sadly paid for it with his life.

MrBretz wrote:

j.mo wrote:

Is it still the 737's design "issues" if you land 1000m down a 2700m runway, in the rain?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/kozhikode-crash-ai-express-plane-touched-down-near-taxiway-1000-metres-from-beginning-of-runway/articleshow/77427990.cms

And you might add that he landed down wind. The early reports are now pointing the blame at the pilot who with all his experience made a mistake and sadly paid for it with his life.

I lifted:

https://theprint.in/india/big-questions ... ys/257433/

from the IX1344 thread on the dried fruit forum. Seems that monsoon-specific training exists in the region but there are claims that it is not being performed:

The series of runway incidents have prompted experts to raise questions on the training of pilots and safety standards being maintained by the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), the country’s aviation watchdog.

“This points to very poor training and safety standards at SpiceJet and AIE,” said Captain Mohan Ranganathan, an aviation safety consultant and a former instructor of the Boeing 737 specialising in wet runway operations training.

“It also points to DGCA turning a blind eye to serious safety issues. The DGCA is being a facilitator for airlines and not a regulator.”

Ranganathan added that the DGCA should have grounded SpiceJet and conducted an independent safety audit by bringing in an outside agency. “The airlines appear to have ignored the mandatory monsoon-related ALAR training. The spate of incidents point to very serious failure,” he said.

“If the ministry of civil aviation and the DGCA care about passenger lives, they should ground the airlines that are incapable of safe operations during the monsoons.”

DGCA officials did not respond to the queries sent by The Print. This report will be updated when they do.

I'm not sure why the airlines don't see how having better trained pilots is in their best interest.

enzo011 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

The 737 isn't a difficult airplane to fly or land. It does require basic fundamental stick and rudder pilot skills, much like a Cessna, which an A320 does not.

If you notice there aren't many (if any) 737 flying issues in Europe or the USA.

I'd be curious to see the FOQA data from A320 operators in these developing countries.

But the approach speed is higher in the 737NG than the A320, right? Add in wet runways and tailwinds and a pilot missing his landing spot you have a combination of events, all the holes of a Swiss cheese lining up, that would suggest the model will be more susceptible to these type of events.

The only hole in this cheese (as well as the others) appears to be poor flying technique. Fly the plane by the numbers and you have no issue. Approach 40 knots above ref to a wet runway with a tailwind and well....You get what you get.

Look no further than the most recent PIA crash (in an Airbus) to see the results of a poorly planned, poorly executed and unstable approach.

Perhaps a little off topic but in light of COVID-19 and India implementing quarantine restrictions on all incoming passengers....

Will the SAR/emergency teams who participated in the rescue operation need to undergo self quarantine? From the videos I have seen, no one was properly suited up in PPE gear. Masks yes. Suits, no.

alasizon wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

That drop off at the end is massive, plus the fact it doesn't have any sort of EMAS is a joke IMO.

It doesn't have a true EMAS but it does have a 240m overrun area which is the highest recommendation from ICAO. If you overrun a 2860m runway plus another 240m, the design isn't an issue at that point.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

Sokes wrote:

alasizon wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

That drop off at the end is massive, plus the fact it doesn't have any sort of EMAS is a joke IMO.

It doesn't have a true EMAS but it does have a 240m overrun area which is the highest recommendation from ICAO. If you overrun a 2860m runway plus another 240m, the design isn't an issue at that point.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

You can't build for every incident.

I'll wager that even if you added 2000 meters of overrun, eventually somebody would find a way to crash at the end of that too.

j.mo wrote:

Is it still the 737's design "issues" if you land 1000m down a 2700m runway, in the rain?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/kozhikode-crash-ai-express-plane-touched-down-near-taxiway-1000-metres-from-beginning-of-runway/articleshow/77427990.cms

It could have been the aircraft that touched down, not the pilot. That article you linked confirms what I saw in the FR24 data, they made two approaches. That article says they went around on the first approach because of the heavy rain.

Heavy rain is harder to land in than fog, you get 1-2” of water on the windscreen. It’s like driving a car standing still rain may not look that heavy, at speed it builds up to a point it exceeds the capability of the wipers.

In heavy rain I would be more inclined to autoland.

Heavy rain can also make the runway contaminated to a point where your braking effectiveness is closer to landing on ice than on a paved runway. The runway is not grooved.

The useable length beyond the glide slope antenna is 2404m, the simple touch down lights are at 922.8 meters from the threshold.

Eikie wrote:

Sokes wrote:

alasizon wrote:

It doesn't have a true EMAS but it does have a 240m overrun area which is the highest recommendation from ICAO. If you overrun a 2860m runway plus another 240m, the design isn't an issue at that point.

Evidence suggests otherwise.

You can't build for every incident.

I'll wager that even if you added 2000 meters of overrun, eventually somebody would find a way to crash at the end of that too.

Agreed. EMAS may only help in 80% of cases.

I have a tremendous respect for everyone in the industry but couldn’t care less about “passengers” seemingly becoming aeronautical engineer types when discussing accidents.

I’m sure there are pilots who will agree with me. I flew this exact type and the nonsensical claim of the aeroplane being inherently at fault is ridiculous. You land 1000M beyond the keys in rain and wind you’ve got problems no matter what ac you’re flying. Obviously the weather was challenging. It’s a bad situation for those involved and their families. However, there is nothing mechanically or structurally wrong with this type. Give it a rest, especially you armchairs. Geez...