FAEDC3 wrote:

I am a firefighter in Lima, I do not work at the airport though, two of my colleagues died in this incident. Information and details on the reasons why the firetruck was near the active runway are not available for now. Answering some of the questions above, with the information that is confirmed as of now, I can tell you that the aircraft was in its take off run, a flight from Lima to Juliaca. will share more info as it becomes available.

God bless to your friends. What a horrific incident. Sending love from Manchester, UK

So just based on videos and the fact that the entire wing still appears to be attached, I think it was several key things that happened here. The fact that the A320 sits fairly high off the ground and the fire truck may have stayed completely under the wing. Had it been a lower plane like a 737 or some sort of regional things could have been very different.
Also makes me wonder how things would have ended had it been a head on collision. Either way, so thankful everyone on the airplane are safe. Unfortunate for the fire crew.

This has shocked me. How on earth can vehicles encroach an active runway and sadly lead to the death of two people? I feel for those at fault but there's no excuse here. RIP to those killed and god speed to their families

I took a flight from LIM last Sunday on LATAM. We were on the gate 38 minutes before we were authorized for pushback. Capitain stated that we were waiting for clearence because of traffic. I was listening to the ATC and I was really surprised how busy and kind of cahotic the ground frequency was. It was almost midnight and I found also that tons of vehicles crossing really close to the planes (way closer than other busier and land restricted airports). Actually I was wondering that the construction site was also making it worse. I mean LIM is a busy airport but not that busy to have a 30 min pushback delay.

While flying back to my home country I was questioning if my point of view was biased. I think it still is but this serious accident confirm that Lima Airport Partners DO need to order their ground operation.

People from Peru, please correct me if I'm wrong.

May God bless the families of the firemen.

For those who were asking if the frame is a write off:


Source: crhoy.com

It almost looks like that at the last second, the firetruck tried to turn to avoid the collision. If so, it could have been a lot worse if they had not turned.

I read that it was truck number 3. That is the lead truck shown in a link above.

I dont understand why a firefighter driver did not follow instructions procedure safety crossing taxiways, runway, and all stuff before you get a job. I thought they teach and train as well. I don't get it why he ran over the toward runway? Maybe he doesn't know what a big white paint line marker edge means. I don't get it that all drivers buses, tugs, baggage, fuel tanker, etc.. must have a radio at all the times to listen to the ground radio and tower activation where the plane is at. I don't know what's going on with the firetruck driver. I'm sorry that 2 lost of life. RIP.


Q

[twoid],[/twoid]

Q wrote:

I dont understand why a firefighter driver did not follow instructions procedure safety crossing taxiways, runway, and all stuff before you get a job. I thought they teach and train as well. I don't get it why he ran over the toward runway? Maybe he doesn't know what a big white paint line marker edge means. I don't get it that all drivers buses, tugs, baggage, fuel tanker, etc.. must have a radio at all the times to listen to the ground radio and tower activation where the plane is at. I don't know what's going on with the firetruck driver. I'm sorry that 2 lost of life. RIP.


Q

Ground Control may have cleared him to cross. We don’t know, yet.

SEAorPWM wrote:

shamrock350 wrote:

LATAM have tweeted it was on take off...

https://twitter.com/LATAM_PER/status/15 ... 3465744384

No deaths on board reported yet. RIP to the fire rescue crew.

On a positive note, this does appear to be another good example of how robust the A320 airframe seems to be, managing to remain relatively intact despite the high speed impact.

Fuselage and wings looked intact. I wonder how much the tank inerting system helped quench the fire (something the A320 wasn't originally built with 35 years ago)?

The right-hand wing looks intact but is obviously ruptured because of the collision. The fuel tank inerting system only exists in the center tanks and would have absolutely no role to play in quenching any fire anyway.

TVNWZ wrote:

[twoid],[/twoid]

Q wrote:

I dont understand why a firefighter driver did not follow instructions procedure safety crossing taxiways, runway, and all stuff before you get a job. I thought they teach and train as well. I don't get it why he ran over the toward runway? Maybe he doesn't know what a big white paint line marker edge means. I don't get it that all drivers buses, tugs, baggage, fuel tanker, etc.. must have a radio at all the times to listen to the ground radio and tower activation where the plane is at. I don't know what's going on with the firetruck driver. I'm sorry that 2 lost of life. RIP.


Q

Ground Control may have cleared him to cross. We don’t know, yet.

Or plane veered of runway?

As per EASA kingdoms library, both Port and Starboard are officially used in aviation, at least here in EU »»»

https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/right-way

https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/external-lights

Cheers ... may those ARFFS officers can RIP, my condolences...such a tragic accident

Starboard & Port are NOT used in North America, but are used in other parts of the world in aviation.

From watching a few videos, it seems as though the pilots must have seen it coming, #1's engine cowls for reverse thrust are open. Amazed the right wing is still intact.

TVNWZ wrote:

Ground Control may have cleared him to cross. We don’t know, yet.

Possible. May be a case of Ground right hand not knowing what Tower left hand was doing.

hivue wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

Ground Control may have cleared him to cross. We don’t know, yet.

Possible. May be a case of Ground right hand not knowing what Tower left hand was doing.

Wouldn`t that be the Starboard and Port hand??

I have been to LIM many times.
An incredibly busy runway, with often long waiting times for T.O.
Somebody crossed a yellow dotted line either without permission or with erroneous permission.
Time will tell.....

That bird will be stripped for parts, no doubt.


No Tax On Rotax

usxguy wrote:

Starboard & Port are NOT used in North America, but are used in other parts of the world in aviation.

As a North American, they have been used for at least the past 20 years I've been involved in aviation.

Bow and stern, not so much.

It keeps me confused about if the ARFFS were indeed on a rescue mission to a distress aircraft on the ramp or they were indeed on a local exercise.

https://archive.liveatc.net/spjc/SPJC1- ... -2000Z.mp3

at 09:01 you can hear the controller saying:

"Rescate, confirmando ejercicio"»»»» “rescue, confirming exercise”

Aesma wrote:

wiss wrote:

I'm 99% sure the aircraft will be a W/O. Look at these pictures

https://twitter.com/RosendoChV/status/1 ... 1358699530
https://twitter.com/RosendoChV/status/1 ... 38/photo/1

The second picture is quite a dumb and inapproppriate selfie, but note how the entire number 2 engine is missing

Crash selfie...

Two idiots.. two people just died and they take a selfie. Fair enough, at that time they obviously didn’t know that their accident included fatalities.

Polot wrote:

Looking at the damage would not be surprised if we are looking at the first A320N write off. Hope everyone in the ground vehicle is ok.

As an aircraft owner, when I see that one of my type has had an incident, my first thought is, “OH NO! I hope everyone is OK!
Then my second thought is, “I wonder if there will be any parts available?”
Is that horrible?

Given how new it is, it will likely be a write-off due to the value of the parts.

N14AZ wrote:

Aesma wrote:

wiss wrote:

I'm 99% sure the aircraft will be a W/O. Look at these pictures

https://twitter.com/RosendoChV/status/1 ... 1358699530
https://twitter.com/RosendoChV/status/1 ... 38/photo/1

The second picture is quite a dumb and inapproppriate selfie, but note how the entire number 2 engine is missing

Crash selfie...

Two idiots.. two people just died and they take a selfie. Fair enough, at that time they obviously didn’t know that their accident included fatalities.

Not sure why you call them idiots. How do you know they knew they hit a truck and that the firemen inside of it were dead?

The closure of LIM airport has resulted in the following diversions:

- AA A321N from MIA to PTY
- KL B77W from AMS to PTY
- H2 A320N from SCL to SCL
- AV A319 from BOG to BOG
- PU A343 from MAD to IQT
- LA A320 from SCL to AQP
- CM B738 from PTY to PIO
- IB A359 from MAD to BOG
- AF A359 from CDG to PTY
- UA B752 from EWR to EWR

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 6#2e4246db

hivue wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

Ground Control may have cleared him to cross. We don’t know, yet.

Possible. May be a case of Ground right hand not knowing what Tower left hand was doing.

Not sure if works differently elsewhere, but where I am runway crossing clearances are given by the tower controller not ground. It will be interesting to see what the investigation reveals as someone's situational awareness was lost somewhere along the lines.

What an amazing machine this A320 is… when you look at this accident (or the one in russia a few years ago that crashed in the field) it is very comforting to know just how much beating it can take without falling apart. Glad every one came out alive. RIP to the firemen though, wrong time wrong place… thats just so sad.

PANAMsterdam wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Crash selfie...

Two idiots.. two people just died and they take a selfie. Fair enough, at that time they obviously didn’t know that their accident included fatalities.

Not sure why you call them idiots. How do you know they knew they hit a truck and that the firemen inside of it were dead?

You obviously didn’t my post completely. Hint: it’s after „fair enough“… anyhow, it’s just my opinion. I accept other’s opinion, for example Scrimbl‘s who wrote that he would have done the same, had this happened to him.

Best regards
N14AZ

Spetsnaz55 wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

[twoid],[/twoid]

Q wrote:

I dont understand why a firefighter driver did not follow instructions procedure safety crossing taxiways, runway, and all stuff before you get a job. I thought they teach and train as well. I don't get it why he ran over the toward runway? Maybe he doesn't know what a big white paint line marker edge means. I don't get it that all drivers buses, tugs, baggage, fuel tanker, etc.. must have a radio at all the times to listen to the ground radio and tower activation where the plane is at. I don't know what's going on with the firetruck driver. I'm sorry that 2 lost of life. RIP.


Q

Ground Control may have cleared him to cross. We don’t know, yet.

Or plane veered of runway?

This is rididulous. The plane was during its takeoff roll ON the runway while the fire vehicle was CROSSING the runway when the collision happened.

usxguy wrote:

From watching a few videos, it seems as though the pilots must have seen it coming, #1's engine cowls for reverse thrust are open. Amazed the right wing is still intact.

It seems to me that the reversers only deployed after impact. In the video of the impact, they are not visible.


There is a small perpendicular taxiway under construction on the right side of runway 16, which connects to the existing high-speed exit - taxiway B - on the runway's left side. I assume the fire brigade was trying to cross the runway here. It is also likely that they only saw the approaching aircraft a few seconds before impact. Their hard right turn saved the passengers because it prevented a collision with the fuselage, although the impact of the engine unfortunately killed the fire crew.

I wonder if the proximity of other firefighting vehicles contributed to the very fast response and relatively limited fire damage.

This latest includes closer video from the other side of the runway. Scary.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... lties.html

I do not want to quote anyone but as you can see in posts either #24 or #45 (same video), the fire trucks rush towards the runway while the Follow-me vehicle is actually Following-Them. This was a breach of safety, correct? “Safety in the air begins on the ground” was the motto in whatever training courses we had when I worked at the airport.
At Ellenikon in 1987, a police car attempted to drive behind an A300 parked at the far edge of the ramp -“the camomile area” in airport slang- at the wrong time because just then the technicians attempted to run up an engine at 60% of thrust. The result was catastrophic both for the car and one of the two policemen. And in the year 2000 another police car crossed the runway attempting a short cut between the East and West terminal. “How did you get there without permission?” the tower asked. “What you did is a crime!” I would like to go on but I am already off the subject...

JerseyFlyer wrote:

lostsound wrote:

Given the speed and size of the vehicle it's quite a miracle the accident wasn't any worse. Glad everyone is okay! The A320 has turned out to be quite a tough little bird.

Let's hope everyone got out

Surely there's some sort of backstop protocol about not barreling across a runway even if you think it is currently inactive?

From listening to ATC, the fire trucks get clearance from ATC to cross every runway and when they turn onto a different taxiway.

Actual pilots or ATC please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Looking at the video, I'm left wondering if the driver of the truck had turned left instead of right they would have missed, totally counter intuitive and I don't fault the driver for turning right, though I do fault them for attempting to cross.

In time we will (hopefully) find out if ATC had cleared them to cross, but the fact still remains there was an aircraft rolling and at that point you stop.

My understanding is that crossing a taxiway or runway is/should be co-ordinated with ATC.

If there are multiple people in the vehicle could a non driver also monitor FR24 or something similar.

N14AZ wrote:

PANAMsterdam wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

Two idiots.. two people just died and they take a selfie. Fair enough, at that time they obviously didn’t know that their accident included fatalities.

Not sure why you call them idiots. How do you know they knew they hit a truck and that the firemen inside of it were dead?

You obviously didn’t my post completely. Hint: it’s after „fair enough“… anyhow, it’s just my opinion. I accept other’s opinion, for example Scrimbl‘s who wrote that he would have done the same, had this happened to him.

Best regards
N14AZ

If I’ve just evacuated from a burning plane on the runway, I’m thanking my lucky stars and taking a selfie to send to family so they know I’m ok.

Looks like the 1st NEO write off. Has anybody seen a close up of the fire truck?

jetwet1 wrote:

Looking at the video, I'm left wondering if the driver of the truck had turned left instead of right they would have missed, totally counter intuitive and I don't fault the driver for turning right, though I do fault them for attempting to cross.

I doubt it. At the time of impact, the fire truck had done an approx. 80° to 90° turn after entering the runway from the taxiway it was coming from. Left or right wouldn't matter except that left leads to a slightly earlier collision.

DCA350 wrote:

Looks like the 1st NEO write off. Has anybody seen a close up of the fire truck?

There is a photo on avherald.com

So an A320 RUNS OVER an airport fire truck at speeds of a reported 129kt and remains relatively intact? passengers and crew safe! Congratulations Airbus for designing, and building such an amazingly strong airframe!

I am gobbsmacked!!

RIP firecrew

scbriml wrote:

N14AZ wrote:

PANAMsterdam wrote:

Not sure why you call them idiots. How do you know they knew they hit a truck and that the firemen inside of it were dead?

You obviously didn’t my post completely. Hint: it’s after „fair enough“… anyhow, it’s just my opinion. I accept other’s opinion, for example Scrimbl‘s who wrote that he would have done the same, had this happened to him.

Best regards
N14AZ

If I’ve just evacuated from a burning plane on the runway, I’m thanking my lucky stars and taking a selfie to send to family so they know I’m ok.

Well well, maybe I shouldn’t be so grumpy about these two persons.

R. I.P. firefighters…

maddogjt8d wrote:

Found this video on Facebook from AviationSource News. It appears to show the accident fire trucks rolling with their sirens blasting, as if they are their way to respond to something. Watch til the middle and it looks like these are the trucks that collide with the departing aircraft.

https://fb.watch/gTS55ZRV5x/

The video is excellent for investigation.

See this screenshot. It clearly shows the collsion at the starboard (right) side of the a/c.



At the moment of the impact, the a/c was much faster than the fire truck. So it hit the tail of the fire truck first.

And you can clearly see, that the fire truck is heading in the same direction as the a/c: From left to right in that picture.

You can watch the development of the collsion frame by frame on that video. A dream for an investigator.

The video shows, that the a/c collided with the first vehicle (the two-axle truck) of the three vehicles of the fire brigade convoy.

a36001 wrote:

So an A320 RUNS OVER an airport fire truck at speeds of a reported 129kt and remains relatively intact? passengers and crew safe! Congratulations Airbus for designing, and building such an amazingly strong airframe!

I am gobbsmacked!!

RIP firecrew

Indeed. Along with the 777, the A320 is one solid plane.

So LIM is in the process of building a new parallel runway. The new firehall was built in between the two runways. This tells me the fire crew aren't used to crossing runways on a daily basis. Surely that must be a contributing factor.

factsonly wrote:

The closure of LIM airport has resulted in the following diversions:

- AA A321N from MIA to PTY
- KL B77W from AMS to PTY
- H2 A320N from SCL to SCL
- AV A319 from BOG to BOG
- PU A343 from MAD to IQT
- LA A320 from SCL to AQP
- CM B738 from PTY to PIO
- IB A359 from MAD to BOG
- AF A359 from CDG to PTY
- UA B752 from EWR to EWR

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 6#2e4246db

Why did so many diversions go to PTY? Were CLO or GYE not available?

Video from onboard;

https://twitter.com/aviationbrk/status/ ... p9vcvo_G7A

Wow, they really have nearly all viewpoints on this incident. The one they need now is the CVR to see if the crew noticed the truck rolling

Eirules wrote:

Video from onboard;

https://twitter.com/aviationbrk/status/ ... p9vcvo_G7A

Holy crap! Looks so terrifying from inside the airplane.

Very solid and well built the A320 is I agree, however I think the reason we see the aircraft mostly intact isn’t because of how it’s built, but more so because of how it hit the fire truck as well as how high the A320 sits off the ground. The wing mostly went completely over the fire truck breaking the engine clean off and also mostly missed the fuselage as well. Again, very well built aircraft, but had it hit the fuselage or if the wing was lower there would have absolutely been major structure issues. Like I said above if this was an aircraft that sat lower to the ground such as a regional or even a 737 things would have been very different.

This could have turned south in a heartbeat.
All pax nevertheless were saved, even one managed to take a selfie with the bird to let everyone know they're safe...

https://www.facebook.com/73471831331654 ... 9PgceLYEl/

aemoreira1981 wrote:

factsonly wrote:

The closure of LIM airport has resulted in the following diversions:

- AA A321N from MIA to PTY
- KL B77W from AMS to PTY
- H2 A320N from SCL to SCL
- AV A319 from BOG to BOG
- PU A343 from MAD to IQT
- LA A320 from SCL to AQP
- CM B738 from PTY to PIO
- IB A359 from MAD to BOG
- AF A359 from CDG to PTY
- UA B752 from EWR to EWR

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 6#2e4246db

Why did so many diversions go to PTY? Were CLO or GYE not available?

American ended up flying back to MIA after 9 hours in MIA. PTY is closer to MIA. AA would probably have gone back to MIA if they had enough fuel.

Air France flies to PTY. The airplane is still there, so having ground staff to assist passengers is better.

KLM May have chosen to go to PTY as well since their ground staff would already be helping Air France passengers.

International diversions are a logistics nightmare with the airport not planning the arrival and with passengers not having the appropriate visas. Some airports and immigration authorities are better at handling these situations. ICAO requires countries to grant access to passengers in these situations, but not all countries and airports make it a smooth process. It wouldn’t surprise me if PTY is easier to get immigration approval to offload the passengers and get them to hotels so they don’t have to wait hours on an airplane. Airlines want to avoid having to park an airplane at a remote stand for hours while they try to coordinate logistics. A gas and go isn’t too difficult, but if the crew times out requiring passengers to be offloaded and sent to hotels or if there is an open maintenance logbook item (which is common on long haul flights) that requires a mechanic sign off, it is exponentially more difficult.

Airlines like American, Air France and KLM have lists of diversion airports and what support is available. If a pilot has to go to the nearest suitable alternate for an emergency then the airlines has contacts for what to do. The airline also has preferred alternates. Long haul flights dispatch with an alternate which is typically for weather situations. It’s possible that AF/KL may have GYE as a listed alternate but chose PTY instead since they knew Lima wasn’t opening back up and it had better available ground support

a36001 wrote:

So an A320 RUNS OVER an airport fire truck at speeds of a reported 129kt and remains relatively intact? passengers and crew safe! Congratulations Airbus for designing, and building such an amazingly strong airframe!

I am gobbsmacked!!

RIP firecrew

Fully agree, a testament to how robust and incredible the A320 is. The passengers were certainly fortunate to be on board such an remarkable piece of engineering.

I don't know how to pull link from tik tok from a passenger was filming on the right wing view during rolling runway impact too fast and film was fell off or shock holding his or her iphone down and hear the sound of cracking and sliding concrete. It was a horrific sight.

Q

mxaxai wrote:

usxguy wrote:

From watching a few videos, it seems as though the pilots must have seen it coming, #1's engine cowls for reverse thrust are open. Amazed the right wing is still intact.

It seems to me that the reversers only deployed after impact. In the video of the impact, they are not visible.

Even with the hydraulic fuse and what not, it is very impressive how a main gear sheared off, which must have caused major leaks in the 2 hydraulic systems, green hydraulics for normal braking and retraction actuators / lockstay actuators etc, and yellow hydraulics for alternate/parking braking. Yet the aircraft managed to retain the hydraulic circuit to deploy the eng 1 (green hyd) reversers and stow it again.

trnswrld wrote:

So just based on videos and the fact that the entire wing still appears to be attached, I think it was several key things that happened here. The fact that the A320 sits fairly high off the ground and the fire truck may have stayed completely under the wing. Had it been a lower plane like a 737 or some sort of regional things could have been very different.
Also makes me wonder how things would have ended had it been a head on collision. Either way, so thankful everyone on the airplane are safe. Unfortunate for the fire crew.

Like so many tragedies and those that were avoided by a second or by an inch in one direction or the other.