Thenoflyzone wrote:

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.

I wonder if human factors could've contributed in the lead up. ie an adrenaline rush of the fire appliance driver impairing cognitive function.

Here is the picture of the fire truck in case anyone didn't see: https://twitter.com/FlightModeblog/stat ... 5698301953

36 passengers received minor injuries
4 passengers received serious injuries
2 firefighters passed
1 firefighter is in the ICU, stable with very serious injuries (this was new information to me)
Source: http://avherald.com/h?article=5013c619

I can't even wrap my brain around what the pilots saw, and even the fire crew saw in those last few seconds. The pilots couldn't really do anything at that point, as an attempt to swerve at that speed would have likely been more catastrophic. Even if the captain had attempted to move the nosegear to the left, I doubt at that speed it would have made much of a difference or made the plane miss the truck. As others have mentioned, this could have been so much worse.

I am shocked this can happen even with today's technology and safety protocols. Perhaps it will be a requirement that all aircraft movements need to be stopped when fire is responding to an incident? I mean, complete airport stoppage during emergency vehicle movements?

As for blaming the fire truck crews? Too early to even judge. These brave men and women are there to save lives, and they are so focused in an emergency to save lives. It crushes my soul that these brave firefighters lost their lives in this tragic accident. I hope that this tragedy will bring the change needed to prevent this from ever happening again. RIP to those lost.

I cannot believe this didn’t end up a huge charred mess with mass casualties.

The people in the plane were so lucky to escape this. It’s also remarkable how well the A320 held up.

I’m also really shocked that this can happen in these days. If a stop on takeoffs occurred when fire vehicles are responding, that might have prevented this?

F9Animal wrote:

I am shocked this can happen even with today's technology and safety protocols. Perhaps it will be a requirement that all aircraft movements need to be stopped when fire is responding to an incident? I mean, complete airport stoppage during emergency vehicle movements?

.

UIO has installed traffic lights for vehicle crossings. I think they were having multiple violation issues.

Going into emergency mode surely requires several fast moving steps including ground stops (one overriding PA on all radio frequencies) and possibly aborted landings (in this case only 1 runway)

Someone mentioned that they appear to have designed themselves a latent hazard. Regionally, PTY and BOG have the fire houses between runways. What is amazing is how safe ORD was back when all runways cris-crossed. (?)

As I posted before- good luck for the pax in the plane. The cause of this will soon be found out- and it is a cause that can quite easily happen. Navigating a major aerodrome is more difficult than one might think- one can easily misjudge your whereabouts. Especially under stress and travelling fast (Fire Crew).
Just remember how often a/c have landed or taken off from the wrong runway. It happens- and yes - it could have been avoided- but it still happens.
Amazing luck again to all aboard that aircraft, a few knots faster and it could have cartwheeled.

I have a trip to LIM in January. You think this could wreck that?

rjbesikof wrote:

I have a trip to LIM in January. You think this could wreck that?

No, airport will probably be open later today or tomorrow.

Heinkel wrote:

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.

Yes, it looks like the firemen noticed their fatal path in the last moment and tried to get out the way by doing a sharp right turn, which was probably the best they could do, but unfortunately a split second too late. This way a face to face collision was probably avoided, and by the fact that they moved into the same direction as the aircraft on impact, the relative speed of the 2 colliding vehicles towards each other was at least a bit lower and didn't add up. Tragic anyway! I wish that action could have saved the firemen, too. But it might have avoided an even worse outcome of the whole situation.
And for all who are bashing the fire truck driver(s). Of course, it shouldn't have happened. But imagine how easily it can happen to take a wrong way in car traffic if you're in a stress situation at a busy junction. It would be enough if they thought the runway would have been only the next junction and not the "current" one, especially if the ground structure on this side of the runway must be relatively new (?). And still we don't know about the situation and the communication between the fire brigate and the ground control.

Eirules wrote:

Video from onboard;

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

Wow, no yelling at all. That would have been absolutely terrifying for anyone looking out the window at the very least.

tjerome wrote:

Here is the picture of the fire truck in case anyone didn't see: https://twitter.com/FlightModeblog/stat ... 5698301953

36 passengers received minor injuries
4 passengers received serious injuries
2 firefighters passed
1 firefighter is in the ICU, stable with very serious injuries (this was new information to me)
Source: http://avherald.com/h?article=5013c619

Held together a lot better than I expected. The higher ground clearance or the A320 and slight nose up position surely helped.

How did the Fire trucks not see the bright ass landing lights right in their face and turn off onto the grass. Heavy fire truck wouldve for sure got stuck in the grass but at least wouldve avoided the collision

r6russian wrote:

How did the Fire trucks not see the bright ass landing lights right in their face and turn off onto the grass?

Keep in mind that the driver's seat in most of these modern ARFF trucks is in the center of the cab with possibly more firefighters riding along in seats beside the driver. I also wonder if they were wearing their seatbelts. Sometimes people get in such a rush that they don't put their seatbelts on at all. It may not have made a difference when getting hit by a moving airliner but could have. Also, while riding along the firefighters will be in the process of donning their breathing apparatus. The breathing apparatus is mounted in the truck seats and the seatbelt interferes with donning them. The guys who weren't driving may not even have been looking outside. Terrible.

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

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?

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.
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

1. The AF/KL decision to divert to PTY will most likely have been taken by the Flight Control Centres in AMS/CDG and not by the pilots.
2. The FCC's will have known about the LIM crash very quickly through local LIM staff and the available 24 hour news channels, so probably before the pilots were informed by ATC.
3. The KL B77W was just over the Brazilian/Colombian border, when it diverted, the AFB772 was about 20 minutes ahead of the KL over Colombia when it turned.
4. The FCC most likely called the KL/AF flights to inform them of the LIM crash and the need to divert to PTY, rather than the closer KL/AF stations at BOG, UIO or GYE.
5. When the diverted AF and KL aircraft arrived in PTY, the scheduled AF and KLM PTY flights were both on ground as well, so 4x AF/KL aircraft at PTY simultaneously (AF B772/A359 and KLB781/B77W).
6. KLM decided to move the diverted B77W from PTY to SJO after 1,5 hours possibly due to overcrowding at PTY.
7. The KL B77W is still in SJO at present, while the AF A359 is still in PTY.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/ph-bvv
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/f-htyd

They will also have to look if the Airport Layout was a contributing factor to this accident as I have read that there was no Runway hold line markings on the Taxiway in the direction that the fire truck was going. What could have prevented this accident is the flashing red lights that some airports have flush mounted in the taxiways at runway intersections that are activated when aircraft are landing or taking off. I have seen these in use in PHX.

ACCS300 wrote:

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'd wager all modern commercial aircraft could withstand a collision at that speed. The pilots deserve commendation, however.

freakyrat wrote:

They will also have to look if the Airport Layout was a contributing factor to this accident as I have read that there was no Runway hold line markings on the Taxiway in the direction that the fire truck was going. What could have prevented this accident is the flashing red lights that some airports have flush mounted in the taxiways at runway intersections that are activated when aircraft are landing or taking off. I have seen these in use in PHX.

It’s flashing yellow lights (runway guard lights).
The red lights are the stop bars. They don’t flash. They’re solid red lights built into the taxiway, along the hold short line. They are used most often in low visibility conditions.

Either way, you usually don’t see either of those lights on airport service roads. Only on taxiways and runways.

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.

Idiots? They were lucky to be alive, how does that qualify them as idiots?

letsoc wrote:

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.

You can hear the PTU pumps going in the on-board video. Kind of a creepy sound.

stewartg wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

I am shocked this can happen even with today's technology and safety protocols. Perhaps it will be a requirement that all aircraft movements need to be stopped when fire is responding to an incident? I mean, complete airport stoppage during emergency vehicle movements?

.

UIO has installed traffic lights for vehicle crossings. I think they were having multiple violation issues.

Going into emergency mode surely requires several fast moving steps including ground stops (one overriding PA on all radio frequencies) and possibly aborted landings (in this case only 1 runway)

Someone mentioned that they appear to have designed themselves a latent hazard. Regionally, PTY and BOG have the fire houses between runways. What is amazing is how safe ORD was back when all runways cris-crossed. (?)

So does LIM stop all aircraft movements in an emergency response? Is stopping all aircraft movements a standard for all airports when an emergency response is happening? I would think it would be a requirement that every single runway should be shut down till all emergency equipment arrives to where it needs to be. Of course, this is my opinion, but wasn't sure if that is standard protocol or not? Working as a ramp rat, I have seen fire rescue on service roads responding to terminal or gate emergencies while aircraft movements still happened.

LIM remains closed until 00:00 hs 20NOV22. It is taking longer than expected to treat & clear the fuel spill.

Lima Airport is operational once again, it reopened at midnight local time.

Meanwhile LATAM is offering full refunds or no fee date changes for up to one year for those travelers whose flights were cancelled or reprogrammed.

https://www.latamairlines.com/us/en/pre ... ht-la-2213

F9Animal wrote:

stewartg wrote:

F9Animal wrote:

I am shocked this can happen even with today's technology and safety protocols. Perhaps it will be a requirement that all aircraft movements need to be stopped when fire is responding to an incident? I mean, complete airport stoppage during emergency vehicle movements?

.

UIO has installed traffic lights for vehicle crossings. I think they were having multiple violation issues.

Going into emergency mode surely requires several fast moving steps including ground stops (one overriding PA on all radio frequencies) and possibly aborted landings (in this case only 1 runway)

Someone mentioned that they appear to have designed themselves a latent hazard. Regionally, PTY and BOG have the fire houses between runways. What is amazing is how safe ORD was back when all runways cris-crossed. (?)

So does LIM stop all aircraft movements in an emergency response? Is stopping all aircraft movements a standard for all airports when an emergency response is happening? I would think it would be a requirement that every single runway should be shut down till all emergency equipment arrives to where it needs to be. Of course, this is my opinion, but wasn't sure if that is standard protocol or not? Working as a ramp rat, I have seen fire rescue on service roads responding to terminal or gate emergencies while aircraft movements still happened.

At the 4 places I've had a SIDA with driving privileges, it's explicit that all aircraft have the right of way. I know that you need to be in contact with the tower and receive clearance to cross any runways if you're not under escort. I know at least at ORD, the ARFF trucks have radios to communicate with both ground and tower and get clearances from them.
I saw a few comments that mentioned that the fire trucks appeared to pass an escort vehicle, which if that's the case, then the fire trucks are 100% at fault as the follow me vehicle would be in contact with the tower for clearances.

Tower can and will stop arrivals and departures of certain runways to facilitate an emergency response, but it doesn't appear that the emergency they were responding to at that moment qualified for the runway stop.

gatibosgru wrote:

Eirules wrote:

Video from onboard;

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

Wow, no yelling at all. That would have been absolutely terrifying for anyone looking out the window at the very least.

With the complaints about the selfie photos, is it really a good idea to be taking videos on takeoff or landing? A camera or a phone is another device that can go flying about.

Certainly an eerie thing to watch.

usxguy wrote:

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.

I've been in aviation for 35 years, and we've always used port and starboard. Not sure where you're getting your info from.

BoeingG wrote:

ACCS300 wrote:

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'd wager all modern commercial aircraft could withstand a collision at that speed. The pilots deserve commendation, however.

No, this does certainly not apply to aircraft which are lower to the ground.

factsonly wrote:

1. The AF/KL decision to divert to PTY will most likely have been taken by the Flight Control Centres in AMS/CDG and not by the pilots.

Just to elaborate on that, the decision would have been the pilots, the pilot in Command/Captain is the person who is ultimately responsible when the aircraft is in flight. The role of the OPS Department is to provide information to the crews and they will probably recommend an alternate that minimizes operational disruption, however the pilot can and, if necessary, will deviate from this recommendation. This is how things are done under EASA rules (which apply to AF/KL), I know that US carriers have some sort of "shared responsibility" with the dispatch even in flight (something I am not really familiar with as I never operated under FAA rules), but this concept does not apply under EASA rules.

I'm a fire fighter with some knowledge of ARFF operations in a major US city. Nothing moves without clearance...even emergency vehicles. You are typically given clearance to a hold short point for further clearance or, there is occasions when the responding companies are given clearance direct to the scene with route instructions. The ARFF units can weigh 50 + tons and travel 45 + mph. Stopping quickly isn't an option and then add the "human element" of reaction time. Looking at the video, does it appear to anyone else the ARFF vehicle attempted to make a hard right turn at the last second?

gzm wrote:

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...

What you are referring to as the "Follow Me" vehicle is most likely the chief officer vehicle that is also used to access restricted height locations such as a parking garage.

Flow2706 wrote:

factsonly wrote:

1. The AF/KL decision to divert to PTY will most likely have been taken by the Flight Control Centres in AMS/CDG and not by the pilots.

Just to elaborate on that, the decision would have been the pilots, the pilot in Command/Captain is the person who is ultimately responsible when the aircraft is in flight. The role of the OPS Department is to provide information to the crews and they will probably recommend an alternate that minimizes operational disruption, however the pilot can and, if necessary, will deviate from this recommendation. This is how things are done under EASA rules (which apply to AF/KL), I know that US carriers have some sort of "shared responsibility" with the dispatch even in flight (something I am not really familiar with as I never operated under FAA rules), but this concept does not apply under EASA rules.

Technically you are correct, FCC officially advises once the flight is airborne, however.............consider todays (Nov.20) KL743 AMS-LIM flight operated by PH-BVO.
The aircraft departed AMS with destination SJO, rather than LIM, to assist the diverted PH-BVV which is still in SJO following its diversion two days ago.

https://www.flightradar24.com/KLM743/2e46a0e6

The decision to operate AMS-SJO-LIM was certainly not taken by the pilot, but by the Flight Operations Department.

So both correct, very much depending on the circumstances.

gatibosgru wrote:

Eirules wrote:

Video from onboard;

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

Wow, no yelling at all. That would have been absolutely terrifying for anyone looking out the window at the very least.

https://twitter.com/flysicardi/status/1 ... eQvJQ&s=08

Here's a longer version, which includes some yelling. In particular from the FA's, "do not retreive your hand luggage!!!!!"

Now let’s move on to another point: The first video showing the removal of the aircraft from the runway is showing on Facebook. Sorry I cannot upload but the question is: Do you think they will bother to repair this plane? The whole operation seems very diligent and careful - the plane sits on a long vehicle moving very slowly- it means its fate has not been decided yet, awaiting inspection. What do you think?

AtomicGarden wrote:

https://twitter.com/flysicardi/status/1593993240734203905?t=k2KBlBx6dHf7VsSvMeQvJQ&s=08

Here's a longer version, which includes some yelling. In particular from the FA's, "do not retreive your hand luggage!!!!!"

What is the rhythmic hammering/barking sound, which can be heard between 1:09 and 1:50? Is that the infamous A320 dog?

gzm wrote:

Now let’s move on to another point: The first video showing the removal of the aircraft from the runway is showing on Facebook. Sorry I cannot upload but the question is: Do you think they will bother to repair this plane? The whole operation seems very diligent and careful so it means its fate has not been decided yet, awaiting inspection. What do you think?

I would hope they would be diligent and careful when trying to move a 50 ton object. The plane is most definitely done, I'd be very shocked if it flies again.

This incident is of course going to come down to communication and whether or not the ARFF truck was cleared onto the runway.

EJ72 wrote:

gzm wrote:

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...

What you are referring to as the "Follow Me" vehicle is most likely the chief officer vehicle that is also used to access restricted height locations such as a parking garage.

It could also be a light rescue vehicle carrying EMS supplies. It does not look like a "Follow Me" vehicle or any other sort of escort to me. Most airports allow for ARFF vehicles to move without an escort (assuming proper radio communication is adhered to).

alasizon wrote:

This incident is of course going to come down to communication and whether or not the ARFF truck was cleared onto the runway.

EJ72 wrote:

gzm wrote:

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...

What you are referring to as the "Follow Me" vehicle is most likely the chief officer vehicle that is also used to access restricted height locations such as a parking garage.

It could also be a light rescue vehicle carrying EMS supplies. It does not look like a "Follow Me" vehicle or any other sort of escort to me. Most airports allow for ARFF vehicles to move without an escort (assuming proper radio communication is adhered to).

That's correct. Just because the pickup truck was there does not mean it was there to be escorting the other fire trucks. I've seen many times a fire truck being the one doing the communication with others behind them. "ARFF 8 plus two..." would be an example of that.

EJ72 wrote:

I'm a fire fighter with some knowledge of ARFF operations in a major US city. Nothing moves without clearance...even emergency vehicles. You are typically given clearance to a hold short point for further clearance or, there is occasions when the responding companies are given clearance direct to the scene with route instructions. The ARFF units can weigh 50 + tons and travel 45 + mph. Stopping quickly isn't an option and then add the "human element" of reaction time. Looking at the video, does it appear to anyone else the ARFF vehicle attempted to make a hard right turn at the last second?

Yes, it appears that truck did attempt to make a hard right turn. I am willing to bet he saw it coming, but has milliseconds to try and correct it. I drive commercial vehicles, and I can confirm they don't turn on a dime and stop quickly. I think it's almost necessary to just stop all air traffic in these situations to prevent another incident like this from happening again.

ikolkyo wrote:

gzm wrote:

Now let’s move on to another point: The first video showing the removal of the aircraft from the runway is showing on Facebook. Sorry I cannot upload but the question is: Do you think they will bother to repair this plane? The whole operation seems very diligent and careful so it means its fate has not been decided yet, awaiting inspection. What do you think?

I would hope they would be diligent and careful when trying to move a 50 ton object. The plane is most definitely done, I'd be very shocked if it flies again.

We just lost a 3 yr old SUV over a front axel. Certainly repairable but insurance declared it a loss. So comes down to cost over technical. I'm sure it can be repaired, but at what cost since it is not sitting at its factory or a major repair center.

Does anyone knows if in Lima the ARFFS were (operating/operates) on the same frequency of the ATC and departing Airbus (ATC aeronautical Freq), or it is/was a closed trunking like in many airports nowadays only between ATC and ground vehicles but "unknown" to aircraft&pilots?
I still emphazise on this question cause i think IMHO its pretty relevant here!
Tks

Apparently the pilots were held in Lima for a few days. Is this standard procedure in some countries like Peru?

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... light-2213

https://news.yahoo.com/peru-airport-say ... 11135.html

Interesting. Sounds like finger pointing already.

Airport saying ARFF had clearance from ATC.

ATC saying they had a clearance, but not a clearance to enter the runway.

Going to get interesting…

Re the fate of this frame, I would happily bet my arm for a write off. Right wing, RMLG, one engine, all gone…and almost the whole fuselage after the wings is charred. Repairable? Probably, at a similar cost of a brand new A20N. Maybe an airline with an endless source of cash could take that bullet just for the sake of not having the first write off of the type on its record, but LATAM would not make such a move. G.

Gonzalo wrote:

Re the fate of this frame, I would happily bet my arm for a write off. Right wing, RMLG, one engine, all gone…and almost the whole fuselage after the wings is charred. Repairable? Probably, at a similar cost of a brand new A20N. Maybe an airline with an endless source of cash could take that bullet just for the sake of not having the first write off of the type on its record, but LATAM would not make such a move. G.

Cue QF at BKK on an overrun. Rebuilt a 747 rather than admit a hull loss

Runway excursions happens every day,as whe all know, from uneducated dogs to highly motivated rescue teams with permission (seems to me they had, according to avherald. but we will see). There is no matter if a plane is sturdy, or if it breaks in the usually 3 pieces in an accident, the reason why not more people died here, is the reaction of the firetruck driver, turning to the right in the last moment, not thinking of starboard or port while giving his life.. R.I.P

Q wrote:

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

https://youtu.be/Olgx1eASNmo

Sandyb123

God looking at that video, it almost looks like the aircraft was at VR speed.

Wow that was some collision

SEAorPWM wrote:

Apparently the pilots were held in Lima for a few days. Is this standard procedure in some countries like Peru?

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... light-2213

Total lunacy but it may have something to do with Peru's legal system and its procedures (one hopes...) as the accident was the scene of 2 deaths. IIRC, in most countries with Latin/Roman law system (as opposed to Common law like in the UK or US) immediately after an accident happens, a judge is assigned to the case and he/she works closely with all other parties during the investigation leading eventually to a trial.

Point taken. No insurer or lessor on its right mind would try to save this frame. Ergo, the only hope would be LATAM willing to pay to avoid this frame being w/o under its brand, ala QF did in the past for the same reason…but LATAM would not follow that track, specially considering that only a few days ago they were still under CH11. This frame is done…and CC-BHB will have the dubious honor of being the first A20N W/O.

washingtonflyer wrote:

God looking at that video, it almost looks like the aircraft was at VR speed.

FR-24 shows a max ground speed of 127kts so it was certainly getting up there…

Are there any A20N pilots on here that could give a rough reference for what the Vr would be at an airport like LIM? I’m genuinely asking, I have no clue. Obviously it depends on load, but say for like 2/3rds of MTOW?