LATAM A20N ground collision during takeoff run at LIM

dcajet · Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:11 am

Gonzalo wrote:
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.

Airlines are businesses and as such have no emotions. Why would LATAM care if it had the first or the fourth hull loss of an A320neo? Besides, who's counting? If the insurance says it can be salvaged, fine, and if not, fine too. That is why insurance exists. "Wait, I am not flying any longer with LATAM because they had the dishonor of the first A320neo hull loss"... said no one ever!

PS - I suspect there may be more to the story about QF and admitting the hull loss of a 744, or it is simply an urban legend. No serious airline like QF would have a temper tantrum and go against the advice of engineers, adjusters and the lot. If it was repaired it was because it was repairable and it made financial sense at the time.

D L X · Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:22 am

dcajet wrote:
PS - I suspect there may be more to the story about QF and admitting the hull loss of a 744, or it is simply an urban legend. No serious airline like QF would have a temper tantrum and go against the advice of engineers, adjusters and the lot. If it was repaired it was because it was repairable and it made financial sense at the time.

From the QF1 wiki:

The damage was such that the aircraft was initially a write-off, but to preserve its reputation Qantas had it repaired at a cost of less than AU$100 million (the exact figure was never disclosed by Qantas).[3] Returning the aircraft to service enabled Qantas to retain its record of having no hull-loss accidents since the advent of the Jet Age, and also proved to be the more economical option for the time, as a new 747-400 was listed close to $200 million.[3][b]

WayexTDI · Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:27 am

D L X wrote:
dcajet wrote:
PS - I suspect there may be more to the story about QF and admitting the hull loss of a 744, or it is simply an urban legend. No serious airline like QF would have a temper tantrum and go against the advice of engineers, adjusters and the lot. If it was repaired it was because it was repairable and it made financial sense at the time.

From the QF1 wiki:

The damage was such that the aircraft was initially a write-off, but to preserve its reputation Qantas had it repaired at a cost of less than AU$100 million (the exact figure was never disclosed by Qantas).[3] Returning the aircraft to service enabled Qantas to retain its record of having no hull-loss accidents since the advent of the Jet Age, and also proved to be the more economical option for the time, as a new 747-400 was listed close to $200 million.[3][b]

The last part of the quote actually answer the question: ultimately, it was cheaper to repair that 747 than buy a new one and wait for delivery.

dcajet · Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:36 am

D L X wrote:
dcajet wrote:
PS - I suspect there may be more to the story about QF and admitting the hull loss of a 744, or it is simply an urban legend. No serious airline like QF would have a temper tantrum and go against the advice of engineers, adjusters and the lot. If it was repaired it was because it was repairable and it made financial sense at the time.

From the QF1 wiki:

The damage was such that the aircraft was initially a write-off, but to preserve its reputation Qantas had it repaired at a cost of less than AU$100 million (the exact figure was never disclosed by Qantas).[3] Returning the aircraft to service enabled Qantas to retain its record of having no hull-loss accidents since the advent of the Jet Age, and also proved to be the more economical option for the time, as a new 747-400 was listed close to $200 million.[3][b]

Gonzalo, it is Wikipedia... ¡Por favor!

BBDFlyer · Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:38 am

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:
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?

I have flown the A321 NEO in and out of Lima many times. VR is in the 140’s typically. An A320 NEO doing a domestic flight may be slightly lower.

gatibosgru · Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:40 am

cpd wrote:
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.

I record every single takeoff I take as a pax. If we start looking at things that could become projectiles I think phones would be on the lower end of my concern.

Polot · Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:40 am

dcajet wrote:
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.

It is not up to LATAM (or any airline, for that matter) to decide the fate of an accident frame. It is up to the insurance adjusters and the lessor, if the plane is leased. Some may remember the BA 777 that caught fire a few years ago at LAS. That one lived to tell the tale, thanks to the adjusters who deemed it repairable.

I would not expect the same for the A320N. Beyond the fire damage the wing smacked and then was dragged along the ground at ~120 kts. Who knows what structural damage the frame incurred in addition to fire damage.

AA smacked the wingtip of a 5 year old A321 on the ground during take off (AA300) resulting in a write off, and according to a AA mechanic here one of the reasons the frame was written off was Airbus was unwilling to assume any liability for the repair (in other words if the repair failed in the future and the aircraft crashed Airbus would refuse and fight any liability). I imagine the exact same thing will happen here.

gatibosgru · Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:46 am

AtomicGarden wrote:
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!!!!!"

Still shocked at how calm the cabin sounds. Props to the FA for yelling at people to leave their carry-ons.

gatibosgru · Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:52 am

Can they use the engine that doesn't "seem" to be damaged on another aircraft if this one is indeed a hull loss?

SEAorPWM · Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:04 am

Heinkel wrote:
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?

Yes. Some of the hydraulic channels were likely comprised and the old computers were running the pumps to try to compensate.

D L X · Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:05 am

WayexTDI wrote:
D L X wrote:
dcajet wrote:
PS - I suspect there may be more to the story about QF and admitting the hull loss of a 744, or it is simply an urban legend. No serious airline like QF would have a temper tantrum and go against the advice of engineers, adjusters and the lot. If it was repaired it was because it was repairable and it made financial sense at the time.

From the QF1 wiki:

The damage was such that the aircraft was initially a write-off, but to preserve its reputation Qantas had it repaired at a cost of less than AU$100 million (the exact figure was never disclosed by Qantas).[3] Returning the aircraft to service enabled Qantas to retain its record of having no hull-loss accidents since the advent of the Jet Age, and also proved to be the more economical option for the time, as a new 747-400 was listed close to $200 million.[3][b]

The last part of the quote actually answer the question: ultimately, it was cheaper to repair that 747 than buy a new one and wait for delivery.

Yes. But of course, buying a NEW one would have also gotten them a more valuable plane than the repaired plane could be. In the end, they also decided that reading their record of no hull loses was important.

zkojq · Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:13 am

Does anyone know the exact make and model of the firetruck and therefore it's height?

BowlingShoeDC9 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:18 am

BBDFlyer wrote:
BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:
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?

I have flown the A321 NEO in and out of Lima many times. VR is in the 140’s typically. An A320 NEO doing a domestic flight may be slightly lower.

Geez that was close. Thanks for the insight!

D L X · Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:24 am

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:
BBDFlyer wrote:
BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:

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?

I have flown the A321 NEO in and out of Lima many times. VR is in the 140’s typically. An A320 NEO doing a domestic flight may be slightly lower.

Geez that was close. Thanks for the insight!

Note that we don’t know the speed at impact, just the max speed. It’s possible if not likely that the pilots saw the obstacle and slammed on the brakes, committing to staying on the ground.

litz · Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:32 am

FluidFlow wrote:
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.

The toughness of modern designs is quite something. Witness the A350 that recently had the overrun, and had its entire lower forward fuselage "removed", or several 777 accidents (Heathrow, San Francisco) where there was a substantial impact, but the "people carrying part" largely stayed intact. In the end, that's what is most important.

There haven't been many pictures of the side of the aircraft where the collision occurred, and I imagine once those are seen it will become very clear what the fate of this airframe is.

An OshKosh Striker is a substantial vehicle, and that was a very very very fast speed for a collision.

billyp4850 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:35 am

zkojq wrote:
Does anyone know the exact make and model of the firetruck and therefore it's height?

I believe it was a Rosenbauer Panther 4x4 2nd Generation firetruck. Approximately 3.5 metres tall and 24 tonnes.

BowlingShoeDC9 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:36 am

D L X wrote:
BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:
BBDFlyer wrote:

I have flown the A321 NEO in and out of Lima many times. VR is in the 140’s typically. An A320 NEO doing a domestic flight may be slightly lower.

Geez that was close. Thanks for the insight!

Note that we don’t know the speed at impact, just the max speed. It’s possible if not likely that the pilots saw the obstacle and slammed on the brakes, committing to staying on the ground.

Of course! Avherald described it as a high speed rejected takeoff so based on that my assumption was that they slammed on the brakes. We’ll no for sure when the accident reports start coming out.

jrfspa320 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:41 am

billyp4850 wrote:
zkojq wrote:
Does anyone know the exact make and model of the firetruck and therefore it's height?

I believe it was a Rosenbauer Panther 4x4 2nd Generation firetruck. Approximately 3.5 metres tall and 24 tonnes.

Is that empty weight? With foam & water, total weight could be well in excess of 30 tonnes.

AngelsDecay · Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:47 am

litz wrote:
Witness the A350 that recently had the overrun, and had its entire lower forward fuselage "removed",

Wich A350 had an Ovr!!???

travaz · Mon Nov 21, 2022 1:54 am

AngelsDecay wrote:
litz wrote:
Witness the A350 that recently had the overrun, and had its entire lower forward fuselage "removed",

Wich A350 had an Ovr!!???

I am guessing he was thinking of the KAL A-330 in Cebu.

precure787 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:00 am

So, is the fire truck at fault for the collision?

Gonzalo · Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:10 am

dcajet wrote:
D L X wrote:
dcajet wrote:
PS - I suspect there may be more to the story about QF and admitting the hull loss of a 744, or it is simply an urban legend. No serious airline like QF would have a temper tantrum and go against the advice of engineers, adjusters and the lot. If it was repaired it was because it was repairable and it made financial sense at the time.

From the QF1 wiki:

The damage was such that the aircraft was initially a write-off, but to preserve its reputation Qantas had it repaired at a cost of less than AU$100 million (the exact figure was never disclosed by Qantas).[3] Returning the aircraft to service enabled Qantas to retain its record of having no hull-loss accidents since the advent of the Jet Age, and also proved to be the more economical option for the time, as a new 747-400 was listed close to $200 million.[3][b]

Gonzalo, it is Wikipedia... ¡Por favor!

Why are you mad with me? I never quoted wikipedia! Get a glass of wine and have a good night

billyp4850 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:35 am

jrfspa320 wrote:
billyp4850 wrote:
zkojq wrote:
Does anyone know the exact make and model of the firetruck and therefore it's height?

I believe it was a Rosenbauer Panther 4x4 2nd Generation firetruck. Approximately 3.5 metres tall and 24 tonnes.

Is that empty weight? With foam & water, total weight could be well in excess of 30 tonnes.

Goss weight apparently, 5700 L of water and about 700 L of foam.

phllax · Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:55 am

litz wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
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.

The toughness of modern designs is quite something. Witness the A350 that recently had the overrun, and had its entire lower forward fuselage "removed", or several 777 accidents (Heathrow, San Francisco) where there was a substantial impact, but the "people carrying part" largely stayed intact. In the end, that's what is most important.

There haven't been many pictures of the side of the aircraft where the collision occurred, and I imagine once those are seen it will become very clear what the fate of this airframe is.

An OshKosh Striker is a substantial vehicle, and that was a very very very fast speed for a collision.

Even the 737 would have done ok in this situation. One only has to look at the crash of US1493 at LAX with the SKywest Metroliner. Everyone on the 737 survived the initial impact and the airplane was pretty much intact. It was the post impact fire, caused by fuel and the rupture of the Captain's oxygen line, and the aircraft slamming into the abandoned fire station which caused the most damage. Had it not slammed into the fire station, the Captain and most likely everyone on board would have gotten out, as 1L would have been operable, and 1R would have been opened without force.

hivue · Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:11 am

SuseJ772 wrote:
https://news.yahoo.com/peru-airport-says-firetruck-arranged-185711135.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…

Already interesting. The airport operator says it coordinated with ATC for the drill, down to the actual start time. ATC says it authorized the drill, but that authorization did not include equipment entering the runway. This may be where the communication failure lies.

Q · Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:12 am

I never see a photo laying of the right engine debris on grass or runway. Where is the photo of the engine? Nobody cares about the engine and how bad the impact of the truck hitting so hard!

Q

dcajet · Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:42 am

It looks like the finger pointing festival has begun in Perú, mainly between the government aviation regulator and ATC operator, CORPAC, and the Lima airport operator, Lima Airport Partners, owned by Fraport, about who gave the OK for the drill to begin. This is going to be one hot potato.

https://twitter.com/PuntoFinalOf/status ... 7745652736 (video clip in Spanish)

SEAorPWM · Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:46 am

litz wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
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.

The toughness of modern designs is quite something. Witness the A350 that recently had the overrun, and had its entire lower forward fuselage "removed", or several 777 accidents (Heathrow, San Francisco) where there was a substantial impact, but the "people carrying part" largely stayed intact. In the end, that's what is most important.

There haven't been many pictures of the side of the aircraft where the collision occurred, and I imagine once those are seen it will become very clear what the fate of this airframe is.

An OshKosh Striker is a substantial vehicle, and that was a very very very fast speed for a collision.

Hmm... off topic, but the DHL 757 makes me wonder if it also depends on tne "direction" and application of stress for modern designs.

dcajet · Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:14 am

Gonzalo wrote:
dcajet wrote:
D L X wrote:

From the QF1 wiki:

The damage was such that the aircraft was initially a write-off, but to preserve its reputation Qantas had it repaired at a cost of less than AU$100 million (the exact figure was never disclosed by Qantas).[3] Returning the aircraft to service enabled Qantas to retain its record of having no hull-loss accidents since the advent of the Jet Age, and also proved to be the more economical option for the time, as a new 747-400 was listed close to $200 million.[3][b]

Gonzalo, it is Wikipedia... ¡Por favor!

Why are you mad with me? I never quoted wikipedia! Get a glass of wine and have a good night

Got myself confused. I am sorry, G. Enjoying some Malbec in this cold-ish San Francisco evening. Again, my apologies!

dcajet · Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:20 am

gatibosgru wrote:
Can they use the engine that doesn't "seem" to be damaged on another aircraft if this one is indeed a hull loss?

Anything and everything that can be reused, will be reused.

BoeingVista · Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:49 am

phllax wrote:
litz wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
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.

The toughness of modern designs is quite something. Witness the A350 that recently had the overrun, and had its entire lower forward fuselage "removed", or several 777 accidents (Heathrow, San Francisco) where there was a substantial impact, but the "people carrying part" largely stayed intact. In the end, that's what is most important.

There haven't been many pictures of the side of the aircraft where the collision occurred, and I imagine once those are seen it will become very clear what the fate of this airframe is.

An OshKosh Striker is a substantial vehicle, and that was a very very very fast speed for a collision.

Even the 737 would have done ok in this situation. One only has to look at the crash of US1493 at LAX with the SKywest Metroliner. Everyone on the 737 survived the initial impact and the airplane was pretty much intact. It was the post impact fire, caused by fuel and the rupture of the Captain's oxygen line, and the aircraft slamming into the abandoned fire station which caused the most damage. Had it not slammed into the fire station, the Captain and most likely everyone on board would have gotten out, as 1L would have been operable, and 1R would have been opened without force.

Totally disagree. What saved the A20N was its wing height, the wing rode over the tender, with a 737 that would have been a direct hit. I doubt that a 737 would stay on the runway after that level of asymmetric deceleration and off the runway bad things would have quickly started to happen.

SAAFNAV · Mon Nov 21, 2022 8:26 am

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.

While I'm no fan of taking videos/selfies during in-opportune moments like evacuation, (let's not even talk about grabbing your bags during evacuation), this was clearly long afterwards and at a safe distance from the aircraft.
What would you have them do in this? Stand at attention while you wait for news? I'd be very hard pressed to be convinced that you would not have taken a picture (selfie or not) after the adrenaline of getting out and now just waiting for things to wrap up.

N14AZ · Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:06 am

SAAFNAV 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.

While I'm no fan of taking videos/selfies during in-opportune moments like evacuation, (let's not even talk about grabbing your bags during evacuation), this was clearly long afterwards and at a safe distance from the aircraft.
What would you have them do in this? Stand at attention while you wait for news? I'd be very hard pressed to be convinced that you would not have taken a picture (selfie or not) after the adrenaline of getting out and now just waiting for things to wrap up.

I realize that I represent a minority with my comment … but I can reassure you with 100 percent certainty that I wouldn’t have taken a selfie because I hate selfies. There would have been no point in scaring my family even more by sending them a picture of my ugly face. :drunk:

Regarding the usual question we always have after an accident: will it be written off? I wonder about the damage that cannot be seen, i.e., the damage caused to the wing and the wingroot by the dynamic shock.

FCRO · Mon Nov 21, 2022 10:16 am

Pilots were taken into custody
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/coc ... 46.article

Gonzalo · Mon Nov 21, 2022 11:36 am

FCRO wrote:
Pilots were taken into custody
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/coc ... 46.article

Oh for Christ sake….this is the most moronic action I’ve seen from the authorities of a country in decades…every single piece of information so far is pointing to CORPAC and LAP, and their lack of communication as the main reason of this accident, but the authorities put the pilots ( also victims of the accident ) under arrest. The general public is now giving the impression of the pilots decisions were the cause of the accident. Nice….after this string of news I will avoid Lima as a connecting point at any cost in the forseeable future…a real shame.

vhtje · Mon Nov 21, 2022 11:54 am

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?

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

Can crew go over their hours in a situation like this? I mean, can they refuel at an airport to give them enough fuel to get to a logistically more suitable airport, even if this takes them over their hours? Or, to put it another way: are there any IRROP or emergency circumstances where it is permitted for a crew to exceed their hours, because it is easier for the crew, the passengers and the airline? (I hope, in that order!)

peterinlisbon · Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:23 pm

trnswrld wrote:
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.

Yes, I think the aircraft hit the truck with its engine and the engine sheered right off, leaving the rest of the plane to continue more or less with the same speed and direction. I saw that it initially stayed upright, so I think the right landing gear collapsed after the collision, perhaps due to debris or fire damage, and the aircraft was able to continue along the runway as it slowed down from takeoff speed.

It definitely would have been a lot worse if the front landing gear hit.

WNCrew · Mon Nov 21, 2022 2:50 pm

Flydude1063 wrote:
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.

In fairness, I haven't read many NTSB reports or airline manuals that utilize Port or Starboard.

GalaxyFlyer · Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:01 pm

vhtje wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
aemoreira1981 wrote:

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

Can crew go over their hours in a situation like this? I mean, can they refuel at an airport to give them enough fuel to get to a logistically more suitable airport, even if this takes them over their hours? Or, to put it another way: are there any IRROP or emergency circumstances where it is permitted for a crew to exceed their hours, because it is easier for the crew, the passengers and the airline? (I hope, in that order!)

No, not in air carrier operations, the regulation doesn’t offer that option, at least, in FAA rules.

Heinkel · Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:06 pm

peterinlisbon wrote:
trnswrld wrote:
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.

Yes, I think the aircraft hit the truck with its engine and the engine sheered right off, leaving the rest of the plane to continue more or less with the same speed and direction. I saw that it initially stayed upright, so I think the right landing gear collapsed after the collision, perhaps due to debris or fire damage, and the aircraft was able to continue along the runway as it slowed down from takeoff speed.

It definitely would have been a lot worse if the front landing gear hit.

From my point of view, the engine hit the fire truck but it was a sliding collision only (Right side of the engine hit the left side of the fire truck). If the engine would have hit the fire truck full, the remains of the fire truck would look differently.

The sliding collision pushed the engine to the left (towards port) and sheered it off the pylon. The engine fell down under the wing and collided with the starboard MLG. So the starboard MLG collapsed a moment later.

Cubsrule · Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:17 pm

WNCrew wrote:
Flydude1063 wrote:
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.

In fairness, I haven't read many NTSB reports or airline manuals that utilize Port or Starboard.

NTSB tries to keep language that can be standardized between modes standard. So this observation—while true—doesn’t tell us much. NTSB also almost always uses local time, for instance, even though much of the operational side of commercial aviation uses Zulu.

GlobalAirways · Mon Nov 21, 2022 3:58 pm

WOW, modern times where we can actually see and hear everything going on and play it back... This looks to me like the fire fighters entered an active runway. My heart goes out to those whom are injured and the families of the two fire fighters. This just goes to show that when a human is involved errors can be made, no matter how many policies and procedures are in place. Also, Kudos to Airbus and PW for engineering the airplane and engine to react exactly how is was supposed to in a catastrophic incident like this.

travaz · Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:22 pm

Gonzalo wrote:
FCRO wrote:
Pilots were taken into custody
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/coc ... 46.article

Oh for Christ sake….this is the most moronic action I’ve seen from the authorities of a country in decades…every single piece of information so far is pointing to CORPAC and LAP, and their lack of communication as the main reason of this accident, but the authorities put the pilots ( also victims of the accident ) under arrest. The general public is now giving the impression of the pilots decisions were the cause of the accident. Nice….after this string of news I will avoid Lima as a connecting point at any cost in the forseeable future…a real shame.

This looks like a search for a fall guy! IFALPA says they were released "last night" (11-20-2022) Here is the article with the IFALPA response:
https://fl360aero.com/detail/the-flight ... table/1164

In the article there is a picture and video of the plane showing a lot of the damage.

FlyingHonu001 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:38 pm

I didnt read all the posts (tl:dr sorry :shy:

) but i read this from various sources: is it true that the firetruck was there because they were doing an exercise??

Speedy752 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 4:52 pm

FlyingHonu001 wrote:
I didnt read all the posts (tl:dr sorry ) but i read this from various sources: is it true that the firetruck was there because they were doing an exercise??

Yes, an approved exercise. The hot potato is did they get approval for a runway crossing or not. Pilots taken into custody because…reasons? The videos I see the truck had lights and sirens on and was traveling as though they have full clearance and aircraft was too fast when the incursion occurred to stop based on the passenger videos and how far into the roll they were.

Q · Mon Nov 21, 2022 5:00 pm

I google to find an engine laying on the tarmac but no photo of the engine damaged how dare the media ignored to take upload photos of the engine? I cannot find a photo of how bad it looks like engine was damaged by impact. Where is the photo?

Q

SuseJ772 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 5:25 pm

Gonzalo wrote:
FCRO wrote:
Pilots were taken into custody
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/coc ... 46.article

Oh for Christ sake….this is the most moronic action I’ve seen from the authorities of a country in decades…every single piece of information so far is pointing to CORPAC and LAP, and their lack of communication as the main reason of this accident, but the authorities put the pilots ( also victims of the accident ) under arrest. The general public is now giving the impression of the pilots decisions were the cause of the accident. Nice….after this string of news I will avoid Lima as a connecting point at any cost in the forseeable future…a real shame.

I am not always a big fan of strikes and protest, but if I were a pilot at other airlines, I’d seriously consider protesting flying into Peru. ICAO should organize this. I’d have real concern flying into any country that didn’t follow ICAO protocols. It’s already hard enough dealing with the PIC authority in a crash. Throw in the potential of arrest and… nope… I ain’t going.

flight152 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:08 pm

SuseJ772 wrote:
Gonzalo wrote:
FCRO wrote:
Pilots were taken into custody
https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/coc ... 46.article

Oh for Christ sake….this is the most moronic action I’ve seen from the authorities of a country in decades…every single piece of information so far is pointing to CORPAC and LAP, and their lack of communication as the main reason of this accident, but the authorities put the pilots ( also victims of the accident ) under arrest. The general public is now giving the impression of the pilots decisions were the cause of the accident. Nice….after this string of news I will avoid Lima as a connecting point at any cost in the forseeable future…a real shame.

I am not always a big fan of strikes and protest, but if I were a pilot at other airlines, I’d seriously consider protesting flying into Peru. ICAO should organize this. I’d have real concern flying into any country that didn’t follow ICAO protocols. It’s already hard enough dealing with the PIC authority in a crash. Throw in the potential of arrest and… nope… I ain’t going.

As if that whole experience wasn’t traumatic enough for the flight crew, it really is unbelievable they have to deal with that also. Echoing your comments.

GlobalAirways · Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:17 pm

They probably took them into custody to question them about the accident to get the details from their prospective as fresh evidence. I have a hard time believing this is the pilots fault. One of two things happened: 1) The ATC gave both the Fire Truck and the plane clearance to use the runway or, 2) The firetruck made an error.

bols59 · Mon Nov 21, 2022 6:31 pm

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)?

I consider myself to be pretty seasoned with watching accident vids. I was not prepared for this. We must give credit to the cabin crew who evacuated the passengers safely.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net