peterjohns wrote:

I am always impressed about how many videos out of so many angles surface in short time after any such incident.
In this case I am quite shocked about the outcome of this runway incursion. It is nearly the worst possible- apart that nobody got hurt on the plane.
That can´t be said for the Fire Truck Crew however.
Before entering an active Rwy don´t you ALWAYS look if it is clear? Whatever it will be quite easy to find out who or what caused this mishap.
It is quite clearly either a pure mistake, or a misunderstanding on behalf of one of the participants. That would be: Radio Ground, Radio Fire Truck, Cockpit, ATC.

Everyone has a 1080p video recorder in their back pocket. Everything was caught on camera going back to 9/11. It was the most recorded major event. Now with cell phones and tablets of it happens it most likely will be caught in camera.

If I was leading the investigation I might has ASKED the pilots to hang around as part of the investigation, but no reason to arrest them.

I just read through this entire thread. Can someone tell me why the pilots did not see them? Were the vehicles the same color of beige and not be seen? And had they started braking? Sorry. If someone could just cut and paste I would be very appreciative.
On another topic entirely I flew for a large U.S. air carrier for 40+ years, including 14 years teaching emergency procedures. I have never, once, heard the terms port or starboard. We would have used left or right, but also numbering the doors. Some airlines would use the term 1L, 1R, 2L, 2R etc. Door #1 furthest forward on left side is 1L. And other airlines might us R1 and R2 etc. Aft, forward,left and right would be the terminology used when arming and disarming (attaching the slide and detaching the slide from the floor brackets). We would then wait for the all call from the #1 f/a at the front and then tell them the door was armed or disarmed. Arming is accomplished after the door is closed and we hear the PA to arm. Door #1L or 2L would, most likely be the door where the jetbridge is attached. That door, naturally, has to ensure that the bridge has pulled away before arming. Sorry, going off subject. Perhaps some airlines in the U.S. use that terminology, but we never did. The only time we used the word Port was in the wine tasting class!

GalaxyFlyer 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.

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

Hull losses are "managed" by many airlines to avoid the adverse affect on insurance rates.

ozark1 wrote:

I just read through this entire thread. Can someone tell me why the pilots did not see them? Were the vehicles the same color of beige and not be seen? And had they started braking? Sorry. If someone could just cut and paste I would be very appreciative.
On another topic entirely I flew for a large U.S. air carrier for 40+ years, including 14 years teaching emergency procedures. I have never, once, heard the terms port or starboard. We would have used left or right, but also numbering the doors. Some airlines would use the term 1L, 1R, 2L, 2R etc. Door #1 furthest forward on left side is 1L. And other airlines might us R1 and R2 etc. Aft, forward,left and right would be the terminology used when arming and disarming (attaching the slide and detaching the slide from the floor brackets). We would then wait for the all call from the #1 f/a at the front and then tell them the door was armed or disarmed. Arming is accomplished after the door is closed and we hear the PA to arm. Door #1L or 2L would, most likely be the door where the jetbridge is attached. That door, naturally, has to ensure that the bridge has pulled away before arming. Sorry, going off subject. Perhaps some airlines in the U.S. use that terminology, but we never did. The only time we used the word Port was in the wine tasting class!

With All due respect, with so many years of experience you know that the take off roll is one of the moments where you can easily go into tunnel vision scanning your instruments , and the chance of spotting a moving vehicle close to the runway decreases. Besides, as you correctly deduce, the relatively low contrast between the color of the trucks and the background didn’t help either.
And, hoping to put an end to this nonsensic discussion, being on the aviation world for more than 30 years, I heard port side and starboard side in some circumstances ( ready for pushback, caution with the truck at port side ), although is more common the use of L and R, or the 3 o clock / 9 o clock….really non relevant issue as long everyone involved in the chat understands the communication.

Gonzalo wrote:

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.

Using that same logic, shouldn't the controllers have been taken into custody as well?

tjwgrr wrote:

Gonzalo wrote:

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.

Using that same logic, shouldn't the controllers have been taken into custody as well?

The controllers live in Peru. They're easy to go find and bring in if needed. The pilots are Brazilian (?), so if the Peruvians wanted to get their information, it would be a bit more challenging, i.e. extradition.

Is there a translation issue with the “custody” part? There is quite a difference between being driven down to the station to record an official statement vs. bring cuffed and thrown into a cell.

11m pw 27k engine, 4m landing gear, wheels and brakes. ? Fuselage and wing damage. ? Labour costs. About $35m market value for 5yr old aircraft. This aircraft is finished me thinks.

And yes, the 320 and 777 are built tougher and to a higher standard than prev gen aircraft. Just as an A350 is built and tested to higher standards - eg flight in icing etc. The next new Boeing will be better. It's called progress.

Chaostheory wrote:

And yes, the 320 and 777 are built tougher and to a higher standard than prev gen aircraft. Just as an A350 is built and tested to higher standards - eg flight in icing etc. The next new Boeing will be better. It's called progress.

By the same token, so will the next new Airbus, so not exclusive to Boeing.

Gonzalo wrote:

ozark1 wrote:

I just read through this entire thread. Can someone tell me why the pilots did not see them? Were the vehicles the same color of beige and not be seen? And had they started braking? Sorry. If someone could just cut and paste I would be very appreciative.
On another topic entirely I flew for a large U.S. air carrier for 40+ years, including 14 years teaching emergency procedures. I have never, once, heard the terms port or starboard. We would have used left or right, but also numbering the doors. Some airlines would use the term 1L, 1R, 2L, 2R etc. Door #1 furthest forward on left side is 1L. And other airlines might us R1 and R2 etc. Aft, forward,left and right would be the terminology used when arming and disarming (attaching the slide and detaching the slide from the floor brackets). We would then wait for the all call from the #1 f/a at the front and then tell them the door was armed or disarmed. Arming is accomplished after the door is closed and we hear the PA to arm. Door #1L or 2L would, most likely be the door where the jetbridge is attached. That door, naturally, has to ensure that the bridge has pulled away before arming. Sorry, going off subject. Perhaps some airlines in the U.S. use that terminology, but we never did. The only time we used the word Port was in the wine tasting class!

With All due respect, with so many years of experience you know that the take off roll is one of the moments where you can easily go into tunnel vision scanning your instruments ,
And, hoping to put an end to this nonsensic discussion, being on the aviation world for more than 30 years, I heard port side and starboard side in some circumstances ( ready for pushback, caution with the truck at port side ), although is more common the use of L and R, or the 3 o clock / 9 o clock….really non relevant issue as long everyone involved in the chat understands the communication.

.

Yes, I would fully agree to a large extent but would equally state both pilots should not be in the tunnel vision mode you describe. Yes, whilst Port and Starboard are clear distinctions, they are generally much more used (in fact mandatorily) in nautical use than in aviation.

Vicenza wrote:

Gonzalo wrote:

ozark1 wrote:

I just read through this entire thread. Can someone tell me why the pilots did not see them? Were the vehicles the same color of beige and not be seen? And had they started braking? Sorry. If someone could just cut and paste I would be very appreciative.
On another topic entirely I flew for a large U.S. air carrier for 40+ years, including 14 years teaching emergency procedures. I have never, once, heard the terms port or starboard. We would have used left or right, but also numbering the doors. Some airlines would use the term 1L, 1R, 2L, 2R etc. Door #1 furthest forward on left side is 1L. And other airlines might us R1 and R2 etc. Aft, forward,left and right would be the terminology used when arming and disarming (attaching the slide and detaching the slide from the floor brackets). We would then wait for the all call from the #1 f/a at the front and then tell them the door was armed or disarmed. Arming is accomplished after the door is closed and we hear the PA to arm. Door #1L or 2L would, most likely be the door where the jetbridge is attached. That door, naturally, has to ensure that the bridge has pulled away before arming. Sorry, going off subject. Perhaps some airlines in the U.S. use that terminology, but we never did. The only time we used the word Port was in the wine tasting class!

With All due respect, with so many years of experience you know that the take off roll is one of the moments where you can easily go into tunnel vision scanning your instruments ,
And, hoping to put an end to this nonsensic discussion, being on the aviation world for more than 30 years, I heard port side and starboard side in some circumstances ( ready for pushback, caution with the truck at port side ), although is more common the use of L and R, or the 3 o clock / 9 o clock….really non relevant issue as long everyone involved in the chat understands the communication.

.

Yes, I would fully agree to a large extent but would equally state both pilots should not be in the tunnel vision mode you describe. Yes, whilst Port and Starboard are clear distinctions, they are generally much more used (in fact mandatorily) in nautical use than in aviation.

The pilots very well might have seen the truck but at that point physics dictates what is possible. This is akin to a truck driving onto a railroad crossing and getting stuck and the train being only 500ft away. Nothing much can be done other than the truck not being in front of a high velocity massive piece of machinery.

This is more or less the latest confirmed information released by the local press regarding the radio recordings from ground control (GC), the aircraft and the ARFFS: It has been confirmed by airport authorities (both the airport operator and ATC authority) that: (i) a training drill had been authorized for 15:10, (ii) the use of the active runway by ARFFS was not authorized, (iii) ARFFS vehicles were supposed to drive along the new taxiway parallel to the active runway, (iv) ARFFS were supposed to stay 90m away from the active runway axis.

It is not clear and one of the main investigation focus ponts is why unit No. 3 misses the turn and goes straight to the active runway, then steers right to merge with it, it seems like, trying to avoid crossing the runway. In the recordings, it is possible to hear GC requesting the ARFFS No. 1 and 7 to act on the aircraft, and specifically authorizes these vehicles to enter the active runway, all this after the incident has occured.

I read a few posts before, that it was not clear what the third vehicle (No.7) was, either a chief operating officer or a light rescue vehicle. Well, it is a light rescue vehicle that carries forced entry equipment, just to give you guys the correct information on the units that appear on the footage that everybody has seen already.

Here is a TV report (in spanish) that explains the location of most of the parts on this puzzle, also it has the tower recordings, shows a few aerial pics and as usual with the press it has a few inaccuracies and bad use of the data, but as most of us here, that at least have a little understanding of how aviation works, you will be able to tie a few knots and have a general idea of the incident.

link: https://t.co/TL3Fi6Jqgh

So, the fire truck missed the turn?

D L X wrote:

So, the fire truck missed the turn?

It would seem like it, the truck was supposed to turn right on the road that runs parallel to the runway, that is what is being investigated now. BTW, all ARFFs have a black box as the aircraft, all of them have been shipped to the manufacturer (Rosenbauer) in France.

edited for clarity

D L X wrote:

tjwgrr wrote:

Gonzalo wrote:

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.

Using that same logic, shouldn't the controllers have been taken into custody as well?

The controllers live in Peru. They're easy to go find and bring in if needed. The pilots are Brazilian (?), so if the Peruvians wanted to get their information, it would be a bit more challenging, i.e. extradition.

Where did you get that from? LATAM Peru flights are crewed by Peruvian nationals, and the same goes for each of the LATAM franchises, i.e., the crews are local.

dcajet wrote:

D L X wrote:

tjwgrr wrote:

Using that same logic, shouldn't the controllers have been taken into custody as well?

The controllers live in Peru. They're easy to go find and bring in if needed. The pilots are Brazilian (?), so if the Peruvians wanted to get their information, it would be a bit more challenging, i.e. extradition.

Where did you get that from? LATAM Peru flights are crewed by Peruvian nationals, and the same goes for each of the LATAM franchises, i.e., the crews are local.

That’s why I put the question mark there.

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.

My thoughts on the selfie are the expression on the guys face is like I never wanted to go to MIL's anyway, going home now to watch World Cup on my own sofa... but she's not going to believe I was in a plane crash so best get a happy snap.

bourbon wrote:

Vicenza wrote:

Gonzalo wrote:

With All due respect, with so many years of experience you know that the take off roll is one of the moments where you can easily go into tunnel vision scanning your instruments ,
And, hoping to put an end to this nonsensic discussion, being on the aviation world for more than 30 years, I heard port side and starboard side in some circumstances ( ready for pushback, caution with the truck at port side ), although is more common the use of L and R, or the 3 o clock / 9 o clock….really non relevant issue as long everyone involved in the chat understands the communication.

.

Yes, I would fully agree to a large extent but would equally state both pilots should not be in the tunnel vision mode you describe. Yes, whilst Port and Starboard are clear distinctions, they are generally much more used (in fact mandatorily) in nautical use than in aviation.

The pilots very well might have seen the truck but at that point physics dictates what is possible. This is akin to a truck driving onto a railroad crossing and getting stuck and the train being only 500ft away. Nothing much can be done other than the truck not being in front of a high velocity massive piece of machinery.

I would also raise the point that if pilots with takeoff clearance stopped for any moving vehicle on the airport grounds they would abort a lot more takeoffs. Judging by the passenger video they were likely post v1 by the time the truck would have been visible and since they had clearance they would likely have believed the truck would turn off. It was probably only apparent that there would be a collision when it was far too late to do anything about it, which unfortunately gives them front row seats to what was unfolding.

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.

Unfortunately, that’s the risk of flying into a third world country, with an authoritarian style government. There have been dozens of examples in the past where the government has jailed the pilots following an accident as clearly they have decided that blaming the pilots would be the easiest way out.

For the record, it is SOP in countries with a well developed Safety Management System, that following an accident, the pilots remain close at hand in a hotel. That is assuming they do not require medical care. Normally, it is a decision between the two (or three) governments, union and airlines to allow the pilots to return home. It is in the best interest of all, to have the pilots involved in the investigation.

CrewBunk 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.

Unfortunately, that’s the risk of flying into a third world country, with an authoritarian style government.

Yes, but this is Peru, not a third world country.

D L X wrote:

Yes, but this is Peru, not a third world country.

Yeah, I’m real impressed how they handled this so far.

So ….. were the ATC controllers jailed? How about the surviving driver of the emergency response vehicle? (Even though he required extreme medical care).

Would one consider South Korea a third world country? I had a friend who was facing a firing squad after being Captain of a crashed A300. It seemed South Korea would rather shoot the Captain than admit Korean Air had a local/expat pilot problem. (To their credit, that problem was addressed and solved).

It almost looked like a knee-jerk reaction in Lima. Or one could ask themself, would the pilots have been jailed had this occurred at O’Hare?

CrewBunk wrote:

D L X wrote:

Yes, but this is Peru, not a third world country.

Yeah, I’m real impressed how they handled this so far.

So ….. were the ATC controllers jailed? How about the surviving driver of the emergency response vehicle? (Even though he required extreme medical care).

Would one consider South Korea a third world country? I had a friend who was facing a firing squad after being Captain of a crashed A300. It seemed South Korea would rather shoot the Captain than admit Korean Air had a local/expat pilot problem. (To their credit, that problem was addressed and solved).

It almost looked like a knee-jerk reaction in Lima. Or one could ask themself, would the pilots have been jailed had this occurred at O’Hare?

I'm not saying your criticism of their reaction is misplaced (though I personally need more info), but the idea that they're a third world country/dictatorship is clearly false. If Peru violated an international treaty in their actions, they can and will be held to account. A dictatorship would not be.

D L X wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

Gonzalo wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, that’s the risk of flying into a third world country, with an authoritarian style government.

Yes, but this is Peru, not a third world country.

Eh, Perú IS a 3rd WC, as in "developing nation" to appease the PC crowd (mind you, I believe the first two worlds were the western and eastern blocs during Cold War). I Wouldn't go so far as to call the govt. authoritarian like Venezuela or Russia or even the very much European Hungary. Taking the pilots into preventive custody seemed like a knee jerk reaction which has hopefully been solved. The Jorge Chávez International Airport has (had?) a nice reputation I belive, so they might have attempted to save face for a bit.

D L X wrote:

I'm not saying your criticism of their reaction is misplaced (though I personally need more info), but the idea that they're a third world country/dictatorship is clearly false. If Peru violated an international treaty in their actions, they can and will be held to account. A dictatorship would not be.

Fair ball, I agree. It was however the IFALPA complaint that allowed the release of the pilots.

Although, I didn’t say “dictatorship”. I purposely steered clear of that title.

But I ask again. (Not to you, just in general). Would the pilots have been jailed has this happened in the United States, even if pilot error was likely the cause? And if in Peru, it is SOP to jail all “suspects” pending an investigation, why were only the pilots jailed?

AtomicGarden wrote:

Eh, Perú IS a 3rd WC, as in "developing nation" to appease the PC crowd (mind you, I believe the first two worlds were the western and eastern blocs during Cold War). I Wouldn't go so far as to call the govt. authoritarian like Venezuela or Russia or even the very much European Hungary. Taking the pilots into preventive custody seemed like a knee jerk reaction which has hopefully been solved. The Jorge Chávez International Airport has (had?) a nice reputation I belive, so they might have attempted to save face for a bit.

I apologize if my words sounded harsh. That was not my intent. I just look twice when I hear of pilots incarcerated before any meaningful investigation. I also acknowledge I am biased. I am a union air accident investigator. My purpose is to make sure pilots are treated fairly during an investigation. To ensure that contact is available, and their human needs are being met.

Odd as it sounds in this day and age, that is not always the case.

For the record, I hold Peru in general, and LIM specifically, with a great deal of esteem. I fly there a lot and have never seen anything other than 100% professionalism. This action surprised me.

AtomicGarden wrote:

D L X wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

Unfortunately, that’s the risk of flying into a third world country, with an authoritarian style government.

Yes, but this is Peru, not a third world country.

…(mind you, I believe the first two worlds were the western and eastern blocs during Cold War).

They were. Switzerland, Finland, and Sweeden were all “Third World Countries”. Most of the other countries in that list were developing countries, which is why the term began to be used incorrectly.

CrewBunk wrote:

AtomicGarden wrote:

Eh, Perú IS a 3rd WC, as in "developing nation" to appease the PC crowd (mind you, I believe the first two worlds were the western and eastern blocs during Cold War). I Wouldn't go so far as to call the govt. authoritarian like Venezuela or Russia or even the very much European Hungary. Taking the pilots into preventive custody seemed like a knee jerk reaction which has hopefully been solved. The Jorge Chávez International Airport has (had?) a nice reputation I belive, so they might have attempted to save face for a bit.

I apologize if my words sounded harsh. That was not my intent. I just look twice when I hear of pilots incarcerated before any meaningful investigation. I also acknowledge I am biased. I am a union air accident investigator. My purpose is to make sure pilots are treated fairly during an investigation. To ensure that contact is available, and their human needs are being met.

Odd as it sounds in this day and age, that is not always the case.

For the record, I hold Peru in general, and LIM specifically, with a great deal of esteem. I fly there a lot and have never seen anything other than 100% professionalism. This action surprised me.

No harm done. I think there could've been a misunderstanding or lack of proper information as to how the pilots were taken. Maybe they just were driven in a police car before a judge to provide a formal declaration, along their lawyers, and some think they were handcuffed, heads covered, sourrounded by a SWAT team and cut off from communications and legal counseling. Do we know those details?

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:

AtomicGarden wrote:

D L X wrote:

Yes, but this is Peru, not a third world country.

…(mind you, I believe the first two worlds were the western and eastern blocs during Cold War).

They were. Switzerland, Finland, and Sweeden were all “Third World Countries”. Most of the other countries in that list were developing countries, which is why the term began to be used incorrectly.

Not true, the neutral European nations were First World, by definition.

https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/ ... ntries.htm

FWIW, everything, no matter what , must get clearance to enter a runway.
A good example , is the BA38 ATC recordings on YT, where the Uber cool controller manages the initial crash. You can hear him giving clearance for response vehicles to enter 27L, even though the 777 has already crashed.

I may have missed it in a previous post, but I didn't see any spoilers come up prior to impact, which leads me to speculate that the pilots didn't reject the takeoff

unitedchicago wrote:

I may have missed it in a previous post, but I didn't see any spoilers come up prior to impact, which leads me to speculate that the pilots didn't reject the takeoff

That could happen for any number of reasons. I imagine that the pilots simply didn’t have the time to put them up after bringing the engines back to idle. Pilot flying likely had a lot on his mind during the few milliseconds they had to react.

Jgsushi wrote:

unitedchicago wrote:

I may have missed it in a previous post, but I didn't see any spoilers come up prior to impact, which leads me to speculate that the pilots didn't reject the takeoff

That could happen for any number of reasons. I imagine that the pilots simply didn’t have the time to put them up after bringing the engines back to idle. Pilot flying likely had a lot on his mind during the few milliseconds they had to react.

The spoilers will automatically extend fully if the takeoff is rejected. They are armed before takeoff power is set and if the thrust levers are brought back below a certain point will deploy, as will max RTO autobraking. Simply not enough time in this case for them to deploy even if the crew had rejected.

Jgsushi wrote:

I imagine that the pilots simply didn’t have the time to put them up after bringing the engines back to idle. Pilot flying likely had a lot on his mind during the few milliseconds they had to react.

No human is able to react within milliseconds. Especially, if the dangerous event is not expected.

A pilot, who got clearance for TO doesn't expect that vehicles from the side enter and block his space on the runway. So the reaction time and decision making was more in the region of 1 s. At the speed of impact, the a/c travels more than 60 m in this second.

And even if the pilot reacts and tries to do anything to avoid the collision, it won't change the trajectory or the speed of the a/c within the short time.

So when the pilot realised (uncertain, if he ever did) that the fire brigade vehicle was not turning to the right on the parallel taxiway (= safe) but driving straight on on the runway (= danger), it was too late. May be the FDR will tell us, if the brakes (or anything else) was activated before the collision. But even if the brakes or spoilers or whatever were activated fractions of a second before the collision, it would have made no difference.

77west wrote:

Jgsushi wrote:

unitedchicago wrote:

I may have missed it in a previous post, but I didn't see any spoilers come up prior to impact, which leads me to speculate that the pilots didn't reject the takeoff

That could happen for any number of reasons. I imagine that the pilots simply didn’t have the time to put them up after bringing the engines back to idle. Pilot flying likely had a lot on his mind during the few milliseconds they had to react.

The spoilers will automatically extend fully if the takeoff is rejected. They are armed before takeoff power is set and if the thrust levers are brought back below a certain point will deploy, as will max RTO autobraking. Simply not enough time in this case for them to deploy even if the crew had rejected.

I am curious whether they saw the truck and initiated RTO before impact, saw the truck and couldn't react before impact, or didn't see the truck and only reacted post-impact. The lack of spoiler deployment in the video might indicate they couldn't react before impact or didn't see the truck.

Not faulting the pilots at all either way. And, I'm sure we'll learn eventually!

But the left reverser opened, wouldn't that make the spoilers deploy? And with the right engine and MLG detached severed the lines and hydraulic pressure was lost allowing the spoilers to retract.

Perhaps it is time to develop Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) for planes if speed is below V1?

889091 wrote:

Perhaps it is time to develop Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) for planes if speed is below V1?

Why? What would it have done here? AEB would create another layer of both benefit and hazard. An impeding collision would have to detected looking only at the active runway surface, not looking that taxiways,p where planes are frequently holding while the departing plane goes by. The hazard, of course, a false positive resulting in a needless high speed abort which isn’t an entirely safe evolution.

BTW, these collisions are pretty rare, the last one was a snow plow in Moscow. This scenario is mostly a sim treat.

pugman211 wrote:

But the left reverser opened, wouldn't that make the spoilers deploy? And with the right engine and MLG detached severed the lines and hydraulic pressure was lost allowing the spoilers to retract.

Throttles brought to IDLE should deploy the spoilers immediately. Whether hydraulics were pressurized might account for spoiler position.

889091 wrote:

Perhaps it is time to develop Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) for planes if speed is below V1?

Doesn’t the A350 have something like that?

D L X wrote:

889091 wrote:

Perhaps it is time to develop Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) for planes if speed is below V1?

Doesn’t the A350 have something like that?

That's more to do with if the computer decides there is not enough runway to safely stop. Not for collision avoidance.

D L X wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

Gonzalo wrote:

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.

Unfortunately, that’s the risk of flying into a third world country, with an authoritarian style government.

Yes, but this is Peru, not a third world country.

It most certainly is third world.

889091 wrote:

Perhaps it is time to develop Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) for planes if speed is below V1?

As soon as thrust is (quickly) brought back to idle, maximum braking and spoilers are deployed automatically. How much more “automatic” do you want? Namely the decision to reject is still the Captain’s. Do you really want to introduce a system where the Captain wants to continue, but the aircraft has decided to reject?

CrewBunk wrote:

889091 wrote:

Perhaps it is time to develop Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) for planes if speed is below V1?

As soon as thrust is (quickly) brought back to idle, maximum braking and spoilers are deployed automatically. How much more “automatic” do you want? Namely the decision to reject is still the Captain’s. Do you really want to introduce a system where the Captain wants to continue, but the aircraft has decided to reject?

Doesn't the 350 already do that? I thought if the FCC deems that there is not enough runway left to take off, but enough left to break it will abort take-off:

https://www.cnet.com/culture/qatar-airways-a350-in-scary-aborted-takeoff-on-inaugural-us-flight/

EDIT: Sorry its a very bad source but I have no time atm to do proper research.

FluidFlow wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

889091 wrote:

Perhaps it is time to develop Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) for planes if speed is below V1?

As soon as thrust is (quickly) brought back to idle, maximum braking and spoilers are deployed automatically. How much more “automatic” do you want? Namely the decision to reject is still the Captain’s. Do you really want to introduce a system where the Captain wants to continue, but the aircraft has decided to reject?

Doesn't the 350 already do that? I thought if the FCC deems that there is not enough runway left to take off, but enough left to break it will abort take-off:

https://www.cnet.com/culture/qatar-airways-a350-in-scary-aborted-takeoff-on-inaugural-us-flight/

EDIT: Sorry its a very bad source but I have no time atm to do proper research.

I was referring to a detected imminent ground collision, with reference to this incident, (much like my pickup truck does).

Using this incident as an example. One would have to look at the FDR, but let’s say they were below V1, but at a possible flying speed. Detecting the obstacle, an emergency system might reject the takeoff, but the Captain might have already decided to rotate early, clear the obstacle and stagger into the air.

Granted it puts the aircraft into a vulnerable position, should an engine (for example) fail. Second segment climb performance is now poorer. But …. the ground collision would have been avoided.

Looking at your example though: “it’s well established that no plane is supposed to be equipped with the tech to independently reject the takeoff”.

77west wrote:

That's more to do with if the computer decides there is not enough runway to safely stop. Not for collision avoidance.

Could the computer be set up to do this? Maybe using the weather radar to determine the runway is not clear? Or does the weather radar not work this way?

petertenthije wrote:

77west wrote:

That's more to do with if the computer decides there is not enough runway to safely stop. Not for collision avoidance.

Could the computer be set up to do this? Maybe using the weather radar to determine the runway is not clear? Or does the weather radar not work this way?

Doesn’t work that way and the scan would be far too wide, if it did. You’d be aborting for buildings off the side. Remember, a radar beam is light a flashlight, it expands with distance—beam width.

More automation for runway incursions will not help too much for this kind of situations. Usually an airport with the right equipment and the right condition ( clear signals, adequate lay out, smart use of the space and time ) is perfectly safe. We saw that in Linate after the crash on the runway, and LIM should take the advantage of the new facilities and lay out to make a safe and efficient environment now.