Hi,

Can any of our Turkish (Istanbul) based members find out anymore, It happened an hour or so ago.

Only one report has appeared on the net stating that the aircraft skidded and has ended up resting on one wing-tip.

Thanks
Marc

The Afghan plane skidded off the runway after the landing on 06. No major injuries.
You can see a picture on www.airporthaber.com

Considerable damage. Seems like this one isn´t flying again due to its age (25 years).

Two photographs here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...300-skids-off-istanbul-runway.html

would this have been one of the ex-AI a/c donated by the Indian Government ?

Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 3): would this have been one of the ex-AI a/c donated by the Indian Government ?

This is a former Air India aircraft delivered in 1982. Such an aircraft is worth close to zero, if intact.

Delta 767 Over Rans The Runway At IST (by Wing Apr 23 2005 in Civil Aviation) RE: Kuban Airlines Overran In IST (by Spetouss Jun 15 2006 in Civil Aviation) RE: Iran Air Overshoots Runway In Istanbul (by Wing Mar 14 2006 in Civil Aviation) RE: Onur 321 Goes Off Runway 24 In IST (by Pilotaydin Feb 28 2006 in Civil Aviation)

Here we go again, the infamous 06/24 overrun saga continues...

Ouchy...

That doesn't look so good at first glance.. We seem to be having quite the year for running aircraft off the end of runways and smacking them onto the deck as hard as possible...

Maybe Airbus and Boeing should start putting airbags on the undercarriage....

this is what pisses me off....istanbul ATC knows damn well that landing the short runway during unstable winds and wet wether ALWAYS causes this, and they STILL do this....and when you request the longer runway tey delay you for about 25 mins, it's bs....that poor A300 is now scrap because of this

runway 06/24 has a very very very slick surface, it's about 85% covered in full with tyre marks, and we all know the worst case for hydroplaning is a smooth runway with dirt on it....and add some water...voila....

so it's no shock to me....

it's a shame really...

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 7): runway 06/24 has a very very very slick surface, it's about 85% covered in full with tyre marks, and we all know the worst case for hydroplaning is a smooth runway with dirt on it....and add some water...voila....

Here is a picture of the runway:

View Large View Medium

Photo © Irfan Caliskan - AirTeamImages

This is aircraft involved in this incident : A300 B4-203 YA-BAD

View Large View Medium Photo © Konstantin von Wedelstaedt

View Large View Medium Photo © Mario Andreya

This aircraft was initially delivered to Air India on July 28th 1982 !
It was transferred to Airiana on November 11th 2002.

Very sad to see another venerable good old A300 ending that way ...   

Quoting TK787 (Reply 8): Here is a picture of the runway

yes and that's the best it ever got, now it's WAY worse.....add some water and put on your ice skates, the 737 dances on there like a feather, it's amazing trying to hold it steady during a wet takeoff...

Quoting TK787 (Reply 5): Delta 767 Over Rans The Runway At IST (by Wing Apr 23 2005 in Civil Aviation) RE: Kuban Airlines Overran In IST (by Spetouss Jun 15 2006 in Civil Aviation) RE: Iran Air Overshoots Runway In Istanbul (by Wing Mar 14 2006 in Civil Aviation) RE: Onur 321 Goes Off Runway 24 In IST (by Pilotaydin Feb 28 2006 in Civil Aviation) Here we go again, the infamous 06/24 overrun saga continues...

They should put a large "Nazar Boncuk" (Turkish Evil Eye " talisman ) at the end of the runway..

Joke apart -I agree that the frequency of IST runway incidents is a clear indiccation the surface needs to be re-furbished immediately.May be there are techniques that do allow to brush-off the tire-residues off the runway-asphalt during night ,in order to prevent a complete closure for too many weeks.

More photos of the accident site at the below link, though they are a bit overexposed:
http://www.airporthaber.com/hb/detay.php?id=14263

How come they had 25 passanger and 35 crew members ? Does Ariana use the term loosly or are they crazy ?

Quoting Firiko (Reply 13): How come they had 25 passanger and 35 crew members

The article says 30pax, 20 crew. Also, they stopped at ESB earlier.

Quoting TK787 (Reply 14): 20 crew

isn't that alot?

Why did it come to rest in a nose-up position? If it was braking, that would tend to put pressure on the front landing gear, which then would have dug into the ground. I just thought I'd ask.

"Ariana operates flight FG719 from Kabul via Ankara. Istanbul Airport’s on-line schedule shows that this flight arrived at around 13:50."

Well it certainly did arrive but not in the style they expected

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 7): this is what pisses me off....istanbul ATC knows damn well that landing the short runway during unstable winds and wet wether ALWAYS causes this, and they STILL do this....and when you request the longer runway tey delay you for about 25 mins, it's bs....that poor A300 is now scrap because of this

If the winds favour runway 06, then runway 06 is the active. ATC is not to blame, because they HAVE to choose the active runway according to the winds at the airport, REGARDLESS of runway lenght. This is furthermore important if the winds were gusting at the time. With a gusting headwind, 7500ft or rwy is more than enough even for a B744 to land on. Takeoff is another issue, but as this incident involves a landing aircraft, runway length was not to blame, poor runway conditions (i.e wet or slick runway) and/or pilot error could be a factor.


Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2007-03-23 22:37:44]

Is the AC no written off??? Can it not be fixed??? It actually doesnt look that bad unless there is damage we cant see.

Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 18): If the winds favour runway 06, then runway 06 is the active. ATC is not to blame, because they HAVE to choose the active runway according to the winds at the airport, REGARDLESS of runway lenght. This is furthermore important if the winds were gusting at the time. With a gusting headwind, 7500ft or rwy is more than enough even for a B744 to land on. Takeoff is another issue, but as this incident involves a landing aircraft, runway length was not to blame, poor runway conditions (i.e wet or slick runway) and/or pilot error could be a factor.

if the wind favors runway 24, the wind would be right down at 240, which is 60 degrees off runway 18....
would you rather land in gusts with a direct headwind on a slick, short wet runway

or on a long, properly paved runway with some crosswind? it's a no brainer...

and i never blamed the RUNWAY itself, i said runway condition, in fact someone posted a pic of the condition i was talking about...
wet and short runway shouldnt be used together...poor choice by atc at IST once again...

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 20): would you rather land in gusts with a direct headwind on a slick, short wet runway

Most pilots would take the runway most aligned with the winds, since crosswinds are far more dangerous than wet runways. (not to mention that rwy 18 in IST would be wet as well)

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 20): poor choice by atc at IST once again

You're wrong. ATC has no choice in the matter. The pilot, on the other hand, does. If runway 06 was not good enough for the pilot, he should have asked to land on the other runway. Period! ATC would have accomodated him, with little or no delay.

When it comes down to it, Pilot In Command has last word.

Thenoflyzone

Thenoflyzone:

I don't understand why you are trying to disagree with Pilotaydin. He is flying for TK and I am sure he has landed hundreds of time to IST. So what he says is correct.

I didn't know Afghana flew to IST. Maybe an opium ferry flight? ...hence the effect!

I'm glad nobody was hurt too badly. Thank goodness.

Quoting Emrecan (Reply 22): Thenoflyzone: I don't understand why you are trying to disagree with Pilotaydin. He is flying for TK and I am sure he has landed hundreds of time to IST. So what he says is correct.

Have to agree!!! If anyone knows anything its Pilotaydin , he knows more than anyone on here.

Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 18): With a gusting headwind, 7500ft or rwy is more than enough even for a B744 to land on.

Gusting headwind can mean an addition of up to 20 kts on the approach speed, and that translates into a longer float during the flare and/or a longer rollout.

Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 21): Most pilots would take the runway most aligned with the winds, since crosswinds are far more dangerous than wet runways. (not to mention that rwy 18 in IST would be wet as well)

good point, BUT, we are talking specifically about runway 06/24 in istanbul. This runway is covered in tyre tracks, reference up there the pic that TK787 kindly posted. When landing on a wet runway the stop distance is just required to be 1.15 times more, which is attainable with an autobrake setting of 2-3 on the Boeing or med on the bus, easy no problems there. However, runway 06/24 in istanbul has a serious slope issue, the touchdown zones and most of the rollout zone has SO much tyre rubber on it, that when the aircraft touches down, it doens't contact the actual runway, she skids around and loses very little speed, since the runway is so short in that respect, the a/c doesn't lose much speed and by the time she does,the other end is there.... the aircraft is certified up to 25 knots in crosswinds on a wet runway, and a maximum of 50 knots for operation, which means if there was a wind of 50 knots from 60 degrees off the runway heading, then the plane could land on the 9,500 feet of runway 18 and have no roll problems, rather than landing 06/24...
10 knots of headwind isn't that important for ground roll, Airbus has a minimum ground speed unit, so it doesn't even let the plane slow down that much, i think wing can explain this part better...

Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 21): You're wrong. ATC has no choice in the matter. The pilot, on the other hand, does. If runway 06 was not good enough for the pilot, he should have asked to land on the other runway. Period! ATC would have accomodated him, with little or no delay. When it comes down to it, Pilot In Command has last word.

ATC definately has a choice as to what runway they make the active. ATC knows the airport much better than the poor Afghan crew that were clueless about that specific runway. That's why ATC is there only at that airport, you guys are supposed to help us get in by knowing the tricks for that airport. I fly in and out of IST daily, so i would have chosen runway 18 but the poor A300 pilot - how could he know?

Also, if 18 was the active, then there would have been no delays, but since 06 was the active, requesting 18 disrupts departures and adds about 20 mins ai delay for vectoring around, which wastes fuel and time...
That's why i said the things i said about IST ATC....

I appreciate that you're a controller, but either you work at the perfect airport where things are textbook or IST atc is bad  

The remarks of Pilotaydin have been confirmed individually on a french airline forum by a French pilot flying 737 for a German airline.
They have special instructions for that particular runway (40° flaps,autobrake 2 etc..) and have been warned to use it in rain.
The frequency of runway incidents on that particular strip is far beyond co-incidence.
IST airport authorities MUST do something before a fatal incident happens.Truth is that the runway has a decending slope which increases brake-distance.



.......!!!

Beaucaire, i have the same pic i took from the right seat, i think that was left by a Yak42 im not sure, but those marks go off into the grass for about 30-40 meters and there are deep traces there...

you are right, something needs to be done, and im scared for this summer, because once summer traffic hits, there is NO way in hell that they can close off the runway, we get about 600+ operations a day dring summer....so good luck, the winter here was super mild, they have had plenty of time to shut down the runway and use the equipment that they have to clean those marks....but as usual, everyone here puts the blame and responsibility to someone else...

i remember the egypt air 707 hit a cab, the delta 767 the countless Russian airlines that overshot....it's no coincidence

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000212-1&lang=en

My understanding is that this Air Afrique aircraft was scrapped, which is not a good omen, ditto the Hapag Lloyd A310.

Why are the "black listed by EU?

Quoting OA260 (Reply 19): Is the AC no written off??? Can it not be fixed??? It actually doesnt look that bad unless there is damage we cant see.

If it were 10 years old, they would repair it, but this one is 25 years old. 99% its a write-off. Look at the Air Afrique aircraft above with similar damge, which was written off when 17 years old.

I don't think this a huge loss for Ariana since they are getting their boeing fleet here soon.

Quoting LTAC03R (Reply 25): Gusting headwind can mean an addition of up to 20 kts on the approach speed, and that translates into a longer float during the flare and/or a longer rollout.

Since when does a headwind add speed on the approach !!! The planes will be at a very slow approach speed during strong headwinds!

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 26): Also, if 18 was the active, then there would have been no delays, but since 06 was the active, requesting 18 disrupts departures and adds about 20 mins ai delay for vectoring around, which wastes fuel and time... That's why i said the things i said about IST ATC....

I'm not disagreeing with Pilotaydin, i'm just saying that blaming ATC for all the problems is wrong. The problem here has to be adressed with the airport operator, which maintains rwy 06-24 in service. As long as that runway is there and operational, ATC has no choise but to use it. The airport operator has to take action here.

Still, if you as a pilot requests runway 18, then ATC WILL accomodate you. We are here to provide service to you guys, and if you decide that the active runway is not good enough for you, then we will accomodate your request, with little or no delay.


Ex. Here at YUL...we have 2 parallels, 06's and 24's. We also have a crosswind runway, 10-28, which is only 7,000ft long (that's 500ft shorter than rwy 06 at IST)

During periods of strong winds from the northwest, we often change to runway 28, knowing fully well we can no longer handle the same amount of traffic then if we were on the parallels. We do it regardless, because ATC MANOPS states that you have to choose the active runway according to the winds.

Even if runway 28 is the shortest runway we have, 90% of the traffic, including the international traffic lands on rwy 28(No ILS, just a Backcourse approach). That includes most of the heavies from Europe (KLM, AFR, BAW, DLH, RAM). Why? because the winds say so!

Last week, Air france came in (B744) and said he wants runway 24L. Guess what, we gave it to him! Period! I cannot force the pilot to land on the active, nor can i instruct the pilot not to use runway 24L. I make sure he has the wind information, and the runway conditions, and he can do his approach on another runway at his own risk.

Now i understand the runway circumstance at IST. I also understand that the airport operator, not ATC, should take action, and inform all the operators of the airport (airlines) of the situation of runway 06-24 and get a response, thus insuring the knowledge of the problem with every Pilot In Command that flies there.

This isnt an ATC issue. The problem lies between the airport operator and the airlines.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2007-03-24 18:20:03]

Quoting Emrecan (Reply 22): Thenoflyzone: I don't understand why you are trying to disagree with Pilotaydin. He is flying for TK and I am sure he has landed hundreds of time to IST. So what he says is correct.

Let me try to understand your reasoning here. So anyone who lands 100 times at an airport is automatically correct. Very nice analysis! I'd like to go to that school too some day....

You forget my friend that everyone can make mistakes.

Your friend Pilotaydin was angry, "pissed off" if i recall correctly from his post yesterday, and he blamed ATC automatically without even considering other guilty parties, like the airport operator for example.

That's where i come in.....Simply bringing forth credible arguments here.

Now, with all due respect, if there is something you wish to tell me about my posts, kindly do. Dont tell me that pilots are always right.

Thenoflyzone

Quoting Thenoflyzone (Reply 34): Your friend Pilotaydin was angry, "pissed off" if i recall correctly from his post yesterday, and he blamed ATC automatically without even considering other guilty parties, like the airport operator for example

yes i was pissed off, BECAUSE Turkey is not like Canada, we don't have an airport structure as you do, when the guy in the tower looks at the wind sock, and thinks they should switch the runway, that's how it's done around here...

so no i didn't automatically NOT consider anything else, there is nothing else to consider...that's how things are done around here....

Perhaps a silly question, but why don't they clean it so now and then?
Here at AMS all the runways are cleaned from rubber at least once a year.

Regards
N774UA

Quoting N774UA (Reply 36): Perhaps a silly question, but why don't they clean it so now and then? Here at AMS all the runways are cleaned from rubber at least once a year.

a simple and excellent question...i think the answer is that no matter how much they clean it (which they dont) the runway quality and materials used are very shitty, as with most old buildings in IST - they use beach sand for cement and concrete concentrations, so there is a lot more cost/materials involved with trying to remove the damn stuff from there

i love the AMS airport runway and taxiway constructions, it's very FS9 like  

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 37): i love the AMS airport runway and taxiway constructions, it's very FS9 like

As a marshaller at AMS I can only say; thank you. 

N774UA

Quoting Pilotaydin (Reply 37): ...i think the answer is that no matter how much they clean it (which they dont) the runway quality and materials used are very shitty

See. Airport operator. It's the airport's job to maintain and clean the runways, if they dont, it can be a contributing factor to accidents.

Thenoflyzone

http://video.milliyet.com.tr/default...24&tarih=2007/03/24&get=24.03.2007
Here some video of the aircrafts resting position from the air, just click on the play icon, left corner of the page.

Pilotaydin,

Question for you, since your a TK B734 pilot, slightly off topic. Ok, really off topic.

In your ops specs, can you hand fly a CATII approach or you have to use autopilot. I know CATIII approaches are with autopilot, since there is no decision height and autoland has to be used, but i'm not sure about the CATII approaches.

Thanks.

Thenoflyzone

Quoting TK787 (Reply 40): http://video.milliyet.com.tr/default...24&tarih=2007/03/24&get=24.03.2007 Here some video of the aircrafts resting position from the air, just click on the play icon, left corner of the page.

thx for that video. it gives some different views to this accident. did they already towed the aircraft to a remote stand or is it still laying down there? for me as a dude it seems to be a very critical point where it is now. end of 6/24, so no dep/arr on that one. also at the very end of 18R so I suppose no dep there as well?!?!?
pilotaydin, wing??? you are the insiders of IST so please tell us whats going on there!

http://www.airporthaber.com/hb/detay.php?id=14297
Here is some pictures on the latest. They started to cut the plane into pieces in order
to move it away. Such a shame to see the plane this way.

here is the video of this cut-down

Wow, these guys obviously have never heard about proper safety measures. Can´t see that they did anything to prevent the tail turning sidewards, falling on them. No crane in sight. They just stand close when 90 tons break in two.

Quoting NA (Reply 45): Wow, these guys obviously have never heard about proper safety measures. Can´t see that they did anything to prevent the tail turning sidewards, falling on them. No crane in sight. They just stand close when 90 tons break in two

hehe, trust me, with the lack of training and equipment here, they make miracles happen, these guys have done FAR worse and crazy things, to them this is a piece of cake...sad, but true  

Two sides and opinions being put in this thread, and some less informed people taking sides unecessarily.

Having worked both sides of the fence, ie., ATC and crew, I can see both sides to this thread.

However, the bottom line is that ATC is obligated to provide ATC service to the airfield operator. It is ATC, as best practice, who will declare the most into wind runway as the operational runway on any particular day.

The Airport Operator provides the hard standing for landing, ATC provides the means to get there. This is an important deferentiation.

If ATC rules and regs direct that a particular runway is the most suitable for use on a day for the prevalent weather conditions, then that is the runway they will nominate. At my ATC posting in a previous life, the only discretion we had was to allow tailwind landings which had to fall within a tailwind component/wind direction & speed co-efficient.

Just like waterlogged, iced or snow covered runways, ATC can only advise aircraft on the runway state. Similarly, ATC can not decide whether a fog bound runway is within the limits of every single particular aircraft and crew. If a pilot declares it's ok, or doesn't declare it to be below minima, ATC has no further obligation other than to clear the aircraft to land and monitor its safe progress. The onus is on the crew and the regulatory authorities to pursue any contravention of rules and limitations. ATC do not have the discretion to declare a runway closed except for exceptional circumstances such as a blocked runway or a lighting failure or, in the US., a ground stop.

The point I am making is that it is the airport Operator who is responsible for the condition of the runway surface. The choice to land or select another runway/airfield is always that of the aircraft commander.

Any defect in the runway state should be NOTAMed, and if not, then crews should accept their obligation to report the threat to safe operation through the relevant channels. I note that there isn't a single NOTAM notification referring to the runway state of 06/24, even to say "slippery when wet."

Whilst I appreciate the frustrations of flightdeck crews operating under these conditions, I must say that for anything to be done to improve the situation, the way to do it is in your hands via official reporting and not slagging off your ATC colleagues for whom I do have the utmost respect.

Shamu

Well said BlueShamu330s

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 47): It is ATC, as best practice, who will declare the most into wind runway as the operational runway on any particular day

As i mentioned above....

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 47): The point I am making is that it is the airport Operator who is responsible for the condition of the runway surface

As i mentioned above....

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 47): The choice to land or select another runway/airfield is always that of the aircraft commander.

Again, as i mentioned above....Pilot in Command decides. ATC gives him all the information and then it's up to him.


I have the upmost respect for pilots just like Pilotaydin, but blaming ATC is not always the way to go¸...

thenoflyzone

Quoting NA (Reply 4): Quoting Kiwiandrew (Reply 3): would this have been one of the ex-AI a/c donated by the Indian Government ? This is a former Air India aircraft delivered in 1982. Such an aircraft is worth close to zero, if intact.

Formally registered VT-EHN, MSN 177.
Was "C" Checked at Basco in Bournemouth (UK) prior to being donated to Ariana.
Worked on it back then, it wasn't in the best of states, the forwrd cargo door had had an accident, the rear pressure bulkhead was subject to a partial replacement, and we did several partial frame replacements.

Amazing it made it for that long really... those planes can take a lot of punishment before finally giving in...