• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
User avatar
jetmech
Posts: 2357
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:14 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:48 pm



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 283):
use of TRs would certainly help the braking action.



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 286):
The pictures from the AF incident above show the TR in their extended condition still. The same goes for the 2005 crash in Toronto, where the TRs are still deployed after the accident.

Of course, I agree fully with what both of you say, TR's could make the difference in dire situations, and there is no doubt they do shorten landing roll out distances.

Regards, JetMech
JetMech split the back of his pants. He can feel the wind in his hair :shock: .
 
na
Posts: 9732
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:46 pm



Quoting Hloutweg (Reply 294):
I was browsing vacuously on YouTube and found this video that probability most of us know. It was recorded in Quito and I wonder if it is the same aircraft now ruined in the Ecuadorian capital. Do you have any info on this?

The video is from 2005, the aircraft involved in this incident/accident was delivered in early 2006. So, no, this video doesn´t show the ill-fated A346.
 
CM767
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 11:58 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:24 pm

Anyone else believes that something has to be done to better inform pilots of runway conditions? should a decision to continue to operate into an airport should be of pilots alone, or someone on the ground should have a said on it ?

There have been many overruns / accidents this year and two last year where weather could have played a huge part, while the investigation of most is not concluded, I wonder if is time to take weather more seriously and monitor the condition of runways and take the decision on the ground to suspend operations.
But The Best Thing God Has Created Is A New Day
 
LH498
Posts: 92
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 3:35 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:51 pm

Allow me to add some fuel to the evacuation discussion:
Well, let's have a look at a past emergency evacuation of an Iberia Jumbo.




Don't want to make any conclusions, but it's not a good precedent...
 
davescj
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:46 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:23 pm



Quoting LH498 (Reply 304):
Don't want to make any conclusions, but it's not a good precedent...

While you're right, less than comforting, it is interesting to note someone was filiming the event. Doesn't that seem odd? I'm like, Is this the time for home movies?

Also, what was the total evac time? Is it known? Cause of emergency?

All that being said, people do need to pay attention to where emergency exits are......and (unlike what appeared to be happening) NOT STOPPING FOR CABIN BAGGAGE.

Dave
Can I have a mojito on this flight?
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13650
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:01 pm



Quoting CM767 (Reply 303):
Anyone else believes that something has to be done to better inform pilots of runway conditions? should a decision to continue to operate into an airport should be of pilots alone, or someone on the ground should have a said on it ?

And also, if the aircraft indeed landed too long, why didn't they abort and go around for a second try?
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
Summa767
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:30 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Fri Nov 16, 2007 7:29 pm



Quoting CM767 (Reply 303):
Anyone else believes that something has to be done to better inform pilots of runway conditions? should a decision to continue to operate into an airport should be of pilots alone, or someone on the ground should have a said on it ?

I doubt very much that the main contributory factor to this crash was the condition of the runway.
So long as the information is accurate, it is ultimately up to the crew. The airline has its own policy for operations and minimal conditions required for landing at specific airports to which the crew should adhere.
 
RIXrat
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:20 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:10 pm

In the Ecuadorian video of the plane landing, you can see that the TV station has circled the exhaust pipe of one of the fire/rescue vehicles starting up. At the same time you see the aircraft landing in the background. Now, I wonder why the fire brigade was on its way down the runway before the Iberia plane had even come to a stop.

The airport fire department is usually informed of an accident, or an impending accident, by ATC. Could it be that the firemen had a sixth sense, or was the approach and subsequent touchdown so shaky that ATC told the fire people to "follow that plane." This was probably one of the fastest responses by the emergency crews, ever. Something in my mind says it does not add up.
 
User avatar
Scooter01
Posts: 1187
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:06 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:30 pm



Quoting Scooter01 (Reply 203):
Having spent the better part of the last 2 hours reading every post in this thread and watcing the videos, I am surprised no-one has commented on how quickly the fire-trucks and people from the airport-authority (in yellow wests) got to the scene.
-Almost as if they were pre-warned???



Quoting Summa767 (Reply 289):
when the aircraft passed the alarmed firemen.



Quoting RIXrat (Reply 308):
In the Ecuadorian video of the plane landing, you can see that the TV station has circled the exhaust pipe of one of the fire/rescue vehicles starting up. At the same time you see the aircraft landing in the background. Now, I wonder why the fire brigade was on its way down the runway before the Iberia plane had even come to a stop.

I'm glad somebody else also noticed the rapid deployment of the rescue crew

Scooter01
There is always a good reason to watch airplanes
 
bhmbaglock
Posts: 2489
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:51 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:25 pm



Quoting RIXrat (Reply 308):
In the Ecuadorian video of the plane landing, you can see that the TV station has circled the exhaust pipe of one of the fire/rescue vehicles starting up. At the same time you see the aircraft landing in the background. Now, I wonder why the fire brigade was on its way down the runway before the Iberia plane had even come to a stop.

Already covered. These guys were on the ball!

Quoting Summa767 (Reply 284):
The journalist asked if the firemen had been pre-warned about a possible emergency, but the head of DAC answered that it was only the excessive speed of the plane at that point that made them realise that there was imminent danger and they needed to get under way.

Where are all of my respected members going?
 
LatinPlane
Posts: 2589
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 1999 11:05 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:55 am

Complete incompetence was demontrated by Iberia's crew with their inappropriate handling of the situation. I wonder if they can be legally prosecuted for potentially putting the passengers lives at risk for failling to do their jobs. I just don't get it!!! This is video of TACA's accident in Guatemala City is exactly the same situation that occured with IB's A340, yet the F/A here did a marvelous job of directing their passengers out safely from the 767 within seconds. What the hell were IB's FA's thinking! Noneone can absolutely find any explanation whatsover in their defense.



LatinPlane

[Edited 2007-11-16 18:58:51]
Pan Am - The World's Most Experienced Airline.
 
Pu752
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:29 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:50 am

Por favor habran un nuevo topic !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! esta demasiado largo para leer !

Please start a new topic !!! this is way too large for reading!


Thanks!
 
AR385
Posts: 6929
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 8:25 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:50 am

I was once in a 727-200 REAL evacuation due to no. 2 engine blowing up at V1. I exited via the R-1 slide.

1. The mind works funny tricks. Even from the 727, when I got to the slide, it looked high. However I did not hesitate to jump into the slide, but others might.

I can't imagine how it looks from the top of the slide in an A346

2. The plane was filling with smoke. I am 1.86 mts tall, 100 kg and work out regularly. I was on a window seat and could not leave it and get to the aisle. Finally I said screw politeness and if it weren't for my elbows, fists, kicks, pushing, and shoving I would still be seated on that lovely window seat getting a real high from the noxious fumes to the tune of "Lucy in the sky with diamonds".

3. Even though wearing tough jeans, going down the slide, I chaffed my butt, and underside of legs and they remained chaffed for a week. I don't know what would happen to the butts of people sliding from the A346 or to those wearing shorts. They will probably leave their epidermis smeared on the slide on the way down.

So, I can understand when crews are hesitant to start an emergency evacuation. But still. Having seen the video and the pictures from the aircraft, plus the few seconds that one engine was on fire, I still think it was pretty foolhardy that no emergency evac took place.

Flame me now

A few pointers: ( I am on a roll here)

Always "read the safety card in the seat pocket in front of you", do not wear shorts or short sleeved shirts on a plane trip, be prepared to make your fear of heights disappear pretty quickly and only think of getting out. Nothing else should be on your mind. Believe me, nobody is going to go back and get you, specially if there is smoke in the cabin
 
kaitak
Posts: 9788
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:00 am

I'm lucky, in my 25+ years of flying never to have had that experience; the closest I've come to anything remotely serious is having to stop on a runway at DEL, after our IC A320 suffered a nosegear problem; we left by stairway, still stopped on the runway.

Think of the prospect of exiting from the upper deck of a 744 or 380. Not pleasant to contemplate. If the slide is wet (always a possibility, particularly if weather is a contributory cause in an incident), there must be a risk of flying off the bottom of the slide and breaking a few limbs.

The one (other) thing that concerns me is, since you land into the wind, the slides, when they deploy, will be "perpendicular" to the wind; if the wind is particularly strong, doesn't that pose the risk that they could be flipped over? Murphy's Law dictates that this would happen just as you're sliding half way down ...

(I did notice, in shots of the evacuation of the IB aircraft, that Ecuadorian troops/police seems to be hanging onto the slide, presumably to avoid this happening?)
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:16 am



Quoting PHKLM (Reply 299):
I cannot understand that the "risk of evacuation" is higher than keeping 300 souls on board of the plane. Stupidly enough Iberia has proven their own wrong doing because in the end they DID evacuate. No major injuries where sustained.

The question of "do we evacuate" and "when to decide to evacuate" is always open for debate. If there's fire burning outside then yeah, who cares about any evacuation order from the cockpit, just evacuate! If the cocpit crew in coordination with the fire crew determine that there is no fire risk, then why commit to an emergency evacuation? Should they? shouldn't they?

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 306):
And also, if the aircraft indeed landed too long, why didn't they abort and go around for a second try?

That's the ideal situation. However, they'd be looking at the indicated airspeed to see what their speed was, and while on sea level, 140 knots may mean 140kts true airspeed, up there in Quito, at 10,000ft, it could be 160-180 knots depending on the conditions. The crew may not have realised they were too fast because of that... they don't look at groundspeed until they're taxying. Too long doesn't require you to go around... if you determine at the time you can stop in time. I dunno the 346 figures, but the 330 give a bloody short stopping distance if you ask it... Again, the standard things we want to know...
1. spoiler arming and deployment
2. Thrust lever positions through out the roll
3. braking decision and action.
4. Did the crew realize something wasn't right and when along the landing did they realize an overrun was imminent.

Then we go to how was the crew during the landing, any thing that raise alarm bells when listening to the CVR (like pilot fixation or partial incapacity, etc).

It's never as simple as "if they landed long, why didn't they just go-around."

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
ferengi80
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:23 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:18 am



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 315):
Should they? shouldn't they?

They should, no matter what the situation. The aircraft was at a perculiar angle, engine 3 had been pretty much ripped from the wing, ergo there was signifcant risk of a fire starting.

Quoting IBERIA747 (Reply 147):
3 Engines ripped out, wing lost, a landing gear ripped out, front gear colpassed!

Based on this, the emergency slides should have been deployed immediately, and the passengers evacuated as quickly as possible. The flight crew should never delay the evacuation of the aircraft, no matter whether they don't want the hassle of deploying the slides or not.

Simple answer should be, plane has crashed, evacuate the aircraft immediately. I think the flight crew should be severely disciplined for their lack of safety awareness in this incident.
AF1981 LHR-CDG A380-800 10 July 2010 / AF1980 CDG-LHR A380-800 11 July 2010
 
Summa767
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:30 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:43 am



Quoting Ferengi80 (Reply 316):
Based on this, the emergency slides should have been deployed immediately,

2 engines rather than 3 broken and out of position, but nonetheless, I agree that the best course of action would have been an immediate evacuation. At least one emergency exit was opened by the time the firemen were at the scene, so clearly somebody -whether crew or passenger- thought they should leave. But they were told to wait for stairs!
How many cameras do A346's crew have access to? The tail one alone should have clearly shown the precariousness of the situation.

Quoting Ferengi80 (Reply 316):
I think the flight crew should be severely disciplined for their lack of safety awareness in this incident.

The crew may well take the blame, but the training and policy at the company should be scrutinised. The event at Quito raises very serious questions.
 
davescj
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:46 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:49 am



Quoting Summa767 (Reply 317):
But they were told to wait for stairs!

I know that this has been said many times, but I'm not sure who gave this order. Captain? Fire Crew? UIO Airport?

I think it would be interesting to know.

Quoting Summa767 (Reply 317):
The crew may well take the blame, but the training and policy at the company should be scrutinised. The event at Quito raises very serious questions.

This is true. I think it would be intereting to know what IB flight manual/policy/etc says about evacuation (when, where, circumtances, etc). It would also be interesting to know if the crew has to have this info memorized, rather than looking it up POST event. Does anyone know any airline/government policy about these issues?

Thanks to the flight crews who have been so patient in explaining things! And esp BIG THANK YOU to all the many flight crew who have landed me safely over the years!

Dave
Can I have a mojito on this flight?
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2726
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:57 am

I think people forget that evacuations are dangerous, and not to be taken on a whim. Should they deploy the slides and risk injuring or killing people when the fire crews are there, and reporting no fire danger?

BTW Jet fuel is hell to light, you can put matches out with it. Its not gasoline which goes to vapor with the slightest excuse.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 6:43 pm

Quoting Airportmanager (Reply 190):

I agree with you, they say that they evacuated in total, 30 minutes. And as mentioned , I also think they were waiting for stairs to and rescue them!! That way perhaps they though they didnt have to inflate the tobbogans, saving that hassle. Ridiculous! Its an emergency!!

Nobody is hurt, all went well. Therefore, let's all bash Iberia !!!!
Ah, how typical for airliners.net... if this were a, say, BA plane, everyone would be praising the crew's professionalism for correctly assessing the situation and choosing the right thing to do despite the temptation to evacuate immediately.

None of us knows what went on there. We do not know what the IB pilots and the airport authorities communicated between them. We do not know what indications were given by the fire crew. We do not know what information was available to them that is not available to us and that made them take that course of action. Nobody wants to keep passengers for 30min on a crashed plane just for fun. With whatever information was available to them, they decided that it was the best thing to do. And the result speaks for itself.

Quoting Icaro (Reply 202):
The only fact that we DO have is that there were no injuries. And we can be almost sure that if they had evacuated via the chutes in 90 seconds, we would be saying something different.
Concerning the evacuation, the captain DID take the right decision: observe and act in consequence. He didn't see any immediate danger and decided to wait and protect his passengers and crew.
Saying that the chutes were not inflated to save money is absurd to say something light.



Quoting Mandala499 (Reply 315):
If the cocpit crew in coordination with the fire crew determine that there is no fire risk, then why commit to an emergency evacuation? Should they? shouldn't they?

Well, there's still some sense left in this thread...

Quoting Wirelock (Reply 205):
the reversers were not deployed that is a fact.

This is NOT a fact. It is YOUR interpretation of the photos.

It is important to know that brake tests are always performed without reversers (the aircraft must be able to stop on brakes alone), and that landing performance is calculated without reversers (though performance with reversers may be given for information). But I won't get any more into this, Zeke's posts say all there is to say.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 259):
The A340NG can be landed safely at the planned landing weight that this flight was at, at that airport without the use of reverse.

Thank you Zeke for all the info.

Quoting ADent (Reply 272):
The on board performance calculator used by WN on its 737s assumes thrust reversers. The pilots assumed no thrust reversers were used in the calculations and that they would give extra margin. They applied them late and went thru the fence at MDW.

The pilots assumed correctly. As I said, performance calculations do not assume reversers, so the performance calculator was at fault here, either that or a failure to instruct the pilots on this anomaly of WN's 737s.

Quoting CM767 (Reply 303):
Anyone else believes that something has to be done to better inform pilots of runway conditions? should a decision to continue to operate into an airport should be of pilots alone, or someone on the ground should have a said on it ?

There have been many overruns / accidents this year and two last year where weather could have played a huge part, while the investigation of most is not concluded, I wonder if is time to take weather more seriously and monitor the condition of runways and take the decision on the ground to suspend operations.

This is the best conclusion that can be drawn from this. I'm tired of constantly hearing about runway overruns this year. What's going on? These incidents need to be looked into seriously by the authorities, and clear recommendations, norms or procedures should come out of it.

Sorry for the long post, guys  Wink Maybe start a Part 2 thread? This is getting really long...

[Edited 2007-11-17 10:44:25]
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 7:42 pm



Quoting Ferengi80 (Reply 316):
The aircraft was at a perculiar angle, engine 3 had been pretty much ripped from the wing, ergo there was signifcant risk of a fire starting.

Not really. The overriding safety design of engine mounts and fuel systems of all sorts is fuel containment. The engine came off *because* it was designed to do so rather than tear open the fuel tank.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 320):
As I said, performance calculations do not assume reversers, so the performance calculator was at fault here, either that or a failure to instruct the pilots on this anomaly of WN's 737s.

Actual performance calculations *do* include the use of reversers, since actual landings use reversers on a normal basis. This isn't an anomaly at WN. Certified landing performance does not include reversers, but people rarely land to certified performance.

Tom.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:42 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 321):
Actual performance calculations *do* include the use of reversers, since actual landings use reversers on a normal basis. This isn't an anomaly at WN. Certified landing performance does not include reversers, but people rarely land to certified performance.

Yes, I should've mentioned the word "certification" somewhere. Maybe I didn't express myself as well as I thought. Performance specs do of course include landing distances with and without reversers as well as other factors. My point was basically that reversers are a very nice, useful and important addition, but the plane "should" be able to land without having to use them, as certification stipulates. Thrust reversers are not part of the MEL.

"Contributing to the accident, according to the board, was Southwest's failure to provide pilots with guidance and training on landing distance computations as well as its inadequate presentation of onboard performance computer information, the airline's version of an electronic flight bag (EFB)."
"Immediately after the accident the NTSB asked the FAA to prohibit airlines from using thrust reversers in landing distance computations. The FAA instead opted to mandate additional landing distance margins requiring changes to airline operations specifications."

Read it all on: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...sers-key-to-midway-crash-ntsb.html
 
IBERIA747
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:43 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 8:51 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 321):
Actual performance calculations *do* include the use of reversers, since actual landings use reversers on a normal basis. This isn't an anomaly at WN. Certified landing performance does not include reversers, but people rarely land to certified performance.

What about noise abatement procedures? Pretty common at many airports, more frequently during night operations.

Quoting Ferengi80 (Reply 316):
Quoting IBERIA747 (Reply 147):
3 Engines ripped out, wing lost, a landing gear ripped out, front gear colpassed!

Actually those are not my words. I was quoting another fellow user who said that 3 engines had been ripped out, and told him that only 2 engines were damaged, which turned out to be true.
¡¡VIVA ESPAÑA!!
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13650
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:16 pm



Quoting IBERIA747 (Reply 323):
What about noise abatement procedures?

Even if noise abatement regulations are strict, aircraft still use at least idle reverse.
Sometimes the only thing more dangerous than a question is an answer. - Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 208
 
bullpitt
Posts: 757
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 7:09 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:52 pm

Hi all

Quoting R2rho (Reply 320):
Nobody is hurt, all went well. Therefore, let's all bash Iberia !!!!
Ah, how typical for airliners.net... if this were a, say, BA plane, everyone would be praising the crew's professionalism for correctly assessing the situation and choosing the right thing to do despite the temptation to evacuate immediately.

None of us knows what went on there. We do not know what the IB pilots and the airport authorities communicated between them. We do not know what indications were given by the fire crew. We do not know what information was available to them that is not available to us and that made them take that course of action. Nobody wants to keep passengers for 30min on a crashed plane just for fun. With whatever information was available to them, they decided that it was the best thing to do. And the result speaks for itself.

Just for this I'll welcome you to my respected users list. Once the official conclusions to the accident are made, maybe we should look back and anwer all these armchair pilots. Big grin
These are my principles but if you don't like them I have others
 
Summa767
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:30 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:38 pm



Quoting Bullpitt (Reply 325):
Once the official conclusions to the accident are made, maybe we should look back and anwer all these armchair pilots.

According to Ecuador's DAC, an initial official report will be available within a month.
With all the evidence at hand, it should not be very challenging.
 
sphealey
Posts: 313
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:39 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:54 pm

> Nobody is hurt, all went well. Therefore, let's all bash Iberia !!!!

IMHO that statement is the absolute antithesis of a safety culture. Continuous analysis of lessons learned and self-criticism are the core principles of operations safety. Trying to quiet people by calling such analysis "bashing" is not productive.

Also IMHO the issue is quite pertinent for a.net. The people who read this forum are much more informed than the average airline passenger, more likely to have read the _Air Disasters_ volumes where numerous examples of deaths due to slowness to initiate evacuation can be found, and more likely to be sitting in an exit row. So a discussion here is a good thing.

sPh
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:02 pm

Sorry to join so late...... better late than never......

Quoting Bullpitt (Reply 325):
Just for this I'll welcome you to my respected users list. Once the official conclusions to the accident are made, maybe we should look back and anwer all these armchair pilots.

Thats the a.net for you....  Wink however it would have been nice to get some "actual input" from the pros here on the a.net on how they would or have to handle a situation based on their SOPs like in UIO.

No need to bash IB before we have any real info from some officials and you can not compare the AF incident/acident at YYZ with the IB at UIO, based on what I have seen the situation was under control at UIO which we can not say with the AF case (saw it myself as I was only 1/2 a km away and helped ....). no need to react like a headless chicken and injure or put pax in to a dangerous situation, I am sure the IB cabin crew would have evacuated the stricken aircraft within 90 secs. if needed..........

So lets hope we get some more info's and I do hope that "sexy" 340-600" will be given a second chance and she can spread her wings again Big grin

Cheers,
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:16 pm



Quoting R2rho (Reply 322):
My point was basically that reversers are a very nice, useful and important addition, but the plane "should" be able to land without having to use them, as certification stipulates. Thrust reversers are not part of the MEL.

Actually, they are part of the MEL. However, we mean the same thing...you can fly safety and legally with the reversers working.

There was a huge discussion about this on the thread about the A340 winglet: RE: Passengers Refuse To Fly Without A 340 Wingtip. (by FlyDeltaJets87 Nov 12 2007 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=3699102&searchid=3700660&s=A340+winglet#ID3700660

The MEL isn't the list of things you have to have, it's the list of things you're allowed to have inoperative. The fact that the T/R's are on the MEL means you're allowed to fly with them inoperative. If they weren't on the MEL, then you'd have to have them to dispatch.

Tom.
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:47 pm



Quoting Bullpitt (Reply 325):

Just for this I'll welcome you to my respected users list.

 bigthumbsup 

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 329):
The MEL isn't the list of things you have to have, it's the list of things you're allowed to have inoperative. The fact that the T/R's are on the MEL means you're allowed to fly with them inoperative. If they weren't on the MEL, then you'd have to have them to dispatch.

Again we mean the same thing  Wink. I got it the other way around. Yes, they are on the MEL, and the MEL states that you can fly with them inoperative, and what if any special procedures are to be followed in that case. There, that should get it right, I hope  Smile
 
r2rho
Posts: 3096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:13 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:58 pm



Quoting Sphealey (Reply 327):

Finish reading through my post. I was complaining about airline-specific bashing, you know what I mean. Don't misunderstand me. I am not against discussion here at all - hell, I'm contributing to it!  Wink What would airliners.net be without all the speculation? And by the way, I consider this forum to be much more reliable source of aviation information than many "serious" media out there!

Us a-netters as well as the media are all speculating like mad now, looking for a quick answer to explain the incident, but one thing differentiates us from them: in a couple of months, when the full, serious, detailed, non-speculative investigation report is released, it will go unnoticed by the media - it ain't fresh news anymore, who cares? But you can be sure to have another long thread on airliners.net!  bigthumbsup 
 
comorin
Posts: 3858
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:02 am



Quoting R2rho (Reply 320):
Therefore, let's all bash Iberia !!!!
Ah, how typical for airliners.net... if this were a, say, BA plane, everyone would be praising the crew's professionalism

Well, airliners.net is an English language site, so everyone is biased thus:

BA = Britain = Glorious = Lord Nelson = Rules the Waves = Battle of Britain = Can do no wrong.
IB = Spain = Inquisition = Spanish Armada = Civil War = Manuel in Fawlty Towers = Can do no right.

Perdoneme, all meant in good humor  Smile
 
iwok
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:35 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 4:12 am

What is the status of the plane now? Has it been moved? Anyone have pictures?

iwok
 
kaitak
Posts: 9788
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 5:46 am

Reported on PPRUNE that 'JOH is a write-off as the airframe is badly twisted.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1050
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:09 am



Quoting R2rho (Reply 320):

The pilots assumed correctly. As I said, performance calculations do not assume reversers, so the performance calculator was at fault here, either that or a failure to instruct the pilots on this anomaly of WN's 737s.

This is why the plane went thru the fence - everyone assumed no reversers. Boeing & WN reportedly got the system certified - the performance calculator was not directly at fault.

Quote:
Contributing factors to the accident included Southwest's failure to provide clear and consistent guidance and training about company policies and procedures related to landing-distance calculations.

New rules are being proposed to require a 15% margin in all calcs, to clearly display critical assumptions, to calculate performance for every landing if conditions have changed since pre-departure calcs (only 50% of flights currently do so). NTSB wanted reversers removed from calcs, but didn't see anything from reports about the FAA requiring that.
 
Icaro
Posts: 225
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:00 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:37 am



Quoting PHKLM (Reply 299):
Stupidly enough Iberia has proven their own wrong doing because in the end they DID evacuate

They did not evacuate, they left the plane via the chutes because it was the only way of doing so.

Quoting PHKLM (Reply 299):
Remember all the SAS Q800 accidents

Yeap, evacuating an A346out of the runway with 350 souls on board is exactly the same as evacuating a one meter high airplane on the runway... exactly the same risks...  Yeah sure

Quoting Latinplane (Reply 311):
Complete incompetence was demontrated by Iberia's crew with their inappropriate handling of the situation

Are you referring to the amount of injured people? If you mean that by no evacuating the did something wrong, please read some previous posts and you will see that they did exactly what they were supposed to do, they followed their procedures.


But of course it would have been much more spectacular and more fun for all of us to watch an evacuation.........
 
Summa767
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:30 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:02 am



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 334):
Reported on PPRUNE that 'JOH is a write-off as the airframe is badly twisted.

There are conflicting reports on JOH, as the in Ecuador they report that a replacement gear will be attached to the plane in situ, after lifting it on inflatables. The engines would be detached so that the main body can be transported on a moving platform to the air force base within the airport for repair.

Although I would not be surprised if the fuselage was indeed badly twisted. The damping action of the soft ground proved very effective. Just as well it is the rainy season. This was a very close escape.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 2:20 pm



Quoting Ferengi80 (Reply 316):
They should, no matter what the situation. The aircraft was at a perculiar angle, engine 3 had been pretty much ripped from the wing, ergo there was signifcant risk of a fire starting.

Based on this, the emergency slides should have been deployed immediately, and the passengers evacuated as quickly as possible. The flight crew should never delay the evacuation of the aircraft, no matter whether they don't want the hassle of deploying the slides or not.

Various airlines from different countries would disagree to that!

Quoting Icaro (Reply 336):
Are you referring to the amount of injured people? If you mean that by no evacuating the did something wrong, please read some previous posts and you will see that they did exactly what they were supposed to do, they followed their procedures.

Perhaps we need to explain why and the procedures contain...

Before evacuations, there's normally an instruction to remain seated and await further instructions from the flight crew. That PA is to allow the flight crew time to assess the situation and complete the checklist item... initiating evacuation with the airplane "relatively intact" without completing the checklist WILL cause injuries, severe injuries and even death! You want pax to be sucked in to the engines? *grin*

Determining the risks during the emergency whilst still in the alert phase (ie: prior to cancellation, precautionary disembarkation or evacuation), can and do sometime take several minutes. During this time, information about abnormal conditions in the cabin and outside the aircraft are essential to the flight crew! All relevant info should be relayed immediately to the flight deck... but only ONE communication attempt should be made. Now, the fire trucks at the airport have a better view on the aircraft's fire risk at the time to prevent comms overload, distraction, etc.

When the aircraft stops all the F/As go to their designated exit and get ready to act immediately in response to any further PAs... which could be an alert cancellation, precautionary disembarkation (steps OR slide), or Evacuate! Precautionary disembarkation may be upgraded to an Evacuation if the situation requires. In severe, time critical emergency situation (to which this occasion doesn't seem like one), the Captain may elect to initiate an evacuation as per the initial PA.

Now precautionary disembarkation after alert phase, can be made with steps or slide... depending on type of emergency, availability of steps and distance to terminal... A particular door will be nominated. The word evacuation should not be used during a precautionary disembarkation as it could negate the urgency of the word when the status of the situation deem evacuation necessary. All doors that are NOT nominated should be blocked by an F/A to prevent panicked passengers from taking their own actions. If situation is upgraded, all F/As at unopened doors shall check the outside condition to check if it is safe to open (fire, smoke, height, obstacles situation... you don't want to open a slide that'll land on someone's head either).

Note that for an evacuation, there are emergency considerations. It is the captain's responsibility to initiate evacuation. Prior to cabin crew initiating evacuation, they must attempt to advise the cockpit crew and await their direction. It is totally wrong to initiate evac without attempting comms with cockpit. BUT, if it is obvious that evac is imperative, and contact with cockpit is not possible, then the cabin crew has the responsibility to initiate evac.

So, I must disagree to those who advocates that "immediate evacuation" is always the best choice.

Quoting Sphealey (Reply 327):
Also IMHO the issue is quite pertinent for a.net. The people who read this forum are much more informed than the average airline passenger, more likely to have read the _Air Disasters_ volumes where numerous examples of deaths due to slowness to initiate evacuation can be found, and more likely to be sitting in an exit row. So a discussion here is a good thing.

There were cases of late evacs and near disasters due to late evacs, based on old procedures where cabin crew were NOT allowed to initiate evac, and since the change, based on poor communications between cabin crew and flight deck. If I remember correctly, in 2000, IATA put this concern in one of its publication stating that CRM extends to the cabin and not just in the flight deck.

Quoting R2rho (Reply 320):
This is the best conclusion that can be drawn from this. I'm tired of constantly hearing about runway overruns this year. What's going on? These incidents need to be looked into seriously by the authorities, and clear recommendations, norms or procedures should come out of it.

Overruns when wet... again and again. This "get-there-itis" needs to be readdressed!

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
wirelock
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:55 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 6:59 pm



Quoting R2rho (Reply 320):
This is NOT a fact. It is YOUR interpretation of the photos.

This is a fact , the reversers are not deployed in the photos. I have EYES!!!
also any body that is thinking the pilots decided to stow the reversers to dave the engines are living in dream land.
I can just picture the scene as the pilots are running out of runway and they decide to stow the reversers again to save the ENGINES... laughable really.
Why did the pilots not execute a touch and go instead? That is there job, to make decisions like that.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:57 pm



Quoting Wirelock (Reply 339):

Quoting R2rho (Reply 320):
This is NOT a fact. It is YOUR interpretation of the photos.

This is a fact , the reversers are not deployed in the photos. I have EYES!!!

Nobody (that I'm aware of) is disupting that the T/R's are stowed in the photos. What's up for debate is whether they were deployed during the landing roll. The fact that they're stowed after the crash does not mean they were stowed before it.

Quoting Wirelock (Reply 339):
I can just picture the scene as the pilots are running out of runway and they decide to stow the reversers again to save the ENGINES... laughable really.

Yes, laughable, because that's not how T/R's work. The pilots absolutely would have shut down the engines as one of their first actions. That means pull all the thrust levers to idle and cut the fuel. The T/Rs are deployed by the thrust levers, it's not a separate function. If you idle all the thrust levers, you stow the T/R's.

Quoting Wirelock (Reply 339):
Why did the pilots not execute a touch and go instead? That is there job, to make decisions like that.

Presumably, because they didn't realize they needed to until it was too late. We don't know what the pilots were actually thinking but, short of intentional gross negligence, you can bet that the flight crew were doing what they thought was the right thing given the information available to them at the time. Since they didn't do a touch and go, we can safely assume they thought that no doing a touch and go was the better option. In hindsight, it appears they were wrong, but that's the glory of hindsight.

Tom.
 
davescj
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 1:46 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:01 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 340):
If you idle all the thrust levers, you stow the T/R's.

Is this hydrolic or mechanical? I guess what I'm asking is if the T/Rs where engaged, the plane crashes, engines set to idol/turned off, woud it "force" the T/Rs to close?

Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 340):
n hindsight, it appears they were wrong, but that's the glory of hindsight.

Oh so true.

Dave
Can I have a mojito on this flight?
 
RIXrat
Posts: 674
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 10:20 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:25 pm

Re evacuation. In one of the videos shown early on in this thread, the fire brigade concentrated on spraying foam/water on the left hand side of the plane and it went everywhere. The video lasted for about two minutes, if I remember correctly, so releasing slides from that side of the plane could have injured passengers. Also, the two emergency exit windows shown in the video were opened, but no one was crawling out.
 
Summa767
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 1:30 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:47 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 340):
Nobody (that I'm aware of) is disupting that the T/R's are stowed in the photos. What's up for debate is whether they were deployed during the landing roll. The fact that they're stowed after the crash does not mean they were stowed before it.

Earlier in this thread there is a link to a video that actually shows the landing roll, from about 5 or 6 different cameras along the runway. In none of those does the TRs appear deployed.
For easier viewing, there are also stills from the video after that thread. Hence the confidence that Wirelock has about what he sees, as do I. And this might well be a very significant fact in this crash.
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:07 pm



Quoting Wirelock (Reply 339):
also any body that is thinking the pilots decided to stow the reversers to dave the engines are living in dream land.
I can just picture the scene as the pilots are running out of runway and they decide to stow the reversers again to save the ENGINES... laughable really.
Why did the pilots not execute a touch and go instead? That is there job, to make decisions like that.

Well, you're very sure of yourself, aren't you....laughable really. In fact, why wait for the report when Wirelock seems to have it all worked out.  sarcastic 

Shamu
Flying around India
 
wirelock
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:55 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:32 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 340):
Yes, laughable, because that's not how T/R's work. The pilots absolutely would have shut down the engines as one of their first actions. That means pull all the thrust levers to idle and cut the fuel. The T/Rs are deployed by the thrust levers, it's not a separate function. If you idle all the thrust levers, you stow the T/R's.

so how do you explain engines 1 and 2 having stowed reversers??
they are detached from the wing. .... meaning that the hydraulic lines have been severed so there is no chance to stow them.
also the easiest way to shut the engine is to use the fire handle... once activated the hyd and fuel shut off valves will stop the engine and also isolate the hyd system from fluid loss
 
andessmf
Posts: 5689
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:53 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:34 pm



Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 344):
why wait for the report when Wirelock seems to have it all worked out

BECAUSE THE VIDEO SHOWS THAT THE REVERSERS ARE NOT DEPLOYED DURING THE LANDING ROLL.

Plain and simple.

Clear as can be.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6592
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:06 pm

Wirelock,
If you've deployed reversers and overran, and the engines are still running when you come to a stop and you're still able to shut it down, YOU SHUT IT DOWN! That means, stow reversers, then shut it down. This also preserves any remaining good engines to be used later instead of exposing certain components for a prolonged period, as well as airflow disruptions to the engines which if the reversers are not stowed, can increase fire risk between the time the aircraft comes to a stop and the engine being fully dead/killed/shutdown. There have been cases where accidents/incidents showed that reversers were stowed after the aircraft had come to a stop, and even, reversers were deployed afterwards *bangs head on table*. One accident if I remember correctly, the report criticized the crew for not completing the shut down and evacuation checklist (stowing reversers on an engine still attached) because it was found out later from the FDR that the reverser levers on the throttles were put into stow after evacuation was completed! Too late then! LOL...

If the aircraft had ended up in a situation where there was no time to reconfigure the engines prior to shutdown, then we'd end up asking "why didn't they evacuate immediately."

There's a misconception that because you've left the paved surface, all hell breaks loose. It's not always like that!

Now as to why they didn't execute touch and go, well, regardless of whether they deployed reversers or not, if they had commanded reversers (which may or may not have deployed), they're committed to stop. No debate on that! Manufacturers have stated that... there are no guarantees that the reversers will not open in mid-air after the go-around despite safety features installed. Manufacturers don't want to take that legal risk!

Besides, the landing, if executed properly should yield a normal landing without the use of reversers. Looking at the stills, on the top pic, am I seeing engine #3's reversers are not totally deployed nor totally stowed?

On this set below, check the middle left frame...


Now, was there a tailwind or strong crosswind during the landing roll? I'm interested in looking at the rudder on the vertical set of photos (the top photo again). The crew could have deployed and then intended to go to idle reverse (but stowed it instead) due to controllabilty issues which could have been caused by strong cross or tailwind. If so, this won't be the first time an overrun is caused by reducing reverser to maintain controllability. METAR from the time of the accident suggests a tailwind on wet runway landing.

Why not the go around? The airport is also a high altitude airport, without hindsight, at the time, the crew may have thought they were well and truly screwed and that going around would yield a bigger disaster... it'll take longer than usual and less available thrust to go around at that airport than say at a sea level airport.

Davescj,
Not sure about the 346, but if I remember correctly, the bus uses hydraulic power for the reversers.

---
Interesting to see that slide L3 was deployed...

Mandala499
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:30 pm



Quoting Davescj (Reply 341):
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 340):
If you idle all the thrust levers, you stow the T/R's.

Is this hydrolic or mechanical? I guess what I'm asking is if the T/Rs where engaged, the plane crashes, engines set to idol/turned off, woud it "force" the T/Rs to close?

It's typically hydraulic, although some aircraft use pneumatic. I'm not aware of any using pure mechanical, although I'm not sure how much difference that would make. If the flight crew puts all the thrust levers to idle, then the reversers are forced closed by the actuators.

Quoting Wirelock (Reply 345):
so how do you explain engines 1 and 2 having stowed reversers??
they are detached from the wing. .... meaning that the hydraulic lines have been severed so there is no chance to stow them.

The fact that the engines are partially detached (they clearly didn't break all their mounts) does not necessarily mean the hydraulic lines are severed. There is always some slack in the fluid lines and electric lines precisely because you don't want them to carry loads. Displacements of the engines at the strut after the crash, where the connections are made, appear to be on the order of inches. It's certainly possible that the hoses were severed, but by no means assured.

Quoting Wirelock (Reply 345):
also the easiest way to shut the engine is to use the fire handle... once activated the hyd and fuel shut off valves will stop the engine and also isolate the hyd system from fluid loss

That is the easiest but it's not SOP. You don't pull the fire handle just to shut down, you pull it because you think there's a fire. If you don't think there's a fire, then you don't pull the fire handle. The flight crew really obviously thought there wasn't a fire (witness the slow evacuation) so I don't see why the crew would have pulled the fire handles. That would all depend on IB's emergency procedures, I'm sure.

I didn't realize until the last few posts that the videos posted were of the actual crash event...there are some other videos and photos running around of the crash aircraft on earlier landings. If the current video shows the plane on the runway with reversers stowed, then that's obviously pretty conclusive. What I was trying to caution against is extrapolating from the post-crash configuration to the pre-crash configuration.

Tom.
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:32 pm



Quoting AndesSMF (Reply 346):
BECAUSE THE VIDEO SHOWS THAT THE REVERSERS ARE NOT DEPLOYED DURING THE LANDING ROLL.

Regardless of your (rather rude) shouting, Wirelock was suggesting it impossible that the crew would consider returning the throttles to idle in that situation, whereas some on here, me included, have offerred plausible arguments and a case that in certain circumstances, they might well have - misleading IAS, aquaplaning etc., plus an over-run with four saved engines is better than one with four engines written off by FOD. I think you fail to appreciate the full set of circumstances and issues which faced the crew that evening.

All that is completely irrespective of the video shots, and is why you missed the point being made.

 sarcastic  And when you shout, it doesn't make an argument any more believable.  sarcastic 

Shamu
Flying around India
 
BlueShamu330s
Posts: 2584
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 3:11 am

RE: IB A340-600 Skids Off The RWY At Quito/UIO

Sun Nov 18, 2007 11:40 pm



Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 348):
What I was trying to caution against is extrapolating from the post-crash configuration to the pre-crash configuration.

Tom

Excellent post; educated and informative.  conehead 

Thank you

Shamu
Flying around India
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos