Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ccs757
Topic Author
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:32 am

QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:09 pm

Surprised nobody has mentioned this here yet...

From the Aviation Herald: "A Qatar Airlines Boeing 777-300, registration A7-BAC performing flight QR-778 from Miami,FL (USA) to Doha (Qatar), departed Miami's runway 09 but struck the approach lights runway 27 during departure. Both tower, departure controllers as well as crew maintained routine communication. The aircraft continued to destination for a landing without further incident about 13.5 hours later.

On Sep 17th 2015 the FAA reported the aircraft struck approach lights on departure from Miami and continued to destination. The aircraft received substantial damage to its belly, the occurrence was rated an accident.


Link: http://avherald.com/h?article=48c78b3a&opt=0

I went on and took a couple pictures of how the approach lights ended up... This could have easily ended up in catastrophy.

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/754/21492621105_dba130ab8a_o.jpg
 
User avatar
Miami
Posts: 6174
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:37 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:18 pm

Very interesting, thanks more sharing, mate.

Shocking how its a 13,000 foot runway and it still managed to clip the lights. Obviously a late rotation.. Not even the A380 rotates near the end of the runway.

Thankfully it didn't depart on any other runway (the rest are shorter) or even on 27 because of the Palmetto Expressway.

Glad the flight to DOH landed safely.

And looks like A7-BAC has been on the ground ever since.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:33 pm

Takeoff was on RWY09 from intersection T1 (not full length). That leaves a TODA (Takeoff Distance Available) of ~2600m/8500ft, no way that is sufficient for a -300ER near/at MTOW.

QR has Boeing Class 3 EFBs (electronic flight bags) fitted in all of their 777s, used for takeoff/landing performance, charts etc.

Question is was full length 09 not available? Did they base their numbers off full length and then end up departing from T1??? (Full length 09 is no problem for the -300ER at MTOW).

I doubt they accidentally took off from the wrong intersection (ATC would notice) but most likely they had incorrect performance numbers.

The Boeing OPT tool (used for takeoff/landing perf calcs.) within the EFB, allows crews to enter the intersection and thus knows the distances available from that point for takeoff performance calculations.

However, if they accidentally forgot to enter the intersection T1 during their calculations (big Nono because each crew member is to do a separate calculation and then cross-check, they each have their own EFB)

In any case, near/at MTOW there is no way the OPT would output takeoff data for a RWY09 T1 intersection departure. Instead it would show the maximum takeoff weight from that intersection and the crew would have to re-calculate using that weight to receive the relevant speeds etc.

A very respected user here MMO is a QR777 captain/TRE. Maybe he will be able to give us some insight.

This could easily have ended a lot worse. I am curious to know if the crew fire walled the thrust levers when they saw the end of the runway approaching.
You live and you die, by the FMA
 
jc2354
Posts: 609
Joined: Sat May 01, 2004 9:56 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:45 pm

I feel uncomfortable that the flight didn't return for a visual inspection, especially before beginning a long over water segment.
If not now, then when?
 
kaitak
Posts: 9913
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:46 pm

This sounds like a screw up of major proportions. We all know that incorrect performance figures can be used from time to time; it happens and it's bad. BUT this is more than that ... they elected to continue and fly c.13h in an aircraft which they must have SUSPECTED, if not actually, known was damaged. To me, this is grossly irresponsible and given the continuing battle over ME carriers in the US, really not a good idea. How long before this is used as a weapon, or as a reason to justify restrictions against the carrier?

As stated above, this could have been a lot worse - but it could have ended a lot better, had the crew taken the responsible action, swallowed their pride and returned to the airport.
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 2540
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:49 pm

And the pilots had no indications of loss of pressurization or abnormal indications in the lower compartments post-strike?
 
GARUDAROD
Posts: 1153
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2000 4:39 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:49 pm

Any photos of the damage to the aircraft?
Cargo doesn't whine, moan, or complain
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10730
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:54 pm

The decision to continue is a red flag from a safety perspective for me. Not cool.

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 2):
I doubt they accidentally took off from the wrong intersection (ATC would notice) but most likely they had incorrect performance numbers.

You would think so, but it happens. First to mind is the BA 772 in the Caribbean - I forget exactly which airport, but it took off with barely half the full available runway.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
FARmd90
Posts: 369
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:49 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:56 pm

I was also surprised to see that the aircraft continued to DOH. But is it possible that the pilots used the onboard cameras to inspect the aircraft to determine there wasn't any major damage? Even if they didn't that still isn't an excuse to continue the flight, and they should have turned around. But I wasn't there, I was operating the flight.
 
Ammad
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:10 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:03 pm

Sounds like Some body will be loosing his job.
 
rta
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 2:01 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:10 pm

Quoting jc2354 (Reply 3):
I feel uncomfortable that the flight didn't return for a visual inspection, especially before beginning a long over water segment.

  
Seriously. Why did they decide to continue?
 
VFRonTop
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:02 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:24 pm

Hull contact with a ground object? Definitely should have landed for an inspection especially considering the sector length.

Quoting FARmd90 (Reply 8):
But is it possible that the pilots used the onboard cameras to inspect the aircraft to determine there wasn't any major damage?

I'm open to being corrected but I don't believe the cameras would give the required angle or perceptive to make a call either way. Even if they did, what might look like small cosmetic damage could be hiding something far more dangerous.
 
User avatar
BobMUC
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 9:59 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:26 pm

Reminds me a little bit at the Emirates A345 accident in Melbourne 2009:
http://avherald.com/h?article=416c9997/0011&opt=0

Wrong data input into the LPC and wrong or missing cross check resulted in a tail strike and overrun on takeoff.
 
777X
Posts: 854
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 12:44 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:27 pm

I don't understand why planes don't just always start at the beginning of the runway? Is it solely to save time?
 
B777LRF
Posts: 2703
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:23 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:34 pm

Quoting FARmd90 (Reply 8):
But is it possible that the pilots used the onboard cameras to inspect the aircraft to determine there wasn't any major damage?

No, there is no camera covering the lower-lobe tail structure.

It stands to reason the crew thought they had cleared the runway (and obstacles), and had enough certainty in their mind they did not hit anything, they felt safe to continue on to Doha. Keep in mind this is a 13 hour trip, which mean 3 or 4 pilots in the cockpit. Suggesting they might be suspicious of having hit something, but continuing on regardless, is to suggest 3 or 4 people decided to knowingly gamble their lives, and the lives of everyone else onboard.

Don't know about you, but I don't think so.

What I do think is, that if they crew had any indication or inkling they'd hit something, they'd be headed out to sea for a spot of fuel dumping, before returning to MIA for inspections.

I will not speculate on the cause of this incident, and my operational knowledge of the aircraft is not such that I can pass judgement on whether or not an intersection departure is possible and legal. However, a de-rated TO based on a 13K runway could result in an overrun risk if performed from an 8.5K intersection.
Signature. You just read one.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1961
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:51 pm

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 2):
Takeoff was on RWY09 from intersection T1 (not full length). That leaves a TODA (Takeoff Distance Available) of ~2600m/8500ft, no way that is sufficient for a -300ER near/at MTOW.
http://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/1510/00257ad.pdf

If pilot did in fact depart from T1, I'm surprised the controllers didn't question it....either on ground control when the intersection was assigned or when the tower cleared the flight for T/O and restated the intersection name in the take-off clearance. As a controller, you kinda know what runway length the super-long haul, heavy aircraft will either need or routinely request..

Unless RWY 9 was closed west of T1, it appears that departing from T1 instead of the full length is just a means of expediting traffic with a shorter taxi. The ATIS usually advertises if the departures are using T1 as well.

[Edited 2015-09-17 12:18:19]
 
migair54
Posts: 2441
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 6:56 pm

Quoting 777X (Reply 13):
I don't understand why planes don't just always start at the beginning of the runway? Is it solely to save time?

I also don´t understand why with such a big and heavy aircraft they accepted to take off from that intersection with "only" 2600m of runway.


I think they crew continue because they did not suspect anything, but maybe the ATC could have seen something and send someone to inspect, after discovering the contact with the ground equipment notify the crew and they must return for inspection.

Luckily in this case they went airborne but in case they had to reject the take off at high speed they would have overrun the runway for sure.

Quoting Ammad (Reply 9):
Sounds like Some body will be loosing his job.

How many pilots on board this flight?? 3-4??
 
User avatar
Miami
Posts: 6174
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:37 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:05 pm

QR778 didn't even use the whole runway. First time I've ever seen that at MIA for runway 9.

FlightRadar24 data:
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
 
Sooner787
Posts: 2703
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:44 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:21 pm

Imagine the looks on the faces of the MX folks when that plane landed in DOH?  
 
N1120A
Posts: 26574
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:22 pm

Quoting 777X (Reply 13):

I don't understand why planes don't just always start at the beginning of the runway? Is it solely to save time?

There are lots of reasons. Runway construction, spacing, timing, etc. ORD sees 32L departures at the T10 intersection nearly daily, with full length only used for certain operations. If a plane doesn't need the whole runway, why not?

The issue here is that this plane needed a longer runway and didn't use it. I'm fairly shocked QR would have accepted this.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1980
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:45 pm

Something doesn't sound right here. Even with no loss of pressurization or other event indicating a serious issue, I can't imagine a flight crew continuing a flight - particularly over a huge body of water - knowing they had struck an object. I'll be interested to read how the investigation turns out.

And on that issue, who conducts the investigation? Can the USA agency force the QR pilots to return to the US for interviews? Can the USA agency demand - and receive - QR's flight data and cockpit recording?
 
migair54
Posts: 2441
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:59 pm

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 20):
And on that issue, who conducts the investigation? Can the USA agency force the QR pilots to return to the US for interviews? Can the USA agency demand - and receive - QR's flight data and cockpit recording?

it has been rated as accident, so i´m sure they can request data and recordings, and maybe they will interview the pilots, controllers and everybody else, but maybe in Doha.
 
denklug
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 6:04 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:19 pm

One Q pls: Intersection take off from T1 would have been easily possible with take off power set to TOGA even at MTOW for a 77W?
Can someone confirm?
Tks denklug
denklug
 
peterjohns
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:49 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:26 pm

Interesting stuff!!
I ask myself- did or could the pilots even have known to have struck a light mast? By the looks of the mast it was barely
scraped (as only one part is missing - if it was hit harder it would have broken off at the bottom- as it is designed to do).
Most probably the wheels, or the back of the 777 would have grazed it- so probably it was not to be detected by the sound.

I remember an incident here in FRA where a 747 hit a VW bus on the runway with the nose gear - and never knew it until informed by ATC. The car was flattened (driver OK).

What time of day was it? If it was dark that makes it extra difficult to know where you are when taxiing.
 
AT
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:44 pm

Are there any pictures of the aircraft post-arrival in Doha?
I'd be curious to see the extent of damage.

Also, is it at all possible that the pilots would have not realized that the aircraft had hit something, especially since given the angle it would most likely be the rear of the aircraft that hit?
 
MKIAZ
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 5:24 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:47 pm

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 23):
One Q pls: Intersection take off from T1 would have been easily possible with take off power set to TOGA even at MTOW for a 77W?

Yes, it would have been easily possible if both engines were working.

It wouldn't have been allowable though, due to engine-out scenarios.

My random guess here is that they configured everything as if they were taking off from the full runway, everything worked normally (with a twin you usually rotate much sooner than the end of the runway) and they just barely clipped the lights. Had there been an engine-out scenario or had they been in a quad they would have overrun.
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3569
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:53 pm

Quoting 777X (Reply 13):
I don't understand why planes don't just always start at the beginning of the runway? Is it solely to save time?

Takeoff is more or less an exact science. Pilots know within just a few feet how much runway they need to take off, and also how much safety margin is required. It's basic piloting to know how to calculate this stuff.

So there's no reason to have to always start at the beginning of the runway. A plane can takeoff from anywhere that has the required length in front of it.

Obviously in this case somebody just made a mistake and nobody caught it.

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 23):
I ask myself- did or could the pilots even have known to have struck a light mast? By the looks of the mast it was barely
scraped (as only one part is missing - if it was hit harder it would have broken off at the bottom- as it is designed to do).

I'm not sure what I'm really looking at in that photo, but it looks like they seriously damaged several poles. I believe that configuration would normally look like this: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...malsr/media/malsr_installation.jpg

In fact you can see that on Google Maps: http://www.google.com/maps/place/Mia...1!1s0x0:0x989fdae0cba2f8e1!6m1!1e1

I don't see how they wouldn't hear/feel that in the airplane.

[Edited 2015-09-17 13:57:00]
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
User avatar
eisenbach
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 12:57 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:57 pm

I think the pilots indeed noticed that they where short of runway on take-off run (for sure) ... but I am quiet sure that they didn't think they hit something. The 773 is a looong plane. It even seems that the passengers in the back or the FA at the last doors didn't notice anything either. So the (I guess) 4 pilots on board decided to go to their final destination.

= = = =

About pressurization: Even if the struck the approach lights very hard and would have had a hole in the plane skin it would probably have been way back behind the pressurized cabin - I don't know how you call the rear end structure in english   - but this parts of the plane are not pressurized as far as I know.

If they would have seen a loss in pressure they would have for sure diverted or returned!

= = = =

It would be as well interesting if there where NOTAMs active or parts of the runway closed as this might have confused the crew? Maybe someone could help with that?
DC-6, DC9, Do228, Saab340, Twin-Otter, C212, Fokker50, AN24, MD90, MD83, EMB120, A380, A300, A343, A346, B721, B742, B744, B748...
 
TC957
Posts: 3816
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:22 pm

I would imagine QR would be pretty ruthless in their dealings with this crew, even if it turns out to be just a minor point of impact. Guess they'll have to write up their report then get kicked out.
 
peterjohns
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:49 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:23 pm

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 26):

Well as you say- more or less...
Actualy the flight crew does hardly ever know even what the a/c weighs. Especially large a/c like the 777 can differ by tons of the load sheet. The reason is that each pax is considered 150lbs - with hand luggage.
Now reckon yourself how much more 300+ plus people weigh more than that...


I strongly believe the crew were NOT aware of having hit something. QR pilots are hired with a lot of experience, and I do not believe they would do something like that intentionally - all three of them!

I also suspect that they were not aware of the intersection they took. I guess ( my guess only) that they thought they were somewhere else when entering Rwy. Happens a lot especially at night- when you can not judge distances well with all the lights on txwy and rwy.
They were very lucky not to have overshot...
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3569
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:23 pm

Quoting eisenbach (Reply 27):
The 773 is a looong plane. It even seems that the passengers in the back or the FA at the last doors didn't notice anything either.

I guess it's true that they probably hit with the tailplane - I was picturing them hitting somewhere on the forward fuselage as they lifted off. It's strange that the damage is listed as "substantial damage to its belly" in that case, though.

I still would have to think some passengers or f/a's in the back must have heard something, but probably didn't think any more of it if the pilots didn't mention anything and the plane was flying normally. Would an f/a in the back normally call the cockpit to tell them if they heard a sound like this?
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
csavel
Posts: 1405
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 9:38 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:28 pm

Quoting ccs757 (Thread starter):
Both tower, departure controllers as well as crew maintained routine communication
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 20):
Something doesn't sound right here. Even with no loss of pressurization or other event indicating a serious issue, I can't imagine a flight crew continuing a flight - particularly over a huge body of water - knowing they had struck an object. I'll be interested to read how the investigation turns out.

I don't think anyone knew at first but I think the AVHerald post is confusing. What is meant by "routine communication?" Did they maintain routine communications that happens every day a zillion times with airliners and control, or did they maintain routine communications as in, "Dude, you hit something...," but all the communications methods worked and tower, departure, and plane didn't have to do something unsual to communicate with each other.

Routine could mean routine in content or using the typical communications methods you would use.

Unless there is a specific agreed upon aviation definition of "routine communications."

Also I suspect that routine communications wouldn't be reported if there was no communications about actually hitting something upon departure.
I may be ugly. I may be an American. But don't call me an ugly American.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4258
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:48 pm

Quoting 777X (Reply 13):
I don't understand why planes don't just always start at the beginning of the runway? Is it solely to save time?

Some carriers prohibit their pilots from accepting intersection takeoffs. Generally speaking, there's nothing wrong with it provided it allows sufficient remaining runway, but it opens the possibility for mistakes like this to happen. Most airlines who do allow them have procedures in place to prevent mistakes, but breakdowns in procedure happen all the time.
 
cschleic
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:18 pm

Maybe there was someone spotting from up in the Hilton who got a photo or video of it rotating. Would be interesting to see.
 
kaitak
Posts: 9913
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:18 pm

Quoting atcsundevil (Reply 32):
Some carriers prohibit their pilots from accepting intersection takeoffs. Generally speaking, there's nothing wrong with it provided it allows sufficient remaining runway, but it opens the possibility for mistakes like this to happen. Most airlines who do allow them have procedures in place to prevent mistakes, but breakdowns in procedure happen all the time.

Why, given that the flight was very long, would they have wanted anything less than the full length available?
 
peterjohns
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:49 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:45 pm

Quoting kaitak (Reply 34):

Well see , that will be quite easy to find out. All ATC transmissions are on tape and have to be kept for a few months- exactly for the reason if someone has to ivestigate something and wants to listen to the R/T.
So the investigators will have acces to what was spoken between the TWR and the a/c.
If the intersection T/O was intended or not will be proven quickly.
 
TKA380
Posts: 164
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 10:05 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:00 pm

It does look like the gear may have hit the light, maybe it wasn't possible to hear anything. If they knew, I think they would've made a landing in the States before crossing the Atlantic - very risky. Doesn't sound good at all. If I am wrong, the pilots are mad.

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 23):
What time of day was it? If it was dark that makes it extra difficult to know where you are when taxiing.

It was night time. It departed MIA at 00:33.
 
atct
Posts: 2472
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 6:42 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:09 pm

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 15):
As a controller, you kinda know what runway length the super-long haul, heavy aircraft will either need or routinely request..

It is not my job to know what the aircraft needs for departure. If I assign it and they take it, it's on the crew. I have seen heavies going to europe, dubai, etc. use 6,000ft of runway and all 12,000ft. I don't do their calculations for them, I just issue the runway.

atct
Trikes are for kids!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26574
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:09 pm

The ATC transmissions, which are available on Live ATC, don't indicate any issue.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:10 pm

Quoting csavel (Reply 31):
Routine could mean routine in content or using the typical communications methods you would use.

I kind of think this is the case, that nobody knew they hit anything and everything was routine until they landed at Doha and found out there was damage. Kind of scary.

But the question remains: why did this plane launch from T1 and not the end of the runway?
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
User avatar
Miami
Posts: 6174
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:37 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:26 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):

Here is the link: http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kmia/KMIA-Twr-Sep-16-2015-0030Z.mp3

[Edited 2015-09-17 16:27:08]
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
 
bohica
Posts: 2440
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Thu Sep 17, 2015 11:32 pm

Considering the departure time is at ~2000 EDT and is after sunset, I'm wondering if the incident was noticed right away or not. It might be possible the crew was not aware they hit anything and the damage to the approach lights was not noticed until later. Once the damage was discovered, then they would have to figure out which was the offending aircraft and by that time it's possible the QR flight might have been somewhere over Europe.

Just a thought.

Quoting ccs757 (Thread starter):
Surprised nobody has mentioned this here yet...

I live in the MIA area and there has been nothing on the news about this. The first I heard about it was the same picture in the OP was on my facebook page.


Edit: Based on reply 36 it departed at 0033 EDT. 2000 is the scheduled time.

[Edited 2015-09-17 16:37:12]
 
cschleic
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:01 am

Some questions from the ATC recording:
* Unfortunately, it begins at the tower telling them to line up and wait at T1, rather than earlier when the plane would have contacted the tower. Would QR have asked for T-1 from Ground or the Tower, or both?
* Looking at the MIA map, interesting that T-1 isn't at the end of the runway, but an intersection. Looking at some other airports, they have a mix of designations, but several have number "1" or "2" at the end of runway, not an intersection down the runway. Possible confusion there?
 
747-600X
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:43 am

Several people have asked about pressurization and hull damage. There's no way they'd have had the gear up by that point; I'm guessing the gear made contact, not the fuselage. Even if the fuselage did make contact, those lights are designed to be "frangible" - to break very easily in case of just such an event (or, more precisely, a short landing). I doubt the pilots had any awareness at all that they'd hit the lights until quite a while later.

My guess is that someone might have thought something was odd or off, but if you've ever been in a control tower at a busy airport, your view of those tiny little orange sticks is pretty much nonexistent (due to the resolving power of the human eye, not line-of-sight issues). You wouldn't notice unless you were looking through binoculars at that exact spot.

Some time after departure - long after the plane was handed off to departure control or even Miami Center - someone would have figured it out. But not before then. By that point the pilots would have already had plenty of time to conclude that the flight was normal, even if mistakenly so.
 
747-600X
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Fri Sep 18, 2015 12:46 am

To echo the opinions of the controllers on here, it is ABSOLUTELY ***NOT*** the controller's job to know whether an aircraft can take off from an intersection or not.

KORD almost always uses 28R at DD, and due to construction, they've shortened it to 28R at MM. One after another, they send planes down there and launch them. 28R is a 13,000' runway, but they almost never use it. The pilot MUST request full length if they need it. Otherwise, they're going to get assigned 28R at DD or 32L at T10 and so on and so forth. The controller ensures separation, not performance.
 
AT
Posts: 905
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 12:16 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:21 am

I've looked everywhere but don't see any images of the aircraft. I assumed it must have landed in DOH by now..
Anyone have any links?
 
spacecadet
Posts: 3569
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 3:36 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Fri Sep 18, 2015 4:54 am

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 29):
ctualy the flight crew does hardly ever know even what the a/c weighs. Especially large a/c like the 777 can differ by tons of the load sheet. The reason is that each pax is considered 150lbs - with hand luggage.
Now reckon yourself how much more 300+ plus people weigh more than that...

They have to know within a certain margin for error that doesn't significantly affect takeoff performance. (In other words, it wouldn't make a difference in their calculations.) This is actually the result of a few significant accidents in which weights were calculated incorrectly, based on an inaccurate formula. That formula has since been updated and in the takeoff accidents that have happened since, I've never seen a case where speeds, rotation and/or takeoff happened at a significantly different point than predicted. (In fact, even before the formula was updated, I only saw that happen in the few cases that directly led to the updated formula. Generally the old formula worked, even though the passenger weight average wasn't particularly accurate.)

This incident has to be the result of a simple mistake of some kind, not the end of the runway sneaking up on the pilots. That should never happen if the pilots are calculating the airplane's TOW correctly.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
 
747-600X
Posts: 2554
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:47 am

I'm amused by pax only being assumed at 150 lbs. Everything I've heard if in the US uses 190 or 195!
 
benjjk
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 4:29 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Fri Sep 18, 2015 6:37 am

Here's a recent incident with a Qantas 737 suffering a tailstrike on takeoff and then proceeding on the flight:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-162.aspx

Cabin crew reported hearing a noise on rotation, flight crew proceeded anyway.

Admittedly, hitting a light is more worrying than a tailstrike, but still: continuing despite knowing that you've likely hit something is not peculiar to this crew or QR (and if I'm not mistaken we don't know for sure that the QR crew knew what had happened). Depending on the circumstances, why not continue?
 
chiki
Posts: 367
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:32 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Fri Sep 18, 2015 6:39 am

just a thought, can they not develop weigh bridges or put sensors on the tyres (tires) which measure the weight of an aircraft. I am not am engineer but i think its doable. its a critical component for every aircraft but its odd we are still using estimates in this day where people are getting larger and more carry on luggage.

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