jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Fri Sep 18, 2015 11:56 pm

Flap setting would be illuminating as well. I'd suspect flaps 15, but it could've conceivably been flaps 5 with 13,000 to work with.

Regarding why they kept going... they knew they messed up. They knew their jobs were toast. They probably couldn't tell they actually hit anything, but knew it was a strong possibility. I think they tried to see the glass very half full and hoping they avoided damage was the only way they werent DOA.

[Edited 2015-09-18 16:59:04]
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
awthompson
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:59 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:04 am

This QR MIA accident, along with the BA LAS engine failure/fire a couple of weeks ago just reminds me that we are not entirely out of the age of catastrophic airline accidents with big loss of life in the west.
I'm afraid that we are going to see another big such accident in the west. We will never know; it is remote, but still conceivably possible that the BA 772 might not have made it had it gotten airborne, and this QR B772 could have had an explosive depressurization over the Atlantic. Good fortune was involved in both accidents. Sorry for the pessimism.
 
nikeherc
Posts: 668
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2012 8:40 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:08 am

Quoting peterjohns (Reply 75):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 70):

In the seventies into the eighties it was 75Kg per Pax. 150lbs.
It was however raised to 82,4Kg 165lbs.


Actually 75 Kg = 165 lb
And
82 Kg = 181.6 lb

That of course is U.S. pounds
DC6 to 777 and most things in between
 
User avatar
Miami
Posts: 6083
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:37 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:20 am

Quoting dfwjim1 (Reply 95):

At such a late departure, highly doubt anyone was there to witness it.

Quoting awthompson (Reply 101):
QR B772 could have had an explosive depressurization over the Atlantic.

It was a 77W which would've been more catastrophic.
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
 
cschleic
Posts: 1741
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:00 am

While we may never see a photo of the plane, or at least it could be a long time, at some point in the near future, someone will interview a passenger from the flight and ask them if they heard or felt anything. Seems like it would happen sooner than later.
 
MKIAZ
Posts: 250
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 5:24 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:38 am

Quoting longhauler (Reply 99):
77W also has great performance. Purely anecdotal , but ive flown a 77W ORD-NRT that used 6,000 ft. Light load, but still.

You don't need to do anything further but spot at LAX or look at all the LAX photos and see that 77Ws take off to all corners of the globe routinely using 8,000 feet of runway all day long.

Just because they routinely use 8,000 feet of runway for ULH flights, does not mean they can takeoff on an 8000ft runway. They need more runway incase they need to decelerate from V1.

Ultimately we don't know if this flight could have legally taken off with 8500 feet available, it depends if it was at MTOW or not. If it was at MTOW 8500 feet sounds a bit too short, but a 77W driver should know.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12757
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 3:20 am

Quoting MKIAZ (Reply 105):
Ultimately we don't know if this flight could have legally taken off with 8500 feet available, it depends if it was at MTOW or not. If it was at MTOW 8500 feet sounds a bit too short, but a 77W driver should know.

It would be interesting to know. I've seen a scheduled transpac (LAX-NRT) take off from LAX's 24R, which is about that length.

But that was a different model and a shorter flight. Any 777 jockeys able to chime in?
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
kaitak
Posts: 9756
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 5:49 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:47 am

Interestingly, we haven't yet been told how many pax/crew were on board (unless I've missed it!).

I still find it very surprising that four trained crewmembers, presumably two of them captains and all four in the cockpit, would not have queried whether it was ok to deny themselves an extra 3-4,000' of runway when departing on a 13h flight. If their calculations seemed to permit this, would that not have raised a "light bulb" moment in one of their minds, saying "hang on, this can't be right".

The CVR tape recording/readout will be very interesting to read.

It has been rated an accident, so they will do a full report, which will include the CVR.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 9537
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:18 am

I have been reliably informed that on longhaul flights QR operate with 3 flight crew, 2 captains and a first officer
Forum Moderator
 
76er
Posts: 660
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:04 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:22 am

AFAIK, most modern CVR's record only the last 2 hours of flight. So unless the flight crew disabled it after the incident the CVR is going to be useless. Maybe the 77W is different.

Wasn't the flight delayed by a few hours? Perhaps one of the crew suggested T1 to make up at least a few minutes of lost time. And then forgetting to recalculate the performance limited takeoff weight. Or perhaps they somehow thought T1 actually was at the beginning of the runway. I mean, taxiway T ends at T1. By the way, I know that part of MIA rather well, I park at the Western U often. If you haven't been there before, it may be a bit confusing.
 
User avatar
qf789
Moderator
Posts: 9537
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:42 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:47 am

Quoting 76er (Reply 109):
Wasn't the flight delayed by a few hours?

No its was scheduled to depart at 2001, it departed at 2033. I noticed some news reports listed it as taking off at 1630 which is not right as the flight landed in MIA at 1652.
Forum Moderator
 
mmo
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:06 am

Quoting qf789 (Reply 108):

I have been reliably informed that on longhaul flights QR operate with 3 flight crew, 2 captains and a first officer

Sorry, but you have been UNRELIABLY informed.


I do have to laugh at all of the "arm chair Captains" on here. Everyone is an expert when it comes to flight operations and actual flying a 777. I didn't know there were so many type rated pilots on here!!!

There are so many possible causes to this situation only a very detailed investigation will provide answers. But, I just want to set the record straight on a few things.

1) If the OPC, in the case of this flight QR does have a Class III EFB, says you can depart from an intersection. It is LEGAL!! I have over 18,000 hours of widebody time (DC-10, 747/744, 777, 787) and I have made intersection takeoffs and it's not a big deal. However, given the choice, I would prefer a full length departure and use less thrust in order to preserve engine life. But, at the end of the day there is nothing "unsafe" about using a shorter length for departure. If the numbers show you are legal then you are legal.

2) For all the "experts" on here who say a crew could never get confused or take the wrong taxiway at KMIA, how do you know? You were not on the flight deck, you don't know how tired the crew is, you don't know what other distractions were ongoing that could have diverted their attention. Mistakes are made all the time. I don't know how much of a layover the QR crew had, but when I worked for QR, some of the layovers were barely legal. I challenge anyone to tell me you are performing at 100% efficiency in that kind of situation.

3) Again, for all the experts on here, the CVR will be worthless. Legally, it only records the last 30 minutes of conversation in the cockpit. In reality, there could be more time on it, but the legal requirement is only 30 minutes. So to all the "experts" on here who keep saying they can't wait to see the transcript....don't hold your breath.

4) Finally, we will see photos but, it won't be soon. Photos were taken to provide to Boeing so they could see how bad the damage was and to formulate a repair plan. The QCAA will get involved, but it will be greatly influenced by company management. Sadly, that's how things work. I would not condemn an entire airline for getting a dinner roll that was still "frozen" on the inside. That might be a little too much.

Anyhow, let's wait until we have more information until we are refusing the fly QR, demanding the Captain get days off with no pay (he will most likely get fired) or calling for the revocation of the 777 type rating.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
migair54
Posts: 2429
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:24 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 6:49 am

Quoting awthompson (Reply 101):

This QR MIA accident, along with the BA LAS engine failure/fire a couple of weeks ago just reminds me that we are not entirely out of the age of catastrophic airline accidents with big loss of life in the west.
I'm afraid that we are going to see another big such accident in the west. We will never know; it is remote, but still conceivably possible that the BA 772 might not have made it had it gotten airborne, and this QR B772 could have had an explosive depressurization over the Atlantic. Good fortune was involved in both accidents. Sorry for the pessimism.

Wow, what a nice post, you should work for "The sun" or z"news of the world".

Quoting mmo (Reply 111):

As mmo has said above its not ilegal to do if done properly, however some mistake was made for sure, I'll give my opinion only, I think they did not insert the data properly in the EFB for that departure and they had less power, maybe for full runway, otherwise if the data is correctly insert in the EFB the new V1, V1, V2, and power setting should be perfectly safe for the actual conditions.

Runway behind and fuel in the truck is a waste.

Quoting qf789 (Reply 108):
I have been reliably informed that on longhaul flights QR operate with 3 flight crew, 2 captains and a first officer

Maybe this one is 3 pilots but others are 2 pilots and others are 4, depend on the duty time, flight time, layover time. I think in this case with 13,5 hours flight and 16 hours of duty they should be 4, but I cant confirm.

Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
2) For all the "experts" on here who say a crew could never get confused or take the wrong taxiway at KMIA, how do you know? You were not on the flight deck, you don't know how tired the crew is, you don't know what other distractions were ongoing that could have diverted their attention. Mistakes are made all the time. I don't know how much of a layover the QR crew had, but when I worked for QR, some of the layovers were barely legal. I challenge anyone to tell me you are performing at 100% efficiency in that kind of situation.

One of the biggest danger in today's aviation, fatigue, when I read all the post on different sites about working conditions in some airlines I can see that they're at the limit most of the times. And I hope nothing happens but some regulations should be revise before.

We will see the pics because the FAA opened and investigation and sooner or late or will be public.
 
namezero111111
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:05 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 7:18 am

Quoting tp1040 (Reply 67):
Sure, pilots take off on shorten runways, but I disagree with the practice. It leads to mistakes like this. Spacial orientation being one problem.

I think LAHSO should leave the books first.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12757
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 7:32 am

Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
I do have to laugh at all of the "arm chair Captains" on here.
Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
Everyone is an expert when it comes to flight operations and actual flying a 777. I didn't know there were so many type rated pilots on here!!!
Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
2) For all the "experts" on here
Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
3) Again, for all the experts on here
Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
So to all the "experts" on here who keep saying they can't wait to see the transcript

Ya know, maybe instead of condescendingly blabbing at people who are just trying to have a conversation, you could try a more constructive activity: like staying current.




Doing so might prevent you from making mistakes like.......
Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
but the legal requirement is only 30 minutes.

......because you'd realize it's now 2hrs, and has been for more than a half decade in much of the world, on newer aircraft.

[Edited 2015-09-19 00:35:54]
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
peterjohns
Posts: 176
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 11:49 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 8:52 am

I suppose so- lbs, US lbs, Kg, tonnes, tons - miles, statute miles, nautical miles, Km, feet, yard and inches

How many mistakes and crashes has that alone caused...

I would like to see it all metric standard and a EUR is one and a half Dollars. Easy!?  
 
D L X
Posts: 12606
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 12:33 pm

Realistically speaking, how much does a damaged belly increase the risk of explosive decompression in comparison to a damaged pressure bulkhead?
 
crownvic
Posts: 2528
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:14 pm

3rd REQUEST....everyone is an expert but no one can answer this legitimate question..Ill keep posting it until the armchair experts can at least give me some idea...

Just curious, with no witnesses, late at night, and not the arrival end of runway where the approach lights were in use:

1) How soon after this incident was it discovered that the lights were damaged? minutes? hrs?

2) If it was hrs, How did they conclude it was the Qatar fight???

Not questioning if it was Qatar or not, just wondering how it was determined..
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18094
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 1:34 pm

Quoting crownvic (Reply 117):
Not questioning if it was Qatar or not, just wondering how it was determined..

Not least because QR reported it to the FAA.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
awthompson
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:59 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 4:55 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 116):

Realistically speaking, how much does a damaged belly increase the risk of explosive decompression in comparison to a damaged pressure bulkhead?

This whole thing might turn out to be a damp squib with only surface scores on belly panels and very little consequent risk to the flight. The Qatar Source statement only refers to 'belly damage' and does not give any further details.

This said however, it is also possible, though remote, that damage by striking objects on take off could be serious enough to permit further degradation during prolonged cruise which could culminate in panels starting to peel off in the air stream and conceivably lead to fuselage pressurization failure.

Such a failure, also initially caused by tail strike damage that was not repaired, caused an in flight break up of China Airlines 'Dynasty' flight 611, a Boeing 747 reg B-18255 over the Taiwan Straight the with loss of 225 lives in 2002. Albeit the tail strike occurred some twenty two years before metal fatigue finally resulted in the fuselage failure on the accident flight. When I say 'not repaired', there was an attempt made at the time in which was a panel was riveted over the top of the damage which itself was not repaired. The damage was therefore hidden from view for all those years and a creeping crack therefore not seen until too late.

Pressure inside a fuselage in the cruise at high altitude is equal, whether acting on the fuselage skin or the pressure bulkhead. However pressure bulkhead failure is a slightly different scenario than actual external fuselage failure. It would take a very serious tail strike to damage a pressure bulkhead, indeed one where all on board including flight deck crew would be left in no doubt that a collision had occurred and could never miss noticing the event. Fuselage belly panels would need to have been penetrated in order for the bulkhead to have been damaged. In such a case, the fuselage would have failed to pressurize at all in the climb. We can likely rule out any possibility (I sincerely hope) of pressure bulkhead damage in the QR accident being discussed. In the case of JL 123, such a severe tail strike did occur and the belly was subsequently repaired. However the pressure bulkhead repair, to make a long story short, was not strong enough to last for the life of the aircraft and it eventually failed as a result of metal fatigue over thousands of further cycles.
 
mmo
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:12 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 114):
Ya know, maybe instead of condescendingly blabbing at people who are just trying to have a conversation, you could try a more constructive activity: like staying current.
Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 114):
.....because you'd realize it's now 2hrs, and has been for more than a half decade in much of the world, on newer aircraft.

I would suggest LAX772LR, you might want to read my profile before you jump down my throat. I have been retired for 2 years and for the 3 year prior to that, I was a SFI/SFE, so what is your point?

In reality, it makes no difference if it was 2 hours or 30 minutes, the conversation will be gone. And the rule change did not apply retroactively! So, just what is your point?

So, with all your knowledge and experience, perhaps you could tell me what I am supposed to stay current on? Also, if you don't like my remarks about "armchair captains", I suggest you might want to toughen up a little. If you are offended by that I am truly sorry, but ....never mind!!!!
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
User avatar
phlsfo
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:18 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:18 pm

Quoting qf789 (Reply 108):

On flights to the US, QR uses 2 captains and 2 FO's.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3345
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:36 pm

Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
Anyhow, let's wait until we have more information until we are refusing the fly QR, demanding the Captain get days off with no pay (he will most likely get fired) or calling for the revocation of the 777 type rating.

Saw this,

Looks like the Flight Crew made a wrong selection in the Boeing OPT, Onboard Performance Tool.

"When they press the tab RUNWAY for the calculation from the EFB they show this " 09#T1 ". They deemed that was the performance from the intersection T1. This symbol " #T1 " means temporary runway. It is just a NOTAM for the runway 09. The symbol for the performance from intersection if would existed should be " 09/T1 " with " / " not with " # ". From runway 09 for the 777 there is no any intersection performance . They were confused with the symbols.

As has been mentioned, this being the confusion between T1 and #T1.

T1 = temporary runway in the OPT"

Bad Data selection. Should not have selected Runway 09T1......."
You are here.
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14489
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 8:16 pm

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 122):
Looks like the Flight Crew made a wrong selection in the Boeing OPT, Onboard Performance Tool.

This is a significant possibility. I suggested in an earlier post a possible cause for this being someone imputing the wrong data point for the autopilot or calculation programs. It is possible an incorrect setting was used, probably T-1 was usually used for this flight in similar wind, weather and temperatures with no problems in the past. As the quoted post goes on to say, the codes can be very fussy and errors easily made. I suspect the data recorder can confirm if this happened.

Quoting awthompson (Reply 119):
This whole thing might turn out to be a damp squib with only surface scores on belly panels and very little consequent risk to the flight. The Qatar Source statement only refers to 'belly damage' and does not give any further details.

This said however, it is also possible, though remote, that damage by striking objects on take off could be serious enough to permit further degradation during prolonged cruise which could culminate in panels starting to peel off in the air stream and conceivably lead to fuselage pressurization failure.

As per last knowledge, this plane is not in use, likely it is getting a through inspection with QR and Boeing staff involved. and pending the conclusion of the review of he FDR. I also suspect the light structures are designed to 'break away' under certain conditions to limit possible damage to a/c's.


Quoting crownvic (Reply 117):
1) How soon after this incident was it discovered that the lights were damaged? minutes? hrs?

2) If it was hrs, How did they conclude it was the Qatar fight???

I would presume there are some kind of systems that inform ATC of a problem with a light or visual checks done every so often during the night to check if operating. Perhaps too, local ATC may have flight and communications voice recordings between ATC, the QR crew or even crew of other a/c's as to position of this takeoff, as well as people either on the ground or at ATC that saw a low takeoff of this plane. We probably just won't know all the details due to the pending investigation security and general security policies.
 
User avatar
eisenbach
Posts: 187
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2001 12:57 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 9:18 pm

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 30):
Would an f/a in the back normally call the cockpit to tell them if they heard a sound like this?

Yes they would hear a sound of a tail strike first and call the flight deck - but it is so loud at take-off (engines, air flow, air condition, vibrations, rattling sounds from the galley,...) that it's very probable that they really didn't hear anything!

Quoting 747-600X (Reply 43):
I'm guessing the gear made contact, not the fuselage.

I am very sure they made contact with the tail section. The plane would have had a quiet large angle of attack. If the gear would have hit the lights there would have been some issues at landing - and it seem the landing in Doha was OK.

So my bet is the tail cone - which is not pressurized.

Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
For all the "experts" on here who say a crew could never get confused or take the wrong taxiway at KMIA, how do you know? You were not on the flight deck, you don't know how tired the crew is, you don't know what other distractions were ongoing that could have diverted their attention. Mistakes are made all the time.

I agree - I think it's easier than many think!

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 122):


Looks like the Flight Crew made a wrong selection in the Boeing OPT, Onboard Performance Tool.

"When they press the tab RUNWAY for the calculation from the EFB they show this " 09#T1 ". They deemed that was the performance from the intersection T1. This symbol " #T1 " means temporary runway. It is just a NOTAM for the runway 09. The symbol for the performance from intersection if would existed should be " 09/T1 " with " / " not with " # ". From runway 09 for the 777 there is no any intersection performance . They were confused with the symbols.

As has been mentioned, this being the confusion between T1 and #T1.

T1 = temporary runway in the OPT"

Bad Data selection. Should not have selected Runway 09T1......."

Thanks I think you are on the right track!!! My first question at the begin of this discussion was at well if anybody knows something about active NOTAMS and this seems to be the most plausible explanation (I put my money on that   ). I don't know as well if FAA has other NOTAM rules as the rest of the world, which as well might add confusion.
DC-6, DC9, Do228, Saab340, Twin-Otter, C212, Fokker50, AN24, MD90, MD83, EMB120, A380, A300, A343, A346, B721, B742, B744, B748...
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9526
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:07 pm

Quoting mmo (Reply 120):
So, just what is your point?

I think it was as he stated previously:

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 114):
Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
I do have to laugh at all of the "arm chair Captains" on here.
Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
Everyone is an expert when it comes to flight operations and actual flying a 777. I didn't know there were so many type rated pilots on here!!!
Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
2) For all the "experts" on here
Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
3) Again, for all the experts on here
Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
So to all the "experts" on here who keep saying they can't wait to see the transcript

But maybe that's just how you converse with people? Regardless, you implied that if it offended someone, tough cookies, so I don't have anything more to add.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 122):
As has been mentioned, this being the confusion between T1 and #T1.

Man, too bad these things can't be clearer for pilots. I could certainly understand them being confused with something like this, though I understand it's their job to know it.

-Dave
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 10:38 pm

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.

A China Airlines A340-300 with 252 passengers and crew took off from a taxiway by mistake at ANC in 2002 and struck snowbanks at the end. It continued the 4,066 nm to TPE..
http://www.aviationtoday.com/regions...l-Awareness_2650.html#.Vf3gs31Cg4k

And a China Airlines 747-400 freighter had a tail strike that caused serious damage on takeoff from ANC in 2010. It also continued to TPE.
http://avherald.com/h?article=429145ea
 
awthompson
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:59 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:15 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 126):
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.

A China Airlines A340-300 with 252 passengers and crew took off from a taxiway by mistake at ANC in 2002 and struck snowbanks at the end. It continued the 4,066 nm to TPE..
http://www.aviationtoday.com/regions...l-Awareness_2650.html#.Vf3gs31Cg4k

And a China Airlines 747-400 freighter had a tail strike that caused serious damage on takeoff from ANC in 2010. It also continued to TPE.
http://avherald.com/h?article=429145ea

More recent than this, two more such accidents quickly come to mind where aircraft continued to fly for some time after suffering substantial damage. In Nov/Dec 2014 a Cargolux Boeing 747-800F LX-VCC had a very hard landing in Libreville and continued to operate from Africa back to Luxembourg, performed rotations from Luxembourg to Shanghai via Russia and back, flew from Luxembourg to Hong Kong via the United States and back, and finally was removed from service in Luxembourg after substantial structural damage was detected as result of the hard landing in Libreville.

I have not taken the time to look up the exact details, but in 2013 Aeroflot A333 VQ-VPI (an aircraft that I had flown on shortly before) suffered belly, underwing and flap damage during operation into Petropavlovsk Kamchatsky in melting snow conditions where loose runway surface was thrown up. The aircraft continued to operate with damage before it was discovered and taken out of service for substantial repairs. A total of 111 different dents and areas of damage were found from the said incident.

There are numerous other such incidents on record.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 1:35 am

Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
I would prefer a full length departure and use less thrust in order to preserve engine life.

Thanks for the very informative post, I think that having more runway is a wise move, a rejected T/O or something wrong with an engine (LAS BA for example) gives you more options. They maybe did make a legal operation but I think its better to be safe than sorry. IMHO.

Quoting CALTECH (Reply 122):
Bad Data selection. Should not have selected Runway 09T1......."

Thanks, I bet it was a very small detail that was not crosschecked by the T/O checklist... luck was on their side, a lot of bad accidents have happened due to very small mistakes/details missed by rushing things, being tired, bad communications or plain recklessness.

Best Regards

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12757
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 2:59 am

Quoting mmo (Reply 120):
I would suggest LAX772LR, you might want to read my profile before you jump down my throat.

Oh, I did. Hence the statement.

Quoting mmo (Reply 120):
so what is your point?

That if you're going to admonish others, at least have a clue what you're talking about. You clearly didn't.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 125):
it's their job to know it.

   And THAT would be the crux of it, should indeed it end up being the result of something like that.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1424
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:10 am

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 128):

Quoting mmo (Reply 111):
I would prefer a full length departure and use less thrust in order to preserve engine life.

Thanks for the very informative post, I think that having more runway is a wise move, a rejected T/O or something wrong with an engine (LAS BA for example) gives you more options. They maybe did make a legal operation but I think its better to be safe than sorry. IMHO.


Funny you use BA in LAS as an example, they used an intersection take off also....

Departing from an intersection, when done right, is a non event and happens all the time dispite what some think. All performance numbers are taken into account and if they cannot be met the aircraft will depart full length....
 
mmo
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 6:04 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 129):

Quoting mmo (Reply 120):
I would suggest LAX772LR, you might want to read my profile before you jump down my throat.

Oh, I did. Hence the statement.

Quoting mmo (Reply 120):
so what is your point?

That if you're going to admonish others, at least have a clue what you're talking about. You clearly didn't.

Not wanting to hijack this thread or turn this into a personal discussion, I am still at a loss as to what you want me to do. I have been out of the cockpit and out of the sim for 2+ years and you tell me to "stay current". Stay current at what? I am retired, medically, but I will never work as a pilot again. What am I supposed to stay current on? As far as the CVR goes, you are correct, the rules were changed from 30 minutes to 2 hours. So, you are right? On a 15 hour flight, it makes no difference if the CVR is 30 minutes, 2 hours or 10 hours. The data will be gone! That was my point!

If you are going to keep "jumping down my throat", about that when that is the not the issue of the post, then go right ahead. You never commented on the rest of my original post about fatigue and the impact on human performance or the use of OPC and intersection takeoffs but you keep wanting to come back to the issue of the CVR. Ok, you are right, I was wrong. I suppose you can take some delight in showing someone up.......gee, I'm impressed.....
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
B8887
Posts: 457
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 9:47 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:20 am

Just a further comment. Intersection or no intersection, thrust setting or no thrust setting, fatigue or not fatigue, a major mistake was done somewhere, and I suppose that's what the investigation will try to find more about.

Regards.

B8887
 
OB1504
Posts: 3762
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 9:59 am

Thinking back, I don't think I've ever seen a widebody do an intersection takeoff at MIA.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 126):
A China Airlines A340-300 with 252 passengers and crew took off from a taxiway by mistake at ANC in 2002 and struck snowbanks at the end. It continued the 4,066 nm to TPE..
http://www.aviationtoday.com/regions...l-Awareness_2650.html#.Vf3gs31Cg4k

And a China Airlines 747-400 freighter had a tail strike that caused serious damage on takeoff from ANC in 2010. It also continued to TPE.
http://avherald.com/h?article=429145ea

China Airlines is hardly an airline to use as a safety benchmark.
 
User avatar
airportugal310
Posts: 3517
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2004 12:49 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:15 am

Quoting mmo (Reply 131):
If you are going to keep "jumping down my throat", about that when that is the not the issue of the post, then go right ahead. You never commented on the rest of my original post about fatigue and the impact on human performance or the use of OPC and intersection takeoffs but you keep wanting to come back to the issue of the CVR. Ok, you are right, I was wrong. I suppose you can take some delight in showing someone up.......gee, I'm impressed.....

I wouldn't worry too much about it...that poster has a history of "having to be right all the time" syndrome. Your experience in this industry is very much appreciated by others like myself. Please stick around and keep informing those of us who aren't total experts. I, for one, appreciate it!  
“They bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash.”
 
RickNRoll
Posts: 1834
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:30 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 10:41 am

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 77):
I have a question about the original picture.
It shows four orange poles, should there be lights on each?

That's right, there should.
 
mmo
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:12 am

Quoting Airportugal310 (Reply 134):
I wouldn't worry too much about it...that poster has a history of "having to be right all the time" syndrome. Your experience in this industry is very much appreciated by others like myself. Please stick around and keep informing those of us who aren't total experts. I, for one, appreciate it!  

Thanks a lot, I really appreciate the support!!  
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
xdlx
Posts: 945
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:29 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 1:28 pm

I still do not understand the real issue. After tailstruck the approach lights, and crew decided to continue.
Wouldnt the FAA alert the Quatar authorities, and EXPECT a full report of aircraft condition on arrival?

Did they violated any FAR? It certainly appears they took of long and hit things on their way, did the Tower reported to the crew the damage left behind. Certainly the MIA tower could have requested they return to the field, for insection.
Or could have called QR flight control, and involved them in the decision to return.

Something just does not add up in this story.
 
dubaiamman243
Posts: 1153
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 8:00 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:31 pm

“Substantial” damage for Qatar Airways plane after collision


http://www.arabianbusiness.com/-subs...-plane-after-collision-606723.html
The next airline CEO :crossfingers:
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12757
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:46 pm

Quoting mmo (Reply 131):
Not wanting to hijack this thread or turn this into a personal discussion

Despite doing just that, of course.

Quoting mmo (Reply 131):
As far as the CVR goes, you are correct, the rules were changed from 30 minutes to 2 hours.

Yeah I'm aware, YOU weren't... remember?  
Just saying that if you're going to be so sloppy with your facts, then it's probably a good idea to not be a jerk to others in the process. How's this a difficult concept?

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 133):
China Airlines is hardly an airline to use as a safety benchmark.

   Though to be fair, they've been on pretty decent behavior as of late. The incidents described above were apparently a wakeup call for them.

Quoting mmo (Reply 131):
Just a further comment. Intersection or no intersection, thrust setting or no thrust setting, fatigue or not fatigue, a major mistake was done somewhere

^ THIS

Quoting xdlx (Reply 137):
Certainly the MIA tower could have requested they return to the field, for insection.

Request, or suggest? That's actually an interesting question. Anyone know the (legal and/or customary) answer?

I mean, don't get me wrong-- I realize it'd be insane for an aircraft to continue on if the tower told them they should return. But would they legally have to? AF4590 sorta comes to mind. How about for a foreign carrier in a country, like this?

[Edited 2015-09-20 09:05:44]
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12757
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 4:13 pm

Quoting dubaiamman243 (Reply 138):
“Substantial” damage for Qatar Airways plane after collision
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/-subs....html

...seems like a freakin' miracle that they didn't tear off their landing gear or have heavy fod ingestion, if they were close enough to scrape the belly on those!  Wow!
Quote:
Only six metres off the ground, the lights are normally out of reach of planes passing at an altitude of several hundred feet, but on this occasion the Boeing’s underbelly was low enough to strike the masts.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
mmo
Posts: 1847
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:04 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 5:34 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 139):
Just saying that if you're going to be so sloppy with your facts, then it's probably a good idea to not be a jerk to others in the process. How's this a difficult concept?

You mean like you? Apparently it is a difficult concept for you to grasp!

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 140):
seems like a freakin' miracle that they didn't tear off their landing gear or have heavy fod ingestion, if they were close enough to scrape the belly on those!

Perhaps you could tell us how you would get fod ingestion from the tail end of the aircraft!!! After all, I am nothing but a retired airline/military pilot who has been flying since I was 16.... But then again, I don't grasp complex issues.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 139):
Quoting OB1504 (Reply 133):
China Airlines is hardly an airline to use as a safety benchmark.

   Though to be fair, they've been on pretty decent behavior as of late. The incidents described above were apparently a wakeup call for them.

I would have to agree. If you look at daily departures you will find QR is much larger than CI.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 139):
I mean, don't get me wrong-- I realize it'd be insane for an aircraft to continue on if the tower told them they should return. But would they legally have to? AF4590 sorta comes to mind. How about for a foreign carrier in a country, like this?

A foreign airline operates under a FAR 129 certificate. I would have assumed you would have been aware of that too!! With that in mind, the FAA could pull the certificate, although it is rarely done. Generally speaking, the investigation is left with the home country airline/CAA and any results are sent to the FAA with the corrective action taken.
If we weren't all crazy we'd all go insane!
 
SASDC8
Posts: 530
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:01 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:20 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 140):
..seems like a freakin' miracle that they didn't tear off their landing gear or have heavy fod ingestion, if they were close enough to scrape the belly on those!  

Sorry, but I am not sure how you get that out of that article? There is no new evidence in it, as it is just a news piece based on the FAA report...
2-3-2 is NOT a premium configuration
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 7:52 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 140):

And you are a structural expert on Boeing 777 to assess the damage from an article?

I would wait for the report before making such assumptions. then again I am an old chap.

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
 
BravoOne
Posts: 3757
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:27 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:14 pm

It's possible if not in fact very likely, that the crew misinterpreted the NOTAMS for that runway. QR uses the performance tool function of the EFB for all takeoffs and that would be one of those garbage in, garbage out events. It's happened before and will happen again.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12757
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Sun Sep 20, 2015 8:14 pm

Quoting mmo (Reply 141):
A foreign airline operates under a FAR 129 certificate. I would have assumed you would have been aware of that too!!

Indeed but does that answer the actual question asked......

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 143):
And you are a structural expert on Boeing 777 to assess the damage from an article?

Get a grip. All I'm saying is that if you're close enough for a stationary object to scrape a belly while in flight, then I'm surprised that they didn't hit anything else.

[Edited 2015-09-20 13:15:39]
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
AABB777
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:05 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:15 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 140):

Quoting dubaiamman243 (Reply 138):
“Substantial” damage for Qatar Airways plane after collision
http://www.arabianbusiness.com/-subs....html

I've heard the damage is not "substantial" but "minor". Regardless, a very serious incident that should not have happened. We will have to wait for a full report. I would also love to see photos of the damaged aircraft.
 
cat3appr50
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:44 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Tue Sep 22, 2015 3:54 pm

Flightradar24 review indicates there was negligible ground and runway traffic when QTR 778 taxied and then took off from KMIA Rwy 9 Tango 1 intersection. Congestion was no factor. There was no ATC audio indication that 778 was being rushed despite weather in the area. Flightradar24 shows nonstop taxi from gate to Rwy 9 Tango 1 intersection, regarding any stopping and checking Tango 1 takeoff performance. From review of KMIA ATC audio QTR 778 was directed:
ATC- “QATAR 778 HEAVY runway 9 line up and wait AT TANGO 1”
QTR 778 reply with no hesitation- “We line up and wait AT TANGO 1 runway 9, Qatar 778”
ATC- “Right turn 105 degrees runway 9 cleared for takeoff”
QTR 778 immediate reply- “Turn right heading 105, runway 9 cleared for takeoff”
QTR took off at 8:37 PM Local time (0037 Z)

Assuming essentially maximum T.O. wt. (775 K Lbs.), FMC “T.O.” Thrust, and around V1=177, Vr=188, V2=194:
Full length Rwy 9 takeoff, 13,016 Ft. available (TORA, ASDA), actual rotation/liftoff around 8350 ft., no issues.
Reduced length Rwy. 9 at TANGO 1 intersection takeoff, roughly 8500 ft. available to Rwy 27 displaced threshold yellow line, actual rotation roughly 8350 ft, and over the Rwy 27 landing lights at less than 35 ft. RA, with obvious tail end impact with the landing lights.

Any hiccup in takeoff thrust from the T1 intersection takeoff in this situation, likely a disaster. A Rwy. 9 T1 takeoff (known, not challenged, and therefore accepted by crew per audio) at max. takeoff weight, and without any challenge to ATC regarding same….beyond comprehension. A T1 takeoff didn’t meet the mandated margins for ASDA required, etc., and if there had been any emergency requiring a stop near (before) V1 with a fully fueled 777 300ER at max. T.O wt., stopping was impossible, and this would have been a disaster. The instruction by ATC to line up and wait at Rwy 9 TANGO 1 INTERSECTION was clear, although unusual…what was going on in that cockpit (with an experienced crew) leading to not challenging (i.e. cannot comply reply to ATC) this ATC T1 takeoff directive? BTW AZA 631 (A330-200) did a Rwy. 9 FULL LENGTH takeoff only 5 minutes after QTR 778. There’s a lot of talk about EFB takeoff performance calculations confusion, etc. but IMO you don’t need an EFB to indicate that a T1 takeoff at KMIA Rwy 9 at max. T.O. weight, if nothing more than looking at the airport chart, is not to be accepted. All just my opinion.
 
anjin
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:49 pm

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Tue Sep 22, 2015 4:54 pm

Chaps. You really think you'll get pictures of the aircraft in Doha - think again - this is the Middle East!. Maybe when the report comes out.
Did the crew know they hit something - you have to assume not, rest assured they WOULD have returned to Miami.
They probably had a squeezing feeling in their stomach as they rotated.
I understand this is a 24hr slip in Miami for the crews (4). So after a 15.20hr flight, say 75 min report and then get off the aircraft at 1700 Miami time (Immigration delays etc) crews then depart at 2000 the next night which would have been 0300 local time in Doha.
That is frigging hard work, in flight rest or otherwise.
 
User avatar
TheRedBaron
Posts: 3275
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:17 am

RE: QR Serious Incident At MIA On Sept. 15

Tue Sep 22, 2015 5:18 pm

Quoting cat3appr50 (Reply 147):

Thanks for the info, makes the picture a lot more clear! All those involved were very lucky!!!

Quoting anjin (Reply 148):

I agree I bet the pics will not be availiable until the investigation ends.

Also the crew could have been tired -fatigued and such mistakes occur.

It seems something like AM tail strike at MAD a year ago....

TRB
The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.

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