Qatar 777 Incident At MIA: Now Rated An Accident

kaitak · Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:50 pm

The incident involving a Qatar Airways 777 at MIA a few weeks back has now been upgraded to an accident by the NTSB and a team has been dispatched to DOH.

I suspect this won't go down well in Doha.

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

b747400erf · Sun Oct 18, 2015 4:52 pm

Has nothing happened to the pilots yet? Are they at least on leave?

HALtheAI · Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:05 pm

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
... a team has been dispatched to DOH.

From avherald: "the investigation was delegated to the Civil Aviation Authority of Qatar, the NTSB have assigned an accredited representative to assist the investigation"

One-man teams, the best kind.

mmo · Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:07 pm

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):

The incident involving a Qatar Airways 777 at MIA a few weeks back has now been upgraded to an accident by the NTSB and a team has been dispatched to DOH

You must be looking at a different AV Herald than I am. Here is what is says "On Oct 18th 2015 the NTSB reported the occurrence was rated an incident, the investigation was delegated to the Civil Aviation Authority of Qatar, the NTSB have assigned an accredited representative to assist the investigation."

The investigation is being done by the QCAA and the NTSB is assisting the QCAA with the investigation. Not sure where you are looking...but you might want to revise your post or delete it.

Qatara340 · Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:15 pm

The damaged aircraft Qatar Airways B777-300ER A7-BAC is back in business October 12, after 25 days in the maintenance hangers and has since resumed regular scheduled flights.

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/a7-bac/

Seems like the damage was very minor;

Im not sure how the NTSB works, but QR has already launched an investigation into this incident.

I would not call it an accident by any chance. But, then again Im not the NSTB.

A388 · Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:17 pm

According to the article the thread starter linked here, this occurrence has been rated an incident and not an accident:

"On Oct 18th 2015 the NTSB reported the occurrence was rated an incident, the investigation was delegated to the Civil Aviation Authority of Qatar, the NTSB have assigned an accredited representative to assist the investigation."

A388

speedbird128 · Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:32 pm

Quoting Qatara340 (Reply 4):
Seems like the damage was very minor

25 days in a hangar is "very minor"??

A couple strips of speed tape and a delayed departure is "very minor".

Quoting Qatara340 (Reply 4):
I would not call it an accident by any chance. But, then again Im not the NSTB.

I would call it an accident.

Quote:
An aviation accident is defined by the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13 as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft, which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until all such persons have disembarked, where a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

You don't get to bend a plane and then deny it's an accident.

mmo · Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:45 pm

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 6):
I would call it an accident.

Quote:
An aviation accident is defined by the Convention on International Civil Aviation Annex 13 as an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft, which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until all such persons have disembarked, where a person is fatally or seriously injured, the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure or the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.

You don't get to bend a plane and then deny it's an accident.

You are missing a very important part of the definition of the term.
"b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:
adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,
except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or"

So, one could argue the aircraft made it from MIA to DOH there was no structural failure or adverse effect on the aircraft or the flight characteristics. In essence, damage similar to a tail strike on rotation or landing.

[Edited 2015-10-18 11:49:41]

A388 · Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:59 pm

Yes, I assume you can't bend an aircraft and fly it all the way on a 10+ hours flight without nothing happening.

A388

B8887 · Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:24 pm

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
The incident involving a Qatar Airways 777 at MIA a few weeks back has now been upgraded to an accident by the NTSB and a team has been dispatched to DOH.

This is no surprise at all and a welcome move. As I said in the previous thread, this was an extremely serious event.

We do not have CCTV footage of this incident, but if we would, I'm pretty sure it would be spectacular footage and it would have made rolling coverage about QR for a few days or weeks, with AAB interviews and all.

Heck, even mild losses of separation events are rated accidents on an almost weekly basis.

Anyway...

Regards.

B8887

b747400erf · Sun Oct 18, 2015 7:24 pm

Quoting Qatara340 (Reply 4):

I would not call it an accident by any chance. But, then again Im not the NSTB.

A late rotation that strikes objects on the ground and was inches or feet away from disaster isn't an accident? If you didn't have Qatar in your name would you be saying the same thing?

shankly · Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:04 pm

Quoting B8887 (Reply 9):
We do not have CCTV footage of this incident

Apart from this CCTV footage
QR777

AIRWALK · Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:10 pm

By ICAO standards this would most likely be rated a serious incident as opposed to an accident. It could be an accident depending on the extent of the damage however we don't have information about that.

peterinlisbon · Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:11 pm

They came very close to turning the entire aircraft into a fireball, killing everyone on board and perhaps many others on the ground. They effectively flew the plane into an obstacle at over 200km/h. It definitely counts as an accident.

Imagine if instead of just the lights there happened to be power cables or buildings in this location or just a few hundred metres further along, where it was still flying just a few metres above the ground trailing broken pieces of runway lights. Then, not knowing what the damage might be to the fuselage they further risked the passengers' lives by heading out over the Atlantic Ocean.

AIRWALK · Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:20 pm

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 13):
They came very close to turning the entire aircraft into a fireball, killing everyone on board and perhaps many others on the ground. They effectively flew the plane into an obstacle at over 200km/h. It definitely counts as an accident.

The aviation definition of accident is very specific and isn't that closely linked to the English word accident. For example a lot of people were surprised that MH370 was rated an accident because in English this wouldn't make sense. It doesn't matter how close to crashing/hitting something an aircraft is, it still won't be categorized as an accident if it doesn't meet the guidelines set out. So what you said doesn't automatically categorize it as an accident. It may well still be an accident, but that depends on information that we don't have

777way · Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:24 pm

Would the passengers have felt a bump when it hit the lights?

FredrikHAD · Sun Oct 18, 2015 8:43 pm

Surely, the pilots must have been aware that they were out of runway and made a very, very late takeoff, right? Are they required to report this if they were indeed aware?

OB1504 · Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:15 pm

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 13):
They came very close to turning the entire aircraft into a fireball, killing everyone on board and perhaps many others on the ground

The aircraft could've come down in the MIA employee parking lot with massive loss of life on the ground, plus the operational difficulty of the airport's thousands of employees suddenly having nowhere to park yet still needing to get to work.

peterinlisbon · Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:33 pm

Quoting AIRWALK (Reply 14):
The aviation definition of accident is very specific and isn't that closely linked to the English word accident. For example a lot of people were surprised that MH370 was rated an accident because in English this wouldn't make sense. It doesn't matter how close to crashing/hitting something an aircraft is, it still won't be categorized as an accident if it doesn't meet the guidelines set out. So what you said doesn't automatically categorize it as an accident. It may well still be an accident, but that depends on information that we don't have

I understand that its official classification depends on how substantial the damage was - so far I haven't seen any photos of what the actual damage to the aircraft was. But if it took a month to fix it must have been pretty bad. Regardless of how this is classified, it was very close to being a major disaster. Apparently there was a fence, a major highway, then a fuel farm just after the runway and it must have been very close to hitting all of these things.

FredrikHAD · Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:03 pm

Quoting peterinlisbon (Reply 18):
Apparently there was a fence, a major highway, then a fuel farm just after the runway and it must have been very close to hitting all of these things.

When I read there was a fule farm in harms way I thought "that's a really bad idea putting it there". Looking at Google maps, it seems it's acually located in a way that makes it very unlikely to be hit by an aircraft fairly lined up for a runway (good thinking

). There is, however a major road and, beyond the golf course, a lot of houses (well, pretty much cental Miami). Jackson Memorial Hospital seems pretty lined up as well, but that's 4 mi/6 km away. The fuel farm probably sounded good in the news...

Miami · Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:06 pm

Quoting OB1504 (Reply 17):
the aircraft could've come down in the MIA employee parking lot

Plus the fuel depot.

CXfirst · Mon Oct 19, 2015 7:46 am

Just because the aircraft might have been close to major problems, like some people here are saying (crashing into parking lot, etc), doesn't make it an accident. A near miss isn't an accident, no matter how close it was to being one.

I'm not saying this wasn't an accident, but being close to total disaster isn't the defining clause.

Now, hitting lights on departure might be enough to classify it as an accident, but the theoretical possibilities aren't what classifies it, but the actual events. I'm sure, no matter the final classification, it will be investigated thoroughly.

-CXfirst

Btblue · Mon Oct 19, 2015 8:32 am

Quoting Qatara340 (Reply 4):
The damaged aircraft Qatar Airways B777-300ER A7-BAC is back in business October 12, after 25 days in the maintenance hangers and has since resumed regular scheduled flights.

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/a7-bac/

Seems like the damage was very minor;

Im not sure how the NTSB works, but QR has already launched an investigation into this incident.

I would not call it an accident by any chance. But, then again Im not the NSTB.

This clearly was an accident because the aircraft rotated and pretty much wheels off the ground (in flight) impacted part of the runway lighting.

It IMPACTED the lighting and damaged the lighting and damaged the aircraft (superficial or minor) which resulted in it (the aircraft) being grounded for repairs for 25 days.

If you accidentally drive your car into another car, it's an accident. If you drive your car into another car in excess of 160mph then you'd be incredibly lucky to tell people about it. This was an accident and a total misjudgement by professionals involved that could have resulted in multiple deaths both on the aircraft and on the ground.

It will be interesting to see how Qatar and the NTSB work together on this and what the findings are.

Redd · Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:57 am

Quoting Qatara340 (Reply 4):
Seems like the damage was very minor;

Im not sure how the NTSB works, but QR has already launched an investigation into this incident.

A near tragedy and 25 days out of service is 'minor' to you?

Quoting 777way (Reply 15):
Would the passengers have felt a bump when it hit the lights?

Judging by the video and pictures of damaged light structures, there's no way the passengers and the pilots did not hear that.

I've been in a light tail strike on a KL 744 coming out of Amsterdam and it was VERY loud, people were actually screaming. I'm guessing hitting light poles could be just as loud.

777way · Mon Oct 19, 2015 10:04 am

Minor damage can also lead to an aircraft to be inactive long time, like the A330 that was leased by PIA remained unused for over a month after a skin tear caused by ground service vehicle, it was returned to Air Asia and even they are not flying it, been over a week.

flyDTW1992 · Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:52 am

Talk to anyone in airline maintenance and they'll tell you that substantial skin damage is anything but "minor." Structural repairs are often challenging for a variety of reasons, and the aircraft being out of service for nearly a month speaks to that.That is a very lengthy time period and to me indicates that the damage had to have been rather severe.

While it's true that the potentiality for a disaster has no impact on rating an occurrence an accident, I think it's pretty clear that the actual events in this case warrant an accident classification under ICAO standards.

apfpilot · Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:55 am

The fact that the NTSB is part of the investigation isn't a surprise considering that the Airframe, Engine, and Avionics are all made in the US, and the departure point was in the US as well.

mmo · Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:23 pm

Quoting flyDTW1992 (Reply 25):

Talk to anyone in airline maintenance and they'll tell you that substantial skin damage is anything but "minor." Structural repairs are often challenging for a variety of reasons, and the aircraft being out of service for nearly a month speaks to that.That is a very lengthy time period and to me indicates that the damage had to have been rather severe.

Quoting mmo (Reply 7):
"b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:
adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,
except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tires, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or"

I'm amazed at all the discussion this post had generated. First of all, the OP did not provide any reference for his statement regarding the QR flight being treated as an accident. IT'S NOT!!

I cut and pasted, right from the ICAO handbook, their definition of an accident. While some on here would want the event classified as an accident, it's not. Had the event been classified as an accident, the NTSB would be heading up the investigation and it would be held in the US since that is where the event took place. The QCAA is heading up the investigation and the NTSB is a party to the investigation, not the investigators. While the event had the potential to be a very serious accident, it is really no different than a tail strike on takeoff or landing. If everyone of those events were treated as an accident, then none of the accident investigation agencies would accomplish anything!

b747400erf · Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:35 pm

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 21):

Just because the aircraft might have been close to major problems, like some people here are saying (crashing into parking lot, etc), doesn't make it an accident. A near miss isn't an accident, no matter how close it was to being one.

A near miss means you didn't hit something but got close.

747-600X · Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:45 pm

Yeah, sorry, this is not an accident. The definition that has now been posted several times is controlling in these sorts of things. Photographs would be helpful, but assuming the "belly" referred to in the AV Herald article is the flat bottom of the center wing box, you could tear some fairly large holes in that area without affecting the structural integrity of the aircraft. You've got landing gear bays and doors and air conditioning equipment all glossed over by aerodynamic surfaces. As long as the gear worked properly and the plane landed normally, you can't argue that structural integrity was compromised, ergo you can't classify this as an accident. Punctures and holes in the aircraft skin are incidents.

CXfirst · Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:51 pm

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 28):
A near miss means you didn't hit something but got close.

Wasn't saying it was a near miss, just pointing out that a near miss is not considered an accident, no matter how close to catastrophic it might be (in a more general sense, not related to this incident).

Just like in this incident, we would only consider this to be an accident due to hitting the lights, not the fact that it might have ended in a catastrophe (seems some people here are wanting to up-catagorize the event, due to the fact the incident might have lead to bigger problems).

But, in any case, no matter if it be an incident, near miss, accident, the risk of catastrophe in all these cases would warrant a thorough investigation.

-CXfirst

Cyow · Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:24 pm

I'm not an expert in terms of how major airports are designed, but the NBC video was quite grainy and low resolution. Wouldn't it be a good idea if there were multiple high resolution cameras stationed all over the airfield? This could include night vision/infrared cameras as well. And don't harp on about the 'cost'. Its an airport with hundreds if not thousands of movements per day.

Anyone agree?

BlueShamu330s · Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:06 pm

Quoting mmo (Reply 27):
I cut and pasted, right from the ICAO handbook, their definition of an accident.

This was not an Aircraft Accident by any stretch of the imagination.

Some other people do need to read up and educate themselves on ICAO terminology and their definitions before so robustly expressing their point of view as fact.

Here's the link for anyone interested in learning:

http://www.iprr.org/manuals/Annex13.html#defs

Rgds

NWAROOSTER · Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:10 pm

The red flashes were more than likely the approach lights electrical power failing as it shorted out and causing major electrical shorts resulting in the visible red flashing. The causing of major structural damage as happened to the approach lights should be considered an accident.. The "incident" would have knocked out part of the airport landing system. It would of shut down the runway while debris was cleaned up , even if it was not on the run way which would need to be checked for debris. The runway may also need to be shut down while new lights are installed.
Damage was caused to the"incident" aircraft, which took up to 25 days to repair, and the approach lights were damaged. Therefor this "incident" is an accident. It is a lot more serious than a luggage cart denting an aircraft.

[Edited 2015-10-19 08:12:09]

FlyBTV · Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:16 pm

Quoting cyow (Reply 31):

I'm not an expert in terms of how major airports are designed, but the NBC video was quite grainy and low resolution. Wouldn't it be a good idea if there were multiple high resolution cameras stationed all over the airfield? This could include night vision/infrared cameras as well. And don't harp on about the 'cost'. Its an airport with hundreds if not thousands of movements per day.

Anyone agree?

My initial reaction is, 'What would the purpose be?' Other than providing footage for the news to play over and over (and I don't think there is any value in that - in fact, I'd suggest that such footage leads to harm, feeding the pervasive and unnecessary fears about flying), are there any accidents whose investigation would have benefited from footage from multiple, high resolution cameras? Most everything that is needed typically comes from the CVR/FDR. When incidents and accidents occur at airports, I feel that usually what occurred (i.e. what a camera will show you) is already known. The 'why' (i.e. what went on in the tower/on board) is what is being investigated.

I could be wrong, of course. I do believe that there needs to be an investigatory/safety benefit, though. "Better footage" in and of itself does not help anything, if said footage would not contribute to a better understanding of the accident.

B8887 · Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:26 pm

Quoting BlueShamu330s (Reply 32):
Here's the link for anyone interested in learning:

b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which:

- adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft.

Comment: Tail strikes are obviously known to cause major structural issues.

- would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component.

Comment: 25 days in a hangar.

So this is not an accident?

Regards.

B8887

777way · Mon Oct 19, 2015 3:33 pm

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 33):
It is a lot more serious than a luggage cart denting an aircraft.

Yeh, but in PIA case the aircraftt didnt fly for over a month even after repairs and hasnt been flow by AAX as well after a week of having been sent back to them.

Qatara340 · Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:19 pm

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 10):

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 6):
25 days in a hangar is "very minor"??

A couple strips of speed tape and a delayed departure is "very minor".

Quoting speedbird128 (Reply 6):
I would call it an accident.

Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 10):
A late rotation that strikes objects on the ground and was inches or feet away from disaster isn't an accident? If you didn't have Qatar in your name would you be saying the same thing?

The NTSB calls it an "incident" and not "accident" Im pretty sure the NTSB is more accurate than me. What does my username have to do with this incident?

Quoting shankly (Reply 11):
Apart from this CCTV footage
QR777

I did not see the video before!

Quoting btblue (Reply 22):
This clearly was an accident because the aircraft rotated and pretty much wheels off the ground (in flight) impacted part of the runway lighting.

It IMPACTED the lighting and damaged the lighting and damaged the aircraft (superficial or minor) which resulted in it (the aircraft) being grounded for repairs for 25 days.

If you accidentally drive your car into another car, it's an accident. If you drive your car into another car in excess of 160mph then you'd be incredibly lucky to tell people about it. This was an accident and a total misjudgement by professionals involved that could have resulted in multiple deaths both on the aircraft and on the ground.

It will be interesting to see how Qatar and the NTSB work together on this and what the findings are.

Quoting Redd (Reply 23):
A near tragedy and 25 days out of service is 'minor' to you?

A near-tragedy, close to disaster is not the same as an actual tragedy or an actual disaster. By the grace of God, there was no disaster or tragedy; so no need to refer it as one.

And yes, considering the aircraft sustained damages of the magnitude that people are discussing, 25 days off to the repairs are not much. Other repairs take much much more. EK flight 407, the near-miss (much more serious), incident took 9 months for the plane to get repaired.

Yes, you can say there could have been a worst outcome in this case (and I agree with each and every one of you) but in the end, there was no worse outcome.

Cyow · Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:21 pm

Quoting FlyBTV (Reply 34):
My initial reaction is, 'What would the purpose be?' Other than providing footage for the news to play over and over (and I don't think there is any value in that - in fact, I'd suggest that such footage leads to harm, feeding the pervasive and unnecessary fears about flying), are there any accidents whose investigation would have benefited from footage from multiple, high resolution cameras? Most everything that is needed typically comes from the CVR/FDR. When incidents and accidents occur at airports, I feel that usually what occurred (i.e. what a camera will show you) is already known. The 'why' (i.e. what went on in the tower/on board) is what is being investigated.

I could be wrong, of course. I do believe that there needs to be an investigatory/safety benefit, though. "Better footage" in and of itself does not help anything, if said footage would not contribute to a better understanding of the accident.

I tend to think that it could aid in an investigation, aid being the operative word. Obviously the FDR/CVR does serve the primary purpose, but there are external variables, such as drones, bird strikes, foreign objects, airport incursions etc, that multiple high resolution video could capture and assist investigators... just my 2 cents.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net