Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tibet Airlines A-319 aborts takeoff

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tibet Airlines A-319 aborts takeoff

    Wow, for what ever reason, they aborted the takeoff and veered off the runway. In the insueing deceleration both engines where knocked off the aircraft. Fortunately no one was hurt.

  • #2
    https://www.reuters.com/business/aer...ia-2022-05-12/

    Just in case someone wants to see what you are talking about.

    Comment


    • #3
      Not so sure if the aborted take-off is what initiated the runway excursion or if the runway excursion resulted in a aborted take off. And I doubt that the engines were knocked of by the deceleration. Unless the landing gear was knocked off by the deceleration also. Losing both the engines and landing gear seem to be the result of the high speed runway excursion over less-than-perfectly-even muddy terrain and crossing 3 taxiways in the process.

      http://avherald.com/h?article=4f8ab5a5&opt=0

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #4
        I'm guessing an uncontained engine failure below Vmcg. Something punctured a fuel tank. And something yawed...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          I'm guessing an uncontained engine failure below Vmcg. Something punctured a fuel tank. And something yawed...
          You don't need an uncontained engine failure to puncture the fuel tank. Ripping off an engine provides several effective ways of obtaining a good fuel leak both with and without puncturing the fuel tank.

          Although on a second thought the separation of the whole engine could be considered "uncontained engine failure" in some interpretation.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

            You don't need an uncontained engine failure to puncture the fuel tank. Ripping off an engine provides several effective ways of obtaining a good fuel leak both with and without puncturing the fuel tank.

            Although on a second thought the separation of the whole engine could be considered "uncontained engine failure" in some interpretation.
            Your guess is as good as mine.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Evan View Post

              Your guess is as good as mine.
              Except that we know that both engines and the landing gear were all ripped off.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                Except that we know that both engines and the landing gear were all ripped off.
                And we know that the very purpose of fuse pins is to prevent damage to the wings and fuel tanks. Of course, things can get messy. But the fire on one side only suggests pooling from a breach after the plane came to a stop and I would expect the crew to have cut off the engine switches (and thus the spar valves) before that much fuel escaped. That would be my guess.

                Comment


                • #9
                  so perhaps a bit off-topic: having spent 15 years as a NYC paramedic, i have to wonder why would airport fire trucks use their sirens, or even have sirens for that matter? lots of traffic to alert?

                  (i watched the youtube video embedded on the avherald post)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                    so perhaps a bit off-topic: having spent 15 years as a NYC paramedic, i have to wonder why would airport fire trucks use their sirens, or even have sirens for that matter? lots of traffic to alert?

                    (i watched the youtube video embedded on the avherald post)
                    Probably an insurance company requirement so scumbag attorneys don't sue them for something.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      so, so intelligent you are! cuz i'm sure the insurance companies in china are worried about scumbags suing them.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                        so perhaps a bit off-topic: having spent 15 years as a NYC paramedic, i have to wonder why would airport fire trucks use their sirens, or even have sirens for that matter? lots of traffic to alert?

                        (i watched the youtube video embedded on the avherald post)
                        Perhaps because:

                        1. There are roads on airport property where other traffic is present, thus it may be helpful to have a means to clear that traffic similar to any other road.
                        2. Airport fire trucks don't only respond to aircraft accidents, in fact, as I'm sure you know, most airport fire agencies spent the majority of their time responding to issues in and around various airport buildings and facilities (terminals, cargo areas, etc). Mostly it's medical calls and fire alarms. Here again warning devices might be helpful. Here's an example:

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJx5TfjZ6tY

                        3. They may have to respond off airport property as well.

                        Then again, I've only been a medic a little over a year (EMT since 1996), so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I only have Red Cross first aid, but people are known to tunnel vision and be distracted during emergencies AND IN NOISY ENVIRONMENTS… people running from the plane, to the plane…

                          Some extra racket from a siren might be a good thing as they barrel down the runway at a high speed… I’m sure they have fancy braking systems, but if the school bus of nuns (that frequent runway environments) were to not see the fire trucks…

                          AND, not only did Asiana have the near ultimate botched landing, its sole fatality was a fire truck running over a passenger…

                          Going a little off topic- there’s been race car crashes, and a concerned member of the pit crew gets nailed running across pit road.

                          Then we have beepers on forklifts at the Wharehouse and big box store.

                          Finally, maybe the siren makes the rescue guys feel cool?
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post

                            Perhaps because:

                            1. There are roads on airport property where other traffic is present, thus it may be helpful to have a means to clear that traffic similar to any other road.
                            2. Airport fire trucks don't only respond to aircraft accidents, in fact, as I'm sure you know, most airport fire agencies spent the majority of their time responding to issues in and around various airport buildings and facilities (terminals, cargo areas, etc). Mostly it's medical calls and fire alarms. Here again warning devices might be helpful. Here's an example:

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJx5TfjZ6tY

                            3. They may have to respond off airport property as well.

                            Then again, I've only been a medic a little over a year (EMT since 1996), so I probably have no idea what I'm talking about.
                            fair enough for the presence of sirens. not so much for the use thereof while responding to an aircraft emergency like the current one.

                            maybe i'm weird, but i found that using the siren distracted me as the person driving.

                            @3WE: i knew someone was going to bring up the SFO incident but i seem to recall that the poor girl has hidden in foam. even if not, if they were using their siren, it clearly didn't help...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                              Airport fire trucks don't only respond to aircraft accidents. Here's an example:

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJx5TfjZ6tY
                              Video: 3 fire trucks responding, NONE of them using sirens

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X