A340 off the runway in Ecuador.

Bubbaganoosh · Post by **Bubbaganoosh** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 11:22 am

Wow, thats a purty slide there, kind of looks like what I saw on my last trip to the theme park.

Good thing that didnt turn into a weeny roast like done at TO last year with the AF 340.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 8:52 pm

Alex YCV · Post by **Alex YCV** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:13 pm

that looks expensive.

5400AirportRdSouth · Post by **5400AirportRdSouth** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:31 pm

haha Alex - as soon as I looked at the pics, those exact words went through my mind.

kilpicki · Post by **kilpicki** » Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:34 pm

Good for employment, keep the money flowing.

Lloyds or whoever can probably afford it.

twinpratts · Post by **twinpratts** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:56 am

Wow. Goes to show airplanes weren't made to crash very well. Yikes!

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:22 am

twinpratts wrote:Wow. Goes to show airplanes weren't made to crash very well. Yikes!

Maybe they are and all we see are the soft spots designed to absorb most of the harmful impact forces.

goldeneagle · Post by **goldeneagle** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:32 am

kilpicki wrote:Good for employment, keep the money flowing.

Lloyds or whoever can probably afford it.

Lloyds isn't in the business of absorbing losses, they are in the business of spreading the risk. An event like this just means insurance rates go up for all carriers, it's increasing the financial exposure of the insurance companies. In the end, it's the passengers on all airliners that foot the bill.

Anybody that thinks an event like this is 'good for employment' has thier head stuck in the sand. At least a couple of engines are a write-off, and possibly the entire airframe if that wing took serious damage. The collateral damage from those photos floating around comes in the form of enhancing the 'fear of flying', and that will affect more than just the airline who's paint is on the side of that airframe.

This comment makes one take a moment and consider. Would I even want to get on a plane when the flight crew has an attitude of 'running off the runway is good for employment' ? I'd be real interested in knowing which outfit you fly for (if you do indeed fly), because it would affect my choice of carriers the next time I need to purchase domestic tickets.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 11:29 am

The collateral damage from those photos floating around comes in the form of enhancing the 'fear of flying', and that will affect more than just the airline who's paint is on the side of that airframe.

I really hope you're not saying we should hide these type of events from public scruitiny?

What amazes me is that they don't make CNN very often, they would drool over this type of mechanical carnage.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:41 pm

I don't think a/c are designed for crash-worthiness, except as a collateral issue.

My attitude to crashes is if nobody was hurt, clean up and fix the junk and find out why it happened and try and learn from it so it doesn't happen again. Course, the last part of that sentence is true about all crashes.

That 340 might even be a write-off.

kilpicki · Post by **kilpicki** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:25 pm

goldeneagle?? as in CESSNA goldeneagle?? not nuch to be proud of there

I'm a 9000 hr heavy capt for your info, so lighten up.

The ac will be repaired, someone has to fix it and they will be a lot more skilled in their trade then some smart ass pilot. Chhhzzzz.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:29 pm

Kilpicki, act your age.

unknowingly upsidedown · Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:50 pm

my parents were supposed to leave Quito tommorow to come home but they have to stay until at least Thursday seeing as Quito only has one runway and there is an A340 stuck at the one end.

pika · Post by **pika** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:31 pm

Maybe they are and all we see are the soft spots designed to absorb most of the harmful impact forces.

Like the engines, flaps and gear?

Anybody else wonder why this thread is under General (Canada)? Maybe a General (Besides Canada) topic is needed?

goldeneagle · Post by **goldeneagle** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:39 pm

kilpicki wrote:goldeneagle?? as in CESSNA goldeneagle?? not nuch to be proud of there

I'm a 9000 hr heavy capt for your info, so lighten up.

The ac will be repaired, someone has to fix it and they will be a lot more skilled in their trade then some smart ass pilot. Chhhzzzz.

yet another unionized heavy equipment operator, thinks he's god cuz somebody gave him a set of eppilettes.

If you wanna play the mine is bigger game, no problem, but, in this club we only deal with the airplanes you own. Hired help on sombody else equipment doesn't count.

THEICEMAN · Post by **THEICEMAN** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:04 pm

... · Post by **...** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:46 pm

I think they will now be changing the lyrics from the musical My Fair Lady ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rain_in_Spain )

"The rain in Spain falls mainly in the plane..."

to

"The rain in Ecuador falls mainly on a Spanish airplane...."

no...not 'drole'?

Move along then!

Navajo-dude · Post by **Navajo-dude** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:56 pm

xsbank wrote:Kilpicki, act your age.

I agree. Kilpicki, goldeneagle made a statement about the imact of this accident on the industry. A heavy type rating doen't make you anymore qualified to talk about the industry, only how to fly heavies.

Speedbird Junior · Post by **Speedbird Junior** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:32 am

From another forum (prune) here's some pertinent info:

Accident happened 22.06z.

METAR: SEQU 092209Z 17004KT 3000S 4000N RA VCFG FEW005 BKN023 OVC100 12/11 Q1024 BECMG AT2230 4000

Landed runway 35. So small tailwind component.

Quito field elevation is just over 9000' @ 12 deg = DA 10,700' approx.

IAS app - approx 140kts
TAS adjustment per 1000' = 1.5% approx = 162kts TAS

So approach IAS 140kts / TAS 162kts / GS 166kts approx?

Apparently there are very few A340's that go into Quito, IBERIA being one of the few operators.

GS of near 170kts on a wet runway at that alt? (anybody got an A340 AFM or QRH to do the real figures?)

kilpicki · Post by **kilpicki** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:50 am

Impact on the industry!!!

give your head a shake!!!

95% of the flying public will never hear of this incident and those who do will give it about 8 seconds of thought.

the other 5% read this forum, I rest my case

Im not really a heavy driver but hope do start my private next year. as soon as I finish high school.

flying4dollars · Post by **flying4dollars** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 9:01 am

kilpicki wrote:Impact on the industry!!!

give your head a shake!!!

95% of the flying public will never hear of this incident and those who do will give it about 8 seconds of thought.

the other 5% read this forum, I rest my case

Im not really a heavy driver but hope do start my private next year. as soon as I finish high school.

and where did you get your numbers on that from? if it's your own assumption, which i bet it is, those arent credible numbers..

wether you're a 9000 hr captain or a PP, the statement you made to goldeneagle was pretty childish...

Big Pratt · Post by **Big Pratt** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:21 am

Anyone else notice that all the reversers are stowed?

Rather unfortunate that this happened. I guess we'll see what the investigation says.

Remember, VERY FEW overruns actually start on the runway...
Put-down-itis is a nasty beast just waiting to bite ya.

BP

goldeneagle · Post by **goldeneagle** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:41 am

kilpicki wrote:Impact on the industry!!!

give your head a shake!!!

95% of the flying public will never hear of this incident and those who do will give it about 8 seconds of thought.

the other 5% read this forum, I rest my case

Im not really a heavy driver but hope do start my private next year. as soon as I finish high school.

The aircraft in question has Airbus 340-600 painted on the side. A quick look at wikipedia shows that in 2006 dollars, replacement cost is $us218 million. Will be a lot higher today since the us dollar has fallen so far, and airbus actually prices airplanes in euros. Looking carefully at the photos above, the wing appears to be bent where it attaches to the fuselage, so there is a very high probability this airframe will be a total write-off, as well as at least 2 of the engines. When you dig inside the engines on the side not resting on the ground, I'll be very surprised if they have not been fodded, there was almost certainly a lot of reverse happening as the airplane came close to the end of the runway. There may be one wing, some tail components, and certainly a full avionics package available for salvage, but, after you factor in the cost of actually clearing up the mess, there isn't a lot of residual value left.

The aviation insurance industry will absorb that replacement price, and premiums for next year across the industry will reflect that, insurance prices will go up. Airlines in turn, will pass that cost on to the travelling public. A google search on total industry passenger volume will show you that ATN quotes the trailing 12 months from june 2007 the industry carried 111 million passengers. A little arthmetic, and some rounding results in approximately 2 dollars of fare increase, per ticket, industry wide, to pay for this accident. Air France did something similar not long ago, so, in reality, the industry is absorbing 2 writeoffs on these airplanes now, which translates to 4 dollars a ticket.

4 dollars a ticket industry wide, and, we haven't even yet accounted for all the liability money changing hands outside of the direct airframe replacement costs. While the majority of the travelling public may not be directly aware of this particular incident, every damn one of them will notice the 4 dollars extra on that ticket.

Then again, you are just a teen in high school, we've all been there, it was a wonderful age back when we knew it all better than the rest of the world. If you really do persue a career in the industry, after you have spent 30+ years doing it, and have reached the point where you are part of the senior management team that does determine price points for the fleet, it'll be your turn to respond to the snotty little know-it-all teen ager. Please try and be polite as you explain to them, the know-it-all teen ager in reality has no clue when it comes to the real world, and the actual factors that drive 'how business works'.

turbo-beaver · Post by **turbo-beaver** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:50 am

I dusted off my old QRH.....it was for the - 200 but the figures would be relatively close for the 600 I think.
I figured they needed about 8883 feet of runway. I used a landing weight of 190,000 kg, 5 knot tailwind, PA of 10000', and 1/4 " of water on the runway. All reversers operating. It is apparent that the tires failed and there also appears to be a lot of damage to the wheels as well. It will be interesting to see the flight data readouts if they become available.
As far as the approach speed goes, I did an overweight landing in HKG a few years back during an electrical fire. We were at 258,000 kg and had an approach speed of 166 knots. We had a dry runway and with auto brakes low and max reverse it was no problem getting stopped and were still able to keep the wheels below 500*. But we were at sea level and had the dry runway.

Thanks for posting the interesting pictures.