Всё
← Back to Squawk list
Commercial plane crashes in Guyana; no deaths
GEORGETOWN, Guyana (AP) — A Caribbean Airlines plane carrying 140 passengers has crashed while landing in Guyana and broken in two, causing several injuries but no deaths. President Bharrat Jadgdeo . . . (flightaware.com) Ещё...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
While they may have a good safety record, they did have a couple of similar scenarios, ie the overrun in MIA on the MD80 and another overrun in Guyana a while back. Not too bad an airline, but some "cowboy" pilots were in the mix. There was an instance in the 80's when the tower at the then Timehri airport would not issue takeoff clearance due to airport conditions, but the BWIA captain disregarded everything, and if my memory serves me correctly, took off from the shorter 5000 ft. runway in the MD80.
@ COntrail727 what about emergy braking even if it meant burning rubber and overheating the landing gear, this has been done in countless ocassions saving the day. We will se what the report says.
Chalet.......from my experience.....if hydroplaning was an issue.....the anti-skid would be doing it's job of not letting the brakes lock up, hence no skid marks. Also, unless the tower had the braking action checked prior to the arrival of the plane..
There would be no reason to pass the info to the crew. Runway braking action is not provided in rainstorms.. Just snow or ice covered conditions when tested.
There would be no reason to pass the info to the crew. Runway braking action is not provided in rainstorms.. Just snow or ice covered conditions when tested.
Contrail727 hydroplanning is almost a science by itself but in simple terms if the runway was wet (and all indications are that it was) and from experience over the recent past the tower operator should have told the pilot about the braking action in taht particular instance (poor, bad or acceptable) and then the pilot should have made the final decision, OK?. Now if you see the pictures taken of the A/C from various angles and views, you will notice that there are no braking marks (pedals/emergency) anywhere in the last say 600/700 ft. of active runway, no marks on the short over-run area and none on the bushy/weed area; perhaps this says that either the brakes failed and/or perhaps hydroplanning was a factor.
The fact that the touchdown is unknown at this time, and the fact that you may not have ever experienced Hyfroplaning in an aircraft or for that matter a vehicle....the crew may be your 1 percent that landed in the touchdown zone on ref...don't contribute an assumption without knowing the facts of the landing. It very well could be a mechanical problem....??
Too soon to know the details but frankly speaking eating up the entire length of the runway and resting way past the threshold makes you wonder. In practically 99% of this kind of accidents, fatal or otherwise the aircraft touched down way beyond the marks and was directly attributable to pilot error i.e. AA 737-800 in Kingston, Air France 340 in Toronto, SW 737 in Midway, Iberia 343 in Quito, Ecuador (UIO), and hundreds more so no Kudos to the flight crew for now at least.