Jump to content
MalaysianWings - Malaysia's Premier Aviation Portal
Naim

AirAsia Skidded Off Runway in Kuching - 11 January 2011

Recommended Posts

I am mildly surprise by this. Why AK were willing to go that far as for the sake of saving the aircraft? I am not going to speculate any further, but it is clear that in this situation everyone should lend a helping hand regardless of cost. I mean, this kind of incident doesn't occur every day, does it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if it involves injury/death they'll ask for their own lorry and not ambulance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a report on the accident; complete with weather report during the time and location of the resting place of the stricken aircraft.

 

From the Aviation Herald.

 

MH 2547 (the early MH flight from KCH) backtracked on the runway and takeoff from the old runway 25 threshold.

 

KCH_AHH01.jpg

 

KCH_AHH02.jpg

 

(photos taken by a friend on that flight, and used with permission)

 

Something still bugs me on the slides, though. Is it normal for the slides to be removed so soon after the accident, even before the investigators arrive at the scene? Why are the slides removed? How many slides were deployed?If the slides were not deployed, however, I'm sure the injury number will be much higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't really answer your Qs, however, there are a few points need to be considered:-

 

1. The rescue services team need to board the aircraft in order to verify that no one was left behind.

 

2. Engineers need to board the aircraft in order to ensure everything is 'shutdown'.

 

3. Retrieval of all flight documents (tech log/cabin log etc...) need to be carried out immediately.

 

4. Retrieval of pax personal belongings.

 

All of the above requires someone to board the aircraft and with slides at the doors will make it extremely hard to do so.

 

Awaiting for DCA inspectors and AK Corporate Safety personnel is time consuming as both groups are from KL and the airport is partially shutdown for almost 24 hours.

 

I am sure the chief engineer will not meddle around with cockpit switches as it will contaminate the evidence or at least he will log down what he has done to the aircraft.

 

Just a thought

 

 

:hi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't really answer your Qs, however, there are a few points need to be considered:-

 

1. The rescue services team need to board the aircraft in order to verify that no one was left behind.

 

2. Engineers need to board the aircraft in order to ensure everything is 'shutdown'.

 

3. Retrieval of all flight documents (tech log/cabin log etc...) need to be carried out immediately.

 

4. Retrieval of pax personal belongings.

 

All of the above requires someone to board the aircraft and with slides at the doors will make it extremely hard to do so.

 

Awaiting for DCA inspectors and AK Corporate Safety personnel is time consuming as both groups are from KL and the airport is partially shutdown for almost 24 hours.

 

 

I am sure the chief engineer will not meddle around with cockpit switches as it will contaminate the evidence or at least he will log down what he has done to the aircraft.

 

Just a thought

 

 

:hi:

I guess the removal off the slides does not impede any evidence as the cause of the crash as the slides were deployed after the accident.As the plane and the engine is intact, all the evidence is there for investigators.Also interview with the pilots and

The CVR and FDR will hold all the clues.

 

If in the event the evacuation that was carried out was not succesful and as a result many were injured, or resulted in loss of life, then maybe it would have been necessary to see whether all slides were deployed and how was the evacuation done.

Edited by jadivindra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that the plane is off the runway, where is it stored? Will they be able to do the repairs in KCH or does it need to be shipped back to another location for repairs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember the incident where MH's B734 9M-MMR snapped one of its landing gear minutes before push back also in KCH a few months back? The aircraft was repaired in KCH. Everything that is needed to fix it was flown into KCH.

 

I think we should expect the same for 9M-AHH as well.

Edited by Mohd Azizul Ramli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'stored' exactly where 9M-MMR was..at the cargo apron

but unlike MMR where it was unguarded & free-for-all to go near & see, AHH is guarded by AK security. They will chase you away if you come close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So can expect unscheduled B74F to deliver the parts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So can expect unscheduled B74F to deliver the parts?

hopefully..we know they wont use Maskargo...but then, only MH/Maskargo have those cargo loader here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since AK use their own contractor and make airport close up to 23 hours,

regarding to the law, who will take responsibility to pay the cost for the cancel flight and etc?

can MAS passenger blame AK?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

regarding to the law, who will take responsibility to pay the cost for the cancel flight and etc?

Very interesting query ! :D

Do airlines take out insurance against costs of such incidents or pay out from the 'compassion' budget, if any ?

I'm sure if they have sufficient evidence, legal measures can be initiated to recover costs and damages incurred, but my guess is it sure will not be pleasant :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, I think again MAHB should just standardized the facility provided, much like the aero-bridge issue. Nope, you can only use our facility i.e. our emergency response, our aero-bridge, our aircon, our ticketing counter, the list goes on. Just like what they say in some clubs - no outside bottle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they will use those independent contractors again with their cranes, tractors and cement-mixers?

 

LATEST NEWS

 

Spares will be brought by sampan with the help of AAM. TF only paid a principal card for himself and each aircraft carries a supplementary card ....... :rofl:

 

 

:hi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no aviation expert - just a passenger who's had the chance of experiencing flight on many carriers - and hoping perhaps those who are the real experts here might be able to shed some light. Been wondering about this case...

 

Does AK have materially different flight procedures, in this case landing procedures, that might've contributed in one way or another to higher risks? Perhaps, procedures that were designed to economise on fuel consumption and keep the aircraft just within the safe limits of landing? The improbable then happens, you're quickly pushed over that limit and it becomes an extremely tricky situation even for an experienced pilot?

 

What's in my mind is speed. Flying on AK on several occasions, I've noticed the flaps being extended rather later during descent than I'd normally expect, or observe on other (legacy) airlines. The occasion that sticks in my mind most was when landing into BKI RWY02 - elements on the ground (or rather on the islands) seemed to me already quite clear, but the flaps were still in zero position; they were later deployed in quick succession through the various stages. As I take it you'd need to extend the flaps to generate sufficient lift at lower speeds and also drag to decelerate, I imagine we must've been flying at quite a speed until the last minute?

 

I also don't know to what extent would QZ have common operational policies as AK, but it was clear we were coming into BDO on this one occasion rather fast. We touched down with an almighty thump - the hardest landing I've ever experienced - so hard, in fact, that my travelling companion thought we might burst a tyre.

 

Once again, speed.

 

As I've said, I'm no expert - so maybe all this is just coincidence or just my imagination, but would be grateful if someone could shed some light on this and comment on the likelihood something of this nature might've played a part in this incident.

 

Cheers!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm no aviation expert - just a passenger who's had the chance of experiencing flight on many carriers - and hoping perhaps those who are the real experts here might be able to shed some light. Been wondering about this case...

 

Does AK have materially different flight procedures, in this case landing procedures, that might've contributed in one way or another to higher risks? Perhaps, procedures that were designed to economise on fuel consumption and keep the aircraft just within the safe limits of landing? The improbable then happens, you're quickly pushed over that limit and it becomes an extremely tricky situation even for an experienced pilot?

 

What's in my mind is speed. Flying on AK on several occasions, I've noticed the flaps being extended rather later during descent than I'd normally expect, or observe on other (legacy) airlines. The occasion that sticks in my mind most was when landing into BKI RWY02 - elements on the ground (or rather on the islands) seemed to me already quite clear, but the flaps were still in zero position; they were later deployed in quick succession through the various stages. As I take it you'd need to extend the flaps to generate sufficient lift at lower speeds and also drag to decelerate, I imagine we must've been flying at quite a speed until the last minute?

 

I also don't know to what extent would QZ have common operational policies as AK, but it was clear we were coming into BDO on this one occasion rather fast. We touched down with an almighty thump - the hardest landing I've ever experienced - so hard, in fact, that my travelling companion thought we might burst a tyre.

 

Once again, speed.

 

As I've said, I'm no expert - so maybe all this is just coincidence or just my imagination, but would be grateful if someone could shed some light on this and comment on the likelihood something of this nature might've played a part in this incident.

 

Cheers!!

 

I would have commented that the pilots done their best in his situation to control the veering of the aircraft. Coming in under heavy down pour and cross-winds is pretty tricky, and if the counter reaction against the cross wind is done overly, the aircraft might have veered off the other direction or worse still, it begin to "snake" veering from left to right and vice versa.

In a panicky situation, the pilots could have decided to power out again for another attempt. There's so many possibilities, and I think in this situation, the aircraft is already rolling and a sudden cross winds could have "lifted" it and with wet surfaces and what's not, it veered in to the ditch.

Probably the soft soil helped in slowing it down until a death stop. This could have prevented a more serious situation.

 

Anyone know's who the pilots involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rashdan Radzi,

 

I am not an expert too, however, with my limited knowledge, I should be able to answer some of your Qs.

 

This is the reported weather at the time of accident:-

 

WBGG 101330Z 36001KT 7000 -RA FEW015CB SCT020 BKN150 25/25 Q1007 RERA TEMPO 5000 RA

WBGG 101300Z 27004KT 5000 RA SCT020 BKN150 25/25 Q1006 NOSIG

 

Generally, there are 2 factors will determine whether a capt of an aeroplane will continue to land or execute a miss-approach, 1) Surface wind condition and 2) Forward visibilty. Assuming other factors are constant (safe limit) like runway is clear, clearance was given, no windshear etc .......

 

Based on the reported weather, it was well within an A320 limit (max 32 kts cross wind) and Air Asia limited its capt to 30 kts only. The reported wind was almost calm.

 

The lowest forward visibilty is 5000 m = 5 km ........ That also within safe and legal limit for an instrument approach into KIA runway 25.

 

Therefore, based on the reported weather alone, it should be a safe and legal landing situation and any capt will continue the approach & land as briefed and planned.

 

What we do not know is the 'approach' (pre-landing process) process itself. Was the aircraft fully configured? Was the aircraft met all 'Stabilised Approach' criteria?

 

Generally, a safe landing is a result of a good approach.

 

Back to your 2nd Q, high speed approach and late in configuring the aircraft. I will answer later ........ Gotta go now ;)

 

 

:hi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SECOND PART

 

An aircraft captain is given a freedom of how he wants to operate an aircraft as long as he does not not violate any rules stipulated by his company policy (SOP), local aviation rules, ATC and his Flight Crew Operation Manuals.

 

As long as he could achieve a "STABILISED APPROACH" criteria, technically he is not violating his company's SOP and legal to continue the approach to land.

 

STABILISED APPROACH means the aircraft is:

 

1. Fully configured for landing (Landing gear down and landing flaps selected).

 

2. On the glide path and localizer - means vertically and laterally positioned for the landing.

 

3. On computed approach speed.

 

4. Completed Landing Checklists.

 

Some companies imposed 1500 feet (about 4.5 nm/8 km from touchdown) is the latest altitude that an aircraft should be stabilised for the approach. If for whatever reason an aircraft does not achieve the 'stabilised approach' criteria, a 'miss-approach' is MANDATORY ......... This is to ensure a safe landing is not compromised. Remember Air Indian Express that over-ran the runway in Mangalore last year? This is the result of an unstabilised approach.

 

I hope I have answered your question.

 

 

:hi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SECOND PART

 

An aircraft captain is given a freedom of how he wants to operate an aircraft as long as he does not not violate any rules stipulated by his company policy (SOP), local aviation rules, ATC and his Flight Crew Operation Manuals.

 

As long as he could achieve a "STABILISED APPROACH" criteria, technically he is not violating his company's SOP and legal to continue the approach to land.

 

STABILISED APPROACH means the aircraft is:

 

1. Fully configured for landing (Landing gear down and landing flaps selected).

 

2. On the glide path and localizer - means vertically and laterally positioned for the landing.

 

3. On computed approach speed.

 

4. Completed Landing Checklists.

 

Some companies imposed 1500 feet (about 4.5 nm/8 km from touchdown) is the latest altitude that an aircraft should be stabilised for the approach. If for whatever reason an aircraft does not achieve the 'stabilised approach' criteria, a 'miss-approach' is MANDATORY ......... This is to ensure a safe landing is not compromised. Remember Air Indian Express that over-ran the runway in Mangalore last year? This is the result of an unstabilised approach.

 

I hope I have answered your question.

 

 

:hi:

 

 

 

 

Many thanks for the responses, both Lock SH and Cire!! :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bandung is 2,500ft AMSL - hence the higher approach speed (higher alt->lower air density->higher approach speeds) - further complicated by high temperatures.

 

If WBGG runway was extremely wet with the recent rain, it is very possible that the AirAsia incident is a case of "AQUAPLANING". The runway looked pretty wet to me. This has happened before in many other incidents worldwide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WBGG is also notorious of having rubber deposits on the runway and the authorities have usually been quite slow in doing anything about it. Another factor to consider probably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually seems ak/TF have very good relationships with the local media - as even in past 2 incidents with its then 733s overshooting the runway also have beraly mention in the press - and even this recent incident gets reported just once and no follow up news on ak n its plane n also not one but several pax who were treated for minor injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...