SQ Munich runway excursion

Status
Not open for further replies.
oz_mark

oz_mark

Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Posts
21,429
jb747 said:
Interesting..I wonder what happened there? According to the weather web sites, the wx at the time was quite light winds, but with lowish cloud (2-300 feet) and about 2 km vis. Not an issue for landing, and not really anything happening to explain 'sliding off'.
Click to expand...

Ice? My brother lives there and was telling me it's got cold early.


Sent from my iPhone using Aust Freq Fly app so please excuse the lack of links.
 
medhead said:
Ice? My brother lives there and was telling me it's got cold early.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt it. Minimum temps are still positive, and it's in the mid teens during the day. And this happened around the middle of the day.

Has anyone seen any pics that allow the exact spot to be identified? That will possibly provide the answer.
 
Whoa, that's getting it a bit sideways!!! Not sure what speed it was going towards the end but you think it would just about end up on a wingtip or two with swirves that sharp???
 
A few thoughts:

1. If it looked like you were running off the end of the runway, wouldnt you brake hard enough to potentially flatten / blow the tyres?
2. The youtube clip (presuming it's the same landing - who knows if that's the case) - what is the puff of smoke @ ~ 14seconds? Brake failure perhaps? He also seemed to get the nose down and then it seemed to rear up again (may be an optical illusion).
3. That imagshack photo is interesting - off one side and veered to the other - pretty scary, good work not to shear part of the undercarriage! There's also something in the middle of the runway (in the middle of thetyre marks - ? blown tyre, although the other photos of the undercarriage dont show it).
4. No comments on the SQ website.
5. Imagine the austrlaian media hysteria if it was a QF flight.
6. "Only" came from MAN (not SIN).
7. 200 pax on board.


Any thoughts jb747?

As usual, need to wait for the accident investigation, but would be interested to hear jb's thoughts anyway.
 
docjames said:
A few thoughts:

3. That imagshack photo is interesting - off one side and veered to the other - pretty scary, good work not to shear part of the undercarriage! There's also something in the middle of the runway (in the middle of thetyre marks - ? blown tyre, although the other photos of the undercarriage dont show it).
Click to expand...

Roo? Cow? Don't SQ pilots know you don't swerve to avoid animals? :rolleyes: :D
 
Note the port undercarriage makes contact before the starboard set, significant yaw in play there!
 
docjames said:
1. If it looked like you were running off the end of the runway, wouldnt you brake hard enough to potentially flatten / blow the tyres?
Click to expand...
Tyre failure is not part of this event. Basically, you'd probably barely notice a failure anyway.
2. The youtube clip (presuming it's the same landing - who knows if that's the case) - what is the puff of smoke @ ~ 14seconds? Brake failure perhaps? He also seemed to get the nose down and then it seemed to rear up again (may be an optical illusion).
Click to expand...
The black stuff is being thrown up by the tyres when he initially departed the runway to the left. And yes, the nose does rear up.
3. That imagshack photo is interesting - off one side and veered to the other - pretty scary, good work not to shear part of the undercarriage! There's also something in the middle of the runway (in the middle of thetyre marks - ? blown tyre, although the other photos of the undercarriage dont show it).
Click to expand...
Good work. From the pilots? Or the engineers who designed a very strong undercarriage in the first place.
4. No comments on the SQ website.
Click to expand...
It did not happen.

As best I can see, this is an 'own goal'. The brakes are obviously working perfectly well. It may have been an automatic landing, but a hard over from that system should be very easily countered. Asymmetric reverse is also a non event. My first thought was that they had simply tried to take a taxiway at excessive speed, in which case I'd expect the initial departure to be on a turn off side, just past a taxiway, as it is....but, that particular turn off doesn't look like it would have been one that they'd try for.

Oh, and the thing in the middle of the runway....a car.
 
Last edited:
I like the great big S across both sides of the runway.

Maybe the pilot was training for a part in The Fast and The Furious 6 :D
 
Have to admit, I did something very similar for my first solo. :shock:

No failures in my case - just pilot error. :oops:
 
I'd be impressed if my Commodore left a set of skid marks like that, lets alone a large passenger plane weighing many tonnes/tons....
 
I was there. The conditions were "not bad". Runway was not considered wet.

1. If it looked like you were running off the end of the runway, wouldnt you brake hard enough to potentially flatten / blow the tyres?

It seems that it is what they did. Probably the reason for the black smoke that we see. But you don't do it inmediatly after landing.

2. The youtube clip (presuming it's the same landing - who knows if that's the case) - what is the puff of smoke @ ~ 14seconds? Brake failure perhaps? He also seemed to get the nose down and then it seemed to rear up again (may be an optical illusion).

I see it too. There are 2 videos from different sides. It seems that the right reverse is not deployed, whilst the left one is clearly deployed. the 777 should avoid an unwanted situation with different thrust, but perhaps they were not aware that they might have this problem at low speed.
 
Embarrassing for the state. Runways have been unkind to SQ. I recall the Tapei incident.

Not sure who the pilot was, but a lot of Asian pilots are ex air force and it has been said a litte gungho at times. I remember that was topical with the silk air dive crash details when it came down in Palumbang.
 
Struggling to Redeem Your Frequent Flyer Points?
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Sprucegoose said:
Embarrassing for the state. Runways have been unkind to SQ. I recall the Tapei incident.

Not sure who the pilot was, but a lot of Asian pilots are ex air force and it has been said a litte gungho at times. I remember that was topical with the silk air dive crash details when it came down in Palumbang.
Click to expand...

Why is it embarrassing for the state? ILS issues are common, especially in conditions better than Cat II.

Most airlines have FO specific limits, for crosswind, visibility, etc. Additionally, if an auto land is being conducted, in my experience, they are only done from the left hand seat.
 
jb747 said:
Why is it embarrassing for the state? ILS issues are common, especially in conditions better than Cat II.

Most airlines have FO specific limits, for crosswind, visibility, etc. Additionally, if an auto land is being conducted, in my experience, they are only done from the left hand seat.
Click to expand...
Sinkers likes nothing to go wrong. They are in total control. This should only happen to their neighbours, not Asian Tiger.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and enjoy a better viewing experience, as well as full participation on our community forums.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to enjoy lots of other benefits and discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

Total: 790 (members: 49, guests: 741)
Back
Top