Incidente serio per E195 Air Serbia in decollo da BEG


East End Ave

Utente Registrato
13 Agosto 2013
8,305
3,234
su e giu' sull'atlantico...
Era carburante dall’ala!

Dal sempre ottimo avherald:



On Feb 22nd 2024 Serbia's Traffic Accident Research Center reported, that the occurrence was rated an accident and is being investigated. During pre-flight preparations the crew planned for a departure from runway 30L via intersection takeoff from taxiway D6. The crew received taxi instructions from their stand to holding line D6 via taxiways F,G and A, which the crew read correctly back. The crew subsequently reported they were approaching D6 and were cleared to line up the runway via D6. Tower subsequently urgently called the crew querying them whether they were aware of having lined up at D5. The crew advised they needed a minute to compute their performance and computed the performance at the first officer's tablet computer. While the crew were doing their calculations tower offered the crew to backtrack the runway to D6, however, the crew confirmed they were able to take off. Tower again queried whether they were aware of D5, the crew affirmed, tower subsequently cleared the aircraft for takeoff. Tower subsequently observed the aircraft taking off leaving a lot of dust behind and climbing very slowly out. The flight crew reported they had selected full takeoff thrust normal acceleration until 80 knots, however, at 100 knots they realized they were running out of runway surface. Considering the remaining runway ahead the crew decided it was safer to continue as they estimated the aircraft would soon lift off. The crew firewalled the engines and to lift the nose of the aircraft in order to use the maximum length of runway available. The aircraft began to shake as they left the runway surface, then hit an object. Following lift off the crew received indications of problems with a number of systems amongst them flaps and bleed air. After working the checklists the crew declared Mayday reporting they had hit some object on departure and decided to have the landing gear checked during a low pass over the aerodrome, during which ground staff did not observe any problem with the landing gear. Due to the problems with the flaps the crew decided to use a higher speed than normal for landing and landed on runway 30L without further incident. The crew taxied to the apron with emergency services in trail. After arriving at the stand ground staff informed the crew there was a fuel leak from the left hand wing, the crew quickly shut the engine and other systems down, emergency services started to treat the fuel leak. After passengers and crew had disembarked authorities ordered the aircraft to be removed from the terminal to a safer place. The fuel leakage continued to the next day despite the fuel had been pumped out of the tank. The aircraft sustained substantial damage.

Tyre tracks were found past the end of the paved surface colliding with a number of approach lights, the aircraft impacted the ILS monitoring antenna 145 meters past the paved surface leaving only the concrete surface with broken cables behind, some parts of the antenna were found 175 meters past the paved surface and about 60 meters past the aerodrome fence, other parts were embedded in the left hand wing of the aircraft. A few meters after that foundation a hole of 60cm diameter was found in the ground with parts of the aircraft embedded. About 160 meters past that concrete contact marks of the tail section of the aircraft's fuselage were found on the ground. No traces of the aircraft's nose wheels were found on the ground, while tracks of the main gear were found until the monitoring antenna. It thus can be concluded that the aircraft went past the runway end with both main gear struts carrying most of the weight and transmitting vibrations onto the airframe. The aircraft hit the monitoring antenna and its foundation with the left hand wing.

The preliminary probable cause is stated to have been: "One of the probable causes of this accident is the inadequate assessment of take-off parameters during the pre-flight preparation of the flight crew of the aircraft, and after the decision to take off with a shorter runway length compared to the initially planned one."
Se quindi quello nel video è carburante ritiro le mie perplessità di buon grado, ma se con una perdita così massiva c’è gente che gira coi telefonini a pochi metri questi mi appare comunque una bestialità.
 

explo

Moderatore
Utente Registrato
29 Maggio 2009
5,159
80
Scorzè (ve)
Se quindi quello nel video è carburante ritiro le mie perplessità di buon grado, ma se con una perdita così massiva c’è gente che gira coi telefonini a pochi metri questi mi appare comunque una bestialità.
Sicuramente non è un comportamento giusto.
Chiedo ai più esperti, il tipo di carburante, una volta che l'aereo è stato messo in sicurezza, è così volatile da potersi incendiare facilmente?
 

East End Ave

Utente Registrato
13 Agosto 2013
8,305
3,234
su e giu' sull'atlantico...
Sicuramente non è un comportamento giusto.
Chiedo ai più esperti, il tipo di carburante, una volta che l'aereo è stato messo in sicurezza, è così volatile da potersi incendiare facilmente?
Leggendo su siti specializzati sembrerebbe di no, ma trovo anche questo su Wiki:

Volatility is important because a fuel must vaporize before it can burn. However, too high a volatility can result in evaporative losses or fuel system vapor lock. Volatility is one of the major differences between kerosine-type and wide-cut jet fuel. Kerosine- type jet fuel is relatively non-volatile.

Detto che... "Jet B is a naphtha-kerosene fuel that is used for its enhanced cold-weather performance. However, Jet B's lighter composition makes it more dangerous to handle.[10] For this reason, it is rarely used, except in very cold climates. A blend of approximately 30% kerosene and 70% gasoline, it is known as wide-cut fuel."

...non so quale tip di jet-fuel fosse presente sul volo specifico...a questo punto auspico il meno volatile...!
 
  • Like
Reactions: explo

hyppo

Utente Registrato
26 Gennaio 2012
868
450
Se non ricordo male comunque chiedono di spegnere pure i cellulari durante rifornimento con pax a bordo, da un estremo all'altro
 

Fewwy

Utente Registrato
19 Agosto 2014
1,599
784
Torino
Detto che... "Jet B is a naphtha-kerosene fuel that is used for its enhanced cold-weather performance. However, Jet B's lighter composition makes it more dangerous to handle.[10] For this reason, it is rarely used, except in very cold climates. A blend of approximately 30% kerosene and 70% gasoline, it is known as wide-cut fuel."
Il Jet-B non c’entra niente con l’incidente, né con l’aviazione commerciale…

È più roba da militari.
 
Ultima modifica:
  • Like
Reactions: East End Ave

Flyfan

Utente Registrato
17 Giugno 2019
1,299
768
LJU

Nella voce del pilota/FO dopo l'impatto c'è tutta l'angoscia di chi sa di aver fatto una cagata assurda e che se se la cava perderà il lavoro.
 

speedbird001

Utente Registrato
27 Febbraio 2014
815
188
The report states that the captain was a 58-year-old Italian with type ratings for the A320 and Embraer 170, while the co-pilot was Polish with an Embraer 170 rating . This was the second flight for the flight and cabin crew after the return flight to Vienna. There were 2 pilots, 3 cabin crew members and 106 passengers in the plane .
 

East End Ave

Utente Registrato
13 Agosto 2013
8,305
3,234
su e giu' sull'atlantico...

Nella voce del pilota/FO dopo l'impatto c'è tutta l'angoscia di chi sa di aver fatto una cagata assurda e che se se la cava perderà il lavoro.
Spiace (fino a un certo punto) per lui; ma perche' complicarsi la vita inutilmente? Cosa ne e' della Safety Awareness?!?!?
Bello solido comunque l'E195, brava Embraer! Bene che preso l'attacco ala...direi che qualche metro piu' esterno i danni sarebbero stati assai piu' ingenti data l'aumentata fragilita' dell'ala.

EDITED
 
Ultima modifica:

casaaugusto

Utente Registrato
12 Dicembre 2007
131
2
.
Chiedo: il controllore avrebbe potuto imporre al pilota di tornare al punto di intersezione previsto e non autorizzare il decollo?
 

OneShot

Utente Registrato
31 Dicembre 2015
3,985
3,180
Paris
Chiedo: il controllore avrebbe potuto imporre al pilota di tornare al punto di intersezione previsto e non autorizzare il decollo?
La mia ia esperienza in merito mi ha portato a comprendere che la categoria dei cosiddetti uomini radar è molto accomodante e paziente nei confronti dei piloti. Cosa che spesso non trova reciprocità.
Nel caso in questione, credo che, fatti salvi motivi di sicurezza per rapporto ad altri traffici e/o di flow management,dopo aver fatto il suo lavoro nel prevenire i piloti sulla TORA, imporre la sua volontà contro quella dei piloti, sarebbe stata vista come una forzatura non necessaria.
Col senno del poi, avrebbe fatto bene, ma col senno del poi, anche i due piloti avrebbero fatto quel back track propostogli
Che mi dici @setIRSposition?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dancrane