当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。
閉じる
FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか?
広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.
閉じる
Back to Squawk list
  • 38

Qatar Airways flight QR778 struck the approach lighting system during takeoff from Miami International Airport, Florida.

送信時刻:
 
The underbelly of the aircraft impacted approach lighting system runway lights during takeoff at 20:32 hours. The approach lighting system was located 2950 m from the point where the aircraft entered the runway. The flight continued to the destination Doha Airport, Qatar and landed without incident some 13,5 hours later. The FAA reported that an inspection revealed damage that was described as substantial. (aviation-safety.net) さらに...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


rsiano
rsiano 8
I wonder what thrust setting was being used for take off? Was it maximum thrust available or some lesser amount? I recall my very first flight lesson included the Instructor telling me there are three things a pilot does not get to use...the first one is the runway behind him, the second one was the altitude above him and the third thing was the fuel in the fuel truck. Basics that stuck with me for 40 years of flying.
gsmith4151
They may have planed for full length takeoff with derated thrust, and been offered intersection takeoff due to another aircraft blocking taxiway or construction or......Anyway, and forgot to change FMS to maximum takeoff power. Just my thoughts.
preacher1
There will probably be an internal investigation to find out what did happen but unless a foreign carrier airs it's dirty laundry, we'll never see it here. Fact that flight arv. safely and pax probably never knew about it, we see what we see and what we have is all that we get. He took off short, he creamed the lights, and got to destination OK. All we'll ever hear.
Ruger9X19
Unfortunately you're probably right. I think the biggest lessons we loose out on are the near misses. They got away with it this time, but the system broke down somewhere and if it happened here it can happen again. Next time they might not be as lucky.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Bernie20910
A tad excitable, aren't you? Murder you say? Please go look up the definition of the word and then explain who got murdered. Not "could have", not "almost", tell us exactly who.

You made a direct accusation and called the crew murderers, now back it up with some facts.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Bernie20910
As I suspected, you make wild accusations and ignore people when called on to back them up. So, who got murdered, mister "I'm a real important person with inside information that I can't divulge, but I'm going to run my mouth about it anyway so you'll all know just how really important I am... or claim to be"?
chalet
chalet 0
Talking about some people being ignorant, it is obvious that you had not the slightest idea that back in the late 80s and 90s ICAO and several aviation agencies including the FAA and NTSB statued the installation of FRANGIBLE LIGHNING AND ILS POSTS which would break whenever a force of certain magnitude hits them like the Q777 in Miami and several others limiting the extent of the damage to aircraft. Way back in years the stiffness of the posts was such that they acted like knives slicing through wings, fuel tanks etc. with catastrophic results.
joelwiley
Chalet, your comment is a total non sequitur. Nice history lesson on frangible parts, but the subject was your assertion of the crime of murder (Cal PC Sect 187).
Another off topic item. Statute is a noun. Statuted as a verb in the past tense could be considered in some circles as an offence against the english language.
chalet
chalet 0
Which circles, yours?. Don't count a dime.
joelwiley
You don't count dimes? That would make small financial transactions interesting.
VKSheridan
Just to clarify....You are stating THIS crew killed someone through a premeditated act? All I read in the story is they smacked some lights. The absence of a single commentary, video, tweet or testimony of witness tends to suggest no such event occurred. Assuming a huge cover up occurred in flight and everyone on board were silenced in some way, your suggestion requires the same silencing to extend to family, co-workers and anyone else who could have insight to the victim not walking off the plane. Ditto if your suggesting they used the plane to kill someone on the ground. Share these facts that you attest to have.....
chalet
chalet -6
Stop whining like ladies, it does not take an English major at Oxford or Harvard to know that the expression does not mean actual murder and I will quote for you the definition found on Cambridge's dictionary: "To be ​allowed to do things that other ​people would be ​punished or ​criticized for". Got the idea (I doubt it). Anyway just write down everything I said before and a little extra now: that the crew acted in a criminal manner by taking off with a TOW around 350 tons and also some 300+ SOB (do you understand that this means Souls of Board or to you need a detailed explanation).
joelwiley
And according to OED
Phrases

get away with murder
1
informal Succeed in doing whatever one chooses without being punished or suffering any disadvantage.

Your statement did say "get away with murder. Yes, murder". It appears that your re-emphasis with 'yes murder' departs from the informal usage and forces the more formal definition into play (again OED) "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". That may be the the trigger for the commentary.
And, ladies do not whine.
g'day.
chalet
chalet 0
Sorry for calling you a lady (LIMAO)
VKSheridan
Thanks for the unsolicited and filtered to a singular perspective English education. The flair for the dramatic with the "I know more, will tell you I do but won't show I do" was the actual trigger though...... To your update, thanks for sharing. Fat birds struggle to fly.
chalet
chalet 0
Sorry to hear that you struggle to fly, in this permanent.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
LOL Monsieur!!!
chalet
chalet 1
Correction: Several homes EAST of RWY 09.
joelwiley
As Ruger919 posed, with the 2 hr CVR recording overwritten on the 13hr flight, do you think they will be able to reconstruct everything that occurred? Will Qatar cooperate?
I don't think they got away with murder, even having driven of the end of the runway. They did get airborne. Close call tho'.
Maybe they need a sign at the S-T1 intersection "If you weigh more than XXXXXX, NO LEFT TURN"
paultrubits
Preacher: It seems to me that they took out the lights with the landing gear. Are the gear that tough that they not be damaged by the impact?
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
They had better be, they absorb the arrivals of some very incompetent aviators!!!
preacher1
If they were at MTOW, I would have figured they were at full. If less, I figure they went to full after they saw they were short.
preacher1
Or that could have been one of the "HERE, watch this" deals.
africantilapia
A good old adage! The version I learned was only two of the above.

Things not worth worrying about -

1. The runway left behind when you take off from the intersection, and

2. The fuel you did not uplift because you ........
WigzellRM
And the sky above
WendyKruppDespain
I can vouch for the pilots not hearing anything. When I was a FA for Delta, I was working the aft cabin on a L1011 on a full flight Bermuda-Boston. We hit the lights on landing. All of us in the back heard the loud scratching along the belly of the aircraft and everyone knew we had just hit something. Immediately after touchdown, I called the cockpit. They did not believe me and argued with me since they hadn't heard anything or were notified of a problem. I had 50 wide eyed people looking at us. After deplaning, I spoke with the Captain and insisted he go out and check the aircraft. He did and the plane was grounded.
JimG4170L
Queen of the Sky......I loved the 1011! Looked as good as she flew. Delta paint scheme looked so good on her.
OnTheHorizon
Reminds me of the old Kelly Johnson quote: "if it looks bad, it'll fly bad"
preacher1
The DAL paint scheme did not look so good at DFW one day around 1985.
JimG4170L
DAL191... Crime that it was reported as pilot error.....but the Doppler roll out at the airports was a direct result of that crash and the data recovered from the black boxes, so at least something good came of it....
JENNYJET
Regardless of the paint job, I admit to the demise of V1011 since UK Royal AirForce retired it‘s fleet in favour of A380 MRTT.

Personally, I much preferred the DC-10 and MD-11 for it's exceptional beauty and it's proportionality together with the blistering performance at take off and climb rate.
JENNYJET
Apologies, L1011 or TriStar.
paviation07
I like the looks of the 27
DerekCooks
The only aircraft that I thought "rode" better than the L-10 is a B75... At least for my butt's opinion.
JimG4170L
On a 777-300, given the distance from the flight deck to the main gear and fuselage behind the gear (which is what would have struck the ALS), its not a stretch to believe the crew (on flight deck) did not hear anything. In the back, the sound of striking the lights could have been lost among the sounds of the aircraft unsticking, struts unloading, and the other sounds an aircraft makes when it transitions from awkward truck to aircraft. If the cabin crew did not hear/report anything, the flight crew may not have been aware of the strike. NOW, the crew definitely knew they were long. Would have loved to see the sight picture at V-1 and also wonder if they rotated before V2. Obviously the strike didn't puncture the pressure cylinder, and if no bells/lights/warnings appeared up front, and no calls from the back, the crew, after wiping of the sweat and changing their pants, shared a nervous laugh and thought they were lucky....until they got to Doha.....
preacher1
As I said, the CVR will be interesting as far as the soiled pants go. I'll give them benefit of doubt on not hearing anything. I am sure they were more concerned about getting off than anything and since they did with no apparent foul, I too am sure the were wiping sweat and saying we got away with one. The fact that nothing was punctured is a testament to the AC but also in the ALS in being breakaway as they were. I'm guessing that FAA damage report was exaggerated.
JimG4170L
Damage is based on size/damage cost or if a significant component was damaged. It's a matrix so exaggeration would not be a factor as much as our interpretation of what we consider substantial. Substantial to them may be a 20' gouge in the fuselage and incidental damage to surrounding components. Substantial to a layperson may be the tail fell off an hour after landing due to the damage. lol
Bernie20910
I believe the "substantial damage" the FAA is referring it is to the lighting system, not the aircraft. I would have a hard time believing that the FAA had a representative in Doha to inspect the aircraft, but I'm pretty sure they had a few around MIA who could check the lights.
preacher1
According to what was said in the aftermath of 214, you are probably correct.
chandrahas
I believe Approach light supports would be designed to breakdown/ bentdown rather than seriously damage any flying objects...
Bernie20910
Probably so, but in what direction? This is a case where they would have been hit from behind.
PLANESOLUTIONS
One should always rotate well before V2. VR is the rotation call-out.
JimG4170L
Yep, my typo error, V2 is single engine climb out - Thanks for catch :-)
chandrahas
Pilots had longer runway available to them. Wonder why one choose shorter stretch..even if it is sufficient..I would choose longest possible stretch for safety..
preacher1
Like I said, it may be a case of "HERE, WATCH THIS". Seriously, it could have been a miscalculation or anything. That said. If I was anywhere close to MTOW, I would want all the runway available and full thrust.
Moviela
It could have been a case of "Watch me pull a rabbit out of my hat" as you say, but my thinking is more simple. I have had pilots who grew up with the metric system ask me why I taxi a 172 to the end of the runway if it is 3100 long? I let them know it is 950 meters, or 3100 feet!

I wonder if the crew of the Qatar plane had a similar "metric moment?"
johntalley1
they completely screwed up and turned onto the runway at the wrong place.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
It's unrealistic to always use the longest runway or carry full fuel in the name of safety.
paviation07
Could have been a bigger version of the Comair 5191 accident
ashfsk85
why they decide to continue to fly to Doha 13hrs away? The damage was substantial as per FAA.
Ruger9X19
I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they thought the impact was the gear doors closing or some such thing (not sure what hitting approach lights sounds like). The conspiracy theorist in me says they wanted to overwrite that portion of the CVR.
PLANESOLUTIONS
Well... the damage was inspected after landing, not during climb-out from MIA. Wiping out a lighting system with a heavy aircraft may have not been noticed.
StarFlyr
StarFlyr 1
Their main problem was whether the land gear was scewed/flat tires. After retracting the gear, without know anything else, it was probably safer to continue to Doha and burn off the thousands of pounds of fuel.
Bernie20910
The damage to the lighting system was substantial. We don't have info on the extent of the damage to the aircraft (at least that I've seen), and no one knew of the damage for quite some time. The tower did not know of it and the crew had no indications of anything amiss with the aircraft. Without knowing anything was hit, what else were they supposed to do?
Ruger9X19
Seriously, how does this happen?
LoralThomas
Rather think they didn't compute their takeoff distance or if they, or someone, did they can't read along with unable to do math correctly. Absolutely no excuse for putting that BIG and HEAVY airplane on a shortened runway.
StarFlyr
StarFlyr 1
I very much doubt they planned the intersection departure. With only around 8,000 ft and a fully loaded 777, I would be very surprised if the takeoff data charts showed this to be a legal departure. When they hit V1, I doubt they would have then even reached Vr if they experience an engine failure (read BA's 777 engine failure at LAS).

It's even likely they rotated early when they saw the "pickle" they were in. And I'm guessing they might have even thought they had the full runway available at the intersection. FULL gross weight takeoffs and intersection departures don't go together.
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 1
See above article...
preacher1
Well, the weight will be the telling factor here. If they wr at MOTOW, they would need about 10 grand and by the taxiway turn in, they were a tad short. Past that is anybody's guess. FAA says substantial damage but with a 13 hr pressurized flight, it couldn't have been too bad. Tat may also account for not turning around. Not taking up for crew but they just may not have known. CVR ought to tell that story.
rkurian
I wonder if FAA was referring to substantial damage to the approach lighting system as opposed to the aircraft. I can't imagine a pressurized jet flying 13.5 hours with "substantial damage" and no indications in the cockpit.
paviation07
All it takes is one missing rivet to cause a disaster...
Look at Concorde...it was lost from a piece of a dc-10 thst flew fine...
StarFlyr
StarFlyr 1
Actually it was a much bigger piece than a rivet.
joelwiley
I think his first line was in the vein of "for the want of a nail a shoe was lost...."
StarFlyr
StarFlyr 1
When I was flying, the CVR only looped the last 30 minutes (or so we were told).
andriy17
Anyone has pictures of aircraft and landing lights damage?
blueashflyer
I bet you can't just go down to Home Depot and buy new approach lights.
btweston
btweston 2
I... bet you're right.
paviation07
www.airport-suppliers.com/supplier/Genesis_Lamp_Corporation/
paultrubits
Most likely the lights have bolts that shear off like the light poles along the highway.
paviation07
the state DOT assumes that people will hit the poles...the FAA and designers don't assume a plane will hit them
joelwiley
I looked into FAA frangible equipment for airport lighting. They recommend frangible (breakaway) hardware unless there is a reason. Most frequent exception seems to be approach lighting in floodplains where the current might carry it off. Didn't find specifics for MIA yet.
paultrubits
Sam: I would hope they do or will in the future.
dmorrelljr
According to the video animation further down the page it looks like they turned too soon onto the runway and started their takeoff with only about 3/4 of the runway left.
Ruger9X19
I think you may be right from what I can find on performance online a 777-300 @ MTOW needs 10,000 ft. and for that long of a flight I bet they were close to MTOW.
dmorrelljr
R9 at MIA is 13,016 ft, but it looks like they turned a T1. By my estimation, they had just over 9,000 feet to go when they started.
LoralThomas
Isn't math a wonderful skill to have! Think the flight crew is in trouble.
andyc852
Agree and rightfully so. Could have been WAY worse!
AAflyer123
all 4 pilots on that lfight have been fired, surprise, surprise.
warbirdnut
Talk about a runway not being long enough! In the late '60's I boarded an Air Mexicana flight from Mexico City. The aircraft was a British made Comet, the one with 4 burning in the wing roots. I swear we hit the rumble strip at the end of the runway before lift off.
chalet
chalet 2
The PIC flying, his copilot and the two relief pilots of QR778 were fired last week of December. The PIC was accused of gross dereliction of duties including not taking off from the threshold of RWY 09 considering that TOW was only 5 tons short of MTOW, temperature 34° C, wind, range to destination, etc. F/O and relief pilots were fired for not challenging PIC in a more positive and forceful manner about such a bad decision.

QA Top Management also directed a profound overhaul of current internal safety and CRM regulations and will institute changes as necessary to avoid the repetition of something that could have been one of the worst accidents in the U.S. (350+ souls on board plus a substantial number of people on the ground including those traversing the heavily traveled 8-lane Le Jeune Road a short distance from the threshold of RWY 27).

Incidentally PIC on take off was an individual of Spanish nationality.
joelwiley
AVHERALD reported" ... Gate D14 at Miami Airport at 20:18 hours local time. The aircraft taxied via taxiway Sierra and entered runway 9 at intersection T1 for departure. Runway length available from this point was about 2610 m. "

T1 is at the West Cargo Base. Left turn too early?
The airport diagram at:
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/KMIA/map
joelwiley
My error. Source Aviation Safety Network.
AVHerald reports:
A Qatar Airways Boeing 777-300, registration A7-BAC performing flight QR-778 from Miami,FL (USA) to Doha (Qatar), lined up runway 09 at taxiway T1 (approximately 2600 meters/8500 feet takeoff distance available, full runway length 3968 meters/13,016 feet) and departed Miami's runway 09 but struck the approach lights runway 27 during departure. Both tower, departure controllers as well as crew maintained routine communication. The aircraft continued to destination for a landing without further incident about 13.5 hours later.
JENNYJET
It would appear to my limited operational knowledge, based upon other contributors, that the flight was successful since the aircraft arrived together with all souls on board alive and well. This was not another MH370 was it now?

So there may have been some cosmetic damage to the aircraft and Miami my need to replace approach lighting a little sooner than planned but replaced all the same. It hardly matters to the passengers or crew whether the airline , the ground staff at Miami, the pilot in command or the FAA have questions to answer. What matters is the aircraft arrived, the passengers survived and life continues.

What concerns me is the relative weights the aircraft have to carry, passengers need to be weighed along with ALL baggage together at the gate rather than at check in....adding checked bags adding carry on bags and airport shopping with the passenger at the gate before boarding. The commander will then have the decision to make as to fuel uptake then flight calculations can be safely made before the take off run begins.

I recall a flight out of Heathrow on a SriLankan A340-300, every available seat was occupied and I had nose camera on my seat back screen. The take off run took the entire length of the runway before the nose lifted and the M25 motorway look exceedingly close as the aircraft laboured to gain some height. Some very agitated passengers complained as this was a wet trouser event! Why? Because so many people were stuffing impossibility large carry on baggage into the overhead bins and under the seats, likely not weighed and to hell with the safety of the flight in mind.

Imagine what may occur when Emirates begin using their 650+ seat A380?
nicolengono
Same for all AIR FRANCE flights to Cameroon , too much hand baggages ; people are irresponsible and selfish . And why do they allow two registered baggages of 23 kg each !!!
One is enough for a full booked aircraft . Always all AIR FRANCE flights to Douala and Yaounde are "overpopulated" with Cameroonians living in Europe because the disastrous living conditions in their birth country .
paviation07
I used to see pax take 2-3 bags each for a 2 day charter to Atlantic City (KACY)

Funny thing is there going to the casinos...doubt they changed clothes the whole trip
Guycocoa
Modern transport aircraft have the ability to determine their own weight and use that data for flight calculations.
joelwiley
Interesting. Do they tell the pilots?
Sorry for the flippancy.
Are you saying that modern aircraft have sensors that can detect actual weight of the a/c including total weight of pax & carryon baggage as well as the measured inputs such as cargo, fuel, consumables and checked luggage? How extensive is this across the total flying fleet?
paviation07
It would make sense if they did...I know some truck drivers and their trailers have sensors how much weight is loaded or unloaded...gauge in cab tells driver a digital weight...it theoretically could be applied to aircraft...
Guycocoa
http://www.ndt.net/abstract/ecndt98/036.htm
Guycocoa
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/eSystemDisplay?catalogId=10251&storeId=10651&categoryId=43752&langId=-7
xairbusdriver
@Guy, do you have a link to support that this aircraft has the Honeywell (or any other) system? The "fly-by-night" company I retired from studied/tested a system like this back when they flew 727's, so it was even before that 'abstract' was published. The technology wasn't acceptable back then. But weighing freight containers is a lot more accurate than people and their carry-ons. ;-) Even if this kind of system was installed/used, it looks like the problem was using less than the required runway. That sounds like human error, which could have been miss-reading the airport diagram, runway markings, even a late/slow rotation. Just glad the only things that broke are ones that can be replaced!
num1tailhooker
There is no excuse for not using the entire runway for takeoff regardless of the circumstances. One of the most useless items in aviation is runway behind you.
StarFlyr
StarFlyr 1
You must not be a pilot or at least an airline pilot. YES, runway behind you is useless. That said, there are many times, especially on short flights under 5 hours or less where the airplane weighs far less than the maximum takeoff weight for that length of runway. Extra fuel is burned taxiing to the full end of the runway when an intersection takeoff is well less than at maximum weight for the shorter runway used.

In addition to that, the most airlines also use "reduce thrust" takeoffs if FULL power is not needed. This procedure burns less fuel AND puts less strain on the engines. When I was flying, I was a big fan of reduced thrust takeoffs when it was safe to do so.

Regardless of all of the above, an intersection takeoff at max thrust on a intersection runway takeoff is absolutely nuts. I don't know if this incident was a night takeoff or not, but my theory is that the Captain thought he was at the end of the runway. And the tower should have advised him that he was NOT at the end of the runway and how much shorter it was from the intersection. In my career, I've flown a lot of these heavy weight international takeoffs and would never have attempted this one from that intersection. I'm guessing when the power was applied on this takeoff, there was NO true V1 available. For you novices reading this far, V1 is the ability to at the most critical point in the takeoff run, to either stop at the end of the runway OR continue the takeoff with the loss of an engine (in this case on one engine).
paviation07
starflyr...
burning an extra 100 lbs of fuel or risk the pax and or crew departing from a intersection
what would you choose?
StarFlyr
StarFlyr 1
Thought I made it clear. ALL the concrete for a max gross takeoff. And I DOUBT QUATAR airlines or any Quatar Captain could care less about saving fuel. So I'm guessing the flight was topped off to max for the 14 hour flight. I also doubt it was reduce thrust takeoff unless there was a gross miscalculation. While I've been out of the business for 20 years, I've been at the wheel of many of these max takeoff efforts, mostly on the 747-200 @ 760,000 gross.

It appears that the flight was scheduled to depart around just after 8PM (if it was on time). Sunset Miami is around 7:15PM. My money is on the crew thinking they were at the end of runway 9. THIS kind of mixup has happened before IN THE US by US crews.
num1tailhooker
This ranks very high on the list of things not to do in a fully loaded airplane. I have added Qatar to Asiana on my list of airlines to avoid.
PLANESOLUTIONS
At a loss of valid reasons for "shorting" oneself on runway. There is never too much!
21voyageur
not sure who should have the finger pointed at (either dispatch or crew) but this appears to be an example of how sloppy inattentive work can result in disaster. IMHO they were most like seconds from a far more serious situation. Somebody shud be be terminated from their job. No excuse that I can see.
chandrahas
Must watch next action from QA...or avoid QA..
rkurian
As pointed out by others, it may have been a take-off started too far down the runway, but it may also have been incorrect power settings. This incident reminds me of a serious Emirates tail strike during take-off incident from 2009 in Melbourne where an A340-500 barely cleared a brick building at the end of the runway by 50 cm. That incident was put down to incorrect inputs of weight into the FMS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirates_Flight_407

[This poster has been suspended.]

AAflyer123
its funny how all their commercials tal about is how beautiful the interior of their aircraft are, and how great the food/ service is. but they never mention quality of the pilots. gee, i wonder why?
riddfly
riddfly 1
It is human mistake, no way around that.
Thing was that the last 4 like KS in the error chain did not catch it. I bet like any accident it was a snowball effect of errors that grew and no one noticed.
All carriers use derated takeoff power settings for TO.
To call it murder without premeditation is a bold statement.
Could have been a lot of different things.
I don't think I would have continued on a on the trip.
I think they had to have had a tailstrike or damn close to one.
Just my 2 cents.
StarFlyr
StarFlyr 2
I'll buy all that EXCEPT derated thrust on a max weight takeoff. With a 2 engine airplane at MAX gross weight, I doubt there's much room to reduce the thrust. That said, IF the performance data said they could takeoff from that intersection at their actual weight WITH reduce thrust, I can't think of reason to hit the approach light at the end of the runway.

And it DEFINITELY WASN'T murder. Too many ground pounders frequent this board spouting off without knowing anything about aviation (IMHO).
monstrok
It almost sounds like a no-flap takeoff was attempted when a 5° ro 10° setting was required. It would be interesting to see if the takeoff computations for performance included a different flap setting than was actually used.
StarFlyr
StarFlyr 1
That didn't happen UNLESS the TO warning horn wasn't working. BEEP, BEEP BEEP as soon as the thrust levers are advanced if the flaps aren't set right.
PLANESOLUTIONS
Apparently, using less than full-length was not a good idea on that day.
sueridge307
You think that's bad. Try Thai airways B744 at YBBN 2014 on approach to runway 01 slowly started going to the left heading towards old airport disused runway which was broken to pieces then they finally realized this and clipped the Gateway bridge light poles 230 meters above the water. But no damage reported. Pilots couldn't speak clear English to ATC
chalet
chalet 1
To all of you who questioned what I had said right after the accident took place that this was a clear -and awful- mistake on the part of the pilots for not taking off from the threshold of RWY 09, well, there you are, the official Preliminary Report issued by Qatar's Civil Aviation Authority with the assistance of U.S.'s FAA and NTSB and UK's CAA says it all. The definitive fate of the crew is pending the Final Report to be issued in a few weeks and they were firmly grounded in Doha since they landed after this fateful flight
joelwiley
Chalet,
what was it that you said which you feel provides vindication? That they wouldn't be flying again? That they departed from T-1 rather than the threshold? I think most agreed that that was the case. I had questioned your assertion that they 'got away with murder'. Am willing to await the final report to see if that is in there.
You also asserted "I know my facts feller, sorry I can't disclose anything'. Have time and circumstances changed that you can now disclose something?
Respectfully,
joel
chalet
chalet 1
Joe, I learned all the most important details of the accident from a high level executive of a company that provides goods and services to major airlines in the Middle East, sorry but this was the extent of what I was allowed to disclose without compromising my source. BR.
dahetzel
The employee parking lot is at the departure end of Rwy 9...think they might have set off some car alarms??
eesteve
Maybe things have changed.....My commercial flight instructors (many of whom flew with the majors) told me that it was "Company" policy ...NO INTERSECTION TAKE-OFFS"...I listened (in the 70's) and took the advice to heart in my C 172 and C 177 rg.....2650 meters doesn't sound like much "Runway ahead" for a loaded 777.What was the pilot in command thinking ????
1320Fastback
I think it was the same guys bouncing their Ferrari off of a few cars in Beverly Hills and running a few stop signs there also.
WigzellRM
The crew would know if they lifted off after the end of the runway. Just like a tailstrike, they should not have pressurized the plane and returned. They should be sent back to the USA so that the suits can talk to them.
paviation07
I totally agree...pilots are in charge of passengers safety number one...or is it company profits? Depends who you ask
toolguy105
toolguy105 -2
If the tower was aware the lights were struck I wonder why the plane was not called back.

Pilots don't chose the runway they are assigned by the tower. IF they are not long enough the pilots should ask the tower for a longer runway.
chalet
chalet -8
Ruger9X19 Don't try to save these X"Ñfm<< retards. Hitting the approach lights even if they are of a frangible nature precisely to snap when a plane hits must have made an impressive noise to alert the pilots that something bad had happened. Furthermore there was radio contact between the airline and tower, the airline's dispatch and FAA so there is no excuse for their having continued on a 13 hours long flight. If Qatar wants to reassure future potential passengers about being safe got to sack the crew and let everybody to know that.
Ruger9X19
Not trying to save anyone. I wasn't there. Joel's info posted earlier from AVherald stated communication between the aircraft and tower and aircraft and departure was routine. This indicates to me that the controllers weren't aware of the impact, and the pilots didn't alert them. I offered the possibility that the pilots also were unaware of the damage, and with no abnormal indications simply continued their flight unaware.
450kts
Chalet,- Your punitive attitude shows no respect for the real reasons for why this happened. Punitive corporate cultures tends to increase the likelihood of errors and omissions. A systemic approach to find out why accidents happen is more conductive to flight safety. Retards? I have seen great people kill themselves in airplanes! Shame on you, young lady!
chalet
chalet -3
Lars you have the reasoning stance of an old spinster that does not know anything about these matters. I know all of the most important details of this incident but can not disclose any. Sufficient is for me to say that all 4 pilots inside the cockpit bear the blame. If you are not familiar with the MIA area just go to Goodle Maps and see by yourself the extent of the built up East of RNW 09 that these reatards might have plowed down killing I fear hundreds of people. So mark my words and shup up.
VKSheridan
So you're now saying they MIGHT have murdered people versus they DID murder people? I marked your words, did a Google search and can proudly tell you all those little dots you're seeing are not the bodies of murdered victims but rather trees.....Glad we got that cleared up!
chalet
chalet 0
Thank you for your 100/100 eyesight capabilities, I could not have ever known that those were trees (you jerk)
btweston
btweston 1
Maybe you should write 'em a letter.
africantilapia
Come on! Get real!

The Captain is probably the Minister of Aviation's nephew, so "royalty". They cannot be fired!
AAflyer123
wrong, all 4 pilots have been fired

ログイン

アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!