31/08: SN Brussels Airlines A333 emergency landing?

MD-11forever · Post by **MD-11forever** » 01 Sep 2006, 09:53

The flight to Dakar and Monrovia is delayed and flown by a L1011-500. Is this aircraft the TriStar from Euroatlantic Airways?

Also, there seem to be two Kinshasa flights today, both with an A330:

01/09 10:40 Yaounde SN 1355
via Douala
via Kinshasa

01/09 10:45 Kinshasa SN 1357

And all three A330s are apparently in service again, since there is also a flight to Entebbe and Nairobi with an A330

stefanel · Post by **stefanel** » 01 Sep 2006, 09:56

sn26567 wrote:
Johan23 wrote:It's a pity that politicians and inhabitants use this event
to try to forbid take-offs from rwy20.
It's true that Rwy20 is not the safest one. It is shorter that the 2 Rwys 25 and therefore its use with wide-bodies should be avoided.

But it is also longer than the only runway of CRL!

This is all relative. I hate journalists and protestors always saying this runway is too short. Damn, it's almost 3000 m, that's a lot comparing to a lot of runways in other countries and think of all the short runways Ryanair is using with fully loaded 738, and in the US (La Guardia, Washington National etc.) and in the UK etc.

As for Charleroi runway it's one of the longest one Ryanair uses!

FlightSimCrew · Post by **FlightSimCrew** » 01 Sep 2006, 10:57

I must say I find the reaction of the surrounding communities once again exagerated. These same people who complain about noise and nightflights are taking the cattle, charter flights at 06.00 local to Tenerifie, Antalya, and any other got forsaken place in Europe, with often a return at 01.00 or 02.00 at night.. people are so hypocrite..

But I must agree that rwy20 can be avoided by "heavy" widebody aircraft, a safety margin is always good to have even with a fully experienced and trained crew. To the crew of the SN flight I would say, GREAT JOB although it is standard training to fly on one engine, doing it in a real time situation with a fully loaded aircraft is always an extrordinary achievement. Well done !

Let's hope the would be the end of a difficult summer for the African flights.

Johan23 · Post by **Johan23** » 01 Sep 2006, 12:28

There was a required safety margin, otherwise the crew would not have taken off from runway 20.

TWR · Post by **TWR** » 01 Sep 2006, 12:29

It's true that Rwy20 is not the safest one. It is shorter that the 2 Rwys 25 and therefore its use with wide-bodies should be avoided.

*sigh*

For once and for all: runway length has got nothing to do with safety when taking-off. Either the runway is long enough for a given weight and density altitude or it isn't, in which case the pilot will request (and will ALWAYS) get another runway. Taking the wrong runway is another story...

It doesn't matter whether it's a wide-body or a narrow-body because the installed thrust is in equal proportion...

Hommie · Post by **Hommie** » 01 Sep 2006, 13:45

The cause of the return to BRU was not a birdstike or flameout but an engine stall. This causes flames too. The engine was never shut down but you have to take power back to try to get rid off the stall.

Greetz,

Hommie

Tommypilot · Post by **Tommypilot** » 01 Sep 2006, 14:19

FlightSimCrew wrote:But I must agree that rwy20 can be avoided by "heavy" widebody aircraft, a safety margin is always good to have even with a fully experienced and trained crew. To the crew of the SN flight I would say, GREAT JOB although it is standard training to fly on one engine, doing it in a real time situation with a fully loaded aircraft is always an extrordinary achievement. Well done !

Its is even "standard" training to land your plane with only one engine (planes with two engines) during foggy conditions.
This is why they are payed for. Flying in normal conditions is not tuff, flying in those "non-standard" conditions requires both 100% professional flightdeck cooperation and ATC cooperation. A job well done, but they are "used" to it.

About runway 20/02. I have seen many times "heavy" aircraft taking off from runway 02. All has to do with aircraft performances/restrictions/airline policy/Take off weights...I believe.
Runway 20/02 should be long enough for aircrafts such as the A330, B767,...

Regards

Stij · Post by **Stij** » 01 Sep 2006, 15:13

I thought required runway lenght had more to with the required take off speed and thus with altitude, temperature and head wind. Or am I wrong.

Cheers,

stij

xeno · Post by **xeno** » 01 Sep 2006, 16:26

AF332 wrote:01/09 Verleden week gebeurde ook noodlanding op Zaventem

Van der Meerschen feliciteert wel de piloot om zijn koelbloedigheid, wat ook Viselé doet. Touwaide doet dit ook, maar wijst er op dat het vliegtuig "met een minder ervaren piloot gecrasht was".

This Touwaide-guy really makes me laugh...
Or is it common procedure that planes sometimes are controlled by non-experienced pilots (why not a milkman, a pharmacist, ...?)

(what else can we expect from a former vice-president from the UBCNA)

KLC · Post by **KLC** » 01 Sep 2006, 17:24

Johan23 wrote:For me the reaction of the inhabitants of overflown towns was hilarious. One woman even claimed that the a/c flew only 10cm overhead their building. "

I heard someone saying on the VRT news that you could actually SEE the passengers in the aircraft when it passed over his head during the emergency landing! Hello... give me a break!
These people are totally abusing this situation!

Post by **Bottie** » 01 Sep 2006, 17:39

Tommypilot wrote: Runway 20/02 should be long enough for aircrafts such as the A330, B767,...

they wouldn't use it if this wasn't the case ...

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 01 Sep 2006, 17:41

I agree with most of the comments already made in this topic. The media and the complainers have taken this incident into dramatic and exaggerated proportions.

When I heard the news on the radio this afternoon I had the impression that it was a miracle that a crash had been avoided !! 10cm over the hous :laugh: Give me a break !! If the plane flew 10cm above the houses there wouldn't be any roofs anymore.

Like some said, elections are coming soon and minor incidents will thus be used to try to emphasize the propaganda......

People need to understand that when you live around an airport the chances to get an emergency (minor or serious) is higher as if you live on the land somewhere. People also need to understand that loosing an engine during T/O is not dramatic. The planes are designed for such ops and even if the limits are smaller at that stage it's all still in the green area.

Oh well I guess some people will never learn...

I heard someone saying on the VRT news that you could actually SEE the passengers in the aircraft when it passed over his head during the emergency landing! Hello... give me a break!

Yeah he probably saw people running around, screaming, others breathing with the oxygen masks, and some people doing the brace position. Looking in the cockpit he probably saw the pilots searching in vain in the manuals how to land a plane with one engine.....

The cause of the return to BRU was not a birdstike or flameout but an engine stall. This causes flames too. The engine was never shut down but you have to take power back to try to get rid off the stall.

Do you mean a compressor surge ?

Chris

Post by **Bottie** » 01 Sep 2006, 19:12

Oh Lord ... VTM is investigating the cause of all the problems at BRU last weeks with the planes of SN

Zorba · Post by **Zorba** » 01 Sep 2006, 19:18

Bottie wrote:Oh Lord ... VTM is investigating the cause of all the problems at BRU last weeks with the planes of SN

LOL I think I know the result of this "investigation" allready

Aviation and (Belgian?) press/people really don't go together, do they

Atlantis · Post by **Atlantis** » 01 Sep 2006, 20:02

In the same article they have also their doubts if BRU can handle a real emergency. Give me a break.

Everything is good to put BRU at the bad side.

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 01 Sep 2006, 21:10

Bottie wrote:Oh Lord ... VTM is investigating the cause of all the problems at BRU last weeks with the planes of SN

Hi VTM-guys, I know you're reading this. Please tell your colluegues: three of the SNBA-problems were precaution landings, and not emergency landings. Yep, there's indeed a difference. Voorzorgslanding, noodlanding. Got it?

EBBR · Post by **EBBR** » 02 Sep 2006, 00:26

Recent incidents will cost SN a lot of money, I hope this will not endanger SN's future!

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 03 Sep 2006, 15:05

Seems all 3 A330-300's are back in use today:

SN359: Kinshasa via Luanda: scheduled for 09h55, has left at 12h15

SN203/SN1203: Dakar via Banjul: scheduled for 11h25, delayed till 18h00

SN245 : Monrovia via Freetown: scheduled for 11h55, has left at 12h21

erasmus · Post by **erasmus** » 03 Sep 2006, 21:47

EBAW_flyer wrote:But I saw the aircraft climb-out and below 1000' its climb rate was reduced significiantly. That probably worried the inhabitants. Its initial climb was ok, until a 3-400ft when I noticed the gear wasn't going up and plane wasn't climbing the way it should.

Any news about this gear not being raised? If the crew did forget to raise the gear, then that would explain a very low climb rate.

Any more info?

Devon Rex · Post by **Devon Rex** » 03 Sep 2006, 23:09

The discussion goes on and on... and on and on...

http://www.gva.be/nieuws/Binnenland/def ... BA83AF6CB0}

Sorry for the not correctly working link...

Aviation24.be

31/08: SN Brussels Airlines A333 emergency landing?

Re: 01/09 Verleden week gebeurde ook noodlanding op Zaventem