The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Even Bombay airport is dangerous by many definitions. It is surrounded by dense human population on almost all sides.
Its close proximity to Juhu airport has confused many a pilot. One japanese airline kamikaze warrior even landed his commercial 707 flight in Juhu.
That somehow seems to be a common occurance in India. I remember long ago a case of a middle eastern 747 landing in Air Force Station Tambaram instead of Meenambakkam, and on the inaugral Jet Airways flight to Coimbatore, the worthy landed at the Sulur airbase instead of the airport..
Not to forget the gentleman who landed on the taxi track in Goa.
However, Please note saar,
All worthies are highly qualified professional pilots. The environment and the job is very demanding and mistakes are sometimes fatal.
ramana wrote:
So its a clear case of a system accident. The pilot if he landed/touchdown at wrong location had no margin to complete the landing safely and to compound the problem there is the valley of death to plunge into.
ramana saar,
System accident??
If the pilot touched down at the wrong location ( which can actually be anywhere!! ) how does one cater for "margin"
to complete the landing safely? Some times 300 mts also may not be enough.
The hazards of landing in Mangalore is briefed, practiced, trained for and understood by all operating to and from there. The ill fated crew were certainly no novices. In fact they were practically veterans at the Mangalore airport.
Captain Zlatko Glusica, a 53-year-old British national, had made 19 landings at the 2,430 metre Bajpe "table top" landing strip and co-pilot H S Ahluwalia had done 66. While Gluscia had 10,200 hours of flying experience, Ahluwalia had 3,650 hours.
My guess on the entire thing is this. The plane overshot the touch down zone by a fair distance. The pilots when they realized this has two options, 1) To slam the throttles to full power and go around or 2) Hit max deceleration/thrust reverser /brakes/spoilers and stop..
Now the problem is with 2) which they seem to have attempted first is that you are liable to bust a couple of tyres, the plane starts veering off, your braking ability decreases further and then your "6000 /7000 ft" braking ability goes for a toss and if you get off the runway because the plane veers, you go off table top into the valleys. And with a burst tyre, taking off is even more difficult , because your speeds would have dropped below V1 /V2 by a fair bit and you probably dont have enough runway to get back to take off speed , and plus you probably need to get the plane on the undamaged tyre.. All very tough. and sh*t would have happened in less than 5 to 10 secs max.
There is more complexity in the story. This may not be a simple "pilot overshot the mark" The DGCA seems to have some requirement for a soft landing as opposed to a hard landing. Perhaps the runway surface is not that strong?? For soft landing the flare has to end in a flatter approach and it is easy to overshoot to get that soft landing.
On 18th May I Indigo flight from Kolkata to Jaipur. Engine on left made terrible noise. Horrified I called official PYT and complained. She assured me that it is normal on plane and everything is ok. For last 25 years I have flown on all sorts of planes (even TUs of Aeroflot) but never had such experience. I am sure that particular Indigo plane is not safe. I am keeping my boarding pass safe with me. These guys are taking public for ride.
I did the New York - Delhi Air India AI 101 / 102 trip recently.
Travelled by two different Boeing 777s that they used on this route.
The upholstry and seat fittings are in bad shape. The seat handles on the seats I was on was on the verge of coming loose. The planes names were "Gujarat" and "Arunachal Pradesh"
The point I want to make, is that, these brand new aircraft were in very poor maintenance on the inside. I wonder what things would be like at the engineering level, with the engines, electronics etc.
As a sideline, two experiences worth noting.
1. Air hostess asks passengers to take all their luggage when the plane lands at NY. OK so far, but she hastens to add that if any luggage item is left behind, they will throw it away. That sounded terribly arrogant. I don't think any videshi airhostess will be that rude.
2. One airhostess from the north-eastarn states was very prompt in getting the plane seats and towels in shape, and was running around the aisle as we were boarding. Another airhostess comes upto her and tells her to the effect "Why are you sweating it out, you are not going to get paid any more than you are". That air hostess said so loudly enough so that the passangers will hear it as well. Shows you the attitude these people have.
chaanakya wrote:
AS for Pilot error, latest info coming is that approach speed was higher and in anxiety to go for soft landing Pilot flared up at touch down resulting in loss of another 1000 mts, so less runway available for stopping. But since speed was high it went past the runway, which was sufficient even for late TD, and tumbled into valley.
He told reporters that preliminary observation showed that there was no problem with the four-year-old runway or the aircraft but the plane had overshot by about 2000 feet, leading to the mishap.
This runway is 8,000 feet long as compared to the other one, which is 6,000 feet long. He said 158 people were killed in the crash but eight survived.
Just curious as to what is the standard operating units with the airlines in India and elsewhere. Are measurements still conducted in FPS systems or in metric system? The minister is quoting details (provided by DGCA??) in feet. Does DGCA use "FPS" as default standard? Thanks.
The length of runway is about 8000ft, i.e. 2.4 Km. Normally , 200 mts is the max touch down point, it appears that aircraft touched down at mid of the runway, that makes it approx 1.2 km(unconfirmed reports on the day of accident). So I wrote 1000Mts. Nothing sacrosanct abt it.
In India Metric system is to be followed by Law i.e. THE STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT, 1976 ACT NO. 60 OF 1976
Primary unit of length.
3. Primary unit of length. (1) The primary unit of length shall be a metre.
(2) For the purpose of deriving the value of the metre, the Central Government shall cause to be prepared a national prototype of the metre and shall cause the same to be certified in terms of the international prototype of the metre and shall deposit the same in such custody and at such place as the Central Government may think fit.
Primary unit of mass and standard unit of weight.
4. Primary unit of mass and standard unit of weight. (1) The primary unit of mass shall be a kilogram.
21. Use of non-standard weight or measure prohibited. No weight, measure or numeral, other than the standard weight, measure or numeral, shall be used as a standard weight, measure or numeral.
23. Prohibition with regard to inscriptions, etc. No weight, measure or other goods shall bear thereon, any inscription or indication of weight, measure or number except in accordance with the standard unit of such weight, measure or numeration established by or under this Act: Provided that in relation to any weight, measure or other goods which are manufactured for scientific investigation or research or for export, inscription or indication thereon of any weight, measure or number may also be made in accordance with any other system of weight, measure or numeration if such inscription or Indication Is demanded by the person by whom such scientific investigation or research is to be made or by the person to whom the export Is to be made.
33. Prohibition of quotations, etc., otherwise than in terms of standard units of weights, measures or numeration. No person shall, in relation to any goods, thing or service to which this Part applies,- (a) quote, or make announcement of, whether by word of mouth or otherwise, any price or charge, or (b) issue or exhibit any price list, invoice, cash memo or other document, or (c) prepare or publish any advertisement, poster or other document, or (d) indicate the contents of any package either on itself or on any label, carton or other thing, or (e) indicate the contents on any container, or (f) express any quantity or dimension, otherwise than in accordance with the standard unit of weight, measure or numeration.
50. Penalty for use of non-standard weights or measures. 50. Penalty for use of non-standard weights or measures. Whoever uses any weight or measure or makes any numeration otherwise than in accordance with the standards of weight or measure or the standards of numeration, as the case may be, established by or under this Act, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both, and, for the second or subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and also with fine.
I think I have driven home the point sufficiently. Ignorance of law is no excuse and Media, DGCA or MoCA are on the wrong side if they quoted in FPS except for scientific purposes.
Tv Report just coming in.
Black Box i.e CVR/FDR has been found and handed over to DGCA.
Throttle was found and it was in forward position, indicating that pilot tried to increase engine power to max for taking off aborting landing. Some one was telling on TV yesterday that it takes 8 second for Boeing engine to respond to full throttle command.
Update:-
As of 24.5.2010 FDR is yet to be located. Though Auxiliary Unit ( DFDAU ) of FDR is located.
CVR analysis would take at least two to three weeks.
Times Now reported that ATC permitted to land while 4 km to runway. On seeing late touchdown, ATC advised to abort, Pilot says 'overshoot','overshoot'.
Last edited by chaanakya on 24 May 2010 13:32, edited 1 time in total.
The thing to note is that the tire burst might be the main culprit. The pilot overshot so that he doesn't have to bang the aircraft down on the runway like they do on those carriers. Instead the thing that he wanted to avoid - damage to the landing gear or the tires, happened.
One burst tire in an aircraft which is easily doing 200-250 Kmph would easily have made the aircraft careen out of control. Once the plane goes into a slow spin and slides at that speed, no airbrakes, mechanical tire brakes are going to help.
The airbrakes would have helped to slow down the plane, but the plane plunged into the valley in the mean while. we will have to have a look at the exact accident site relative to the runway to get a better idea. I don't think that the pilot reached the end of the runway, more likely the plane slid off to one side of the runway after the tire burst, and the wing breaking off the concrete pillar.
This is what I think happened from the limited information available:
vina wrote:
GET THE MANGALORE TRAGEDY INVESTIGATED BY THE FAA and NTSB and a reputed body from EUROPE.. A DGCA investigation is a guaranteed whitewash. They are not going to come out with a report which will say, sorry, we LIED to the Supreme court 10 years ago!.
Wish made by Vina is hereby granted by Govt of India, no european though, Airbus rivalry?
Three officials from the NTSB, a US federal agency that investigates civil transportation accidents, will be joined by teams from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Boeing, an NTSB spokesman said.
The team was to leave the US on Sunday evening and arrive in Mangalore by Tuesday morning.
Boeing said in a statement that its team was invited by Indian authorities to provide technical assistance to the investigators.
Mr. Bhargava, ex-PRO of Air India was saying on TV that the pilot overshot the touchdown zone, tried to stop, realised that it was impossible to stop within the limited runway left and so tried to take off again.
However, this sudden thrust might have caused the tyre to burst. Also, the plane apparently collided with the ILS radar at the edge of the runway when trying to take off which caused it to breakup and go down the hill..
Gagan, Localiser is at the right end of the runway after the sand-bedded safety area of 90 metres when aircraft is landing.
From the picture of crash site, it appears that aircraft tumbled down straight below creating charred path and clearing the area where plane had engulfed in fire. This fits with throttle being in forward position as if he tried to take off on failed landing/TD.If one tyre bursts still aircraft can take off, but it appears that autopilot system would have caused some problem. Just my thoughts though. Would like to wait for full report from experts.
Captain Zlatko Glusica, a 53-year-old British national, had made 19 landings at the 2,430 metre Bajpe "table top" landing strip and co-pilot H S Ahluwalia had done 66. While Gluscia had 10,200 hours of flying experience, Ahluwalia had 3,650 hours.
First half is a screen grab of WSJ video showing debris at the end of the sand trap (to the left edge). Second half shows a similar view (zoomed out a little) from Earth.
It doesn't seem like sandtrap was effective at all. Also the WSJ video shows damage to the structure after the sandtrap that was probably carrying the markers along with, what seems to be leftover tire tracks.
The Government is soon expected to announce the first tranche of a compensation package to the family members of the passengers killed in the Air India plane crash in Mangalore.
Government is likely to be working on announcing an immediate package of Rs 10 lakh, even as concerned officials were in discussions with various agencies to study the Aircraft Act and the Montreal Convention regarding the compensation package, sources said.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has announced Rs 2 lakh compensation to each crash victim’s family while Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel has said the airlines will give up to USD 1,60,000 (about Rs 72 lakh) to the family members of each victim as per the provisions of the Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act.
Under this Act, which has been amended as per The Montreal Convention, kin of each victim is entitled for up to one lakh special drawing rights (SDR) which as per the present exchange rates is worth about $ 1,60,000 (Rs 72 lakh).
Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Yeddyurappa has also announced Rs. 2 lakh compensation to each of the families of the 158 people killed in yesterday’s crash.
Throttle in forward position+survivor reporting a bang+veering off might means bird hit that might have led to loss of control >> hitting tower>>crash.
Not necessarily tyre burst. No report says that the plane actually touched the runway.
Shiv, a survivor clearly said that it did touch down, and he felt that the brakes got applied, but the plane skidded. An ATC guy was quoted to have seen it touch down. One mentioned the thrust reverser is 'heard' to engage. Not sure if it sounds similar to full throttle.
chaanakya wrote:Gagan, Localiser is at the right end of the runway after the sand-bedded safety area of 90 metres when aircraft is landing.
From the picture of crash site, it appears that aircraft tumbled down straight below creating charred path and clearing the area where plane had engulfed in fire. This fits with throttle being in forward position as if he tried to take off on failed landing/TD.If one tyre bursts still aircraft can take off, but it appears that autopilot system would have caused some problem. Just my thoughts though. Would like to wait for full report from experts.
chaanakya saar,
Autopilot would have been off well before touch down saar.
Auto brake would have been on but what setting it had will come out after the FDR analysis.
There are accounts (rumors) of thrust reversers activating
after touchdown. This sounds OK to me. If actually so then the reversing buckets would have taken considerable time to cycle back to normal housed position.Reading between the lines, the throttles were fire walled in a last ditch attempt to go around. These big engines would take 6-8 or more seconds to spool up to full thrust. The Boeing has an anti skid system that will not let the wheels lock during braking whether the brakes are in auto or manually operated. This would mean that the Boeing was way below its un stick speed when the Captain opened full power. Too little and too late. Why the poor guy did not go around in the very first instance is beyond my comprehension.
If you observe during normal operation of the reverse thrusters, at the end of the operation sometimes both engine reversers will not house simultaneously.
The tire burst may have occurred during a possible asymmetric thrust condition when the captain fire walled the thrust on both engines. One main gear may have already been on soft ground at this stage while the other was still on concrete further complicating the directional stability. Can you imagine the situation in the cockpit.? It's nightmarish.
The tire burst being spoken about is the nose tire, I think.
Funny that the ATC chappie is keeping very very quiet. He is the only official and knowledgeable eyewitness. How come the DDM channel morons have not latched on to him yet?
He knows what happened inside ( last RT communications) and out side the cockpit ( he would have been watching the landing with his binoculars) much more than anyone else.
chetak wrote:
Autopilot would have been off well before touch down saar.
Auto brake would have been on but what setting it had will come out after the FDR analysis.
There are accounts (rumors) of thrust reversers activating
after touchdown. This sounds OK to me. If actually so then the reversing buckets would have taken considerable time to cycle back to normal housed position.Reading between the lines, the throttles were fire walled in a last ditch attempt to go around. These big engines would take 6-8 or more seconds to spool up to full thrust. The Boeing has an anti skid system that will not let the wheels lock during braking whether the brakes are in auto or manually operated. This would mean that the Boeing was way below its un stick speed when the Captain opened full power. Too little and too late. Why the poor guy did not go around in the very first instance is beyond my comprehension.
If you observe during normal operation of the reverse thrusters, at the end of the operation sometimes both engine reversers will not house simultaneously.
The tire burst may have occurred during a possible asymmetric thrust condition when the captain fire walled the thrust on both engines. One main gear may have already been on soft ground at this stage while the other was still on concrete further complicating the directional stability. Can you imagine the situation in the cockpit.? It's nightmarish.
The tire burst being spoken about is the nose tire, I think.
Funny that the ATC chappie is keeping very very quiet. He is the only official and knowledgeable eyewitness. How come the DDM channel morons have not latched on to him yet?
He knows what happened inside ( last RT communications) and out side the cockpit ( he would have been watching the landing with his binoculars) much more than anyone else.
This is what wikipedia talks about Autolanding
Autoland requires the use of a radar altimeter to determine the aircraft's height above the ground very precisely so as to initiate the landing flare at the correct height (usually about 50 feet). The localizer signal of the ILS may be used for lateral control even after touchdown until the pilot disengages the autopilot. For safety reasons, once autoland is engaged and the ILS signals have been acquired by the autoland system, it will proceed to landing without further intervention, and can be disengaged only by completely disconnecting the autopilot (this prevents accidental disengagement of the autoland system at a critical moment). At least two and often three independent autopilot systems work in concert to carry out autoland, thus providing redundant protection against failures. Most autoland systems can operate with a single autopilot in an emergency, but they are only certified when multiple autopilots are available.
The autoland system's response rate to external stimuli work very well in conditions of reduced visibility and relatively calm or steady winds, but the purposefully limited response rate means they are not generally smooth in their responses to varying wind shear or gusting wind conditions - i.e. not able to compensate in all dimensions rapidly enough - to safely permit their use.
Autoland capability has seen the most rapid adoption in areas and on aircraft that must frequently operate in very poor visibility. Airports troubled by fog on a regular basis are prime candidates for Category III approaches, and including autoland capability on jet airliners helps reduce the likelihood that they will be forced to divert by bad weather.
Autoland is highly accurate, and it lands the plane at the same spot on the runway every time with very high accuracy. This is in contrast to manual landings, where touch down points are relatively widely distributed within the Touch Down Zone on the runway.
As it was early morning flight, could pilot be using autoland system ( entailing autopilot, Manglore has state of art ILS) or only auto brake? Visibility was said to be good, 6KM , no or light rain, no cross winds, though runway on mountaintop do experience sudden gusts of wind, none reported so far? So could have been manual landing, with autobrake.
Reverse thrusters gets deployed almost automatically after touchdown both on airbus and boeing. So your point is correct. Too little too late, if he tried to take off. runway would not have been sufficient. No margin for error. That is what ELS told in Supreme Court.(refer to vina's post)
ATC reported uneven approach.(unconfirmed).
I do not pretend to know anything about flying, and I an sure experts here could very well dissect all facts and come to some ideas well before report of DGCA .
However,I hope report brings out the full facts and sets up a protocol for safe flying and landing at such type of airports.
My heart goes out to them in the cockpit, all crew members and passengers.Life is too precious to be lost due to human negligence of whatever kind.
ver2 is more correct because the survivors crossed some woods and hit the konkan railway line below the hill as per reports. the line is visible in goog earth.
shiv wrote:Question: If reverse thrusters are in operation won't the throttle be full forward as well?
Bingo! You are right! The deflectors on the engine move backward and the engine spools up when reverse thrusters are deployed. This used to be SOP when landing at the old COK airport which had very short runway. After the speed reduces enough, the engine spools down and the deflectors move to normal position.
The old COK was a scary experience. The runway was just over 6Kft, and Jet used to fly their 737-800s with fractional load. One extra dry summer afternoon, they even bumped some ten pax after issuing boarding passes, because the pilot insisted the load shedding. Once the Alliance air 737-200, which needs a shorter runway, touched down well deep into the runway, and had to brake real hard to stop. Things were thrown forward, and some seat backs folded forward. I really felt we are going to overshoot into the container yard, and considered the irony of crashing at the very last moment of a trip involved some 10-12 legs of flight. thankfully, the tin-can came to a screeching halt right into the hammerhead at the end of the runway.
There have been 145 737 hull-losses, including 4 hijackings/bombings and 7 ground accidents. This may sound high but remember that over 6000 737's have been built since 1967. This gives a 2.3% accident rate or approx 3 per year or one every 2.5 million flight hours. Furthermore, over 40% of occupants survive fatal 737 accidents.
shiv wrote:Question: If reverse thrusters are in operation won't the throttle be full forward as well?
If he was not taking off, he would have canceled reverse thruster, So thrusters would not be in forward position.
Er could you explain that. It does not make sense.
Once the reverse thrust deflector plates deploy the engine is revved up and for that reason the engine throttle lever should AFAIK be in the forward position. It is the same throttle for take off and reverse thrust - the "reverse thrusters" are merely plates that deflect the exhaust stream forwards rather than allowing it to go backwards causing Isaac Newton to do a 400% about turn.
Descent Checklist
Atis/Airport Information CHECK
Altimeter CHECK
Radios SET
De-Ice AS REQUIRED
Descent Speed to FL240 0.75 mach
to FL180 0.65 mach
At Transition Altitude (FL180) reset Altimeter to local
to FL120 280 KIAS
below 10'000ft 250 KIAS
Fuel Quantities and Balance CHECK
Flaps / Landing Gear CHECK UP
Check Weather (ATIS, Flight Services) Approach Checklist
Localizer Level Flight :
Fasten Seat Belts ON
No Smoking Sign ON
APU START / CHECK RUN
APU Gen ON / CHECK VOLTS
Avionics + Radios SET
Speed: Establish 210 KIAS
Landing Lights ON
Auto Spoilers ARM
Autobrake SET
Flaps 5-10 degrees
Speed: Establish 175 KIAS
Flaps 15-20 degrees
Speed: Establish 155 KIAS
Landing Gear DOWN
Turning toward runway: set flaps 30 degrees or FULL
Final Glideslope Descent :
Speed Establish 140 KIAS
Parking Brake VERIFY OFF
De-Ice AS REQUIRED
Landing Checklist
Landing Gear CHECK DOWN Autopilot and Autothrottle OFF
Landing Speed 135 KIAS After touchdown Apply Reverse Thrust, at
60 kts: Cancel Reverse Thrust
Spoilers VERIFY EXTENDED
Brakes AS REQUIRED
What I meant is that if pilot intended to stop after touch down, first he would apply reverse thruster ( upto 60 KTs) and then cancel it having reduced the speed to 60 to 30 knots, with full brake on. reverse lever off, thruster in idle position.
To apply reverse thrust, pilots would keep thruster in idle position just before flare up and touch down, then use reverse lever, forward throttle, wait for speed to reduce, cancel reverse thrust by bringing throttle in idle position, reverse lever in off position.
When reverse thrust is used in the calculation of advisory landing distance, a 1 second delay to engage reversers is assumed, followed by the time it takes the reverser to deploy and spin up to the selected level. Furthermore, it is assumed that reverse thrust is reduced to idle between 60 knots and 30 knots.
In your youtube video reversers are deployed at 0.11 and closed at 0.26 segment. Here throttle would come to idle position and reverse lever would be off.Check in other youtube links on landings posted in my previous post.
If you read the report on performance of Boeing 737-800, it would stop by 6675 ft Max on wet/good runway without reverse thrust.
So having lost 3000 ft or so IX-812 would not have stopped in another 5000 ft without reverse thrusters.
Role of flaring is also crucial.
The landing distance includes the flare from a 50-ft threshold to touchdown, a transition segment during which brakes are applied and spoilers extended, and a stopping segment. A flare time of approximately 4.5 seconds, established by flight test, results in a flare distance of 1,000 to 1,200 ft. A transition time of 1 second is assumed when the auto spoilers are armed, and 2 seconds if the spoilers are extended manually.
Decisions made by pilot during this time would have been crucial. Sequence of events have to be established by decoding FDR.
If they touched down, they would have deployed the thrust reverser first thing, hain?
Sounds like one thrust reverser failed, sending the aircraft yawing out of control, keeping forward thrust high, fishtailing and bursting tire as pilot tried to brake or use rudder and nose wheel to turn back on track. Takeoff is hopeless once the reverser is deployed, and it does take a couple of seconds for the reverser to flip back out of the way. But he may have tried it, knowing the remaining distance to disaster. Pilot's brains and hands and feet work very fast under such circumstances. But by then it hit the sand trap and the wing hit something, and that was that.
Fits all the known facts to-date, so a good rumor to start. Why not?
No hope at all when that happens on a death-trap carrier-deck runway. It is amazing that they have had so few crashes there.
Bajpe airport has Category I ILS. A standard ILS is termed `Category I' and allows landings with 2,400 ft (732m) visibility or 1,800 ft (549m) in case of touchdown.
More advanced Category II and III systems allow operations in near-zero visibility, but require special additional certification of the aircraft and the pilot.
Category II approaches permit landing with a 100-foot decision height and visibility as low as 1200 ft (366m). Category III is flown by an autoland system on board the landing aircraft, and permits operations even with no decision heights and visibility better than 700ft (Cat IIIa) or between 150ft and 700ft (Cat IIIb).
Thanks, etc.. They should reserve Mangalore Airport 400% for use only by VIPs such as Mantris, Top AI Babus, IPL organizers and the Taliban. Or helicopters.
I am writing my thesis on airline safety and systems to help prevent such tragedies in the aviation community. I believe that the airline pilots should have aborted the landing and engage the thrust levers to increase lift back into the air. I believe that the pilots did not react faster than they should when they knew that the runway was slipping away from them. At least, if the pilots would have increased speed and aborted the landing by quickly engaging the thrust levers and speed, they would have enough seconds to get back in the air and try re-landing without fatalities. I believe that “some” pilots are not well trained in taking evasive actions quickly enough to stop these tragic events from happening. Speed is also a factor in this tragic event for overshooting the runway at a high rate of speed without pulling back the speed brake and adjusting the thrust levers and flaps. I believe that the instrument indicators or readings may have been a factor in understanding how fast the plane was going. I will continue to pray and work on finding solutions to air disasters (mechanical and system failures). My care for humanity goes beyond life itself and I do not want to see anything like this happen again to anyone.
Please remember that people lost their lives here and we have to come together to find ways in preventing such incidents like this one. Let's stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. I am not going to blame anyone, because we know that life is temporary and not permanent. All we can do is pray and move forward. We can not stop life's course and what is in store for all of us. I know that the systems (computer and mechanical) on these planes need time to engage itself once a decision is made the first time. If I were the pilot, I would have reduce speed and use the speed brakes, reverse thrust and flaps. But, because this plane was moving at a high rate of speed, I would have aborted the landing, increased speed and engage thrust to get the plane back into the air and retry landing again. But, when the plane was moving at a high rate of speed when landing, the pilots may have put a lot of stress factors on the systems and its mechanical state; whereby the plane became non-functional and it systems took a hit by the force of the landing, which the computer system did not have enough time to send signals to the mechanical systems to engage and increase the thrust levers, flaps and lift back into the air. Remember, we all know that if we drive a car or any heavy machinery which had systems (computer and mechanical), it takes a while for systems to respond based on reactions at the last minute in these types of emergencies. Example, you are in a car using you brakes to stop at a light, you know that the computer system is sending a signal to your mechanical controls to stop, and if the systems fails do to stress factors, the car mechanical system will fail and you have to take evasive actions to not cause any harm to other motorist. I have been working on so many things in stopping these incidents from happening, but I am only one person and we all have to start coming together to make things happen.
"Takeoff is hopeless once the reverser is deployed, and it does take a couple of seconds for the reverser to flip back out of the way. But he may have tried it, knowing the remaining distance to disaster"
the ATC advised to not attempt take off in the first instance, but the pilot perhaps tried it anyways given the situation as an afterthought losing valuable reaction time
I doubt that one tries talking to ATC under such conditions. The instruction burned in all pilots' minds is:
1. Take emergency action.
2. THEN communicate.
Also, for the email-writer: There is no pilot in the world who has not thought about what to do to abort a landing and take off even at the last possible instant (OK, sorry, forget the mythical "Al Qaeda" pilots who were "not interested in flight school landing lessons" - the reason they were not interested is that they were expert military pilots already).
Every landing makes him/her think about that, and no matter how long the flight and how bad the food and the service, landing brings one fully awake, at least in sheer terror if not in the thrill of the "kiss-smooth touchdown" that they all want to achieve. His actions would have been conditioned by reflexes, though some high-speed mental processing would have been underway, and probably some sharp commands between the two pilots to tell each other what they were doing.
Every pilot has gone through MANY "emergency landing" drills where the instructor coolly shuts off the engines and feigns disinterest while they desperately look for a landing field, even as they automatically pitch up and trim to Best Glide Speed and initiate emergency procedures - and THEN hit the MayDay switch once they have found a suitable site to aim for. And at the last possible instant, all lined up for a crash-landing, the instructor MAY turn the engines back on and command an abort and recovery.
They do this in simulators, they do this with a hood covering the windshield, etc. etc. There is NO exception to this, not even for Student Menaces on single-engine Cessnas (e.g. yuwars such-ly), not to mention commercial airline pilots.
So forget about the "pilot landed halfway down the runway because he was asleep, then just ran off the end, and at the last instant maybe tried to take off" scenarios. No way that these will happen with TWO experienced pilots on a killer runway like this one, and in drizzling conditions at 6AM.
Soft-field procedures? Wet field procedures? Can't imagine an international flight being asked to do soft-field on a new, modern concrete runway at an international airport. Wet field procedure anyway asks them to come down more directly, kill lift immediately, rely on thrust reverser, and go easy on the brake, hain?
This is why I am sure that something happened, where the laws of physics took over and there was nothing anyone could do. Thrust reverser failure on one side, is the only thing I can imagine. I can't imagine what to do there except kill the engines immediately, brake and pray. On a normal field, you might allow the plane to veer off to a side or swing like a race car across the grass onto the nearest taxiway and take out a few lights, signs etc (like I have done) to avoid hitting the wall beyond the sand trap, but here one would fall off the side into the valley that way as well, so they would have tried desperately to stay on the runway.
If one engine had failed during the approach (can't imagine why, they clearly had too much fuel left, and why should it fail at such low thrust setting?), they would have hit MayDay because they were lined up on the runway, and anyway they would have come down hard earlier on the runway then.
If one engine failed just as the reversers came on and they increased power (I had no idea that one did that, but maybe it makes sense in case you want to retract the reverser and take off) then there would have been sharp yaw, but they would have shut off the engines and just braked. Should have still survived.
I just don't give any credence to the claim that the plane touched down 2400 feet down the runway from the usual touchdown point. There are only two people outside the plane who can attest to that - one is the ATC if s(he) was actually looking, and the other is the accident investigator if s(he) IMMEDIATELY backtracked up the runway to see where the tire marks were for this plane (last to land, sure). But it was drizzling, and the marks would have been erased within minutes by the rainwater. So who is claiming this? Do they have video of every landing? If so they know exactly what happened, without waiting for flight recorder etc.
Last point: This new runway is over 2000 feet LONGER than the previous runway there - and that was used until very recently for these landings.
So if the pilot came down 2400 feet beyond usual touchdown point, then it's STILL quite safe, OK, 400 feet max that he needs to compensate by braking or thrust reverser. The sand trap was over 300 feet, so this should not in any way have caused the plane to hit the far wall. It should have stopped well inside the runway, maybe gone into the cross-hatched zone but that's it.
Thrust reverser failure on one side. Which means maintenance failure. The pilots never had any chance.
Welcome back. 
