Pegasus 737 runway landing excursion in Trabzon

LAXintl · Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:31 pm

737-800 flight PC8622 from Ankara using TC-CPF reported landing in rain on runway 11 overran at 2230local time in Trabzon.

Initial reports - passengers safely evacuated and there were no dead or injured

http://www.kokpit.aero/pegasus-trabzon-kaza
=

Spacepope · Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:53 pm

There's a pretty steep dropoff to the north of the runway. Did it make it all the way down to the sea? Yikes!

mercure1 · Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:07 pm

Here is view of airport. Seems plane ran off at the end

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTc8wNtWkAMV9Lk.jpg

Blankbarcode · Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:14 pm

Wow, that's a large dropoff! More images on Twitter. Hoping everyone made it out okay, aircraft looks largely intact.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/pc8622?f=im ... t&src=hash

mercure1 · Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:22 pm

Media says 162 pax plus crew of 6 all safe. No serious injuries.

Spacepope · Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:20 am

Blankbarcode wrote:
Wow, that's a large dropoff! More images on Twitter. Hoping everyone made it out okay, aircraft looks largely intact.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/pc8622?f=im ... t&src=hash

any photos yet of anything besides the tail?

mercure1 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:31 am

Here is news video

https://youtu.be/zuSFJic9ikw

Spacepope · Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:00 am

mercure1 wrote:
Here is news video

https://youtu.be/zuSFJic9ikw

Ok that looks bad. Registration TC-CPF 2012 delivery). #2 engine ripped off and in the drink. Glad everyone made it out.

cougar15 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:44 am

AVHerald has a few more pics too.

Bozk · Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:20 am

One passanger says the plane decelerated very briefly after touchdown then started accelerating again. Any guesses what happened? Did the breaks fail or was a go around necessary but the pilot failed to make the decision?

Edit: http://m.airkule.com/haber/PEGASUS-UCAG ... IKTI/29341
It says nose landing gear broke and collapsed.

Also there is a footage of evacuation one guy is hysterically
screaming probably having a nervous breakdown because news says no heavy injuries. What's the procedure if a passanger is like that and maybe slowing down the evacuation? Grab him and throw him out or don't touch him?

mafaky · Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:02 am

More daylight photos can be seen on this link:

http://www.airporthaber.com/havacilik-h ... lendi.html

ap305 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:09 am

mafaky wrote:
More daylight photos can be seen on this link:

http://www.airporthaber.com/havacilik-h ... lendi.html

Some people had a very lucky day.....

HHScot · Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:13 am

Wow! Looks like they were fortunate as the aircraft is on the only part of that coastline with a reasonable slope down to the sea. A few meters either side and I'm sure that the aircraft would have hit the water with a more extreme nose den attitude and broken up!

KarelXWB · Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:42 am

Close up photos of the damage:

https://twitter.com/airnews24/status/952312947346477056

Aeroflot777 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:44 am

mafaky wrote:
More daylight photos can be seen on this link

Wowza, those daylight pics put things into a very difference perspective. Lucky day for those folks!

mafaky · Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:02 am

In a Turkish Forum, I came across to a contributor (he seems to be o Doctor of Medicine/MB, BTW...) claiming that the the 11/29, 2.640x45 mt. runway at TZX is short and risky for 738 (and similar sized) landings; the international standards actually call for 3.000 mt. Because the landing approaches cannot be made directly over the sea (as it is in IST's 05/23, or maybe as in OGU's 10L/28R 3.000 mt. runways; in these examples the approaches are more directly over the sea whereas at TZX it's a half land, half sea approach...).

Anybody who can support these comments or anybody who can disprove?

Flow2706 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:16 am

mafaky wrote:
In a Turkish Forum, I came across to a contributor (he seems to be o Doctor of Medicine/MB, BTW...) claiming that the the 11/29, 2.640x45 mt. runway at TZX is short and risky for 738 (and similar sized) landings; the international standards actually call for 3.000 mt. Because the landing approaches cannot be made directly over the sea (as it is in IST's 05/23, or maybe as in OGU's 10L/28R 3.000 mt. runways; in these examples the approaches are more directly over the sea whereas at TZX it's a half land, half sea approach...).

Anybody who can support these comments or anybody who can disprove?

Never landed in TZX, but I would not consider 2600m as short. I have landed the A320 (which should have comparable performance to a 738) on runways less than 2000m (Belfast City Airport) I wouldn't consider anything more than 2200m or so as a short runway. But obviously there could be other factors that make the airport challenging

notaxonrotax · Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:40 am

A B738 write off, perhaps?
Nothing surprises me anymore after BA2276´s B777 revival!

No Tax On Rotax

Mangs · Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:40 am

mafaky wrote:
In a Turkish Forum, I came across to a contributor (he seems to be o Doctor of Medicine/MB, BTW...) claiming that the the 11/29, 2.640x45 mt. runway at TZX is short and risky for 738 (and similar sized) landings; the international standards actually call for 3.000 mt. Because the landing approaches cannot be made directly over the sea (as it is in IST's 05/23, or maybe as in OGU's 10L/28R 3.000 mt. runways; in these examples the approaches are more directly over the sea whereas at TZX it's a half land, half sea approach...).

Anybody who can support these comments or anybody who can disprove?

2500m is plenty for a 738, especially if its SFP equipped. My guess is a very very late touchdown. But still. The 738 with carbon brakes stops within 1200m If you really step on the brakes/use autobrake max.

frigatebird · Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:50 am

ap305 wrote:
mafaky wrote:
More daylight photos can be seen on this link:

http://www.airporthaber.com/havacilik-h ... lendi.html

Some people had a very lucky day.....

Indeed, but very, very scary when you feel the plane topple over a cliff suddenly. It could have ended much worse, if it had more speed the plane could have ended inversed in the water... Glad everyone came out without major injuries.

Tiss · Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:53 am

I have landed 738 on 1600m rwy (dry), 2600m i a long rwy, minmum 3000m is just bs.

Cunard · Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:58 am

There is an excellent drome video on the twitter link posted earlier if anyone hadn't noticed.

It's unbelievable that the aircraft had actually stopped where it had as it would have been far worse if it had actually slipped down that hill into the sea.

tomaheath · Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:23 am

It will be interesting how they remove it from that hill side.

qf789 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:52 am

A couple of close ups of the aircraft

https://twitter.com/aviationdk/status/9 ... 2109172736

30989 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:54 am

Clearly an accident. Probably hull loss.

But lucky they were...

kaitak · Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:57 am

Yes, my thoughts exactly ( re the removal). It wil be v difficult to remove the acft without exacerbating the damage .

neomax · Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:06 am

I have to admit that I skipped over this thread several times until I saw a picture of it elsewhere. From the title, it seems like it's merely just another overrun or something. I was shocked to find out that instead this thing went off a cliff and was just a few feet from hitting the water, "excursion" is technically right, but certainly a light way of putting it!

sevenair · Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:13 am

mafaky wrote:
In a Turkish Forum, I came across to a contributor (he seems to be o Doctor of Medicine/MB, BTW...) claiming that the the 11/29, 2.640x45 mt. runway at TZX is short and risky for 738 (and similar sized) landings; the international standards actually call for 3.000 mt. Because the landing approaches cannot be made directly over the sea (as it is in IST's 05/23, or maybe as in OGU's 10L/28R 3.000 mt. runways; in these examples the approaches are more directly over the sea whereas at TZX it's a half land, half sea approach...).

Anybody who can support these comments or anybody who can disprove?

Regardless of the type of approach it must meet strict stability criteria in accordance with the AFM. Both runways have straight in approaches available but if they did a circle to land it may be what he means by ‘half sea half land’. Regardless it will be very interesting to see what happened. A nice long runway, a jet that stops on a postage stamp when needed and a plane off the side. Huge tech issue or a massively unstable approach, float and running out of runway. The only thing that makes me think it may be a tech issue is that it’s off of the side and not the end of the runway.

Different craft I’m aware but loss of braking on one side combined with loss of the on side reverse will increase the LDR but not THAT significantly so.

smokeybandit · Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:28 pm

You would think the plane was barely moving by the time it got to the edge, then just tipped over and got stuck where it lies.

uta999 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:42 pm

Joe Patroni would back that right up, using only reverse thrust on the one remaining 'good' engine.

readytotaxi · Sun Jan 14, 2018 12:46 pm

BBC New has some drone footage of the sight.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-euro ... -in-turkey

Very lucky passengers, go buy a Lotto ticket.

singel09 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 1:27 pm

Well, a 180is needed it seems to go back to the apron. Right turn .. did the pilot make a left turn by mistake?

Jayafe · Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:12 pm

notaxonrotax wrote:
A B738 write off, perhaps?

For once, indeed this time.

RJWNL · Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:19 pm

Of course you can leave it to the media to make the outcome look far worse than it actually is, using pictures that don't show what is really going on. The worthless Dutch news-site nu.nl is actually saying the plane ended up hanging at a near vertical above the sea while the actual angle seems to be much less than 30° (which is still a lot more than a plane would normally encounter). It could have been far worse but as it is it is "just" another excursion.

DDR · Sun Jan 14, 2018 2:49 pm

Bozk wrote:
One passanger says the plane decelerated very briefly after touchdown then started accelerating again. Any guesses what happened? Did the breaks fail or was a go around necessary but the pilot failed to make the decision?

Edit: http://m.airkule.com/haber/PEGASUS-UCAG ... IKTI/29341
It says nose landing gear broke and collapsed.

Also there is a footage of evacuation one guy is hysterically
screaming probably having a nervous breakdown because news says no heavy injuries. What's the procedure if a passanger is like that and maybe slowing down the evacuation? Grab him and throw him out or don't touch him?

If the passenger is blocking egress, you remove that passenger by whatever means is necessary to save the other passengers. In an actual emergency, we don't worry about lawsuits, etc. Our only concern is getting EVERYONE off the aircraft.

zanl188 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:00 pm

Very lucky it didn't burn. Evacuating a burning aircraft at that angle would have been problematic I think.

devron · Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:17 pm

Indeed some lucky people

zanl188 wrote:
Very lucky it didn't burn. Evacuating a burning aircraft at that angle would have been problematic I think.

This does look like smoke

https://twitter.com/hashtag/pc8622?f=im ... t&src=hash

I was wondering is there was a fire as soem fireman were spraying water, which I though might be a bad idea as the aircraft might slide again.

Question do you think the second engine eating all the dirt stop further sliding.

casinterest · Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:23 pm

Looks like one engine is buried, and one got sheared off and rolled down the hill. I have to imagine there is some rather spectacular damage to the underbelly as well if the nose gear failed.

BREECH · Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:28 pm

Best ever photos of an aviation incident since that floating Boeing in... Asia somewhere. Good thing nobody died. REALLY want to know how in the world they did it. On a side note, I didn't know Boeing 737's emergency exits open up and stay attached to the fuselage. Interesting.

ahmetdouas · Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:50 pm

BREECH wrote:
Best ever photos of an aviation incident since that floating Boeing in... Asia somewhere. Good thing nobody died. REALLY want to know how in the world they did it. On a side note, I didn't know Boeing 737's emergency exits open up and stay attached to the fuselage. Interesting.

I saw that for the first time during the Turkish Airlines 738 crash in Holland in 2009.

freakyrat · Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:52 pm

BREECH wrote:
Best ever photos of an aviation incident since that floating Boeing in... Asia somewhere. Good thing nobody died. REALLY want to know how in the world they did it. On a side note, I didn't know Boeing 737's emergency exits open up and stay attached to the fuselage. Interesting.

From the Boeing 737-700 on up the overwing exits are hinged to open upward.

BREECH · Sun Jan 14, 2018 3:57 pm

freakyrat wrote:
From the Boeing 737-700 on up the overwing exits are hinged to open upward.

Any justification for that from Boeing?

OA940 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:03 pm

That flight ended on quite a cliffhanger.

I'll escort myself out.

Antarius · Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:03 pm

BREECH wrote:
freakyrat wrote:
From the Boeing 737-700 on up the overwing exits are hinged to open upward.

Any justification for that from Boeing?

Way easier to use. Anyone can pull the handle and it opens.

The old plug style doors are heavy.

ltbewr · Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:06 pm

Time for some computer chair air crash investigation. I would presume that the weather was not a factor (ie: rain making the runway slick). Fortunately no significant injuries or loss of life. The plane landed too far down the runway, possibly too hard and too late for a go-around, so the pilot slams the brakes hoping to halt the plane by the end of the runway, rolls of the edge and onto the cliff.
I would suggest this airport invest in an arrestor concrete system at the end of the runway due to it's limited level land off the end of it to reduce the loss of an aircraft.

vahancrazy · Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:10 pm

BREECH wrote:
freakyrat wrote:
From the Boeing 737-700 on up the overwing exits are hinged to open upward.

Any justification for that from Boeing?

IIRC, hanging door is quicker to open. Thus, allows for a faster passengers exit and consequently higher number of maximum passengers capacity onboard.

RJWNL · Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:18 pm

ltbewr wrote:
rolls of the edge and onto the cliff.

No cliff, just a somewhat steep slope.

Spacepope · Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:30 pm

casinterest wrote:
Looks like one engine is buried, and one got sheared off and rolled down the hill. I have to imagine there is some rather spectacular damage to the underbelly as well if the nose gear failed.

And we can only guess if the main gear are even still attached at this point. Substantial damage to the wing leading edges and flaps, and one could safely assume some interesting structural damage even without major parts coming free. Stick a fork in her, this airframe is done.

NG263 · Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:40 pm

ltbewr wrote:
...I would suggest this airport invest in an arrestor concrete system at the end of the runway due to it's limited level land off the end of it to reduce the loss of an aircraft.

Exactly what I thought! This airport needs a system like this.

I would presume that the aircraft must have been really slow when they went down that cliff. The reversers are stowed and the speedbrake is not deployed anymore. If they would have still been rolling at 40+ knots, I think the aircraft would not have stopped in the middle of the cliff but rather in the water.

Indeed that somehow looks like they wanted to backtrack and found themselves at the wrong side of the runway. Although it could have been anything else, e. g. nosegear steering failure. I'm looking forward for the investigation and the results of it.

ivanpaneque · Sun Jan 14, 2018 4:54 pm

this was the plane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYWRc1otVSA

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net