AR385 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

AR385 wrote:

One of Aeromexico´s landings. This one is a ERJ-145


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh6Bc6j ... ture=share

Perhaps I am missing something, but how is this relevant to the discussion?

It is important to the discussion because AM assigns their regional jets to crews that are young and without much experience. Many of my friends who are pilots are baffled by the decision of the pilots to take off in the recent accident. When I questioned him about what that meant. He sent me that video, and I thought I´d share it.

However if you feel it adds nothing to the discussion, and a waste of banwdithd you are welcome to suggest deletions .

It is a serious problem because simpy put, there are no pilots in the country to crew the expected growth of the industry in the coming years. He is worried about that.

The opinion of your friend, which you have shared here, is interesting and relevant to the discussion. Thank you for sharing.

The video, on the other hand, is really very anecdotal evidence. There is video evidence of poor piloting from major airlines everywhere. Recently, WestJet at St. Maarten and Air Canada at San Francisco both come to mind. There are many more.

AR385 wrote:

dcajet wrote:

AR385 wrote:

One of Aeromexico´s landings. This one is a ERJ-145


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh6Bc6j ... ture=share

Perhaps I am missing something, but how is this relevant to the discussion?

It is important to the discussion because AM assigns their regional jets to crews that are young and without much experience. Many of my friends who are pilots are baffled by the decision of the pilots to take off in the recent accident. When I questioned him about what that meant. He sent me that video, and I thought I´d share it.

However if you feel it adds nothing to the discussion, and a waste of banwdithd you are welcome to suggest deletions .

It is a serious problem because simpy put, there are no pilots in the country to crew the expected growth of the industry in the coming years. He is worried about that.

AR385, that video is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Please don’t muddy this thread with things like this. Even the opinion of your friend is of dubious relevance. The captain was not some newbie, but rather, he was 38 years old with lots of experience.

You are welcome to suggest deletion at any point in time,

D L X. There also are many posts about a certain American airline.that every single time every single time it had an issue, we got threads of at least 3 pages.
So the fact that videos of that airline are great and "thanks for sharing etc." Mine, are irrelevant to the discussion, Interesting. Great! I can see now how has this site has evolved.

It seems to me that it is worth discussing whether the pilots had enough information to decide if they could safely take off.

From the information on AV Herald we know that the E-190 attempted to take off from Durango's runway 03 in adverse weather at about 15:15 Local (20:15 GMT).

We also have METAR data taken at 14:41 (~33 minutes before the accident) and at 15:18 (~3 minutes after the accident):

--Before the accident--

MMDO 311941Z 01005KT 10SM BKN025CB 28/10 A3023 RMK 8/300=

Decoded as:
Location: MMDO
DURANGO - MEXICO
Latitude: 24°07'30"N - Longitude: 104°31'40"W.
Magnetic declination: 6.74°E
Sunrise: 12:39 UTC
Sunset: 01:17 UTC
Report emitted the day: 31, time 19:41 UTC
Tuesday 31 July 2018 14:41 local time.
Wind: True direction = 010 degrees, speed: 5 knots (9 km/h) (3 m/s).
Runway 03, length 9514 feet, altitude 6104 feet: Cross Wind 2 KT Left - Centerline Wind 4 KT front.
Runway 21, length 9514 feet, altitude 6104 feet: Cross Wind 2 KT Right - Centerline Wind 4 KT rear.
Minimum horizontal visibility: 10 statute miles (16093 meters).
Clouds: Broken sky (5-7 oktas), at 2500 feet above aerodrome level (762 meters), cumulonimbus.
Temperature: 28 degrees Celsius (82 Fahrenheit). Dewpoint: 10 degrees Celsius (50 Fahrenheit). Relative humidity 32.54 %.
QNH (Sea-level pressure): 30.23 inches (1024 hPa).
Additional information:
The predominant low clouds are cumulonimbus, the summits of which, at least partially, lack sharp outlines but are neither clearly fibrous (cirriform) nor in the form of an anvil; cumulus, stratocumulus or stratus may also be present.
The predominant middle clouds are no altocumulus, altostratus or nimbostratus.
The predominant hight clouds are no cirrus, cirrocumulus or cirrostratus clouds.

--After the accident--

MMDO 312018Z 07003KT 7SM TSRA BKN020CB 20/13 A3023 RMK 8/900 TSRAB13=

Decoded as:

Report emitted the day: 31, time 20:18 UTC
Tuesday 31 July 2018 15:18 local time.
Wind: True direction = 070 degrees, speed: 3 knots (6 km/h) (2 m/s).
Runway 03, length 9514 feet, altitude 6104 feet: Cross Wind 2 KT Right - Centerline Wind 3 KT front.
Runway 21, length 9514 feet, altitude 6104 feet: Cross Wind 2 KT Left - Centerline Wind 2 KT rear.
Minimum horizontal visibility: 7 statute miles (11265 meters).
Weather: Thunderstorms Rain .
Clouds: Broken sky (5-7 oktas), at 2000 feet above aerodrome level (610 meters), cumulonimbus.
Temperature: 20 degrees Celsius (68 Fahrenheit). Dewpoint: 13 degrees Celsius (55 Fahrenheit). Relative humidity 64.1 %.
QNH (Sea-level pressure): 30.23 inches (1024 hPa).
Additional information:
The predominant low clouds are cumulonimbus, the upper part of which is clearly fibrous (cirriform) often in the form of an anvil; either accompanied or not by cumulonimbus without anvil or fibrous upper part, by cumulus, stratocumulus, stratus or pannus.
The predominant middle clouds are no altocumulus, altostratus or nimbostratus.
The predominant hight clouds are no cirrus, cirrocumulus or cirrostratus clouds.
Thunderstorms Rain began at 20:13 UTC (15:13 local time).

The pilots obviously didn't get the report emitted after the accident, yet it says that the thunderstorm started 1-2 minutes before take off.

So, could the E-190's weather radar (it seems to be a Honeywell Primus 880) have provided information that may have prompted the pilots to abort the take off attempt?

KrustyTheKlown wrote:

Preliminary findings regarding the accident as reported by AVherald:

On Sep 5th 2018 Mexico's DGAC reported in a press conference first results into the investigation. There were three flight crew on the flight deck, a first officer in training was pilot flying in the right hand seat. The takeoff run began in a head wind scenario, which quickly changed into a strong right crosswind and ultimately a strong tail wind as result of a microburst. The investigation so far has not found any technical (both engines were operating normally until being separated from the wing) or human factors issue contributing to the accident. With the flight data, confirmed by meteorologists, simulator tests were conducted, no flight crew was able to get through the scenario with a different outcome. However, the training of the first officer under training had not been authorized and was not carried out according to the required protocols. Although this is not the cause of the accident, it will cause administrative response by the DGAC to establish the responsibilities and apply according sanctions.

Reuters also reports that

Investigators have found no evidence indicating that the crew should have known not to take off, Constantino said.

So effectively this was a freak accident that no pilots would have ever been able to save the plane from crashing? edit - didnt read the whole thing.

Samrnpage wrote:

KrustyTheKlown wrote:

Preliminary findings regarding the accident as reported by AVherald:

On Sep 5th 2018 Mexico's DGAC reported in a press conference first results into the investigation. There were three flight crew on the flight deck, a first officer in training was pilot flying in the right hand seat. The takeoff run began in a head wind scenario, which quickly changed into a strong right crosswind and ultimately a strong tail wind as result of a microburst. The investigation so far has not found any technical (both engines were operating normally until being separated from the wing) or human factors issue contributing to the accident. With the flight data, confirmed by meteorologists, simulator tests were conducted, no flight crew was able to get through the scenario with a different outcome. However, the training of the first officer under training had not been authorized and was not carried out according to the required protocols. Although this is not the cause of the accident, it will cause administrative response by the DGAC to establish the responsibilities and apply according sanctions.

Reuters also reports that

Investigators have found no evidence indicating that the crew should have known not to take off, Constantino said.

So effectively this was a freak accident that no pilots would have ever been able to save the plane from crashing? edit - didnt read the whole thing.

Sounds like it going off of what was quoted above, real unfortunate.

Do many safe takeoffs and departures occur under cumulonimbus to not warrant delays when they appear?

Says here the three pilots have been separated from their jobs, in other words they have been fired. I just wonder if Aeromexico will still pay the Captain medical bills ?

https://diario.mx/Nacional/2018-09-06_e ... eromexico/

Interesting findings, if they hold until and become the final conclusions. Somewhat surprising even perhaps.

But yes, such things can happen.

Unqualified pilot at controls before E190 crash at Durango
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-456107/


Mexican investigators have disclosed that an unqualified pilot had been sitting in the first officer’s seat of an Embraer 190, flying the aircraft, moments before it crashed on take-off during poor weather at Durango.

The commission probing the accident found that a crew member travelling in the cabin had been allowed into the cockpit, but took the place of the first officer before the departure.

It points out that the crew member held a multi-engine licence to command Beechcraft King Air turboprops, and was an “aspiring” to become an E-Jet first officer, having started initial theoretical training in May 2018 and completing 64h of simulator activity.

While he had logged nearly 3,300h on other aircraft, he had zero flight experience on E-Jets, and had not completed the simulator evaluations required before route training.

But investigators state that the crew member had been sitting in the first officer’s seat while the first officer had been assigned to carry out external pre-flight inspection of the E190.

Not only was the crew member not authorised to operate the aircraft, the captain was effectively acting as his instructor – a task for which he was also unqualified. The actual first officer sat in the observer’s seat in the cockpit.

=

In many countries this would amount to criminal recklessness. Lets see what happens in Mexico.

LAXintl wrote:

:eek:


Unqualified pilot at controls before E190 crash at Durango
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... -d-456107/


Mexican investigators have disclosed that an unqualified pilot had been sitting in the first officer’s seat of an Embraer 190, flying the aircraft, moments before it crashed on take-off during poor weather at Durango.

The commission probing the accident found that a crew member travelling in the cabin had been allowed into the cockpit, but took the place of the first officer before the departure.

It points out that the crew member held a multi-engine licence to command Beechcraft King Air turboprops, and was an “aspiring” to become an E-Jet first officer, having started initial theoretical training in May 2018 and completing 64h of simulator activity.

While he had logged nearly 3,300h on other aircraft, he had zero flight experience on E-Jets, and had not completed the simulator evaluations required before route training.

But investigators state that the crew member had been sitting in the first officer’s seat while the first officer had been assigned to carry out external pre-flight inspection of the E190.

Not only was the crew member not authorised to operate the aircraft, the captain was effectively acting as his instructor – a task for which he was also unqualified. The actual first officer sat in the observer’s seat in the cockpit.

=

In many countries this would amount to criminal recklessness. Lets see what happens in Mexico.

Jesus Christ. A guy with 0 hour experience even in a E190 sim was illegally sitting in the right seat and flying up until 9 seconds before impact? That's just berzerk.

This is from a press release. Honestly based on that, all 3 of them should be sent to jail for criminal recklessness and stay there for a while.

Wow. That’s wreckless even on a sunny clear day, much less a marginal day with heavy storms.

So, it sounds like they were fired because they let this other guy fly the plane? Otherwise the decision to proceed to take off in the known conditions and the procedures the took while trying to fly were OK?

0 hours and didn’t even finish sim training. What a joke.

United787 wrote:

So, it sounds like they were fired because they let this other guy fly the plane? Otherwise the decision to proceed to take off in the known conditions and the procedures the took while trying to fly were OK?

That was before the final report came out, I believe.

This should be punishable by jail time. Talk about a crazy decision that could have led to deaths. I don't know how anyone could trust to fly this airline after learning about this.

Wtf

Redwood839 wrote:

United787 wrote:

So, it sounds like they were fired because they let this other guy fly the plane? Otherwise the decision to proceed to take off in the known conditions and the procedures the took while trying to fly were OK?

That was before the final report came out, I believe.

The airline I’m sure likely found out who was flying pretty quickly, and should know who is allowed to fly E190s and who isn’t. The news just became public though.

But investigators state that the crew member had been sitting in the first officer’s seat while the first officer had been assigned to carry out external pre-flight inspection of the E190.

So basically the guy was in the right seat during walk-around, the latter performed by the "real" f/o, aircraft was apparently standing still at this time. Nothing about his seating position during actual aircraft operation.
Wether this had any Impact on the outcome of the flight hast to be determined. You guys jump to conclusions way to fast.

Wow. That is shameful. It’s incidents like this which cause people to continue to view Mexico as a third world country. If the pilot culture at Aeromexico could encourage such behaviour, then it needs to change. Either way, an example needs to be made of these pilots. There needs to be criminal charges, convictions, and meaningful consequences.

I must say… I’m not totally looking forward to my Aeromexico flight later today.

ANNEX14 wrote:

But investigators state that the crew member had been sitting in the first officer’s seat while the first officer had been assigned to carry out external pre-flight inspection of the E190.

So basically the guy was in the right seat during walk-around, the latter performed by the "real" f/o, aircraft was apparently standing still at this time. Nothing about his seating position during actual aircraft operation.
Wether this had any Impact on the outcome of the flight hast to be determined. You guys jump to conclusions way to fast.

Read the article rather than just the quoted snippet. Notably:

Investigators state that the unauthorised crew member was “performing the functions of the flying pilot” up to a point 8s before the impact with the ground, according to evidence retrieved from interviews and the cockpit-voice recorder

ANNEX14 wrote:

But investigators state that the crew member had been sitting in the first officer’s seat while the first officer had been assigned to carry out external pre-flight inspection of the E190.

So basically the guy was in the right seat during walk-around, the latter performed by the "real" f/o, aircraft was apparently standing still at this time. Nothing about his seating position during actual aircraft operation.
Wether this had any Impact on the outcome of the flight hast to be determined. You guys jump to conclusions way to fast.

From the article:

Investigators state that the unauthorised crew member was “performing the functions of the flying pilot” up to a point 8s before the impact with the ground, according to evidence retrieved from interviews and the cockpit-voice recorder.

8 seconds before impact??? From that statement, it’s a reasonable extrapolation that the unauthorized pilot was in the f/o seat during takeoff.

aerolimani wrote:

ANNEX14 wrote:

But investigators state that the crew member had been sitting in the first officer’s seat while the first officer had been assigned to carry out external pre-flight inspection of the E190.

So basically the guy was in the right seat during walk-around, the latter performed by the "real" f/o, aircraft was apparently standing still at this time. Nothing about his seating position during actual aircraft operation.
Wether this had any Impact on the outcome of the flight hast to be determined. You guys jump to conclusions way to fast.

From the article:

Investigators state that the unauthorised crew member was “performing the functions of the flying pilot” up to a point 8s before the impact with the ground, according to evidence retrieved from interviews and the cockpit-voice recorder.

8 seconds before impact??? From that statement, it’s a reasonable extrapolation that the unauthorized pilot was in the f/o seat during takeoff.

Yes it sounds like the unauthorized crew member was invited up to the cockpit when the FO was doing the walk around, and the captain decided to just play flight instructor and have the actual FO sit in the jump seat after he got done with the walk around. From the way it talks about the unauthorized person it sounds like a new hire who had just started preliminary training.

So glad everyone walked away after a series of very poor and criminal decision making.

But, to be clear, even though they let this guy fly the plane, that wasn't the cause, correct? I am not defending the pilot's decisions, I am just trying to understand...

United787 wrote:

But, to be clear, even though they let this guy fly the plane, that wasn't the cause, correct? I am not defending the pilot's decisions, I am just trying to understand...

Don't be such a blamefest pooper...

United787 wrote:

But, to be clear, even though they let this guy fly the plane, that wasn't the cause, correct? I am not defending the pilot's decisions, I am just trying to understand...

Unless it’s a regular occurrence letting unqualified pilots do the flying (and let’s hope not!), then it seems like too much of a coincidence that this incident occurred the way it did, without some negative influence from the unqualified pilot. It’s conjecture, I know, but it seems plausible to me that the actual flight crew might have handled the plane more effectively, and not crashed it.

aerolimani wrote:

United787 wrote:

But, to be clear, even though they let this guy fly the plane, that wasn't the cause, correct? I am not defending the pilot's decisions, I am just trying to understand...

Unless it’s a regular occurrence letting unqualified pilots do the flying (and let’s hope not!), then it seems like too much of a coincidence that this incident occurred the way it did, without some negative influence from the unqualified pilot. It’s conjecture, I know, but it seems plausible to me that the actual flight crew might have handled the plane more effectively, and not crashed it.

Reading back to the preliminary findings, they performed simulator sessions in the same conditions with multiple fully qualified crew and none ended with a positive outcome. So conjecture indeed. One could also extrapolate that the pilot in training, who apparently had done 64 hours of E190 sim but not done his sim check ride yet, might be more 'fresh' into windshear procedures as he probably did them a fair amount during sim training. Once qualified you might practice windshear in the sim every six months or so. And don't forget the guy did have over 3000 hours of flight time, which is not something your regular PPL holder will gather in their spare time. Conjecture could go either way.

It's still absolutely ridiculous behaviour from all three supposedly "professional pilots" in that cockpit that day. None of them should have thought that it was OK to do this. And whether it is the main cause or not, this is what it will be remembered for.

Accident: Aeromexico Connect E190 at Durango on Jul 31st 2018, veered off and overran runway after failed takeoff and burst into flames
By Simon Hradecky, created Monday, Feb 25th 2019 17:17Z, last updated Monday, Feb 25th 2019 21:19Z

On Feb 23rd 2019 Mexico's Secretaria de Communicationes y Transportes (SCT) released their final report. The aircraft impacted the runway as result of loss of control in the final stages of the takeoff due to windshear at low height causing a loss of speed and lift.

Contributing factors with respect to the crew were:

- Decreased situational awareness by the crew of AM-2431 because the commander conducted unauthorized instructional tasks without qualication to provide flight instruction and assign co-pilot and pilot flying functions to a pilot not certified and authorized.

- Non-detection of airspeed indicator fluctuations on the primary flight display during the takeoff run.

- Lack of adherence to sterile cockpit procedures as well as to operating procedures.

Contributing factors with respect to ATC were:

- Lack of adherence to "windshear at low altitude" procedures.

- Lack of adherence to procedures requiring to provide information about significant variations in speed and direction of winds as well as visibility and significant other weather conditions.

- Lack of supervisory staff at Durango Tower.

The SCT reported that the aircraft had been delayed some. The crew performed their preflight briefings preparing to depart from runway 03. After engine start the aircraft was taxiing out of departure and received current weather information from tower indicating winds from 070 degrees at 12 knots, altimeter 30.23. While the aircraft is nearing the hold short line surveillance cameras of the airport show rain setting in, however, still permitting flight under visual meteorologic conditions. The crew reads the after start up checklist, subsequently receives clearance for takeoff, tower reporting the winds at 090 degrees at 20 knots. The aircraft lines up, the crew reading the before takeoff checklist, the surveillance cameras show the intensity of rain intensified, strong gusts arrive impeding the visibility from the terminal towards the runway. After lining up on the runway the crew commences takeoff (TOGA being used, no reduced thrust being used), the engines reach takeoff thrust, the call "80 Knots" occurs, at that point the airspeed indicators of captain and first officer disagreed by about 8.5 knots, a second later the first officer confirms "checked" (difference between the IAS had reduced to 1.75 knots by then), at 144 KIAS the captain calls "V1" and at 147 KIAS Rotate. The first officer rotates the aircraft to become airbirne, the captain announces "positive rate of climb", airspeed indication was 148 KIAS at the captain and 150 KIAS at the first officer's instruments (the report annotates 150 KIAS was the highest speed recorded) at about 10.2 degrees nose up, the first officer commands "gear up" when the aircraft was about 2 feet above the runway. The airspeed dropped to 146/148 KIAS, the captain commands "my controls" at 11 feet of height and 139 KIAS/144 KIAS, the aircraft continues to climb until reaching 30 feet AGL at 130/134 KIAS and began to lose height continuing to lose speed, a "Don't sink!" GPWS warning occurred, the aircraft descends through 20 feet AGL at 125 KIAS, the surveillance camera ceased at that point due to discontinuity in power supply. The GPWS warning was the last recording to the CVR. The aircraft impacts ground 2150 meters down the runway to the left of the center line of runway, at approximately abeam taxiway B the aircraft collides with 9 runway edge lights, the right hand engine contacts ground followed by the detachment of both engines. The aircraft continued parallel to the runway and came to a stop 400 meters past the end of the runway. When the surveillance camera stopped it showed visibility had dropped to zero just after the camera had caught a tree to be disrooted. Ground observers pointed out other trees were knocked down as well, one of the trees knocked down communication lines.

Tower tried to call the aircraft but was left without response, talked to the approach sector to see whether they were in contact with the aircraft, approach wasn't in contact, and dispatched vehicles to inspect the runway. The runway inspection found the detached engines and noticed smoke rising from beyond the runway end, while driving towards the smoke the spotted the aircraft with passengers evacuating the airframe and walking away. The vehicle declared Mayday and began to fight the fires. Emergency services arrive and join the efforts to fight the fires and guide the occupants to safety. The visibility improves about 3 minutes after the failed takeoff.

The captain, one flight attendant and 12 passengers received serious, the first officer, the observing pilot, another flight attendant and 22 passengers received minor injuries, 63 passengers and one flight attendant trainee remained uninjured.

The captain (ATPL, 3,700 hours total, 1,064 hours on type) occupied the left hand seat. A first officer (ATPL, 1,973 hours total, 460 hours on type) was assigned to the flight, a third crewman (CPL, 3,296 hours total, 0 hours on type) however occupied the right hand (first officer's seat), the assigned first officer occupied the observer's seat. The crewman was pilot flying initially.

The SCT analysed that as the aircraft neared the hold short line for departure tower cleared the aircraft for takeoff reporting the wind from 090 degrees at 20 knots. The surveillance camera subsequently showed rain setting in and viibility reducing, strong gusts arrive. However, no transmission can be heard in which tower would have informed the crew about the changing weather conditions. The crew sets maximum takeoff power, the aircraft accelerates down the runway, at 54 KIAS there is a first fluctuation of airspeeds, at 85.75 KIAS the captain called "80 knots", the first officer's ASI showed 94.25 knots (8.5 knots difference). The aircraft rotates and become airborne, a "Don't Sink" GPWS call taking priority over a Windshear Alert occurs, a windshear alert is not being issued. Following the "Don't sink" the captain assumes control of the aircraft, according to the CVR the aircraft impacted the runway 8 seconds later.

The SCT analysed the first officer relinquished his seat to the crewman, the captain subsequently provided instructions to the crewman, who also became pilot flying for the takeoff, although the captain was not qualified or authorized to provide instructions. Neither was the communication of the crew with tower effective as result nor did tower provide the crew with updated weather information. The controller was in the best position to observe the deteriorating weather conditions and inform the crew, the lack of such information violated established operating procedures.

When the aircraft lined up runway 03 rain set in, the crew however did not change their FMS settings from dry runway to wet runway or consider recomputing takeoff performance.

Runway 03 became wet as result of a microburst condition. However, there was no equipment to detect windshear at Durango. Due to the gusts a number of trees were uprooted, one of the trees took down power and communication lines causing a power supply failure at the aerodrome for 8 seconds until the backup power generator jumped in, the batteries (UPS) located at the tower were discharged and could not keep the computer systems powered up. The computers subsequently needed 6 minutes to reboot.

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Jul 31st 2018 21:49Z, last updated Monday, Feb 25th 2019 17:19Z

An Aeromexico Connect Embraer ERJ-190, registration XA-GAL performing flight AM-2431 from Durango to Mexico City (Mexico) with 99 passengers and 4 crew, rejected takeoff from Durango's runway 03 in adverse weather at about 15:15L (20:15Z), but veered left off the runway, overran the end of the runway and burst into flames in viewing distance of the airport's apron. The aircraft was destroyed, there are no fatalities, 2 people received serious, 83 people received minor injuries. Some occupants already gave TV interviews within 2 hours after the accident.

The airline confirmed their aircraft had an accident at Durango, the airline is currently collecting information. Initially reporting there 97 passengers and 4 crew on board the airline later stated there were 99 passengers including two infants and 4 crew on board. XA-GAL was 10 years old and had operated for Aeromexico since 2014.

The local governor reported the aircraft was about to take off when the aircraft suffered an accident. There have been no fatalities, there are a number of injuries that are currently being taken care of.

The State Health Department reported 18 people with injuries were taken to a local hospital about 18km from the airport.

Local Emergency Services reported they transported 27 people with injuries to various public and private hospitals in the area.

The local governor subsequently reported there were no fatalities, 85 of 101 occupants received injures, two of them serious injuries.

Mexico's DGAC reported an investigation commission has been formed. Of the 103 occupants on board of the aircraft 49 are in hospital treatment.

A runway inspection, driving in opposite direction of runway 03 from runway end to runway threshold, shows both engines off the left hand side of runway 03 (to the right hand of the runway inspection vehicle, see video below), the aircraft coming to a stop past the runway end.

Ground observers reported the aircraft suffered an engine (CF34) failure at about V1, veered left off the runway and came to a stop to the left of the runway and past the runway end.

A passenger reported the aircraft was accelerating for takeoff but did not succeed becoming airborne. Once the aircraft came to a stop it took about 3-4 minutes until the aircraft burst into flames enabling the occupants to evacuate the aircraft.

Another passenger reported the aircraft was hit by lightning.

WebCams of Mexico with their Panorama Camera in Durango filmed the storm as it moved across the city.

On Aug 1st 2018 Mexico's Ministry of Transport (SCT) reported the aircraft failed to take off and never became airborne, but veered off the runway and ran through rough terrain causing substantial damage to the aircraft including both engines detaching from the airframe. The crew immediately initiated an evacuation of the aircraft after coming to a stand still before a fire broke out consuming the aircraft. The airport resumed operation on Aug 1st 2018.

On Aug 1st 2018 Mexico's DGAC reported the black boxes have been recovered and are being sent for read out. The evacuation was completed within 90 seconds. 22 people are still in hospital care, almost all of them are estimated to be released home on Aug 2nd.

On Aug 2nd 2018 the hospital treating the captain of the flight reported that the neurological surgery on the spine because of marrow concussion was successful, the captain can move legs and arms, only a very little risk of becoming paraplegic remains. The other serious injury, an 8 year old girl having suffered from first and second degree burns of about 25% of the body, is responding favourably to the treatment, grafts of skin have been ruled out already, she will regenerate in a matter of months. Only 8 people remain in hospital care as of current.

On Aug 3rd 2018 the National Union of Air Traffic Controllers in Mexico reported the decision to depart rested solely with the captain of the flight. The controller provided the captain with the current weather information. The thunderstorm cell moving over the airfield lasted not more than 5 minutes, the weather change was sudden.

On Sep 5th 2018 Mexico's DGAC reported in a press conference first results into the investigation. There were three flight crew on the flight deck, a first officer in training was pilot flying in the right hand seat. The takeoff run began in a head wind scenario, which quickly changed into a strong right crosswind and ultimately a strong tail wind as result of a microburst. The investigation so far has not found any technical (both engines were operating normally until being separated from the wing) or human factors issue contributing to the accident. With the flight data, confirmed by meteorologists, simulator tests were conducted, no flight crew was able to get through the scenario with a different outcome. However, the training of the first officer under training had not been authorized and was not carried out according to the required protocols. Although this is not the cause of the accident, it will cause administrative response by the DGAC to establish the responsibilities and apply according sanctions.

On Sep 6th 2018 the DGAC also released the preliminary technical report in Spanish releasing some FDR graphics as well as surveillance camera photos showing the weather development, otherwise the text of the report mainly engages in introducing the commission, its sub groups and who did what but no narrative of the accident sequence whatsoever, except that the report specifically mentions the presense of a microburst over the aerodrome.

The simulation graphics suggest, the aircraft became airborne at a right crosswind of about 11 knots and was in the initial climb, when the right crosswind intensified to 33 knots and turned into a tailwind of 24 knots causing the aircraft to lose height again.

The FDR graphs reports that the speed over ground was steadily increasing initially with some head wind component (thus showing the IAS higher than speed over ground) which turned into a tail wind about 5 seconds prior to end of recording, the aircraft reached a maximum IAS of about 151 KIAS decreasing again to about 125 KIAS at the end of the recording. The aircraft reached a maximum height of about 30 feet AGL.

In the description of one of the photos the DGAC mentions that there were impact marks of the left hand engine on taxiway B.

Related NOTAM:
A4297/18 - AIRPORT CLSD. 31 JUL 21:54 2018 UNTIL 01 AUG 04:50 2018. CREATED: 31 JUL 21:56 2018

Metars:
MMDO 312150Z 12007KT 10SM BKN020CB BKN025 OVC200 22/14 A3023 RMK 8/903 BINOVC=
MMDO 312103Z RTD 28007KT 7SM OVC015CB 17/14 A3024 RMK SLP118 57014 956 8/9// PISTA CERRADA POR ACFT ACCIDENTADA BINOVC=
MMDO 312018Z 07003KT 7SM TSRA BKN020CB 20/13 A3023 RMK 8/900 TSRAB13=
MMDO 311941Z 01005KT 10SM BKN025CB 28/10 A3023 RMK 8/300=
MMDO 311844Z 12003KT 12SM BKN025TCU BKN200 26/11 A3026 RMK 8/201 ISOL CB=
MMDO 311741Z 36007KT 12SM FEW025 SCT200 25/12 A3029 RMK SLP112 57004 903 8/101 HZY=
MMDO 311646Z 00000KT 10SM SCT200 22/13 A3030 RMK 8/001 HZY=
MMDO 311544Z 30006KT 10SM SCT200 20/13 A3030 RMK 8/001 HZY=


In my opinion, if a more experienced Captain had been flying the E-190, along with a more experienced F/O, these accident would have not happened. Essentially because the crew would have not taken off but rather waited the storm at the holding point until it lost most of its power. In that part of the country, from April to October you can get these huge storms and yet, ten minutes ago it was bright and sunny as it will be ten minutes afterwards.

Polot wrote:

Read the article rather than just the quoted snippet. Notably:

Investigators state that the unauthorised crew member was “performing the functions of the flying pilot” up to a point 8s before the impact with the ground, according to evidence retrieved from interviews and the cockpit-voice recorder

Whoops, my bad. Thx @Polot for the further clarification.

AR385 wrote:

The Captain is still in the hospital because even though the doctors were able to decompress the marrow. The doctors have warned him sternly that any movemennt of his neck will result in rendering him a paraplegic. The girl will be discharged soon, her injuries are not that severe. She has 1st. and 2nd degree burns in her legs.

The EMT who got him out said he was literally underneath what remained on the cockpit. He also mentioned that he kept asking "How many people did I killed" He oly stopped saying that until he was sedated in one of the hospitals.

This comment, made 6 months ago, takes on a whole new meaning now.

Also, this one, made 5 months ago, takes on a whole new meaning now.

Venatt wrote:

Says here the three pilots have been separated from their jobs, in other words they have been fired. I just wonder if Aeromexico will still pay the Captain medical bills ?

https://diario.mx/Nacional/2018-09-06_e ... eromexico/

I believe the article here has been updated to reflect that the cockpit had an unqualified member. But if we were wondering why the three pilots were fired so quickly, five months ago, now we know.