[HN Gopher] Latam Airlines Airbus A320neo hits fire engine on ru...
___________________________________________________________________
Latam Airlines Airbus A320neo hits fire engine on runway during
take-off
Author : taubek
Score : 82 points
Date : 2022-11-19 14:33 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.aviation24.be)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.aviation24.be)
| rodcodes wrote:
| As an Air Traffic Controller that worked in a third world
| country, I would be concerned around the two glaring holes.
|
| 1. Did the emergency services vehicles not know what Runway is in
| use and check out the left as they approached. They would've
| clearly seen the massive aircraft on short finals.
|
| 2. The Air Traffic Controller is responsible for the safe
| separation and operation of aircraft on the manoeuvring area,
| except for the ramp.
|
| But it seems that both the ATC, the pilots in the aircraft and
| the driver themselves. During busy non-standard Ops - I would
| keep as much distance between them as possible to ensure
|
| It's a 15+ ton vehicle - it doesn't just jump out in front of
| you.
| zach_garwood wrote:
| This is why you always look both ways and hold hands with an
| adult before crossing a runway.
| puffoflogic wrote:
| Right, most people need clearance from the tower but if you're
| More Important like those fire trucks, then that's not
| necessary.
| toast0 wrote:
| Being more important doesn't change the laws of physics.
| Trains always have the right of way, then large boats, then
| aircraft, vehicles with flashy lights come after that.
|
| From what I've seen around me, firefighters tend to be pretty
| careful drivers even when running with flashy lights, but
| there was an unfortunate break down here. Condolences to
| those involved.
| Xylakant wrote:
| I'm fairly certain that large boats win over trains. Their
| stopping distances are measured in kilometers, there no
| such thing as an emergency brake on water (except throwing
| your anchor, but that doesn't help much in most cases
| either)
| toast0 wrote:
| Freight trains have stopping distances measured in
| kilometers too. Even with lots of brakes. Passenger
| trains can stop shorter, but not that much. Light rail,
| subways, and some commuter rail is a lot less massive and
| can stop relatively quickly of course.
|
| But, large boats can turn if the channel allows and
| trains can't, and boating tradition is clear that vessels
| restrictred in their maneuverability have priority, so
| trains win. ;p
| jfk13 wrote:
| Fortunately, large boats and trains aren't often
| competing for the exact same place. Either it's too wet
| for the train, or too dry for the boat.
| K0balt wrote:
| Not with that attitude they won't!
| coding123 wrote:
| Thank you I was trying to figure out why this mattered
| zach_garwood wrote:
| I'm trying to figure out how a boat and a train would
| even cross paths.
| efitz wrote:
| L. Ron Hubbard's ship, the Apollo, was struck by a train
| while in port. The train derailed/jumped the track,
| plowed through a concrete barrier and impacted the ship.
|
| Now arguably this was not a right-of-way situation; but I
| guess you could argue that stationary objects have right-
| of-way over vehicles.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bayou_Canot_rail_accide
| nt
| kube-system wrote:
| A railroad bridge
| kingofpandora wrote:
| It almost happened:
| https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-
| updates/2020/0...
| kube-system wrote:
| I think the above comment was sarcasm. All vehicles on the
| ground need clearance to enter a runway.
| Symbiote wrote:
| https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/59446/do-
| any-ai...
|
| There are roughly four airports with railways crossing
| the runway, although three of them seem out of use.
|
| (I'd guess the train takes priority in normal use, as the
| schedule is probably less flexible, but given notice of
| an emergency the train could be asked to stop.)
| throwaheyy wrote:
| There is at least one occurrence of a collision between a
| plane and a train crossing the runway:
|
| https://spiritsofansett.com/history/train.html
| barbazoo wrote:
| Exactly!
| this_steve_j wrote:
| This accident is reminiscent of Singapore airlines Flight 006.
| The 747-412 took off on an inactive runway during a typhoon and
| crashed into a vehicle, killing 83 of 179 onboard.
|
| An initial investigation placed blame heavily on the flight crew,
| but other factors emerged in later reports.
|
| There was construction equipment on an adjacent parallel closed
| runway. Along with the taxiway, it was fully illuminated with no
| barriers. The signs and markings were deficient and not readable
| in a typhoon at night.
|
| The 747 was cleared for takeoff and crashed into a parked vehicle
| they could not see until V1.
|
| When the final 30 minutes are played backward from mass
| casualties, the aircrew appears criminally negligent. But a 2
| year investigation revealed an incredibly subtle drift into
| failure of the safety envelope.
|
| A lack of ground radar, schedule pressure, and split second
| decisions contributed to a near certainty of tragedy at the sharp
| end.
|
| Unlike with road deaths, these tragedies lead to safety
| improvements all over the world. We will all be a little safer
| because the victims paid with their lives.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_006
| jzm2k wrote:
| Disaster Breakdown made a video about this accident:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rXmskgv8nw
| masklinn wrote:
| Mentour did one as well: https://youtu.be/fuIYZRaPmlo
| Sakos wrote:
| https://avherald.com/h?article=5013c619&opt=0
|
| More detail
|
| > An ATC report states in writing that the rescue vehicle entered
| runway 16 from the west at the height of taxiway B without
| authorization and collided with flight LA-2213.
| kumarvvr wrote:
| Sakos wrote:
| I just disabled my adblocker and checked it out. It's
| actually okay ad-wise, imo. I see far worse on a lot of other
| sites.
| [deleted]
| bmer wrote:
| Using Firefox with uBlock Origin, and saw nothing.
| dang wrote:
| That of course is extremely annoying, but:
|
| " _Please don 't complain about tangential annoyances--things
| like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-
| button breakage. They're too common to be interesting._"
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| rdtsc wrote:
| Using the Brave browser and I didn't see a single add. Looked
| like a simple forum page from the early 2000s to me. I see
| that Brave blocked about 8 adds so that's probably what you
| saw.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| I'm using Android Chrome on a network with a PiHole and
| didn't see any ads either.
| [deleted]
| irrational wrote:
| Why are you using the internet without ublock origin
| installed?
| jagger27 wrote:
| I'm looking forward to Mentour Pilot's breakdown of this on
| YouTube in a few weeks. It seems like the crew on the plane did a
| fantastic job.
| rdtwo wrote:
| Oh wow crazy. Fire blankets in the belly save the day. You can
| see them in the remains of the aft fuselage.
| [deleted]
| bdavis__ wrote:
| Aviation safety is incredible. "Events" happen. But all the
| people got out.
|
| This works due to regulation, training, and an honest evaluation
| of every incident that forces changes in the system.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The event in the article is pretty clearly a breakdown of
| already-known safety practices, so anything that gets learned
| is being re-learned. Ground vehicles are never to enter
| aircraft movement areas without tower clearance. In this case
| either the rescue vehicles did not have clearance or the tower
| cleared them improperly.
| sokoloff wrote:
| There are often multiple ATC positions staffed to cover the
| movement areas.
|
| "Tower" is in charge of the runways and "ground" in charge of
| the taxiways. Both are movement areas.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Based on the charts and the video, I don't think these
| rescue trucks needed to cross a taxiway before crossing the
| runway. I listened to the recordings on liveatc and nothing
| jumps out. In the interests of open mindedness I should
| consider that it's not impossible that the ground vehicles
| had clearance and the aircraft did not. But it would be
| pretty shocking for a commercial air crew to take off
| without clearance.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Do you have a URL for a current chart? The old, single
| runway config would require proceeding on taxiway A to
| get to 34. The latest chart I could find online was
| 2019/2020, but there's no way to get to the runway
| without transiting a taxiway on that side.
|
| https://pe.ivao.aero/storage/download/cartas/1595026538_c
| art...
| ck2 wrote:
| Until the next 737 Max
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX#Grounding_and_r...
| oldstrangers wrote:
| Until the next company commits fraud to skirt regulations,
| yes.
| anderber wrote:
| Easy to do when there's no oversight and the company
| "regulates" itself.
| djmips wrote:
| Bad luck to hit a firetruck but also lucky there were a lot of
| firetrucks nearby!
| Macha wrote:
| Note that while all passengers and crew onboard the aircraft
| survived, there were two fatalities among the fire engine crew
| dmckeon wrote:
| Survived, yes, but
|
| > The flight carried 102 passengers, 36 of them got injured
| of which 4 seriously injured.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > But all the people got out.
|
| Two people died.
| CrazyStat wrote:
| People in the truck died, not people in the plane.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Wow, amazing this wasn't worse. Curious to know why the fire
| trucks were on the live runway, and where the breakdown happened.
| f1shy wrote:
| It was literally milliseconds away from a massive catastrophe.
| jvm___ wrote:
| There was a security camera video, the firetruck and the plane
| were both in motion, the plane was almost at takeoff speed and
| the firetruck was driving and drove into the path of the wing
| of the plane. The truck was only a wing length away from
| driving into the path of the body of the aircraft.
| [deleted]
| Graziano_M wrote:
| I was in the air in-bound to Lima when this happened. I guess LIM
| only has one runway, and it's closed down until at least
| tomorrow, so that's about 36 hours of that whole airport being
| closed. Lots of cascading delays. Hoping I can get in tomorrow.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-19 23:01 UTC)