NZFF

Restarting this topic.

I heard on the radio that an earlier flight took 11 seconds to stop, the TAM flight covered the same distance in just three...

that's no good
saw on the news that an embrarer went off a runway somewhere. No casulaties though

Jeez it is a bad year for aviation.

Head for the back:
http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1120496....;m_id=db~Ads~s~

RIP and to the familys of those who had friends & family onboard our thoughts are with you in this time of destress

Zöltuger wrote:

QUOTE(Zöltuger @ Jul 24 2007, 06:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that's no good
saw on the news that an embrarer went off a runway somewhere. No casulaties though

Yea I think it was an EMB-190 and it was in Colombia

That's a pretty shocking accident; of all the things to hit it had to be a fuel depot...

having a fuel depot at the end of the runway wasnt a smart location especially with aircraft flying around.

Apparently an ATR had a close call similar to the Tam accident the day before. The PPrune Thread on the accident has some good info.

Sao Paulo has a problem of being really packed in. They shouldn't have buildings that close to the end of the runway, mind you it could possibly happen in a place like Wellington...

ZKTOM wrote:

QUOTE(ZKTOM @ Jul 25 2007, 08:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sao Paulo has a problem of being really packed in. They shouldn't have buildings that close to the end of the runway, mind you it could possibly happen in a place like Wellington...

difference being that Wellington doesn't have buildings at either end. But you're right, short runway with a big drop at either end in the windiest part of NZ, its not the safest of airports.

Zöltuger wrote:

QUOTE(Zöltuger @ Jul 25 2007, 10:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

ZKTOM wrote:

QUOTE(ZKTOM @ Jul 25 2007, 08:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sao Paulo has a problem of being really packed in. They shouldn't have buildings that close to the end of the runway, mind you it could possibly happen in a place like Wellington...

difference being that Wellington doesn't have buildings at either end. But you're right, short runway with a big drop at either end in the windiest part of NZ, its not the safest of airports.

Short runway?? Its 2km long! Ive seen Boeings landing on 16 touch down at stub 4 and pull up before the end, and that was in torrential rain.

Did anyone else see those replays of the plane landing on tv and then the one that crashed landing at the same spot like a good 30-50 n faster ,no wonder they didnt make it ,add the runway rain run off and location ,well we know what has happen ,i just hope this time they will do something about it properly and make it safer for the future..

At the end of the day though its the pilots who are responsible for conducting a safe landing. If the aeroplane can handle the runway on paper with all the built in safety margins then its got nothing to do with the airport. People are now saying that Wellington, Queenstown, Milford and Palmerston North are dangerous just because they dont have 3km of runway to screw up on. HARDEN UP PEOPLE!!!!!

chopper_nut wrote:

QUOTE(chopper_nut @ Jul 21 2007, 05:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At the end of the day though its the pilots who are responsible for conducting a safe landing. If the aeroplane can handle the runway on paper with all the built in safety margins then its got nothing to do with the airport. People are now saying that Wellington, Queenstown, Milford and Palmerston North are dangerous just because they dont have 3km of runway to screw up on. HARDEN UP PEOPLE!!!!!

Jeez how is Palmy North very dangerous? Oh no! If I run off the end of the runway I might disturb the cows! Auckland is as dangerous than Palmy, maybe that should go on the list too.

chopper_nut wrote:

QUOTE(chopper_nut @ Jul 25 2007, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At the end of the day though its the pilots who are responsible for conducting a safe landing

Which is why, after Bristol airport here in the UK was repaved, during the extended storms and before it had been grooved, Easyjet pilots were refusing to land there (after one plane had gone off the end)

victor_alpha_charlie wrote:

QUOTE(victor_alpha_charlie @ Jul 25 2007, 08:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

chopper_nut wrote:

QUOTE(chopper_nut @ Jul 21 2007, 05:56 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

At the end of the day though its the pilots who are responsible for conducting a safe landing. If the aeroplane can handle the runway on paper with all the built in safety margins then its got nothing to do with the airport. People are now saying that Wellington, Queenstown, Milford and Palmerston North are dangerous just because they dont have 3km of runway to screw up on. HARDEN UP PEOPLE!!!!!

Jeez how is Palmy North very dangerous? Oh no! If I run off the end of the runway I might disturb the cows! Auckland is as dangerous than Palmy, maybe that should go on the list too.

The approaches at Palmy have been criticised for many years, even after the Dash crashed into the hill. The airport itself isnt the problem.

And that G-HEVN is exactly what the pilots are supposed to do. Which is exactly why this recent accident in Brazil isnt the airports fault.

chopper_nut wrote:

QUOTE(chopper_nut @ Jul 21 2007, 02:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The approaches at Palmy have been criticised for many years, even after the Dash crashed into the hill. The airport itself isnt the problem.

I thought that was Rotorua? Maybe not.. I was like 5 at the time

victor_alpha_charlie wrote:

QUOTE(victor_alpha_charlie @ Jul 26 2007, 07:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

chopper_nut wrote:

QUOTE(chopper_nut @ Jul 21 2007, 02:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The approaches at Palmy have been criticised for many years, even after the Dash crashed into the hill. The airport itself isnt the problem.

I thought that was Rotorua? Maybe not.. I was like 5 at the time

I remember it well. Jeeze, makes me sound old!