Air Serbia AS86C incident in Belgrade

[edyvw]

OK, now, if someone told me this, without me knowing facts, I would say they made up story, but....

Yesterday, Air Serbia E195, wet-leased from Greek Marathon Airlines, had an incident where the crew took off from the middle of the runway, KNOWING it had entered the wrong taxiway D5 instead of D6. Entering D5, they had 1273m for take-off, while the optimal take-off since E195 is 1493m. Captain acknowledge that they entered D5. Result. They had tail strike, "lawn mowed" landing lights, disabling them, etc.
Photos:

CCTV:



ATC:


Juan Brown has some thoughts:



106 passengers on board. I mean, talking about being lucky and guy(s) who will not have a job.

 

[demarpaint]

106 very lucky people.

 

[joekingcorvette]

Not good.....

 

[wpod]

Almost made it.

 

[walterjay]

At least it was a "minor incident" Just crazy.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Why I don't get ( notice I never comment about it ) concerned about what type of plane I fly or DH on, I care more about who is flying the plane.

The second mistake in my book is, don't spend more air time flying around dumping fuel, return ASAP (safely) in a situation like that as you don't know what kind of damage you have done to the aircraft ( if they could manage to "take off" with not enough runway, they can land on the same runway overweight ).

 

[ripcord]

Hold my beer...

 

[edyvw]

Why I don't get ( notice I never comment about it ) concerned about what type of plane I fly or DH on, I care more about who is flying the plane.

The second mistake in my book is, don't spend more air time flying around dumping fuel, return ASAP (safely) in a situation like that as you don't know what kind of damage you have done to the aircraft ( if they could manage to "take off" with not enough runway, they can land on the same runway overweight ).

Yeah, the runway is 3,500m. Plenty of real estate.

 

[2005jettatdi]

I did not see the tail strike, or was the area where the runway had a light coloring? There is no mention of a tail strike in the aviation reports. What I am wondering is why the tower did not demand the pilot return and get on the right part of the runway from D6? The stupid pilot assured the tower he could take off from where he was, but he was wrong.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Read the communication between the aircraft and Tower ( ATC ) and it provided enough information to allow me to conclude they were totally incompetent.

I can fully understand ANY pilot making a mistake ( I mean any ) but that's gross incompetence if it's true they were aware the only had just over 4000 feet.

4000 is a very short distance even for landing, why they weren't aware it was too short for take-off is mind-boggling.

A very experienced Emirates crew made a "similar" mistake ( not enough runway for the calculated take-off thrust ) taking off in a very heavy Airbus BUT I can easily see how they made that unfortunate mistake ( they got fired ).

I blame Airbus or Emirates flight Ops for not realizing it was just a matter of time before crews input the wrong take-off weight ( exacerbated by the fact their route network had big differences in the take-off weights crews would see ) and no "gross error" backup technology was provided to them ( except...both pilots independently check/calculate the take-off data ).

Today, Airbus pilots have take-off performance automatically uplinked to the pilot's FMS ( who still must independently CHECK, not calculate ) after they input factors such as weight, OAT, wind etc.

If the weight doesn't match the load data, it will warn the pilots.

I like learning from unfortunate mistakes so I HOPEFULLY won't make the same one myself but sometimes it is total incompetence and nothing to learn from.

 

[2005jettatdi]

I noted that Air Serbia will no longer have a wet lease arrangement with Marathon Airlines, so I guess they agree with you. Actually, I think Air Serbia has cut off all relations with Marathon Airlines. Probably a smart move, even if a little bit late.

 

[350Rocket]

Why I don't get ( notice I never comment about it ) concerned about what type of plane I fly or DH on, I care more about who is flying the plane.

The second mistake in my book is, don't spend more air time flying around dumping fuel, return ASAP (safely) in a situation like that as you don't know what kind of damage you have done to the aircraft ( if they could manage to "take off" with not enough runway, they can land on the same runway overweight ).

I agree the pilot matters more than the plane, for obvious reasons. However, I cannot check up on what pilot is flying us...but I can check what plane it is.

While I believe it's unlikely that we would get a pilot like this, i don't know anything about the pilots competency and I would rather not be on a brand new (or even built in the last decade ideally) since Boeing has proven that quality was not job number 1 and there is probably a much higher risk of a mechanical problem with a new plane (even if it was built by any other manufacturer but especially a Boeing if you've been following the situation at all). A well maintained 19 year old 737 (last plane I flew on) gives me more confidence than a new one.

 

[y_p_w]

Seriously though, I heard it actually overshot the runway and wasn't airborne until after the end of the runway. Then it apparently didn't clear a communications array beyond the end of the runway.

 

[Astro14]

I agree the pilot matters more than the plane, for obvious reasons. However, I cannot check up on what pilot is flying us...but I can check what plane it is.

While I believe it's unlikely that we would get a pilot like this, i don't know anything about the pilots competency and I would rather not be on a brand new (or even built in the last decade ideally) since Boeing has proven that quality was not job number 1 and there is probably a much higher risk of a mechanical problem with a new plane (even if it was built by any other manufacturer but especially a Boeing if you've been following the situation at all). A well maintained 19 year old 737 (last plane I flew on) gives me more confidence than a new one.

Actually, the aircraft matters much less than the airline.

Some airlines do a great job with maintenance, and some airlines that are really fly-by-night operations, employing inexperienced or poorly trained pilots, pilot that can’t get a job at a really good carrier.

I’m being blunt here, but there are a lot of operations that have brand new aircraft, and substandard flight crews. People are attracted to the brand, new jet, thinking, somehow that they’re safer. But it is not the plane that makes an operation safe, it is the pilot in command.

This is clearly one of those cases: brand new jet, and some terrible piloting.

So I wouldn’t choose on the basis of aircraft, ever. I would choose an airline on the basis of how their pilots are trained, and what standards they hold themselves for both maintenance and flight training standards.

I would be very happy on a 25-year-old airbus, if I knew @Just a civilian pilot were at the controls.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

I agree the pilot matters more than the plane, for obvious reasons. However, I cannot check up on what pilot is flying us...but I can check what plane it is.

While I believe it's unlikely that we would get a pilot like this, i don't know anything about the pilots competency and I would rather not be on a brand new (or even built in the last decade ideally) since Boeing has proven that quality was not job number 1 and there is probably a much higher risk of a mechanical problem with a new plane (even if it was built by any other manufacturer but especially a Boeing if you've been following the situation at all). A well maintained 19 year old 737 (last plane I flew on) gives me more confidence than a new one.

I will fly on any Boeing, even new ones.

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Actually, the aircraft matters much less than the airline.

Some airlines do a great job with maintenance, and some airlines that are really fly-by-night operations, employing inexperienced or poorly trained pilots, pilot that can’t get a job at a really good carrier.

I’m being blunt here, but there are a lot of operations that have brand new aircraft, and substandard flight crews. People are attracted to the brand, new jet, thinking, somehow that they’re safer. But it is not the plane that makes an operation safe, it is the pilot in command.

This is clearly one of those cases: brand new jet, and some terrible piloting.

So I wouldn’t choose on the basis of aircraft, ever. I would choose an airline on the basis of how their pilots are trained, and what standards they hold themselves for both maintenance and flight training standards.

I would be very happy on a 25-year-old airbus, if I knew @Just a civilian pilot were at the controls.

Totally agree.

 

[Nmr1981]

I really appreciate the insight that @Astro14 and @Just a civilian pilot bring to this discussion. Keep up the good work. I feel better about putting my family on a plane, with a reputable anirline, after this discussion. Never really thought about training and maintenance being different per airline. I just assumed there was a standard and that had to be attained and everyone met it. I guess just like car drivers/owners there are the good the bad and the ugly. Yet seemingly all have a license to drive.

 

[fdcg27]

Lucky Lucky Lucky.
I saw this on another site and thought that they were very fortunate not to have ended up plowing off the end of the runway at a high rate of speed into whatever may lie there.
The crew presumably hold (held) EASA certificates?
A shout out to Embraer for building a very stout airframe although the tear in the fuselage will not be an easy fix. Even though fairly young, a write-off?

 

[edyvw]

Inside video:

 

[edyvw]

I did not see the tail strike, or was the area where the runway had a light coloring? There is no mention of a tail strike in the aviation reports. What I am wondering is why the tower did not demand the pilot return and get on the right part of the runway from D6? The stupid pilot assured the tower he could take off from where he was, but he was wrong.