DHL 757 Skids Off Runway, Breaks In Half Landing In Costa Rica. No Injuries Reported.
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
There’s a lot going on here.
The video starts with a normal landing and plenty of runway remaining. The fire trucks are standing by for the landing, meaning that the crew had declared an emergency, so something was wrong with the airplane.
The smoke from the brakes at the end could be hot brakes, or blown tires as they attempted to stop.
The airplane went off the runway at low speed.
The structural damage occurred because of the steep embankment next to the runway, not because the airplane is weak, or crashed at high speed.
2 1/2 hours of fuel is roughly 15,000 lbs, which would all be in the wing tanks. The fuselage damage that happened wouldn’t cause a fuel leak as the center tank is between the wings, ans that part of the airplane was intact.
It‘s too early to speculate on cause or what the crew could’ve done better.
Let‘s be thankful there were no fatalities.
The video starts with a normal landing and plenty of runway remaining. The fire trucks are standing by for the landing, meaning that the crew had declared an emergency, so something was wrong with the airplane.
The smoke from the brakes at the end could be hot brakes, or blown tires as they attempted to stop.
The airplane went off the runway at low speed.
The structural damage occurred because of the steep embankment next to the runway, not because the airplane is weak, or crashed at high speed.
2 1/2 hours of fuel is roughly 15,000 lbs, which would all be in the wing tanks. The fuselage damage that happened wouldn’t cause a fuel leak as the center tank is between the wings, ans that part of the airplane was intact.
It‘s too early to speculate on cause or what the crew could’ve done better.
Let‘s be thankful there were no fatalities.
It was an emergency landing as they had taken off from the same airport with Honduras as the planned destination.
www.nytimes.com
A DHL Cargo Plane Breaks in Two Landing at a Costa Rica Airport
No one on board was injured, a spokesman for the delivery company said, adding that it was working with the authorities to remove the plane.
An airport near Costa Rica’s capital was temporarily closed Thursday after a DHL cargo plane split in two during an emergency landing, officials said. No one was injured.
The plane, a bright yellow B757-200F airliner about 155 feet long, was headed to Guatemala when it was forced to return to Juan Santamaria International Airport, northwest of San Jose.
The pilot and first officer on the plane, which was carrying freight to Guatemala City, reported a “hydraulic issue” shortly after takeoff and had to land, Daniel McGrath, a DHL spokesman, said on Friday.
I am in CR right now
I find it interesting there were no thrust reversers. Perhaps plane was one engine out and cannot use only one? From what I was told the plane circled for a while to dump fuel after declaring emergency.
I find it interesting there were no thrust reversers. Perhaps plane was one engine out and cannot use only one? From what I was told the plane circled for a while to dump fuel after declaring emergency.
Sure does.
If you’re going to ship yourself in a box, make sure your box is securely attached to the pallet and loaded over the wing.
Then you’ve been told wrong.
They did not ”circle to dump fuel”.
The 757 lacks a fuel jettison system.
The thrust reverser would be used for a single engine landing.
There are a few reasons why thrust reverse would not be used, including hydraulic failure on that system.
Yep-and the previous owner bought it for $14,000.00 with 120,000 miles on it.........but now it needs a new motor.
I see what happend. They didn't steer into the skid....
In all seriousness are there front brakes on a plane? That would be the only way I would think it could skid out like that while they were that hard on the rear brakes.
In all seriousness are there front brakes on a plane? That would be the only way I would think it could skid out like that while they were that hard on the rear brakes.
No front brakes on a commercial jet. The pilot can steer with the brakes, a bit, by pressing harder/softer on the appropriate pedal. There are two pedals, one for each main landing gear brake set.
I really like Juan Brown’s reviews. He does a great job. Nice pictures and diagrams of the hydraulic system, too.
Here is a critical point: with a left hydraulic system failure, you have no nose wheel steering.
You can’t steer. You have only differential braking to steer while on the ground.
Flaps 20 landing with a tailwind at high altitude = a lot of speed on the ground. A LOT of speed.
The crew may, emphasize may, have chosen to use max reverse on the right engine (which was not available on the left engine with a left hydraulic system failure) to shorten the landing roll.
But with no nose wheel steering, at low speed, where the rudder is no longer effective, that thrust differential (idle forward on the left, full reverse on the right) could cause directional control problems, pulling the airplane to the right.
That would require full left brake (the one that was smoking) to try and keep the airplane from pulling to the right.
Juan speculates that the crew was trying to make the turn off.
My suspicion - full reverse on the right, with no nose wheel steering caused a low speed loss of directional control.
You can’t steer. You have only differential braking to steer while on the ground.
Flaps 20 landing with a tailwind at high altitude = a lot of speed on the ground. A LOT of speed.
The crew may, emphasize may, have chosen to use max reverse on the right engine (which was not available on the left engine with a left hydraulic system failure) to shorten the landing roll.
But with no nose wheel steering, at low speed, where the rudder is no longer effective, that thrust differential (idle forward on the left, full reverse on the right) could cause directional control problems, pulling the airplane to the right.
That would require full left brake (the one that was smoking) to try and keep the airplane from pulling to the right.
Juan speculates that the crew was trying to make the turn off.
My suspicion - full reverse on the right, with no nose wheel steering caused a low speed loss of directional control.
Anti skid should have been working.
But that left brake, the smoking brake, could be very hot from trying to control/maintain centerline with the thrust differential.
Unbalanced brake pressure would cause it to skid out like that, particularly with no nose wheel steering.
But the left brake was smoking. It was being used harder.
Which suggests that something was pulling the jet to the right.
My money is on the right thrust reverser as the source of that pull.
Juan doesn’t say it, but in addition to the tailwind, a flaps 20 landing is at a much higher approach speed than flaps 30 (or even flaps 25).
Since the jet had just taken off, and because it has no fuel jettison system, it landed heavy. Which means a much higher approach speed.
On the ground, the high approach speed means a lot more kinetic energy going into the brakes. Since kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times velocity squared, an significant increase in ground velocity can result in huge increases in braking distance.
Further, Flaps 20 has less drag than 25 or 30, making for a longer landing roll because the brakes have to do more work to stop the airplane.
Partial spoilers means both less drag (longer landing roll) and decreased weight on wheels at high speed, reducing brake effectiveness at high speed.
This crew may have had no choice in using full reverse on the right engine to get the airplane stopped.
Why didn’t they come out of reverse at 80 knots? That’s the standard for stowing reversers. Were they struggling to maintain directional control? Insufficient runway left?
I would like to know how much runway remained in front of the jet and how fast it was going when it spun out.
Those details are critical in understanding the crew’s decision and performance.
Since the jet had just taken off, and because it has no fuel jettison system, it landed heavy. Which means a much higher approach speed.
On the ground, the high approach speed means a lot more kinetic energy going into the brakes. Since kinetic energy is 1/2 mass times velocity squared, an significant increase in ground velocity can result in huge increases in braking distance.
Further, Flaps 20 has less drag than 25 or 30, making for a longer landing roll because the brakes have to do more work to stop the airplane.
Partial spoilers means both less drag (longer landing roll) and decreased weight on wheels at high speed, reducing brake effectiveness at high speed.
This crew may have had no choice in using full reverse on the right engine to get the airplane stopped.
Why didn’t they come out of reverse at 80 knots? That’s the standard for stowing reversers. Were they struggling to maintain directional control? Insufficient runway left?
I would like to know how much runway remained in front of the jet and how fast it was going when it spun out.
Those details are critical in understanding the crew’s decision and performance.
Was it confirmed to be a partial or total hydraulic failure? Someone commented over at the AH:
There is one comment here that they had 1000 meters left.
DHL Boeing 757/200 emergency in Costa Rica... - PPRuNe Forums
Rumours & News - DHL Boeing 757/200 emergency in Costa Rica... - https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/co..._at_sjo_costa/
www.pprune.org
