Caribbean crash at Georgetown Guyana

[MarkLawrence]

A Caribbean B738 broke in two - seems like no fatalities at the moment, but still a loss for the airline:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43954430/ns/world_news-americas/

[LGA777]

Wow, this is a little spooky for me, I watched BW 523 depart JFK last evening from onboard B6 824 after we landed on 22L, it departed 22R right in front of us as we waited to cross 4R-22L, long departure roll as well. Damn, wish I had snapped a photo, glad all survived at least !

[Delta777LR]

wow that to me reminds me of what happened in Kingston, on AA 737-800.. Glad no fatalities were involved, anyone got the reg number of the aircraft?

[hiss srq]

Initial reports are stating that the airplane touched down around 3000 feet down the runway. Georgetown only has about 7.4 of runway available plus poor wx conditions. This is the first crash in the history of BWIA/CAL. Glad only minor injuries. The 737 NG is very float happy from what I understand talking to the NG drivers I know.

[MarkLawrence]

From what I could see on the video from the BBC, it looks like it was 9Y-PBM.

[Zee71]

Wow.......amazing!!! I'm pretty sure I saw it depart off 31L today from home but didn't snap a photo. Looks like 9Y-PBM.

http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com/Aviation/Airplanes-and-Spotting/Kennedy-JFK/CaribbeanAirlines01JFK21Jan201/1163918957_4hxCj-L.jpg

[LGA777]

Saw a very detailed daylight photo on the blue site and the flaps and slats are fully retracted, hope for the crews sake that was not the case up on touchdown. Also the damage looks a little more severe in that photo, though in a very limited area on the aircraft, but where she broke, she really broke !

[NIKV69]

Sad, that was a SCY bird. I remember being at IFP when she made her first appearance as 810.

[LGA777]

Here are some very good close up photos !

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/189747/20110730/caribbean-airlines-crash.htm

[NIKV69]

If you guys want to watch something interesting check this out. This overrun just brings this to light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaWdEtANi-0

[Derf]

Holy crap is that an entire line of BS! The video was understandibly disturbing up until they said the three aircraft overruns should not have brokup up the airframe at three identical parts. At that part I stopped watching!

1. The aircraft OVERRAN THE RUNWAY...that has nothing to do with structual parts unless the aircraft broke up before exiting the runway.
2. The Aircraft broke in identical spots....Well, every aircraft type will have the spots where the structure has the most stress and that is where it will break! I know where they are on the 737 and DC-9 and MD-80 well. Look up all overrun photos and the DC-9's always break in the same area from one overrun to the other.
3. If their fear is correct (and I do feel it has merit) I worry about them falling out of the sky and not an overrun.

I know more about that 707 crash test than everyone on this board combined and that was a piss poor example of an airplane not breaking up. I also know that the test of the anti fuel misting was a complete success and not a failure as depicted in the video. I have a lot of knowledge and you should ask me about it sometime. I also have 4 hours of the footage, the entire crash from many cameras!

[NIKV69]

1. The aircraft OVERRAN THE RUNWAY...that has nothing to do with structual parts unless the aircraft broke up before exiting the runway.

Usually after the gear gives way and the fuselage takes the brunt of any impact.


2. The Aircraft broke in identical spots....Well, every aircraft type will have the spots where the structure has the most stress and that is where it will break! I know where they are on the 737 and DC-9 and MD-80 well. Look up all overrun photos and the DC-9's always break in the same area from one overrun to the other.

I did and the 737 incidents looked a heck of a lot more similiar.


3. If their fear is correct (and I do feel it has merit) I worry about them falling out of the sky and not an overrun.

Actually I think the reason the FAA and Boeing looked the other way because this issue doesn't come into play as long as the aircraft doesn't sustain any shock to the fuselage (an overrun etc) This won't be an issue. As long as the aircraft lands safely and the checks to the joints and rivets are performed on schedule, you will never have an inflight breakup or the fuselage will just wear prematurely and it will be put in the desert. The only time it becomes an issue is during an overrun or maybe after a few very hard landngs which would result in a intense fuselage inspection anyway.

[Cary]

This is the second plane I shot at SXM, which has crashed through a fence:

1868442

1827312

and the other accident aircraft:

1845130

[Derf]

If it was an issue in any overrun and it played a part, it would have been brought to light by the NTSB go team. They said that the aircraft should not have broken up like that in the overrun... The guy that made that statement lost all credibility with that statement, I can post pictures of every type of airliners with overrun breaks such as DC-9's, 707's, 727's DC-8's (which have a much stronger body than should have been designed). All have had overruns and all broke at the same spot according to type... If you notice, all aircraft break just before the wing (that structure does not flex ..the wingbox). Not just a 737 but all aircraft break at that spot. Here is a MD-80 showing the same break as the 737
http://www.airliners.net/photo/Scandinavian-Airlines--/McDonnell-Douglas-MD-81/0407282/L/&sid=e6ea6bad471208fb164bb457ee07cd89

[Zee71]

Definitely interesting that the slats and flaps are retracted. Maybe some excessive speed as well as missing the mark.

[Delta777LR]

from the pictures i saw, yes i can see that the flaps and slats were never out or the spoilers.. my guess too is that with the flaps not down, it oversped and overan the runway.. possibly pilot error.. that brings me back the crash of AA1420 in Little Rock back in 99 as the MD-80 lands in bad storm not deploying the spoilers and overan the runway as well..

[PhilDernerJr]

As for the separation, I thought they were INTENDED to separate at those parts, as a way to prevent it from breaking in other areas that may be more fatal. I didn't see the linked-to video, but the breakup immediately reminds me of the American and Turkish 737 crashes also....keep in mind fatalities were minimal.

[DHG750R]

Interesting facts and witness accounts coming out now..


Georgetown Airport's fire commander told the investigators that firefighters observed the aircraft as it approached but touched down only about half way down the runway abeam the terminal building with about 3000 feet of runway remaining. They needed to douse engine #2 (right hand engine) which was emitting smoke after the aircraft came to a stop.

Aviation sources said, the aircraft touched down with flaps fully extended (40 degrees).

On Aug 10th it became known to The Aviation Herald, that the flight data recorder showed the flaps at position 30 degrees on final approach, touchdown and rollout, the flaps indicator still showed the flaps at position 30 degrees after the accident

[USAF Pilot 07]

The crew would have been foolish to attempt a landing on that runway with no flaps/slats, and there are probably too many safety checks in the 737 that would have alerted them to the fact that they weren't extended. So, while the pictures show the flaps/slats retracted, it's tough for me to believe they attempted the approach with them retracted unless they were simply incompetent.

DHG750R's post makes more sense. The end of a 7000' contaminated runway will sneak up on you quickly; landing past the landing zone in a jet is just asking for trouble. Most likely, much of the same happened in this case as in the case of that AA jet that overran the runway a little while back in the Carribean; the crew landed long and simply didn't have enough runway left to stop. Luckily, no one was killed.

[mgwsy]

I got a pic of the plane earlier this year at JFK.

http://mgwsy.smugmug.com/Airplanes/JFK-04252011/i-XWdXb4J/1/X2/MG15734-X2.jpg