[Thad E Ginathom]

I have never heard the term "runway excursion" and I have certainly never experienced one. I would be concerned, at least, if not frightened.

No, I am not in a position to understand the risks. but I gather that this happened right at the start of the run, and that speeds were no more than we are used to in our cars. Were lives ever at risk here?

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I have never heard the term "runway excursion" and I have certainly never experienced one. I would be concerned, at least, if not frightened.

Runway excursions are fairly common while landing (atleast 10 instances per year globally among big jets make it to the NEWS), but quite rare while taking-off. I guess you can imagine why.

No, I am not in a position to understand the risks. but I gather that this happened right at the start of the run, and that speeds were no more than we are used to in our cars. Were lives ever at risk here?

Take off/landing speeds are 200 to 240 kmph. But when the jets go off-road, the speeds are likely to be much lower. FIRE is the biggest risk.

For "minor" incidents like these, 10 or 20 injuries are common but sometimes there is loss of life too (say 2 or 3 deaths). That's why one needs to be belted all the time, seatback needs to be straightened, food tray needs to be closed and infants need to be held correctly

[rambo1o1]

Just saw this thread, glad to know your safe!

I live just five minutes from the airport and my house is kind of close to the flight landing approach. Occasionally when im bored, i park my bike right under the flight approach path and revel in the experience of commercial and fighter aircraft(MIG 29k) flying above, just a couple 100 feet or less

From whatever information i have gathered from your post and the local media, the aircraft was quite close to the boundary wall,near the road used by naval staff to get to their offices.
Am really surprised that there was such a delay by the emergency response teams.The aircraft was positioned right near motorable roads that could be easily accessed from across the runway,excuse of rough terrain is unwarranted.

The less said about Jet's attitude after the incident the better. Hopefully Jet airways learns that proper crew training can go a long way in improving their image however big or small an incident.And god forbid,if such incidents do occur, any positive handling of the situation can be an asset to any airlines brand image.
But i am no one to pass any judgement on these matters so i have hope that the DGCA and Naval authorities will get to the bottom of all this,since there were other international flights that were scheduled to depart or arrive around the same time, so it wasnt an hour where there was a lull in airport operations.

The aircraft was towed away after a good 5 or 6 days, became kind of a local tourist attraction, since the plane was close to the boundary wall.

[pedrolourenco]

Originally Posted by 1lokesh

By now I could see a lot of men from the navy, airport staff as well as the airline (Jet Airways) staff. Except the navy guys, no one seemed to have a clue about what to do.

Another 30 minutes passed before we saw the Jet Airways coaches come towards the runway to pick us from the field.

I must say the Jet Airways staff is really pathetic even in routine operations. No offence to my school mates who are part of this team. I have heard that the check in counter staff is sometimes made to do stuff like putting the gangways (before Goa got aerobridges) and putting the stoppers (don't know the correct term) at the wheels of the aircraft. They are supposed to have dedicated staff for that.

When we reached the departure halls for our ticket back to Mumbai, we were shocked to know that none of the passengers from the ill-fated flight had been prioritised on the first Jet Airways flight out of Goa to Mumbai (at 2 pm).

That created another ruckus, with the airline officials trying to avoid the angry passengers. Resigned, we all had no option but to take the later flight, at 5.30 pm.

Again very much expected from Jet Airways.

I did learn some lessons from the incident - 1) Be grateful for everything in your life and never take any moment for granted and

This I learnt when we rescued 300 people from the sea. Had we reached the scene an hour late they would have probably not survived.

2) Never fly again with Jet Airways, or for that matter trust any corporation apathetic to customers.

How I would love to do that. Unfortunately my company has an agreement with Jet and we are forced to fly Jet most of the time.

In the moments after being rescued from the field that day, I had felt a surge of gratitude for the pilot, and even thought of thanking him for saving our lives.

But after reading his letter, I couldn’t help but think that he was trying to play victim.

Well I would be on the side of the pilot of that Aircraft and the other Pilots who have commented on this thread.
I am not expert on Aviation but I am pretty sure the responsibilities of the Captain are similar to that of the Captain of a ship (which I am) where are:
1. Safety of Life
2. Safety of the craft (aircraft or ship)
3. Safety of the cargo

Forget 2&3. In an emergency situation he is just thinking of point number 1. Everything else is secondary. So rest assured, however incompetent you may consider him to be, he was doing his best to ensure you exited the plane alive. He was not thinking about your next flight or appointments or samosas etc.

I say: Why wouldn’t I judge you when I pay fares from my taxable income? Why wouldn’t I judge your experience and capability when I, including everyone on that plane, felt there was a delay in cutting out the throttle?

Because another pilot has already clarified the difference between what a passenger FEELS and what a pilot with 1000's of hours of flying experience KNOWS.

Why would I not judge you when I leave my life in your hands?

Because the DGCA would not have given him his 4 stripes if he was not capable of taking care of your life. Also because the owners of the the plane will not give a toy costing millions of dollars to a person who they feel is not competent enough to ensure it's safety and the safety of the passengers.

Why would I not judge you when your airline is so apathetic to survivors?

This is the only thing the money you paid entitles you to do.

Why would I not judge you when even 10 days after the incident, I wake up in the middle of the night with nightmares?

I can't comment on this.

Why would I not judge you when I for sure know that you didn’t come to a complete halt after taking the U-turn on the runway and before initiating take-off (I came to know later that the procedure is necessary).

Again already clarified by a pilot here.

And finally, why would I not judge you when I saw your crew helpless and unprepared for such a situation? Afterall you were the captain of that ship?

Valid point for a ship captain where he gets to spend considerable time with his crew and know their shortcomings and rectify the same. Also he gets to see his crew working. The aircraft pilot cannot see his staff from the cockpit. Also he probably gets a different crew for every flight. So here it is the responsibility of the airline to make sure they know their job in an emergency.

That day, I will find you and give you my thanks.

That day was the day you exited the aircraft alive.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

An aircraft is designed and a pilot is trained to land and take off from wet runways, cross winds, etc.

I think you will be quite surprised to learn the effects of wind on a large surface area such as an aircraft or a ship and the effect of the weight of a fully laden aircraft on the tiny contact patch of the tyres on a slippery surface.

Originally Posted by spyder_p8

What we should actually avoid is passing judgement. And thats what we are doing here. He/she is already the first one being targeted for this accident. The right to prove fault with pilot or plane lies with authorities and not with us.

In case of any Aviation or Maritime accident the blame by default is put on the Captain. It is always he who has to prove otherwise.

Originally Posted by Enobarbus

TThe crew might have taken a conscious decision not to operate the slides because of this reason.

In what way would not operating the slides have helped?

Yes there were unconfirmed reports that the right engine's thrust reverser got operated at 74% power and this caused the aircraft to veer off the runway. To the best of my knowledge, the thrust reversers cannot be operated independently; once selected thrust reversers on both engines should operate simultaneously. If it is true that the thrust reverser of one engine operated independently, it means that it was a technical failure and not the fault of the pilot. However, that open letter(whoever wrote it) is stupid and uncalled for.

+1

Originally Posted by car.lover

Learning experience - SHIT happens, but how you deal with it makes all the difference!

This is also what the trial of the Captain focuses on.

Originally Posted by AbhiJ

Everytime I fly I am placing trust on the aircraft manufacturer, airline, pilot and airlines maintainence staff of all doing their job. I know your job is hard, and the stresses are crazy, but then I know you made a conscious effort to choose this career and I am hoping you know how to cope with the same.

When you buy an IT related product or service you place your trust on the manufacturer, service provider and maintenance staff. We know your job is hard, and the stresses are crazy, but then we know you made a conscious effort to choose this career and we are hoping you know how to cope with the same. However when we have a problem we all know know how efficient the customer care is. 90% of the time the reply is "Systems are down currently. We will get back to you shortly". This is an excuse the Pilot doesn't have an option of using. No matter what the problem is he does something about it. And 90% of the time he just has a split second to decide what to do.
No offence meant to IT professionals here. Just used it as an example.

I am doing my part, by paying for the trip and abiding by the rules set by the airline.

If things go wrong, i am sorry i would like to find out which of the 4 is responsible and I would like to make sure the guilty party is penalised and the same is not repeated. I will obviously not make that decision, the authorities will.

Same applies to people buying other products / services.

When in you own statement you say its Your Aircraft, acknowledge its Your Responsibility, at least morally. If not, stop calling it Your Aircraft.

Well technically by giving command of an aircraft or ship to a Captain the owner is transferring virtual ownership of the same to him and authorising him to take any decisions regarding the safety of lives, safety of the craft and also certain commercial aspects on behalf of the owner. So it is indeed "His Aircraft".
By accepting command of the craft the Captain accepts all the responsibilities associated with the authority given to him. So the pilot is not running away from his responsibilities here.

Also, whats with the aggression.. that you dont give a dawm what you think passengers are entitled to? If you really believe your own statement, why dont to tell your current airlines to make this phrase their marketing tagline?

Well other than ensuring that the passengers are safely transported from point A to B the Captain is allowed to give a damn about what the passengers are entitled to do. This is the job of the Cabin and Ground crew. However if there is no emergency any Captain would definitely be concerned about the other things the passengers are entitled to.

Originally Posted by Enobarbus

If a layman tells me that I am incompetent in my job (even if he is my customer) I too might lose it. So I think a bit of aggro is excusable.

All of us know that aviation is extremely complex and the pilot himself might not know the cause of accident/incident. So no one might be in a position to give a good explanation until the inquiry goes into all possible aspects and comes up with a report. So let us hold judgement as requested.

Exactly my thoughts.

Originally Posted by Vandit

Flight ops is much more complex and involves safety in every aspect.

In fact the first word in any airline operation that's incorporated into every employee is SAFETY. Everything else is secondary.

I could write at length how 99% of people will never truly understand the various aspects that go into every single safe and successful flight but I'd just like to say that in the end, jumping to conclusions doesn't help.

No better way to put it than this.

In the end we also need to understand that when humans are actually subjected to a critical life threatening situation, sometimes even the best training can come up short in terms of being prepared so some amount of shock on the cabin crew performance can be expected but I would not expect them to have failed as badly in executing their evacuation duties.

That's why we have drills. But a real emergency is vey different from a drill and even the best people make mistakes under pressure. However pathetic the crew might have been, the fact that everyone got out alive means they did their job. Maybe not 100% but still.

Having said all this, I don't mean to be insensitive to the feelings of the passengers. I know it is a horrible experience but we have to understand that the crew is doing their best to save you. Even if they don't like you they have to do it because it's law and if they don't they can and will be penalised. I hope the inquiry comes out with the findings soon and recommendations are put for maintenance of the aircrafts and better training of crews. Should another accident occur the passengers will have better chances of surviving and minimising injuries.

[AbhisheKulkarni]

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

Before I start, let me just state that I am a pilot for a US major, and fly a Boeing 777 for a living.

Thanks for enlightening us in the context of this incident. I am a keen follower of your posts on the forum in the other threads. I have a lot of respect for airline pilots and for you as well, by extension.

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

If the crew did not follow the SOP, made an error for eg. 1 or 2 listed above, then they must surely be brought to the task. But you're no one to decide that. The DGCA is going to conduct an investigation and come out with their report, which is what people and you should believe. If they declare that the crew made an error, then you're free to blame them as much as you want. But not before that.

Agreed. Uncertainty should not lead to baseless conviction. No one is guilty until proven so.

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

A runway excursion is a relatively common event, and happens/has happened with almost every airline once or twice. I know you won't belive me, so I sugeest you take a long hard look at the aviation-safety.net website. I don't know why this gives you nightmares.

I would disagree here. It might be common for pilots or others associated with the aviation industry in some way, as they are in the know-how, but for the passenger sitting in the cabin it might be the first time he/she has experienced such an event and would rightly be aggrieved.

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

Even if they could, as a pilot, let me make it very clear that I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who flies in my aircraft and then declares himself the judge, jury and executioner when something goes wrong. I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.

This is where I'd like to share a different perspective with you as a regular flyer. I sense a lot of condescension in this statement. As someone else also mentioned, you are an observer in this episode and have no stake in it as such - and hence, this aggression is uncalled for and unbecoming for someone of your stature.
Please have some humility for us passengers, even if you think we are morons who do not understand engine thrust and RPM concepts. We are your customers, you work in a service industry and a customer is definitely entitled to a respectful discourse that you seem to have departed from.

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

Good reply. But I'll take a step further & blatantly accuse this guy of writing a emotionally charged piece, having no knowledge of the aircraft, its respective procedures, or any aviation knowhow at all. Typical Indian media.

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with being "Indian". You might want to cool down a bit here.
Not everyone understands the aviation industry by the standards that you feel it needs to be understood. That's the reason we call ourselves 'passengers' and pay for tickets because we expect we don't have to. It's an opinion, and the OP is entitled to one. You have yours and you are free to express it. If the OP was actually not on the flight I can understand your accusation, however it seems like the OP was actually on the flight and went through a harrowing experience in general. We should be more receptive in allowing another to express their opinion without condemning them for their apparent ignorance.

[Dieseltuned]

Any inclination, what will happen to this particular aircraft ? Is it in a bad condition to be declared a total loss ? Jet's Insurers might be a worried lot!

Regards
Dieseltuned

[Vandit]

Originally Posted by Dieseltuned

Any inclination, what will happen to this particular aircraft ? Is it in a bad condition to be declared a total loss ? Jet's Insurers might be a worried lot!



Regards

Dieseltuned

It will depend on the financials (if leased/owned/insurance value/age & flight cycles/repair costs/technical or structural limitations post repair if any and usable life post repair/ability & costs to repair the airframe in situ etc) on this particular frame once the damage is assessed by Boeing.

Bigger jets that have been in similar if not worse accidents in there past including bent frames and compromised hull structures have been successfully repaired and brought back into active service by many a carrier.

If the financials and logistics don't work out, it will most likely be scrapped on site

[V.Narayan]

Gentlemen, a small suggestion from my side. We've beaten this topic to pulp. A lot is to be said and has been said on both sides of the coin. Poor 1lokesh has got some flak and given back good, searching heaven who is such a popular and respected writer on aviation also got dunked in the pool a few times. Lets wait for the DGCA report and then resume our passionate debate. Just my suggestion. Please feel free to toss it out.

PS:Moderators please delete this post if not in line with the rules.

[rrsteer]

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

Even if they could, as a pilot, let me make it very clear that I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who flies in my aircraft and then declares himself the judge, jury and executioner when something goes wrong. I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to.

Kind of reminded me of Jack Nicholaus in the courtroom from the movie 'A Few Good men' (0.55 onwards)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNf7g13284E

[VinsWagen]

Originally Posted by searchingheaven

You felt there was a delay? Can you recognize the difference in engine noise at low N1(engine rpm) levels?
===========
If they declare that the crew made an error, then you're free to blame them as much as you want. But not before that.

This is such an informative, authoritative post and had everything in it to help the 'victim' relieve his pain and anguish. It could have also made him see the perspective from the other side that is likely to be the right one.

That is why it is such a shame that the tone and words chosen by SearchingHeaven brims over with haughtiness - it almost killed all the bright things in the post.

Thank you for the post and thumbs down for the tone.

[IN07KL0484]

I am not sure how this is going to be received, provided that this is just my second post. But here it goes anyway:

Irrespective of what comes out in that DGCA report, genuinely disappointed by some of the posts in here.

I was hoping for a bit more comradery and receptiveness to someone who has gone through a near death experience. If I was a “subject matter expert” on the topic, I would have shown compassion to a fellow human/ bhpian while highlighting the errors in his post which are obviously due to lack of his technical exposure to the topic.

I can understand the disappointment of many at the fact that an open letter was written without any/enough research however that does not justify an equally emotionally charged response, for that defeats the purpose of a community.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by IN07KL0484

I was hoping for a bit more comradery and receptiveness to someone who has gone through a near death experience.

From what I read, it was about as far from a near-death experience as a minor road accident. But, as I said before, the passengers did not necessarily know that, and if they were terrified, then they were terrified. Nobody can argue with that, and I'm not doing so.

[1lokesh]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

From what I read, it was about as far from a near-death experience as a minor road accident. But, as I said before, the passengers did not necessarily know that, and if they were terrified, then they were terrified. Nobody can argue with that, and I'm not doing so.

How did you reach to a conclusion that it was like a minor road accident? This happened during take off and not landing (which many people have called as frequent runway excursions). From my own guess, the plane was well above 100 kmph on that uneven boulder ridden field, traveling well beyond 300m of distance, with left engine on fire. In this whole incident, the plane missed the boundary wall of the airport by only a few meters (from the wingspan) before digging the nose wheel into the ground. I could smell the strong stench of fuel once out. There were 15+ people who had injuries while exiting the aircraft. 3-4 of them were admitted beyond a couple of days. The aircraft was so badly damaged, including the left engine which was almost detached from the body, that it took them more than 5days to tow it away from the site.

But yes, if you think from what you read that it was just like a minor road accident, let it be.

PS: that's it, as someone mentioned I'll try to only post on this thread once the AAIB report is out with the verdict. Personal attacks will be ignored to the maximum possible restraint

[Thad E Ginathom]

Originally Posted by 1lokesh

How did you reach to a conclusion that it was like a minor road accident? This happened during take off and not landing (which many people have called as frequent runway excursions). From my own guess, the plane was well above 100 kmph ... ... ...

Please see the speeds given in this link from a previous post.

However, as I have said before, I am not arguing with your subjective experience. You were the man in the passenger seat. Whether you are right or wrong about speeds, etc, you simply cannot be wrong about your own feelings.

[MinivanDriver]

@Thad E Ginathom, that link you provided shows the airplane accelerating after it left the runway. Also speed reported via ADS-B reached 47 Knots. 47 Knots is 87Kmph. Further remember that ADS-B is essentially a radio broadcast of the airplane's speed, heading and altitude at an interval of 1 minute. The plane may very well have accelerated few more knots before slowing down. So 1lokesh's guess of 100 Kmph is quite close. I would not call it a minor road accident if a car goes off the road at close to 100 Kmph. It is a serious accident. As other folks mentioned, there is a huge risk of fire as the airplane is carrying maximum fuel at take off. Due to this, airplane certification regulation states that the passengers should be evacuated from the airplane in 90 seconds in case of an accident. It is considered a very serious lapse if this is delayed. So 1lokesh's points about the crew being shocked and slow to react initially and the ground support reaching the airplane late are all very significant points that needs to (and will) get probed. Also, once evacuated, it is very important that the passengers are led away from the airplane quickly due to the chance of a fire erupting anytime. This not being done is also a serious lapse. There are several accidents where the airplane was gutted fully by fire ( I mean the metal body of the airplane getting melted) very shortly after the passenger evacuation. Last but not least, if the wings had struck a solid obstacle like the perimeter wall of the airport (1lokesh stated it was very close to that), the chances of fire would have gone up significantly. So in 1lokesh's defense, several of his observations are quite valid technically in my humble opinion.