Emir wrote:
It’s correctly defined as accident rather than incident based on substantial damage sustained to the aircraft.
According to information spread in Serbia, the aircraft is apparently a hull loss, beyond economical or even feasible repair. But even if not, the damage is more than sufficient to classify this an accident as you correctly say.
Emir wrote:
So even if they didn’t tanker the fuel (because of cheaper fuel at LYBE) they were above these numbers. I hope the investigation will clarify this but I doubt that 1273 m was achievable in any configuration. Maybe I’m wrong but we’ll see.
There was some chatter about this amongst a E190 community near here and their assessment is that while a 190 might be able to get a “legal” departure out of 1273m with the load they had but a 195 (which is heavier) most likely not. Fact is that they were totally lost in terms of situational awareness, started the take off run with flex power and only put full power at 80 kts and also had the wrong flaps config for a short field like this. Moreover, the fact that they had to resort to short field ops was totally unnecessary.
Air Serbia has reacted fiercly and suspended the wet lease of Marathon for any further operation with immediate effect.
As for further “warnings” via software e.t.c: One has to wonder if a crew which is not deterred by urgent calls from ATC to tell them that they are in the wrong place would have been deterred by any electronic “mother in law” to stop their take off. In this case, one can definitely not argue that there were no warnings, there were ample. But if they were disregarded, then what is the use of even more.
It’s this kind of accidents which leaves one wondering….. I am reminded of a 737 crash some years ago where on the CVR you could hear the take off configuration warning during the whole take off run… so even that does not work if a crew is determined to disregard any form of warning presented to them.
There was some chatter about this amongst a E190 community near here and their assessment is that while a 190 might be able to get a “legal” departure out of 1273m with the load they had but a 195 (which is heavier) most likely not.
I can’t say whether this Airport Planning Manual is applicable for particular aircraft but this graph gives a ballpark what’s possible and what not. I can’t say what was TOW of this aircraft but I somehow doubt it was below 42000 kg with 106 POB and fuel for 700 NM flight.
Emir wrote:
I can’t say what was TOW of this aircraft but I somehow doubt it was below 42000 kg with 106 POB and fuel for 700 NM flight.
Me too. And in any case, if I read the chart above correctly, it would imply flaps 4 for take off, which is unusual to say the least. With the flap setting they had it looks to me that 2400 m is the about minimum you can even consider. Which makes kind of sense.
I know that our local E190 operator flies in and out of places like Berne with considerable range and payload, so at least the 190 is a very viable STOL plane, however, this implies correct configuration. This here was a 195, which is considerably heavier, and by the looks of it they took off with a setting for a much longer runway. Which they had, but did not use. “The runway behind you”… has struck again.
With the flap setting they had it looks to me that 2400 m is the about minimum you can even consider.
It’s hard to say anything about the configuration they had, I hope investigation will reveal all data. But to me it looks they were not able to achieve it even with the best configuration. Let’s run approximate numbers: BOW is 28600 kg, 106 POB is roughly 10000 kg with luggage, and probably some 5000 kg FOB (I can’t imagine less fuel for consumption of 2000 kg/h and 700 NM). That gives TOW of 43600 kg which leads to some 1350 m. The actual result (rotation at roughly 1250 m of ground run and liftoff after 1300 m) shows that these numbers are pretty close to real ones.
Emir wrote:
Let’s run approximate numbers: BOW is 28600 kg, 106 POB is roughly 10000 kg with luggage, and probably some 5000 kg FOB (I can’t imagine less fuel for consumption of 2000 kg/h and 700 NM). That gives TOW of 43600 kg which leads to some 1350 m. The actual result (rotation at roughly 1250 m of ground run and liftoff after 1300 m) shows that these numbers are pretty close to real ones.
Thanks for the figures, particularly the BOW. Yes, this is pretty realistic, even probably it was worse as they might have tankered fuel, as BG is one of the cheaper places to fuel up.
Incidently I talked to a E190 driver just now over coffee and he said that they do operate out of Bern (LSZB) which has 1730 m available distance quite comfortably throughout Europe, going as far as Larnaca and occasionally further. The 190 is a pretty good short field performer, but obviously this requires strict adherence to figures and settings. He said they could get a E190 out of 1230 m with pretty good payload but would not consider doing that without a darn good reason, there being 2000+ meters behind them really not being one of those. And certainly not on a flex setting and adequate flaps.
Mentioned that it can be easy to get “spoiled” by the really great performance of the 190 but that this thing, which was obviously widely discussed in their corps, was beyond the pale in any regard.
Yes, this is pretty realistic, even probably it was worse as they might have tankered fuel, as BG is one of the cheaper places to fuel up.
Possibly because they had immediate return flight scheduled from EDDL to LYBE.
Emir wrote:
Possibly because they had immediate return flight scheduled from EDDL to LYBE.
Exactly. I recall my own reaction after fuelling in BEG and seeing the bill, which was exactly the same amount as the previous one for the double amount of Avgas 
We fly out of Oxford TK quite a bit. I’m always perplexed why the initial taxi clearance is to C1 and not B1, especially having built that lovely new taxi way. 1000m TORA from C1 for 19 is fine for an SR22, but I always ask for, and go for 1383 from B1. Why wouldn’t you, and why would tower let you leave all that lovely runway behind you ? I’m sure there is a reason, but I can’t think of it from a pilot’s perspective.
Pig wrote:
Why wouldn’t you, and why would tower let you leave all that lovely runway behind you ? I’m sure there is a reason, but I can’t think of it from a pilot’s perspective.
I’m with you – is someone billed by the meter of runway used? I’d like to say I always use the full length, but that would not be accurate. When taking off from a 3000m runway recently I did accept an intersection departure that left me with only 1800m, which is about 6x what I need. I did feel kind of stupid for not just asking for full length, out of principle.
So that landing traffic can vacate while you line up?
