Originally Posted by
Teddy Robinson
I fully concur, the ELAC failures and loss subsequent loss of pitch control in the Smartlynx accident have no direct relation to this accident, however, the runway contact itself to the point of dual engine failure does seem worthy of further discussion.
There are parallels indeed, like how both flights impacted terrain within a couple hundred meters from the threshold. Because the Smartlynx training flight was returning to the reverse runway from where it had the scrape instead of trying to fly a circuit, it came down on the runway centerline and hit the approach lights and then the RESA.
Here the impact location was off to the left of the runway centerline where there unfortunately were a group of buildings instead of flat terrain.
In both cases (due to RAT deployment), APU was not started before total engine failure, which contributed to further airframe damage in the Smartlynx accident and could easily have contributed here as well. In the A320 APU start is delayed for 45 seconds following dual IDG failure (I believe this is to maintain battery voltage during RAT deployment and emergency generator connection). When the Smartlynx crew lost their last engine, they also lost nominal hydraulic power to their only remaining pitch control (THS), relying on minimal Y system pressure from the windmilling engine 2.
Flying with just B hydraulics and the emergency buses is certainly more demanding than with the APU running and most hydraulics and electrics intact.