Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

Flybe Dash 8 400 nosegear failure at Belfast airport

Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Flybe Dash 8 400 nosegear failure at Belfast airport

Old 14th Nov 2017, 21:20
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: SF Bay area, CA USA
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No crash, no CFIT. Abnormal ops after landing gear malfunction.
jack11111 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2017, 09:32
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,524
Received 124 Likes on 79 Posts
Strewth.

From Collins Concise English Dictionary:
Collide 1. to crash together with a violent impact. 2. to conflict, clash, disagree.
Aircraft do not "collide" with the runway, they land on it.


Question: Did the Jetblue A320 with the nosewheel stuck at 90 degrees "crash" or "collide" when it landed at LAX some years ago?

Answer: No.

If you don't believe me have a look on youtube. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LnVNZkYSht4
Uplinker is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2017, 11:22
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Semantics

Folks we are getting hung up on semantics here.

What happened does - like it or not meet the OED definition of crash.
However, this is not a word that many here wish to use and there are many alternatives. I accept that abnormal landing, technical issue, gear failure are all possible descriptions.

So I will bow to your desire to use the word crash or collision. As pilots we are trained how to respond to such situations to work the lists and manage the problem. We practice a whole variety of situations in the simulator on a regular basis.

As a pilot what I cannot and will not accept is the normalising of this and the suggestion that because it happens every now and again it is somehow an unremarkable, everyday occurrence, move on nothing to see here.

In all my experience I have never landed an a/c with any of the gear up. Indeed I have been fortunate enough never to have experienced more than a (very) minor tire deflation. I have never scraped a runway with any part of the airframe. I have never ended up being unable to vacate a runway. I doubt that I have been especially lucky.

This accident, incident, nonevent however you want to categorise it was;
a. Newsworthy
b. Undesireable
c. Very expensive
d. A major career event for both crew involved

There are lots of situations which can be fun in the simulator but I would prefer not to do for real with a load of lives back there.
birmingham is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2017, 12:53
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,832
Received 208 Likes on 96 Posts
Originally Posted by birmingham
What happened does - like it or not meet the OED definition of crash.
However, this is not a word that many here wish to use and there are many alternatives. I accept that abnormal landing, technical issue, gear failure are all possible descriptions.
The term "crash" does not appear in ICAO Annex 13, nor in the ADREP or ECCAIRS Occurrence Category definitions.

This event would be classified as an Abnormal Runway Contact (ARC), preceded in this case by a System/Component Failure or Malfunction (SCF-NP).

There's little point in arguing about semantics in a professional forum when our industry already has a taxonomy that's widely accepted.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2017, 16:25
  #45 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,628
Received 64 Likes on 45 Posts
I doubt that either pilot went to the Chief Pilot's office and said "I crashed the plane". They reported that they landed as normally as possible, knowing that the nose gear would not extend. Damage occurred, airplanes are repairable, and consumable.
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2017, 16:45
  #46 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 63
Posts: 5,628
Received 64 Likes on 45 Posts
Formalizing the use of the word "crash"

In my work writing flight manual supplements for both fixed and rotor wing aircraft, I have had serious discussions with regulators that the word "crash" sometimes be used in at flight manual - here's why:

Much more so for rotorcraft than fixed wing, there can be situations where being on the surface as soon as possible is best. Examples of this include a uncontrolled fire, but more so, a transmission failure in a helicopter = the rotor may stop turning.

I have asserted that for such conditions, the commonly used term of "land immediately" is actually a trap for conscientious pilots. If I, as a pilot, am instructed to land an aircraft, I'll infer that I should find a place to put the aircraft where it may be reusable after I'm done. I may have to explain to someone why damage was done if I don't do a good job.

On the other hand, if for such critical conditions, like the rotor may stop turning in a minute or two, if the prevailing instruction to the pilot is to "crash" the aircraft, the pilot will clearly know that the intended outcome of their effort will be a crashed aircraft really close to the place on the flight path where that critical condition was detected. They're not going to fly onward to look for a place to "land", they'll just put it down where they are, as safely as they can. Of course, any pilot who has read and understood the instruction to crash an aircraft will still do their best to preserve life as best they can, so I'm not worried about them simply holding the nose down and closing their eyes.

If the pilots of a Cougar S-92 flight off Newfoundland were instructed to crash (ditch) the helicopter rather than "land immediately" they would be alive.

I opine that the word "crash" can be very useful, in the right circumstances. Helicopter drops onto a sports field and rolls over; news report says it "crashed". We all agree, because the pilot followed the FM instructions, and crashed it, 'cause of a transmission warning. It all lines up well....
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2017, 16:50
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
I doubt that either pilot went to the Chief Pilot's office and said "I crashed the plane". They reported that they landed as normally as possible, knowing that the nose gear would not extend. Damage occurred, airplanes are repairable, and consumable.
I'm sure they didn't and nobody has suggested anything other than the crew dealt with this professionally. I agreed to give up on the term crash several threads ago. My point was not to normalise incidents of this type.

Can we agree on accident? (albeit a minor one) That is how AH categorises it. And it will clearly be subject to an AAIB investigation
birmingham is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2017, 18:15
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 15,832
Received 208 Likes on 96 Posts
Originally Posted by Pilot DAR
If the pilots of a Cougar S-92 flight off Newfoundland were instructed to crash (ditch) the helicopter rather than "land immediately" they would be alive.
You could equally argue that if the crew had obeyed the "land immediately" stipulation in the RFM ("Ditching or landing in hazardous terrain is preferable to continuing flight") they would have survived, too.

Originally Posted by birmingham
Can we agree on accident? (albeit a minor one) That is how AH categorises it. And it will clearly be subject to an AAIB investigation
I wouldn't pay too much attention to how AH categorises an event, but in this case it almost certainly satisfies the Annex 13 definition of an accident (which is dependent on the degree of structural damage sustained).
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2017, 15:04
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Paris
Age: 74
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What is an abnormal event for a pilot may be a fairly normal one for the ground crews, as they routinely do TENS of landings AN HOUR all day long. They probably face one abnormal situation a month, it's not theory to them. Thus I'm saying that a term is needed to describe the fact a LANDING AT THE AIRPORT is abnormal.It's the equivalent of the airport crew declaring an emergency. This term could then be used in reporting to explain an airport shutdown, with no need to panic the readers. As in "Flight XXX blew a tire on departure, dumped fuel, and effected an abnormal landing, leading to a 2 hour closure of XXX and the diversion of some traffic to YYY".


Originally Posted by birmingham
Folks we are getting hung up on semantics here.

What happened does - like it or not meet the OED definition of crash.
However, this is not a word that many here wish to use and there are many alternatives. I accept that abnormal landing, technical issue, gear failure are all possible descriptions.

So I will bow to your desire to use the word crash or collision. As pilots we are trained how to respond to such situations to work the lists and manage the problem. We practice a whole variety of situations in the simulator on a regular basis.

As a pilot what I cannot and will not accept is the normalising of this and the suggestion that because it happens every now and again it is somehow an unremarkable, everyday occurrence, move on nothing to see here.

In all my experience I have never landed an a/c with any of the gear up. Indeed I have been fortunate enough never to have experienced more than a (very) minor tire deflation. I have never scraped a runway with any part of the airframe. I have never ended up being unable to vacate a runway. I doubt that I have been especially lucky.

This accident, incident, nonevent however you want to categorise it was;
a. Newsworthy
b. Undesireable
c. Very expensive
d. A major career event for both crew involved

There are lots of situations which can be fun in the simulator but I would prefer not to do for real with a load of lives back there.
edmundronald is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2017, 11:35
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek
Less experienced crews could also be a factor.
.
Possibly, though these turboprop captains may have fewer hours than long haul guys, they will be more current in landings as they do far more of them more often.
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2017, 15:34
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1,052
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I'm no fan of Flybe ........i did work there a long time ago , however i do happen to know that there are quite a few very very experienced Captains in there .I also know that EZY and FR have many many CPT with less than a quarter the experience of a lot of the Flybe "less experienced crews"

take you pick
Nil further is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.