View Full Version : munich incident

5th Jan 2004, 15:46
has any body head of a fokker landing short at MUC this morning..1 person slightly injured..no mention on any wire services

5th Jan 2004, 16:01
Apparently an Austrian Airlines FK70, no serious injuries reported (according to bild.de)

5th Jan 2004, 16:02
It seems to be an Austrian Airlines F70, the crew is supposed to have reported engine problems.

5th Jan 2004, 16:02
I just posted on it. It's headlined 'Nice work!'. I should have been a little clearer.

5th Jan 2004, 16:07
Yes I did:

we are talking about a Fokker 70 from Austrian with 35 people on board. The plane was bound for MUC and reported engine problems during approach. the crew did not manage to reach RWY 2L and made a crash landing on a field 2 kilometers from the threshould. according to reports from MUC rescue staff there was only one person with minor injurues. The whole thing happened 08:30 LT.
I am working for Munich Airport Authority and will update the thread as soon as further valid information is available.

5th Jan 2004, 16:09
Heard it 5 minutes ago on the radio - At about 08:20 CET a Fokker 70 of Austrian Airlines landed short of the runway in an open field. 32 pax / 5 crew on board. 1 pax sustained minor injuries, according to the police.
Not much more infos yet.

For more infos check http://www.derstandard.at or http://www.kurier.at (both in german)

5th Jan 2004, 16:16
Here's my original post from Reuters. I'll delete my previous thread so we don't have two running on the same incident. As I said, looks like great work by the crew.

Austrian jet makes emergency landing in German field

BERLIN, Jan 5 (Reuters) - A passenger jet has made an emergency landing in a field near Munich airport after the pilot reported problems with one of the engines, police said on Monday. No one was hurt.
The Fokker 70 plane carrying around 30 passengers landed between two and three km short of Munich airport, a police spokesman said. An airport spokesman said the plane belonged to Austrian Airlines <AUAV.VI>.
The spokesman for the airport said there were no injuries. "It is looking very, very good -- no dead, no injured." One person was suffering from shock, he added.

5th Jan 2004, 16:38

Was this on approach to MUC (EDDM), as I'm "quite" sure they don't have a 02L there?

You sure you work for the Authority? ;)

5th Jan 2004, 16:53
Only parallel 08/26, last time I was there.

5th Jan 2004, 17:41

yes, I am quite sure - since 11 years.

And the rwy was 26L of course.
According to newest information, the crew declared an emergency during approach due to icing on both engines and then crash-landed on an open field.
due to heavy snowfall the emergecy-respone-forces took a while to locate the aircraft. the passengers were evacuated with 4-WD (as the field is quite muddy) to the next road and then by bus to the airports care team.
considered that we have (and had) heavy snowfall, there are some farmhouses and a lot of powerlines in the area, the crew did a perfect job.

5th Jan 2004, 17:49
Hellraiser, no offence meant and in any case, I offer my apology.

The engine icing problem you mention is interesting as well as frightening... would be good to see if other aircraft reported any ice encounters in the area as the type of icing mentioned must be pretty severe.

5th Jan 2004, 18:05
a320 driver,

no apologies needed, as it was my fault...

Sure - I will do some research on "icy"pilot reports.

after waiting a while for emergency response, the captain gave his exact coordinates to MUC Tower. the rescue team then managed to locate the plane by GPS.

5th Jan 2004, 18:06
A picture can be found here (http://de.news.yahoo.com/040105/3/3tps8.html)

5th Jan 2004, 18:17
Here some more pictures and a report (german language)http://www.reuters.de/newsPackageArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=CBVKNTYD1LWLYCRBAEOCFEY? type=topNews&storyID=432947&section=news

5th Jan 2004, 19:14
According to Austrian news reports the pilots were not able to lower the gear...


5th Jan 2004, 19:31
According to Austrian news reports the pilots were not able to lower the gear...

That cannot be correct, Europilot as there is a picture of the ripped off undercarriage on the Reuters website.. regards clive.

5th Jan 2004, 20:32
No offence Superspotter, but I think you may be taking the meaning of the term 'unable to lower the gear' a bit too literally. It is quite possible that all the wheels and goolies were dangling merrily beneath the airframe, just not in a 'locked' state, hence not as any pilot would be happy to call 'lowered'. Whether or not that was actually the case is still open for speculation.

5th Jan 2004, 20:51
I wonder if this icing problem might be a persistent one for Fokkers...
I was in Skopije (FYRM) when on 05 March '93 a brand new F100 (about 200 h on the log) of Palair Macedonian crashed immediately after t/o in heavy snowfall. 97 fatalities, 5 survivors.
Any comments?

5th Jan 2004, 21:50

5th Jan 2004, 22:00
My inquiries with the local ATC at MUC did not reveal any other case of engine or other icing problems in todays operation.

After the arrival of an Austrian Delegation, the plane ist just being recovered from the field and to be brought to MUC for further inspection.

5th Jan 2004, 22:09
With respect to Angels and Hellraiser, surely a little premature to praise "great work by the crew" and a "perfect job". My recollection of the F70 is an aircraft which can cope well with icing conditions and heavy snowfall....... assuming of course that the icing systems have been selected ON in a timely manner! On this basis maybe we could praise the crew of the Air Florida 737 which went into the Potomac River? Sorry to be cynical but this may well turn out to be another finger-trouble ba**s-up. bm

Electric Sky
5th Jan 2004, 22:54
Looks to me like the snow on the ground probably did much for saving the aeroplane and it's occupents.

It is too early to speculate who the heroes and villains are, and where any faults lie. However, I seem to remember a SAS MD81 crashing some years back after takeoff due to ice breaking from the wings and entering the rear mounted engines. Anyone else remember it and could it be a possibility with the F70?

ES ;)

5th Jan 2004, 22:54
Nearly exactly a month ago, I asked this question about whether multi-engine pilots should practice PFLs (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=111062). There was some good discussion on the subject (before the thread got sidetracked into talking about engine maintenance issues).

If the cause of this accident is shown to be icing problems in both engines, it might be worth considering my question again, since this is clearly a case where it doesn't matter how many engines you've got - if there is an icing problem which prevents your engines from running properly, you're going down.

Obviously no need for the pilots in this case to practice their PFLs - they seem to have been perfectly capable of ensuring a safe outcome. Nice one!


5th Jan 2004, 23:23
Electric Sky:

There was certainly an instance of a SAS MD80 series coming down in Sweden about 12 years ago after ingesting snow into its engines on take off; there were some fatalities in spite of a very professional forced landing by the crew.

The sad thing about this incident was that it happened only a couple of years after an almost identical situation with a Paramount Airlines MD83 charter from Gatwick to Nice during an unseasonal March blizzard. On this occasion the snow/slush ingestion damaged the engines but still allowed the aircraft to remain airborne - but only just! After a very fraught 40 minutes or so the aircraft made a successful (second) landing attempt at Filton, chosen because of the length of the runway and availability of emergency services, which were thankfully not required. Again it was a masterful recovery by the crew of a very dangerous situation - caused by the build-up of snow/slush on the wings coming off at rotation and going straight back into the engines. I believe that allowable times between de-icing (to which the Paramount aircraft had been subjected) and take off have since been reduced significantly to prevent such an occurence happening again.

5th Jan 2004, 23:23
Finger trouble or not, they did a bl**dy good job getting it down in one piece.

The last week of 2003 and the first of 2004 have been pretty crappy ones for the aviation biz and we could have easily been looking here at a hole in the ground and 35 more lives to add to the hundreds lost already in the last month.

A cool head and good bit of stick and rudder has turned a catastrophe into a lot of form-filling. Be grateful for that chaps.

6th Jan 2004, 00:22
Any actual / forecast weather reports available? Icing layer, freezing fog etc? Weather en route?

6th Jan 2004, 00:34
Why would the pilots choose a muddy field over a runway if it was only a gear problem. The chance of digging in and turning/cartweeling should be much greater "off road".
Surely they would have chosen to land at a suitable runway???

6th Jan 2004, 00:42
Fokker's are indeed very suspectible for ice but AUA knows about that very well and they have also learned a lot from SAS accident and did relevant changes in FOM and SOP's.

Wonder what caused it....:uhoh:

6th Jan 2004, 00:43

There were no fatalaties in the SAS MD80 accident in Sweden, only one serious injury. The primary cause was clear ice on the wings, which broke off during take-off and was ingested into both engines.

Not a likely scenario here, as it apparantly happened during approach.

6th Jan 2004, 01:17
The above discussions about ice on aircraft from the various respondents , shows a basic misunderstanding about the problem. The previous accidents were all about take off related icing problems...ie ice forming on the aircraft while on the ground and then being ingested by the engines after take off. This is guarded against by de-icing before take off and observing hold over times relevent to the weather conditions. The F 70 being an aircraft with a super critical wing (No leading edge devices too) the hold over times and a clean wing BEFORE take off is vital.

This accident today though was not during this phase of flight , and in no way related to these type of problems. The F70 de-ice / anti ice systems work perfectly well in all ice conditions that I've encountered...as long as they are turned on and operating normally.

6th Jan 2004, 01:27
At the Austrian Television the AUA chiefpilot made the following statement:

"Die genaue Ursache der Notlandung blieb am Montag nach wie vor unklar: "Unser Flug meldete im Anflug Leistungsprobleme auf beiden Triebwerken", sagte Austrian Airlines Chefpilot Gustav Baldauf Montag im Rahmen einer Pressekonferenz der AUA am Flughafen Wien-Schwechat."

The exact cause of the emergency landing is on monday still unclear: our flight reported in the approach power problems on both engines, said Austrian Airlines Chefpilot Gustav Baldauf at a pressconference at Vienna Airport.

Der Schub sei in etwa 4.000 Metern Höhe auf etwa 30 Prozent zurück gegangen. Er sprach von einer richtigen Entscheidung, auf der Wiese zu landen.

The power went back to about 30% at an altitude of about 4000meter ( 12.000 ft ). He said it was the right decision to land on the field.

Was war mit dem Fahrwerk?

What was with the landing gear ?

Mit der gedrosselten Leistung sei kein Horizontalflug mehr möglich gewesen, sagte Baldauf. Der Kapitän habe daher die Maschine, die um 7.50 Uhr in München landen hätte sollen, sieben Kilometer vom Flughafen entfernt zu Boden gebracht. Gegen 8.07 Uhr sei das Flugzeug auf einer Wiese gelandet, so Baldauf.

With the reduced power a horizontal flight was impossible, said Baldauf. The Captain therefore brought the flight, which was sheduled to land at 7.50 Uhr in Munich, seven kilometers in front of the Airport to the ground, so Baldauf.

Entgegen erster Berichte meinte Baldauf, dass die Fahrwerke der Fokker ausgefahren gewesen seien. Der Pilot habe sie wegen des hohen Luftwiderstandes zunächst wieder eingezogen, und kurz vor der Landung wieder aufgemacht. Möglicherweise seien die hinteren Räder noch nicht ganz heraußen gewesen.

Opposite to first reports, meant Baldauf, that the landing gear had been deploit. The Pilot initially retracted the gear because of the high drag and shortly before landing he lowered the gear again. Maybe the rear wheels didn´t come out all the way yet.

Im Sinkflug sei die Maschine dann kontrolliert niedergegangen, sagte er. Mit einer Geschwindigkeit, die er auf rund 250 km/h schätzte, sei der Pilot gelandet.

In the descend the airplane was controlled brought down, he said. With a speed of about 250 km/h, he guessed, the pilot must have landed.

Hope that gives a few more clues. I am very happy nothing more happened.

Pictures from the incident:


Boss du Manche
6th Jan 2004, 01:55
More pictures (http://www.hhass.de/Galerien/AUA/index.htm) .

6th Jan 2004, 03:08
Loss of thrust could also mean that some sensors of the power plant could have been affected by icing and thus given wrong input for power setting. There is no need for ice ingestion. Rolls Royce Tay is a rather old engine design without FADEC (=computer control). It is quite a long time ago I flew the Fokker 100 so I do not have any special memory of icing problems. I also congratulate for the happy outcome, also in respect of the low visibility close to ground. In snow it is very very difficult to judge altitude and attitude. Fortunately it happened in Munich and not around an airport closer to cities or to mountains.

6th Jan 2004, 03:36
At 8.07 and in this weather there can't be much light yet. Very well done for such a landing.

BTW they were a bit late on schedule.
Anyone at MUC that time knows of holding delays? That's where you're most likely to pick up ice .... low altitude/ low thrust...

6th Jan 2004, 04:29
They all got out alive. Top marks to the Captain. End of story. If I ever meet him I will buy him a very large beer.

Speculate all you like. What actually caused the crash? Choose from:

Double engine failure.

Icing leading to double flameout.

Icing leading to compressor stall.

Pilot shut down both engines by mistake.

Pilot ran out of fuel.

Severe airframe icing leading to massive increase in drag.

Ditto leading to massive loss of lift.

Fuel contaminated.

Fuel filters frozen with water caused by internal condensation.

I could go on with another couple of dozen wild guesses - why don't we just wait for the inquiry to tell us the true cause?

6th Jan 2004, 05:36
Top marks to BOTH of them from me. I´ll buy them both a beer if I ever see them.
Good job Austrian guys.

6th Jan 2004, 05:48
Interestingly, from what I can see, they all got out by the same forward exit. No other exits were used. Pax must have stayed super cool and, I guess, followed crew instructions. Even though it wasn't a full flight I would have expected to see the overwing exits used on pax personal initiative maybe. Tell you what, I have to confess that if I'd been number 35 (and last) in line I might have been tempted to say, "Sod it" and taken one of those wing exits. After all, no matter how "smooth" the crash-landing may have been, I wouldn't have wanted to hang about, just in case.

Great job by ALL concerned!

6th Jan 2004, 14:11
BoeingMEL - no offence taken, but as others have pointed out, even if it was finger problems the Captain and F/O got themselves, the cabin crew and the pax down safely.

For that we should be thankful.

Time will tell what caused the loss of engine power and maybe some lessons will be learned.


6th Jan 2004, 16:45
I have some fond memories of handling the OS contract at LHR, especially the great crews either side of the cockpit door and the long turnarounds with fine hosties that needed entertainment...I digress. Can't say I remember any names here but I have worked this aircraft more than once. A bit worrying as this is the third aircraft I have worked with that has been invloved in a serious incident.

Whatever caused this worrying loss of thrust, I am more than grateful that there were no real injuries, although some may take a while to get over the experience.

6th Jan 2004, 16:54
"The exceptional pilot tries to avoid the exceptional situations that might require exceptional skill..."

Yet still thumbs up for the positive outcome.

From the Techs, how long would the repairs take in such a case and am I correct in assuming that this is nowhere near a write-off?

Heavens Gate
6th Jan 2004, 20:29
Even though it's more than a decade that I flew the Fokker, I remember very well that the spinner of the engine was prone to ice up and cause vibrations, which could be stopped by reducing thrust. A modification was introduced by RollsRoyce, however, many carriers decided not to modify their fleets.
According to a friend of mine who is an ex-Fokker testpilot, preliminary information suggests that engine-vibrations due to ice caused the crew to reduce thrust. However, according to him, the engine is capable of shedding the ice by advancing thrust rapidly(one engine at a time of course). It seems that this was not attempted by the crew.
Facing an imminent crash-landing, trying to advance thrust even if it possibly destroyes the engines, seems to me good airmanship (remember Air Florida, where the pilots also never advanced thrust despite going down).
For the sake of the crew I hope my friends preliminary infos turn out to be incorrect.

6th Jan 2004, 22:29
Standard means of shedding ice from an iced-up fan is to apply a short, sharp application of power to the affected engine(s). The short increase in power, effectively, 'warps' the fan blade such that the ice is shed. This is particularly relevant during the approach phase when the engines are operating at lower thrust settings.

This would be the case if the engine anti-ice system had failed or had not been selected.

The RR Tay 620/650 engine is a good engine provided you look after it.

7th Jan 2004, 00:12
Mexicana had a lot of problems with their F100s. I was jump seating in XA-LXG when we shut-down the rigth engine over MTY a few years ago. It was deu to excesive vibration. Don't remember if the mods were installed on all planes.

They will be phased out beginning of next year anyway...

7th Jan 2004, 01:20
Just what you need to take dozens of friends ice fishing on frozen lakes:O

More seriously, it's likely a structural writeoff.

Kudos in order to Fokker for an airframe that stayed in one piece and to the pilots who had very little time for a brilliant improvisation.

Der Bauer deserves an all expenses stay in a sunny destination for a well tended field while the authorities do their investigation and cleanup.

Sirius Flying
7th Jan 2004, 03:58
When visiting the accident site today, I noticed that the aircraft's registration was intentionally covered with a plastic sheet, as well as its name.
Can any member shed light on what is the point in covering these identification marks?
Thank you.

7th Jan 2004, 05:34
Heya folks,

just wanted to add a few more things conc. the accident:
About no one using the overwing exits:
all PAX stayed on board for about half an hour AFTER the LDG!
Crew deemed an EVAC as not necessary.

And about the registration and stuff, here are a few more photos, though don't ask me, I didn't take them:
groups.msn.com/TechnikundFliegen/mucaua.msnw?albumlist=2 (http://groups.msn.com/TechnikundFliegen/mucaua.msnw?albumlist=2 )

Thanks so long, greetings,


7th Jan 2004, 06:01
Perhaps to prevent hypothermia after vacating the A/C?

I can imagine that pictures with the company name and logo are not the sort of publicity welcomed by the airline involved.

7th Jan 2004, 15:34
Sirius Flying

Immatriculation marks and airline names are often blanked after an accident because no airline likes to see their name on an aircraft which is not very it is supposed to be.

Of course, we know what happened. But do other people just passing by know about the facts? They might take it as a wrong indication of the safety on that airline.

7th Jan 2004, 17:46
The aircraft is named Wiener Neustadt; isn’t this the home of the longest grass runway in Europe? Very appropriate?

8th Jan 2004, 09:12
For those interested in the meteorological conditions during the incident, here are two links for the vertical soundings of 05/00 utc and 05/12 utc.

They were launched in Oberschleissheim, only about 25 km away from the airport.

Conditions didn't change a lot during the first half of the day.

Sounding 05/00 utc (http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=europe&TYPE=GIF%3ASTUVE&YEAR=2004&MONTH=01&FROM=0500&TO=0500&STNM=10868)

Sounding 05/12 utc (http://weather.uwyo.edu/cgi-bin/sounding?region=europe&TYPE=GIF%3ASTUVE&YEAR=2004&MONTH=01&FROM=0512&TO=0512&STNM=10868)

8th Jan 2004, 09:30
Seems to me, until proven otherwise (by the proper authorities) that the crew handled a difficult situation with good intentions...and really good flying skills.
Hats off to them...absolutely!:ok:

Electric Sky
8th Jan 2004, 09:38
Couldn't agree more 411a :ok:

Anyone know the fate of the aircraft from here?

ES ;)

Kerosene Kraut
8th Jan 2004, 16:33
Austrian TV ORF reports the "ice impact trays were broken".


8th Jan 2004, 20:34
Austrian OTS reports (http://www.ots.at/meldung.php?schluessel=OTS_20040108_OTS0024) (in german), that the Ice Impact Trays were broken on both engines. These parts were broken off the engine casing, and are designed to protect the engine from damage by ice fragments broken from the fan blades (?). Austrian technicans discussed the attachment system of the ice impact trays with Rolls Royce specialists.
Can anyone tell us more about this item ? And about the anti ice system of RR engines in general and especially on the Fokker ?
Do all transport jet engines have this device ? Or is it just a more simple way to handle icing on smaller jets ?

Dagger Dirk
9th Jan 2004, 03:04
Saw this on another forum.
Does it sound copacetic? Is there a load control valve that cycles the bleed air loads around the various services - and is it electrically operated (sequenced)? Don't know this airplane at all meself.

<<<IMHO the ice impact trays are a symptom (and not the cause). The cause is more likely to be similar (but not the same) to Air Florida's 737 predicament (false EPR generated by icing-over of the P2 probes in both engines). In Air Florida's case they had the power but a misleading false indication. In the F-70 accident it's likely that:

a. Icing over of P1 or P2 air sensors might have caused a very low idle, and robbed the Tay engines of their acceleration - or more likely

b. the load control valve for the wing/tail anti-ice system stuck (instead of cycling) and allowed too much bleed air to be sucked away - thus robbing the engine inlet intake anti-icing of heat (which in turn would have allowed a build-up/choking of the engine intakes in the severe icing conditions - generated a low idle RPM and denied acceleration to a higher RPM).

Similar to the BAe146 rollback except that here the Tays were being denied intake lip hot air and so were choking up with ice (as well as being excessively robbed of bleed air). If it had been just one engine that got stuck at idle you'd think that a bleed-air valve had stuck open. But with both engines, you have to look at a common fault condition - and that's why I mention the in-fuselage load control valve that apportions air (and cycles it between all the pneumatic services).>>>

9th Jan 2004, 03:06
Just like to add that the pilots of the aircraft did an amazing job in the conditions. How many times have you seen an aircraft land in a field and remain intact, without even a ripple or crack showing, not catching fire or killing everyone on board? not many. All my praise for these top guys.

9th Jan 2004, 06:37
Hats off to all crew great job!

Ignition Override
9th Jan 2004, 13:18
A well-done to the crew, recovering from whatever caused the terrible situation, even more so if in limited visibility. :D

9th Jan 2004, 17:40
I found out last night that a friend of mine and his sister were onboard this flight. Here are a few things that he told me:

At around 14,000 ft, the engines became choppy, you could also feel the smell of smoke in the cabin.

The engine power was significantly reduced for the remaining airborne time. They didn´t died.

About 10 seconds before the touchdown, the pilots turned off the engines and they shouted mayday over the PA system.

The aircraft came to a halt very quickly.

Most of the pax thought that they were at the airport. When they found out what had happened, people started crying.

The pax remained inside the aircraft as it was deemed that there was no risk of fire.

It took about half an hour before they left the aircraft. Thats when the rescue services arrived.


9th Jan 2004, 18:22
Fritzi, your English is very good but I doubt if the crew shouted mayday on the PA 10 seconds before impact. More than likely it was "brace, brace" or whatever is the equivalent in German?

9th Jan 2004, 18:49
This has just run on Reuters. Most interesting.

Austrian changes ice plates after Munich jet scare

VIENNA, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Austrian Airlines is changing the Rolls-Royce-made <RR.L> ice protection equipment on eight of its nine Fokker 70 planes because of doubts over its safety after one such jet made an emergency landing in Munich on Monday.
Austrian <AUAV.VI> said in a statement released on Friday it had decided to change the Rolls-Royce-made equipment, which protects the plane's engines from ice damage, after inspections led to complaints about safety.
The airline has said a preliminary investigation showed that the emergency landing, in which eight people were slightly injured on Monday, was probably caused by so-called "ice impact trays" breaking off.
"New ice protection equipment will be installed by the manufacturer's specialist teams in all engines in which the strength of the ice protection equipment's mounting could not be established beyond doubt," Austrian said in a statement.
"To avoid any risk, the ice protection equipment will be changed on eight aircraft."
Austrian said it had inspected all its Fokker 70 fleet with Rolls-Royce.
"These (inspections) led to complaints," it added, without giving details.
An official investigation into the Munich accident is ongoing.

9th Jan 2004, 18:59
There is an update from 8th January with flight recorder info on the german accident investigation website www.bfu-web.de.
All those who don't understand german - get a life!

9th Jan 2004, 19:15
Ok., for the English speaking community: According to BFU`s official statement mentioned above, FDR data proves that the crew, after an ice detection alert upon reaching FL 100, had indeed switched on engine anti-ice and air frame anti-ice. 6 minutes later engine vibrations became noticeable and increased considerably, 4 minutes later engine power became insufficient and an emergency landing was initiated. Broken ice impact trays were later found in both engines, causes to be further investigated.

(edited for spelling)

9th Jan 2004, 19:50
Have they grounded the remaining F-70s, or imposed a "do not operate in icing conditions" policy until the mods are done?

9th Jan 2004, 21:14
I don't agree with the readers ot this topic who praise the crew, I think they made a major b@lls up:
-there was a SIGMET warning of moderate to severe icing in their arrival TMA
-it was snowing at their destination
-they didn't preempt ice accumulation removal by earlier selection of anti-ice systems
-they waited until the (notoriously unreliable) ice warning activated before reacting
-they flew level at FL100 for 6 minutes in moderate to severe icing conditions
-this means that they cocked up their descent planning by nearly 30 miles
-yes I know that there are altitude constraints inbound to Munich but severe weather conditions demand decisive action
-they did not follow the correct procedure for engine vibration warnings in icing conditions
-they did not order an evacuation following a crash landing with obvious structural damage (gear ripped off with probable fuel tank damage)

9th Jan 2004, 22:06
Hot Dog,

Im just stating what he told me, I am not stating that everything he told me is 100% correct.


PS: The reason why my english is so good is because I went to the american school here in vienna for 13 years (K-12), from which I graduated in May. However, Swedish is my mother tounge, then comes English, then German, then French.

9th Jan 2004, 22:43
Don't fret about the comments of others regarding proficiency in written english.
Have personally spent nearly my entire flying career overseas, many times in non-english speaking countries, yet found the locals always pleased to help with my rather poor foreign language.
Picked up some working thai/arabic/farsi along the way but always realized that the locals were always better at english than I was at the local lingo.

Regarding icing, have done a lot of First Officer line training in heavy jets, and have always advised these guys to get the ice protection on early least problems are found later.
Say for example one engine anti-ice bleed valve decided to go on holiday, and not open when commanded. 'Tis better to find out about this sooner rather than later.

Anyway, whatever the problems with anti-icing, looks to me like the crew did a damn fine job with the off-airport landing.
We should all be so lucky when faced with a similar situation.

Electric Sky
10th Jan 2004, 00:57

The praise for the crew is for what appears a wonderful job of getting that aircraft safely down from the predicament that it was in, whatever the cause. Until the full facts are known, no praise or criticism can be apportioned to anyone as to how the situation occurred in the first place.

ES ;)

10th Jan 2004, 01:34
I don't agree with the readers ot this topic who praise the crew, I think they made a major b@lls up:
-there was a SIGMET warning of moderate to severe icing in their arrival TMA
-it was snowing at their destination
-they didn't preempt ice accumulation removal by earlier selection of anti-ice systems
-they waited until the (notoriously unreliable) ice warning activated before reacting
-they flew level at FL100 for 6 minutes in moderate to severe icing conditions
-this means that they cocked up their descent planning by nearly 30 miles
-yes I know that there are altitude constraints inbound to Munich but severe weather conditions demand decisive action
-they did not follow the correct procedure for engine vibration warnings in icing conditions
-they did not order an evacuation following a crash landing with obvious structural damage (gear ripped off with probable fuel tank damage)"

Maybe it is someone who THINKS to know it all before the facts turn up who has the b@lls up??

The reason for the thrust loss was the detachment of the ice impact panels in both engines almost at the same time, the panels turning by about 90 degrees behind the fan blades and acting literally like a thrust reverser inside the engine. So it could as well have happened in plenty VMC. No need to blame the crew about engine anti ice, during special checks ALL F70s except one had complaints about these ice impact trays.

Snowing at destination?
If light snow at more than 2000m visibility should be a reason to stop operation I would have had a few days off this week.

Evacuation? The gear ripped off was the NOSE gear, no main gears involved. No fuel tank damage. But 28 pax without their coats on; send them out in the snow for more than half an hour without any necessity, via slippery overwing exits or a half-extended pax door?

11th Jan 2004, 20:09
Of course I'm not suggesting that snow at destination is a reason for cancelling a flight. What I am saying, and here I agree with my learned friend 411a, is that it is good airmanship to anticipate ice accumulation and activate systems in good time.
As for impact tray damage in VMC - what cr@p! Both at the same time? Impossible!
I believe that the sequence was as follows:
The two Fritzis (AUA Nigels) were so involved in discussing the poor industrial relations in Austrian (strikes and walkouts over the last 4 months) that they neglected to look outside and check for airframe icing. Or maybe they were immersed in one of the monster approach briefings that they learned from their former Swiss masters?
The F70 wing is a known ice accumulator, that's why black stripes are painted at 2/3 span so that it can be seen more easily.
When Kurka and Turk finally woke up to the danger it was too late. Application of wing anti-ice sent lumps of ice into the engines, permanently damaging them, a similar situation to the SAS accident in Arlanda.
I maintain that not to order a passenger evacuation after a crash landing is crass incompetence.

11th Jan 2004, 20:54
Don't you like Austrians then Moderatar? AUA not give you a job? Your speculation may, however, not be far from the truth!

Baron rouge
11th Jan 2004, 23:29
Modaratar... What a clever guy you are, you do everything perfectly and the others are just sh...

OK then , for your information our company flying F100 equiped whith -620 engines have already experienced two severe engine damage due to these ice pad getting loose and beeing ingested by the engine.


I think the crew did a perfect job managing to land this aircraft in a field, they were very unlucky that both engines developped the same problem at the same time.

But What to say about ROLLS ROYCE who was perfectly aware of the problem and did nothing to cure it ? the first engine problem in our company dating more than 2 years and apparently we are the only airline applying specific checks on this part of the engine.

12th Jan 2004, 02:16
@Baron rouge:
I agree, thanks

luckily the investigation will not include arrogant postings like Yours.
Unfortunately I am not allowed to send You a certain picture of the engines; one that tells You all if You still believe it was NOT the disintegrated ice impact trays which led to such a severe thrustloss.

About the evacuation: You would send the pax out in the snow when there is no sign of fire, smoke, sparks? With no suspected rupture of the fuselage and wings?
Preferably via the wet and slippery overwing exits, as the pax door would not extend fully?

Midnight Blue
12th Jan 2004, 02:20
Just for information:
Both engines did not develop the problem at the same time. The second engine lost power due to ingested "ice prevention tray" at less than 6DME. After this they could not stay on the glidepath and dropped out of the clouds into the snowy field.
Up to 6NM final it looked just like a single engine ILS approach, nobody suspected the second engine to generate the same problem as the first one.

12th Jan 2004, 14:53
Excuse my ignorance. What exactly are the ice trays and where are they?

Flap Sup
12th Jan 2004, 21:36

yas, according to this: http://www.flygtorget.se/nyheter/nyhetsdetaljer.asp?ID=1850&KatID=1
Austrian grounded their F70 fleet. For the few of you who dosn't understand swedish, here is a translation:

"According to AUA, problems regarding the antiice systems have been found. Ice damage in the engine have been found (not my words) to be the cause of the forced landing. The remaining eight F70 have now been grounded, the Rolls Royce engines are being inspected and the engine ice protection systems are being replaced. Estimated time for the process is one week."


12th Jan 2004, 23:21
-they flew level at FL100 for 6 minutes in moderate to severe icing conditionsthis is what Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung mentioned on their site:

"Zeitgleich mit dem Erreichen der Flugfläche 100 sprach die Eiswarnanlage (Ice Detection) des Flugzeugs an. Die Besatzung schaltete daraufhin die Triebwerksenteisung (Engine Anti-Ice) und die Zellenenteisung (Air Frame Anti-Ice) ein. Die Auswertung der Flugschreiberaufzeichnung bestätigt, dass die Eiswarnanlage angesprochen hatte und die Triebwerksenteisung sowie die Zellenenteisung von der Besatzung eingeschaltet worden war.

Sechs Minuten nach dem Erreichen der Flugfläche 100 kam es zu Triebwerksschwingungen."

So in my opinion the crew immediately switched on the de-icing and it took 6 minutes after reaching FL100 before the engine vibrations (especially the RH) started.

13th Jan 2004, 01:17
"zeitgleich mit dem Erreichen der Flugfläche 100 sprach die Eiswarnanlage (ice detection) an"

The ice detection warning sounded simultaneously (zeitgleich) with (the aircraft's) arrival in FL100.

(Translation note - "erreichen" is to reach, attain or arrive at, "das Erreichen" is the noun form. Arrival sounds weird in this sense, but "attaining" or "reaching" sounds like climbing in English)

"Die Besatzung schaltete daraufhin die Triebwerkenteisung und die Zellenenteisung ein."

The crew switched on engine and airframe anti-ice immediately after the warning.

(Translation note - daraufhin means "immediately afterwards" or "at that moment" but has a sense of causality. In this sense it suggests to me that they switched on the anti-ice immediately after the warning, but the German is a touch ambiguous - "sofort nach" might have been clearer if that was what was meant, or "unmittelbar nach".)

"Die Auswertung der Flugschreiberaufzeichnung bestätigt, dass die Eiswarnanlage angesprochen hat und die Triebwerksenteisung sowie die Zellenenteisung von der Besatzung eingeschaltet worden war."

Straightforward except for the passive construction. "Examination of the flight data recordings confirms (bestätigen - to confirm) that the ice detection warning sounded and that both the engine anti-ice and the airframe anti-ice were switched on by the crew."

"Sechs Minuten nach dem Erreichen der Flugfläche 100 kam es zu Triebwerkschwingungen."

6 minutes after (the aircraft) reached FL100, engine vibration developed.

13th Jan 2004, 01:49

Ice Impact Trays in place
Ice Impact Trays displaced

13th Jan 2004, 03:50
Please correct me if I am wrong, as it is a while since I flew the Fokker 100, but the ice detection warning on the aircraft is a 'late' warning for ice build up on the wings/tailplane. In other words, in normal operations, the wing/tail de-ice should already have been switched on. I seem to remember that the engine anti-ice is selected on at 5 degrees C or below in moist air and certainly doesn't rely on the ice detection warning as a reminder to activate it.

What I am trying to say is that, given the conditions that morning, the engine anti-ice should have been selected on for most of the descent and the wing/tail anti-ice selected shortly before the ice warning.

Crew did an excellent job putting it down in one piece once the second engine lost power.

13th Jan 2004, 04:07
From the Fokker AOM: "Engine anti-icing must be on during all ground- and flight operations when icing conditions exist or are anticipated." With regard to wing and tail anti-ice: "The wing and tail systems must be selected on when icing conditions exist or when icing is observed."

You can read that to say, engine anti-ice on before you enter icing conditions, and wing and tail anti-ice on after you enter the same.

Fokker just come out Friday, recommending operating with the engine anti-ice on at all times when the TAT is below +6 to -25 degrees C, regardless.

With regards to Austrian Airlines, does replacing the F70 "engine ice protection system" refer to going back to the orginial design of the ice impact trays?

13th Jan 2004, 13:46
Interesting photos of the impact trays.
There's a good shot of the damage to the rear fuselage at www.airliners.net/open.file/486471/M/
This in the area through which the main fuel lines to the engines and APU run!
Thinking about what happened when the toboggan ride came to an end-
I'd love to have heard what the Captain said to his passengers.
Did Captain Kirk send the Turk outside for a look around before deciding against an evacuation?
Actually he wouldn't have needed to risk clambering over the half extended stairway, he could have used the slide on the opposite galley door.
Maybe they started the APU to keep warm, served coffee and listened to Johann Strauss waltzes whilst waiting for the emergency services to arrive!

13th Jan 2004, 16:36

You certainly would have known better, do You?

As rumours go, the service door would not open due to some stress/twist (forgive my english being not perfect) on the fuselage.
captain kurka surely knew that there is another door available, rest assured.

And for the damage to the rear fuselage: the picture shows some damage to the wing/fuselage fairings, nothing more.
I am pretty sure Fokker did not rely on these panels which are there for pure aerodynamic improvement to mount the fuel lines.

I am just waiting for You to tell stories about Austrians being "Krauts", then I'll know all about Your "style".

John Farley
13th Jan 2004, 16:55
The captain of this aircraft had a serious in-flight emergency – however it was caused.

Despite this he did not loose the plot, pulled off a remarkable field landing and continued to think and make difficult decisions (like not to evacuate – a much harder one than everybody out)

Methinks anybody who criticises such a man without all the facts is saying more about themselves than this accident.

13th Jan 2004, 17:35
If someone showed you a photo of the damage, you wouldnt think it had slid accross a field. Looks great, almost like couple of new fairings be ready for the afternoon wave.

14th Jan 2004, 20:53
Moderator said:

he could have used the slide on the opposite galley door.

That would be one really flat slide going down! :)

Remember that the aircraft was lying on its belly.
The door would only have been about a foot from the ground.

14th Jan 2004, 21:51
difficult decision, would be really a tragedy to evacuate after going down safely on a snowcovered field and then loose a pax who gets lost in the snowfall, maybe injured, in a state of shock, no jacket on, temperatures around the freezing point. crowd control isn't that easy in such circumstances. a controversial decision but as i think not a bad one. There's always a great difference between classroom and real life.

well done boys!:D :D

15th Jan 2004, 00:06
To evac...or not.

To those that think that this crew was irresponsible to not evac...were YOU there to assess the situation?

Thought not.
Would suggest these folks, who claim to 'know it all' and would have done differently...YOU WERN'T AT THE SCENE, so of course cannot comment effectively about the situation.

Some never learn, it seems.
Why should we be surprised?:yuk:

Hårek den Hardbalne
15th Jan 2004, 00:24
To all of you who seem to know it all from a position in front of your computers, I like to quote a sentence from John Farley`s post:
Methinks anybody who criticises such a man without all the facts is saying more about themselves than this accident.
I am sure you hate the media when they dive in with their guesswork a few minutes after an aviation accident(?) So, why do the same mistake:confused:

Valve Kilmer
3rd Jan 2005, 21:33
Does anyone know, if any report has been published, either preliminary or final, with regards to how and why this accident happened?



3rd Jan 2005, 22:46
See BFU's accident Bulletin for Jan 2004, pages 3-11 (in German):


Ignition Override
3rd Jan 2005, 23:59
Maxrev: You complimented the crew on good stick and rudder skills.

Why can't the FMC and perfect knowledge of all automation modes, which appear to create in many (new-generation) Pprune pilots a smug sort of pride, not substitute for good flying skills? :confused:

Valve Kilmer
4th Jan 2005, 00:24




4th Jan 2005, 06:32
Ignition Override - perhaps because skill-based learning and experience is held in higher esteem by the pilot fraternity than that which is merely knowledge-based?

Phil Brentnall
3rd Dec 2005, 12:32
Full report of Captain Kirk, the ice and the Bostik at http://www.bfu-web.de/berichte/04_ax001efr.pdf
There is no comment on the Captain's decision not to evacuate nor is there a CVR transcript - pity!

(Edited by PPRuNe Dispatcher to correct the link)