View Full Version : My Travel A320 in the Snowdrift!

26th Nov 2004, 08:50
Don't know if it was during taxi or take off run, but off they went sometime just before midnight last night at Evenes/ENEV.


In norwegian: dagbladet.no (http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=256173)

The A320 was on it's way to Norwich with "whale-safari" participants.

Evenes airport was closed for 5 hrs while the aircraft was towed back onto firm ground. AAIB Norway will investigate.

26th Nov 2004, 16:00
According to rumors, things went bad during line-up. Instead of turn onto the runway it went straight across the runway and into deepish snow.

Slippery? Norway in november, what did they expect? ;)

763 jock
26th Nov 2004, 17:20
M609. Wind your neck in until the investigation is complete.

26th Nov 2004, 17:42
736jock, did you not notice the smiley face in the above post?

Norwegian Airport Authority Chief at Narvik airport is quoted having said the following: Årsaken er uklar, men kan ha sammenheng med vinterforhold og glatt rullebane.
In English: The cause is unclear as yet but could be linked to wintery conditions and slippery runway.
Acc to the same chap, the taxiways were gritted(is that the English word?) it wasn't windy and neither the runway nor the taxiways were especially slippery.

M609 adding a bit of rumour he himself has picked up is hardly cause for neck winding.

Professional Pilots Rumour Network right? ;)

26th Nov 2004, 17:52
Here we go again, the ever present 'should we speculate or not' question. If M609 wants to stick his neck out, especially with a ;), let him. It's a rumour network, anyway.

26th Nov 2004, 17:57
Poor buggers. I have taxied up in the Enotekio (sic) in surface drifting snow at night, very disorientating. Best plan is to switch off all the aircraft lights.

26th Nov 2004, 18:05
Lighten up, it's leasure time all day on this site.:)

763 jock
26th Nov 2004, 19:01
Flaps, I did notice the smiley. I also noticed the reference
" Slippery? Norway in november, what did they expect?"

If that is not an assumption (all be it in a question!) that the crew were at fault, then I don't know what is. Could be dozens of other scenarios. I'm prepared to wait for the conclusion of any official investigation. The outcome of that will not be based on rumour. :ok:

26th Nov 2004, 19:13
763 jock
If you dont like rumours or humour or banter then i suggest you dont look at this site!

26th Nov 2004, 19:44
Certainly was deep - halfway up the main wheels and the nacelles touching the snow!

Bp - check 763's profile - anyone calling himself 'Skipper' says it all. :)

Anne :O

26th Nov 2004, 20:27
Was it an A320 from Mytravel Airways UK, or Mytravel Airways Denmark ?

26th Nov 2004, 20:53
Actually, a more reliable source said today, that it happened after take off roll was initiated. Makes it a bit more scary in my book.

It is a MyTravel UK AC.

(I do not in any way blame the crew, AAIB-N can have that job! Just some firendly banter, that's all! :O )

26th Nov 2004, 20:57
" Slippery? Norway in november, what did they expect?"

If that is not an assumption (all be it in a question!) that the crew were at fault, then I don't know what is.
Do you think it could have been some sort of a joke? ;)

I'm prepared to wait for the conclusion of any official investigation. The outcome of that will not be based on rumour.
Well, how do we know that for sure? :) A few weeks ago I read a preliminary report made by the Norwegian AAIB based on nothing but guesses and strange theories.

According to rumors the aircraft involved in this incident was G-CRPH (MyTravel Airways UK).

26th Nov 2004, 21:37
Aircraft lost directional control shorlty after setting T/O power and gently left the runway. Passengers are home by all accounts. Might be some damage to nose wheel.

Capt. Inop
26th Nov 2004, 21:52
According to rumors the aircraft involved in this incident was G-CRPH

Heard the same rumor.
The weather was a bit freaky up north yesterday.

763 jock
26th Nov 2004, 23:11
M609, I apologise. I'm a bit defensive of some great colleagues! :)

27th Nov 2004, 07:22
Near accident at Gardermoen
Worrying tales of safety problems at Oslo's Gardermoen International airport continued after a near collision earlier this week.

Related stories:
Five close calls at Norwegian airports - 23.11.2004
Snow snarls air traffic - 17.11.2004
SAS violates safety check regulations - 11.11.2004

According to newspaper VG, two SAS planes carrying several hundred passengers were just seconds from disaster in heavy snow last Monday.
A flight bound for Copenhagen at 6:20 am was heading for the west runway for take-off. At the same time the morning arrival from Bergen was descending to land on the same runway.
The pilots on the Copenhagen flight managed to detect the problem and stopped before entering the runway. The air controller that gave the planes the all clear has been suspended according to VG, but this has not been confirmed by civil aviation administration organization Avinor.
"We have had a serious incident where Avinor has begun an internal investigation, but on principle I do not comment on any personnel issues," said Per Harald Pedersen, head of tower and approach control at Norway's major airports.
The near-accident is also being investigated by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board.
"As long as the case is under investigation there isn't much we can say but we can confirm that two planes were very near each other. Thanks to a very good performance and vigilance by our pilots the accident was averted," said SAS information chief Siv Meisingseth.
Poor weather conditions continue to make life unpredictable at Norway's airports. On Thursday night a charter plane with 123 on board slid off the runway during take-off at Harstad/Narvik Evenes Airport.
According to Avinor's manager at the airport, Reidar Johansen, the plane was evacuated without incident and there were no injuries. Though there was snowfall Johansen reported that the runway had not been especially slippery.
The plane, an Airbus 320 from MyTravel Airways, was en route to Norwich, England with tourists who had visited a killer whale safari at Ofotfjorden.

from link (http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article920291.ece)

27th Nov 2004, 10:10
'Might be some damage to the nosewheel' was an earlier quote. Now, I know nothing of this incident but looking at the photo looks to me much more than that.
I know the aircraft is up to its nuts in snow but the angle of the number two engine looks to me as though the pylon fuse pins or the engine mounts may have sheared.
I may be miles off the mark here as photo's can be deceiving but the angle of the engine looks strange to me.
I also think that 763 jock should lighten-up.;)

Headset starter
27th Nov 2004, 11:09
Hang on, if it slid off the runway then one assumes it is lying in a field when the photo was taken. With softer ground, more snow and some possbile nose wheel damage it's going to look a little strange isn't it?

All good fun.


Flying Fokker
27th Nov 2004, 14:27
Have been informed that a nose leg and jacks are on there way up to EVE later today and will operate back to the UK gear down

27th Nov 2004, 15:38
Hope the flight crew are issued with noise cancelling headsets then :p

27th Nov 2004, 16:30
And engines still firmly secure no doubt. The photo was taken at night and not the clearest, but still worth a lot of words.

27th Nov 2004, 16:55
What's the max speed with gear down on the 'bus?

Ranger 1
27th Nov 2004, 17:03
I thought these Airports in snow bound areas had the clearance & de- Icing of runways down to a fine Art, as well as runway friction testing & passing on of information under these conditions to Aircrew spot on. :suspect:

27th Nov 2004, 17:27
Well we do, ( :D ) but it is different to operate in these conditions.

When the conditions are like they have been the last 2 weeks (cold and percipitation), you cannot as you say de-ice the runway. Sweeping and if needed sandning is the only viable option. (Cemicals is a non-starter due to low tempratures in the air and runway body)

The snowtam on the web just prior to the incident was

SWEN0090 ENEV 11251950
(SNOWTAM 0090 A) ENEV B) 11251950
C) 17 F) 47/47/47 G) 8/8/8 H) 34/32/32/SKH
N) 487
R) 487

Granted, not summer conditions, but well inside normal operating conditions.

But........when some foreign aircrew (let's not name the airline) don't know if "65" in friction is in the "Good" or "Medium" range, we have a problem.

27th Nov 2004, 17:59
M609 ....

"Max speed with gear down?"

Max speed A320 with landing gear extended 280 Kt/ M.67

subject to confirmation :ok:

Safety Guy
28th Nov 2004, 14:11
280 kts is correct, and don't forget to double the typical fuel burn! At that speed, the only way for an A320 cockpit to be noisier would be to fly with a window open!

28th Nov 2004, 17:41
A Antonov An-12 is expected later today with parts for the banged up Airbus.

They better hurry up, we are expecting more [email protected] weather tomorrow! :}

29th Nov 2004, 03:48
I wonder how they set the T/O thrust?. Lots of guys I flew with on sparky the wonderjet loved to just slam it into TOGA (which I assumed they used due to the crappy wx). The FADECs can be a little slow and if one side went max thrust significantly before the other then that could easily have put them in the snowbank, especially if there were a x-wind. How wide was the runway plowed?

29th Nov 2004, 04:14
Hmmm, that's why I always preferred a four engine type in slippery snow conditions...lots, or maybe a little diffenental thurst from outboards or inboards as needed, for control.
Worked in the 707 anyway. Especially up Scandy way, where it could indeed be slippery.

29th Nov 2004, 04:29
How wide was the runway plowed?

Apparently full width, 45 meters, but if friction was as outlined in the snowtam (Medium), they would have to be cautious as far as directional control goes.

30th Nov 2004, 12:43
Can confirm it was GCRPH if anyone was interested. You can tell by the engine... its the only A320 with IAE engines we have in full MYT colours!

30th Nov 2004, 13:30
Slippery runways are the norm at those lats., and braking action reports a tad unreliable at times.
If you´re not used to it, it´s easy to get in deep.

A certain southern european airline used to do charters into the area. While the local boys off loaded pax to keep the weight down and compensate for .25 and below on t.o., the charter guys would go fully loaded. Apparently there was no such thing as an entry for braking action in their max gwc charts...

9th Dec 2004, 21:03
anyone know if the airplane is safely home yet?

9th Dec 2004, 21:12
Safely home last week and, back in service on the Lite programme.

The Moss

16th Dec 2004, 11:18
M609 refers to ' well within normal operating conditions'
The snowtam has braking action 34/32/32 SKH. These SKH values put the runway braking action in the Medium-Poor category ( bearing in mind they are SKH values). Admittedly these braking action readings are at first glance acceptable until you refer to the measuring medium. Medium-Poor is not acceptable for T/O in my airline.

16th Dec 2004, 12:50
Medium-Poor is not acceptable for T/O in my airline.

That pretty much shows the difference in operating procedures from the "local" airlines.

The fact that you use the "Medium-Poor" therm, and not the actual breaking action speaks volumes.

T/O in BA around 20 with 737-5/700 on a 2300 meter runway in little/no crosswind is not unheard of, weight permitting offcourse. BA 30 is allmost never a problem.

I have still to experience local crews to reject 30 in zero cross/tailwind conditions.

That said, the rules for runway clearing clearly states, that when BA is less then 35, you have to try and improve it. (If possible) But, if you have an airport that have movements with larger aircraft, (Widebody etc) you pretty much need summer condtions.
Any SAS, WIF, LTR and BRA pilots, feel free to correct!

16th Dec 2004, 13:30
To quote the worlds favourite:

"Various states and airports each have their own method of measuring runway friction e.g. Mu meter, SAAB friction tester, Tapley meter, Skiddometer etc, but, as stated above none are truly representative of a braking aicraft, for this reason XXX prefers to use the estimated braking coefficient quoted in snowtams and other met statements as one of six categories ranging from good to unreliable."

So we face a dilema!

Intereseted to hear how the 'locals' approach the problem.:{

16th Dec 2004, 14:44
Extracts from a safety presentation; ERA Icing workshop 2002.
There is no overall accepted “certification to operational correlation” between mu meters and airplanes.

Some of the preceding points:-

Runway Condition and Braking Definitions
ICAO - Damp, Wet, Water Patches, Flooded
JAR Ops 1.480 - Dry, Damp, Wet, Contaminated
JAA Certification - Water, Slush, Wet Snow, Dry Snow, Compacted Snow, Specially prepared Winter Runway, Ice
Manufacturer - Slippery? contaminant depth?
ATC - Good, Medium, Poor, nil

Operational requirements- JAR Ops 1.490 & 1.520
ATC rely on runway friction devices and reports from other crews, both can provide incorrect or confusing information
Runway Friction Measurement Devices - No International standard for Friction devices. Accuracy of friction devices depends on contaminant type and design of device. No correlation to Certification friction levels or IATA terminology
Crew Reports - Level of “friction” is based on retardation and is therefore aircraft type specific.

… Confused???

16th Dec 2004, 15:14
I wonder if that's why our SOP's have just changed to include a 'stable' call before advancing the thrust levers ?

30th Jan 2005, 16:26
No details yet.....but today SAS/Braathens did a bit of "slip and slide". Apparently spun after reaching taxi speed, but this particular source (VG) is a bit dodgy in these cases.

In norwegian: http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=264838

SWEN0298 ENEV 01300845
(SNOWTAM 0298 A) ENEV B) 01300845
C) 17 F) 57/57/67 G) 06/06/03 H) 27/26/29/SKH
N) 57
R) 57


METAR 301650Z 22018G31KT 4000 SHSNRA VV005 00/M01 Q0965

30th Jan 2005, 18:09
The 737 did a 270 on the runway, but never departed it. Airport is still closed 3 hrs later.