Heavy Landing at YMEL?

[Sunfish]

ABC is reporting:

Plane emergency shuts Melbourne airport

Flights have been temporarily suspended in and out of Melbourne Airport after a Thai Airways airbus landed heavily.

It is believed two tyres burst when the plane landed about midday AEST.

There was also a small fire in the undercarriage of the aircraft, which has been put out.

Air Services Australia (ASA) says the plane has come to a stop at the intersection of two runways.

Thai Airways marketing manager Sue Marr says it does not appear anything was wrong with the plane.

"I understand there were no injuries but the aircraft is grounded for the time being, until it can be checked thoroughly," she said.
Print-friendy versionPrint Send to a friendEmail

[alert5]

Thai Airways Flight 981 from Bangkok to Melbourne blew a tyre when it landed in a strong crosswind.

It became stranded at the intersection between two runways and started two small fires in the main landing gear. At least 12 planes were diverted from the airport or delayed.

There were 240 passengers onboard and Thai Airways said it blew two tyres. One report stated three tyres burst.

http://www.radarvector.com/2005/10/airport-reopens-after-airbus-landing.html

[Sunfish]

Airport reopened.

[newjourno]

from the Associated press, 0709 GMT

SYDNEY, Australia (AP) - More than 250 passengers were
evacuated from a Thai Airways jet after a tire blew,
sparking several small fires, during a hard landing
Wednesday at southern Australia's Melbourne airport, an
official said. No injuries were reported.
The Airbus A340 from Bangkok «landed heavily» on the
runway, blowing out a tire, damaging the plane's
undercarriage and sparking the fires, according to Ben
Mitchell, a spokesman for Airservices Australia, the
government's air traffic control authority.
None of the 253 passengers on board was injured, the
Melbourne Airport said in a statement.
Mitchell said the plane was smoking as it rolled down the
runway, prompting air traffic controllers to activate a
«crash alarm.»
Fire and emergency services crews approached the plane
within 90 seconds of landing and extinguished the small
fires, he said. All passengers were evacuated on an
external stairway and taken to the terminal by bus,
Mitchell said.
Mitchell said the plane's crew had not reported any
problems with the landing gear before touching down.
Graham O'Donohue, from Melbourne, said he watched the
plane's landing on his in-flight television monitor.
«In the last few hundred feet, the plane lurched over
and, based on what I was looking at on the camera, the
runway was over there,» he said, indicating that the plane
appeared to be diagonal to the runway.
«We hit the tarmac too hard. It was all pretty calm but
fishtailing gets a bit scary,» he added.
Danny Wong, from Mornington Peninsula in southern Victoria
state, said he feared for his infant daughter's safety as
he held her in his lap.
«We got thrown from side to side,» he said, adding that
it was the roughest landing he had experienced.
A spokesman for Australia's Transport Safety Bureau said
the Thai Airways jet had landed in heavy crosswinds and
that the incident was being investigated. He did not give
his name due to bureau policy.
The incident shut down Melbourne Airport for almost two
hours and many flights were delayed.

[the_hawk]

photo & more http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=195807

[UnderneathTheRadar]

c'mon Sunny - even you should know the difference between 'MEL' (where your bags go) and 'YMML' (where the plane goes).

UTR.

[Centaurus]

It seems not unusual for some Asian operators to request runway 27 (the shorter runway at ML) for landing under strong crosswind conditions simply because it has an ILS, even though the weather is clear and the longer runway is into wind.

Runway 34 was into wind today and is much longer than 27 but does not have an ILS , only a PAPI. These operators do not like visual approaches on a clear day unless an ILS is there to help them. Interesting mindset?

A similar incident occurred a few years ago on Melbourne 27 to a Malaysian Airlines A310. Again a strong crosswind. In this incident the ATSB report revealed that at the flare the captain applied full wrong rudder in his attempt to touch down without drift. Damage to an engine pod and flap area occurred. It was not reported by the crew (loss of face?) but fortunately an alert ground staff member spotted the damage and the aircraft was grounded. A video of the Thai A340 "landing" appeared to show a wrong rudder input as well

Makes you wonder if simulator time could be better spent on practicing crosswind landings than box ticking regulatory exercises on autopilot.

[wiggy]

Confused of the UK here -which runway did he land on- reports and comments about the weather here seem to suggest 34 but the piccy on the associated thread, shows the RHS of the aircraft with the terminal in the background - in which case surely he ground to a halt on 16?

[Centaurus]

Landed on Melbourne 27. 30 knots plus crosswind. Crossed the 16/34 intersection rocking and rolling and shedding tyres.

[wiggy]

Ah I was completely wrong..thanks for that.

[willadvise]

Centaurus

I won't know for sure until I read the incident report at work tommorow but I think 27 is unlikely. The aircraft was parked on J and passengers disembarked. This is a long way from 27 with a gear on fire. The stuff about it coming to a stop on the intersection is also likely to be incorrect as that would have meant a landing on 34 (also a long way to go back to J to disembark) or an impossibly short landing run on 16/09/27. YMML Chart (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/dap/MMLAD01-104.pdf)

[Doors to Automatic]

The video (see other thread) was taken from the road which seems to be the one by the 27 threshold. Also the aircraft was crabbing (severely) to the right just prior to touchdown which is consistent with a 27 landing and a 50kt gusting crosswind down 34.

[Sunfish]

It had to happen, courtesy of the Age Newspaper.

Terrified passengers watch themselves crash-land

"PASSENGERS aboard a Thai Airlines flight that fishtailed down a runway at Melbourne Airport after blowing a tyre yesterday said they knew before it landed that something was wrong.

Passenger Michael Hinchey from Wodonga said "it was just a normal approach but from the screen (facing him) you could tell the plane was not in the centre of the runway".

When the plane landed "it was out of control", Mr Hinchey said. "It just went bang and it was like it was on ice. I actually thought we were going to end up in the paddock."

The landing of Thai Airways flight 981 frightened its 253 passengers and caused major disruptions to airports and flights around Australia. Melbourne Airport was closed for two hours following the heavy landing, which also resulted in a small fire in the plane's undercarriage.

Flights about to land had to be diverted and others due to take off were grounded while airport officials made safety checks of runways and cleared debris. Disruption of domestic flights continued until the evening.

The plane swerved as it hit the runway and fishtailed all the way down the runway, Mr Hinchey said. His daughter Jane said: "I was a bit scared. I thought the plane was going to tip over onto one side."

Fred Mills, from Frankston, said: "It was always looking like a rough landing, even a thousand miles out."

"It really hit hard," he said. At the time it was "pretty scary" but the pilot did "a marvellous job" in the circumstances.

Danny Wong, from Dromana, who was nursing his eight-month-old daughter, Coco, said: "It was like he (the pilot) was zig-zagging and over-correcting."

The Hinchey family said passengers found out what had happened after they saw fire engines arriving and spotted smoke. They were kept in the plane for 45 minutes. Their hand luggage was spread over the tarmac and checked by sniffer dogs before they were taken by bus to the terminal.

Thai Airlines spokeswoman Sue Marr said that "crosswinds caused the aircraft to land heavily". Inspections of the plane by engineers were continuing. Passengers due to fly on the plane's 4.20pm flight to Thailand were last night waiting at the airport to learn when they could leave.

A spokesman for Air Services Australia said the airport closure resulted in the diversion or cancellation of 12 flights."

[blueloo]

"It just went bang and it was like it was on ice. I actually thought we were going to end up in the paddock."


What a cracker...that has to be added to the lazy journalist web page options!

[Buster Hyman]

"it was just a normal approach but from the screen (facing him) you could tell the plane was not in the centre of the runway".
Why don't you pilot chappies use that screen in the cockpit thingy? Sounds like it could be usefull!:rolleyes:

The photo of the PAX disembarking is definately on taxiway J. You can clearly see gate Echo 10 in the background (DJ terminal) & behind that is the Delta finger (INTL). Basically, a long way from RWY 27.:ok:

[Algy]

OK Blueloo you'll have to explain to me why accurately (as far as anyone knows) reporting the comments of an eyewitness makes a reporter "lazy". I've always thought that was sort-of what they (we actually) were paid to do.

Now I can see why making prejudiced, knee-jerk remarks about subjects I don't understand on an anonymous forum might be considered intellectually "lazy". But I suppose that's different.

[Wiley]

The forward facing cameras can (do, in fact) alarm pax in a strong crosswind, and even moreso in very gusty conditions, as, in the first case, they can't see the runway until very late on finals if the pilot is laying off for drift, and when it's gusty, the pic jumps around quite alarmingly.

The company I work for have suggested to crews that it might be a good idea to have the purser turn the camera display in the cabin off in such conditions.

Re "shock! horror!, we were all gonna die!" pax accounts: it's a sad fact of life that editors scrap the boring, factual accounts given to them by their reporters and print or put to screen the more outrageous ones we all so hate to read. It's because they sell newspapers or bring in the viewers.

Not in any way suggesting that the Thai crew did anything short of a totally professional job in this case, (let's wait for the official report), but incidents like this, proving that the elements, the weather, or Mother Nature - whatever you want to call the environment we operate in daily - can still bite make me wonder about reports we've read only in the last few days that some airlines are suggesting a lessening of training requirements to meet the looming pilot shortage. Sometimes, (and 34 at MEL with a raging northerly and that damned windshear-inducing gully on short finals is a good example), it's necessary to be able to plonk your megajet onto the bitumen the old fashioned way without all the automatics doing most of it for you.

[knackeredII]

Centaurus, Malaysia Airlines have never operated A310s. They did, however, scrape a pod on a B744 a few years back in MEL, also on runway 27.

[Doors to Automatic]

The camcorder video would be interesting to see if it's been posted on-line - does anyone have a link?

[Centaurus]

Mea Culpa - guilty of not checking my facts again. The Thai incident was on 16 at Melbourne (well, at least there was a stinking crosswind so I was half right), and yes it was a Malaysian 747 not an AirBus on 27 a few years back. Apologies for duff gen.

[Algy]

Wiley,

the only editors who do that are the ones who are in the unfortunate position of having reporters who write boring, factual accounts. In which case they need new reporters.

And...reporters' factual accounts - boring or otherwise - can only ever complement, not substitute, for the direct accounts of people involved in or witnessing the events.

Same as when you get told a story in the pub. Just the way world is.

[willadvise]

ATIS YMML W 260029
+ RWY: 27 FOR ARR. RWY 34 FOR DEP NE,
RWY 27 FOR ALL OTHER DEP
+ OPR INFO:
+ WND: 310/8-18,
MXW 14KTS RWY 27
VIS: GREATER THAN 10 KM
CLD: BKN035
+ TMP: 20
QNH: 999
+ SIGWX:

ATIS YMML X 260120
RWY: 27 FOR ARR. RWY 34 FOR DEP NE,
RWY 27 FOR ALL OTHER DEP
+ WND: 290/8-18,
MXW 12KTS BOTH RWYS
VIS: GREATER THAN 10 KM
+ CLD: BKN045
+ TMP: 21
QNH: 999




ATIS YMML Y 260130
+ RWY: 27
+ WND: 230-280/18-30,
MXW 14KTS
VIS: GREATER THAN 10 KM
CLD: BKN045
+ TMP: 19
QNH: 999

ATIS YMML N 260209
RWY: NOT AVBL
SFC COND: ALL RWYS OOS DUE PAVEMENT DAMAGE
WND: 230-280/18-30
VIS: GREATER THAN 10 KM
CLD: BKN045
TMP: 17
QNH: 1000


I don't know why it went from Y to N instead of A but N appears to be the next ATIS.

[bb744]

Essendon airport, just across the road has its ATIS A - M and YMML uses N onwards

[flyboycoxy]

From the Video that i saw on channel 9 it just looks like the plane was hit by a gust!

I was in tears laughing while channel nine were interviewing some passengers, some saying the plane was " spinning out of control" and one passenger saying "i saw the engine hit the ground two times" Bulls...!!!

Congrats to the captain and FO for keeping it on the centre line
.

flyboycoxy:
:ok:

[Xeque]

The forward facing camera is great but to see the runway disappearing off to left or right of the screen during strong crosswind landings must be very scary for passengers who don't understand that this is all quite normal.

A friend who flies A330's for a well known middle east airline says that he occasionally turns the camera off in such circumstances.

The video certainly provides a visual on what must have been a very strong and gusty crosswind at Melbourne.

Well done the lads up front :ok:

[Buster Hyman]

Never mind the nose camera, I recall landing at YMML in a strong crosswind & seeing the full width of the runway from row 2!

[blueloo]

ALGY


what i mean by LAZY JOURNALIST IS Lazy Journalists Plane Story Generator (http://radans.net/jens/planestory.html)



Basically cause this web site creates exactly the same stories so called 'qualified' journalists create.

[BD1959]

Presumably the 'bus is in the 'garage' for a while....anyone know what arrangements were made by TG to get the MEL pax away?

BD

[the_hawk]

A/C landed on Rwy 16 leaving skid marks to the left (where it nearly departed the runway) and then to the right of centreline

Congrats to the captain and FO for keeping it on the centre line

Well, almost ;) good job anyway

Could any of the professionals here explain to me how the decision for the runway is made in such a case (27 with better wind alignment, but 16 longer)?

[fat'n'grey]

The Boeing versions of X-wind landings. OK, they are steady winds and no gusts just as you flare, but impressive all the same. Love the sound track too!


http://www.linhadafrente.net/bin/Pousos.wmv

[amos2]

Coxy said it was great that they kept it on the centre line! Is Coxy a pilot I wonder?

I mean, a thirty knot X wind for an A340, C'Mon!!!

We were doing that in 9's back in the 70's!!...

without blowing tyres!! :sad:

Get with it guys, basic airmanship beyond you perhaps? :sad:

[ELAC]

I mean, a thirty knot X wind for an A340, C'Mon!!!

Can't say for sure for the -600, but the A340-300 demonstrated crosswind component in the limitations section is 27 knots. I suppose you can exceed it at your leisure but you've entered into to test-pilot territory, and my guess is that management isn't going to be too pleased if you stuff it up.

You might also want to give a wee bit of consideration to things like the relative size and amount of inertia of an A340-600 versus a DC-9. They're not exactly the same, now are they? Not saying these guys did it right, or wrong, but I think it's a bit early to be slamming their airmanship.

ELAC

[Oshkosh George]

Fred Mills, from Frankston, said: "It was always looking like a rough landing, even a thousand miles out."

Now this has just GOT to be the quote of the millenium(and the last one too!):D

[1000 hrs]

The acft landed on rwy 16 and blown the tyre no.1 .
She stopped on the taxiway"J" after vacated rwy 16.

[Algy]

Blueloo,

that is actually very funny. But you still haven't answered my question and I'm reasonably you haven't got an answer. Still, as I'm sure we both know, it's about equally rare for journalists and pilots to admit they were wrong. Probably because we both tend to make our mistakes in public (us more than you as it happens...but ours don't have quite the same consequences. Respect!)

[the_hawk]

Algy, was that your way of admitting you were wrong?

And is

OK Blueloo you'll have to explain to me why accurately (as far as anyone knows) reporting the comments of an eyewitness makes a reporter "lazy"

this the question you want an answer to? No wonder then Blueloo doesn't answer it, since he never stated that.

[flyboycoxy]

Long and the short YES i am a pilot, maybe not an A340 but none the less

:)


Max demonstrated Xwind A340-600 32 Kts ;)

Quote
We were doing that in 9's back in the 70's!!...

I believe you i do, But there is a slight weight difference between a DC9 and an A340
DC-9 MTOW 54,885Kgs (correct me if i am wrong)
A340-600 MTOW 365,000 Kgs

Have a look at the amature video that was on the news (can be found on www.ninemsn.com.au) and you will see that it get's hit by a gust about 50 feet from the ground.:ok:

[blueloo]

Algy - see Hawks post.


I think you shouldnt look further into it than the explaination already given. I cant answer a question based on a quote which you havent understood. I have already explained it.

[Capt Claret]

flyboycoxy,

are you sure it was hit by a gust? I've only seen the footage once, on Ch9. There seemed to be a signifficant right rudder deflection just prior to landing. I don't recall noticing any comensurate yaw in the opposite direction.

If the wind was nominally westerly, I'd have expected to see left rudder on/approaching touchdown, to align with RWY16.

[flyboycoxy]

Capt Claret

There is two lots of video i have seen one from the end of RNW 16, which shows the pilot holding a alot of drift and then yawing Heavily to the the right. The pilot hits vast amounts of left rudder and some right wing down (again not much) about 50 feet from the ground, The other video is from the terminal and only gets the plane after it had landed so not much can be read from that other than the amount of rudder that is being used down the runway.


Flyboycoxy

[Capt Claret]

Flyboy, to clarify, the only video I've seen was from Ch9, and was shot from behind the aircraft at is descended to the RWY. Moments before touchdown, there appeared to be a sgnifficant right rudder deflection, which does not seem appropriate to a westerly wind.

[pprecious]

Gusts or not, surely if the Xwind component was above the approved level for the A/C then the landing should not have been attempted, or a different runway selected.

I was stuck in the mess that followed trying to get out to my destination, along with all the others, and the ensuing Qantas re-routes etc. (I didn't envy that Ops department that day)

With any luck the airport and the other affected airlines will pass a large bill onto Thai for this one.

I don't understand why he didn't just go around, instead of causing so much inconvience to the other travellers, and distress to his own passengers.......

[Capt Claret]

I guess the thought of the inconvenience didn't occur to him. :cool:

[eman_resu]

Was there any thought there at all??

Or get in itis.

[blueloo]

most people dont think they are going to 'near' crash, damage a runway, or a jet when they come in to land (and by implication the inconvenience to others). occasionally phuk ups happen. i think the word commonly used to describe these things is "accidents"

:rolleyes:

[G-CPTN]

>i think the word commonly used to describe these things is "accidents"

It's interesting that the universal expression used to describe 'collisions' in motoring is 'accidents', wheras 'accidents' in aviation are referred to as 'crashes'. Is there logic in this?

[flyboycoxy]

Capt Claret

You are correct there is only one video of the aircraft landing but the other videos are of the plane when it had come to a stop on the RNW. Sorry i should have been more spacific about the shots on Ch9. If you look at the report after the passengers are over exaggerating the "near death experience" it shows a picture of the plane on the RNW with alot of left delection (makes sence to me).

I know what you are trying to say i can see your point.

I think it was one of those things that happen's.

:D

[blueloo]

G-CPTN

or how bout the logic of a "near miss"...........shouldnt it be a near hit? ......

[amos2]

So tell us Coxy...when you say it's one of those things that happens...we should expect a prang every time we go flying should we?

You've done this before have you? flying that is! :confused:

[HonestSLF]

"It's interesting that the universal expression used to describe 'collisions' in motoring is 'accidents', wheras 'accidents' in aviation are referred to as 'crashes'. Is there logic in this?"

G-CPTN: Interestingly (well not very interestingly) the term 'accident' to describe road traffic incidents has been replaced in many UK police forces over the last several years by 'collision' or 'crash': 'accident' was felt to be inappropriate in cases where the collision was more than a 'mishap'.

Will shut up now.