View Full Version : My Travel runway excursion at ENTO (A321)

26th Mar 2006, 19:40
Happened at 20:10 local time. Facts a bit unclear at the moment, but happened at the end of the roll out or during taxi.

Snow and slippery conditions at time time apparently, no details on the actual conditions, the snowtam they have published is ancient though. Aerodrome is still closed.

Slides were not used, but passengers was deplaned out on the field.

Second excursion for company/aircraft type in as many years.

Edit: Media reports that the aircraft never left paved surface, but was unable to move from the position it stopped in. Nosegear (tyre and rim) sustained some damage. Aircraft apparently skidded somewhat sideways for a couple of hundred meters. Norwegian AIBN is involved.

26th Mar 2006, 20:58
Didn't they do the same last year as well. Hope it wasn't the same situation

26th Mar 2006, 21:38
plane here:
and from the airport tonight:

27th Mar 2006, 19:37
Seems that the BA was not what the airport reported. Friction reported at 32-33-31, 17 minutes prior to landing.

Knut Lande of the AIBN give credit to the aircrew with this statement to the media today: "...- Flyverne håndterte situasjonen på en meget profesjonell måte. De gjorde alt de kunne under den oppståtte situasjonen, sier han..."

The pilots handeled the situation in a very proffesional manner. They did everything they could once the situation occured, he says


The article mentions that the aircraft skidded the last 300 meters with locked brakes, and that it yawed 90 degrees to the left. The nose wheel hit an edge at the far end of the CWY, 150 meters past the end of the stopway. (Still on concrete) That means they used 2724 meters to stop from THR.

FDR and CVR retrived by the AIBN.

Down Three Greens
27th Mar 2006, 22:21

Make sure you differentiate between MyTravel Airways UK and MyTravel Airways Scandinavia. Yes, indeed MYT(UK) did have an incident involving braking action last year. However, this aircraft is operating for MyTravel Airways Scandinavia so lets not try and link the two events shall we.

I'm sure we will all review the facts when they come out from the relevent Air Accident Board.


27th Mar 2006, 23:02
What is the connection? Apart from the name.

Down Three Greens
27th Mar 2006, 23:30
For info :- MyTravel is a worldwide tour operator. It is served in part by two 'MyTravel' aviation divisions in Europe, one for Scandinavian market and one for the UK market.


27th Mar 2006, 23:59
At least to the public it doesn't make that much of a difference if it's MYT this or MYT that. Let's link the two incidents together and conclude as incompetent pax would for now, should we: MYT seems to have an issue with landing at winter operations...
And apart for the name similarity, it seems the abovementioned issue connects them pretty well.
DTG: Imperial, are we?
And by the way: NEVER trust the grip-tester, definitly not around those temperatures with slush on the RWY. :eek:
Apart from that, the ones up front sort of saved the day, i guess.

28th Mar 2006, 08:03
well... appart from the fact that the UK incident was during takeoff and this was landing... Only connection is the name. And that stuff like this tends to happen during winter. :cool:

28th Mar 2006, 08:07
Hi, my thread at:
also discusses this incident. There is a link to a video on a TV page.

I have some photos of ENTO the same morning before the snowfall if anyone is interested.

FD Standby
28th Mar 2006, 09:37

If you don't trust the ground reading equip - then how on earth do you ever land??

And just for my education, which officially quoted figures should I disregard, and which can I use???

Jambo Buana
28th Mar 2006, 11:17
Been flying to Torp for 13 years. The end zone (displaced threshold) was never de-iced properly and fell away with the slope too. V difficult to stop sometimes even at taxy speed. Are the authorities supposed to achieve a BA on the displaced threshold? In my experience Torp certainly dont and I always warn all trainees going into Torp to be mega cautious!

28th Mar 2006, 11:25
Sounds as if a Notam from Torp would not go amiss (assuming there is not one?).

Same problem at KEF a year or so ago - it was discovered the hard way that the last 900 ft of each runway was not grooved and therefore BA was unreliable and not always as given for the runway. Notam then published. No more tears.:)

28th Mar 2006, 14:32
If you don't trust the ground reading equip - then how on earth do you ever land??
And just for my education, which officially quoted figures should I disregard, and which can I use???

FD Standby:

Guess my best advice for winter operations on contaminated runways is to ask ATC for PIREPs, and supply ATC with PIREPs when they obviously could need the information. And of course ATC should ask for PIREPs when such runway conditions are present.

As the NTSB-report; “Large airplane operations on contaminated runways“ concludes:

1. None of the existing friction-measuring equipment in use (BRD:Brakemeter-Dynometer, GRT:Grip Tester, MUM:Mu-meter, RFT:Runway friction tester, SFH:Surface friction tester (high pressure tires), SFL:Surface friction tester (low pressure tires), SKH:Skiddometer (high pressure tires), SKL:Skiddometer (low pressure tires), TAP:Tapleymeter) are able to duplicate the dynamics in the airplane tires regarding airplane velocity, tyre-construction nor tyre-velocity. There has been minimum progress in the work of correlating the friction-measurements to the performance of the airplane. As a result, the operational value of such friction-measurements is limited.

2. Pilot reports: Pilot braking action reports are the most timely and available source of runway condition information. The reliance on reports of braking conditions from pilots and the experience of airport management are adequate and are more reliable and timely than any existing friction-measuring technology.

3. Quantitative data relating the airplane’s performance to runway condition during a specific landing or takeoff still is not provided to the pilots. Furthermore, the pilots have no means of obtaining objective information about the friction values of contaminated runways. Moreover, frequently they do not receive all available information about runway conditions or terminal weather information that is timely and accurate. As a result, while modern technology has made aviation the safest, most reliable means of transportation in the world, pilots daily face potentially dangerous situations in which they land or take off on contaminated runways with no assurance that the runway is adequate for the operation.

The report is somewhat old, but the contents are still valid today (obviously). Hope this info doesn't come as a shock to anyone operating here up north in the white season.

28th Mar 2006, 15:34
Best to trust PIREPS :hmm: But how to obtain one unless the pilot tests the conditions first? Chickens and eggs?
Whilst, in the UK, ATC will not give a braking action report on a contaminated runway, I believe our Scandinavian colleagues try to be a little more forthcoming. With the odd exception, this seems to work and those airlines based in the North tend to use their hard won expertise to operate efficiently within the constraints of their environment.
It seems a little harsh to castigate MyTravel AS for their upset in this case - they are a proud and excellent airline with a long history going back through many name changes, but with the same safety conscious ethos. Their tie in to MyTravel AW is in the same commercial vein as, say, Thomas Cook AW to their German cousins - same livery, different airline.
There again, this is PPRUNE!

28th Mar 2006, 16:33

You’re right. This seems to work, with some exeptions…

“Landing an airplane in Norway in winter is a hazardous sport” according to The Norwegian Accident Investigation Board. They say this should be clear to everyone involved, according to Norwegian TV2 Nettavisen: http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/innenriks/article596036.ece

I don’t fully agree that it is a “hazardous sport”, but they definitely have a point. They are currently investigating 10-12 serious cases of runway excursions that have happened during the last 2-3 years, mostly Airbus 320’s from UK, Denmark or Spain and of course some Dash-8’s on the short 800-meter strips with strong winds in addition. They say there is hardly any of the 50 or so airports in Norway that hasn’t had one or more of these incidents/accidents, due to the fact that a lot of the airports are close to the coast with temps around zero centigrades and precipitation comes in the form of snow, which makes slippery conditions, unlike the cold and stable winter conditions at most airports in, say, Sweden, Finland, Canada or Russia.

If the friction is reported as 32-33-31 with slush on the rwy, this could mean something like: “Friction is probably pretty bad, we don’t really know how bad, but the airport is not closed for landing or take off. Land at your own risk.” :oh:

Since the increments are given in 1/100s, this could lead pilots to think the measuring equipment is very accurate, since they can determine the difference between say 31 and 30… But 31 might just as well mean 20 or 40.

And Tyke, you’re also right that MyTravel is a proud and excellent airline with a long history going back through many name changes. Could be comforting to know that much prouder airlines with much longer histories have been far worse off and experienced much more dramatic scenes than this, on ice and snow in Norway… I’m not trying to be the castigator here, only pointing at an issue that needs attention, as part of the process of Threat & Error Management. Maybe one could call it a system error. And not only in Norway.

28th Mar 2006, 18:31
Friction tester are fairly accurate, when used on contamination they are approved for use on! Torp uses the Skidometer/SKH, and it's only approved for slush 3mm or less deep. (National regulations, rules for all the other friction testers and contaminations as well)
We have had several cases in Norway, when friction testers were used on non-approved contaminations/depths. The Griptesters/GRT used on the STOL airports is over-represented in these cases (Because the GRT is a pice of s***)
Tapleymeter is not used anymore, other then as backup when primary (SKH/SFH) fails, and the restrictions on use are tight.
The SKH used by all civilian airport with long runways (Except OSL, they use SFH) have it's problems, but mostly in the "safe" direction with dry snow contamination. The conditions reported are often worse then experienced by the aircraft.
The Saab Friction tester/SFH used on all military airfields and at Oslo Gardermoen is the most accurate means of measuring frictions, but restrictions on use are the same as the SKH.
A data link system in use by Avinor at Oslo and Tromsø, and by the Air Force at Bardufoss has an in-built error blocking feature. The operator cannot input illegal combinations into the condition report. If he tries to input friction data from the SFH , when he has input let's say 6mm of slush, the system alerts him to the fact that he has measured friction on an non-approved contamination. We have seen much improvement in condition reporting due to this system.

However, the main factor i many of the above mentioned cases, was old friction data. (The Premiar A330 at OSL case in point) It does not matter if the friction test was 100% accurate if it's 5 hrs old, and it has been snowing since then! Accurate reporting is much more dependent on the personell in charge, then on the equipment. At Torp the friction test was 17 minutes old when the airbus landed. If it was snowing on a slush covered runway, that is a lifetime!

28th Mar 2006, 21:25
Thanks for clarifying it was not the same situation.

chuckT "Only connection is the name." and the hevey maintainence, and the performance data and the aircraft specification and the spares suppliers and the ground handlers and the Airbus Manuals / procedures, need I go on. I didn't know this was My Travel DK but it would be right to ask the question, and now I have the right answer. Thanks

29th Mar 2006, 06:44
Swedish... maybe I should have clarified that I was refering to this incident.

29th Mar 2006, 10:07
Hi F/snagger. I agree that landing in such conditions is no 'sport'. You also make a good point that this whole subject is one that needs much more research. The Canadians, generally, seem to have researched the most, but without definite conclusions - for obvious reasons.
It may be of interest that my company lists 7 different friction testing devices in its' Ops Manual, nearly all with different interpretations of B/A v's friction coefficient.
It may also be of interest that we would not be allowed to land with the B/A value decoded from the SKH device reprted in this case ie Med/Poor.
The most depressing point (probably) is that we would be at a commercial disadvantage if we operated regularly to destinations north.
M609 also makes a very valid point re conditions of use. Didn't know that - I wonder how many others don't!