Spanair MD-80 Incident At LPL

[KYGMSY]

News Flash :

Does anyone know the tailwind component on landing for an MD-80 ?

A Spanair MD-80 has just had a tyre burst and has skidded along runway 27 at LPL.

The wind at the time was 100/14. No reported injuries at present, fire on board but brought under control.

Any info ?

[Few Cloudy]

MD-80 max TW = 10kts

[KYGMSY]

Aircraft stuck at end of runway, all escape slides are out, Looks like an error of judgement ?

[The Zombie]

Was just on the Radio One News Report at 1330 GMT.
Not much in the way of details though.

[Big Red ' L ']

Quote " Looks like an error of judgement......."

Air crash investigation expert are you..????

[Magnus Picus]

Landing with a T/W outside limits certainly sounds like an error to me. Still, I wasn't there was I?

[What_does_this_button_do?]

from news.bbc.co.uk

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size="2">A plane carrying 51 people has crashed at Liverpool Airport.
The undercarriage of the aircraft, en route from Palma in Mallorca, collapsed as it landed at 1330BST at the airport in Speke.

It is understood all the 45 passengers and six crew were evacuated safely. Some were treated by paramedics in the main terminal building, but none are said to have been taken to hospital.

An airport spokeswoman said: "The accident happened when the starboard undercarriage of Spanair flight number JKK3203 collapsed as it landed and the plane wobbled on to one wing."

Eight appliances from Merseyside Fire Service, seven ambulances and a major incident team were sent to the airport and the Royal Liverpool and Whiston hospitals were alerted.

A spokesman for Mersey Regional Ambulance said: "Some of the passengers were treated in the airport terminal but luckily nobody was seriously hurt." </font>

[160to4DME]

I don't suppose EGGP changed ends, as they normally do, to accomodate the flying telephone number from AMS...?

[kriskross]

160to4DME

But I wouldn't land a 737 with a 14kt tailwind component either,and with Manchester traffic, it is almost impossible to get a straight in onto R/W 27. It is usually quicker to go downwind and visual onto 09, in the sort of weather it was at the time.

[brabazon]

Is there more than one airport at Liverpool?

This is how the BBC Online news headlined the item in their UK news summary:

Passengers are evacuated from a plane after its undercarriage fails on landing at an airport in Liverpool.

[MightyGem]

Just been up there taking piccies and video. RH undercarriage has collapsed. I,m led to believe that 09 was the operational runway at the time of the incident.

[160to4DME]

Kriskross

Agreed, but the wonders of how EGGP decide the operational runway has always eluded me. For sure, Manchester's runway in use is not a consideration, and there are specific procedures for those nightmare days when one is on easterlies and the other on westerlies.

However, and this is no dig at EGGP ATCOs, it does often appear that the runway is switched specifically to suit the direction from which landing IFR traffic is coming from, or which direction departing traffic is heading off on (and it's a bloody nuisance if we're busy on the sectors !!)

And you're quite right, unless it's 0300 hrs, you're never going to get a straight-in on 27 (although it used to be great for T.N.T at night who often got to route TNT-MCT-ILS27).

You mention going downwind for 09. Have any crews got a view on the new procedures which have been put to the airlines ?
All traffic, irrespective of direction, to do a right hand circuit when on 27, plus no more LPL as the clearance limit, replaced with Eaton on A25 and Banks, 6 nm west of WAL (Yes, even for traffic from the east).

Interesting times ahead...and this is what they call progress !! ;)

[kriskross]

160to4DME

If I commented on what I thought about the new procedures, Danny would take my password away. How did the computer trial with them go a couple of weeks ago? Or should I just ask my neightbour. There is going to be a lot of noise from LPL crews!!

[160to4DME]

The trial went surprisingly well. It was a good opportunity to try out one or two new things, including taking advantage of the fact Liverpool will have SSR by the autumn, but by the end, both the Liverpool and Hawarden guys went away happy.

From our point of view, the biggest concern was the airspace between the LPL and WHI/Nanti. There's simply too much aluminium there at the moment, made worse if EGCC is on the 06s. The days of turning onto base for 27 at WHI have long been numbered, so we tried to address the problem of where to send EGGP traffic without vectoring you round the sky.
The EGGP guys agreed that the simplest and most expeditious option was to take traffic over the top then downwind right hand. There's a gap between EGGP and MIRSI where there is currently little traffic. We worked out it added about 3 minutes to the flying time for traffic coming through WHI, so I don't think many will moan. Of course, the left base option will still be there if it's quiet.

The other problem was to create EGGP specific holds, as holding at the LPL is currently restricted to not above 3500ft.

Therefore, traffic from the south and SE will route to Eaton on A25 (from the SE, routing TNT direct to Eaton).

Traffic from the West,North and East will all route to BANKS, which is 6 miles west of WAL. Whilst extending the route for traffic from the east, it was the only place where traffic could be held without having an effect on Manchester traffic or Liverpool outbounds. There will also be the option of routing traffic from the east Denby-Mirsi-Eaton.

Whilst some might moan that traffic from the east will have to go past the field to get to Banks, remember, it's exactly the same for traffic inbound to Manchester which routes from the east and has to go to Rosun before turning back downwind for 24R.

Therefore, having simulated Liverpool with a projected future movement rate of 32 IFR an hour, Liverpool came away from the trials with proposals for 2 new holds, 2 RMAs and alot more airspace to play with.

When the procedures are introduced, there are bound to be those who complain that it's all a backward step. However, we've proven the system can cope for even the most optimistic of forecasts for Liverpool traffic, and as such, the trial should be considered a great success.

[This message has been edited by 160to4DME (edited 10 May 2001).]

[Fly Through]

Ok I'm an ex-EGGP ATCO who escaped to the sandpit a couple of years back.

160 to 4 DME

Hmmm favourite was allowing the majority of flights ie. from the west to land 09 and depart 27, weather and traffic permitting.How does that piss you off at Manch? Only trying to provide a service :P

Good to hear no one was badly hurt, though.

[160to4DME]

&lt;&lt; Hmmm favourite was allowing the majority of flights ie. from the west to land 09 and depart 27, weather and traffic permitting.How does that piss you off at Manch? &gt;&gt;

Hi FlyThrough

Nothing wrong with doing your best to expedite traffic; however, it can get infuriating when you're going hammer and tongue on the sector and EGGP are calling you for every aircraft with a runway change depending on which direction they're coming from or going to !

But as I said earlier, as things get busier, the flexibility of swapping runways for individual aircraft will no doubt become a less common perk.

[Night Freight 1]

It would appear to me that the runway in use is decided by the big orange 737's that fly in and out.

[Yak Hunt]

Guess that's put a 'spanair' in the works then!!
Joking aside glad nobody hurt

[kaikohe76]

I was very sorry to learn of the incident at L'pool with the Spanair a/c. I went on holiday with them last year on the dreaded midnight Tenerife from Manchester. We were given very understanding, professional and courteous treatment at all times throughout the flight.
As an aside though, surely if you don't like the wind component on the runway in use, you make your feelings known to atc don't you. If a subsequent change of runway upsets certain other carriers including those who have their head office at Luton, TOUGH!!! I also used this carrier as well once and that was enough, my opinion HORRIBLE and never again under any circumstances. The dregs in my opinion.

[behind_the_second_midland]

If its Britannia you're on about I can vouch for that. On a recent soccer charter they allowed two obviously drunk/drugged passengers on (calling the no1 Mrs) and shouting the captain is a w****r. One tried to get up for the loo as we lined up and ended up wetting himself. When I got up to complain (after the seatbelt signs were off obviously) I was told to move seats by a security guard on board. When I pointed out that this wouldn't help and they had already breached the ANO by carrying these two idiots I was told to be quiet and sit down...


BTSM

[Gorilla]

Firstly, thankfully no one was hurt.
Secondly it is clearly amateurish and unprofessional to aportion blame before the outcome of an inevitable investigation is known. So in the mean time......button it!
10kts tail wind limit? Is this solely for CAA/JAR Aircraft or does it also apply to FAA Aircraft. There is often a difference and the Spaniards used to operate American constructed aircraft under FAA rules. Perhaps things have changed since JAR but please be wary about aportioning blame too soon!
There was also the incident concerning a British Charter MD 83 a few years ago which had a gear collapse on taxi in at Manchester. Put down to metal fatigue I think.

Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up!

[Dagger-D]

Wonder whose sector it was?

According to the BBC news this was a complete surprise. If it was expected (ie Bae ATP !) the Captain would land the aircraft.

Having said that, the BBC reported that the Pilot "did a good job"....So I guess spanair operate these aircraft single crew!

Journos ! I ask ya.

[ADC]

Anyone remember a similar incident involving an Airtours MD80 some years ago in EGCC??

[Kipper Fleet]

Just to clarify a couple of points. The Orange Brigade were at the holding point for 09 when this aircraft slid to a stop having landed on 27.The surface wind was Easterly, direction and speed unknown as I was out of sight of the windsock, & the ATIS in the ops room is acessed via the telephone, & was not on at the time. The subject aircraft attracted our attention because of the louder than normal reverse thrust. It was still travelling fast as it passed out of sight to the west of the tower. The remark passed was,"He landed rather long. did'nt he"?. About three minutes later it became evident that he was not going to taxy off the runway. The terminal remained busy but calm & Glory Be, nobody blamed Easy at all! So leave us out of this one fellows.Remember if you have the pole, you have the vote, you can refuse a runway allocation. Mind you Malaga also think that the wind has less effect if it is blowing on the thin bit at the back

[SPIT]

IF THIS HAD HAPPENED AT MANCH IT WOULD HAVE MADE HEADLINE NEWS.
WHY IS THIS???
IS IT YET ANOTHER CASE OF THE MANCH LIVERPOOL DIVIDE????
STILL GLAD TO HEAR THERE WERE NO CASUALTIES

[15/15 flex]

Just checking that HRH Prince of Wales not at the controls at the time

;)

[Herb]

Well done Kipper. There are some real idiots on these forums. Funny how the man from the "flying telephone number" gives the most sensible post on the subject so far.
Half of you lot should be working out of Farnborough with your obvious knack for AI.
Funny how the green monster rears it's ugly head when Orange is mentioned

[Flap40]

The report into the airtours MD80 at EGCC can be found at http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/formal/gdevr/gdevr.htm

[160to4DME]

Herb

With respect, your profile says you're from DFW, so please let those who work around EGGP continue with their thoughts and debate.

I can't find anything yet on this thread which is idiotic.

The fact has been discussed that the runway in use at Liverpool is often a mystery, but the most common factor does seem to be what direction some operators aircraft are coming from or going to.

Had I said something like "Seems EZY control ATC and the runway in use at EGGP", then I would expect to be accused of being flippant, or even slanderous, but that was not the case.

All I suggested was the trend that Liverpool do chop and change the runway in use, and that perhaps there is a safety case to be answered there.
And I'm sure every EZY skipper will agree that coming from EGAA, most of them DO ask for 09 even when 27 is in use.
So, it was a reasoned suggestion, but it's your prerogative if you wish to take it personally and lower the debate to mud slinging and insults.

Having had a night to mull it over, I now wonder why a foreign carrier was given the non-duty runway for landing. He must have routed through either Whitegate or up A25, so it wouldn't really have made much difference to his track distance had he been brought round for 09.
In my experience, I have never had a Spanair crew ask for anything other than the duty runway.
So the question needs to be asked why he was vectored for 27 when the wind definitely favoured 09.

KipperFleet, adding to the mystery is the fact that you were waiting at the hold for departure off 09.
I have to hand it to EGGP ATCOs that they are normally red hot at getting traffic off the ground and not delaying them (by example, how many times inbound has the non-duty runway been denied you because they've had departure traffic coming off the duty runway?).

Just one other thing from your post Kipper, was the windsock out of view because of your location at the time, or is it also out of sight once lined up on 09 ? I recall this used to be a problem at EGCC on 06 until a 2nd sock was installed.

SPIT, you've just blown my argument out of the sky about reasoned and sensible posts.
This incident made it to the BBC1 afternoon news, SkyNews, BBC & local ITV news and also Channel 5. I don't think the location of an accident has any bearing on the press coverage. Oh, and ps., it's also bad netiquette TO SHOUT !! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

[SKYDRIFTER]

CURIOUS ONE -

If I'm reading the posts correctly, it appears that a tire burst, resulting in an overloaded landing gear, which then collapsed.

It rather sounds as though the actual tailwind component could have been legal.

It's early, relative to known details. This could be one of those 'pure' accidents with no one particularly at fault, except for driving to the airport on the wrong day.

[DownIn3Green]

Being based in Malaga for the past 8 months, I have had some experience with Spanair. I have always found them professional and customer oriented, much more so than Iberia.

Having said that, we were landing in Malaga last week, Rwy 14, with the wind advertised 300/8. Turning final the INS was showing 25-30 kt tailwind and a GS over 170kts.

The F/O was monitoring the winds and I was having an increasingly hard time maintaing speed and glide.

We discussed several times about the reason for using 14 instead of 32. At about 800' AGL the tower gave the wind as 300/14. That was enough for me. We executed a missed approach and the tower didn´t even question the reason. They immediately offered a visual to Rwy 32, which we accepted.

The B-727 also has a 10 kt tailwind component, but another thing to consider is the tire speed rating. Sometimes we have 225 MPH tires, and sometimes 170 MPH tires.

Over the fence on bug at 135 KTS with 10 or 12 KTS tailwind puts you pretty close to the limit of a 170 MPH tire. Wonder what kind of tires Spanair had?

I´m not familiar with the layout at LPL, but if a tailwind is a factor, it´s the PIC that has the final say.

[Temp Hi]

The MD80-tires I fly on (SK) has a max. groundspeed of 195 kts. As I understand the Spanairflight only carried approx. 50 pax and with a "normal" landingfuel of some 3-4 tons (at the most) the Vref should have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of 130 kts, so even landing with an above limit tailwind of 15 kts shouldn`t give a problem with regard to max. certified tirespeed.
Spanair might use some other kind of tires, though ??? Glad everybody got away o.k.

[shakinghead]

Firstly it should be said that thankfully no one was badly hurt in this incident.

Secondly well done to the crew and the emergency services.

Thirdly ATC decide the runway in use, NOT the airlines. Granting landings/take offs on the non duty runway surely cannot be unique to Liverpool and every effort is made to accommodate requests subject traffic and other operational reasons.

Why has Ezy been dragged into this thread when clearly it has nothing to do with them? Although they are the major passenger carrier, there are other passenger and freight carriers operating at Liverpool and, in my experience, all requests for expeditious arr/deps on the non duty runway are treated equally.

If the use of the non duty runway creates a safety case then this should be addressed to ATC management.

[Barnstormin Bert]

I watched this particular aircraft's approach and landing. I must admit that compared to other jet aircraft approach profiles, it was travelling very fast and it did land long.

This is just my personal observation and I am not to sure whether it was a contributary factor.

Glad everyone was OK, pilot did a good job of keeping her straight.

[speke2me]

The runway was closed for several hours while LPL waited for the accident investigators to come up from the south. This has also delayed reopening at MAN for hours in the past. Shouldn't there be a regional office or a regional investigator who can do the necessary and then get things back to normal much quicker? This is not an insensitive point-like others say lets be thankful there were no casualties.

[Dagger-D]

Bert ,

I'd heard that you've started watching aircraft instead of disembarking holiday totty!

Get back to work :)


Dags.

[MightyGem]

A question from Gorilla's post.

Surely an aircraft's performance limitations are a function of the aircraft's capabilities and not whether it is CAA/JAR or FAA registered?

[nice_beaver]

Rumour has it that the Spanair had requested 27 for a practice CAT II !

[Chirpy Pilot]

Above comment is correct. They where carrying out a CAT2 approach on 27 with a tailwind. Whether it was within limits is only speculation.

[The Growler]

Practice Cat II ( properly done )- would normally add ten knots to your speed, Vref plus ten until visual is the sop with my outfit. Visual at 100ft means over the threshold, . Max tailwind limit for a cat II approach is normally 5kts.

One other thing, if a tire bursts, the undercarriage shouldn't collapse - despite what may have been some poor airmanship if what we read here is true, the end result does not seem to have been caused by anything the crew did.

------------------
"How can we soar like eagles when we're surrounded by turkeys"

[Gorilla]

Not so MightyGem, though you would think so wouldn't you.
There are many differences between FAA & CAA figures. You frequently find that under FAA rules the max Mach number is a higher figure than under CAA rules, with wet runway performance the CAA assume that a reverser is inoperative whereas the FAA don't, tailwind limits often vary.......that is why I raised the matter.

[PA38]

Did'nt the Airtours MD83 at Manchester several years ago also have it's gear collapse under braking?
Just a thought...........

[Haggis]

Just to add my piece, I saw the Spannair come in from the WAL direction and then take up a downwind for 27 at LPL. It does seem a bit strange especially if he could have got a straight in on 09.

[Flap 5]

There are a number of people on this site who get quite offended when anyone proffers a possible reason for a reported accident (e.g. Big Red L and Gorilla). Be advised there are many others who contribute to this site who have a lot of experience and can provide valid possibilities for causes to an accident. We have heard that the crew elected to make an approach with a tailwind out of limits to a fairly short runway. Furthermore it was a practice cat II approach (even more restricted tailwind limits), the wind given by the tower is the surface wind (it would be stronger further up the approach) and the crew were not familiar with Liverpool. I think we can make a reasoned conclusion that the crew exercised fairly poor judgement.

Now hit me.

[mutt]

Gorilla, Mighty Gem,

Not only are there certification differences based on where the aircraft is registered, there are also differences based on different airlines desired SCN's. For example, under the FAA system an airline may have a 10 kt tailwind limit, or they may decided to PURCHASE the option to increase this to 15 kts.

This can also apply to takeoff thrust, 5 minutes is the norm, but for an additional fee you can get 10 minutes.

===========

I dont know if this applies to Spanair or the MD80, but before anyone decides to blame the pilot for busting limits, i think that you better have a look at his AFM.

Mutt.

[CaptainSandL]

I have to agree with Flap 5, one of the best uses of this site is the immediate discussion and dissemination of info about incidents. The professional pilots amongst us can hopefully filter out the wheat from the chaff and build up a picture of what possibly happened – subject of course to any official report many months down the line.

It is crazy for contributors to get wound up about the speculations of others on what we all know to be an anonymous bulletin board whose membership is not confined to pilots. You have to take the good with the bad and use your own judgement about what to believe here. If you don’t like it, log off.

As if to prove my point about good & bad, Liverpool (EGGP) is not short by any means at LDA 7300ft for RW09 & 7500ft for RW27.

S & L

[Flap 5]

Thanks CaptainSandL. You are probably right about the landing distance available at Liverpool. But having been in there a number of times in a 737 (as the captain I might add) it always seemed quite tight to make the turnoff!

[Critical Mach#]

A bit of info...some are near facts and this info does not come from any official source

1.- EC-FXI was performing a normal approach (see icliverpool.co.uk news May 11 2001)

2.- A/C was not "high and hot" over the threshold (inside source).

3.- A/C stopped within 2/3 of available runway (got the picture)

4.- A/C remained almost in center line (got the picture)

5.- Pictures show Right MLG collapsed and folded aft parallel to fuselage.

6.- Crew was VERY familiar with liverpool
(know that for a fact if you want to take my word for it)


Other facts that may be interesting to consider:

MD83 with 50 Pax and 8000lbs of fuel at landing:

Estimated LW 105Klbs
Vref about 120 Kts
Max T/W 10Kts (AFM)

LDistance @105KLbs 10Kts T/W: 3000feet
LDistance @105KLbs 0 Wind : 2700feet

LDistance @MLW 139.5KLBS 10Kts T/W: 3600feet
LDistance @MLW 139.5KLbs 0 Wind : 3200feet

LDA Liverpool: 7200 feet

Not very much to make a report with but maybe tailwind had nothing to do with the incident

Happy landings

[SPIT]

To 160T04DME
Re my message 11/5/01 about EGGP.SORRY to seem to be shouting but being NEW to the net I did not realise that printing in caps was shouting.
As I said Sorry and it wont happen again.
PS I still stand by what I said.

[BillTheCoach]

Critical Mach

I can confirm the position of the starboard under carriage as u describe as I was at the scene and saw it in situ before it was removed.

(For those wondering why I was there we brought in the Spanair guys from MAN and replacement wheels plus jacking equipment to the scene)

P.S. We were also on Airline tonite as well !

[squibbler]

As one who attempts to keep order in the skies above Liverpool; 2 things:

1) The inbound Spanair crew specifically requested a practice CAT II approach to 27, they knew about the windspeed/direction but elected to continue....... whoops.

2) The runway in use IS the runway in use. Any crew requesting the opposite end will only get it if it suits us AND Manch. There are NO PREFERENCES given to particular carriers ( you know who I mean!!) Just ask and ye may well receive.

PS Having taken part in the sims. at Manch for new Liv. Approach Procedures, at 35 IFR's an hour you can whistle for an opposite end approach/departure...................!!!!!

[160to4DME]

Squibbler

When Liverpool call the MACC sector with the message "It'll be 09 for the XXX", how is that taking into account whether it suits us ?!

To be honest, it makes very little difference to the operation of the sector if you do decide to slip one in on the non-duty runway.

HOWEVER, what makes us all look totally unprofessional is when the runway is chopped and changed.

I understand you're trying to be expeditious for the traffic (as we all are), but to take yesterday morning's EZY flight into EGGP from EGAA, his runway for landing was changed 5 (yes, FIVE) times in the time it took him to fly from the IOM to WAL.

Having been told it was 09, we'd got him down to 3,500ft before WAL, only to be then told there was a WAL dep coming off 27 and that he would be landing on 27 afterall.

I'm not mud-slinging here, but trying to be constructive.

To my mind (and I'm not trying to teach my grandmother to suck eggs), it seems better to delay the outbound for a couple of minutes seeing as the inbound had been descended and vectored towards 09, with about 15nm to run. Instead, the inbound found himself down at 3500ft with an extra 35 miles of track, low and slow.....and the pilot's tone of voice made it very clear what he thought about it ( It's not our fault guv, honest !)

Another question: how soon after start-up is EGGP approach told by the tower of an impending departure ? I wonder if this may have been a factor in the occurrence described above.

The sims were fun weren't they !! :)

Cheers

[Dagger-D]

Blimey Chaps..

I hope I never have, or get involved in an incident like this!

It's no wonder we see inaccurate stories in the press when the journos try and glean some insight into what happened from knowledgeable pilots :)

[cheer up]

160to4DME - sorry about the tone of voice - on the fifth approach briefing the voice was getting hoarse and the mind was trying to figure out the plot!

[squibbler]

160to4DME

Scenario: RW 09 in use at EGGP, wind 070/3 kts. ABC 123 calls for push & start for EGNS (WAL 2V) and requests 27 (WAL 2T). No inbounds due for 30 minutes, Tower calls Radar "09 for the ABC 123?" , Radar says "Fine with me", Tower approves 27 for the ABC 123 and clears for push & start. Tower rings MACC West with est. a/b time and the SID, highlighting that this departure will be off 27. MACC say ok and issue squawk.
In my experience they have never come back and said "that will cause problems he'll have to go off 09". Feel free to knock us back if it's gonna mess u about, we can take it, the ABC 123 will just have to lump it!!

Not guilty squire, I was on yesterday afternoon!!

You do have a point regarding the inbound EZY from EGAA, that just seems like poor deciscion making, maybe there was some training in progress...........( always a good excuse!).

Regarding inbounds in general, it's very rare for an ATCO to offer the opposite end, we like a simple life. The inbound will almost always ask for the other end on box 2 well in advance. The usual response is "We'll see, subject to traffic, let u know via Manch".

Ultimately it's down to the skill and judgement of the radar and tower persons on duty as to whether or not it's feasible. Sometimes, as you described, it all goes tits up and we all look stupid.

Personally, I only do opposite end approaches if I know that it will all work ok and nobody will be mucked about as a result, and those cases are few and far between. As far as I'm concerned the runway in use IS the runway in use and base my ATC craft around that.

Some ATCO's however are at times trying to be too flexible and you end up with the scenario you descibed above, but that's certainly not specific to EGGP ATC. Trust me, I have worked at other units...........!!!!

Answer to your question: The radar man has the tower frequency selected on low volume so he should be aware of an impending departure be it when he calls for start or taxi. It is not procedure at the moment for the tower to call radar with notification of an outbound starting, although perhaps it should be. Sometimes you are only aware of the outbound when tower call for a release. It's not ideal but were working towards fine tuning our procedures........hopefully to the point where cheer up can cheer up!! :)

Ta

------------------
No, you can't have 09!

[manky]

squibbler
160 meant yesterday 14th, not yesterday 15th. Just to be pedantic squire.

[squibbler]

160to4DME & Manky

Just a thought, if you are referring to the first inbound EZY of the day from EGAA then that would be the night shift doing the decision making re. the runway. Our nights finish at 7:00am & the EZY usuall pitches up just before then.

In defence of my colleagues that could be a factor.................!! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif


------------------
No, you can't have 09!

[Jet A1]

If the ATIS say RWY XX is in use then use that RWY......EZY are not the only ones guilty of rwy choosing at LPL the Ryans are quite good at it as well.

[Big Red ' L ']

Flap 5 I made the point after only the 3rd post regarding this incident. At that time, no-one knew what had really happened. I wasn't offended as you put it, just a bit pissed off that someone was making accusations about the crew without knowing the full story. How many times have we seen this happen. If you had an incident like this (god hope you don't), you wouldn't be too pleased to see that kind of post would you.? I know i wouldn't be happy.

[Hooligan Bill]

Airline news at www.justplanes.com (http://www.justplanes.com) is saying that "subsequent examination has revealed evidence of a fatigue crack in main landing gear strut". There is however, no source quoted for this information.

[dwlpl]

Time for some of you who think they are experts to eat humble pie with your "rush to judgement" comments from May this year regarding the Spanair MD83 incident at Liverpool.

The AAIB accident report has concluded that the above was due "a crack in a strut in the main landing gear, which on landing forced the wheels up into the wing and fuselage".

The AAIB has asked the FAA and Boeing to review the airworthiness of the MD83 because it is identical to an incident six years previous at Manchester (G-DEVR 27-04-1995).

It would be interesting to see the comments now from the people who you should have known better who posted on this forum at the time.

[Slickster]

Kriscross,
Maybe your outfit is different, but my performance manual allows me to land a 737 with 15 kts of tailwind at numerous airports in Europe, and indeed I have done (without crashing, I hasten to add!). :p

[dwlpl]

The silence from those critical postings ranging from poor pilot judgement, air traffic controllers to even easyJet pilots is DEAFENING.

All that fit the above should have taken a lead from Big Red L, Gorilla, Herb, Skydrifter, The Growler and Critical Mach and waited for the true cause of the incident to be arrived at and not pre-judged the situation.

[Gimpus Major]

Hello ?

Read the top, RUMOURS AND NEWS.

Speculation and discussion seem to fall into that category.

Put your anorak on and go spotting dwlpl.

[QNH1013]

dwlpl,
Your comments are true and fair. But there is the other side to the coin and since this IS a Rumours and News board it's also fair to give constructive comments and indeed offer any rumour or news to events such as this. It's human nature to talk. Of course it wouldn't be fair to ultimately judge any crew withought knowing the true facts. But everyone has the right to their say and comment. No one should be arrogant enough to say they are right conclusively. Constructive comments and criticism is fair on this board in my opinion.

I've found this thread particularly interesting even from the side topics of ATC flow control at LPL and the issue of Runway changes which does happen very similarly in this part of the world where I fly. Food for thought for me anyway. We know PPRUNE threads can degrade to insults and childish behaviour but I think this has been a pretty decent thread. Once again, to be fair and respectful, no one should condem and pre judge the crew to a conclusion withought the facts but anyone has a right to their opinion and offer discussion here. Even you. I'm sorry if you or others don't agree with my opinion or are offended with comments and discussion here but wouldn't this site be quite quiet withought it? With Every incedent, pilots will always rush to judgement or comment. I agree maybe it would be perfect if everyone waited for the facts to come out before posting as you suggest, but that just won't happen here. It'll take 5 min for an incident to happen then you'll see a post here on PPRUNE regarding it. However you'll see worse 'reporting' and conclusion from the media rather than here! But it's common and decent ettiquete to watch what we say and I agree it is NOT RIGHT to blame any fellow Pilot withought the facts! However speculation should be allowed within reason and the ultimate aim to learn from the facts wheather mistakes are human error or mechanical error.

On a side note, in this profession we can be real hypocrites. We can have the greatest respect and comradre for our fellow pilot in the air and on the ground and the next minute it'll take someone (usually from another airline) to do something, say something, try something and you'll be cursing, criticizing and swearing over it. I agree it isn't professional at all. But you're in denial if you say it doesn't happen the world over. But I'd like to believe that when it comes to the crunch, we'll always have the greatest respect for each other in this fantastic job we all do and share and will stand united.

Fortunately no one was badly hurt in this incedent. From eye witnesses thay say he was high, fast, landed long, having seemed to use up to maximum reverse thrust, that may have aggrivated and been the final blow to the crack fatigue in the landing gear strut?
But I'm not saying I'm right! I'll be the first to admit I wasn't there, haven't read all the facts, am not a crash investigator...
Just my thoughts :D

[dwlpl]

Gimpus Major,

May well be Rumours & News but its not "professional" (to quote others on the thread) to castigate people without full knowledge of what went on.

[Gorilla]

Thanks for your remarks..dwlpl..and I'm pleased for the crew that the report produced the findings that it did in the light of the previous MD 83 incident. Sadly this profession does appear to have more than its fair share of immature gossips who like nothing more than to revel in the misfortunes of others.
Some of us prefer to sit back and learn from THE FACTS, but the twain will never meet.