Aer Lingus incident in SNN

[near enuf is good enuf]

Reports coming in of an EI crash in SNN, no details as of yet.

[redorangedog]

Think the nosewheel collapsed on landing,no injuries .
Very turbulent in SNN this morning.:{:{

[propburner]

was it a airbus or atr

[Thunderbirdsix]

Just checking Shannon departures there have been no outward flights since ten, dont Aer Arann operate the flights for Aer Lingus it shows the only inward flight it could have been is from Manchester.

Live Departures (http://www.shannonairport.com/gns/flight-information/departures.aspx)

[propburner]

Then its a Aer Arann ATR so if its the MAN flight.......any further details. All ATR Regional use a four number code for there flights e.g EI1234 where the Airbus use a 3 no code EI123.

[readywhenreaching]

final landing was this one from MAN:

09:21A REA61MA AT72 EGCC EINN

[Just a spotter]

Radio news reports in Ireland, which do not cite a source, claiming aircraft made two attempts to land, then suffered a nose wheel failure on the second attempt.

Initial reports say all passengers and crew OK, but as the aircraft is stranded on the runway, SNN is closed.

[scr1]

Notam

q) eisn/qmrlc/iv/nbo/a/000/999/5242n00855w005
b) from: 11/07/17 11:00c) to: 11/07/17 15:00
e) rwy 06/24 closed due incident

[Mikehotel152]

Yep, landing gear failure on an ATR72 (Aer Arran?) after heavy landing. Funnily enough, I saw both approaches. A lot of wing movement at about 1000ft as it passed overhead, so I wasn't too surprised to hear the sad news.

EINN 171030Z 31021G32KT 9999 FEW012 BKN014 BKN018 14/11 Q1000 NOSIG

With these winds at SNN you get windshear on final and severe turbulence at 200ft, with a nice bit of turbulence on the TDZ for 24 due to the hangars on the NW side of RW06/24.

[Thunderbirdsix]

Accident: Arann AT72 at Shannon on Jul 17th 2011, nose gear collapse (http://www.avherald.com/h?article=43fd27cc&opt=0)

[propburner]

Aer Lingus Regional Flight Man-Snn
ATR 72 EI-SLM
On second approach went off runway and suffered nose gear failure crew and Pax ok

[readywhenreaching]

looks like the aircraft in question is EI-SLM, as both Avherald and jacdec are reporting it

[HON]

Can the forum mods please change the title to Aer Lingus REGIONAL incident in SNN as this would be far more accurate. Thankyou

[Thunderbirdsix]

Shannon airport shuts after plane incident - RT News (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0717/shannon.html)

[Just a spotter]

Following on from TB6's post, 13:00 (local) radio news reports saying all 21 pax and 4 crew safe and uninjured.

[FL370 Officeboy]

Can the forum mods please change the title to Aer Lingus REGIONAL incident in SNN as this would be far more accurate. Thankyou

As far as the passengers/public would be concerned, it will be painted as Aer Lingus operating an Aer Lingus service so would be Aer Lingus. Whether it's regional/wet leased or not, doesn't really matter.

[propburner]

Its Aer Lingus even if its a regional flight it has a EI flight code not a Aer Arann flight code RE.

[Jamie2k9]

Aer Arann ATR72 off runway, SNN - boards.ie (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056330224)

a picture

[fjencl]

BBC News - Shannon airport shuts as plane gets into difficulty (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-14177314)

[Jamie2k9]

Shannon Airport Closed? - Page 2 - boards.ie (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056330190&page=2)

closer picture. (end of page)

[Hotel Tango]

It's just a nosewheel collapse for goodness sake mave292. On a worldwide basis this happens more frequently than you might care to believe.

[PPRuNeUser0176]

From Boards.ie

Heard from my friend there again, flight dispatcher in Shannon;
" It collapsed on touchdown, dragged half way down the runway, turned to Alpha apparently using a brake and ended up on the grass"

[Thunderbirdsix]

Some good pictures halfway down this post

www.Frequencydb.com • View topic - Aer Arann incident at Shannon this a.m. (http://www.frequencydb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=14536)

[Thunderbirdsix]

Excellent picture of the incident here

Photos: ATR ATR-72-212 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Aer-Lingus-Regional/ATR-ATR-72-212/1953024/L/&sid=b29991d077db8e51111ce8ef57fff2e4)

[FRAMEX]

I wonder if Ops have been able to contact our dear Chief Pilot yet?? Rumour has it that he was uncontactable for 3 days at the time of the Bristol uncontained engine failure. Although to be fair to him it did happen on a friday evening of a Bank Holiday weekend.

Aer Lingus are going to want to distance themselves as much as possible from this incident. This could well be the final nail as mave292 suggested.

[propburner]

There just lucky no one was injured this is a worring trend for RE as they just can't keep there ageing aircract in service, from tech delays to engine failures, Pso gone, and now this, the damage and the cost of repair and with a Aer Lingus Regional Craft out of service,this can't help Aer Arann what excuses will be made this time.......:{Feel sorry for the crew as they are sound guys and Girls but working in poor condition with very poor management.

[Just a spotter]

I would have to disagree with the view that this incident would damage RE, or EI in any noticeable anyway (other than some disruption and associated costs of sourcing a replacement airframe).

On the face of it, the aircraft suffered a mechanical failure upon landing in unpleasant weather. No injuries and no pictures of a seriously damaged aircraft (to the average person who's interest in things aviation extends only as far as to whether their flight is on time, the aircraft looks like it could be back on the ramp in a day or two (and no, I'm not suggesting that it will be)).

If you want to compare this to other incidents, then may I suggest BA038 or FR4102 would be comparable (all be it that both had different circumstances to this). Both of the airlines who's aircraft were involved in those incidents are, AFAIK, doing reasonably well at present.

RE, like many carriers at present have their financial woes. I doubt this will have an effect either way, other than possibly raising the public awareness of the Aer Lingus Regional brand.

[propburner]

JAS you just dont know what your talking about as a previous employee I am glad I am away from the company and all they stand for you just don't know the half of it, and that aircraft won't be in service for a long while..
Come back when you know what your talking about......

[Just a spotter]

@PB

While I defer to your insider knowledge, I do have some small amount of insight into RE, having carried out academic research on the business within the last 18 months.

My main point was that the incident would not, as was seemingly being suggested by some posters, in and of itself, lead directly to the closure to the operation, or damage either the RE or EI brands. If, however, the subsequent investigation were to highlight operational or maintenance shortcomings within the organisation, then that would be a different situation.

[propburner]

@wut
A few months old maybe in Aer Lingus colours but the aircraft is between 15 and 20 years old (old@jas)
@jas maybe not closure but when the Iaa arrive out to have a look they take a different approach also the AAIU will be reporting on this not good for management and staff to have incidents on a regular basis.

[Oilhead]

Why should the title be changed to Aer Lingus Regional? Is this not an Aer Lingus incident? The passengers presumably bought tickets on Aer Lingus?

When Colgan stuffed a Dash 8 into a house in Clarence NY, Continental were at immediate pains to try and distance themselves from any connection to the accident. Unfortunately all the passengers were holding Continental Airlines tickets, and when they bought the tickets expected the same level of safety and professionalism from the operation as if it were CAL mainline. The one enduring image of that event was of a full CAL logo on the tail sticking up out of the wreckage.

I guess my point is I will be interested to see how Aer Lingus PR handles this - thankfully minor event though it is. It is certainly an Aer Lingus event to handle. By saying it was Aer Lingus Regional, is a different message trying to be sent? How interesting.

Here's to One Level of Safety (and accountability)

[Jamie2k9]

The aircraft in question is just over 17 years old, leased from ABR.

Aer Lingus are not going to drop Aer Arann just because of it either. Can we get real but as JAS said if the subsequent investigation were to highlight operational or maintenance shortcomings. Then it would be the end of Aer Arann.

[AOB9]

It wouldn't stop me from flying with them TBH.

[Jamie2k9]

Avation Herld have added pictures of it and they are close up on the damage caused.

[captplaystation]

Sell the Punters an Aer Lingus ticket, show the flight (codeshare or otherwise) as an Aer Lingus flight, you must live with the consequences/fallout.

If I was a punter, methinks I would read VERY carefully who was ACTUALLY flying me from A to B (or more likely Z) and take a train/rental car as appropriate on occasions, but, the punters don't. So. . . . . Caveat empo. . sumfin or another.

Harsh realities of aviation in 2011.

[speedbird_481_papa]

Link to the close-up pictures on Aviation Herald (http://avherald.com/h?article=43fd27cc&opt=0)

Also, the nose gear must have collapsed with some force, where has the nose cone gone!? :confused:

[propburner]

Nose Cone removed to aid towing due to nose gear failure,normally towed on nose gear.

[Just a spotter]

Has there been a definitive statement as to at what point the nose gear collapsed? What is upon touchdown, on roll out or as the aircraft turned onto the taxiway?

[speedbird_481_papa]

propburner Nose Cone removed to aid towing due to nose gear failure,normally towed on nose gear.

Ahhhh makes sense prop. Thanks :-)

[speedbird_481_papa]

Has there been a definitive statement as to at what point the nose gear collapsed? What is upon touchdown, on roll out or as the aircraft turned onto the taxiway?


Well I haven't heard anything official but looking at the pics that I put a link up to it had passed the holding point on taxiway ALPHA

Regards

[Boeing737sr]

As history has proven with AAE, the pilots will now be fired, the Captain for sure.
Hopefully they will get a better job with a better airline.
Why do people work for guys like this where you are walking on egg shells.:=

[WILCO.XMG]

Sorry for the ignorance but what is the AAE?

[wheelbarrow]

Well I hope they dont get fired. Why should they?
The last excursion I can remember was in Uk on the Shed and they werent fired.

Let the facts come out.
Hoping in favour for the 2 lassies.

[AOB9]

Off topic,apologies.

God yeah! remember the shed??? Photos: Short 330-200 Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/0680550/M/)

[OldChinaHand]

Both Props damaged as well as the already known Nosewheel damage.


An Aer Arann Avion de Transport Regional ATR-72-200 on behalf of Aer Lingus, registration EI-SLM performing flight EI-3601 from Manchester,EN (UK) to Shannon (Ireland) with 21 passengers and 4 crew, landed on Shannon's runway 24 in turbulent conditions at 10:21L (09:21Z) and slowed, however suffered a nose gear collapse while turning off the runway onto taxiway A. The airplane came to a stop on taxiway A within the runway protected area, the nose on the grass to the left of the taxiway. No injuries occurred. The passengers disembarked onto the taxiway via stairs. The aircraft received damage to the nose gear and both propellers.

The airplane had already gone around from approach to runway 24 about 15 minutes earlier. The tower reported possible turbulence at the touch down zone of runway 24.

The airport was closed until approximately 16:30L (15:30Z) until the aircraft was removed from the intersection of taxiway A and runway 24.

Some debris was collected from the runway, the runway received no damage.

Aer Arann said, the airplane suffered a nose gear collapse upon landing on its second approach and veered off the runway onto grass. The AAIU and Irish Aviation Authority have been informed.

The Irish Aviation Accident Investigation Unit AAIU reported that one of the nosewheels was recovered from the grass off the runway, the other nosewheel was found embedded into the fuselage. The blackboxes have been recovered, data from ATC and weather secured. The crew has already been interviewed.

Metars:
EINN 171000Z 30023G35KT 9999 FEW010 SCT013 BKN017 14/11 Q1000 NOSIG
EINN 170930Z 30023KT 9999 -DZ FEW010 SCT014 BKN018 14/11 Q1000 NOSIG
EINN 170900Z 31020G32KT 9999 FEW010 SCT014 BKN018 14/11 Q0999 NOSIG
EINN 170830Z 31023G33KT 9999 FEW010 SCT013 BKN017 14/12 Q0999 NOSIG
EINN 170800Z 30020KT 9999 FEW010 BKN013 BKN018 14/12 Q0999 NOSIG
EINN 170730Z 30021G33KT 9999 SCT012 BKN015 OVC018 14/11 Q0999 NOSIG
EINN 170700Z 30022G32KT 9999 FEW010 BKN015 OVC018 13/11 Q0999 NOSIG

[propburner]

If both props damaged this will mean 2 engine changes and gearbox's as well as all the blades,nosegear and doors,and any structural damage, this aircraft will be out of service for a long time, and the cost will be massive. For a airline that is cash poor this might be a very big dent in there finances......hard to source landing gears and engines for Atr, and this model has very different blades than a standard 72-200. Due to the larger rated engines on this model the blades are also different. This makes it even harder to source spares.

[Expressflight]

I bet you're great fun at a party propburner.....

[Thunderbirdsix]

Can someone explain how the props could be damaged on a nose wheel collapse while taxing, looking at the pictures they seem to be fine, the aircraft would have to go down very low at the front to damage them as there appears to be plenty of ground clearance.

[WILCO.XMG]

Well the aircraft looks very left wing down in some of the pictures. i suppose it would have leaned on a wing without the balance of a nose wheel. wing tips dont seem damaged though do they?

[OldChinaHand]

Two possibilities for Prop damage, 1. Damage from Debris, 2. Damage due to contact with the Rwy surface.

I wonder at what height was the first landing attempt rejected at ?

[propburner]

Update:
Prop Blade damage due Debris from landing gear (gear doors)...........not runway strike.....on second attempt to land RH nose wheel axal sheared causing failure of nose gear which folded rearwards and aircraft skidded on forward fuselage along the runway for a distance. This aircraft won't be going any where for a good while.

[near enuf is good enuf]

Full details of incident captured on CCTV.

Bravo to fire services, arrived 90 seconds after call! :D:D:D Job well done.

Flight crew, two ladies. Captain minor injury I believe.

[Robby966]

90 Seconnd response......job very well done :D

[LMOBOW]

@propburner, do you have anything good or useful to say?

You do realise I assume that the pilots involved could be reading this thread, and you are presuming both a cause and an outcome without knowing all the facts.

Also, did you ever hear of Insurance?

Glad you talk about having "used" to be in the company as I am glad you are not there now. Could do without people who spout their mouths off this way.

[FRAMEX]

@LMOBOW this is a rumour network.

Regarding propburner spouting their mouth off as you put it, he is only saying whats going on within the walls of AerArann. Something that you, A have no idea about or, B work in head office and dont want people to know whats really going on.

Regards.

[propburner]

@LMOBOW

Just stating the facts from the coal face if your not happy maybe you should keep your out of the thread, even if the pilots of the incident happen to read this I am putting no blame on anyone, yea your right I don't know ALL the facts but I am sure thats a job for the AAIU. But I know some of the detail of what happened.

[The real examiner]

I think we can all agree this is not something anyone wanted to see happen. Thankfully no one was injured and speculation will gain nothing more than to cause distress to those involved.
The investigation will no doubt look towards how the company is managed and how crews are treated.

[Idontpaymydebts]

Do AerLingus know the overall experience levels of the pilots flying on behalf of them in SNN. Levels overall are pretty low as it seems to be a base where new F/O's are sent. No offence to these guys/girls but it can be single pilot ops sometimes. Add to that the -212's, these planes have been nothing but trouble since they arrived and DO NOT behave like a -200/-500 when reducing to ground idle in the flare. These airplanes have a marked nose down tendencey when power is removed.

[Thunderbirdsix]

idontpaymydebts

You are right there about the nose down approach these two videos show that pretty clearily. Both are ATR aircraft operated by Aer Arann for Aer Lingus regional

‪EI-REO.. Extremely bad landing at Cardiff airport... ATR72. Aer lingus‬‏ - YouTube

‪ATR72 Crosswind Nosewheel Landing‬‏ - YouTube

[Idontpaymydebts]

Thunderbirdsix, thats actually a normal approach attitude for the ATR. What I was referring to was the final 10-ish feet down to the runway. SLL,SLM AND SLN all have the 4 bladed prop mated tot the engine of the -500 which have 6 bladed props. When you reduce to flight idle in the flare the tendencey in the -212 is for a rapid nose drop. Most guys and girls I know land with a little bit of power counter-act this. I must say that I dont like flying these aircraft as the noise levels are very high in the flight deck.

[propburner]

These 3 aircraft SLL,SLM,SLN have since arriving into Aer Arann being giving trouble and yes they are 4 bladed props rated to a high powered engine which the crews find hard to control on the flare. Maybe this factor and the conditions on the day what caused this anyhow nobody injured and all ok. As for the aircraft that will be another problem for the company.

[Robin400]

Watch the two videos and note the elevator positions in the latter part of the approach and just prior to nose wheel touchdown. No attempt has been made to hold the aircraft in the correct landing attitude.

[LMOBOW]

@Robin400, are you familiar with flying the ATR?

Regards,

[Ranger 1]

I always find the landings of ATR's entertaining under any weather condition ;)

[Robin400]

Whether a C152 of Airbus 380, crossing the threshold at the correct speed is the first requirement of a good landing.
With a hint of a good crosswind, the addition of excess speed over the threshold is where it all goes wrong.

[Faire d'income]

Whether a C152 of Airbus 380, crossing the threshold at the correct speed is the first requirement of a good landing. With a hint of a good crosswind, the addition of excess speed over the threshold is where it all goes wrong.

Really? Wow.

I wish I flew in theory all the time. I'd say the Ts&Cs are better in theory too. What's the pension like there?

[Robin400]

16,000 hours in the north of the U.K is a little more than theory.
There is a right way and a wrong way. Rest assured I know the right way.
Get it wrong and the nose wheel goes....:ugh: :\

[corsair]

Propburner said4 bladed props rated to a high powered engine which the crews find hard to control on the flare. Robin, with due deference to your experience the ATR isn't a C152. If this incident and the videos prove anything it's that certain ATRs have issues with the flare. You should chat to ATR pilots first. I know a few now and they all have interesting tales.

[Escape Path]

Well, if the nose gear gets the sort of treatment shown in those videos occasionally, it has got to fail at some point unless that gear is rather strong.

And considering that the weather that day was somewhat similar to that shown on the videos (regarding wind at least) maybe it was a bit too much stress for the nose gear to handle.

[no-hoper]

"Well, if the nose gear gets the sort of treatment shown in those videos occasionally, it has got to fail at some point unless that gear is rather strong."Yes i agree,and this is not
an ATR/AerArann issue only.
On the 72 a hard landing reported by the crew is a straight forward job:
Check of hard landing indicators on each MLG,read the FDAU datas and follow the
job card.But for the nose landing gear is no device on board to verify/detect a hard landing.
"4 bladed props rated to a high powered engine which the crews find hard to control on the flare."Sorry,never heard about this.And:The 2 videos showing 72-500,means
6 blade propeller...

[LMOBOW]

as regards over the threshold at Vapp... that's all very good in theory, but in this sort of situation, Vapp over threshold with windshear about could cause such a landing as in question! (even with windshear speeds applied)

[Lurking_SLF]

Air Accident Investigation Unit ATR 72-212, EI-SLM (http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=13326&lang=ENG&loc=1652)

Still reading it myself.

[Aerlingus231]

Interesting how the tower appeared to predict that there might be an accident on the second approach. Is it known if the tower passes this information onto the crew advising them that they believed that the initial approach and landing was hard enough for them to believe the integrity of the airframe was compromised?

[Telstar]

Shades of a similar accident in SNN about 12 years ago. Strong gusty winds, large nose down input, alarming negative pitch attitude, nose wheel moving rearward. The same mistakes destined to be repeated over and over again?

Air Accident Investigation UnitFull List of Reports (http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?id=3963&lang=ENG&loc=1280)

[accelalt]

Guys, are you kidding me.

I'm sorry but nobody seems to see the elephant in the room here. The prevailing conditions could and should have been handled by a PPL holder with 20 hours.

There were fare paying pax in the back and this outfit chose to crew a new captain and a brand new FO at the pointy end. Utter contempt for safety.

And how the devil has the captain, who was pilot flying, being allowed to continue to fly in the absence of a prelimerary report. No airline (unless third world) would allow a pilot to continue to fly after such a serious incidient until at least the facts were established.

I hear to my horror that this pilot has been flying pax as a captain in the left seat for the past few weeks. Is AerLingus regional serious!! Gobsmacked. Do the pax know that they are potentially not insured. Does Aer Lingus Regional care. Are AerLingus Regional insured to do this. What if this pilot has another incidient before the preliminary report is published.

What a bunch of cowboys. Where are the IAA. Why do we have regulation if this is there input

Gobsmaked - truely gobsmaked

[Mikehotel152]

The prevailing conditions could and should have been handled by a PPL holder with 20 hours.


With respect, that's absolute nonsense. Those were tricky conditions for even an experienced pilot. So either you are being disingenuous or you're a test pilot and have no empathy for those of less talent or you have no idea what SNN can be like in strong westerlies. The hangars on the NW of the runway are a pain in the bum!

I'm not suggesting this isn't a serious incident, nor am I excusing the crew, but I know what conditions were like on that day. I flew into SNN that day and have landed Boeings at SNN dozens of times in those conditions. It's never easy because of the peculiar winds on short final and around the TDZ. I've seen 20,000 hour Captains relieved to be on the ground safely in those conditions.

Having said all that, I have little faith in the IAA's ability to regulate the Irish Aviation Industry properly.

[A pumps]

I tend to agree with most of what " accelalt" has said but lets be direct here, a PPl would not of succeeding in landing an aircraft here.

Regardless of the hangars position which we know would cause low level shear, the wind speeds were within the limits of the aircraft.

Secondly, a as a professional crew they {PF} should not of been trying to land beyond the touch down point. If they were uncomfortable with the conditions / or unable to handle those conditions prevailing, after the first approach a diversion should of being considered.

Thirdly, from "accelalt" post when he referred to the crew still operating within the airline I do question the managements’ decision within Aer Arran to allow this without even the prelim report being published.

Closing comments, I think the name of this topic is misleading when referring to "Aer lingus" incident and should be edited for clarification. Yes there were operating in EI colours but the airline and crew was indeed Aer Arran.

P.S, I find it strange that gust limits are not taking into account when conditions are near the limits.

Lastly the IAA need to me more pro-active within there safety division. If they have one ? !!

[accelalt]

Mikehotel152

No, I am not a test pilot. I am a regular pax out of DUB.

The conditions at Shannon were well within the limits of an ATR and I certainly landed in similar conditions many times at weston. The X wind limit for an ATR 72 on a dry runway is demonstrated at 35 knots. The crew are supposed to apply 1/3 of the headwind to a max of 15 to the no wind Vapp speed, OR 1.1 Vmca, which ever is greater for the Vapp 50 feet over the treshold. (cockpit.com Fcom)

In gusty wind conditions, the mean of the gust or all of the gust, which ever is higher, to a max of 15 knots.

You are either within the demonstrated limits of the a/c or you are not.

If not within limits - simple, you go around. You dont wait till you are crashing nose wheel first into the runway till you decide.

If windsheer is encountered, SOP's say power to the ramp, pitch up 10 degrees and do not raise landing gear till a postive climb of more than 5 seconds is achieved. (ATR typerated friend)

None of the above was implemented by this crew.

There are two limits on every a/c
1 - the ones the manufacturer set
2 - the pilots own personal limits.

The a/c should be flown to the lesser of the two.

I have flown twice last week to the UK and this Captain potentially could have flown me. It is an utter discrace, and a derliction of responsibility on behalf of the regulator, that this was allowed to happen. I have many friends in the airline industry, and they are all gobsmaked that a pilot involved in such a serious incidient was allowed to continue to operate, as the Captain, while an investigation was ongoing. What kind of a training department has this organisation got. This is not horse racing - take a fall and get back up as quick as you can!!. I am absolutely livid and will not travel with them again. I am personally writing to Air Lingus asking for an explanation.

BTW - I purchase my ticket from Aer Lingus, not Aer Arann. The cabin crew are dressed in an Aer Lingus uniform, not Aer Arann and the announcement when I get on board is on behalf of Aer Lingus. -- Aer Lingus mate.

[A pumps]

No accelalt, Your Wrong.

Its Aer Arann, Not an aer lingus incident.

Yes the airline was in aer lingus colours, the crew may have been in aer lingus uniform but indeed they are employed by aer arann.

The findings of this incident will require the airline " AER ARANN" to take corrective action to there operation . Not Aer lingus.

N.B . its AER lingus , not AIR lingus. mate!

[accelalt]

a Pumps

I mentioned Aer Lingus 5 times and got it wrong once.

When I travel, I buy my ticket from Aer Lingus. I am not made aware of any involvment by Aer Arann until I see their crocky little pieces of crap that have been granted an AOC by the IAA. If it were not for the fact that I must travel for work, I wouldnt get on board and until I recieve an explanation from AER Lingus re my post above, I will not travel with them on the route again.

Good luck

[Aerlingus231]

It says the flight will be operated by REA when you buy the ticket, if you didn't read the text on your ticket then the onus is totally on you and not EIN.

[Mikehotel152]

accelalt:

I understand your point of view as a regular passenger. I too question the sense in allowing a Captain to continue operating when their solution to a long float in an ATR in turbulent conditions was allegedly to push the nose forward.

But the issue is not the ATR's crosswind limit because the steady crosswind component of the wind was well within limits. Even if you add a gust factor, it's still within the limits. It's also nothing to do with go-around technique in windshear because we're talking instead about unpredictable turbulence on the TDZ. In any event, after the first baulked landing the crew did perform a go-around correctly.

[accelalt]

Guys

Did the go around correctly - are you kidding me - they left one of the nose wheels on the ground it was hit with such force that it was found on the grass beside the runway!!

Is this forum only watched by people who cant fly???? Please someone that knows the industry comment.

[A pumps]

Yes, i will comment. I know the industry accelalt.

Regardless of a nose wheel been left on the R/W from the first approach, that does not mean the go around was preformed incorrectly.

A go around generally is not hampered with the loss of a nose wheel unless the gear will not retract which then would degrade the climb performance.


Also on another level i am quite surprised that an evacuation was not performed by the Flight Crew. I know in most airlines the Cabin Crew have the authority to evacuate under certain conditions I.E. Smoke, or aircraft “lopsided"

[accelalt]

Guys,

I have asked permission from a friend of mine who works in Aer Arann to say the following, and he is so concerned about safety that he has agreed.

I am a regular pax on the regional service and use it to a specific destination on average, twice a week. I am well known to the crew on that route.

This particular flight into Shannon was not handled properaly. The crew should have gone around much earlier and if not happy with the second attempt, diverted.

I apologise for my flippant remark re 20 hour PPL earlier but I was aware of certain facts that clouded my judgment and I was angry because I fly with them regularly. I hold a PPL and keep it current and I couldnt believe that an accidient - not incident, such as this could have been swept under the carpet in such a fashion by the regulator.

The head of training in Aer Arann is over seventy and is still there because he enjoys such a very good and cosy relationship with the IAA. The pilot involved in the accident is a particular favorite of his, hence the incrediblely lenient treatment offered by the airline. Still flying after such an accidend - beggars belief.

I am a fare paying pax, and my tax dollars are spent proping up this redicilous outfit. Aer Arann recieved in excess of 100 million euro in state subsidy since its foundation and as for the IAA (institute against aviation), utter spineless morons. Well you know what, I have had enough. I have penned three letters to the IAA, AER (just for you A pumps) Lingus and Aer Arann asking why my safety was compromised by allowing this crew to continue to operate while a serious accidient investigating was on going.

A go around is a maneuver designed to be implemented well in advance of a suitation getting out of hand. By defination it is planned. Also there is no, I repeat, no documented case of windshear below 50 feet on the hundred of millions of approches made by a/c on a daily basis across the globe - none. It occurs much earlier on the approch, hence the planned go around or evasive maneuver.

Finaly, if anyone is in any doubt as to the seriousness of this accident, NONE of the cabin crew have flown since. One was so traumatised by the experience, he needed to be off loaded from a flight days later and transported bact to Dublin via the ferry.

Does EICK and Manx ring any bells

[corsair]

Excuse me? Where are the usually alert moderators allowing the rubbish above to remain posted? accelt, permission or not you have no business bad mouthing the pilots involved in this incident. You already pre-empted the incident report and have cast judgement on the Captain involved. Having a PPL gives you no special right or insight into what happened that day. You are no expert.

[accelalt]

Corsair

How dare you question my right to comment on this accident which is in the public domain involving an airline that I use regularly. Just because you dont like what you hear being said about your friends, dosent give you the right to censor the facts.

I travel regularly with an airline that is not operating to best industry practices. I am told that had such an event occured in Aer Lingus, then, while getting the best possible support from the company, the crew would not operate till an official report was completed. I have every bloody right to comment.

The prelimary report IS published and I suggest you read it. I aslo suggest you read the thread before ranting in such an unprofessional manner.

If you condone the fact that this crew was operating while an air accident investion was ongoin then I would ask you who you fly for so I can avoid your cowboy outfit aswell.

[The_Steed]

accelalt

I think you need to chill out a wee bit! You are casting a lot of aspersions around - and indeed making some very serious allegations which could land you in hot water...

Besides, you are wrong about the go-around. I've read the interim report and my understanding is that they attempted to land, went around and then when they landed the damage occurred to the landing gear. There was nothing wrong with the gear during the go-around.

[corsair]

This site and this forum as has been repeatedly pointed out is a forum for professional pilots. Most notably airline pilots. However all are generally welcome to add comments, relevant comments.

You have no right to condemm the pilots or cast aspersions on their professionalism or indeed on that of head of training of the airline concerned. You are way out of order.

The mods will deal with you in due course.

[accelalt]

Steed

Your 'understanding' is simply wrong. Also, to rob a famous line, your brain is writing cheques that your body cant cash. How arrogant are you to believe that you can threthen me with that rubbish you have written above.

Reread the report - maybe the AAIU can add some pictures that will make it easier for you. Its pretty clear - nose wheel lost during first attempt to land.

The feeling in the cockpit should have alerted them to the possibility of damage - this was a violent impact.

Also, what are the serious alegations?? - crew operating while under an active air accident investigation - well arresst me and throw away the key.

Regulation my #####

[The Flying Cokeman]

Fact is you do not try to land an ATR or any other aircrafts by pushing the nose down to -8 degrees in order to "get it on the ground".

[dochealth]

Can we cool down a bit and think laterally for a mo...

For anyone who reckons RE doesn't have a problem have a read of 'Aer Arann' thread in A,A and R forum and 'Aer Arann exodus has started thread' in T and E forum on this website.

If it is standard industry practice to "stand down" a captain after an incident like the SNN one, then we are entitled to ask EI, RE and the IAA why this hasn't happened...

[Cyrano]

Reread the report - maybe the AAIU can add some pictures that will make it easier for you. Its pretty clear - nose wheel lost during first attempt to land.



Forgive me, but I've reread the report and missed the reference to losing the nose wheel during the first attempt to land. The main paragraph dealing with the first landing attempt before the go-around says:
An airport security camera recording (CCTV3) confirmed a touch-down with a significant nose-down attitude. The FDR recorded a G-spike (normal acceleration) of 1.7 G. The aircraft immediately bounced back into the air. The PF applied power and initiated a go-around. During the go-around the undercarriage was retracted and normal cockpit indications were observed by the flight crew. No warning tones sounded during this landing and go-around.

I'm not commenting on the rights or wrongs of not subsequently standing down the crew, but you assert specifically that the AAIU report makes it pretty clear the nosewheel was lost during the first landing attempt. Could you quote the relevant bit of the report, please?

[corsair]

For anyone who reckons RE doesn't have a problem have a read of 'Aer Arann' thread in A,A and R forum and 'Aer Arann exodus has started thread' in T and E forum on this website.That has no bearing on the incident. It certainly doesn't justify the rantings of accelt. He has no business pre-judging the final incident report and casting aspersions on the crew concerned. This report is only preliminary.

The only person here who needs to cool down is accelt.

[misd-agin]

-8 degrees pitch at touchdown? Twice? Any time during the landing?
That's scary.

Good luck trying to defend that.

[accelalt]

Corsair.

Please tell me what you dont get here. Please - rantings. I am telling you the facts as described by the AAIU. If you dont wat to believe them then thats your problem.

I say again, I use this airline every other day and I demand a level of professionalism both from the airline and more importantly, from the regulator. Neither is obvious from either in this case.

I am not trying to be provocitive. I have so much admiration for the men and wemon who fly us from A to B but I need to know that when they screw up, big brother is not only watching but is also prepared to make the right decision. Please people tell me that allowing a crew to operate while under investigation is not normal. (and never should be normal)

[Mikehotel152]

Did the go around correctly - are you kidding me - they left one of the nose wheels on the ground

and

The crew should have gone around much earlier


Oh dear. Here we go again. The ATIS and ATC reported moderate turbulence and windshear on final approach and TDZ, yet the overall conditions were within the aircraft's limits. If we all performed a go-around when faced with these conditions there'd be diversions all over the place!

A go-around is never 'planned'. It's the trained reaction to an event - be it an aircraft lining up when you're a mile out or a gust of wind that renders the landing unsafe when you're a foot off the deck. There was no reason to perform a go-around before they did so and the procedure appears to have been followed 'correctly'.

As misd-gin says, you can't really defend the decision to push the nose forward in these circumstance. 8 degrees nose down is an awful lot, so I imagine there's more to this than has been reported thus far.

If one is guessing, it is quite possible that they were experiencing a gust which caused the float, the PF applied forward pressure on the yoke to counteract the aircraft's natural tendency to climb with the added lift, but unfortunately this action coincided with the gust abating, leading to an exaggerated nose down attitude and a nosewheel strike. :rolleyes:

But it's all guesswork until the full report comes out.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Mikehotel152,

A go-around is never 'planned'.

Really. So you never brief the go around procedure or SOPs before commencing a go around?

There was no reason to perform a go-around before they did so and the procedure appears to have been followed 'correctly'.

Really?

How about:
1. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data2 indicates that the aircraft experienced an extended landing flare.

2. The PF subsequently stated that difficulty was experienced in getting the aircraft to settle on the runway during this time.

3. The PF became increasingly concerned about the remaining length of runway available.

Yes? No? You consider it 'correct' to shunt the nosewheel into the tarmac at 1.7g and bounce off said nosewheel before you would consider a go around?

Who do you fly for?

Accelalt,

It is standard procedure to immediately ground flight crew involved in an accident if that accident is serious enough to inform the Chief Inspector of Accidents.

I would humbly suggest that this accident would satisfy that criteria.

[NigelOnDraft]

2 points...

When did the NW come off? Well, since:The axle of the right nose wheel had failed, resulting in the departure of this wheel. The wheel was subsequently located in the grass to the left of RWY 24 Touch-down Zone. and self-positioned for an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach to Runway (RWY) 24.

Landing 1: elected to aim for a touch-down at the end of the RWY 24 Touch-down Zone. & the aircraft experienced an extended landing flare. Engine torque was increased during the initial flare and then progressively reduced in stages. The PF subsequently stated that difficulty was experienced in getting the aircraft to settle on the runway during this time. The PF became increasingly concerned about the remaining length of runway available and decided to positively land the aircraft by applying a forward input on the control columnSo, if the NW broke off on the 1st landing, depite aiming to land at the end of the LZ, floating well beyond that, before eventually touching down, the NW was found abeam the "LZ", can 'accelalt' explain how a NW detaching at 100K? goes backwards a few thousand feet?

Bearing in mind Landing 2: The final touch-down occurred at a pitch angle of 8° nose down and a G-spike of 2.3G. At this point the Blue hydraulic system lost pressure. and This showed the aircraft with the nose wheel collapsed [NB 1st landing was much less 'g'] I would say it is fairly likely the Nose Leg collapse, Hyd Fail and NW detaching were fairly simulataneous.

So accelalt, can you let us know how you deduce Its pretty clear - nose wheel lost during first attempt to land??

Regarding I am told that had such an event occured in Aer Lingus, then, while getting the best possible support from the company, the crew would not operate till an official report was completed. I have every bloody right to comment.in my airline, yes, crew will be suspended post an incident. Various reasons, most of which are pretty obvious. However, reinstatement I would not think, even in Aer Lingus, require 'an official report was completed'. A parallel internal investigation will occur within the company, and they and the formal investigating team will work together. Reinstatement, if appropriate (and possible re-training), would normally occur fairly quickly, and that process will not be made public.

Think BA38 - do you really think the crew were suspended until the final report came out?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

NoD, I think he might be interpreting the "single event failure" wording as fell off at the first impact and not as a result of two impacts.

I can see how it may seem to imply that the failure occured on the first touchdown however, I'm not convinced that it was the intention of the report to suggest it.

IIRC it is only the flight safety manager or fleet manager that may overrule a grounding following an accident, pending the outcome of an investigation. I assume that the FSM/FM, was in this case happy to allow the crew to return to flying.

Can't really see why though!

[NigelOnDraft]

As in ...that it failed in single event overload mode? Ah well, no way I would interpret that as which landing it was - just one event. If the 1st landing was 1.7g and broke 1 NW off, the 2nd one did well to stand up to 2.3g by itself :D

IIRC it is only the flight safety manager or fleet manager that may overrule a grounding following an accident, pending the outcome of an investigation. I assume that the FSM/FM, was in this case happy to allow the crew to return to flying.Well, it would be the airline / fleet maager which grounded them. Don't know of any law / rule / practice where either the CAA / IAA or AAIU / AAIB would action the grounding?

Can't really see why though!Having reviewed the incident, and retrained as necessary, you might as well either reinstate or sack. No point leaving everybody sitting around waiting for...?

[Lord Spandex Masher]

no way I would interpret that as which landing it was

Nor I. Just suggesting a possible reason for confusion as it could be interpreted either way.

Well, it would be the airline / fleet maager which grounded them. Don't know of any law / rule / practice where either the CAA / IAA or AAIU / AAIB would action the grounding?

Nope, neither do I. What I meant to imply was just that. No point waiting for the official report as the CAA/AAIB can't undo the grounding.

you might as well either reinstate or sack

On the basis of the information available I know what I'd do.

[overun]

Nigel on Draft.
The second arrival was rather different in that the nose leg travelled backwards, possibly aided by the first arrival but who knows ?
The real cruncher, as if one is needed, is the speeds involved.
Not released.

[ATCO97]

Just a little reality check guys..While I do agree that this is a Rumour Network the first "P" in pprune stands for "PROFESSIONAL" an alot of the above comments are by no means that!
This was a serious incident but was handled very well and professional by all crew involved and it is up to the AAIU to proportion blame if any is required with there final report! In the meantime it is not helpfull for faceless people hiding behind usernames to proportion blame and speculate on the events.
To "accelalt" who seams to know so much about what goes on within Aer Arann your informant was incorrect, some of the Cabin Crew have flown since the incident and any subsequent events is totally there own buisness and no one else's.
I do not work for Aer Arann.

[overun]

Sir, may l suggest the reality check needed is for you ?
Accelalt spoke openly and plainly as a ppl passenger. l find it very difficult to criticise him.
lf you were to check you would find that aircraft forced to land tend to come to grief, you may take that as a golden rule. LSM is plainly an experienced pilot and as such really should be listened to.
For my part l have flown the type as commander in the Shetland lsles, the Channel lsles, and for two and a half years out of Galway.
Just have a think and calm down. Thankyou.

[NigelOnDraft]

ATCO97

and it is up to the AAIU to proportion blame if any is requiredWell, maybe, but errr:
IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND THE ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATION REPORT TO APPORTION BLAME OR LIABILITY.from AAIU website (http://www.aaiu.ie/aviation/aaiu/background.asp?lang=ENG&loc=1292) :=

[NigelOnDraft]

The second arrival was rather different in that the nose leg travelled backwards, possibly aided by the first arrival but who knows ?Well, I'll ask you then (since 'accelalt' has gone rather quiet), it if was the 1st arrival, how did the broken NW go backwards (relativce to the aircraft).

The real cruncher, as if one is needed, is the speeds involved? Not with you there. 1.7g is 1.7g whatever speed you're at. And 2.3g is quite a lot more :ooh: The NW is not braked, so cannot see speed as a factor...

[overun]

Do you have a professional pilot`s licence ?

[NigelOnDraft]

If you mean me, yes ;) If it's reference speed / 'g' / gear strength - gear are often tested via a "drop test" at zero "speed".

I am willing to be educated as to "why" speed is such an important factor in determining the relative impact loads on the NW - over and above the 'g' load (albeit allowing some latitude for FDR g sample rates).

NoD

[Mikehotel152]

@Lord Spandex Masher

So you never brief the go around procedure or SOPs before commencing a go around?

:ugh: Of course I do, on every single approach. If you re-read my posts in the context of accelalt's lay comments you might understand where I was coming from.

...You consider it 'correct' to shunt the nosewheel into the tarmac at 1.7g and bounce off said nosewheel before you would consider a go around?


:ugh: With respect, have you read any of my posts? I categorically stated that pushing the nose forward was wrong.

However, the ATR was floating on a 3000m runway. Surely it was possible to salvage the landing without pushing forward so dramatically: there was plenty of runway available and I routinely see those ATRs landing long at SNN.

Obviously, in a larger aircraft, I would have performed a go-around once significantly passed the TDZ.

I do wish people would read posts carefully and in context before flying off the handle! :oh:

[The Flying Cokeman]

The capt. has power on during the landing at different settings and yet tries to lower the nose to -8 deg in order force the plane on the ground. Sounds to me like poor training!?
Quite a few ATR pilots use "power on" during landing and it is not the correct procedure. I have seen many exercise this in Aer Arann. Like any other plane the ATR needs to be in power idle and ATR standard is you "cut" the power at 20 ft and start flaring it.

[Daysleeper]

Like any other plane the ATR needs to be in power idle....cut the power at 20ft hmm try that in a Dash 8Q4 at a flap setting less than full and you'll wipe the tail off.

Which raises an interesting point. What is the normal landing flap setting for the Arran ATR and how does the handling differ between flap settings?

[Mercenary Pilot]

Looking at the earlier posted videos there seems to be an issue with landing technique where by aircraft are touching down flat or even on the nose gear, also reading other comments here (if true) it appears that the aircraft are being allowed to land long because of available runway length.

This company has been mentioned fairly regularly on this website due to financial problems and operational concerns. As with any accident, there will be a chain of events that has lead up to this and I feel the the root causes will point to a lack training resources, inability to retain their most experienced TRI's, LTC's & senior Captains and also a lack of oversight by the Irish aviation authorities.

There appears to be a trend that hasnt been picked up or stepped on earlier. A programme such as a Flight Data Monitoring scheme should have indicated this, its far too easy just to say pilot error and move along.

[westhawk]

Many if not most of you here already know and understand the following. I'm only explaining it in simple terms for the benefit of the few who apparently don't.

Contacting the runway nosewheels first applies a rearward force component to the NLG in addition to the upward component. This not how the airplane was designed to be landed and the NLG is not designed to withstand impact forces with the kind of rearward force induced by impacting the runway nose first. Apply enough rearward force and the NLG will fail. (at any speed)

Speed is quite often a key factor in nose first landings however. At too high an airspeed the nose is too low to allow landing on the mains first. Anyone who habitually watches landings has seen it happen. Where a C-172 might be relatively tolerant of such handling, large aircraft used in commercial passenger service are typically not.

Where large jet transports typically cross the runway end 3 degrees or more nose up, many large turboprops normally approach the runway nose low, requiring that the nose be raised to an attitude which allows the mains to touch first. This is only possible if sufficient speed reduction is made during the flair to allow the nose to be clear of the ground when the mains touch. Approaching at excessive speed or carrying too much power during the flair does not allow this necessary speed reduction to occur in a timely manner. Pilots floating further down the runway than desirable are often observed "pushing" the airplane nose down to get it on the ground. In most jet types, this just results in a firm landing on the mains with no harm. In many propeller airplanes it means hitting flat or even nose first.

In gusty conditions, airspeed control is complicated by airspeed fluctuations caused by the wind gusts. The best that can be done in these conditions is to fly an "average" airspeed somewhere near the target value. In consideration of this, wind and gust "additives" are employed as a protection against getting critically slow. Depending upon the airplane type and the operator policy, it may mean adding up to 15 knots to the approach speed. But this speed must still be bled off prior to allowing the airplane to touch down. Failing to bleed off this additional energy will result in floating and possibly a nose first touchdown if the pilot forces the airplane onto the runway as described above.

In the four times I've stopped at Shannon, the wind conditions were as described on the day of this accident. The other time it was only rainy and foggy! I can attest to the fact that you get some good "rollers" off those hangars. Still much less demanding to land our little jet than it appears to be for the regional turboprops I saw there. This crew had a bad day and banged up the airplane in the process. Good that it wasn't worse. Maybe with some re-training and checking, the airline has determined that the flightcrew members in question learned from the experience and currently meet the standards set forth for assignment to flying duties. Maybe waiting for a final report is not necessary. (notwithstanding the objections of at least ONE customer)

Best regards,

westhawk

[LMOBOW]

@accelait and all all the others who are incriminating Aer Arann and its standards for allowing the captain in question to continue flying -

Apparently since the incident, the captain has been on supervised line training flights - and still is, even though the preliminary report has been published.

This does not seem irresponsible to me, that is hardly permitting them to endanger fare paying passengers, or indeed anyone, from how I see it.

Also, on a different note, if you chopped the power on a 212 with the 4 bladed prop at 20 feet you would be heading straight for disaster. They fall out of the air like a stone when you do that, and unlike their 6 bladed counterparts, in such conditions it is usually much safer to continue flying them onto the ground, checking the descent obviously.

i would suggest that people who have absolutely no experience or knowledge of such could research their facts better before posting.

[The Flying Cokeman]

LMOBOW,

My experience is +4000 hrs on the ATR and having flown all of them (obviously not the -600) including the -212. I have even flown as a contract capt for several years in Arann (a long time ago) and I never had any problems chopping the power as per ATR standard nor was that a known issue at the time on the -212. So I feel I am very much entitled to comment on the report and events!

As has been mentioned earlier on in this thread is that the company is having financial difficulties and has been consistently loosing experienced captains and first officers the last 8 years.
The standard is falling as the experience is dropping as it does in similar small companies being victim for experienced pilots leaving for major airlines.
I know for a fact that first officers that years back were told they would never get a command with the company are now a days all captains in the company due to lack of captains. I still claim this incidence is due to poor training and or lack of experience in the seat.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Of course I do, on every single approach. If you re-read my posts in the context of accelalt's lay comments you might understand where I was coming from

So a go around is planned then. Good.

With respect, have you read any of my posts?

Just the one in which you state, incorrectly, that there was no reason to go around prior to the first impact. But then you contradict yourself. So which is it? Wait until you crash before you go around or go around before you crash?

Obviously, in a larger aircraft, I would have performed a go-around once significantly passed the TDZ.

I sincerely hope that you would go around before that, regardless of aircraft size.

there was plenty of runway available

Not if they were going to touchdown outside the touchdown zone there wasn't.

I routinely see those ATRs landing long at SNN.

That makes it ok then does it?

[misd-agin]

10,495' long runway. End of TDZ leaves 7,495' remaining.

They had tons of runway left to stop after the end of the TDZ.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

You're right.

Lets go and remove all the TDZ markings and lighting because we obviously don't need them.

Tell you what, we could also just assume that we will always get full braking capability every time we land. That way we only need to build 500 meter runways. That'll save some space, we can stash all the bent ATR's there.

No, that won't work will it - We need more than 500 meters to take off - What we'll do then is to aim the ILS halfway down the runway.

They had tons of runway left to stop after the end of the TDZ.

Neither you, they or I know how much of that they may have needed.

[Aerlingus231]

It was an ATR 72-212, they can easily operate of runways that are 4,000' long, if they had 7,000' remaining, then they had 3,000' left to play easily with...

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Pilot Flying (PF) elected to aim for a touch-down at the end of the RWY 24 Touch-down Zone. This was to avoid possible turbulence during the final stages of the approach/landing. The PF considered, given the length of RWY 24(10,000 ft) and the landing performance of the ATR 72, that the remaining runway length available was sufficient to achieve a safe landing.

The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data2 indicates that the aircraft experienced an extended landing flare. Engine torque was increased during the initial flare and then progressively reduced in stages. The PF subsequently stated that difficulty was experienced in getting the aircraft to settle on the runway during this time. The PF became increasingly concerned about the remaining length of runway available and decided to positively land the aircraft by applying a forward input on the control column.

So an extended flare, after aiming at the end of the TDZ.

Anyone care to state how much runway they had left when they "landed"?

Of course not, you can't. This talk of 7000' blah blah is garbage and NOT the point.

[Mikehotel152]

So a go around is planned then. Good.

I've never said the go-around procedure wasn't briefed. I merely said that the crew are unlikely to have 'planned' to go-around due to the reported wind. Remember, I was responding in lay-speak to a non-pilot.

I sincerely hope that you would go around before that, regardless of aircraft size

At what point would you have liked to see a go-around given that the wind on approach was within limits, they expected turbulence on the TDZ and could have anticipated a long flare, and the landing was recoverable until the moment the PF pushed the nosewheel into the tarmac?

Anyone care to state how much runway they had left when they "landed"?


It is highly likely that they had plenty, however there's not enough information to make a judgment. Generally, however, I would agree that a go-around ought to be made once significantly beyond the TDZ.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Regardless of prevalent weather conditions a go around should be carried out at the point that a landing can not be achieved in the touchdown zone.

however there's not enough information to make a judgment

the landing was recoverable until the moment the PF pushed the nosewheel into the tarmac

Seems to me that you have judged the landing as safe, acceptable and recoverable despite not having enough information to make that judgement!

[Mikehotel152]

:ugh: Give a guy an olive branch and he uproots the whole tree.

Yes, perhaps it will be shown that the flare was over 1000m long (quite a record if you ask me) and that the ATR crew only had a further 1000m left in which to touch down and bring the aircraft to the stop. Somehow, I doubt it.

But I really don't see why this is becoming such a big issue when the cause of the accident was quite clearly the poor landing technique and not the decision to continue the approach because of a float on a 3200m runway.

a go around should be carried out at the point that a landing can not be achieved in the touchdown zone.

Perhaps it was the desire to comply with that general dictat that caused the PF to frantically push the nosewheel into the ground. A bit more common sense might have avoided the incident altogether.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

A bit more common sense might have avoided the incident altogether.

Like an earlier go around perhaps.

[overun]

Power Attitude Trim. Flying Coke Man l agree with your comments totally but the reality appears to be that a lot of people out there believe that when the power levers are gentled - or placed if that helps - into flight idle the aircraft decends vertically, more so with increased drag and lift by use of flap.
l would add lack of handling skills to your assessment.

[OldChinaHand]

Does the Company Operations Manual specify touching down within a specific area on the Runway ? (not that it should need to)
Does it caution against deep landings and extended flares, specify a point in these situations where a rejected landing is mandatory? (not that it should need to either).
Is there a culture with local operators of adopting this practice on this particular Runway (never was in my time there).
Was there a practice in the Pilots PPL/CPL training of landing past certain points on a runway for whatever reason leading to "reversion under stress occuring".

I am not familiar with this operators manuals/procedures and not finger pointing. But definitely asking myself why a Captain would consider this strategy and was it specifically prohibited by Ops Manual.

[Robin400]

At E2 hold a few days ago, things have not improved. 300 to 400m past the touchdown point, nose wheel mico seconds after the mains.:uhoh:
No sign of up elevator prior landing.

[overun]

l removed the comment l had made earlier at this point.

The fact remains that the Atr72 is not a newbie pilots aeroplane.

Gill Air would accept 2000hrs for the SH360 and 3000hrs for the 72 if known within the company. Shell had a minimum of 5000hrs for the 72 on the Shetland Islands contract out of Aberdeen.

For good reason.

[Empty Cruise]

Spandex,

If you determine your required touch-down point, e.g abeam a certain taxiway where you know runway remaining, then there is nothing wrong with displacing your touchdown point.

DXB in a bizjet comes to mind - when your first allowable turn-off is 2800m from the threshold and they're working with 3-4 miles spacing, it takes no genius to work out that if you land in the TZD, the next guy goes around, indeed, ATC request crews to plan accordingly.

Obviously, if you can't identify your new touch-down point, SOP prohibits it or there is good reason why you would not do it, then you're back to plan A - and if you sail past your new touch-down point, you throw it away and go around - just as you would had you sailed past the TDZ...

[WHBM]

Bear in mind that Aer Arann operate with the same aircraft and crews into London City (LDA 4,327 ft/1,319 m).

[mave292]

I would think an inexperienced crew and incorrect crosswind landing technique would seem to be a major contribution to the incident/accident ?? And why anybody would want to land long is beyond me, if in doubt there should be no doubt, go-around or divert. And yes, i have operated the ATR with 3000 hour on type.

[overun]

WHBM. l doubt that the same crews are involved, Shannon is probably a newbie training ground taking into account the runway length.

[Kalistan]

And how the devil has the captain, who was pilot flying, being allowed to continue to fly in the absence of a prelimerary report. No airline (unless third world) would allow a pilot to continue to fly after such a serious incidient until at least the facts were established

In most " third world " countries the pilots of such incidences will certainly be grounded. In some, like this particular one, somehow the process do not work like it should.:ugh:

Granted that as an SLF she/he is ignorant of the intricacies of flying in such atmospheric conditions that does not excuse her/his petulant rants and lack of grace. If she/he were to try such tricks with her/his surgeons, they would probably quietly remove a wee bit of the offending grey matter from the thick skull.:=

[accelalt]

Kalistan
Aviation isnt about you living your dream, and moving a chunk of metal through the air giving you some sort of geeky pleasure.

Its about moving mases of people around our air space in an alumium tube as safely as possible. Your observations are both incorrect and infactual and the crew of this Aerarann flight did nothing to calm its fare paying pax that it was in control. Further more, there is no evidence that the regulator of this air space was in control either.

8 degrees nose down dosent seem to have had any affect!! - a good job by some sources. (This is a quote)

Hope I dont fly with you soon.

I for one have voted with my feet and do not now travel with this carrier any more. I take a flight to Preswick and do the rest by road.

[Lurking_SLF]

For those interested, I noticed that the final report has been published today.

Final Report 2013-008 (http://www.aaiu.ie/node/586)

[dontdoit]

Now I'm confused. Are the 2 pilots still working for this operator or flying for someone else?