Air Dolomiti ATR Emergency Landing at MUC

[winter959]

Pilots reported smoke in cockpit...

[Rampi]

Hello.

According to the German news site Focus, eye witnesses report the plane coming smoking to a rest next to the runway. The plane was smoking out of the cockpit area. Runways closed. Piloted reported problems prior to landing.

Here is the original German newssite Lufthansa-Maschine: Notlandung am Münchner Flughafen (http://www.focus.de/reisen/fliegen/lufthansa-maschine-notlandung-am-muenchner-flughafen-landebahn-gesperrt_aid_754390.html)

[B773-ER]

Just heard from my sister, who was on an DLH-flight.
The A/C, she was in had to go around and was diverted to EDDN, due to an emergency right behind her. :eek:
An Air Dolimiti A/C with 58 PAX onboard made an emergency landing and stopped near the RWY. Both RWYs in EDDM ware closed after the emergency landing.
Some sources reported fire and thick smoke in the Cockpit.
Here is a link (for German speakers :hmm: )
Lufthansa-Maschine: Notlandung am Münchner Flughafen (http://www.focus.de/reisen/fliegen/lufthansa-maschine-notlandung-am-muenchner-flughafen-landebahn-gesperrt_aid_754390.html)

[Vapor]

There is a picture at the bottom of this page

Unfälle (Zwischenfälle/Sicherheitslandungen) mit Flugzeugen (http://www.mucforum.de/showthread.php/1467-Unf%C3%A4lle-%28Zwischenf%C3%A4lle-Sicherheitslandungen%29-mit-Flugzeugen/page258)

[Jando]

http://polpix.sueddeutsche.com/polopoly_fs/1.1359835.1337268531!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/860x860/image.jpg
From Flughafen München - Maschine muss notlanden - München - sueddeutsche.de (http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/flughafen-muenchen-maschine-muss-notlanden-1.1359717)
I reckon they didn't take off with that nosecone.

[grimmrad]

SLF speaking: Couldn't see the runway due to smoke? He seems in the grass with the gear collapsed?

[lederhosen]

I hope I understood the last poster correctly as meaning that with the cockpit full of smoke and unable to see the runway clearly, the crew did a magnificent job of getting the aircraft down. If you can walk away it was a good landing, if you can still use the aircraft afterwards it was a very good landing, as the old pilot saying goes. Having seen the aircraft myself it is a very long way from the runway suggesting the arrival was far from straightforward.

[Denti]

Only minor injuries, nobody died, the plane might be repaired. Good job imho, especially if the smoke was so heavy that spectators could see it.

[ihg]

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/2/5/6/2105652.jpghttp://www.airliners.net/photo/Air-Dolomiti/ATR-ATR-72-500-%28ATR-72-212A%29/2105652/L/&sid=150bb645000955d94d201587a5e00aee

...doesn't look as smoke inside the cockpit would have been strong enough for impairing vision, if there was any at all during landing.

But referring to the photo above, it seems clear ,that the starboard engine has been shut down and the prop is feathered.

The airplane has reportedly veered off to the left (Air Dolomiti ATR 72 makes emergency landing in Munich (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/air-dolomiti-atr-72-makes-emergency-landing-in-munich-372025/)).

Sorry for speculating, but could this be the consequence of activating reverse thrust, which would result in an quite "asymmetric" thrust situation with only one engine operating and a corresponding turning moment to the left?

[Dg800]

Bavarian radio just reported the plane as having had to turn back because of "engine fire" and not "fire in the cabin/cockpit". This seems to be consistent with the starboard engine having been shut down as evident from the picture above.

[lederhosen]

I realise that this is a rumours network and that there are plenty of non experts including it must be said bavarian radio. I find the eagerness of certain posters already to suggest failure on the part of the crew at the very least premature and somewhat distasteful.

If you have ever tried landing in a smoke mask particularly if you wear glasses you will know it is not easy. Maybe they could see clearly, but I would suggest the excellent spotters picture is hardly proof positive either way.

What the picture shows is the aircraft nose high just before B12, so with about 2800 metres of a 4000 metre runway remaining. There looks to be some nose down elevator, but what happened before and after is unclear. The aircraft came to a halt after a relatively short distance but a long way left of the runway. The left gear appears intact at this point, but from later pictures it is clear that there was a collapse.

This is Germany and the facts will come out soon enough. For the moment I think we can all agree that something was obviously broken and everyone survived which is a good result in itself.

[brakedwell]

Well said lederhosen.

[Domi]

The pack #2 supplies the cabin with fresh air. If there is an internal failure of the right engine, oil will contaminate the pack thus producing smoke in the whole cabin. Then you have to deal with two emergency issues with two different check lists : "Smoke", and "In Flight Engine Failure". Then, two other related check-lists : "Cabin Smoke" and "Single Engine Operation". Then to prepare the landing, brief the crew, etc... Everything done with O2 mask and goggles....
Obviously, the 4000m runway and the good weather conditions are more than welcome in such circumstances !

[ihg]

I realise that this is a rumours network and that there are plenty of non experts including it must be said bavarian radio. I find the eagerness of certain posters already to suggest failure on the part of the crew at the very least premature and somewhat distasteful.

You are welcome, :rolleyes:..., but if you "see" some "eagerness" it might be only your own reception..and you might be a bit more careful with jugdement about others, the same as you suggest to be careful with judgements about the "crew"s performence..

Anyway, let alone whatever circumstances they were in, they seem to have managed what appears to be a pretty stabilized approach right down to touchdown.
Am just looking for a reason, whatever caused them to veer off the runway. The main landing gear seems not to have failed after all, as the A/C has been reportedly towed on it's own main lading gear to a hangar meanwhile.

[lederhosen]

Thanks for your feedback ihg. Your post provides another perfect example of what I am talking about. How can you say that the approach was stable any more than you say that the pilots could see clearly as you claimed earlier based on this photograph. Was the aircraft on speed with expected dascent rate in the touchdown zone with no need big power or control changes required?

If you are looking for a reason why it veered off into the grass then the hypothesis that the nosewheel was damaged on landing making the aircraft difficult to steer is at least worthy of consideration. As I said before the german authorities will provide the facts. It is rare for pilots to get everything right in these kind of situations,after all even Sully has been criticised. These guys had a complicated scenario which everyone appears to have walked away from.

[FougaMagister]

lederhosen :ok:

[ihg]

@Lederhosen: I learned that people only see what they want to see, and obviously also only read what they want to read. And Your post provides another perfect example of what I am talking about....

"..doesn't look as.." and "..appears to be.." are not exactly ulitmatively"..claiming that..".
But whatever, I'm not here to discuss the grammatical details of English subjunctive forms here, as you would probably understand even that purposely wrong, nor am I EAGER to be part of one those ridiculous personal fights on forums common these days.
So whatever...

As I said before the german authorities will provide the facts..fair enough.
Although, with that logic one can close ultimately all threads referring to accidents/incidents here...
If you have time, you might like to join one of the multitude of AF447 threads with a refreshing post like:

"As I said before, no need to waste bandwith here no more, BEA will provide all the facts!"

[saucy jack]

The landing attitude looks a little out of shape at the point the photo was taken, but I am not willing to criticise based on the evidence of a thousandth of a second.

Clearly however the right engine has been secured and feathered and we can see into the cockpit so they can probably see out.

ATR pilots will know that the final item of the Single Engine Operation checklist is a Note, not very prominently written, warning that the operative Power Lever should remain in or above Flight Idle until the Nose Wheel is on the ground. We all know the Note is there but if the checklist is performed rapidly and perhaps late during an approach it may be overlooked or it's significance not emphasised.

Selection of Ground Idle or Reverse Pitch without the nosewheel grounded potentially produces a big swing into the live (in this case left) engine as the prop enters Low Pitch range, with reduced steering effect available to counteract until the nosewheel contacts the runway by which time it may be too late and you're already heading for the long grass where your best/only option is to continue straight ahead.

Whatever ultimately is shown to have happened, I echo the most important sentiments which are that all are thankfully safe and the plane will doubtless fly again.

[lederhosen]

ihg I am having difficulty understanding you in part because of your tortured use of the english language. Your last sentence includes a marvellous double negative. You spell the same word differently in successive sentences. You use the word reception (the place I have been using the WLAN between flights) when I am pretty sure you mean perception. I could go on, but I will try and use restraint. It is indeed a blessing that you do not wish to lecture us on english grammar. You also put words in inverted commas that I have not used as if you were quoting me. None of this adds to your credibility.

The last poster has put his hypothesis much more compellingly. Although it would be interesting to know if he thinks smoke goggles may have complicated matters. From the picture there does not seem to be too much obvious damage other than the nose cone and gear of course. Anyone in the know?

[Dg800]

Although it would be interesting to know if he thinks smoke goggles may have complicated matters. From the picture there does not seem to be too much obvious damage other than the nose cone and gear of course. Anyone in the know?

Yes, the German authorities know for sure. Just wait for them to provide the facts and stop asking any questions, please. :ugh:

Dg800

[lederhosen]

Well that was a pretty unhelpful answer. Do you work for Air Dolomiti's marketing department? Amazingly I find myself sympathizing with some of what ihg was saying or at least think he was saying. Why exactly should we stop asking questions or are you being ironic DG800? Incidentally I had a lot of fun with a DG200 which I owned many years ago. Are you a glider man?

[lilflyboy262...2]

Oh my god lederhosen, can you stop waving your wang around trying to prove it is bigger than everyone elses?

I do not like jumping on the band wagon of nailing other pilots to the cross, but there is a good chance that these guys did everything right, right up until the very end which put them into the grass.
Does accidently putting it into ground idle, or reverse not sound more likely than them hitting the deck so hard that they wrecked the landing gear?
In jumping to their defence, you have actually made it out to be that they have done a worse job than what was actually done.

[lederhosen]

Actually I tend to agree with you, although I stand by what I said earlier about some of the previous posters, which I think was pretty factual. Anyone engaging in debate on here is fair game. However I prefer to treat fellow professionals with respect until proven otherwise.

[Herod]

Can I point out the obvious fact that none of us were there. That makes every comment mere speculation. No-one hurt, aircraft repairable: 'nuff said.

[lederhosen]

I was there shortly afterwards, which I suppose has raised my interest in the whole affair. Strangely enough although the weather was beautiful my copilot made one of the wildest flares I can ever remember (almost certainly coincidence).

[saucy jack]

Having seen the tracks when I was there the following morning together with no obvious signs of distress on the runway itself, and being a curious ATR pilot, I was naturally led to wonder what had happened. The later spotters photo clarified an engine shut down, which pointed me to one of the Gotchas of the ATR QRH.

That is really what I wanted to highlight here....that the Manufacturer does caution against use of Beta range before nosewheel touchdown during a single engine landing, but that the caution (such as it is) is buried in the form of a "Note" at the bottom of a lengthy secondary securing checklist (Single Engine Operation).

In the event of an immediate shut down on final (Engine Fire for example) this checklist may not be actioned at all, or only partially perhaps depending on time available, in which case this important information may not be reviewed.

If this is indeed the case here, I attach no blame to the crew whatsoever who doubtless had enough on their plates already. The checklist is somewhat poorly presented and what should be a clear Warning is stated almost as an afterthought, in fact number 4 and last in a list of "Notes".

Yes Herod I agree, but the ATR has some poor QRH presentations, and if my idle specualtion is remotely correct might we at least hope that the incident leads to some of these being improved?

SJ

[lilflyboy262...2]

Saucy, Since your an ATR driver, I'd like to ask you this question.

In your recurrent training, I am assuming that you would practice an engine out landing at least once. Would what you are saying with not putting in into beta or reverse be common knowledge amongst ATR pilots?
Not trying to say that these guys should have known better if this is the case, but since the warning has been relegated to the footnotes of an engine out checklist... sounds like it should be known and is only there as a reminder.

[FullWings]

Looking closely at the photo:

a) The right engine does appear to be shut down.

b) Going by the position of the shadows of other aeroplanes, trucks, etc. the ATR looks to be over the grass already, *before* touchdown. This could be the effects of foreshortening, etc. but given the way shadows elsewhere are almost directly under the objects causing them, I'd estimate the time to be not far away from solar noon, i.e. about 1300-1400L.

The height above the ground looks about 10-15', so it would be difficult to get back over the paved surface before touchdown. Pure speculation but it would seem that they might have actually landed on the grass... :confused:

[DOVES]

...
b) Going by the position of the shadows of other aeroplanes, trucks, etc. the ATR looks to be over the grass already, *before* touchdown. This could be the effects of foreshortening, etc. but given the way shadows elsewhere are almost directly under the objects causing them, I'd estimate the time to be not far away from solar noon, i.e. about 1300-1400L.
...
Bingo!
And they were also banking a little to the left.

[no-hoper]

Check the rudder position,nlg and lh mlg on # 3884.

Unfälle (Zwischenfälle/Sicherheitslandungen) mit Flugzeugen (http://www.mucforum.de/showthread.php/1467-Unf%C3%A4lle-%28Zwischenf%C3%A4lle-Sicherheitslandungen%29-mit-Flugzeugen?p=231510#post231510)

[dubh12000]

As a side note, how are they fairing on maintaining their schedule because of this? I'm on the MUC Genoa flight tomorrow with them......allegedly.

[ihg]

Pure speculation but it would seem that they might have actually landed on the grass..
No, they touched down on the runway as can be seen in the photo posted in the muc-forum linked by no-hoper.
On that photo, taken obviously shortly after touch down, the nose wheels appear to be significantly turned to the right, which would be coincident with the crew fighting a strong turning moment to the left due to left engine being in reverse or ground idle.

[FullWings]

Well, it was only a theory. Must have been quite a manoeuvre to get it back on the centreline from the starting position in the previous photo. Or there's a dark patch on the grass that just happens to be coincident with where the aircraft is in the picture.

More interestingly, that nosewheel pair does look well over to the right... Unnaturally so. I don't know the technicalities of the ATR but that sort of steering angle on most aircraft is only reached using the tiller or if there's been a problem with hydraulics, mechanical failure, etc.

[sodapop]

1. On climbout, reported smoke in cabin from Flt Attendants. No smoke in cockpit or any smoke warning. Masks donned and call to MUC ATC for reentry.

2. Smoke and Fume Elimination actioned with no change (most likely electrical smoke checklist). FA reports smoke seems electrical by smell and white colour.

3. On vectors to final, #2 eng fire alarm. Engine secured. No previous indications of any engine problems.

4. AC Wild Bus 1 reinstated (off during smoke and fume checklist) to provide hydraulics for flaps and gear.

5. Autopilot disconnected at approx. 500'. Rudder pedals stuck--even with help of FO very difficult to move. Aircraft displaced over grass. Decision not to go around due smoke and flt control issue. Aircraft turned with ailerons to get back over runway. Landed with 10+ degrees of crab.

6. Gnd Idle selected. Not able to control direction of aircraft. Aircraft leaves runway where nosegear collapses (unsure if nosewheel steering available or if tiller was touched at all). During evacuation, unable to shutdown #1 engine normally. Fire switch used.

7. Thankfully no injuries to pax or crew.

Will have to await investigation to understand:
a. what caused smoke and why there was no smoke alarm in cockpit
b. what caused the jammed rudder
c. why #1 engine couldn't be shutdown normally

This is not an official report, but as close as you can get for now.

[FA10]

sodapop, that sound like a sim ride where the checker is not interested in your survival...

[sodapop]

FA10,

That's what I said after hearing the details.

Thankfully the weather was CAVOK. A day earlier and who knows what the outcome would have been.

[no-hoper]

Thanks sodapop for the report.From the engineers point of view some answers:

"Will have to await investigation to understand:
a. what caused smoke and why there was no smoke alarm in cockpit"

Smoke from engine due to oil leak via aircon,shafing/burning wires all areas (not ATR related,can happen on all aircraft),sockets of light tubes inside the cabin are a weak point on ATRs.
Smoke detectors are located in forward and aft cargo plus lavatory.Non in the cabin.A different kind of detector is monitoring the electric/avionic racks in the cockpit.Electric smoke warning can occur after engine oil leak as well.

"b. what caused the jammed rudder"

No answer.Think on some pictures the rudder shows different angels,but not sure.It might have get stuck after nlg collapse (same reason on engine controls)

"c. why #1 engine couldn't be shutdown normally"

When the nlg collapsed it forced backwards into the fuselage and blocked the
engine controls.This happened on EI-SLM a year ago as well.

[BAW001]

For my pennies worth:

I arrived at the mound opposite the southern rwy just before the incident happened. I watched the aircraft land and as a spotter read the registration and noted it whilst thinking what a sporty landing it was. Following that a few photographers started making a scene lower down the mound. Putting 2 & 2 together and having seen the fire engines I realsied the aircraft had an emergency, so I came off the hill crossed the road and stood on the bridge and observed with a telescope.

Subsequently I saw the disabled aircraft being evacuated with passengers moving towards the runway. (For clarity) please understand my view of the rwy was framed by trees so I didn't actually see the aircraft come off the rwy so cannot covers the reasons behind why it ended up where it did.

From my experience of seeing a few airfield emergencies the only smoke that I saw in the air was from the fleet of fire engines that were positioned on the right side of the rwy driving over to attend the aircraft.

As a side note full marks to the emergency services and Munich airport operations attending the incident as the aircraft was quickly attended and passengers were assisted and taken by bus away from the scene very quickly.

After 20 minutes I decided to leave as the place was starting to get over run with cameramen!

Rgds,

[sodapop]

No-hoper.

Good points! Thanks for the input. You're correct about the smoke sensors. Had to dig into an old FCOM as I haven't flown the ATR in nearly 8 years.

BAW001

Most likely the smoke had subsided after shutting down the engine. Remember, the cabin itself wasn't burning and it appeared to be electrical smoke which is usually very light, although caustic and dangerous. Wouldn't normally "billow" out. My guess is you would only see smoke on evacuation if the aircraft itself was burning (panels, lavatory uncontrolled etc).

MUC (and most German airports for that matter) have excellent emergency services. Very much appreciated!

[ihg]

4. AC Wild Bus 1 reinstated (off during smoke and fume checklist) to provide hydraulics for flaps and gear.

5. Autopilot disconnected at approx. 500'. Rudder pedals stuck--even with help of FO very difficult to move. Aircraft displaced over grass. Decision not to go around due smoke and flt control issue. Aircraft turned with ailerons to get back over runway. Landed with 10+ degrees of crab.

6. Gnd Idle selected. Not able to control direction of aircraft. Aircraft leaves runway where nosegear collapses (unsure if nosewheel steering available or if tiller was touched at all). During evacuation, unable to shutdown #1 engine normally. Fire switch used.

7. Thankfully no injuries to pax or crew.

Will have to await investigation to understand:
a. what caused smoke and why there was no smoke alarm in cockpit
b. what caused the jammed rudder
c. why #1 engine couldn't be shutdown normally

Intermediate report of BFU says, the rudder appeared to be "stuck" or was very difficult to move because rudder travel limiter was in position for high speed.

BFU states that the pilots noticed during the final approach that neither was able to operatethe rudder. Later inspection showed that the rudder travel limiter unit, an actuated component in the empennage to limitrudder deflection at high speed,was in the position for high-speed flight. The reason has yet to be determined. Investigators were able to correctly operate the limiter with onboard battery power by manually selecting the respective switch in the cockpit. Under ground power,however, the system showed inconsistencies when the switch was in the “auto” position.The unit moved between the high- and low-speed positions depending on whether or not the aircraft’s two main electrical buses were connected via a bus-tie contact switch. After the aircraft had come to a stop, the pilots were unable to shut down the port engine using the standard procedure, and instead used emergency controls for engine fire

[Island-Flyer]

Good thing they didn't initiate a go-around if that TLU in the "high speed" mode. I can tell you from first-hand experience in the simulator, the ATR is uncontrollable during a single engine go-around without full rudder authority in "low speed" mode.