ANZ A320 Severe Heavy Landing

[Cool banana]

Incident: ANZ A320 at Christchurch on Jan 25th 2017, severe hard landing
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Feb 14th 2017 12:30Z, last updated Tuesday, Feb 14th 2017 12:30Z

An ANZ Air New Zealand Airbus A320-200, registration ZK-OXC performing flight NZ-507 from Auckland to Christchurch (New Zealand), was on final approach to Christchurch's runway 29 at 07:12L (18:12Z Jan 24th) when the crew initiated a go around from very low height due to changing winds. The main gear touched down producing +3.6G of vertical acceleration, the aircraft became airborne again, climbed to 5000 feet, positioned for another approach and landed on runway 02 without further incident about 13 minutes after the go-around.

The Aviation Herald received information that the aircraft had suffered a vertical acceleration of +3.6G and sustained substantial damage bordering to a write off.

New Zealand's TAIC (Accident Investigation Commission) reported the occurrence was reported to New Zealand's CAA and was rated an incident, no investigation was opened.

New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) did not yet respond.

The airline reported: "Air New Zealand service NZ507 conducted a go-around procedure as a wind change affected the aircraft on approach at Christchurch. During the go-around the main landing gear touched the ground. While the aircraft landed without incident and sustained no damage, we are following Airbus's standard procedure which is that the shock absorbers should be replaced."

The occurrence aircraft is still on the ground 20 days later.

Metars:
NZCH 242000Z AUTO 16003KT 9999 NCD 24/11 Q0994 NOSIG
NZCH 241930Z AUTO 06002KT 9999 NCD 23/10 Q0993 NOSIG
NZCH 241900Z AUTO 07007KT 020V120 9999 NCD 21/10 Q0993 NOSIG
NZCH 241830Z AUTO 02008G18KT 310V100 9999 NCD 22/09 Q0992 NOSIG
NZCH 241800Z AUTO 31014G24KT 250V010 9999 NCD 22/08 Q0992 NOSIG
NZCH 241730Z AUTO 04004KT 340V090 9999 FEW100/// 20/08 Q0992 NOSIG
NZCH 241700Z AUTO 34015KT 270V020 9999 NCD 22/08 Q0992 NOSIG
NZCH 241630Z AUTO 33005KT 150V070 9999 NCD 19/08 Q0993 NOSIG
NZCH 241600Z AUTO 02013KT 350V050 9999 NCD 20/08 Q0993 NOSIG
NZCH 241530Z AUTO 04002KT 9999 NCD 15/08 Q0994 BECMG 02015KT
NZCH 241500Z AUTO 09002KT 9999 NCD 14/09 Q0994 BECMG 02018G30KT
NZCH 241430Z AUTO 24003KT 9999 NCD 15/09 Q0995 BECMG 02018G30KT
NZCH 241400Z AUTO 17002KT 9999 NCD 15/09 Q0995 BECMG 02018G30KT


[URL="https://avherald.com/h?article=4a4e5a72&opt=0"]



Only 3.3 year-old aircraft, but conflicting messages, considering if aircraft to be borderline a write-off to just replacing some new shock absorbers.


Any update whether it will be a main landing gear replacement, or there are more serious structural issues?

[AVOCA SIX CHARLIE]

My brother was working on this. 3.38g impact, 3.7 would have resulted in write-off. Airbus had them open everything up for inspection. No structural damage, replaced undercarriage. Possibly back in the air this week or next.

[PoppaJo]

Gear would need to be replaced and checks for fuselage damage would be in order. The company statement is conflicting with the regulator so the carrier is trying to hide something.

They will avoid the writeoff, most spend what they need to in order to avoid that Red Cross against them.

[Lookleft]

when the crew initiated a go around from very low height due to changing winds. The main gear touched down producing +3.6G of vertical acceleration, the aircraft became airborne again,

I would think that the sequence of events is more likely the other way around. The main gear touched down, the aircraft got airborne from the subsequent bounce, then the go around was intitiated. I would imagine that the decision to go around was initiated before the touchdown but that the thrust levers did not get to TOGA until after. I don't doubt however the crew's recollection of the sequence of events as it all happens very quickly.

[waren9]

most spend what they need to in order to avoid that Red Cross against them.

some aussies would take some glee in declaring that ships already sailed poppa.

and

The company statement is conflicting with the regulator

given New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) did not yet respond how do you figure that?

[Dan_Brown]

Maybe a computer problem. The one flying it or the aircraft.That could be a conflict.

[Chuck Vader]

Gear would need to be replaced and checks for fuselage damage would be in order. The company statement is conflicting with the regulator so the carrier is trying to hide something.

They will avoid the writeoff, most spend what they need to in order to avoid that Red Cross against them.

Anyone for golf? I know a great course in Bangkok......

[Keg]

Anyone for golf? I know a great course in Bangkok......

#fakenews :ugh: :rolleyes:

[Shot Nancy]

Blame the SO.

[megan]

Maybe a computer problem. The one flying it or the aircraft.That could be a conflict.Perhaps a repeat of this?

https://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/8B514392-B79A-46DC-A7C8-DC1BA137D076/23171/2001_006_A_ENG1.pdf

SynopsisThe aircraft Airbus A-320-B, registered EC-HKJ and operated by IBERIA was on a commercial flight under call sign IB-1456 from Barcelona to Bilbao on February 7th, 2001. It found turbulent conditions during the approach phase to its destination at around 22:00h UTC. On the final approach phase flying below 200 ft radio-altitude the aircraft encountered strong and changing vertical and horizontal gusts while descending at a rate of around 1,200 ft/min (6 m/s).

The aircraft did not react to the pitch-up order input applied by both pilots on the sidesticks, due to the design software logic that operates at these specific moments, and did not flare. Announcements of «dual-input» warning were heard at the time.

Then the captain, in view of the «sink rate» warnings, selected TOGA power setting to go around and abort the landing.

The pilots’ actions on the flight controls could not avoid a hard touchdown of the aircraft in a slight nose down attitude, and the captain decided to continue the landing and to stop the aircraft. The aircraft slowed-down along 1,100 m of the runway within the paved surface. It finally came to a stop with its horizontal axis at an angle of 60° to the right of the runway center line.

Upon impact, the nose landing gear collapsed, but the aircraft remained within the runway and stopped after 1,100 meters of landing run with all four main gear tires burst. An emergency evacuation was carried out.

A passenger was a seriously injured and several other occupants received some bruises and injuries produced during the evacuation of the aircraft.

The internal structural damages of the airframe were beyond economically viable repair and the aircraft was written off.

The cause of the accident was the activation of the angle of attack protection system which, under a particular combination of vertical gusts and windshear and the simultaneous actions of both crew members on the sidesticks not accounted for in the design, prevented the aeroplane from pitching up and flaring during the landing.

[Snakecharma]

How is dual input by the crew, which is just dangerous, a design fault?

Agree that the design of the side stick system with no feedback to the other pilot is not great, but you get it drummed into you that dual inputs are bad, and goes against the whole PF/PM, handover/takeover philosophy.

[Capn Bloggs]

but you get it drummed into you that dual inputs are bad, and goes against the whole PF/PM, handover/takeover philosophy.
CRM Emergency phase: "just do it". No time for a committee meeting here, Charma! :ok:

[maggot]

How is dual input by the crew, which is just dangerous, a design fault?

Agree that the design of the side stick system with no feedback to the other pilot is not great, but you get it drummed into you that dual inputs are bad, and goes against the whole PF/PM, handover/takeover philosophy.

Perfectly natural for boths seats to be going full back stick if looking at an impact. Doesnt mean a disagree of input

[CurtainTwitcher]

vertical gusts and windshear and the simultaneous actions of both crew members on the sidesticks not accounted for in the design

I didn't read it as dual inputs being the problem, but rather the vertical gusts. If you read the accident report megan linked (https://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/8B514392-B79A-46DC-A7C8-DC1BA137D076/23171/2001_006_A_ENG1.pdf), the design limitation is actually a function of Valpha max & Valpha prot, not the dual input. Normally, airbus logic is to algebraically sum dual inputs, except when the machine decides otherwise, as in this case. Thanks HAL

[Ollie Onion]

Can you imagine if this had been Jetstar, there would have been passengers splattered all over the paper saying 'we thought we were going to die!' Air NZ has a really impressive p.r. Machine, remember 18 months ago when they drove a 737 off the end of the runway in CHC, not even a mention in the paper for around 4 weeks and then just a two line blurb.

[HOOROO]

Funny that their near death experience is forgotten when it's $49 to go to Wellington vs a lot more with the competitor 😂

[kev2002]

Apparently OXC back flying as of this morning. OO, you sure you don't write for the Herald? "Drove a 737 off the end of the runway"... Jesus wept!

[framer]

Has the report for that come out yet? Virgin had a whoops on the same runway within a month or two of the ANZ incident so I would like to know if there was a pavement issue.

[rjtjrt]

Not the first write off

Med sea alpha floor demo in oops what law are we in
Erebus

Glass houses and so on
DC-8 lost in 1966 in training accident as well - 2 out of 5 crew on board lost.
I think it was at Christchurch airport, from memory.

[GoDirect]

DC8 training accident was at Auckland - inadvertent selection of reverse on one of the engines.

[Octane]

The Airbus accident doesn't count? Wasn't it being flown by German pilots at the time? Certainly wasn't in ANZ service...

[Pundit]

Poor old ANZ, they seem to write off one of every type they fly

[maggot]

Cmon guys...

[HOOROO]

The two pilots were German but the checkie in the jump was from Air NZ

[Ollie Onion]

Yes and the low level stall test was done at the request of the Jumpseat pilot who ignored the SOP of conducting this test at higher altitudes in preference for an expeditious landing. Still didn't mean the Pilot Flying should have done it, he was quite capable of refusing to carry out the test.

[cavemanzk]

Poor old ANZ, they seem to write off one of every type they fly


Sorry but can you point out what NZ has writen off of these types?
- 737-200
- 737-300
- 747-200
- 747-400
- 767-200
- 767-300
- 777-200
- 777-300
- 787-9
- Q300
- B1990D
- ATR 72-212
- ATR 72-500
- ATR 72-600

[Slezy9]

Sorry but can you point out what NZ has writen off of these types?
- 737-200
- 737-300
- 747-200
- 747-400
- 767-200
- 767-300
- 777-200
- 777-300
- 787-9
- Q300
- B1990D
- ATR 72-212
- ATR 72-500
- ATR 72-600
Don't feed the trolls...