Thump and Go, Maroochydore

[Ascend Charlie]

Reports on the tube that a Virgin flight thumped onto the ground rather hard, and went around to divert to Brisbane, suspecting that something was broken, and didn't want to be stranded at MCY?

Interviews with the "terrified" pax were dramatised somewhat. "We hit the ground and then we heard a big bang!"

Is that a good idea, or was he on a promise back in Brisvegas?

[framer]

Was What a good idea?

[Snakecharma]

MCY is narrow and short, so the potential for inadvertent misjudgement is real.

Without knowing the facts, having an aeroplane with an undercarriage problem, even if it is just an inspection that might require a gear swing, is problematic, so a quick divert to Brisbane is not such a silly idea.

If he/she had a real concern around the safety of the aircraft then Brisbane with better services again isnt such a silly idea.

[Ollie Onion]

If I drove it into the ground so hard that it ended up with a baulked landing and go around and I also was concerned that I had damaged something on/in the gear I would not land back in MCY. Might as well go to a much bigger runway with engineering support like BNE, seems like a sensible decision to me....... if it's true!

[TBM-Legend]

emulating the ATR in CB I guess..

[Ken Borough]

How many hard landings can a carrier endure?

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-042/

[GA Driver]

Hard landing is a hard landing, happens all the time. Pax and the latest wave of cabin crew can be a bit ‘sensitive’ about said landings, yet know one really seems to understand about the need to stop before the end of the runway so a ‘firm’ landing might actually be intentional god forbid :rolleyes:

[Eddie Dean]

There was a thump and stop crumpled at Hervy Bay, anyone have info on it?

[coaldemon]

Heavy Landings requiring engineering inspections whether Phase 1 or worse are not that regular in Airlines.

[BalusKaptan]

Oh yes they are. Look back through a Maintenance log and you will see it is not that uncommon. Lots of new crew mixed with low sector experience commanders, high weight landings into short fields in demanding weather conditions and these conditions produce a fairly regular occurrence of such.

[neville_nobody]

Not helped by the fact that CASA allows so many non standard 30m runways, which never seem to be widened. How long can an airport be exempted for before they actually build a runway to the law?

[TBM-Legend]

Not helped by the fact that CASA allows so many non standard 30m runways, which never seem to be widened. How long can an airport be exempted for before they actually build a runway to the law?

Get out into the real world and MCY is not a third world airport. The aircraft type is certified for ops there...end of story.

I guess you would say London City Airport is dangerous...lots of traffic there by jets with a steep approach to boot.

[these comments reflect the training here where circuits resemble cross-countries...]

[Capn Bloggs]

Get out into the real world and MCY is not a third world airport. The aircraft type is certified for ops there...end of story.
It's short and it's narrow and from what I saw recently it is just that. Still, brand new runway going in soon, so somebody has got the message.

I guess you would say London City Airport is dangerous...lots of traffic there by jets with a steep approach to boot.
Near-jets only (microbusses, hushpuppies and other smallish twins) not 737s...

[Wiggley]

How many hard landings can a carrier endure?

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-042/

Not sure, let's have a look at the whole sample of reports on the ATSB website (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/safety-investigation-reports/?mode=Aviation&occType=Ground%20strike&typeOfOperation=Air%20Transport%20High%20Capacity&initialTab=2), now which operator has more of these occurences?

[TBM-Legend]

Near-jets only (microbusses, hushpuppies and other smallish twins) not 737s...

I wouldn't call the 133 seat CS100 a small jet. The point is that proper training gets aircraft in and out of all sorts of airports. The new runway at MCY is to enable use by A330 size jets to enhance international ops...

[splitty]

There was a thump and stop crumpled at Hervy Bay, anyone have info on it?
Yeah an Ausjet C206 hit the Deck a Bit Hard sprayed the main gear hit the carrier Pod & folded the Nose gear forward also did the Prop tips !

[StickWithTheTruth]

Pax and the latest wave of cabin crew can be a bit ‘sensitive’ about said landings

Funny that how people get upset when they are INJURED from a hard landing !!

Word is that there were injuries.

Watch this space for the cause!

[Centaurus]

[these comments reflect the training here where circuits resemble cross-countries...]
Maybe that is because circuits are normally not part of type rating or recurrent training in airline simulators. Pity, because circuits in simulators are just the thing to sharpen manual flying skills which many airline crews need.

[neville_nobody]

Get out into the real world and MCY is not a third world airport. The aircraft type is certified for ops there...end of story.

That's not my point though. My point is that the standard is 45m. Yet CASA keep allowing these 30m runways. Why don't they just enforce the standard and make RPT operations a bit safer?

[Ascend Charlie]

the standard is 45m. Yet CASA keep allowing these 30m runways. Why don't they just enforce the standard

Don't give CA$A any more ideas - "Hey, let's force every regional airport to re-build their runways, it won't cost much..."

The runway doesn't get widened, the airline goes away, aviation retreats again under the CA$A on$laught of fee$ and co$t$.

[Vag277]

nevile nobody

The "standard" is not 45m. It can be less. The aircraft size determines the width of runway required for landing. In particular outer main gear wheel span. See MOS Part 139. and ICAO Annex 14 and NPRM 1426AS

[TBM-Legend]

neville nobody please provide the reference for your statement on rwy width.

vag277 is correct..

[TBM-Legend]

That's not my point though. My point is that the standard is 45m. Yet CASA keep allowing these 30m runways. Why don't they just enforce the standard and make RPT operations a bit safer?

please provide the references....

[neville_nobody]

Looks like they have changed the rules since my last understanding of it. 30m used to be an exemption that you needed CASA approval for but not any more. You never know anything in this game..........:rolleyes:

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/124681/download?token=8iv01Rj2

[Vag277]

Rules have not changed. Standards in MOS 139 and Annex 14 have been the same for 30 years or more. Exemption only required if OMGWS exceed the standard for 30m wide runway

[Vag277]

...or 18m wide RWY

[Vag277]

NN also misses the point that it is the aircraft operator who decides what aeroplane is operated to a particular aerodrome, not the aerodrome operator. The exemption referenced for narrow RWY ops is for aircraft operators.

[neville_nobody]

The CASA document says specifically that the regulations have changed and that aerodrome operators no longer need to work to a 45m standard which is what I was referring to.

An outcome-based regulation has been developed to assess the capability of aeroplanes to operate safely
on narrow runways. This is the alternative to requiring aerodrome operators to widen runways at aerodromes that do not support the aerodrome standards for larger aeroplane types. The assessment will include evaluation of aeroplane capabilities and aerodrome facilities.
The new regulation signi es that aeroplane operators will no longer need to apply for exemptions for narrow runway operations. Instead, aeroplanes will need to have been assessed by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) or by ight test of the aeroplane to determine their capability to operate safely on narrow runways.

[Vag277]

The proposal refers to aeroplane operators. A 30m wide runway is the ICAO specification for Code C aircraft including B 737 and A 320

[PoppaJo]

They started talking about expanding the runway about 10 years ago. It still has not gone to tender and the ‘estimated’ project completion date is the first half of next decade.

Takes 20 years to piss around planning a runway widening and apron expansion, whilst China has built a few hundred airports in this timeframe.

[JabiruFoxbat]

They started talking about expanding the runway about 10 years ago. It still has not gone to tender and the ‘estimated’ project completion date is the first half of next decade.

Takes 20 years to piss around planning a runway widening and apron expansion, whilst China has built a few hundred airports in this timeframe.

I'll just leave this here then:https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a17-h35.PDF

[airdualbleedfault]

Been a few drinks between flying the old truck (NG) and the bus, but the bus has always had narrow runway ops (30m) in the manuals. I always have a little chuckle when people go on about "short" runways when more often than not those "short" runways are 3 to 400m in excess of the fully factored landing distance with autobrake medium. As for width, how much do you want to land an aircraft with an 8 metre wheel base :rolleyes:

[Capt Fathom]

As for width, how much do you want to land an aircraft with an 8 metre wheel base All of it plus some!

[VH-ABC]

Let me guess airdualbleedfault... you also are a min fuel kind of dude, cos any more is just a waste of space in your air tanks.

[CurtainTwitcher]

Runway safety is the number 1 accident type by category, an order of magnitude beyond any other accident type: ICAO accident Stats (https://www.icao.int/safety/iStars/Pages/Accident-Statistics.aspx)

EASA produced an excellent study on runway excursions: A STUDY OF RUNWAY EXCURSIONS FROM A EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVE (https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2069.pdf). The study compares the rest of world statistics to show the rates are very similar for all regions globally, comparing over 1,732 excursions globally between 1980 & 2008.



Landing overruns and veeroffs are the most common type of runway
excursion accounting for more than 77% of all excursions;

Sure the book may say you have a bit of pad, none of those 1,700+ odd crews thought they would screw it up either.

[airdualbleedfault]

ABC, the only waste of space is your post