Myanmar Airlines plane lands on its nose

[Dimitri Cherchenko]

A Myanmar pilot safely landed a passenger jet without its front wheels on Sunday, after landing gear on the Myanmar National Airlines plane failed to deploy, the airline and an official said.

Myanmar pilot safely lands plane on its nose after landing gear failure (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-plane/myanmar-pilot-safely-lands-plane-on-its-nose-after-landing-gear-failure-idUSKCN1SI047)

Video (https://gulfnews.com/world/asia/video-myanmar-plane-in-emergency-touchdown-as-landing-gear-fails-1.1557645242164)

[Rangoon]

The plane had to fly to burn fuel before landing (it was probably not possible / no option ? to dump the fuel).
People had time at airport to prepare for YouTube video ....but so many emergency vehicles on the video when the plane landed....
Local flights where delayed to and from mandalay during 1h30.

[hooke.s_law]

Glad to see a perfect evacuation. Despite the smoke in the cabin, the passengers remained calm, followed the instructions and they evacuated without the carry-on luggage.
See details in this youtube video:
3eUQJ5_iaJ8

[kgbbristol]

By remarkable coincidence, both incidents in Myanmar this week involved aircraft with the registration AGQ...

The Biman Dash 8 that crash landed at Yangon on Wednesday was S2-AGQ, and the Myanmar E190 that landed at Mandalay today without its forward landing gear was XY-AGQ.

[gearlever]

Priceless..... (https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/myanmar-airlines-plane-in-emergency-touchdown-as-landing-gear-fails)

Ye Htut Aung, deputy director general of Myanmar's Civil Aviation Department, told AFP the pilot tried repeatedly to drop the landing gear at the front of the plane - first through its computer system, then manually.

[Herod]

Textbook landing and evacuation. Full marks to both crew and passengers.

[Tech Guy]

Outstanding job. Well done.

[Icarus2001]

The plane had to fly to burn fuel before landing (it was probably not possible / no option ? to dump the fuel). Like most narrow body aircraft, the E190 cannot dump fuel. Lower the weight, lower the touchdown speed.

Well done to all, good outcome.

[Lantern10]

I'd like to buy that man a drink. Well done.

[WingNut60]

Is that the widest runway on the face of the earth or did he manage to slew it into one of the high speed run-offs?

[Icarus2001]

The runway is 61 metres wide...

https://www.ais.gov.mm/eAIP/2017-08-03-AIRAC/html/eAIP/AD-2.VYMD-en-GB.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandalay_International_Airport

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

What a party piece, must take some serious amount of reverse thrust and fine judgement! ;)

[Recidivist]

What a party piece, must take some serious amount of reverse thrust and fine judgement! ;)
Hmm. I flew on an E 190 just a week or so ago (first time) and my impression was that it didn't have thrust reversers - would someone who knows care to chime in?

[gearlever]

Hmm. I flew on an E 190 just a week or so ago (first time) and my impression was that it didn't have thrust reversers - would someone who knows care to chime in?

SOP on most operators is to use idle reverse only.
So it makes sure it's there if you need it...

[Alpine Flyer]

Hmm. I flew on an E 190 just a week or so ago (first time) and my impression was that it didn't have thrust reversers - would someone who knows care to chime in?
The E-Jets do have reversers (rear part of cowl moving backwards) which increase deceleration markedly, but they seem to be closed. Might be a deliberate omission under the circumstances, QRH doesn't advise against use, but with very good brakes and the drag from the nose scraping, they just might have elected to take one variable out.

No fuel dumping ability is confirmed.

[WingNut60]

The runway is 61 metres wide...



Yes, I know. But the sealed surface where it stopped seems to be much wider than that.
It's a bit much to expect a perfect centreline landing but using the evacuees for informal scaling, it seems that the distance from the wing tip and particularly from the door to the edge of the runway is somewhat greater than 30 metres.
And yet, there is an emergency vehicle parked, on concrete, some distance the other side of the other wingtip.

It's a long runway (14,000 ft) with a high-speed taxiway around the 8,000 ft mark.
I couldn't help but wonder whether he'd felt confident enough of steering control (brakes) to jink it to the right in an effort to leave the runway clear.

What a party piece, must take some serious amount of reverse thrust and fine judgement!

I doubt that he'd want to use the reversers or brakes too heavily as that would just put more weight on the nose.
The scraping sound and showers of sparks emanating from just under your butt must be a bit off-putting.

Does anyone have any information of where the aircraft finally came to a stop?

[AerocatS2A]

What a party piece, must take some serious amount of reverse thrust and fine judgement! ;)

Don’t worry Mad As A Mad Thing, I got it!

[FrequentSLF]

He got the lady down, all are off her without injuries, and still people trying to find what the pilot did wrong?
nothing to speculate or rumours about this one...wait for the final report.
Is the width of the runway so important?

[WingNut60]

He got the lady down, all are off her without injuries, and still people trying to find what the pilot did wrong?
nothing to speculate or rumours about this one...wait for the final report.
Is the width of the runway so important?

Some people can see criticism where none exists. Fragile ego?

I just perceived that (it looked like) the paved surface was extraordinarily wide.
This lead me to think that the pilot may have used differential braking to try to edge the beast over and into one of the high-speed taxi-ways.
That's not a criticism. I was just asking if that was the case, or not.
Asking a question is clarification; not speculation

Looking a little harder and at a few more photos, I now don't think that to be the case anyway.
It's probably just a camera perspective thing.

Assigning the concrete slabs 10m x 10m then he's probably not that far off the centreline.
And taking an angle onto the main terminal in the background he has probably pulled up at about the 4800 ft mark.

[FrequentSLF]

Some people can see criticism where none exists. Fragile ego?

I just perceived that (it looked like) the paved surface was extraordinarily wide.
This lead me to think that the pilot may have used differential braking to try to edge the beast over and into one of the high-speed taxi-ways.
That's not a criticism. I was just asking if that was the case, or not.
Asking a question is clarification; not speculation

Looking a little harder and at a few more photos, I now don't think that to be the case anyway.
It's probably just a camera perspective thing.

Assigning the concrete slabs 10m x 10m then he's probably not that far off the centreline.
And taking an angle onto the main terminal in the background he has probably pulled up at about the 4800 ft mark.
hardly a fragile ego from a slf...as my id makes quite clear

[RVF750]

Nice landing. I would expect him to have not used reverse as it would put more load on the nose and with possibility of engine nacelles touching may have wanted engines at idle or even off asap to aid evacuation. Not sure what's in his checklist for that. Long way down from the back doors.....

[Mad As A Mad Thing]

Don’t worry Mad As A Mad Thing, I got it!
Thank goodness! I thought I was going to have to break out a face-palm meme. :)

[meleagertoo]

Speaking from experience, I can assure everyone that no sane pilot would even contemplate turning off the runway in a case like this. First of all, why? what for? A blocked runway is no concern of yours, you are concerned with landing a damaged aeroplane and not damaging it (or the occupants, of which you are one) any more than you have to. Diversions to others are the last thing you should be thinking of. In my case I refused the secondary runway with a significant crosswind that I was offered and insisted on the into wind duty one, transatlantic traffic diverting is no concern of mine so let ATC sort that out, it's their problem, not yours. As it was they used the runway I'd originally been offered, as ATC should have organised in the first place.
You are extremely aware that there is no nosewheel steering and although the QRH may tell you 'rudder is effective down to XXKts you still don't want a swing to develop with considerably compromised directional control even at 60Kts. Your sole aim in life once down is to keep it straight.
You know the most important thing is to make a good touchdown and hold the nose off until the last possible moment to lower it (not let it fall) onto the runway.
Why would you want to use reversers with all the attendant extra damage the engines would recieve on a 4000m runway? The wheelbrakes are more than capable, indeed you'd probably coast to a stop little more than halfway down with no brakes at all. Even on a 2500m runway I'd be reluctant to deploy them unlesss the situation or the QRH required it.

Centreline. You stay off the centreline not to avoid damage to the inset lights (bizarre idea! - why would you care a jot about them?) but to avoid having the nose of your aeroplane ripped to shreds by what is effectively a 4000m sawblade. That line of lights (which may or may not be inset) is an intimidating sight on short finals, I can tell you. As are the other in-runway light housings, you try to avoid them too if poss.

You know there is nothing to hit so damage to the aircraft is extremely unlikely as long as you stay on the runway so fire really isn't much of a consideration at all, just don't let the nose slam down and it's all a bit of a non-event as dramatic looking events go. Because dramatic looking is about all it is unless you mishandle it.

Nothing's different from a normal landing (except a momentary thought of "no pressure then" at 300feet until you're rolling happily along on the main gear with the column slowly coming back and back, and then you relax the pull a bit and realise the nose down attitude is quite substantial, surprisingly so - the threshold is almost obscured by the sun blind - then the white noise of metal on a grindstone and keep it straight, straight, straight.

Then you do the necessary things, evacuate and realise that by far the most serious hazard of the whole business is avoiding getting any of your pax flattened by the roaring mechanical cavalry charge of fire engines thunderning down the runway at you in line abreast and a big impenetrable pall of black diesel smoke. Now that was scary.
You hug the cabin crew, tell them they did good and send them off to accompany the pax until they are no longer needed and see you later in the crew room!

Eventually they put a strop under the nose and the crane begins to lift it, and the nosewheel stays firmly on the ground as the noseleg slowly deploys, and finally locks down with an audible clack, and you wonder if the Chief Pilot is going to believe your story after all...

All the accolade I got was a bottle of wine, and it didn't even make the local papers, let alone front pages in Rangoon!

[WingNut60]

Speaking from experience, I can assure everyone that no sane pilot would even contemplate turning off the runway in a case like this.........

Yes, it was only my perception that either the runway was very wide or he had nudged into the wider section of pavement at the high-speed taxiway.
That may well be just a camera angle thing.

I would still like to see exactly where he ended up, just for my own interest.

[Rangoon]

One first hand information from a friend who was on the first morning leg starting from Yangon.
After they took off from Yangon, the pilot made an announcement they had a landing gear problem. They immediately landed back to Yangon.
My friend then disembark (which was safe call considering how blur is the maintenance quality here)
The plane finally took off and later on landed on its nose in Mandalay.