ANZ A320 Severe Heavy Landing
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: blue earth
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANZ A320 Severe Heavy Landing
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
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
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?
Last edited by Cool banana; 17th Feb 2017 at 16:11.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: NZCH
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
They will avoid the writeoff, most spend what they need to in order to avoid that Red Cross against them.
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,
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: south pacific vagrant
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
most spend what they need to in order to avoid that Red Cross against them.
and
The company statement is conflicting with the regulator
New Zealand's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) did not yet respond
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Saturn
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
They will avoid the writeoff, most spend what they need to in order to avoid that Red Cross against them.
Maybe a computer problem. The one flying it or the aircraft.That could be a conflict.
https://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonly...006_A_ENG1.pdf
Synopsis
The 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.
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.
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.
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.
but you get it drummed into you that dual inputs are bad, and goes against the whole PF/PM, handover/takeover philosophy.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Harbour Master Place
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vertical gusts and windshear and the simultaneous actions of both crew members on the sidesticks not accounted for in the design
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.
Last edited by Ollie Onion; 19th Feb 2017 at 05:29. Reason: Error
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.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts