The TNT B737 EMA/Birmingham incident thread
Mike:
What it boils down to is this:
A 2-man crew has a maximum FDP of 14 hours (3-man crew is 16 hours).
If the FDP starts between 2000 and 0400 Local then the duty comes back to 12 hours.
An extension of 2 hours exceptionally may be made. In such cases a written report must be submitted by the captain to the Company and the BCAA.
Therefore a night duty is normally 12 hours (14 - 2) with 14 possible with an exceptional addition.
This is good for up to 4 sectors. The penalty thereafter is 30 minutes per sector.
Absolutely nowhere does the figure of 13 hours appear.
What it boils down to is this:
A 2-man crew has a maximum FDP of 14 hours (3-man crew is 16 hours).
If the FDP starts between 2000 and 0400 Local then the duty comes back to 12 hours.
An extension of 2 hours exceptionally may be made. In such cases a written report must be submitted by the captain to the Company and the BCAA.
Therefore a night duty is normally 12 hours (14 - 2) with 14 possible with an exceptional addition.
This is good for up to 4 sectors. The penalty thereafter is 30 minutes per sector.
Absolutely nowhere does the figure of 13 hours appear.
Last edited by JW411; 16th Jun 2006 at 08:55.
I was wondering......just how do you get a 737 off a runway when it only has one main gear. Negotiating corners must be a problem. About 20+ tons on a main gear leg so you'd need a strong baggage trolley to stuff under the wing.
Any experts care to explain?
Any experts care to explain?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: on the edge of reason
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like it may never fly again. The airport authorities probably caused more damage then the landing(s) did. When being moved the stbd engine was lowered on to a trailer which was towed by a truck and the a/c was towed by a tug in the normal way, the trouble was caused by truck and tug not moving at the same time!
Severe stress applied to wing and number 2 pylon.
Severe stress applied to wing and number 2 pylon.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Belgium
Age: 45
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tnt accident in BHX
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by captjns
My question is this... How do you divert to BHX after landing at EMA and in the grass no less?
Have a read of the other thread about Birmingham being closed and it will all make sense.
Methinks it was a good bit of flying to recover and then make a very neat emergency landing with half of the main undercarriage missing plus other serious damage.
Glad nobody was injured.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 289
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mercenary Pilot
Does anyone know what the reported vis was at EMA at the time of the missed approach?
"the vis was about 350m rwy 27 and 250m rwy 09 at EMA at around 540z"
Suspect that after the mishap at East Mids they were not confident about the conditions in which they'd have to put her onto the ground there and elected to go to B'ham.
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Where do I live? Very close to BHX actually Carolyn ... hint, hint.
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Weird thing is that the right main gear has been ripped off, but they deposited it to the left of R27 at EMA - and pretty close to the threshold at that!
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JW - For the sake of an hour - who cares. What banzai was trying to put across was if the duty length could be a consideration for the mishap ?.
Mike J - DHL Air (UK) have a variation that allows 4/5 nights and 10.15hrs duty regardless of sectors flown with a max of 48 duty hrs rolling in 7 days.
If 1-3 nights they operate to CAP371 Table A
Mike J - DHL Air (UK) have a variation that allows 4/5 nights and 10.15hrs duty regardless of sectors flown with a max of 48 duty hrs rolling in 7 days.
If 1-3 nights they operate to CAP371 Table A
Psychophysiological entity
Excuse me if I have missed something on a quick read though, but were the parts found at EMA showing signs of an impact other than to the runway surface, i.e. is there any local surface/property damage.
Wheels can of course bounce a long way....but sideways? It would probably mean impact way before threshold. I assume that is your point. LR
Originally Posted by Map_Shift
Weird thing is that the right main gear has been ripped off, but they deposited it to the left of R27 at EMA - and pretty close to the threshold at that!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What im wondering is weather they touched during a missed approach or did they go-around after touching down on the grass for whatever reason?
FLAMER DISCLAIMER:
Of course, anything discussed at this point is pure speculation and I'll be waiting for an official report before passing any judgment.
FLAMER DISCLAIMER:
Of course, anything discussed at this point is pure speculation and I'll be waiting for an official report before passing any judgment.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Belgium
Age: 45
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by captjns
I think it takes great talent to completely miss the runway.
When they saw the rwy they realized that they were "parallel" to it. Autopilot was disengaged on short final unfortunately the aircraft had landed left of the runway before going around.
Mr Angry:
"The duty length could be a consideration for the mishap".
Now there is a ground-breaking thought. Have you thought about passing on this amazing revelation to the AAIB et al?
"For the sake of an hour - who cares".
Well, I would suspect that the AAIB, the CAA, the BCAA and Uncle Tom Cobbly and All would care if the crew were one hour over the top so lots of people care. This is hardly surprising.
I was simply responding to the statement that the crew "had better not be over 13 hours or there would be trouble". I have tried to point out that under Belgian FTLs, 13 hours is irrelevant.
But then, what's an hour between friends?
"The duty length could be a consideration for the mishap".
Now there is a ground-breaking thought. Have you thought about passing on this amazing revelation to the AAIB et al?
"For the sake of an hour - who cares".
Well, I would suspect that the AAIB, the CAA, the BCAA and Uncle Tom Cobbly and All would care if the crew were one hour over the top so lots of people care. This is hardly surprising.
I was simply responding to the statement that the crew "had better not be over 13 hours or there would be trouble". I have tried to point out that under Belgian FTLs, 13 hours is irrelevant.
But then, what's an hour between friends?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points....
Shooting a Cat 3 approach at EMA in the visibility described of 350m is not a completely blind manouvre. On the one hand a 737 crew can execute a Cat 1 landing in 550m vis and from deciding at 200' above the runway have a comforable period of time before touching down. Conversely executing an approach in the Cat 3 minimum of 200m still gives adequate visual cues for runway orientation on reaching DH at 50RA. In the example under discussion the prevailing visiblity was 350m, about halfway between the two scenarios.
For check purposes 737 simulators are set to show only the required 2 consecutive centreline lights although in the real world the visual cues on a 200m approach are more pleantiful. Even if the ILS deviation warnings failed (or you were so tired you ignored them), then the visual cues on a limiting 200m approach are sufficient to orientate yourself to the centre of the runway. Consequently it would be highly unlikely for a crew to suffer left/right disorientation and land on the grass in the given conditions. It appears equally inconceiveable that a 737 could stray far enough off the centreline to hit the grass in the final stages of the approach without flashing ILS indications warning both the crew of the situation.
There is mention of an auto-pilot disconnect at a late stage in the landing. If this disconnect was uncommanded it could well be as a result of the autopilot computer being unable to resolve a deteriorating LCZR tracking situation.
I think the level of pilot alertness may become a central issue in this investigation. The 737 has many poor design elements and two tired pilots doing their best can only do so much at the end of a long night.
After Helios.... will we see the antiquated design of the 737 flight deck come it for yet more examination?
Shooting a Cat 3 approach at EMA in the visibility described of 350m is not a completely blind manouvre. On the one hand a 737 crew can execute a Cat 1 landing in 550m vis and from deciding at 200' above the runway have a comforable period of time before touching down. Conversely executing an approach in the Cat 3 minimum of 200m still gives adequate visual cues for runway orientation on reaching DH at 50RA. In the example under discussion the prevailing visiblity was 350m, about halfway between the two scenarios.
For check purposes 737 simulators are set to show only the required 2 consecutive centreline lights although in the real world the visual cues on a 200m approach are more pleantiful. Even if the ILS deviation warnings failed (or you were so tired you ignored them), then the visual cues on a limiting 200m approach are sufficient to orientate yourself to the centre of the runway. Consequently it would be highly unlikely for a crew to suffer left/right disorientation and land on the grass in the given conditions. It appears equally inconceiveable that a 737 could stray far enough off the centreline to hit the grass in the final stages of the approach without flashing ILS indications warning both the crew of the situation.
There is mention of an auto-pilot disconnect at a late stage in the landing. If this disconnect was uncommanded it could well be as a result of the autopilot computer being unable to resolve a deteriorating LCZR tracking situation.
I think the level of pilot alertness may become a central issue in this investigation. The 737 has many poor design elements and two tired pilots doing their best can only do so much at the end of a long night.
After Helios.... will we see the antiquated design of the 737 flight deck come it for yet more examination?
Last edited by Magplug; 16th Jun 2006 at 19:34.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by joh
Usually when u have to perform a cat3 u don't do it for fun, there is no talent at all to completely miss the runway when u can't see it.
When they saw the rwy they realized that they were "parallel" to it. Autopilot was disengaged on short final unfortunately the aircraft had landed left of the runway before going around.
When they saw the rwy they realized that they were "parallel" to it. Autopilot was disengaged on short final unfortunately the aircraft had landed left of the runway before going around.
It's unfair to comment on what happened without the facts.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Solihull, UK
Age: 41
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been sitting passively reading this, but in response to the posts about "how you remove it" etc...
The plane was moved off runway 33 in time for the full length to re-open at about 1609 local, and was moved into the Alpha Loop. Overnight it was moved across to the western end of the currently unusable (due WIP) cross runway 24. This was all done with the RH engine on a low-loader, as it is now, and the markings have all gone. If this helps anyone, I've linked to the best photo I could get. I understand because of the reduced TORA some of the larger aircraft were being pushed back all the way from the gate onto the runway during the restrictions to get them out.
As for the "NIMBY alert" - yes, it's inevitable. But quicker to jump on the bandwagon was a senior BHX official, this morning quoted in the Birmingham Post as saying "If we already had the runway extension we plan to have by 2012, I think it would have made a difference," he said, "It would have allowed the larger plans to take off earlier."
http://www.reevery.net/gallery2/d/29...7-7786_IMG.JPG
The plane was moved off runway 33 in time for the full length to re-open at about 1609 local, and was moved into the Alpha Loop. Overnight it was moved across to the western end of the currently unusable (due WIP) cross runway 24. This was all done with the RH engine on a low-loader, as it is now, and the markings have all gone. If this helps anyone, I've linked to the best photo I could get. I understand because of the reduced TORA some of the larger aircraft were being pushed back all the way from the gate onto the runway during the restrictions to get them out.
As for the "NIMBY alert" - yes, it's inevitable. But quicker to jump on the bandwagon was a senior BHX official, this morning quoted in the Birmingham Post as saying "If we already had the runway extension we plan to have by 2012, I think it would have made a difference," he said, "It would have allowed the larger plans to take off earlier."
http://www.reevery.net/gallery2/d/29...7-7786_IMG.JPG
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: R4808E
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice image Reev
I bet the low loader driver has a few stories to tell down the pub this weekend,
"I had a Boeing 737 on my trailer this week"
"Of course you did, I'll have a pint of what you've been drinking"
I bet the low loader driver has a few stories to tell down the pub this weekend,
"I had a Boeing 737 on my trailer this week"
"Of course you did, I'll have a pint of what you've been drinking"
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by captjns
Anyway, in any event, the autopilot during a normal CAT III approach is never disconnected until the aircraft is on the ground. That is the purpose of a CAT III approach... it also lands the jet because of the low minimums and the inabilitiy to have proper visual cues to disconnect and land the aircraft from as low as 50 feet. If the "carpet" is not seen at minimums, then the missed approach is executed, with the autopilot still engaged.
??On the 757 if during an autoland approach, following LAND 3 annunciation, the Autoland Status Indicator (ASA) changes to LAND 2, execute a manual landing (weather permitting), or execute a manual go-around.
So it could be totally normal to do a manual go-around during a CAT 3 just an example, there are other scenarios which could make you do a manual go-around. What are saying, you should never disconnect during an autoland?