Aer Lingus incident in SNN
accelalt:
I understand your point of view as a regular passenger. I too question the sense in allowing a Captain to continue operating when their solution to a long float in an ATR in turbulent conditions was allegedly to push the nose forward.
But the issue is not the ATR's crosswind limit because the steady crosswind component of the wind was well within limits. Even if you add a gust factor, it's still within the limits. It's also nothing to do with go-around technique in windshear because we're talking instead about unpredictable turbulence on the TDZ. In any event, after the first baulked landing the crew did perform a go-around correctly.
I understand your point of view as a regular passenger. I too question the sense in allowing a Captain to continue operating when their solution to a long float in an ATR in turbulent conditions was allegedly to push the nose forward.
But the issue is not the ATR's crosswind limit because the steady crosswind component of the wind was well within limits. Even if you add a gust factor, it's still within the limits. It's also nothing to do with go-around technique in windshear because we're talking instead about unpredictable turbulence on the TDZ. In any event, after the first baulked landing the crew did perform a go-around correctly.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys
Did the go around correctly - are you kidding me - they left one of the nose wheels on the ground it was hit with such force that it was found on the grass beside the runway!!
Is this forum only watched by people who cant fly???? Please someone that knows the industry comment.
Did the go around correctly - are you kidding me - they left one of the nose wheels on the ground it was hit with such force that it was found on the grass beside the runway!!
Is this forum only watched by people who cant fly???? Please someone that knows the industry comment.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Far away.
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, i will comment. I know the industry accelalt.
Regardless of a nose wheel been left on the R/W from the first approach, that does not mean the go around was preformed incorrectly.
A go around generally is not hampered with the loss of a nose wheel unless the gear will not retract which then would degrade the climb performance.
Also on another level i am quite surprised that an evacuation was not performed by the Flight Crew. I know in most airlines the Cabin Crew have the authority to evacuate under certain conditions I.E. Smoke, or aircraft “lopsided"
Regardless of a nose wheel been left on the R/W from the first approach, that does not mean the go around was preformed incorrectly.
A go around generally is not hampered with the loss of a nose wheel unless the gear will not retract which then would degrade the climb performance.
Also on another level i am quite surprised that an evacuation was not performed by the Flight Crew. I know in most airlines the Cabin Crew have the authority to evacuate under certain conditions I.E. Smoke, or aircraft “lopsided"
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys,
I have asked permission from a friend of mine who works in Aer Arann to say the following, and he is so concerned about safety that he has agreed.
I am a regular pax on the regional service and use it to a specific destination on average, twice a week. I am well known to the crew on that route.
This particular flight into Shannon was not handled properaly. The crew should have gone around much earlier and if not happy with the second attempt, diverted.
I apologise for my flippant remark re 20 hour PPL earlier but I was aware of certain facts that clouded my judgment and I was angry because I fly with them regularly. I hold a PPL and keep it current and I couldnt believe that an accidient - not incident, such as this could have been swept under the carpet in such a fashion by the regulator.
The head of training in Aer Arann is over seventy and is still there because he enjoys such a very good and cosy relationship with the IAA. The pilot involved in the accident is a particular favorite of his, hence the incrediblely lenient treatment offered by the airline. Still flying after such an accidend - beggars belief.
I am a fare paying pax, and my tax dollars are spent proping up this redicilous outfit. Aer Arann recieved in excess of 100 million euro in state subsidy since its foundation and as for the IAA (institute against aviation), utter spineless morons. Well you know what, I have had enough. I have penned three letters to the IAA, AER (just for you A pumps) Lingus and Aer Arann asking why my safety was compromised by allowing this crew to continue to operate while a serious accidient investigating was on going.
A go around is a maneuver designed to be implemented well in advance of a suitation getting out of hand. By defination it is planned. Also there is no, I repeat, no documented case of windshear below 50 feet on the hundred of millions of approches made by a/c on a daily basis across the globe - none. It occurs much earlier on the approch, hence the planned go around or evasive maneuver.
Finaly, if anyone is in any doubt as to the seriousness of this accident, NONE of the cabin crew have flown since. One was so traumatised by the experience, he needed to be off loaded from a flight days later and transported bact to Dublin via the ferry.
Does EICK and Manx ring any bells
I have asked permission from a friend of mine who works in Aer Arann to say the following, and he is so concerned about safety that he has agreed.
I am a regular pax on the regional service and use it to a specific destination on average, twice a week. I am well known to the crew on that route.
This particular flight into Shannon was not handled properaly. The crew should have gone around much earlier and if not happy with the second attempt, diverted.
I apologise for my flippant remark re 20 hour PPL earlier but I was aware of certain facts that clouded my judgment and I was angry because I fly with them regularly. I hold a PPL and keep it current and I couldnt believe that an accidient - not incident, such as this could have been swept under the carpet in such a fashion by the regulator.
The head of training in Aer Arann is over seventy and is still there because he enjoys such a very good and cosy relationship with the IAA. The pilot involved in the accident is a particular favorite of his, hence the incrediblely lenient treatment offered by the airline. Still flying after such an accidend - beggars belief.
I am a fare paying pax, and my tax dollars are spent proping up this redicilous outfit. Aer Arann recieved in excess of 100 million euro in state subsidy since its foundation and as for the IAA (institute against aviation), utter spineless morons. Well you know what, I have had enough. I have penned three letters to the IAA, AER (just for you A pumps) Lingus and Aer Arann asking why my safety was compromised by allowing this crew to continue to operate while a serious accidient investigating was on going.
A go around is a maneuver designed to be implemented well in advance of a suitation getting out of hand. By defination it is planned. Also there is no, I repeat, no documented case of windshear below 50 feet on the hundred of millions of approches made by a/c on a daily basis across the globe - none. It occurs much earlier on the approch, hence the planned go around or evasive maneuver.
Finaly, if anyone is in any doubt as to the seriousness of this accident, NONE of the cabin crew have flown since. One was so traumatised by the experience, he needed to be off loaded from a flight days later and transported bact to Dublin via the ferry.
Does EICK and Manx ring any bells
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excuse me? Where are the usually alert moderators allowing the rubbish above to remain posted? accelt, permission or not you have no business bad mouthing the pilots involved in this incident. You already pre-empted the incident report and have cast judgement on the Captain involved. Having a PPL gives you no special right or insight into what happened that day. You are no expert.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corsair
How dare you question my right to comment on this accident which is in the public domain involving an airline that I use regularly. Just because you dont like what you hear being said about your friends, dosent give you the right to censor the facts.
I travel regularly with an airline that is not operating to best industry practices. I am told that had such an event occured in Aer Lingus, then, while getting the best possible support from the company, the crew would not operate till an official report was completed. I have every bloody right to comment.
The prelimary report IS published and I suggest you read it. I aslo suggest you read the thread before ranting in such an unprofessional manner.
If you condone the fact that this crew was operating while an air accident investion was ongoin then I would ask you who you fly for so I can avoid your cowboy outfit aswell.
How dare you question my right to comment on this accident which is in the public domain involving an airline that I use regularly. Just because you dont like what you hear being said about your friends, dosent give you the right to censor the facts.
I travel regularly with an airline that is not operating to best industry practices. I am told that had such an event occured in Aer Lingus, then, while getting the best possible support from the company, the crew would not operate till an official report was completed. I have every bloody right to comment.
The prelimary report IS published and I suggest you read it. I aslo suggest you read the thread before ranting in such an unprofessional manner.
If you condone the fact that this crew was operating while an air accident investion was ongoin then I would ask you who you fly for so I can avoid your cowboy outfit aswell.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
accelalt
I think you need to chill out a wee bit! You are casting a lot of aspersions around - and indeed making some very serious allegations which could land you in hot water...
Besides, you are wrong about the go-around. I've read the interim report and my understanding is that they attempted to land, went around and then when they landed the damage occurred to the landing gear. There was nothing wrong with the gear during the go-around.
I think you need to chill out a wee bit! You are casting a lot of aspersions around - and indeed making some very serious allegations which could land you in hot water...
Besides, you are wrong about the go-around. I've read the interim report and my understanding is that they attempted to land, went around and then when they landed the damage occurred to the landing gear. There was nothing wrong with the gear during the go-around.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This site and this forum as has been repeatedly pointed out is a forum for professional pilots. Most notably airline pilots. However all are generally welcome to add comments, relevant comments.
You have no right to condemm the pilots or cast aspersions on their professionalism or indeed on that of head of training of the airline concerned. You are way out of order.
The mods will deal with you in due course.
You have no right to condemm the pilots or cast aspersions on their professionalism or indeed on that of head of training of the airline concerned. You are way out of order.
The mods will deal with you in due course.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steed
Your 'understanding' is simply wrong. Also, to rob a famous line, your brain is writing cheques that your body cant cash. How arrogant are you to believe that you can threthen me with that rubbish you have written above.
Reread the report - maybe the AAIU can add some pictures that will make it easier for you. Its pretty clear - nose wheel lost during first attempt to land.
The feeling in the cockpit should have alerted them to the possibility of damage - this was a violent impact.
Also, what are the serious alegations?? - crew operating while under an active air accident investigation - well arresst me and throw away the key.
Regulation my #####
Your 'understanding' is simply wrong. Also, to rob a famous line, your brain is writing cheques that your body cant cash. How arrogant are you to believe that you can threthen me with that rubbish you have written above.
Reread the report - maybe the AAIU can add some pictures that will make it easier for you. Its pretty clear - nose wheel lost during first attempt to land.
The feeling in the cockpit should have alerted them to the possibility of damage - this was a violent impact.
Also, what are the serious alegations?? - crew operating while under an active air accident investigation - well arresst me and throw away the key.
Regulation my #####
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: ireland
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can we cool down a bit and think laterally for a mo...
For anyone who reckons RE doesn't have a problem have a read of 'Aer Arann' thread in A,A and R forum and 'Aer Arann exodus has started thread' in T and E forum on this website.
If it is standard industry practice to "stand down" a captain after an incident like the SNN one, then we are entitled to ask EI, RE and the IAA why this hasn't happened...
For anyone who reckons RE doesn't have a problem have a read of 'Aer Arann' thread in A,A and R forum and 'Aer Arann exodus has started thread' in T and E forum on this website.
If it is standard industry practice to "stand down" a captain after an incident like the SNN one, then we are entitled to ask EI, RE and the IAA why this hasn't happened...
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An airport security camera recording (CCTV3) confirmed a touch-down with a significant nose-down attitude. The FDR recorded a G-spike (normal acceleration) of 1.7 G. The aircraft immediately bounced back into the air. The PF applied power and initiated a go-around. During the go-around the undercarriage was retracted and normal cockpit indications were observed by the flight crew. No warning tones sounded during this landing and go-around.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone who reckons RE doesn't have a problem have a read of 'Aer Arann' thread in A,A and R forum and 'Aer Arann exodus has started thread' in T and E forum on this website.
The only person here who needs to cool down is accelt.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Dublin
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Corsair.
Please tell me what you dont get here. Please - rantings. I am telling you the facts as described by the AAIU. If you dont wat to believe them then thats your problem.
I say again, I use this airline every other day and I demand a level of professionalism both from the airline and more importantly, from the regulator. Neither is obvious from either in this case.
I am not trying to be provocitive. I have so much admiration for the men and wemon who fly us from A to B but I need to know that when they screw up, big brother is not only watching but is also prepared to make the right decision. Please people tell me that allowing a crew to operate while under investigation is not normal. (and never should be normal)
Please tell me what you dont get here. Please - rantings. I am telling you the facts as described by the AAIU. If you dont wat to believe them then thats your problem.
I say again, I use this airline every other day and I demand a level of professionalism both from the airline and more importantly, from the regulator. Neither is obvious from either in this case.
I am not trying to be provocitive. I have so much admiration for the men and wemon who fly us from A to B but I need to know that when they screw up, big brother is not only watching but is also prepared to make the right decision. Please people tell me that allowing a crew to operate while under investigation is not normal. (and never should be normal)
Did the go around correctly - are you kidding me - they left one of the nose wheels on the ground
The crew should have gone around much earlier
Oh dear. Here we go again. The ATIS and ATC reported moderate turbulence and windshear on final approach and TDZ, yet the overall conditions were within the aircraft's limits. If we all performed a go-around when faced with these conditions there'd be diversions all over the place!
A go-around is never 'planned'. It's the trained reaction to an event - be it an aircraft lining up when you're a mile out or a gust of wind that renders the landing unsafe when you're a foot off the deck. There was no reason to perform a go-around before they did so and the procedure appears to have been followed 'correctly'.
As misd-gin says, you can't really defend the decision to push the nose forward in these circumstance. 8 degrees nose down is an awful lot, so I imagine there's more to this than has been reported thus far.
If one is guessing, it is quite possible that they were experiencing a gust which caused the float, the PF applied forward pressure on the yoke to counteract the aircraft's natural tendency to climb with the added lift, but unfortunately this action coincided with the gust abating, leading to an exaggerated nose down attitude and a nosewheel strike.
But it's all guesswork until the full report comes out.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mikehotel152,
Really. So you never brief the go around procedure or SOPs before commencing a go around?
Really?
How about:
1. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data2 indicates that the aircraft experienced an extended landing flare.
2. The PF subsequently stated that difficulty was experienced in getting the aircraft to settle on the runway during this time.
3. The PF became increasingly concerned about the remaining length of runway available.
Yes? No? You consider it 'correct' to shunt the nosewheel into the tarmac at 1.7g and bounce off said nosewheel before you would consider a go around?
Who do you fly for?
Accelalt,
It is standard procedure to immediately ground flight crew involved in an accident if that accident is serious enough to inform the Chief Inspector of Accidents.
I would humbly suggest that this accident would satisfy that criteria.
A go-around is never 'planned'.
There was no reason to perform a go-around before they did so and the procedure appears to have been followed 'correctly'.
How about:
1. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data2 indicates that the aircraft experienced an extended landing flare.
2. The PF subsequently stated that difficulty was experienced in getting the aircraft to settle on the runway during this time.
3. The PF became increasingly concerned about the remaining length of runway available.
Yes? No? You consider it 'correct' to shunt the nosewheel into the tarmac at 1.7g and bounce off said nosewheel before you would consider a go around?
Who do you fly for?
Accelalt,
It is standard procedure to immediately ground flight crew involved in an accident if that accident is serious enough to inform the Chief Inspector of Accidents.
I would humbly suggest that this accident would satisfy that criteria.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2 points...
When did the NW come off? Well, since:
and
Landing 1:
&
So, if the NW broke off on the 1st landing, depite aiming to land at the end of the LZ, floating well beyond that, before eventually touching down, the NW was found abeam the "LZ", can 'accelalt' explain how a NW detaching at 100K? goes backwards a few thousand feet?
Bearing in mind Landing 2:
and
[NB 1st landing was much less 'g'] I would say it is fairly likely the Nose Leg collapse, Hyd Fail and NW detaching were fairly simulataneous.
So accelalt, can you let us know how you deduce
??
Regarding
in my airline, yes, crew will be suspended post an incident. Various reasons, most of which are pretty obvious. However, reinstatement I would not think, even in Aer Lingus, require 'an official report was completed'. A parallel internal investigation will occur within the company, and they and the formal investigating team will work together. Reinstatement, if appropriate (and possible re-training), would normally occur fairly quickly, and that process will not be made public.
Think BA38 - do you really think the crew were suspended until the final report came out?
When did the NW come off? Well, since:
The axle of the right nose wheel had failed, resulting in the departure of this wheel. The wheel was subsequently located in the grass to the left of RWY 24 Touch-down Zone.
self-positioned for an Instrument Landing System (ILS) approach to Runway (RWY) 24
.
elected to aim for a touch-down at the end of the RWY 24 Touch-down Zone.
the aircraft experienced an extended landing flare. Engine torque was increased during the initial flare and then progressively reduced in stages. The PF subsequently stated that difficulty was experienced in getting the aircraft to settle on the runway during this time. The PF became increasingly concerned about the remaining length of runway available and decided to positively land the aircraft by applying a forward input on the control column
Bearing in mind Landing 2:
The final touch-down occurred at a pitch angle of 8° nose down and a G-spike of 2.3G. At this point the Blue hydraulic system lost pressure.
This showed the aircraft with the nose wheel collapsed
So accelalt, can you let us know how you deduce
Its pretty clear - nose wheel lost during first attempt to land
Regarding
I am told that had such an event occured in Aer Lingus, then, while getting the best possible support from the company, the crew would not operate till an official report was completed. I have every bloody right to comment.
Think BA38 - do you really think the crew were suspended until the final report came out?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoD, I think he might be interpreting the "single event failure" wording as fell off at the first impact and not as a result of two impacts.
I can see how it may seem to imply that the failure occured on the first touchdown however, I'm not convinced that it was the intention of the report to suggest it.
IIRC it is only the flight safety manager or fleet manager that may overrule a grounding following an accident, pending the outcome of an investigation. I assume that the FSM/FM, was in this case happy to allow the crew to return to flying.
Can't really see why though!
I can see how it may seem to imply that the failure occured on the first touchdown however, I'm not convinced that it was the intention of the report to suggest it.
IIRC it is only the flight safety manager or fleet manager that may overrule a grounding following an accident, pending the outcome of an investigation. I assume that the FSM/FM, was in this case happy to allow the crew to return to flying.
Can't really see why though!