Aer Lingus incident in SNN

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Pilot Flying (PF) elected to aim for a touch-down at the end of the RWY 24 Touch-down Zone. This was to avoid possible turbulence during the final stages of the approach/landing. The PF considered, given the length of RWY 24(10,000 ft) and the landing performance of the ATR 72, that the remaining runway length available was sufficient to achieve a safe landing.

The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data2 indicates that 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.

So an extended flare, after aiming at the end of the TDZ.

Anyone care to state how much runway they had left when they "landed"?

Of course not, you can't. This talk of 7000' blah blah is garbage and NOT the point.

[Mikehotel152]

So a go around is planned then. Good.

I've never said the go-around procedure wasn't briefed. I merely said that the crew are unlikely to have 'planned' to go-around due to the reported wind. Remember, I was responding in lay-speak to a non-pilot.

I sincerely hope that you would go around before that, regardless of aircraft size

At what point would you have liked to see a go-around given that the wind on approach was within limits, they expected turbulence on the TDZ and could have anticipated a long flare, and the landing was recoverable until the moment the PF pushed the nosewheel into the tarmac?

Anyone care to state how much runway they had left when they "landed"?

It is highly likely that they had plenty, however there's not enough information to make a judgment. Generally, however, I would agree that a go-around ought to be made once significantly beyond the TDZ.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Regardless of prevalent weather conditions a go around should be carried out at the point that a landing can not be achieved in the touchdown zone.

however there's not enough information to make a judgment

the landing was recoverable until the moment the PF pushed the nosewheel into the tarmac

Seems to me that you have judged the landing as safe, acceptable and recoverable despite not having enough information to make that judgement!

[Mikehotel152]

Give a guy an olive branch and he uproots the whole tree.

Yes, perhaps it will be shown that the flare was over 1000m long (quite a record if you ask me) and that the ATR crew only had a further 1000m left in which to touch down and bring the aircraft to the stop. Somehow, I doubt it.

But I really don't see why this is becoming such a big issue when the cause of the accident was quite clearly the poor landing technique and not the decision to continue the approach because of a float on a 3200m runway.

a go around should be carried out at the point that a landing can not be achieved in the touchdown zone.

Perhaps it was the desire to comply with that general dictat that caused the PF to frantically push the nosewheel into the ground. A bit more common sense might have avoided the incident altogether.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

A bit more common sense might have avoided the incident altogether.

Like an earlier go around perhaps.

[overun]

Power Attitude Trim. Flying Coke Man l agree with your comments totally but the reality appears to be that a lot of people out there believe that when the power levers are gentled - or placed if that helps - into flight idle the aircraft decends vertically, more so with increased drag and lift by use of flap.
l would add lack of handling skills to your assessment.

[OldChinaHand]

Does the Company Operations Manual specify touching down within a specific area on the Runway ? (not that it should need to)
Does it caution against deep landings and extended flares, specify a point in these situations where a rejected landing is mandatory? (not that it should need to either).
Is there a culture with local operators of adopting this practice on this particular Runway (never was in my time there).
Was there a practice in the Pilots PPL/CPL training of landing past certain points on a runway for whatever reason leading to "reversion under stress occuring".

I am not familiar with this operators manuals/procedures and not finger pointing. But definitely asking myself why a Captain would consider this strategy and was it specifically prohibited by Ops Manual.

[Robin400]

At E2 hold a few days ago, things have not improved. 300 to 400m past the touchdown point, nose wheel mico seconds after the mains.
No sign of up elevator prior landing.

[overun]

l removed the comment l had made earlier at this point.

The fact remains that the Atr72 is not a newbie pilots aeroplane.

Gill Air would accept 2000hrs for the SH360 and 3000hrs for the 72 if known within the company. Shell had a minimum of 5000hrs for the 72 on the Shetland Islands contract out of Aberdeen.

For good reason.

[Empty Cruise]

Spandex,

If you determine your required touch-down point, e.g abeam a certain taxiway where you know runway remaining, then there is nothing wrong with displacing your touchdown point.

DXB in a bizjet comes to mind - when your first allowable turn-off is 2800m from the threshold and they're working with 3-4 miles spacing, it takes no genius to work out that if you land in the TZD, the next guy goes around, indeed, ATC request crews to plan accordingly.

Obviously, if you can't identify your new touch-down point, SOP prohibits it or there is good reason why you would not do it, then you're back to plan A - and if you sail past your new touch-down point, you throw it away and go around - just as you would had you sailed past the TDZ...

[WHBM]

Bear in mind that Aer Arann operate with the same aircraft and crews into London City (LDA 4,327 ft/1,319 m).

[mave292]

I would think an inexperienced crew and incorrect crosswind landing technique would seem to be a major contribution to the incident/accident ?? And why anybody would want to land long is beyond me, if in doubt there should be no doubt, go-around or divert. And yes, i have operated the ATR with 3000 hour on type.

[overun]

WHBM. l doubt that the same crews are involved, Shannon is probably a newbie training ground taking into account the runway length.

[Kalistan]

Utterly gobsmacked!

And how the devil has the captain, who was pilot flying, being allowed to continue to fly in the absence of a prelimerary report. No airline (unless third world) would allow a pilot to continue to fly after such a serious incidient until at least the facts were established

In most " third world " countries the pilots of such incidences will certainly be grounded. In some, like this particular one, somehow the process do not work like it should.

Granted that as an SLF she/he is ignorant of the intricacies of flying in such atmospheric conditions that does not excuse her/his petulant rants and lack of grace. If she/he were to try such tricks with her/his surgeons, they would probably quietly remove a wee bit of the offending grey matter from the thick skull.

[accelalt]

Kalistan
Aviation isnt about you living your dream, and moving a chunk of metal through the air giving you some sort of geeky pleasure.

Its about moving mases of people around our air space in an alumium tube as safely as possible. Your observations are both incorrect and infactual and the crew of this Aerarann flight did nothing to calm its fare paying pax that it was in control. Further more, there is no evidence that the regulator of this air space was in control either.

8 degrees nose down dosent seem to have had any affect!! - a good job by some sources. (This is a quote)

Hope I dont fly with you soon.

I for one have voted with my feet and do not now travel with this carrier any more. I take a flight to Preswick and do the rest by road.

[Lurking_SLF]

For those interested, I noticed that the final report has been published today.

Final Report 2013-008

[dontdoit]

Now I'm confused. Are the 2 pilots still working for this operator or flying for someone else?