Aer Lingus incident in SNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As in
? Ah well, no way I would interpret that as which landing it was - just one event. If the 1st landing was 1.7g and broke 1 NW off, the 2nd one did well to stand up to 2.3g by itself 
Well, it would be the airline / fleet maager which grounded them. Don't know of any law / rule / practice where either the CAA / IAA or AAIU / AAIB would action the grounding?
Having reviewed the incident, and retrained as necessary, you might as well either reinstate or sack. No point leaving everybody sitting around waiting for...?
...that it failed in single event overload mode
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!
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no way I would interpret that as which landing it was
Well, it would be the airline / fleet maager which grounded them. Don't know of any law / rule / practice where either the CAA / IAA or AAIU / AAIB would action the grounding?
you might as well either reinstate or sack
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel on Draft.
The second arrival was rather different in that the nose leg travelled backwards, possibly aided by the first arrival but who knows ?
The real cruncher, as if one is needed, is the speeds involved.
Not released.
The second arrival was rather different in that the nose leg travelled backwards, possibly aided by the first arrival but who knows ?
The real cruncher, as if one is needed, is the speeds involved.
Not released.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a little reality check guys..While I do agree that this is a Rumour Network the first "P" in pprune stands for "PROFESSIONAL" an alot of the above comments are by no means that!
This was a serious incident but was handled very well and professional by all crew involved and it is up to the AAIU to proportion blame if any is required with there final report! In the meantime it is not helpfull for faceless people hiding behind usernames to proportion blame and speculate on the events.
To "accelalt" who seams to know so much about what goes on within Aer Arann your informant was incorrect, some of the Cabin Crew have flown since the incident and any subsequent events is totally there own buisness and no one else's.
I do not work for Aer Arann.
This was a serious incident but was handled very well and professional by all crew involved and it is up to the AAIU to proportion blame if any is required with there final report! In the meantime it is not helpfull for faceless people hiding behind usernames to proportion blame and speculate on the events.
To "accelalt" who seams to know so much about what goes on within Aer Arann your informant was incorrect, some of the Cabin Crew have flown since the incident and any subsequent events is totally there own buisness and no one else's.
I do not work for Aer Arann.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sir, may l suggest the reality check needed is for you ?
Accelalt spoke openly and plainly as a ppl passenger. l find it very difficult to criticise him.
lf you were to check you would find that aircraft forced to land tend to come to grief, you may take that as a golden rule. LSM is plainly an experienced pilot and as such really should be listened to.
For my part l have flown the type as commander in the Shetland lsles, the Channel lsles, and for two and a half years out of Galway.
Just have a think and calm down. Thankyou.
Accelalt spoke openly and plainly as a ppl passenger. l find it very difficult to criticise him.
lf you were to check you would find that aircraft forced to land tend to come to grief, you may take that as a golden rule. LSM is plainly an experienced pilot and as such really should be listened to.
For my part l have flown the type as commander in the Shetland lsles, the Channel lsles, and for two and a half years out of Galway.
Just have a think and calm down. Thankyou.
Last edited by overun; 27th Aug 2011 at 03:03.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATCO97
Well, maybe, but errr:
from AAIU website 
and it is up to the AAIU to proportion blame if any is required
IT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF ANY SUCH ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION AND THE ASSOCIATED INVESTIGATION REPORT TO APPORTION BLAME OR LIABILITY.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The second arrival was rather different in that the nose leg travelled backwards, possibly aided by the first arrival but who knows ?
The real cruncher, as if one is needed, is the speeds involved
The NW is not braked, so cannot see speed as a factor...
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you mean me, yes 
If it's reference speed / 'g' / gear strength - gear are often tested via a "drop test" at zero "speed".
I am willing to be educated as to "why" speed is such an important factor in determining the relative impact loads on the NW - over and above the 'g' load (albeit allowing some latitude for FDR g sample rates).
NoD
If it's reference speed / 'g' / gear strength - gear are often tested via a "drop test" at zero "speed".I am willing to be educated as to "why" speed is such an important factor in determining the relative impact loads on the NW - over and above the 'g' load (albeit allowing some latitude for FDR g sample rates).
NoD
@Lord Spandex Masher
Of course I do, on every single approach. If you re-read my posts in the context of accelalt's lay comments you might understand where I was coming from.
With respect, have you read any of my posts? I categorically stated that pushing the nose forward was wrong.
However, the ATR was floating on a 3000m runway. Surely it was possible to salvage the landing without pushing forward so dramatically: there was plenty of runway available and I routinely see those ATRs landing long at SNN.
Obviously, in a larger aircraft, I would have performed a go-around once significantly passed the TDZ.
I do wish people would read posts carefully and in context before flying off the handle!
So you never brief the go around procedure or SOPs before commencing a go around?
Of course I do, on every single approach. If you re-read my posts in the context of accelalt's lay comments you might understand where I was coming from.
...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?
With respect, have you read any of my posts? I categorically stated that pushing the nose forward was wrong. However, the ATR was floating on a 3000m runway. Surely it was possible to salvage the landing without pushing forward so dramatically: there was plenty of runway available and I routinely see those ATRs landing long at SNN.
Obviously, in a larger aircraft, I would have performed a go-around once significantly passed the TDZ.
I do wish people would read posts carefully and in context before flying off the handle!
The capt. has power on during the landing at different settings and yet tries to lower the nose to -8 deg in order force the plane on the ground. Sounds to me like poor training!?
Quite a few ATR pilots use "power on" during landing and it is not the correct procedure. I have seen many exercise this in Aer Arann. Like any other plane the ATR needs to be in power idle and ATR standard is you "cut" the power at 20 ft and start flaring it.
Quite a few ATR pilots use "power on" during landing and it is not the correct procedure. I have seen many exercise this in Aer Arann. Like any other plane the ATR needs to be in power idle and ATR standard is you "cut" the power at 20 ft and start flaring it.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like any other plane the ATR needs to be in power idle....cut the power at 20ft
Which raises an interesting point. What is the normal landing flap setting for the Arran ATR and how does the handling differ between flap settings?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the earlier posted videos there seems to be an issue with landing technique where by aircraft are touching down flat or even on the nose gear, also reading other comments here (if true) it appears that the aircraft are being allowed to land long because of available runway length.
This company has been mentioned fairly regularly on this website due to financial problems and operational concerns. As with any accident, there will be a chain of events that has lead up to this and I feel the the root causes will point to a lack training resources, inability to retain their most experienced TRI's, LTC's & senior Captains and also a lack of oversight by the Irish aviation authorities.
There appears to be a trend that hasnt been picked up or stepped on earlier. A programme such as a Flight Data Monitoring scheme should have indicated this, its far too easy just to say pilot error and move along.
This company has been mentioned fairly regularly on this website due to financial problems and operational concerns. As with any accident, there will be a chain of events that has lead up to this and I feel the the root causes will point to a lack training resources, inability to retain their most experienced TRI's, LTC's & senior Captains and also a lack of oversight by the Irish aviation authorities.
There appears to be a trend that hasnt been picked up or stepped on earlier. A programme such as a Flight Data Monitoring scheme should have indicated this, its far too easy just to say pilot error and move along.
Many if not most of you here already know and understand the following. I'm only explaining it in simple terms for the benefit of the few who apparently don't.
Contacting the runway nosewheels first applies a rearward force component to the NLG in addition to the upward component. This not how the airplane was designed to be landed and the NLG is not designed to withstand impact forces with the kind of rearward force induced by impacting the runway nose first. Apply enough rearward force and the NLG will fail. (at any speed)
Speed is quite often a key factor in nose first landings however. At too high an airspeed the nose is too low to allow landing on the mains first. Anyone who habitually watches landings has seen it happen. Where a C-172 might be relatively tolerant of such handling, large aircraft used in commercial passenger service are typically not.
Where large jet transports typically cross the runway end 3 degrees or more nose up, many large turboprops normally approach the runway nose low, requiring that the nose be raised to an attitude which allows the mains to touch first. This is only possible if sufficient speed reduction is made during the flair to allow the nose to be clear of the ground when the mains touch. Approaching at excessive speed or carrying too much power during the flair does not allow this necessary speed reduction to occur in a timely manner. Pilots floating further down the runway than desirable are often observed "pushing" the airplane nose down to get it on the ground. In most jet types, this just results in a firm landing on the mains with no harm. In many propeller airplanes it means hitting flat or even nose first.
In gusty conditions, airspeed control is complicated by airspeed fluctuations caused by the wind gusts. The best that can be done in these conditions is to fly an "average" airspeed somewhere near the target value. In consideration of this, wind and gust "additives" are employed as a protection against getting critically slow. Depending upon the airplane type and the operator policy, it may mean adding up to 15 knots to the approach speed. But this speed must still be bled off prior to allowing the airplane to touch down. Failing to bleed off this additional energy will result in floating and possibly a nose first touchdown if the pilot forces the airplane onto the runway as described above.
In the four times I've stopped at Shannon, the wind conditions were as described on the day of this accident. The other time it was only rainy and foggy! I can attest to the fact that you get some good "rollers" off those hangars. Still much less demanding to land our little jet than it appears to be for the regional turboprops I saw there. This crew had a bad day and banged up the airplane in the process. Good that it wasn't worse. Maybe with some re-training and checking, the airline has determined that the flightcrew members in question learned from the experience and currently meet the standards set forth for assignment to flying duties. Maybe waiting for a final report is not necessary. (notwithstanding the objections of at least ONE customer)
Best regards,
westhawk
Contacting the runway nosewheels first applies a rearward force component to the NLG in addition to the upward component. This not how the airplane was designed to be landed and the NLG is not designed to withstand impact forces with the kind of rearward force induced by impacting the runway nose first. Apply enough rearward force and the NLG will fail. (at any speed)
Speed is quite often a key factor in nose first landings however. At too high an airspeed the nose is too low to allow landing on the mains first. Anyone who habitually watches landings has seen it happen. Where a C-172 might be relatively tolerant of such handling, large aircraft used in commercial passenger service are typically not.
Where large jet transports typically cross the runway end 3 degrees or more nose up, many large turboprops normally approach the runway nose low, requiring that the nose be raised to an attitude which allows the mains to touch first. This is only possible if sufficient speed reduction is made during the flair to allow the nose to be clear of the ground when the mains touch. Approaching at excessive speed or carrying too much power during the flair does not allow this necessary speed reduction to occur in a timely manner. Pilots floating further down the runway than desirable are often observed "pushing" the airplane nose down to get it on the ground. In most jet types, this just results in a firm landing on the mains with no harm. In many propeller airplanes it means hitting flat or even nose first.
In gusty conditions, airspeed control is complicated by airspeed fluctuations caused by the wind gusts. The best that can be done in these conditions is to fly an "average" airspeed somewhere near the target value. In consideration of this, wind and gust "additives" are employed as a protection against getting critically slow. Depending upon the airplane type and the operator policy, it may mean adding up to 15 knots to the approach speed. But this speed must still be bled off prior to allowing the airplane to touch down. Failing to bleed off this additional energy will result in floating and possibly a nose first touchdown if the pilot forces the airplane onto the runway as described above.
In the four times I've stopped at Shannon, the wind conditions were as described on the day of this accident. The other time it was only rainy and foggy! I can attest to the fact that you get some good "rollers" off those hangars. Still much less demanding to land our little jet than it appears to be for the regional turboprops I saw there. This crew had a bad day and banged up the airplane in the process. Good that it wasn't worse. Maybe with some re-training and checking, the airline has determined that the flightcrew members in question learned from the experience and currently meet the standards set forth for assignment to flying duties. Maybe waiting for a final report is not necessary. (notwithstanding the objections of at least ONE customer)
Best regards,
westhawk
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@accelait and all all the others who are incriminating Aer Arann and its standards for allowing the captain in question to continue flying -
Apparently since the incident, the captain has been on supervised line training flights - and still is, even though the preliminary report has been published.
This does not seem irresponsible to me, that is hardly permitting them to endanger fare paying passengers, or indeed anyone, from how I see it.
Also, on a different note, if you chopped the power on a 212 with the 4 bladed prop at 20 feet you would be heading straight for disaster. They fall out of the air like a stone when you do that, and unlike their 6 bladed counterparts, in such conditions it is usually much safer to continue flying them onto the ground, checking the descent obviously.
i would suggest that people who have absolutely no experience or knowledge of such could research their facts better before posting.
Apparently since the incident, the captain has been on supervised line training flights - and still is, even though the preliminary report has been published.
This does not seem irresponsible to me, that is hardly permitting them to endanger fare paying passengers, or indeed anyone, from how I see it.
Also, on a different note, if you chopped the power on a 212 with the 4 bladed prop at 20 feet you would be heading straight for disaster. They fall out of the air like a stone when you do that, and unlike their 6 bladed counterparts, in such conditions it is usually much safer to continue flying them onto the ground, checking the descent obviously.
i would suggest that people who have absolutely no experience or knowledge of such could research their facts better before posting.
LMOBOW,
My experience is +4000 hrs on the ATR and having flown all of them (obviously not the -600) including the -212. I have even flown as a contract capt for several years in Arann (a long time ago) and I never had any problems chopping the power as per ATR standard nor was that a known issue at the time on the -212. So I feel I am very much entitled to comment on the report and events!
As has been mentioned earlier on in this thread is that the company is having financial difficulties and has been consistently loosing experienced captains and first officers the last 8 years.
The standard is falling as the experience is dropping as it does in similar small companies being victim for experienced pilots leaving for major airlines.
I know for a fact that first officers that years back were told they would never get a command with the company are now a days all captains in the company due to lack of captains. I still claim this incidence is due to poor training and or lack of experience in the seat.
My experience is +4000 hrs on the ATR and having flown all of them (obviously not the -600) including the -212. I have even flown as a contract capt for several years in Arann (a long time ago) and I never had any problems chopping the power as per ATR standard nor was that a known issue at the time on the -212. So I feel I am very much entitled to comment on the report and events!
As has been mentioned earlier on in this thread is that the company is having financial difficulties and has been consistently loosing experienced captains and first officers the last 8 years.
The standard is falling as the experience is dropping as it does in similar small companies being victim for experienced pilots leaving for major airlines.
I know for a fact that first officers that years back were told they would never get a command with the company are now a days all captains in the company due to lack of captains. I still claim this incidence is due to poor training and or lack of experience in the seat.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With respect, have you read any of my posts?
Obviously, in a larger aircraft, I would have performed a go-around once significantly passed the TDZ.
there was plenty of runway available
I routinely see those ATRs landing long at SNN.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: England
Posts: 1,955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right.
Lets go and remove all the TDZ markings and lighting because we obviously don't need them.
Tell you what, we could also just assume that we will always get full braking capability every time we land. That way we only need to build 500 meter runways. That'll save some space, we can stash all the bent ATR's there.
No, that won't work will it - We need more than 500 meters to take off - What we'll do then is to aim the ILS halfway down the runway.
Neither you, they or I know how much of that they may have needed.
Lets go and remove all the TDZ markings and lighting because we obviously don't need them.
Tell you what, we could also just assume that we will always get full braking capability every time we land. That way we only need to build 500 meter runways. That'll save some space, we can stash all the bent ATR's there.
No, that won't work will it - We need more than 500 meters to take off - What we'll do then is to aim the ILS halfway down the runway.
They had tons of runway left to stop after the end of the TDZ.