Air Dolomiti ATR Emergency Landing at MUC
Well that was a pretty unhelpful answer. Do you work for Air Dolomiti's marketing department? Amazingly I find myself sympathizing with some of what ihg was saying or at least think he was saying. Why exactly should we stop asking questions or are you being ironic DG800? Incidentally I had a lot of fun with a DG200 which I owned many years ago. Are you a glider man?
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my god lederhosen, can you stop waving your wang around trying to prove it is bigger than everyone elses?
I do not like jumping on the band wagon of nailing other pilots to the cross, but there is a good chance that these guys did everything right, right up until the very end which put them into the grass.
Does accidently putting it into ground idle, or reverse not sound more likely than them hitting the deck so hard that they wrecked the landing gear?
In jumping to their defence, you have actually made it out to be that they have done a worse job than what was actually done.
I do not like jumping on the band wagon of nailing other pilots to the cross, but there is a good chance that these guys did everything right, right up until the very end which put them into the grass.
Does accidently putting it into ground idle, or reverse not sound more likely than them hitting the deck so hard that they wrecked the landing gear?
In jumping to their defence, you have actually made it out to be that they have done a worse job than what was actually done.
Actually I tend to agree with you, although I stand by what I said earlier about some of the previous posters, which I think was pretty factual. Anyone engaging in debate on here is fair game. However I prefer to treat fellow professionals with respect until proven otherwise.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
Can I point out the obvious fact that none of us were there. That makes every comment mere speculation. No-one hurt, aircraft repairable: 'nuff said.
I was there shortly afterwards, which I suppose has raised my interest in the whole affair. Strangely enough although the weather was beautiful my copilot made one of the wildest flares I can ever remember (almost certainly coincidence).
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: london
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen the tracks when I was there the following morning together with no obvious signs of distress on the runway itself, and being a curious ATR pilot, I was naturally led to wonder what had happened. The later spotters photo clarified an engine shut down, which pointed me to one of the Gotchas of the ATR QRH.
That is really what I wanted to highlight here....that the Manufacturer does caution against use of Beta range before nosewheel touchdown during a single engine landing, but that the caution (such as it is) is buried in the form of a "Note" at the bottom of a lengthy secondary securing checklist (Single Engine Operation).
In the event of an immediate shut down on final (Engine Fire for example) this checklist may not be actioned at all, or only partially perhaps depending on time available, in which case this important information may not be reviewed.
If this is indeed the case here, I attach no blame to the crew whatsoever who doubtless had enough on their plates already. The checklist is somewhat poorly presented and what should be a clear Warning is stated almost as an afterthought, in fact number 4 and last in a list of "Notes".
Yes Herod I agree, but the ATR has some poor QRH presentations, and if my idle specualtion is remotely correct might we at least hope that the incident leads to some of these being improved?
SJ
That is really what I wanted to highlight here....that the Manufacturer does caution against use of Beta range before nosewheel touchdown during a single engine landing, but that the caution (such as it is) is buried in the form of a "Note" at the bottom of a lengthy secondary securing checklist (Single Engine Operation).
In the event of an immediate shut down on final (Engine Fire for example) this checklist may not be actioned at all, or only partially perhaps depending on time available, in which case this important information may not be reviewed.
If this is indeed the case here, I attach no blame to the crew whatsoever who doubtless had enough on their plates already. The checklist is somewhat poorly presented and what should be a clear Warning is stated almost as an afterthought, in fact number 4 and last in a list of "Notes".
Yes Herod I agree, but the ATR has some poor QRH presentations, and if my idle specualtion is remotely correct might we at least hope that the incident leads to some of these being improved?
SJ
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saucy, Since your an ATR driver, I'd like to ask you this question.
In your recurrent training, I am assuming that you would practice an engine out landing at least once. Would what you are saying with not putting in into beta or reverse be common knowledge amongst ATR pilots?
Not trying to say that these guys should have known better if this is the case, but since the warning has been relegated to the footnotes of an engine out checklist... sounds like it should be known and is only there as a reminder.
In your recurrent training, I am assuming that you would practice an engine out landing at least once. Would what you are saying with not putting in into beta or reverse be common knowledge amongst ATR pilots?
Not trying to say that these guys should have known better if this is the case, but since the warning has been relegated to the footnotes of an engine out checklist... sounds like it should be known and is only there as a reminder.
Looking closely at the photo:
a) The right engine does appear to be shut down.
b) Going by the position of the shadows of other aeroplanes, trucks, etc. the ATR looks to be over the grass already, *before* touchdown. This could be the effects of foreshortening, etc. but given the way shadows elsewhere are almost directly under the objects causing them, I'd estimate the time to be not far away from solar noon, i.e. about 1300-1400L.
The height above the ground looks about 10-15', so it would be difficult to get back over the paved surface before touchdown. Pure speculation but it would seem that they might have actually landed on the grass...
a) The right engine does appear to be shut down.
b) Going by the position of the shadows of other aeroplanes, trucks, etc. the ATR looks to be over the grass already, *before* touchdown. This could be the effects of foreshortening, etc. but given the way shadows elsewhere are almost directly under the objects causing them, I'd estimate the time to be not far away from solar noon, i.e. about 1300-1400L.
The height above the ground looks about 10-15', so it would be difficult to get back over the paved surface before touchdown. Pure speculation but it would seem that they might have actually landed on the grass...
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...
b) Going by the position of the shadows of other aeroplanes, trucks, etc. the ATR looks to be over the grass already, *before* touchdown. This could be the effects of foreshortening, etc. but given the way shadows elsewhere are almost directly under the objects causing them, I'd estimate the time to be not far away from solar noon, i.e. about 1300-1400L.
...
b) Going by the position of the shadows of other aeroplanes, trucks, etc. the ATR looks to be over the grass already, *before* touchdown. This could be the effects of foreshortening, etc. but given the way shadows elsewhere are almost directly under the objects causing them, I'd estimate the time to be not far away from solar noon, i.e. about 1300-1400L.
...
And they were also banking a little to the left.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Norden
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check the rudder position,nlg and lh mlg on # 3884.
Unfälle (Zwischenfälle/Sicherheitslandungen) mit Flugzeugen
Unfälle (Zwischenfälle/Sicherheitslandungen) mit Flugzeugen
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by FullWings
Pure speculation but it would seem that they might have actually landed on the grass..
On that photo, taken obviously shortly after touch down, the nose wheels appear to be significantly turned to the right, which would be coincident with the crew fighting a strong turning moment to the left due to left engine being in reverse or ground idle.
Well, it was only a theory. Must have been quite a manoeuvre to get it back on the centreline from the starting position in the previous photo. Or there's a dark patch on the grass that just happens to be coincident with where the aircraft is in the picture.
More interestingly, that nosewheel pair does look well over to the right... Unnaturally so. I don't know the technicalities of the ATR but that sort of steering angle on most aircraft is only reached using the tiller or if there's been a problem with hydraulics, mechanical failure, etc.
More interestingly, that nosewheel pair does look well over to the right... Unnaturally so. I don't know the technicalities of the ATR but that sort of steering angle on most aircraft is only reached using the tiller or if there's been a problem with hydraulics, mechanical failure, etc.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on thin ice
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the horse's mouth...
1. On climbout, reported smoke in cabin from Flt Attendants. No smoke in cockpit or any smoke warning. Masks donned and call to MUC ATC for reentry.
2. Smoke and Fume Elimination actioned with no change (most likely electrical smoke checklist). FA reports smoke seems electrical by smell and white colour.
3. On vectors to final, #2 eng fire alarm. Engine secured. No previous indications of any engine problems.
4. AC Wild Bus 1 reinstated (off during smoke and fume checklist) to provide hydraulics for flaps and gear.
5. Autopilot disconnected at approx. 500'. Rudder pedals stuck--even with help of FO very difficult to move. Aircraft displaced over grass. Decision not to go around due smoke and flt control issue. Aircraft turned with ailerons to get back over runway. Landed with 10+ degrees of crab.
6. Gnd Idle selected. Not able to control direction of aircraft. Aircraft leaves runway where nosegear collapses (unsure if nosewheel steering available or if tiller was touched at all). During evacuation, unable to shutdown #1 engine normally. Fire switch used.
7. Thankfully no injuries to pax or crew.
Will have to await investigation to understand:
a. what caused smoke and why there was no smoke alarm in cockpit
b. what caused the jammed rudder
c. why #1 engine couldn't be shutdown normally
This is not an official report, but as close as you can get for now.
2. Smoke and Fume Elimination actioned with no change (most likely electrical smoke checklist). FA reports smoke seems electrical by smell and white colour.
3. On vectors to final, #2 eng fire alarm. Engine secured. No previous indications of any engine problems.
4. AC Wild Bus 1 reinstated (off during smoke and fume checklist) to provide hydraulics for flaps and gear.
5. Autopilot disconnected at approx. 500'. Rudder pedals stuck--even with help of FO very difficult to move. Aircraft displaced over grass. Decision not to go around due smoke and flt control issue. Aircraft turned with ailerons to get back over runway. Landed with 10+ degrees of crab.
6. Gnd Idle selected. Not able to control direction of aircraft. Aircraft leaves runway where nosegear collapses (unsure if nosewheel steering available or if tiller was touched at all). During evacuation, unable to shutdown #1 engine normally. Fire switch used.
7. Thankfully no injuries to pax or crew.
Will have to await investigation to understand:
a. what caused smoke and why there was no smoke alarm in cockpit
b. what caused the jammed rudder
c. why #1 engine couldn't be shutdown normally
This is not an official report, but as close as you can get for now.
Last edited by sodapop; 23rd May 2012 at 05:17.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Norden
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks sodapop for the report.From the engineers point of view some answers:
"Will have to await investigation to understand:
a. what caused smoke and why there was no smoke alarm in cockpit"
Smoke from engine due to oil leak via aircon,shafing/burning wires all areas (not ATR related,can happen on all aircraft),sockets of light tubes inside the cabin are a weak point on ATRs.
Smoke detectors are located in forward and aft cargo plus lavatory.Non in the cabin.A different kind of detector is monitoring the electric/avionic racks in the cockpit.Electric smoke warning can occur after engine oil leak as well.
"b. what caused the jammed rudder"
No answer.Think on some pictures the rudder shows different angels,but not sure.It might have get stuck after nlg collapse (same reason on engine controls)
"c. why #1 engine couldn't be shutdown normally"
When the nlg collapsed it forced backwards into the fuselage and blocked the
engine controls.This happened on EI-SLM a year ago as well.
"Will have to await investigation to understand:
a. what caused smoke and why there was no smoke alarm in cockpit"
Smoke from engine due to oil leak via aircon,shafing/burning wires all areas (not ATR related,can happen on all aircraft),sockets of light tubes inside the cabin are a weak point on ATRs.
Smoke detectors are located in forward and aft cargo plus lavatory.Non in the cabin.A different kind of detector is monitoring the electric/avionic racks in the cockpit.Electric smoke warning can occur after engine oil leak as well.
"b. what caused the jammed rudder"
No answer.Think on some pictures the rudder shows different angels,but not sure.It might have get stuck after nlg collapse (same reason on engine controls)
"c. why #1 engine couldn't be shutdown normally"
When the nlg collapsed it forced backwards into the fuselage and blocked the
engine controls.This happened on EI-SLM a year ago as well.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spotters View
For my pennies worth:
I arrived at the mound opposite the southern rwy just before the incident happened. I watched the aircraft land and as a spotter read the registration and noted it whilst thinking what a sporty landing it was. Following that a few photographers started making a scene lower down the mound. Putting 2 & 2 together and having seen the fire engines I realsied the aircraft had an emergency, so I came off the hill crossed the road and stood on the bridge and observed with a telescope.
Subsequently I saw the disabled aircraft being evacuated with passengers moving towards the runway. (For clarity) please understand my view of the rwy was framed by trees so I didn't actually see the aircraft come off the rwy so cannot covers the reasons behind why it ended up where it did.
From my experience of seeing a few airfield emergencies the only smoke that I saw in the air was from the fleet of fire engines that were positioned on the right side of the rwy driving over to attend the aircraft.
As a side note full marks to the emergency services and Munich airport operations attending the incident as the aircraft was quickly attended and passengers were assisted and taken by bus away from the scene very quickly.
After 20 minutes I decided to leave as the place was starting to get over run with cameramen!
Rgds,
I arrived at the mound opposite the southern rwy just before the incident happened. I watched the aircraft land and as a spotter read the registration and noted it whilst thinking what a sporty landing it was. Following that a few photographers started making a scene lower down the mound. Putting 2 & 2 together and having seen the fire engines I realsied the aircraft had an emergency, so I came off the hill crossed the road and stood on the bridge and observed with a telescope.
Subsequently I saw the disabled aircraft being evacuated with passengers moving towards the runway. (For clarity) please understand my view of the rwy was framed by trees so I didn't actually see the aircraft come off the rwy so cannot covers the reasons behind why it ended up where it did.
From my experience of seeing a few airfield emergencies the only smoke that I saw in the air was from the fleet of fire engines that were positioned on the right side of the rwy driving over to attend the aircraft.
As a side note full marks to the emergency services and Munich airport operations attending the incident as the aircraft was quickly attended and passengers were assisted and taken by bus away from the scene very quickly.
After 20 minutes I decided to leave as the place was starting to get over run with cameramen!
Rgds,
Last edited by BAW001; 23rd May 2012 at 13:04.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on thin ice
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-hoper.
Good points! Thanks for the input. You're correct about the smoke sensors. Had to dig into an old FCOM as I haven't flown the ATR in nearly 8 years.
BAW001
Most likely the smoke had subsided after shutting down the engine. Remember, the cabin itself wasn't burning and it appeared to be electrical smoke which is usually very light, although caustic and dangerous. Wouldn't normally "billow" out. My guess is you would only see smoke on evacuation if the aircraft itself was burning (panels, lavatory uncontrolled etc).
MUC (and most German airports for that matter) have excellent emergency services. Very much appreciated!
Good points! Thanks for the input. You're correct about the smoke sensors. Had to dig into an old FCOM as I haven't flown the ATR in nearly 8 years.
BAW001
Most likely the smoke had subsided after shutting down the engine. Remember, the cabin itself wasn't burning and it appeared to be electrical smoke which is usually very light, although caustic and dangerous. Wouldn't normally "billow" out. My guess is you would only see smoke on evacuation if the aircraft itself was burning (panels, lavatory uncontrolled etc).
MUC (and most German airports for that matter) have excellent emergency services. Very much appreciated!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sodapop
4. AC Wild Bus 1 reinstated (off during smoke and fume checklist) to provide hydraulics for flaps and gear.
5. Autopilot disconnected at approx. 500'. Rudder pedals stuck--even with help of FO very difficult to move. Aircraft displaced over grass. Decision not to go around due smoke and flt control issue. Aircraft turned with ailerons to get back over runway. Landed with 10+ degrees of crab.
6. Gnd Idle selected. Not able to control direction of aircraft. Aircraft leaves runway where nosegear collapses (unsure if nosewheel steering available or if tiller was touched at all). During evacuation, unable to shutdown #1 engine normally. Fire switch used.
7. Thankfully no injuries to pax or crew.
Will have to await investigation to understand:
a. what caused smoke and why there was no smoke alarm in cockpit
b. what caused the jammed rudder
c. why #1 engine couldn't be shutdown normally
5. Autopilot disconnected at approx. 500'. Rudder pedals stuck--even with help of FO very difficult to move. Aircraft displaced over grass. Decision not to go around due smoke and flt control issue. Aircraft turned with ailerons to get back over runway. Landed with 10+ degrees of crab.
6. Gnd Idle selected. Not able to control direction of aircraft. Aircraft leaves runway where nosegear collapses (unsure if nosewheel steering available or if tiller was touched at all). During evacuation, unable to shutdown #1 engine normally. Fire switch used.
7. Thankfully no injuries to pax or crew.
Will have to await investigation to understand:
a. what caused smoke and why there was no smoke alarm in cockpit
b. what caused the jammed rudder
c. why #1 engine couldn't be shutdown normally
Originally Posted by Flight International, 31 July - 6Aug 2012
BFU states that the pilots noticed during the final approach that neither was able to operatethe rudder. Later inspection showed that the rudder travel limiter unit, an actuated component in the empennage to limitrudder deflection at high speed,was in the position for high-speed flight. The reason has yet to be determined. Investigators were able to correctly operate the limiter with onboard battery power by manually selecting the respective switch in the cockpit. Under ground power,however, the system showed inconsistencies when the switch was in the “auto” position.The unit moved between the high- and low-speed positions depending on whether or not the aircraft’s two main electrical buses were connected via a bus-tie contact switch. After the aircraft had come to a stop, the pilots were unable to shut down the port engine using the standard procedure, and instead used emergency controls for engine fire