Air Dolomiti ATR Emergency Landing at MUC
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Germany, EDDL/EDLW
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello.
According to the German news site Focus, eye witnesses report the plane coming smoking to a rest next to the runway. The plane was smoking out of the cockpit area. Runways closed. Piloted reported problems prior to landing.
Here is the original German newssite Lufthansa-Maschine: Notlandung am Münchner Flughafen
According to the German news site Focus, eye witnesses report the plane coming smoking to a rest next to the runway. The plane was smoking out of the cockpit area. Runways closed. Piloted reported problems prior to landing.
Here is the original German newssite Lufthansa-Maschine: Notlandung am Münchner Flughafen
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emergency Landing
Just heard from my sister, who was on an DLH-flight.
The A/C, she was in had to go around and was diverted to EDDN, due to an emergency right behind her.
An Air Dolimiti A/C with 58 PAX onboard made an emergency landing and stopped near the RWY. Both RWYs in EDDM ware closed after the emergency landing.
Some sources reported fire and thick smoke in the Cockpit.
Here is a link (for German speakers
)
Lufthansa-Maschine: Notlandung am Münchner Flughafen
The A/C, she was in had to go around and was diverted to EDDN, due to an emergency right behind her.
An Air Dolimiti A/C with 58 PAX onboard made an emergency landing and stopped near the RWY. Both RWYs in EDDM ware closed after the emergency landing.
Some sources reported fire and thick smoke in the Cockpit.
Here is a link (for German speakers
)Lufthansa-Maschine: Notlandung am Münchner Flughafen
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ireland
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Picture
There is a picture at the bottom of this page
Unfälle (Zwischenfälle/Sicherheitslandungen) mit Flugzeugen
Unfälle (Zwischenfälle/Sicherheitslandungen) mit Flugzeugen
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Flughafen München - Maschine muss notlanden - München - sueddeutsche.de
I reckon they didn't take off with that nosecone.
Last edited by Jando; 17th May 2012 at 16:46.
I hope I understood the last poster correctly as meaning that with the cockpit full of smoke and unable to see the runway clearly, the crew did a magnificent job of getting the aircraft down. If you can walk away it was a good landing, if you can still use the aircraft afterwards it was a very good landing, as the old pilot saying goes. Having seen the aircraft myself it is a very long way from the runway suggesting the arrival was far from straightforward.
Last edited by lederhosen; 17th May 2012 at 17:47.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...doesn't look as smoke inside the cockpit would have been strong enough for impairing vision, if there was any at all during landing.
But referring to the photo above, it seems clear ,that the starboard engine has been shut down and the prop is feathered.
The airplane has reportedly veered off to the left (Air Dolomiti ATR 72 makes emergency landing in Munich).
Sorry for speculating, but could this be the consequence of activating reverse thrust, which would result in an quite "asymmetric" thrust situation with only one engine operating and a corresponding turning moment to the left?
Last edited by ihg; 18th May 2012 at 10:12.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bavarian radio just reported the plane as having had to turn back because of "engine fire" and not "fire in the cabin/cockpit". This seems to be consistent with the starboard engine having been shut down as evident from the picture above.
Last edited by Dg800; 18th May 2012 at 10:36.
I realise that this is a rumours network and that there are plenty of non experts including it must be said bavarian radio. I find the eagerness of certain posters already to suggest failure on the part of the crew at the very least premature and somewhat distasteful.
If you have ever tried landing in a smoke mask particularly if you wear glasses you will know it is not easy. Maybe they could see clearly, but I would suggest the excellent spotters picture is hardly proof positive either way.
What the picture shows is the aircraft nose high just before B12, so with about 2800 metres of a 4000 metre runway remaining. There looks to be some nose down elevator, but what happened before and after is unclear. The aircraft came to a halt after a relatively short distance but a long way left of the runway. The left gear appears intact at this point, but from later pictures it is clear that there was a collapse.
This is Germany and the facts will come out soon enough. For the moment I think we can all agree that something was obviously broken and everyone survived which is a good result in itself.
If you have ever tried landing in a smoke mask particularly if you wear glasses you will know it is not easy. Maybe they could see clearly, but I would suggest the excellent spotters picture is hardly proof positive either way.
What the picture shows is the aircraft nose high just before B12, so with about 2800 metres of a 4000 metre runway remaining. There looks to be some nose down elevator, but what happened before and after is unclear. The aircraft came to a halt after a relatively short distance but a long way left of the runway. The left gear appears intact at this point, but from later pictures it is clear that there was a collapse.
This is Germany and the facts will come out soon enough. For the moment I think we can all agree that something was obviously broken and everyone survived which is a good result in itself.
Last edited by lederhosen; 18th May 2012 at 16:13.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CO
Age: 50
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pack #2 supplies the cabin with fresh air. If there is an internal failure of the right engine, oil will contaminate the pack thus producing smoke in the whole cabin. Then you have to deal with two emergency issues with two different check lists : "Smoke", and "In Flight Engine Failure". Then, two other related check-lists : "Cabin Smoke" and "Single Engine Operation". Then to prepare the landing, brief the crew, etc... Everything done with O2 mask and goggles....
Obviously, the 4000m runway and the good weather conditions are more than welcome in such circumstances !
Obviously, the 4000m runway and the good weather conditions are more than welcome in such circumstances !
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lederhosen
I realise that this is a rumours network and that there are plenty of non experts including it must be said bavarian radio. I find the eagerness of certain posters already to suggest failure on the part of the crew at the very least premature and somewhat distasteful.
..., but if you "see" some "eagerness" it might be only your own reception..and you might be a bit more careful with jugdement about others, the same as you suggest to be careful with judgements about the "crew"s performence..Anyway, let alone whatever circumstances they were in, they seem to have managed what appears to be a pretty stabilized approach right down to touchdown.
Am just looking for a reason, whatever caused them to veer off the runway. The main landing gear seems not to have failed after all, as the A/C has been reportedly towed on it's own main lading gear to a hangar meanwhile.
Thanks for your feedback ihg. Your post provides another perfect example of what I am talking about. How can you say that the approach was stable any more than you say that the pilots could see clearly as you claimed earlier based on this photograph. Was the aircraft on speed with expected dascent rate in the touchdown zone with no need big power or control changes required?
If you are looking for a reason why it veered off into the grass then the hypothesis that the nosewheel was damaged on landing making the aircraft difficult to steer is at least worthy of consideration. As I said before the german authorities will provide the facts. It is rare for pilots to get everything right in these kind of situations,after all even Sully has been criticised. These guys had a complicated scenario which everyone appears to have walked away from.
If you are looking for a reason why it veered off into the grass then the hypothesis that the nosewheel was damaged on landing making the aircraft difficult to steer is at least worthy of consideration. As I said before the german authorities will provide the facts. It is rare for pilots to get everything right in these kind of situations,after all even Sully has been criticised. These guys had a complicated scenario which everyone appears to have walked away from.
Last edited by lederhosen; 20th May 2012 at 09:38.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Lederhosen: I learned that people only see what they want to see, and obviously also only read what they want to read. And Your post provides another perfect example of what I am talking about....
"..doesn't look as.." and "..appears to be.." are not exactly ulitmatively"..claiming that..".
But whatever, I'm not here to discuss the grammatical details of English subjunctive forms here, as you would probably understand even that purposely wrong, nor am I EAGER to be part of one those ridiculous personal fights on forums common these days.
So whatever...
..fair enough.
Although, with that logic one can close ultimately all threads referring to accidents/incidents here...
If you have time, you might like to join one of the multitude of AF447 threads with a refreshing post like:
"As I said before, no need to waste bandwith here no more, BEA will provide all the facts!"
"..doesn't look as.." and "..appears to be.." are not exactly ulitmatively"..claiming that..".
But whatever, I'm not here to discuss the grammatical details of English subjunctive forms here, as you would probably understand even that purposely wrong, nor am I EAGER to be part of one those ridiculous personal fights on forums common these days.
So whatever...
As I said before the german authorities will provide the facts
Although, with that logic one can close ultimately all threads referring to accidents/incidents here...
If you have time, you might like to join one of the multitude of AF447 threads with a refreshing post like:
"As I said before, no need to waste bandwith here no more, BEA will provide all the facts!"
Last edited by ihg; 20th May 2012 at 15:02.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: london
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The landing attitude looks a little out of shape at the point the photo was taken, but I am not willing to criticise based on the evidence of a thousandth of a second.
Clearly however the right engine has been secured and feathered and we can see into the cockpit so they can probably see out.
ATR pilots will know that the final item of the Single Engine Operation checklist is a Note, not very prominently written, warning that the operative Power Lever should remain in or above Flight Idle until the Nose Wheel is on the ground. We all know the Note is there but if the checklist is performed rapidly and perhaps late during an approach it may be overlooked or it's significance not emphasised.
Selection of Ground Idle or Reverse Pitch without the nosewheel grounded potentially produces a big swing into the live (in this case left) engine as the prop enters Low Pitch range, with reduced steering effect available to counteract until the nosewheel contacts the runway by which time it may be too late and you're already heading for the long grass where your best/only option is to continue straight ahead.
Whatever ultimately is shown to have happened, I echo the most important sentiments which are that all are thankfully safe and the plane will doubtless fly again.
Clearly however the right engine has been secured and feathered and we can see into the cockpit so they can probably see out.
ATR pilots will know that the final item of the Single Engine Operation checklist is a Note, not very prominently written, warning that the operative Power Lever should remain in or above Flight Idle until the Nose Wheel is on the ground. We all know the Note is there but if the checklist is performed rapidly and perhaps late during an approach it may be overlooked or it's significance not emphasised.
Selection of Ground Idle or Reverse Pitch without the nosewheel grounded potentially produces a big swing into the live (in this case left) engine as the prop enters Low Pitch range, with reduced steering effect available to counteract until the nosewheel contacts the runway by which time it may be too late and you're already heading for the long grass where your best/only option is to continue straight ahead.
Whatever ultimately is shown to have happened, I echo the most important sentiments which are that all are thankfully safe and the plane will doubtless fly again.
ihg I am having difficulty understanding you in part because of your tortured use of the english language. Your last sentence includes a marvellous double negative. You spell the same word differently in successive sentences. You use the word reception (the place I have been using the WLAN between flights) when I am pretty sure you mean perception. I could go on, but I will try and use restraint. It is indeed a blessing that you do not wish to lecture us on english grammar. You also put words in inverted commas that I have not used as if you were quoting me. None of this adds to your credibility.
The last poster has put his hypothesis much more compellingly. Although it would be interesting to know if he thinks smoke goggles may have complicated matters. From the picture there does not seem to be too much obvious damage other than the nose cone and gear of course. Anyone in the know?
The last poster has put his hypothesis much more compellingly. Although it would be interesting to know if he thinks smoke goggles may have complicated matters. From the picture there does not seem to be too much obvious damage other than the nose cone and gear of course. Anyone in the know?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 53
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although it would be interesting to know if he thinks smoke goggles may have complicated matters. From the picture there does not seem to be too much obvious damage other than the nose cone and gear of course. Anyone in the know?
Dg800