Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

ATR72 Incident at FCO

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

ATR72 Incident at FCO

Old 4th Feb 2013, 06:34
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lat..x Long..y
Posts: 211
Chris Scott Wxr analyais

Good analysis Chris. The ATR72 does not handle well in such severe crosswind conditions.CErtainly it was an accident and quite certainly it would point toward "Pilot Error" as there was ample info to lead to a diversion to Campino..unless there was a dire emergency situation going on that could not await a diversion?? Too early to decide but quite apparent when airoort not inviting, and aircraft is ok...then GO Around...or GO Meet GOD..

ATR72 has a crosswind limit of 45 kts if I recall correct...but that is a steady wind.With windshear, especially tail shear as was this case I would be more conservative rather than be a maverick pilot. If as rumoured the Capt was a check Capt (15000hrs total/9k ATR) perhaps this was a check flight? If the PF was CM2 then OMs would dictate what the crosswind limit for CM2 is and am sure it would be much ,lower than 45kts. To maintain track for a 45kt crosswind the view from the cockpit t the runway would have looked interesting indeed

Last edited by Vc10Tail; 4th Feb 2013 at 08:06.
Vc10Tail is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 06:41
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: guess where...
Posts: 112
Originally Posted by Spitoon
If you take a look at the aircraft, I think it's pretty obvious that by ICAO standards it's an accident.
You are absolutely right, of course.
When I posted my consideration I hadn't seen any of the pictures and just from the reading noticed talk about serious injuries.
Daermon ATC is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 07:51
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: the dark side of the sun
Posts: 195
it was an accident and quite certainly it would point toward "Pilot Error" as there was ample info to lead to a diversion to Campino
according to a guy in the italian forum, who landed just before the carpatair, LIRA was closed at the time due to strong wind.

( http://www.pprune.org/7671811-post15.html )
deci is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 08:11
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lat..x Long..y
Posts: 211
deci according to a guy in the italian forum, who landed just before the carpatair, L

Fair enough deci...but a more suitable alternate or return to origin station should have been planned for considering the severity of reported weather.In any case they could have gone around and and tried another approach, by which time the wind gusts might have softened? ...Unless fuel carriage was below that required to allow such contingencies?? The winds were encroaching aircraft limitations!!
Vc10Tail is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 08:44
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SAYE
Posts: 230
In the case of the almost new Kingfisher ATR, airspeed was way above Vref:





Talking to some local pilots there, many add the full gust factor to Vapp; others even add the full gust factor plus the wind speed to Vapp and Vref.

Results of misunderstanding or ignoring Vref are shown in the pictures.

I just happened to land a few minutes earlier and was on the ramp when this happened in 2009 (RWY 27A LDA = 5587 ft.)

NB: they did NOT re-paint it, they just removed the engines and the airframe remained in the runway object-free area (ROFA) for months.

Last edited by avionimc; 4th Feb 2013 at 20:33.
avionimc is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 09:22
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 48
Posts: 461
seems quite uncommon to me, that any authority would accept an accident involved aircraft to be manipulated before thourough/final investigation?
It's actually done on a regular basis, although painting over the whole fuselage is rather over the top. Plastic foil and speed tape are usually employed as a temporary measure and then removed once the remains have been moved to somewhere not accessible to the general public.
Dg800 is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 17:59
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 72
Posts: 2,054
Thanks Vc10Tail,

Don't know or have details for the ATR-72, but on most types the gust limit is as high or higher than the steady crosswind limit. Yes, the port (left) drift on the ILS approach to Rwy 16L would have been interesting, because the wind would be stronger up there than on the ground. The pilot in the L/H seat would be seeing the runway through his DV window (the one to the left of the windshield). Also, at that stage the wind would have probably been in the starb'd quarter - perhaps about 270/50 - giving a significant tailwind effect until the latter stages, when the wind drops and backs off. At night that typically does not happen until you are very close to the ground, and then suddenly. However, these are generalisations on my part, as I don't have local knowledge, and terrain effects can override normal theory.

(COMMENT: In conditions like this, it's all too easy to find yourself crossing the threshold carrying too much airspeed as the positive shear effect kicks in, and the simultaneous, sudden reduction in drift can result in the a/c drifting upwind of the runway centre line. Many high-wing a/c allow the handling pilot to use the wing-down, sideslip technique for the last part of the approach, which enables him to de-crab early, and then keep the a/c pointing along the runway. But it would involve a lot of bank in that wind, and I don't know the maximum possible on the ATR to ensure propeller and wing-tip clearance.)

Quote from deci:
"according to a guy in the italian forum, who landed just before the carpatair, LIRA was closed at the time due to strong wind."

Airfields do not "close" because of unfavourable weather, unless it seriously degrades the aerodrome facilities (e.g., runway flooded). The METARS I posted here suggest the wind was consistently lighter at LIRA (Ciampino) than at LIRF (Fiumicino), so that report surprises me.
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 18:09
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 1,022
Alitalia painted crashed palne white overnight to hide it's logo



Panorama: Italien: Bruchlandung in Rom - havariertes Flugzeug wird über Nacht umlackiert - badische-zeitung.de
Kulverstukas is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 20:27
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: the dark side of the sun
Posts: 195
@Chris Scott

I've only translated (and linked) a post from the italian forum.
That guy says that, at the same time carpatair was landing in LIRF, a RYR was holding over CMP because LIRA was closed due to strong wind.
deci is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 22:57
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 72
Posts: 2,054
That you were simply passing the information on was understood, deci. Thanks.

As I said, airfields do not close simply for strong winds. The decision to make an approach to land always rests with the commanders of aircraft, despite what you read or hear in the media. Each captain's decision is made from a multitude of varying criteria, and the situation is often fluid. It is possible that there were temporary increases of wind at Ciampino that were not reflected in the half-hourly METARS that I posted, but it seems unlikely. We shall find out sooner or later...
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 23:40
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Around
Posts: 40
ATR72 has a crosswind limit of 45 kts if I recall correct.
Limit is 35kt on a DRY RWY, 28kt on a WET RWY up to 3mm of water and beyond that it drops rapidily down to 16kt with 3-6mm water or slush.

The ATR is an aircraft that needs to be respected (not feared) in these conditions. Even if the approach was stable (not even close) it would be a tricky landing and possibly Captain only depending on what company you work for.
BO0M is offline  
Old 4th Feb 2013, 23:43
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 48
Posts: 207
Crosswind limits for ATR 72 are 35 knots dry runway and 28 wet. The ATR taught technique, rightly or wrongly, is add 1/3 of the headwind component to the Vapp.
Roger Greendeck is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 07:46
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lat..x Long..y
Posts: 211
ciampiano reported closure and atr x wind limits

THanks Chris for confirmig my views and adding further insights. I too ws no
convinced about the airport closure due to gusting winds and know that the PIc is entitled
To attempt the approach down to minimums,go around and hold or divert . Atr42-5 fcom says 45kt as max x wind dry runway and assumed it wud be close to that figure or minus 10kts for the 72 which I only did sim trng in 2008? So what s the uper limit for gust compared
to steady wind? X wind limit for CM2 in my airline is 15kt...ridiculous! I wonder if slight differential power is used (more on upwind side) to counter weather cocking can helop in stabilizing the flight tragectory as the ATR rock n rolls a lot on crosswinds..admitedly non standard but it is a matter of grabbing the bull by the horns when th going gets to ifugh. I like to keep the yaw damper on till 100ft RA and then have te freedom of rudder authorit to de crab while side slipping for a upwind wing down touch down..carrying power till touch down if momentum not constraining and flaring around 10ft max pitch 2.
5 degrees (avoid floating and getting bullied by the crosswind)..taking partiocular care with tail strike which the ATR72 is prone.I wonder if Flap 15 approach. Would handle better in such winds(though tail strike probability would be higher but it would allow for a higher approach speed which could counter the x wind additional to being armed for a
higher go around speed should it be required? Definitely a CM1 excercise!
Vc10Tail is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 08:23
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bristol
Posts: 39
This CM1 only policy is an absolute crap.

- Some CM2s are more experienced on type than the CM1.

- Decision making is more efficient when the CM1 observing the situation.

- The CM1 only policy is a kind of macho attitude in the cockpit making believe that CM1 is god.


Very dangerous.......

Last edited by ATRISGREAT; 5th Feb 2013 at 08:24.
ATRISGREAT is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 09:13
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,975
This CM1 only policy is an absolute crap.
Interesting, in my outfit (major EU carrier) we don't have it.

BTW, who was PF?
hetfield is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 09:22
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: CarrotLand
Posts: 667
Apparently LIRA had similar winds, but the runway was WET because of some RA and TS experienced earlier that day
In that case, with that wind, then it would be out of limits for many aircrafts

LIRF, instead, was dry
Tiennetti is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 09:53
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lat..x Long..y
Posts: 211
cm1 policy

Quite right Atrisgreat.ATR defines CM1 as the commander no matter the PF.PF can revert to CM1 anytime safety is compromised.CErtainly I had plenty of instances where I was CM2 but had far more experience than CM1 and it can be awkward when that experie
nce leans toward CM2 with blue line CM1..good crm and adherence to SOP will defuse that. Wet and windy runway certainly a hazard.

Last edited by Vc10Tail; 5th Feb 2013 at 09:56.
Vc10Tail is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 10:42
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Posts: 1
CarpatAir new Paint Job

I see that the aircraft has been given a new paint job, removing any reference to Al-Italia. Surely the AAIB would have something to say about this. This paint job could cover up a multitude to sins. surely tampering with the aircraft , in any way , runs contrary to aircraft safety ( even after the event ) and integrity !?
flyacanard is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 10:47
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Posts: 1
Injuries

Are the sustained injuries to PAX and crew known?
AviationFan1 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2013, 10:48
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Milano
Age: 48
Posts: 461
Bit late in the game, aren't you?
The AAIB actually has no say in the matter, in Italy it's the ANSV that will lead the investigation. Unfortunately, unless a magistrate actually seizes the asset (which is usually done only if there are casualties) the owner can do whatever he wants with the wreck, even something as stupid as painting it over. There is no clear legal obligation to behave differently.
Dg800 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.