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

Whizz Air 320 gear unsafe landing 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.

Whizz Air 320 gear unsafe landing FCO

Old 8th Jun 2013, 17:27
  #21 (permalink)  

Time merchant
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 352
LIRF landing rate back to normal from 1700 utc
flowman is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2013, 00:44
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southern Shores of Lusitania
Age: 48
Posts: 616
Clip of the landing:

JanetFlight is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2013, 10:22
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Somewhere out there...
Posts: 199
I guess there will be a few red faced technocrats in Koln crying into their coffee on Monday morning, questioning the effectiveness of AD 2011-0069R1 at mitigating the long standing MLG door actuator issue.
EASA Airworthiness Directives Publishing Tool

This particular can has been kicked down the road for well over a decade.

Time for GE and Airbus to take definitive action?

Last edited by Busbert; 9th Jun 2013 at 10:23.
Busbert is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2013, 18:24
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 77
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by AD No.: 2011-0069R1
Some operators reported slow operation of the MLG door opening/closing sequence, leading to the generation of ECAM warnings during the landing gear retraction or extension sequence.
Investigations showed that the damping ring and associated retaining ring of the MLG door actuator deteriorate. The resultant debris increases the friction inside the actuator which can be sufficiently high to restrict opening of the MLG door by gravity, during operation of the landing gear alternate (free-fall) extension system.
This condition, if not corrected, could prevent the full extension and/or downlocking of the MLG, possibly resulting in MLG collapse during landing or rollout and consequent damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
Looks like you need to see Airbus AOT A320-32A1390 original issue dated 10 February 2011 and Airbus SB A320-32-1390 Revision 01 dated 21 September 2011 to see actual pictures of the problem.

I wonder whether or not Airbus has done any flight tests of methods to improve getting a down & locked indication? It would sure be a shame to have the means to get all rollers down but not the information on how to do it.
Perhaps positive g? Perhaps less than 1 g flight? Perhaps yaw?

Seems they have a new door actuator, but that too has problems. Lets hope the insurance companies get tired of this and put their feet down. Maybe the airlines need to bolt some oak runners to the bottom of the engine pods as an interim measure.

Where are all the real engineers when you need one? (And I'm not talking wrench turners, these are the ones with the pocket protectors.)
Machinbird is online now  
Old 9th Jun 2013, 19:19
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Eyjafjallajokull
Age: 31
Posts: 20
What are your thoughts about landing totally wheels up, belly landing , on grass in this case? Some airports do have adjacent grass surfaces for this purpose, I think. Would the damage be less or more? The low slung engines on the B737 may make this option undesirable but not for the A320 family. Just thinking, easy with your flame throwers!
Kilda Ste Hilda is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2013, 19:31
  #26 (permalink)  
A4

Ut Sementem Feeceris
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,665
What's the significant difference between 737 and A320? They're both under slung (with 73 having a slightly lower "C of G") but chances are that the engines will dig in on a soft surface with resultant massive deceleration and probably ripping off of the engines. At least on a runway the secondary damage will be less.
A4 is offline  
Old 9th Jun 2013, 20:25
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 942
Kilda Ste Hilda. It may or may not be better to land gear up, but the specific advice of the Flight Crew Training Manual is as follows:

'If one landing gear is not downlocked, the flight crew must perform the LDG WITH ABNORMAL L/G QRH procedure. In this case, it is always better to land with any available gear rather than carry out a landing without any gear.'

Therefore the crew had no choice as that is the official guidance, presumably because Airbus have considered the various options and concluded this is the best way. Hope that helps.
Alexander de Meerkat is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 00:01
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 682
I believe I may be 'that chap'!

And since your profile gives no clue as to your qualification to comment, I'm still waiting for such an explanation!

Thank you.
4468 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 02:23
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 2,395
Kilda Ste Hilda
I am not sure if the fuselage has the strength to withstand the impact. B737NG broke up even on water but due to spongyness of water people survived. Also when landing without gear the impact will be at higher speed also it will be very difficult to execute proper flare, less will surely breakup the aircraft and more will break the tail and subsequent snap will breakup the aircraft. No I do not think it is a good idea. Landing with partial gear end trying to hold up as long as possible will reduce the speed and the force. It is the only way.
vilas is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 11:28
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Posts: 74
I gave it a go:


The blue dot in the middle is the CoG. In normal ops, the green line is the axis where the MLG supports the aircraft. This axis is AFT of the CoG, hence no problem at all.
In the second case, the right MLG is not extended. So the aircraft will sit on the left MLG and the engine pod. The orange line illustrates this. It is the axis through which the aircraft is supported now. This axis is forward of the CoG, so the airplane will start tipping backwards.

Bear in mind, this is a rough sketch. If I have time tonight, I might make a more detailed version, with actaul Airbus drawings. For now, I hope this explains what might have happened in my eyes.

Last edited by KriVa; 10th Jun 2013 at 11:29.
KriVa is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 11:49
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
Posts: 8
Nose wheels are off the ground as the L/H MLG has not extendedThe aircraft sat on its tail during the evacuation of the passengers
TOON737 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 13:50
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 26
Thumbs up

Great job for the crew
flyingelf is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 18:07
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 682
KriVa

Thanks. I had figured that was the geometry. Still doesn't stop me being surprised though, and I would be REALLY interested to see the accurate plan!

From the pictures of Wizzair, the suggestion is that the front door on the 'higher' side was unsuitable for evac?? It wouldn't be unreasonable to consider there to be a real fire hazard on the 'collapsed' side, and evac there inadvisable??

This effectively leaves one rear door (plus overwings - only one on most 319s) for evac of the entire a/c. Anybody know if this how the certification is calculated????
4468 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2013, 19:25
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Belgium
Age: 29
Posts: 74
Right, having found a half hour of free time, this is what I came up with. I had to link the picture, since it would be too big to put it in the forums.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...izzA320Top.jpg
Some explanation:
I had to estimate the place where the aircraft is resting on the engine pod. While I am pretty certain it is within the red cone, I'd say it is probably within the cyan line and the aft red line.
The blue line indicates where the CoG could be during flight.
NOTE: I am NOT a licensed pilot, so I might have slipped up calculating the actual location of the CoG. (I did do the calculations twice though ;-) )
According to this, if the CoG was pretty far AFT, but still within limits, the theory still stands.
Oh, and copyright for this diagram remains with Airbus, of course.

Last edited by KriVa; 10th Jun 2013 at 19:40.
KriVa is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 18:27
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: My views - Not my employer!
Posts: 988
Anyone recon this is related?
Cough is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 19:44
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,997
I think the "following a recent occurrence with a gear extension problem" part might be a clue ...
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 28th Aug 2013, 19:43
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hungary
Posts: 508
The aircraft returned to service today.
TBSC is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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