Whizz Air 320 gear unsafe landing FCO
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 51
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whizz Air 320 gear unsafe landing FCO
A320 landed on FCO with unsafe gear.
Tower advised the crew that their left main gear was not in the proper position.
Crew landed after a couple of maneuvers to force the gear in position.
ATIS operational info was RWY34R CLOSED DUE CRASHED AIRPLANE
Minor injuries due to evacuation after landing
No further info...
Tower advised the crew that their left main gear was not in the proper position.
Crew landed after a couple of maneuvers to force the gear in position.
ATIS operational info was RWY34R CLOSED DUE CRASHED AIRPLANE
Minor injuries due to evacuation after landing
No further info...
Last edited by 14MZ; 8th Jun 2013 at 09:16. Reason: Title adjusted
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emergency evacuation done. 3 minor injuries, problems with landingear.
Flight was OTP-Ciampino, but ended up on FCO.
Btw, its Wizz Air.
Flight was OTP-Ciampino, but ended up on FCO.
Btw, its Wizz Air.
Last edited by skytrax; 8th Jun 2013 at 07:50.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand why the nose wheel is off the ground?????
THAT'S the problem with the slide, which I thought were designed to accommodate a collapsed gear?
I certainly wouldn't imagine anyone would wish to evacuate onto the damaged side of the a/c. I'm expecting some injuries during evac??
THAT'S the problem with the slide, which I thought were designed to accommodate a collapsed gear?
I certainly wouldn't imagine anyone would wish to evacuate onto the damaged side of the a/c. I'm expecting some injuries during evac??
Last edited by 4468; 8th Jun 2013 at 09:50.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would it rest on the tail section??????
I suggest that's unusual?? Any precedent?
Edited to add: of course this picture seems to have been taken some time after the evac. Perhaps this wasn't how it rested DURING the evac?
I suggest that's unusual?? Any precedent?
Edited to add: of course this picture seems to have been taken some time after the evac. Perhaps this wasn't how it rested DURING the evac?
Last edited by 4468; 8th Jun 2013 at 10:05.
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: In the cloud
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing unusual about that. This is a shorter A319, so the aft belly is not resting on the ground and the nose gear is closer to the ground.
ASN Aircraft accident Airbus A319-131 N816UA Newark-Liberty International Airport, NJ (EWR)
ASN Aircraft accident Airbus A319-131 N816UA Newark-Liberty International Airport, NJ (EWR)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forward slide easily touches the ground there. As it is designed to do. If Wizzair is 'usual' Airbus may have a problem!! I have to ask again. Why is this A320 resting on it's tail?? That 319 simply demonstrates the CofG is over the engine pod. Just as it should be in the A320. Perhaps a delay occurred evacuating the rear? Door and slide at D2R are in a different state to the front doors?
A (not unheard of) problem here has resulted in perhaps only one door and two over wings being available for evac. Though it does look as though D1L slide is also inflated.
Any other pictures of an A320 resting on it's tail after collapse of one main gear??
A (not unheard of) problem here has resulted in perhaps only one door and two over wings being available for evac. Though it does look as though D1L slide is also inflated.
Any other pictures of an A320 resting on it's tail after collapse of one main gear??
Last edited by 4468; 8th Jun 2013 at 10:50.
Some more pictures, though not really much added value for the accident investigators on this forum 
Really would like to know how the nose up situation actually was during evacuation and which exit/slide was used by those sustaining minor injuries (of course every slide evacuation can lead to injuries, but the front slides as shown post incident, really could have added some extra freefall sensation
)
Really would like to know how the nose up situation actually was during evacuation and which exit/slide was used by those sustaining minor injuries (of course every slide evacuation can lead to injuries, but the front slides as shown post incident, really could have added some extra freefall sensation
)
4468, sorry just realized my remark could have been taken personally. Actually, my remark was made with the LHR dual cowl topic in mind 
. This topic is still worth reading (although except for the high nose up, no big deal).
So please continue...
. This topic is still worth reading (although except for the high nose up, no big deal). So please continue...
Last edited by DIBO; 8th Jun 2013 at 11:19.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
boguing
I am of course aware of the fine CofG tolerances involved (particularly A321) but I'm not at all sure your geometry would represent the usual situation?? (Though what you have stated is clearly the case at FCO!) I have seen pictures this morning of other similar incidents which have not resulted in what we see here. (Can't find them now!!)
What you suggest is not even the case with the 319 above. In that case the CofG is BETWEEN the leg and the cowl, which is why the tail of the a/c is not in contact with the ground.
Unlike Wizzair.
As I say, just curious as it's not what I expected.
I am of course aware of the fine CofG tolerances involved (particularly A321) but I'm not at all sure your geometry would represent the usual situation?? (Though what you have stated is clearly the case at FCO!) I have seen pictures this morning of other similar incidents which have not resulted in what we see here. (Can't find them now!!)
What you suggest is not even the case with the 319 above. In that case the CofG is BETWEEN the leg and the cowl, which is why the tail of the a/c is not in contact with the ground.
Unlike Wizzair.
As I say, just curious as it's not what I expected.
Last edited by 4468; 8th Jun 2013 at 11:57.
Could it be because most of the passengers decided to go to the aft door for a shorter ride down the chute.
Also I believe that the resting point on the engine cowl is much further forward of the landing gear position giving more of a lever action.
Also I believe that the resting point on the engine cowl is much further forward of the landing gear position giving more of a lever action.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the additional pictures it looks like the left engine came to rest off the hard tarmac in the soft dirt shoulder. In photo No. 4 it appears like the lower part of the engine nacelle is partially dug into the ground, or, the ground the engine is resting on is lower the the tarmac itself (I can't really tell which). In either case, the lower engine position allowed the aircraft to "roll" more to the left than it could/should on a hard surface. With the remaining gear in tact, the additional roll caused the tail to touch the ground and pushed the right front evac slide up too high.
Last edited by areobat; 8th Jun 2013 at 13:49.
DOVE
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a matter of fact only in the tail draggers the center of gravity should fall behind the main landing gear and not in tricycles, otherwise the aicraft will sit on her tail.
Perhaps "lomapaseo" got it right:
Perhaps "lomapaseo" got it right:
Could it be because most of the passengers decided to go to the aft door for a shorter ride down the chute.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DSOTM
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minor injuries in an emergency landing. Many things could have gone wrong here. Well done to the crew, regardless of what the position was of the airplane upon evacuation. Certainly D1R didn't look suitable.
Last edited by drfaust; 8th Jun 2013 at 14:52.