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, 08:40
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Netherlands
Age: 47
Posts: 1
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...

Last edited by 14MZ; 8th Jun 2013 at 10:16. Reason: Title adjusted
14MZ is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 08:48
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: here and there
Posts: 151
Emergency evacuation done. 3 minor injuries, problems with landingear.
Flight was OTP-Ciampino, but ended up on FCO.

Btw, its Wizz Air.

Last edited by skytrax; 8th Jun 2013 at 08:50.
skytrax is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 10:38
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 233


Wouldn't fancy evacuating from the R1 door

Last edited by RingwaySam; 8th Jun 2013 at 10:38.
RingwaySam is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 10:45
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 682
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??

Last edited by 4468; 8th Jun 2013 at 10:50.
4468 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 10:49
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: In the cloud
Posts: 53
If one of the main gears is not downlocked the plane will rest on that sides engine, the tail section and the extended gear.
B-U-S-S is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 10:52
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 682
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?

Last edited by 4468; 8th Jun 2013 at 11:05.
4468 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 11:17
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: In the cloud
Posts: 53
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)
B-U-S-S is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 11:20
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 682
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??

Last edited by 4468; 8th Jun 2013 at 11:50.
4468 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 12:01
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 249
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 )
DIBO is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 12:08
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 682
Hi DIBO

Not really investigating anything. Just trying to understand some things I wasn't expecting to see.

Thanks for the pictures of the damaged side.
4468 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 12:17
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 249
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...

Last edited by DIBO; 8th Jun 2013 at 12:19.
DIBO is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 12:17
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dorking
Posts: 471
Main gear is behind the lowest part of the cowling, so take a leg away and the cofg is now behind the remaining leg and cowl.
boguing is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 12:25
  #13 (permalink)  

Time merchant
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 352
LIRF not anticipating moving the disable acft before 1600 local time (1400utc) so delays of around one hour should persist until that time at the earliest.
flowman is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 12:29
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: York
Posts: 682
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.

Last edited by 4468; 8th Jun 2013 at 12:57.
4468 is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 13:14
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,207
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.
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 13:43
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Dorking
Posts: 471
4468

It just finds a new state of equilibrium, which can be anywhere between normal attitude to tail-on-ground.
boguing is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 14:42
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 82
Very well done to the guys involved in the incident. Good Job
IAEdude is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 14:48
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 44
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 14:49.
areobat is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 15:08
  #19 (permalink)  

DOVE
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 73
Posts: 1,185
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:
Could it be because most of the passengers decided to go to the aft door for a shorter ride down the chute.
DOVES is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2013, 15:51
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DSOTM
Posts: 181
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 15:52.
drfaust is offline  

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.