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

Transavia (HV5068/TRA3K) emergency landing

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

Transavia (HV5068/TRA3K) emergency landing

Old 29th Jul 2015, 08:26
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 42
Posts: 443
I found a video that might give you an idea what the Transavia crew had been facing for some time (and already tried to land in at another airport).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J9CaIicsBA

Take a close look around 06:00 to 06:20 and you'll see some harrowing action.

BTW, the_stranger I kind of agree with you. Capt is there to make sure you (and I on occasion) get down and alive. If that means the FO needs to hold the yoke/stick so be it.

Last edited by MrSnuggles; 29th Jul 2015 at 08:29. Reason: adding info
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2015, 08:27
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,513
From the ATC youtube: the intercom calls in the G/A come from a female and advise speed and altitude need more control. All ATC calls on approach come from her. It would suggest she was PNF. About EIN's refusal: a declaration of a fuel emergency would shake them up and open many doors and runways. Heads would roll if you were still refused for some BS reason. Sometimes it's time to confirm who needs help and priority: usually it's the guy in the air not on the ground. I remember a BA flight into AMS when the wind was strong WSW and gusting. He was given 19L (old days). Firstly he was approaching that runway direct from London, and RW27 was not in use due noise allocation ratios. He asked if the wind was veering as it gusted. Affirmative from ATC. It was a strong nasty day. He asked for RW27. This was refused as not in use. He asked if it was closed as unserviceable or serviceable. Yes it was serviceable. He requested it again. Refused. He then said he refused 19L and said if he had to divert to BRS there would be a report and strong complaint made about AMS ATC and perhaps they would get the bill for the diversion. RW27 was opened. The captain retained and exercised responsibility for the safety of the a/c.
I once was an F/O on a biz-jet. We wanted to land at a remote airfield for our pax. It was a few seconds after official closure, but all facilities were present. ATC said we would have to divert unless an emergency was declared. Guess what happened. Local security inspected the a/c on arrival and we declared fuel load as the reason for emergency. They said we still had fuel in the tanks. We asked how much is enough and how much is too little for this a/c? Silence, and they left with a beer each for the onboard bar. Captain's call, but pax were happy.
Sometimes a bit of push is required to get what you need/want. I agree one is more serious than the other, but.......
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2015, 08:37
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 42
Posts: 443
RAT 5

You just summed up the most important part for most transportation professions. Understanding of your vehicle and confidence in that knowledge.

If more car drivers would adopt this simple sentence to heart, there would be fewer accidents right off the bat.
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2015, 08:49
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Holland
Age: 73
Posts: 31
What I do nog onderstand is why EIN refused landing whilst a mayday was issued.This was an extreme Barrow escape. Another thing I thoughtbto have de en is some short orange flashes at the location of the wheel-wells. Did they blow up thevtyres?
Giolla is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2015, 09:07
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,267
60 mins of extra fuel and an alternate outside the stormy area would have made the situation a lot less stressful.
I wonder what the Transavia fuel policy is.
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2015, 10:46
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: FL410
Posts: 821
Giolla, the emergency did not get declared until with AMS ATC already.

I'm supporting the crew on this one:
- Missed Approach RTM due "obvious reasons" aka winds;
- Holding in RTM awaiting ATC clearance to be allowed to proceed towards AMS;
- During hold EIN requested as holding delay meant lower fuel state;
- EIN declined flight diversion, holding time reduced by ATC for AMS diversion;
- Next approach is in AMS, worse weather then RTM and another Missed Approach, this time with severe windshear reported as reason;
- Due all the above getting into a low fuel state and having had a flap exceedance;
- Declared Emergency and Flaps Up landing.

As stated before, shitty day in office, but rewards for crew to get it down after all that. Many episodes of Air Crash Investigation have less reasons not having made it safely down.
Skyjob is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2015, 10:51
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,513
Giolla: I'm not sure a Mayday was called; a low fuel call was made to AMS ATC after the G/A. Slightly tongue in cheek: EIN is ostensively a transport military airbase paid for by the tax-payer. HV is a civil dutch airline and the pax are mostly dutch tax-payers. The military are there to defend and improve the security of its citizens from whom they receive their funds. By refusing a local civilian airliner in distress I wonder if they are fulfilling their side of the deal.
But, again, I wonder if they were given the full facts.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2015, 10:53
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 671
60 mins of extra fuel and an alternate outside the stormy area would have made the situation a lot less stressful.
I wonder what the Transavia fuel policy is.
It's probably the same as the vast majority of other airlines these days, which 'encourage' you to take the minimum legal amount.

There are days when this is ok and days when it definitely is not. I think too many Captains nowadays are scared of their managements, but my advice to them is 'take the amount that YOU feel happy taking, not what you think your manager wants' when the shit hits the fan you'll be held responsible, no-one else.
Stan Woolley is offline  
Old 29th Jul 2015, 11:39
  #49 (permalink)  
short flights long nights
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 2,842
Having had the pleasure, and I really mean that, of working for Transavia for 18 years, I can tell you what the fuel policy is. ......take as much as you like, as long as it's for a good reason.....and looking at the conditions, I think no one would have even questioned taking full tanks. In the 18 happy years I spent there, no one ever, not once, asked me about how much fuel I carried.
SOPS is online now  
Old 29th Jul 2015, 12:24
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 293
There's some confusion on the facts.

1. The "so-called 'mayday' transcript" (post #17): I first saw this Monday afternoon on avherald). That person called it "Some transcript of the EHRD Approach ATC". Now it's come here as the "Discrete Emergency Frequency". I have seen no indication that this transcription is authentic, especially because what we do have is from EHAM tower up to the point that the controller instructs to tune to "126.675, the Discrete Frequency" (and not "right frequency" as the Youtube transcription has it). 126.675 won't show up on your plates, but the scanner crowd calls it the "Arrival BackUp / Discrete Frequency", as distinct from 120.875, the "Discrete Emergency Frequency", which is what this transcript is claiming to be. In any case, it ain't Rotterdam Approach. Also, the Captain shows a distinct preference for communicating anything half-complicated in Dutch. Finally, whatever they may have said, it looks like once the controller realized that the flight was low on fuel, having control problems, AND was unable to change frequencies, he treated it as an emergency, even if the flight crew didn't want to declare it.

As far as I know, there are three possible sources for such a transcript: A. The official ATC tapes, which have not been made available, nor which would likely have been leaked. To be honest, I wouldn't expect those tasked with making a transcription would be required to come in on a weekend to do it. B. The CVR, likewise. C. Other listeners on frequency.
In category C there's anyone in the area with 15 Euro USB dongle, but also two websites: ATCBOX and LiveATC. ATCBOX has practically all Schiphol frequencies (including 126.675, as well as 120.825 ), but does not (as far as I know) archive them, so someone would have to be listening to/tuning to them in real time. This being the internet, there are some who claim to have been doing exactly that, and to have heard no such calls. LiveAtc has archives - indeed, it is the source of the traffic posted on youtube and on ED.nl -, but it does not archive 126.675 at Schiphol.

So it's been posted under dodgy circumstances, with patently false attributions, and no clear path back to any reliable source. Unless someone tells me where it comes from and how it was made, I'm calling fake.


2. As stated, Eindhoven does not accept alternates, only emergencies. Transavia operates most of their flights out of Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Eindhoven (with maybe a couple flights from Maastricht and Groningen), so the interest not to go to Brussels or Weeze (where other LoCos run, but not Transavia), or further afield.

3. The Dutch weather service issues a Summer Storm Warning once every five years or so. This was the worst such storm on record. It's not usual weather for the region, so plan accordingly.
DingerX is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2015, 07:18
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: France
Posts: 36
From what we know now, this flight may very well be used as a TR in the simulator. I certainly would come out with a wet back.

Imho the crew was very unlucky with the sequence of events. The Captain managed the emergency well. Te FO and PF made a very good flapless landing under adverse wx conditions and a lot of stress. I admire the way he arrested the sink rate just before touch down.

I also admire the way SPL ATC handled things , as they were close to losing their only operational runway, with lot's of inbound traffic.

Good Flying !

Good memories.

Last edited by Good memories; 30th Jul 2015 at 09:39.
Good memories is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2015, 11:38
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: in the mud
Posts: 48
Lot's of folks seem to be 'admiring' the crew on their decisions. However I would like to point out a few 'minor things':


-It is generally known, and notamed, that EIN is not available as an alternate, except an emergency, so it was certainly not their planned alternate.
-So what was the alternate of this flight?most probably AMS,(convenient for company) but not a good one as the wx there was even worse than RTM
-If AMS was not the alternate,but let's say BRU, this means that they wasted fuel in the holding and made them becoming committed to land in either RTM or AMS due to less then minimum diversion fuel, that would be an even worse decison making than the previous option of having AMS as an alternate.


In the end they dug the hole themselves and they were fortunate it all worked out well in the end.


The decision which alternate to take and how much fuel is one which should not be taken lightly : a diversion is basically an emergency. You are committed to land. Therefore the wx has to be reasonable good,not marginal.
The decision to divert must be made on the ground or latest a 100 miles out, and you should stick to that. You should have a clear plan made what you do if you cannot land , how many approaches you can make , where to go and when to divert knowing exactly your 'bingo' fuel.


In 30 years of flying I have diverted many times but never had any stress while doing it as all was well worked out and planned and we stuck to it.


If you base your decisions on luck, taking a bad wx alternate-(but 'good' for your company) and just taking a lot of xtra fuel 'hoping' you will make it in, you are willingly risking the lives of your passengers and yourselves...
space pig is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2015, 11:52
  #53 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,550
it was certainly not their planned alternate.
No it was not and was also not requested by the crew, if you lesten to the audio I poster earlier, it is ATC RTM who suggested EIN , giving the better wind /visbility situation there.

Lastly for the non professionals in here , it the crew and the crew only that can declare if a flight is in emergency , not ATC.
ATC Watcher is online now  
Old 30th Jul 2015, 14:38
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,513
The FO and PF made a very good flapless landing under adverse wx conditions and a lot of stress.

I still say IMHO this is not the way it should have happened. Let F/O be PF so captain can manage the situation and communicate with all parties & agencies, but ultimately the captain should be responsible for the landing, both due weather & especially the non-normal configuration. Otherwise we may as well fly around with SFO's & F/O's. Who needs a captain?
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 30th Jul 2015, 20:52
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Confusio Helvetica
Posts: 293
At least in the US, ATC, dispatch, and even an "Airline Representative" (=Management) can declare an emergency for an aircraft.

For example, here's a page with a transcript and a recording of a controller doing just that.

As for management-declared emergencies, I haven't been able to find any recordings, but that's no doubt due to the cabin crew's ability to keep the Champagne at the proper temperature. There's still some debate about whether improperly served nuts constitute an emergency.

Of course, I didn't say that Schiphol tower declared an emergency; just that he treated it "as an emergency", handing off to a discrete channel and stopping all arrivals and departures.
DingerX is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2015, 05:03
  #56 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 69
Posts: 2,550
Thanks for that info Dinger X, I did not know that a controller could do this in the US, we definitively can't do that here. You can suggest it but it is always the PIC who declares it.

The US military also have strange rules for that, I had once a C141 declaring an emergency, it was very busy, took a lots of efforts to clear the airspace below him, but he just continued his flight to planned destination and refused to descend. After investigation he just lost one engine, and it is ( was at the time at least) mandatory for USAF to declare an emergency in this case.

All this shows once again that despite ICAO everybody still uses its own rules.
ATC Watcher is online now  
Old 31st Jul 2015, 10:06
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,267
I still say IMHO this is not the way it should have happened. Let F/O be PF so captain can manage the situation and communicate with all parties & agencies, but ultimately the captain should be responsible for the landing, both due weather & especially the non-normal configuration. Otherwise we may as well fly around with SFO's & F/O's. Who needs a captain?
I am a captain. It does not mean I am a better pilot than all my copilots. Some of my copilots I trust to fly any non normal situation/configuration, others I don't. CRM.
I would personally have flown this landing myself. That way I could only blame myself if it turmed into an accident. I doesn't mean the captain in this situation made the wrong decision.
This was a very stressful situation with weather, go around, overspeed, low fuel and a non normal configuration to sort out on top of everything.

Slightly off topic; does the NG have a flap lock out feature if you overspeed the flap by a certain amount? I have never heard about this. You overspeed the flap, it allows you to retract to up, then shuts down?
ManaAdaSystem is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2015, 12:59
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: malta
Posts: 96
I still say IMHO this is not the way it should have happened. Let F/O be PF so captain can manage the situation and communicate with all parties & agencies, but ultimately the captain should be responsible for the landing, both due weather & especially the non-normal configuration. Otherwise we may as well fly around with SFO's & F/O's. Who needs a captain?
I now fly on an airbus for a couple of years and recently flew with a captain doing his 2nd trip after linetraining, so he had about 6 flights "under his belt".

While I accept he has more experience in aviation, therefor is better to carry ultimate responsibility, do you really think he can handle the plane better?

The only reason there are captains is there needs to be a "boss" to make judgements and decide actions, when there is a difference of opinion. At least in "my" company, FO's (and even SFO's) are selected, trained and used exactly the same as capt's, with the sole difference the last is the deciding factor when there is a difference of opinions.

When I used to be captain on a previous type, I never had "big things" happen, but when the FO would have more experience/handling qualities, I would not have hesitated to let him fly the whole thing.
the_stranger is offline  
Old 31st Jul 2015, 15:37
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 120
If the CO was a newbie I doubt he/she would have made the return flight anyway. Lots of them have years under their belt already and this kind of weather occurs more often in the autumn period so nothing new. It wasn't the wind that gave them problems it was the many wind shears on final and even close to the rwy itself.

From what I've heard they declared an emergency on the discrete channel but don't know how reliable that source is. About the fuel, they took extra fuel with them but the GA at EHRD and the holding time there gave them less opportunities and therefore EHAM was their last resort. If they didn't had to make the another GA at AMS this topic wouldn't even exist because not being low on fuel and not having a flap problem which probably occurred when raising them during the GA.

This was the know chain of events but with al the stress they had they made a beauty of a landing. Maybe mistakes have been made, they've solved them well!

Last edited by wingview; 31st Jul 2015 at 17:32.
wingview is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2015, 08:32
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EHAM
Posts: 41
I do not think we know at this point who flew the successfull no flap landing. We know that a female pilot, thought to be the Capt, was handling comms and was PNF in Rotterdam and during the first approach and go around at Schiphol. There is no issue with a Capt letting an experienced FO with many hours on type fly a difficult approach. Whoever has flown it, the landing was clearly performed in a very skillful manner and thus by the right person. I do not think the PF/PNF decision is one that deserves criticism.
StuntPilot 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.