Transavia (HV5068/TRA3K) emergency landing
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transavia (HV5068/TRA3K) emergency landing
A Transavia B738 (flight HV5068 / TRA3K) made an emergency landing in high winds at Amsterdam Schiphol yesterday.
Its destination was Rotterdam - The Hague Airport, Netherlands, but it diverted to Amsterdam Schiphol, after a requested diversion to its alternate Eindhoven was refused by Eindhoven ATC, for reasons yet unknown.
Wind conditions at Eindhoven were far less extreme.
Flight track: HV5068 - Flights list - Flightradar24
Details on the incident: Incident: Transavia B738 at Amsterdam on Jul 25th 2015, severe windshear on final and go around, pilot comment "scary", control problems, low fuel, no flaps
Comms with TWR before, during and after the go-around at EHAM: https://youtu.be/F9LruOa-hzA
Final approach and landing: http://youtu.be/Nio38kxye-I
Filmed inside the cabin: Transavia: vliegtuig volgde noodlandingsprocedures | NOS (cabin attendant repeating: "Head against the backrest in front of you!")
The aircraft is showing flaps up during landing. Is this normal procedure in high (cross)wind conditions? Could someone shed some light on this please?
Thanks.
Its destination was Rotterdam - The Hague Airport, Netherlands, but it diverted to Amsterdam Schiphol, after a requested diversion to its alternate Eindhoven was refused by Eindhoven ATC, for reasons yet unknown.
Wind conditions at Eindhoven were far less extreme.
Flight track: HV5068 - Flights list - Flightradar24
Details on the incident: Incident: Transavia B738 at Amsterdam on Jul 25th 2015, severe windshear on final and go around, pilot comment "scary", control problems, low fuel, no flaps
Comms with TWR before, during and after the go-around at EHAM: https://youtu.be/F9LruOa-hzA
Final approach and landing: http://youtu.be/Nio38kxye-I
Filmed inside the cabin: Transavia: vliegtuig volgde noodlandingsprocedures | NOS (cabin attendant repeating: "Head against the backrest in front of you!")
The aircraft is showing flaps up during landing. Is this normal procedure in high (cross)wind conditions? Could someone shed some light on this please?
Thanks.
Last edited by Aireps; 27th Jul 2015 at 10:09. Reason: Added link to comms recording.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite extraordinary that an airport with 6 runways can be reduced to being almost a single runway when mother nature doesn't cooperate. The worst storm winds are NW and that is between the runway directions. With sever cross winds several runways are not an option.
There are not many runways aligned NW in the Benelux. RTM is 24; thus 300 is nasty. RW27 at AMS is better, but then the winds were stronger. EIN is RW22/04 so even worse; not a good choice of alternate. It would seem to me the EDDK Cologne with 32L/R would be the best fuel choice. As one correspondent on the story in AV said, extra fuel for diversion needs to be for a place where you have a solid guarantee to land. If destination is dodgy you must have an escape route or full tanks. No ideas about the flaps; F25/30 would be more normal for gusty X-winds. The landing seems to have been well controlled and RW27 is well long enough for the higher speed.
Yesterday was nasty for Benelux; choice of runways limited.
There are not many runways aligned NW in the Benelux. RTM is 24; thus 300 is nasty. RW27 at AMS is better, but then the winds were stronger. EIN is RW22/04 so even worse; not a good choice of alternate. It would seem to me the EDDK Cologne with 32L/R would be the best fuel choice. As one correspondent on the story in AV said, extra fuel for diversion needs to be for a place where you have a solid guarantee to land. If destination is dodgy you must have an escape route or full tanks. No ideas about the flaps; F25/30 would be more normal for gusty X-winds. The landing seems to have been well controlled and RW27 is well long enough for the higher speed.
Yesterday was nasty for Benelux; choice of runways limited.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: adelaide
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps up not standard.
Anything other than flaps,30 or 40 requires the use of the ground proximity flap inhibit switch.
I don't know why you would use flaps up. Landing distance is almost totally dependant on landing speed. The qrh, nor other manuals indicate that flaps up is a good idea in any situation other than the flaps not actually working.
Anything other than flaps,30 or 40 requires the use of the ground proximity flap inhibit switch.
I don't know why you would use flaps up. Landing distance is almost totally dependant on landing speed. The qrh, nor other manuals indicate that flaps up is a good idea in any situation other than the flaps not actually working.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Age: 70
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The qrh, nor other manuals indicate that flaps up is a good idea in any situation other than the flaps not actually working.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 43
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transavia is saying there was no technical problem with the aircraft, that would suggest the crew decided to do a flapless landing.
Listening to the atc recordings it seems atc told them to expect vectors after being rejected by Eindhoven for a diversion. Sounds a bit like the crew did not choose to go Amsterdam, and after the Go-Around in AMS the pilot asks for a more suitable runway. Seems they were channelled into going for Schiphol and lost situational awareness.
Listening to the atc recordings it seems atc told them to expect vectors after being rejected by Eindhoven for a diversion. Sounds a bit like the crew did not choose to go Amsterdam, and after the Go-Around in AMS the pilot asks for a more suitable runway. Seems they were channelled into going for Schiphol and lost situational awareness.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Transavia is saying there was no technical problem with the aircraft, that would suggest the crew decided to do a flapless landing.
That would suggest insider knowledge, or friend of a friend. It would be interesting to know the individual experience/qualifications of the 2 pilots and to hear the CVR prior to deciding this non-normal landing configuration. Was there a step cockpit experience gradient? It's not common these days in the LoCo's to have old fart RHS guys. Equally it's quite common not to have old farts in LHS, but I expect not too much in HV.
That would suggest insider knowledge, or friend of a friend. It would be interesting to know the individual experience/qualifications of the 2 pilots and to hear the CVR prior to deciding this non-normal landing configuration. Was there a step cockpit experience gradient? It's not common these days in the LoCo's to have old fart RHS guys. Equally it's quite common not to have old farts in LHS, but I expect not too much in HV.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a little lost on the lack of TR deployment as well.
Perhaps the wind shear experienced left some stains on the seats and they thought a flapless approach would allow them more energy to power out of it?
Or were they really that low on fuel that the pilots were planning for flameout?
Neat to see a high-speed landing like that but this one leaves me scratching me head a bit...
Perhaps the wind shear experienced left some stains on the seats and they thought a flapless approach would allow them more energy to power out of it?
Or were they really that low on fuel that the pilots were planning for flameout?
Neat to see a high-speed landing like that but this one leaves me scratching me head a bit...
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No flap landing: Giving the pilots the benefit of doubt, maybe they were concerned about low fuel and wanted less drag or a different deck angle to avoid seeing the fuel pickup becoming uncovered. Or .. the extra speed afforded more speed and thus greater rudder authority that he felt was needed. If any of this were the case, his decision was using his emergency authority. I have no way to know without talking to the Captain. Just trying to give some credit until we know otherwise.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
The introduction of reverse may have been a thrust vector they did not want as it could pull them off the centre line.
OR being so thankful to be down and safe, didn't get it done.
My big windy days in Europe were in and out of Antwerp, NOT ANY FUN at all.
Well done to that and other crews caught out in all that weather
OR being so thankful to be down and safe, didn't get it done.
My big windy days in Europe were in and out of Antwerp, NOT ANY FUN at all.
Well done to that and other crews caught out in all that weather
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming no mechanical fault with the aircraft.....I guess doing a no flap landing will save fuel over flaps 30/40. Perhaps they were really low on fuel.
But would a flaps 1 landing be a better option to get the slats out. I don't think it would burn any more.
But why no thrust reversers on a landing that is very fast.
But would a flaps 1 landing be a better option to get the slats out. I don't think it would burn any more.
But why no thrust reversers on a landing that is very fast.
Last edited by JammedStab; 28th Jul 2015 at 07:20.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A higher approach speed would also reduce the drift angle, but I can't believe anyone would plan a flapless landing with that in mind. The real danger is that the a/c would tend to float. There was significant headwind and therefore an additive wind correction speed increment. This extra speed should be bled off to touchdown at Vref (+gust, perhaps). With no flap drag bleeding off the speed would be extremely difficult and thus floating would be a real danger. Equally, on a wet runway, you want the a/c to squat and break through the water to avoid hydroplaning. Reduced flaps will make this difficult. You could 'plant it' to break through the water ands it bounces due lack of drag. Hm! Making a difficult job even more so.
There must be more to this than meets the eye.
There must be more to this than meets the eye.
I heard that the second approach (the first one in AMS) resulted in a go-around because of a windshear warning. Firewalled the engines, and they ended up with a speed of 250 kts. With flaps extended. Don't know what flap setting. They retracted the flaps, but upon re-extension, everything refused to come out. (FSEU sensed an asymmetry or similar? -my guess) Since by then they had a low fuel emergency, there was no more time to do a proper all flaps up checklist, they went in with everything retracted. They had another few warnings (windshear) (sinkrate)upon their third approach and set it down. Committed to land, therefore gave the "brace for impact" command.
short flights long nights
Ok, but why no thrust reverse?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Below transcription of comms on the Discrete Emergency Frequency has surfaced. Source unknown, but it looks genuine to me.
TRA3K was handed off to the DEF by EHAM TWR, shortly after the go-around on EHAM RWY27.
TRA3K was handed off to the DEF by EHAM TWR, shortly after the go-around on EHAM RWY27.
Transavia 3K: We have er... Mayday, mayday, mayday, Transavia 3K, we have less than minimal fuel, and would like to return as soon as possible to Amsterdam to try it again.
ATC: Transavia 3K copy mayday cleared to two thousand.
Transavia 3K: Two thousand Transavia 3K. For your information, we had a very serious windshear at, I think about one thousand feet and we had trouble to control the aircraft. It was really severe.
ATC: [unreadable] right one eight zero.
Transavia 3K: Right one eight zero.
ATC: The speed is all yours [unreadable] and the only runway is two seven.
Transavia 3K: Ok, runway two seven, we'll do that, and eh was there any landing [unreadable]?
ATC: Affirm.
Transavia 3K: And we have another problem because our flaps are not working anymore due to the wind shear so we have to make a flapless landing.
ATC: [unreadable] no flaps. Do you need assistance on the runway?
Transavia 3K: Yes please.
ATC: Transavia 3K copy mayday cleared to two thousand.
Transavia 3K: Two thousand Transavia 3K. For your information, we had a very serious windshear at, I think about one thousand feet and we had trouble to control the aircraft. It was really severe.
ATC: [unreadable] right one eight zero.
Transavia 3K: Right one eight zero.
ATC: The speed is all yours [unreadable] and the only runway is two seven.
Transavia 3K: Ok, runway two seven, we'll do that, and eh was there any landing [unreadable]?
ATC: Affirm.
Transavia 3K: And we have another problem because our flaps are not working anymore due to the wind shear so we have to make a flapless landing.
ATC: [unreadable] no flaps. Do you need assistance on the runway?
Transavia 3K: Yes please.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: El Dorado
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's another YT link from AMS ATC:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Lr...ature=youtu.be
Sounds pretty chaotic in the cockpit, mixing up PTT buttons with the intercom, no real plan for a go-around, requesting that ATC give them vectors around weather instead of telling them what vectors you need by looking at your WX radar etc.
Oh, en then there is of course always the Air France 116T...not being able to keep his mouth shut, only concerned about lining up 27 and blocking the frequency when you OBVIOUSLY see and hear that another aircraft is in serious trouble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Lr...ature=youtu.be
Sounds pretty chaotic in the cockpit, mixing up PTT buttons with the intercom, no real plan for a go-around, requesting that ATC give them vectors around weather instead of telling them what vectors you need by looking at your WX radar etc.
Oh, en then there is of course always the Air France 116T...not being able to keep his mouth shut, only concerned about lining up 27 and blocking the frequency when you OBVIOUSLY see and hear that another aircraft is in serious trouble.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air France.....same old same....
It does seem like flaps overspeed on GA and then no longer any flaps available. Never flew Boeing aircraft, do get slat / flap lock or similar after an overspeed?
CP
It does seem like flaps overspeed on GA and then no longer any flaps available. Never flew Boeing aircraft, do get slat / flap lock or similar after an overspeed?
CP
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Sky
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds pretty chaotic in the cockpit, mixing up PTT buttons with the intercom, no real plan for a go-around, requesting that ATC give them vectors around weather instead of telling them what vectors you need by looking at your WX radar etc.
And the PTT.. again sh!t happens but if you hear the coaching and good CRM in such situation I can only compliment them
