Air New Zealand ATR 72 'hits' something

[Lord Farringdon]

Initial news reporting indicates NZ5759, an Air NZ ATR72 en route Dunedin 'hit' something in cruise at FL160. Aircraft returned to its departure airfield Christchurch and landed safely.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12223870

[AmarokGTI]

[QUOTE=Lord Farringdon;10451142]Initial news reporting indicates NZ5759, an Air NZ ATR72 en route Dunedin 'hit' something in cruise at FL160. Aircraft returned to its departure airfield Christchurch and landed safely.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12223870]


Well, from that link:
”Pilots of an Air New Zealand plane turned back after take-off because they believed a wheel in the main landing gear had "made contact with an object on departure", a spokeswoman from the national carrier has confirmed”

[Lord Farringdon]

[QUOTE=AmarokGTI;10451211]

Originally Posted by Lord Farringdon

Initial news reporting indicates NZ5759, an Air NZ ATR72 en route Dunedin 'hit' something in cruise at FL160. Aircraft returned to its departure airfield Christchurch and landed safely.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12223870]


Well, from that link:
”Pilots of an Air New Zealand plane turned back after take-off because they believed a wheel in the main landing gear had "made contact with an object on departure", a spokeswoman from the national carrier has confirmed”

Ah. They have obviously updated the link from when I posted it. Unfortunately, I cant change the title of the thread.

[Lord Farringdon]

Well, I guess we're not going to get anything more than this latest from NZ Herald

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12223901

Looks like they hit a runway light at some stage during their departure. I wonder if the crew knew they had it or if a subsequent routine runway inspection or ATC observation identified a 'missing' light?. The latter case might explain the delay in returning to Christchurch perhaps? Anyway, no biggy ie, no one hurt and no significant damage it seems but interesting given we also have the AA321 incident taken out a runway remaining sign on departure to show perhaps what could have happened.

[Herod]

we also have the AA321 incident taken out a runway remaining sign on departure to show perhaps what could have happened.

Any similarity between the ATR 72 and the A 321 is purely co-incidental.

[booze]

Originally Posted by Herod

we also have the AA321 incident taken out a runway remaining sign on departure to show perhaps what could have happened.

Any similarity between the ATR 72 and the A 321 is purely co-incidental.

Of course it is. And the usual bashing of piloting skills by the Sky Gods of Oz and the US of A (UK, NZ, etc.) if both incidents happened somewhere in the 3rd World or Eastern Europe would be purely coincidental, too, i guess...

[capngrog]

Looks like they hit a runway light at some stage during their departure. I wonder if the crew knew they had it or if a subsequent routine runway inspection or ATC observation identified a 'missing' light?. The latter case might explain the delay in returning to Christchurch perhaps? Anyway, no biggy ie, no one hurt and no significant damage it seems but interesting given we also have the AA321 incident taken out a runway remaining sign on departure to show perhaps what could have happened.[/QUOTE]

I have to agree that from the standpoint of " ... no one hurt and no significant (aircraft) damage ..." the incident was "no biggy"; however, either incident would have involved a significant runway excursion. Hitting a runway edge light ( placed 2 - 10 ft. from runway edge) is less serious than hitting a runway distance remaining sign, but even 2 ft. from the runway edge (full strength pavement) is a problem, especially with the ATR series whose landing gear is relatively close to the fuselage centerline. Depending on the size of the runway remaining signs, these signs can be placed from either 20 to 35 ft. from the runway edge or 50 to 75 ft. from the runway edge. These are U.S.A. standards (FAA) which I believe are in alignment with ICAO standards. Being 20 ft. or more off the runway edge indicates, in my opinion, a loss of aircraft control ... certainly a "biggy".

Cheers,
Grog

[bill fly]

Aeroplanes have Dimensions too

Originally Posted by capngrog

Looks like they hit a runway light at some stage during their departure. I wonder if the crew knew they had it or if a subsequent routine runway inspection or ATC observation identified a 'missing' light?. The latter case might explain the delay in returning to Christchurch perhaps? Anyway, no biggy ie, no one hurt and no significant damage it seems but interesting given we also have the AA321 incident taken out a runway remaining sign on departure to show perhaps what could have happened.

I have to agree that from the standpoint of " ... no one hurt and no significant (aircraft) damage ..." the incident was "no biggy"; however, either incident would have involved a significant runway excursion. Hitting a runway edge light ( placed 2 - 10 ft. from runway edge) is less serious than hitting a runway distance remaining sign, but even 2 ft. from the runway edge (full strength pavement) is a problem, especially with the ATR series whose landing gear is relatively close to the fuselage centerline. Depending on the size of the runway remaining signs, these signs can be placed from either 20 to 35 ft. from the runway edge or 50 to 75 ft. from the runway edge. These are U.S.A. standards (FAA) which I believe are in alignment with ICAO standards. Being 20 ft. or more off the runway edge indicates, in my opinion, a loss of aircraft control ... certainly a "biggy".

Cheers,
Grog[/QUOTE]

And the NZ case was reported to be a landing gear hit. The landing gear is usually quite a way from the wing tip (unless you drive a B52 or a U2...) So your backside is almost off the runway here too...