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

TAP Portugal Airbus A320 Strikes Wingtip

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

TAP Portugal Airbus A320 Strikes Wingtip

Old 11th Apr 2022, 13:27
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Genève
Posts: 35
TAP Portugal Airbus A320 Strikes Wingtip

It seems that a TAP Air Portugal A320 struck the runway with a wing tip and struggled to climb away in a go-around while attempting to land at Copenhagen airport.

Read news here.

Dimitri Cherchenko is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2022, 14:47
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Netherlands
Age: 44
Posts: 279
Seems there is no damage. Go around does seem to have been botched.

Incident: TAP A320 at Copenhagen on Apr 8th 2022, possible wing tip strike on landing, overflew buildings at very low height on go around

Last edited by procede; 12th Apr 2022 at 08:51. Reason: typo
procede is offline  
Old 11th Apr 2022, 18:18
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 2
Well it is always tricky to fly with one thrust reverser deployed......simple lesson, when you select reverse you are staying on the ground.
8029848s is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2022, 07:43
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Scandinavia-home of the midnight sun.
Posts: 15
We landed ahead of TAP on that day in CPH. Rwy in use 30, which is quite unusual and only used in gusty NW winds. Challenging landing with said gusty conditions. As we were asking for pushback some 35-40 min later we were asked to hold the push due to a "situation" at the airport. We listened in to twr freq and heard TAP being vectored for a second approach on 22L (winds had calmed a bit). TAP stated 107 or 109 souls onboard and having flown from LIS to CPH with that load I doubt they were especially heavy. Once TAP landed (normally) we were pushed back and as we requested taxi, we were to taxi and hold short of taxiway Y to let TAP pass ahead. We got a good look at the aircraft (with rescue services in tow) and the reverser on engine nr.1 was clearly not in the stowed position.
shared reality is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2022, 09:07
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 246
Using time and altitude data from the play-back function on Flightradar 24, from the go-around until the aircraft stops climbing and turns south, you get an average climb rate of 750 ft/min.

Is this indicative of a go-around on (eventually) one engine only?
EDMJ is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2022, 12:57
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 246
There's a video of the aircraft's second landing in the link below; the thrust reversers on both engine being open after landing, but not closing and remaining open on one engine.

https://www.bt.dk/samfund/alvorlig-h...havns-lufthavn
EDMJ is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2022, 19:35
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Home
Posts: 12
Originally Posted by EDMJ
There's a video of the aircraft's second landing in the link below; the thrust reversers on both engine being open after landing, but not closing and remaining open on one engine.
I have only a passing interest in this incident and no dog in the fight, but it looks to me like both reversers closed - right is visible closing on the runway, left is closed as it taxis in.
Equivocal is offline  
Old 12th Apr 2022, 20:18
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: same planet as yours
Posts: 319
3 out of 4 TR-doors remaining open, would be my guess. 2 inboard can be seen on the RWY, 1 lower outboard clearly visible on TWY, with the edge of the lower inboard also just visible.


DIBO is online now  
Old 13th Apr 2022, 09:06
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: BG
Age: 61
Posts: 58
Apparently neither wingtip nor pod strike (according to Havarikommissionen 11/4), but No 1 T/R petals not (fully) stowed (either on G/A or landing). IF theory that No 1 T/R petals already didn't close after the aborted landing were to be correct, a number of things would have had to occur at that time. A 320 would have needed WOW on both MLGs AND engines retarded to idle to allow T/R deployment in the first place (contrary to e.g. 737 where T/R depl. is possible below 10 ft RA). Big Q is then why they didn't pursue that initial landing. They obviously didn't and they likely engaged TO/GA THR. Another big Q is then why subsequently only the No 2 T/R petals fully closed. At least this allowed full fwd THR on eng No 2 to develop, while, as per design with petals not fully stowed, No 1 automatically switched to fwd idle. To note that in this situation (also as per design) A/T would have been disengaged automatically. This, plus perhaps momentary crew confusion up front and some delay of spooling up No 2 from idle, plus the drag inducing No 1 deployed petals could explain the feeble fwd and vertical speed profile in the G/A. One already knew it is apparently possible to fly and land an 320 with idle fwd THR and petals/sleeves open on one eng. At least with V2500 engines and already at a good speed (March 2004), but if it can be avoided IMO the better...
D Bru is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2022, 08:40
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Lisbon
Age: 51
Posts: 8
Why does FR24 only show a minimum of 750ft on the first approach and also 750ft on the 2nd. It only turns to zeroo when vacating?
Mike_UEM is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2022, 08:54
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud 7
Posts: 83
My guess would be that FR24 runs of STD QNH and actual pressure that day was pretty low.
heavydane is offline  
Old 14th Apr 2022, 09:10
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,923
Originally Posted by heavydane View Post
My guess would be that FR24 runs of STD QNH and actual pressure that day was pretty low.
Your guess would be correct.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2022, 06:17
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 1,144
On Apr 15th 2022 the HCL reported the captain decided to initiate a go around, upon applying TOGA one thrust reverser inadvertently opened causing control problems during the go around.
172_driver is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2022, 07:22
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: 🇬🇧🇪🇸
Posts: 2,042
Unlikely imho. I suspect reverse thrust on at least one engine was selected on touchdown, after which a go-around is not SOP but they decided to anyway.
Nightstop is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2022, 07:39
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Stansted
Posts: 196
I agree with Nightstop, highly unlikely TOGA caused reverser deployment.

If 172 Drivers theory was correct I suspect every A320 worldwide would be bulletined for grounding.

Reversers opening on selection of TOGA would be a game changer and would scare the pants of out any airbus driver Im sure.

Say Mach Number is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2022, 08:43
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 13,923
Originally Posted by Say Mach Number View Post
If 172 Drivers theory was correct I suspect every A320 worldwide would be bulletined for grounding
To be fair, that's not the poster's theory, it's an unattributed quote from Avherald of a statement reportedly made by the Danish Havarikommissionen. I have no idea whether it's correct or not.

A more likely scenario would seem to be the sequence of events surrounding the TNT A306 incident at EGNX in January 2011.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2022, 13:50
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,138
Originally Posted by Nightstop View Post
Unlikely imho. I suspect reverse thrust on at least one engine was selected on touchdown, after which a go-around is not SOP but they decided to anyway.
Moving from forward idle to TOGA there's no possibility of reverse getting deployed. But some pilots have this habit of prematurely moving the hand on to reverse before touchdown. In that case while moving the hand from reversers to behind thrust levers for TOGA can inadvertently engage one them.
vilas is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2022, 14:28
  #18 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 3,793
And others can move to REV gate while still airborne on a long float. If the PM took over at that point one lever might remain latched to REV IDLE detent, until rectified by crew by resetting the REV paddle.

Does not explain the petals extended after the second landing, nor flying the GA with REV open.

Looks like some darn mechanical failure that was really not supposed to happen in a post-Lauda 767 world. (cometh forward, the Master of the combustion chamber?)
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2022, 18:48
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Everett, WA
Age: 67
Posts: 3,585
Originally Posted by FlightDetent View Post
And others can move to REV gate while still airborne on a long float. If the PM took over at that point one lever might remain latched to REV IDLE detent, until rectified by crew by resetting the REV paddle.

Does not explain the petals extended after the second landing, nor flying the GA with REV open.

Looks like some darn mechanical failure that was really not supposed to happen in a post-Lauda 767 world. (cometh forward, the Master of the combustion chamber?)
You called?
Not too familiar with the T/R system on Airbus. Is it possible to advance the thrust lever (damn, almost wrote throttle lever ) off idle with the reverse lever extended? On Boeings, there is a mechanical interlock that locks the forward lever to idle if the reverse lever isn't stowed - don't know about the A320. If it is possible to advance the forward lever with the reverse lever not stowed (or there was a failure of the interlock), it could explain what happened (depending on the specifics of the A320 auto-restow system). If they had to stow the reverse lever before selecting TOGA, then there would need to have been some sort of mechanical fault that prevented the reverser from completely stowing.
While Boeing specifically states that performing a go-around after reverser deployment is not recommended, it is a design requirement that the reverser will successfully stow.
tdracer is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2022, 20:05
  #20 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not commuting home
Age: 44
Posts: 3,793
It's been a flaming success the last time, many thanks for coming to clarify again. What I missed then same as now: was there any industry-wide change in design requirements and certification standards for TR installation in the aftermath?

The TLs in the cockpit are very simple. The arc of travel has separate positions for IDLE, REV IDLE and REV FULL. The revers selection paddles mounted on the front side of TLs are mechanical interlocks that prevent the TLs from travelling below the IDLE stop. Then you need to pull the paddles up, unlatching the movent into the REV range. A similar concept applies in the opposite direction - "stowing" action is required to move forward of the REV IDLE notch.

I am looking at the FCOM description (dumbed down to pilot level) and 3 out 1 in looks only possible under a "fail to open" scenario which does not match the chronological course of reported events.

Last edited by FlightDetent; 16th Apr 2022 at 20:21.
FlightDetent 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 © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.