PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rumours & News (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news-13/)
-   -   Transavia (HV5068/TRA3K) emergency landing (https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/565180-transavia-hv5068-tra3k-emergency-landing.html)

Aireps 26th Jul 2015 17:06

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?


RAT 5 26th Jul 2015 17:23

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.

cowabunga438 27th Jul 2015 13:14

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.

kcockayne 27th Jul 2015 14:01

Bloody good landing at high speed.

Capt. Inop 27th Jul 2015 17:40

The qrh, nor other manuals indicate that flaps up is a good idea in any situation other than the flaps not actually working.
Something that might have been the reason here?

Edgington 27th Jul 2015 19:27

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.

Capt. Inop 27th Jul 2015 20:29

Seems they were channelled into going for Schiphol and lost situational awareness
Well, at least they didn't forget the gear. :ok:

RAT 5 27th Jul 2015 21:19

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.

plhought 27th Jul 2015 22:06

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...

Baja 27th Jul 2015 22:21

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.

JanetFlight 27th Jul 2015 23:49

Does anyone knows or can explain why the absence of TR upon touchdown and was only activated on the last sector of the landing roll?

greybeard 28th Jul 2015 00:36

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


JammedStab 28th Jul 2015 01:06

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.

RAT 5 28th Jul 2015 08:47

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.

fox niner 28th Jul 2015 09:08

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.

SOPS 28th Jul 2015 09:19

Ok, but why no thrust reverse?

Aireps 28th Jul 2015 09:34

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.

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.

CaptainProp 28th Jul 2015 11:25

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?


Global_Global 28th Jul 2015 11:35

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.
I guess you never had a SEVERE windshear, while low on fuel and ATC giving you go around instructions that are different than briefed Luciffer??? I think they did a great job as during a severe windshear the last thing I will be looking at is at the weather radar... Aviate, navigate, communicate sounds familiar?? Very easy to have an opinion from a desk while this crew had a sh!tty flight already with bad weather, sick pax, wrong diversion airport, etc... :hmm:

And the PTT.. again sh!t happens but if you hear the coaching and good CRM in such situation I can only compliment them :cool:

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:47.

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.