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 16:06

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?

Thanks.

RAT 5 26th Jul 2015 16:23

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 12:14

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 13:01

Bloody good landing at high speed.
Congratulations.

Capt. Inop 27th Jul 2015 16:40


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 18:27

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 19:29


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 20:19

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 21:06

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 21:21

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 22:49

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 27th Jul 2015 23:36

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

:D:ok:

JammedStab 28th Jul 2015 00:06

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 07:47

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 08:08

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 08:19

Ok, but why no thrust reverse?

Aireps 28th Jul 2015 08:34

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 10:25

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?

CP

Global_Global 28th Jul 2015 10:35


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:

the_stranger 28th Jul 2015 10:52


And the PTT.. again sh!t happens
I have mistaken the PTT switch with the intercom/pa switch while being parked in nice sunny windstill weather. I've had my share of windshears and they will shake you up a little every time, so mistaking a switch? Like you said, sh!t happens

Una Due Tfc 28th Jul 2015 11:08

Tower still trying to hand them over when she reports she is in heavy winshear. Unless a separation loss is imminent just leave them alone for a minute

RAT 5 28th Jul 2015 12:15

......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.

Not sure in which topic, perhaps crunched landing by SWA, but there was some discussion about the lack of practice with all engine G/A and the subsequent cock ups when it is done. Here is another example of that, with some critical consequences. (what if they had been at a rwy that was too short for flapless?) Firstly I would hope, especially on a day like this, that the G/A procedure was reviewed AGAIN just before G/S capture; even touch drilled. That plus a suitable routing was planned. W/S at 1000' might require full power initially, but could then be adjusted as necessary: if it had been anticipated. If it was a W/S G/A from reasonable height and ground contact not a factor would you go F15? Now, with full power and TOGA the pitch bar is in speed and it could have been high. Imagine what the attitude would be. Then with lowish MAA the ALT ACQ comes very quickly and the subsequent push-over would be stomach churning. With A/T's in manual and you forget to pull back the levers it's easy to see how this scenario could develop. Sometimes power can be your friend, other times not. A calm cockpit can avoid many problems. Oh for more sim time to practice such scenarios. I wish, I wish. It should be an annual sim event, surely: a menage of G/A's.
For the technical guys: I suspect the overspeed is more critical for the LED's. If they do overspeed, with no damage, do they behave like this and lock out? If not, then the the ALT system might have been available. However, it's nice to have RW27 underneath you in such a landing config. Let us learn please.

seasexsun 28th Jul 2015 12:19

AMS ATC is equipped with a wx radar I believe so they would probably be able to vector you out of the storm cells, in fact the ATC wx radar gives probably a better general view from above.

space pig 28th Jul 2015 12:49

Hmm can't really see how some folks say they did a great job....


Tunnel vision, no clear diversion plan, huge max flap speed exceedance, no clear view how to circumnavigate TSRA, so nervous that she transmitted on ATC instead of intercom, letting the FO land in this kind of wx and then the remark after landing that "she had never saw this kind of wx in 25 years of flying" ?? what has she been doing in those 25 years ? this is not exceptional wx in many places in europe year round...
do not forget there were dozens of other aircraft at the same time and same conditions and they all landed safely despite windshear and the occasional go around....


I would say that this captain was not in command of the situation
and there is more to this one than meets the eye and I sincerely hope that this will be thoroughly investigated by the Dutch

Aireps 28th Jul 2015 13:09

I've replayed the full comms recording of EHAM TWR on the afternoon of July 25. Between 11:20 UTC and 14:10 UTC, I counted 20 go-arounds on RWY27.

At around 12:15 UTC, the vast majority of approaching aircraft made a go-around because of windshear.

View EHAM traffic, starting at 11:30 UTC: http://www.flightradar24.com/2015-07...x/52.3,4.74/12

There were single-runway operations on RWY27. PIREPs from aircraft on approach to RWY27 reported windshear of 20 knots at 200 ft and moderate turbulence. There were no windshear reports from aircraft departing from RWY27. Some aircraft cancelled take-off from RWY27 because gusting exceeded 50 kn (from 290 - 310 deg).

Phileas Fogg 28th Jul 2015 13:41


Hmm can't really see how some folks say they did a great job....


Tunnel vision, no clear diversion plan, huge max flap speed exceedance, no clear view how to circumnavigate TSRA, so nervous that she transmitted on ATC instead of intercom, letting the FO land in this kind of wx and then the remark after landing that "she had never saw this kind of wx in 25 years of flying" ?? what has she been doing in those 25 years ? this is not exceptional wx in many places in europe year round...
do not forget there were dozens of other aircraft at the same time and same conditions and they all landed safely despite windshear and the occasional go around....


I would say that this captain was not in command of the situation
and there is more to this one than meets the eye and I sincerely hope that this will be thoroughly investigated by the Dutch
Never had a shit day in the office?

PENKO 28th Jul 2015 13:47

One thing, the Transavia PR department deserves a big bonus at the end the year :)

'No danger whatsoever at any time'.

Global_Global 28th Jul 2015 14:11


Never had a shit day in the office?
My point exactly... :cool:

When I was instructing I have seen too many great crew totally **** up in the sim on the windshear exercise and have since a more humble approach to what you should have done.... With windshear you will [email protected] up some day, I will [email protected] up some day and let's make sure that we both appreciate that and do our best to avoid it. This flight had all the swiss cheese issues written all over it: confused diversion, low fuel, shaken about for a while in shitty weather...how sharp would you be? Not how sharp should you have been.... So I am with the crew on this one. Could they have done better? absolutely. Can I understand that they did what they did: yep, absolutely!


there were dozens of other aircraft at the same time and same conditions and they all landed safely despite windshear and the occasional go around....
The one time I encountered SEVERE windshear was the scariest moment in my life and I was throwing every little bit of power at the aircraft and still going down at amazing rates per minute. Guess what: the aircraft before and one 5 minutes after us had zero issues! So pointless to compare it with other aircraft :oh: If you want something to compare: this was the heaviest summer storm in the Netherlands since 1901....:\


As for the PTT buttons, I think it's beyond incredible, that Boeing still has these silly rocker switches on the yoke!
Now that is something we do agree on :ok: But let's face it Boeing got scr3w3d over by South West when they designing the NG and created the most outdated cockpit with the most outdated features to allow SW a common type rating. Even the 757 is more advanced imho... :hmm:

737aviator 28th Jul 2015 16:57


As for the PTT buttons, I think it's beyond incredible, that Boeing still has these silly rocker switches on the yoke! They are a recipe for totally unnecessary additional workload (as you unfortunately see in this case), additional confusion and a loss of situational awareness between pilots and ATC. No, I'm definitely NOT blaming the crew, but add weather, low fuel and wind shear to that, and the recipe for disaster is complete! Completely insane that aircraft can be certified like that, only to save $10 on some wires and a decent switch! The Airbus system (a toggle switch that can be firmly locked in intercom position) located on the central pedestal on the radio panel, whilst still having a PTT switch on the Side Stick, is a much better thought-out solution IMO.
Its entirely possible to have a 737 with a latching intercom system on the centre pedestal. All the ones belonging to Europes largest 737 operator have them anyway and I'm surprised that Transavia don't!

JammedStab 29th Jul 2015 01:03


Originally Posted by LLuCCiFeR (Post 9061177)
Some 744s don't even have a PTT button on the glare shield, so you either have to reach down to the radio panel, and thus effectively not being able to use that arm for anything else and taking your eyes off the PFD and ND, or you have to use the PTT switch on the yoke with the possibility of interfering in the controls of the PF.

Not a problem at all. When the clearances get more busy while on vectors, the one hand is already down by the PTT switch waiting to be used in immediate response to an ATC instruction(instead of the delayed response you get from some people) while the other hand writes down the clearance. Works from either seat if you can write with either hand.

Centaurus 29th Jul 2015 02:01


With A/T's in manual and you forget to pull back the levers
Allowing for the fact it is only a hypothetical case, it is unbelievable any competent and qualified on type pilot would forget how to fly with manual throttles.:ugh:

Also, it will be most interesting to see the reason why an all flaps up landing was conducted; especially with approach and landing speeds around the 185 knots. That is a serious speed indeed and rarely practiced in the simulator.

If, according to reports, the captain elected to direct the co-pilot to conduct the all flaps up landing under such critical circumstances, it would indeed be a courageous decision (as Sir Humphrey would surely attest), that speaks volumes of the touching faith in the co-pilot's competency. In any case, unless there was a technical problem that prevented flaps and leading edge devices from not operating, there should be no reason that a normal Flap 30/40 should not be used up to the maximum crosswind component - whether windshear/turbulence was present or not. .

RAT 5 29th Jul 2015 07:11

If, according to reports, the captain elected to direct the co-pilot to conduct ta he all flaps up landing under such critical circumstances, it would indeed be a courageous decision.

I apologise if I've missed it, but is this confirmed as true? There have been various criticisms of certain apparent command decisions, but this would be most serious one. The a/c had a handling problem = flapless; there was a landing distance problem = higher speed: On their own these should be a 'captain's landing' in any airline. Add the severe weather and it only enforces the fact the the 'accountable manger' = the 4 striper in LHS should take responsibility for completing the task. It's what we are trained & paid for. If it had not gone well, and the F/O was PF, I hate to think what the insurance company would make of it and the resultant court case brought by pax.
Is it true EIN refused them? Why? There, RW22, the X-wind would have been worse, unless the speed was much reduced. RTM & AMS were close to the storm. Weeze RW27 is the same distance as EIN and may have had less wind and a better direction. It is a well facilitated airport and HV have operated from there.
It was a day for lots of extra fuel in tanks on departure. I hope the F/O on the day learnt a powerful lesson before their own upgrade process. That's what the RHS apprenticeship is all about.

seasexsun 29th Jul 2015 07:28

Rat5, FOs and captains have the exact same training in simulators and they both have equale practice on line (except in china:}). If the FO Is not crap in handling an aircraft then why wouldn't the captain let him fly? After all the pilot in command has to make some crucial decision at any time and in some difficult situation like this it is probably better to let the FO fly so the commander has a general view and is not focused in just one thing (speed and glide path-speed and glide path-speed and glide path). The captain can also take control at any time and he/she was probably damn ready to do so.

Aireps 29th Jul 2015 07:51


Is it true EIN refused them? Why?
Yes. While in the holding SE of EHRD, after their go-around there, they requested EHEH (EIN) as alternate. This was refused by Eindhoven ATC (the reason why, wasn't given to TRA3K, BTW)
Later, it emerged that there is a NOTAM in force saying that EHEH is unavailable as alternate for civil traffic, except (medical) emergencies.

M0681/15 - EINDHOVEN AIRPORT (CIVIL) NOT AVBL AS ALTN, EXCEPT
(MEDICAL) EMERGENCIES. 08 APR 00:00 2015 UNTIL 31 DEC 23:00 2015.
CREATED: 07 APR 12:51 2015
At the moment of their request to divert to EHEH, TRA3K hadn't declared an emergency.

The NOTAM was put in place for noise mitigation purposes in the Eindhoven area.

News item on this (Dutch): http://nos.nl/artikel/2049294-stormt...eindhoven.html

MrSnuggles 29th Jul 2015 07:56

1) The 777 in LHR was flewn by the FO while Capt was making the brave move to rise the flaps. Both did an excellent job

2) In the same accident, the Capt made an EVACUATE over ATC comms instead of PA*.

Shit happens. It's how you deal with it to get everyone down and alive that matters. This is true for many many occupations out there.


*Boeing design again? Never was in a 777.

ATC Watcher 29th Jul 2015 07:57

RAT 5 :

Is it true EIN refused them? Why?
It seems to be true, the local EIN newspapers published an audio f the conversations between the Captain and ATC. ( 2nd video at the bottom of article .
here : Transavia-toestel dat zaterdag op Schiphol noodlanding maakte, werd geweigerd op Eindhoven Airport

Most of it is in Dutch unfortunately for some here, but from the audio, after go around in RTM it was ATC who suggested EIN, as wind there was "only" 260/ 19 Kts G 30 and vis > 10 Km , and there was holding in SPL , the controller then contacted EIN ( a military airbase) who for some unknown reason refused, the controller came back to the HV and said " this is becoming crazy, apparently EIN is refusing you " an then offers a better EAT for SPL then HV decided to divert to SPL . the whole audio gives a good indication of the situation from initial APP to RTM to final landing , and how she got trapped. I feel sorry for her, and seen the final landing/outcome , I think she did quite well and I am glad I was not in her shoes that day.

Now as usual the Capt Hindsinght(s) can enter the game .

A4 29th Jul 2015 07:59

Sure, let the FO fly whilst you manage.....but when it comes to the landing in 99% of cases it should be the LHS that does it. You're in that seat through experience and are ultimately responsible. If it all went wrong on touchdown that's too late to intervene.

How would you justify your decision to let 2nd in Command carry out the most critical task? Could the Commander be sued personally under such circumstance through dereliction of duty?

@MrSnuggles - not really like for like. The BA 777 only presented its issue at about 400' on final - hardly a planned non normal landing. As situations go that's about as dynamic as it gets!

A4

PS Do we actually know for sure it was the FO who landed?


All times are GMT. The time now is 23:30.


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