Air New Zealand ATR 72 'hits' something
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 https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3c0e1a0e2d.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....db0823fb70.jpg |
[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” |
[QUOTE=AmarokGTI;10451211]
Originally Posted by Lord Farringdon
(Post 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” |
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. |
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. |
Originally Posted by Herod
(Post 10451923)
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. |
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 |
Aeroplanes have Dimensions too
Originally Posted by capngrog
(Post 10452041)
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.
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... |
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:02. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.