Luxair emergency at Sarrebruck

[Tu.114]

Hampshireandy,

on the SAS flights, the problems occurred during extension of the gear. The downlock was never achieved and the gear just dangled outside the nacelle without any ability to take load during landing.

On this flight, it seems that the landing gear worked as advertised, it just was retracted prematurely for as yet unclear reasons. So no, this is not entirely comparable.

[Joerg68]

The Q400 from the accident will be replaced by a new airframe, according to an article in the "Luxemburger Wort".

Not sure if the deep link works, but here it is (in german):
Luxemburger Wort - Luxair ersetzt verunglückte Bombardier

[space-shuttle-driver]

Copilot, PNF, retracted the landing gear at rotation. ''uupsss, sorry''.
There seems to be a psychological explanation, in that the FO simply executed his/her next action, namely gear retraction, immediately after the V1-rotate callout.
Anybody knows about other accidents of similar origin?

Luxemburger Wort - "Uupps, sorry"

[Liffy 1M]

Here is a link to the official interim report.

http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publication...ublicationFile

[pattern_is_full]

Uhh! I guess the FO's only consolation will be that such a luminary as Ernest K. Gann did exactly the same thing (with less dramatic results) as a young DC-3 copilot. (cf. Fate is the Hunter)

Once the captain got things under control - had just enough speed to horse it along in ground effect until able to climb normally - he turned to Gann and said mildly, "If you EVER do that again, I will write you out of my Will!"

[Reverserbucket]

Well, she won't get the chance at Luxair again.

[Alpine Flyer]

It is interesting that the NLG WOW signal alone will prevent gear retraction. With hindsight it would make send to "wire" in the MLG WOW switches as well.

And thanks for the EKG reminder. Reading Fate is the Hunter should be mandatory before issuing CPLs even though CRM has improved a bit (I always liked his description how captains would not talk to other captains' copilots).

[ATC Watcher]

Well, she won't get the chance at Luxair again.

Very true unfortunately, but this is Luxemburg .Just Culture has not crossed that EU border yet.
If we treat accidents like this one like that : pilot error > fire pilot> problem solved we are in fact are making sure this will happen again somewhere.

As said, this was done the 40's by EKG himself, and because he was not fired, surely he and may others learned from that experience and he made sure in his career not to to do it again and he probably teached others how to prevent doing that.
I would bet she did not read "fate" . Pity. In fact you should read it twice : first when you start flying, and then after some years of experience to fully understand (and enjoy) the details.

[RAT 5]

Reading the SOP's for takeoff and gear up selection there is a clear sequence of calls. This was a 'slip' at the end of day 1 after a holiday, but not the 1st sector. It seems it was a blip in concentration. 1 strike & you're out seems harsh, but perhaps a more enlightened door has opened.
The design of WOW protection for gear up seems straight from 'Murphy's workshop'. How on earth could a designer arrive at this as a solution? How could an authority certify it? Is it correct that the sensor is nose wheel only? I'd always thought the definition of airborne was when the main wheels leave the ground. What has only the nose wheel got to do with the price of potatoes?
It seems humans are always trying to find ways to have an accident, and it is astonishing how often we find new ways. You'd expect the 'what if' brigade would have covered most of them, but still our ingenuity triumphs.

[RealUlli]

Training

If we treat accidents like this one like that : pilot error > fire pilot> problem solved we are in fact are making sure this will happen again somewhere.

In fact, we are making sure this will happen to *US* again in the future. A smart boss will realize that, while being the most expensive way, mistakes are one of the best ways to train someone not to do something again.

That pilot will not make that mistake again, ever!

So, that company just invested a large number of euros into the training of that copilot and then fires her? Beyond stupid!

[space-shuttle-driver]

The girl is still employed within Luxair, but not in the cockpit.
Whereas I fully agree that this pilot will never ever make that mistake again, isn't it industry standard for most operators not to hire pilots with accident/incident history?

[Reverserbucket]

I thought an agreement had been reached and she'd been moved up to an aircraft with greater protection against inadvertent and premature gear retraction, and fewer passengers?

[Joe_K]

Don't think so. Luxair's CEO did announce at a press conference "this person will never fly for us again, a job in another area has been offered to her" (loosely translated). Probably a move to placate the customer base.

[Airbubba]

The design of WOW protection for gear up seems straight from 'Murphy's workshop'. How on earth could a designer arrive at this as a solution? How could an authority certify it? Is it correct that the sensor is nose wheel only?

I agree, what were they thinking?

Nose gear extension is still used in modern Boeings as air-ground sensing for some things, e.g. warning inhibits. But gear retraction requires weight off the mains (or an override switch).

Whereas I fully agree that this pilot will never ever make that mistake again, isn't it industry standard for most operators not to hire pilots with accident/incident history?

In the U.S. I've seen a couple of very expensive mishaps with no major injuries where the pilots were retrained and put back on the line. Sounds like a bad joke but a lot of what happens seems to depend on whether you were using checklists correctly and making the right callouts while crashing the plane.

And, in some accidents we've discussed here over the years, the airline announces that the crew has been sacked only to later quietly take them back after legal action from the union. I think at least one of the fired pilots in the Southwest 1455 crash at Burbank came back to work for example.

Copilot, PNF, retracted the landing gear at rotation. ''uupsss, sorry''.
There seems to be a psychological explanation, in that the FO simply executed his/her next action, namely gear retraction, immediately after the V1-rotate callout.
Anybody knows about other accidents of similar origin?

A tragic mishap that comes to my mind with an incorrect action and immediate apology by the PNF is the 1970 Air Canada 621 DC-8 crash at Toronto.

The FO meant to arm the spoilers in the flare (a non-standard technique) but deployed them instead. They did a hard bounce and go but didn't make it back to the field due to damage and a wing fire.

[apparent power reduction]
CA No. No. No
FO Sorry, of sorry, Pete!
[apparent power increase]
[noise of impact]
FO Sorry Pete!
CA Okay
CA We have lost our power
[exclamation]
TWR Air Canada 621. Check you on the overshoot and you can contact departure on 199 or do you wish to come in for a mile on 5 right
CA We'll go around. I think we are all right

https://aviation-safety.net/investig.../cvr_ac621.php

We all make mistakes but it seems to me that as aircraft become more reliable, the rising trend is for a perfectly good aircraft to crash due to errors by the crew.

[negativefx]

AviationJobs.Me Flight Crew: Dash8Q400 First Officers Luxair Luxembourg

[Ancient-Mariner]

Why do you have to be able to swim?


I ask because being able to swim was NOT a requirement for my 25 years in the Merchant Navy!


I cannot swim by the way...


Cheers!

[Joe_K]

Accident Report now available

The final investigation report is now online on the BFU website:

Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung - Final Reports - Investigation report of an accident with a Bombardier DHC-8 at Saarbrücken airport

[Super VC-10]

Report published.

https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publicatio...ublicationFile