This might be a stupid question. (are'nt all of mine!)

Why if it's a UK registered Acft and a UK airline that had an event on UK territory would the NTSB have this GIB incident reported to them?

Report here

Because it was built in the USA....?

Surely not every Boeing, Lockheed or Mc Donnel D's incident is not reported, is it only limited to certain type of criteria?

I think it has always been Monarch policy to report incidents to manufactures, to assist others. This however is classed as an accident and was likely passed on by the aaib.

I'm sure there's an international protocol and convention to deal with issues such as these.

As far as I am aware, the lead investigator would be the state where the accident took place, assuming that state declares it to be an accident, as opposed to an incident. (I believe any incident involving serious or fatal injuries is classed as an accident; a very serious incident - for example the Interflug A310 which went into aerobatics near Moscow in 1991 - would not necessarily be the subject of a formal accident report).

In a situation such as this, the state of registry and the state of manufacture would also be involved, to the extent that they are invited to do so; the formal report would be compiled by the state where the accident took place and (as evidenced by the SQ TPE or KLM Tenerife disasters), they might not always agree.

I would imagine that the investigating authority would also have the right to call another body/consultants in to assist; for example, if there was repeat of (for example) SR 111, the Canadian TSB would most likely be invited to assist, having built up considerable experience in a particular area.

Akerosid

There is, it is Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention.

It covers the investigation of both accidents and incidents. As you say, responsibility for the investigation of an accidnet rests with the "state of occurrence". The state of occurrence has to notify the accident to the states of registry, design and operator, all of who are entitled to participate in the accident investigation.

A copy of Annex 13 can be found at: http://www.sq006.gov.sg/about/ICAO%20Annex%2013.pdf

Monarch Airlines
 

My apologies if I have already missed it elsewhere on-line, but does ANYONE ANYWHERE have a picture of the B757 after its interesting landing in Gibraltar.

For once, camera lenses appear to have been pointing all in the wrong direction.

By the way, just came as a pax on my first flight with Monarch in ten years. They are pretty damn good and I would say miles ahead of the deteriorating charter products offered by MYT, BY, JMC and XLA.

Only AMM are on a par with MON.

A300Man

See top of this page

whoops. missed it earlier. thanks desk driver. excellent photograph.

That is an excellent photograph, but it looks like this photo was taken before the incident in question.

The credit says it was taken on 18 June. When was the incident?

Picture was taken after the incidient. Note engine covers and remote stand parking. Monarch have never before this incidient, nightstopped a 757 in GIB.

Yeah

and if you look closely at the nosegear you can see how it has been horribly distorted into a white rectangular shape and the two nosewheels have split into four smaller ones!:D

PP

So its back in the UK, Looks like the Boeing boys have done a damn good job. Paint job needed and back into service next week.:)

So what was the conclusion? Slapped down too hard or something odd structurally?

R

starfighters
 

starfighters at gib, please tell me more! as the runway is only 6000' im suprised the used it.

AAIB report on the incident now available on the AAIB web site.

Looks like the Captain has been blamed in the official report. The report mentions that “The commander was unaware that he had developed the regular use of full nose-down elevator on landing” “ Having developed an incorrect landing technique, it is possible that it was simply a matter of time before the timing in the application of full nose-down elevator caused an incident” report can be found at http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/bulletin/jan03/gmonc.htm

"The commander was unaware that he had developed the regular use of full nose-down elevator on landing." On quite a few occasions, I've had people trying to "steer" the aeroplane down the runway after landing, using the ailerons. (I'm talking about experienced airline pilots, not students.) When reminding (!) them about the use of the rudder pedals, they've invariably looked across in surprise and denied all knowledge of doing it. Interesting...
One of the finer points of flying the 757 is getting the nosewheel back on the ground smoothly. I've seen some fiddling about to achieve it, as the spoilers deploy and the autobrakes come on (guilty too, yer honour!). From my increasingly distant memory of the 757, a slight back pressure is required, isn't it?

Are they many aircraft that require a nose down elevator just after landing? And if so what are they?
Thanks
GA

Yes, the DC-10, which I flew after the 757. It felt strange to be pushing gently instead of pulling gently and note well the use of 'gently'!