Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Aer Arann ATR72 off runway, SNN

Options
  • 17-07-2011 12:57pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,212 ✭✭✭


    Just heard from a flight dispatcher i know in Shannon that an Aer Arann ATR72 went off the runway at Shannon about half an hour ago. Everyone fine, but lots of smoke apparently.

    269777_2100490265914_1055142088_2459799_3042204_n.jpg

    Ill post more details if I hear anything


Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,525 ✭✭✭kona


    Good to hear everybody is ok, didnt a EI leased L1011 or a MD80 go off the runway there in SNN about 10 years ago?
    Is that in Aer Lingus colours too? Looks like it in the foto although I wouldnt be 100%. If it is, the EI colours have taken some flak from Aer Arann.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,544 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    Tis a bad year for Irish Aviation. Hope all are OK


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,565 ✭✭✭losthorizon




  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭Blue Punto




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4 irishwayne


    kona wrote: »
    Good to hear everybody is ok, didnt a EI leased L1011 or a MD80 go off the runway there in SNN about 10 years ago?
    Is that in Aer Lingus colours too? Looks like it in the foto although I wouldnt be 100%. If it is, the EI colours have taken some flak from Aer Arann.

    the plane that crashed landed is Aer Arann plane but its painted in the aer lingus colours


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,544 ✭✭✭Hogzy


    irishwayne wrote: »
    the plane that crashed landed is Aer Arann plane but its painted in the aer lingus colours

    Aer Lingus and Aer Arann merged to form Aer Lingus Regional


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭Blue Punto


    irishwayne wrote: »
    the plane that crashed landed is Aer Arann plane but its painted in the aer lingus colours


    There was an incident alright but the use of the word "crashed" is a little strong dont you think


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 956 ✭✭✭Jim236


    Hogzy wrote: »
    Aer Lingus and Aer Arann merged to form Aer Lingus Regional

    No they didn't. Both are completely separate airlines, Aer Arann just pays Aer Lingus a royalty fee to use their brand, but Aer Arann own and operate the aircraft and the full financial risk lies solely with them, but then they take most of the profits from the EI Regional routes in return.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,525 ✭✭✭kona


    irishwayne wrote: »
    the plane that crashed landed is Aer Arann plane but its painted in the aer lingus colours

    Thats what my post said:confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,068 ✭✭✭xper


    kona wrote: »
    ...the EI colours have taken some flak from Aer Arann.
    They wish. It may be operating in Aer Lingus Regional colours but the IT report (inital one anyway, the content may change as the day goes on) is all Aer Arann ... Aer Arann ... Aer Arann ... Aer Arann:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,525 ✭✭✭kona


    xper wrote: »
    They wish. It may be operating in Aer Lingus Regional colours but the IT report (inital one anyway, the content may change as the day goes on) is all Aer Arann ... Aer Arann ... Aer Arann ... Aer Arann:

    Pictures say 1,000 words and all that. Stick a pic of plane in EI colours crashed and joe public will just say EI and assume a misprint.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭View Profile


    Av Herald
    The Irish Air Accident Investigation Unit (AAIU) have released their preliminary report stating, that the captain was pilot flying for the approach to Shannon's runway 24. The crew had been advised about turbulence prompting the captain to aim for the end of the touch down zone in order to avoid turbulence at the final stages of the landing considering that the remaining runway length was sufficient.

    According to flight data off the FDR the aircraft however experienced an extended landing flare, engine torque had been increased in the initial flare and then was progessively reduced. The captain became increasingly concerned with the remaining runway length and decided to positively settle the aircraft on the runway by a pronounced push on the yoke with a simultaneous reduction of engine torque. The aircraft reached a nose down attitude of 8 degrees, the nose gear contacted the runway first at a vertical acceleration of 1.7G, the aircraft bounced back into the air and the captain initiated a go-around. While climbing out the gear was retracted with no abnormal indications.

    The aircraft was vectored for another approach to runway 24, the captain aimed for the mid point of the touch down zone, the aircraft bounced a number of times the last time again reaching a nose down attitude of 8 degrees with the nose gear again first contacting the runway at a vertical acceleration of 2.3G. At that point the blue hydraulic system lost pressure. The nose gear collapsed and the nose scraped along the runway. The aircraft gradually veered to the left and exited the runway surface onto grass near taxiway Alpha, the left propeller struck a runway sign and received damage to one propeller blade. The airplane came to a stop 1200 meters past the first impact marks on the runway.

    The AAIU annotated that the crew had no directional control over the aircraft during the roll out due to the nose gear steering inoperative due to collapsed nose gear and the rudder being jammed in the mid position.

    The crew was unable to shut the engines down normally, the condition levers could not be retarded to their aft position. The crew therefore pulled the fire handles to shut the engines downs.
    The flight crew decided to not evacuate due to lack of evidence of smoke or smoke. The cabin crew however noticed a burning smell and initiated an evacuation.

    The nose gear, that normally retracts forward, was forcibly bent backwards and forced into the fuselage causing substantial structural damage in the under cockpit area.

    The AAIU stated that a crosswind limit of 30 knots applied with the runway status being damp. The operator had advised that gusts were not to be included in the assessment whether a landing could be performed. Tower reported gusts of 32 knots from 70 degrees, however, the maximum windspeed was 24 knots resulting in a crosswind component of 22.5 knots.

    The AAIU learned during the investigation that the aircraft had encountered similiar issues in similiar weather conditions, however with different crew, on two occasions prior to the accident.

    The AAIU issued (and Aer Arann already adopted) a safety recommendation: "Aer Arann should review the maximum crosswind limitations for approaches onto RWY 24 at Shannon in conditions where the wind direction lies in the sector from 260° - 320° and the wind speed is more than 15 kts, i.e. when turbulence on the landing/approach may be expected."


  • Registered Users Posts: 834 ✭✭✭Blue Punto


    The AAIU learned during the investigation that the aircraft had encountered similiar issues in similiar weather conditions, however with different crew, on two occasions prior to the accident.

    5944073166_5fbef43bfc.jpg
    EI-SLM by niallsaviation, on Flickr

    Taken the night before @ 1830
    A very interesteing landing


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭el tel


    Av Herald
    "..decided to positively settle the aircraft on the runway by a pronounced push on the yoke with a simultaneous reduction of engine torque..."

    aka ****ing the aircraft onto the runway :p


  • Registered Users Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭homerjay2005


    so can somebody sum up the incident in simple terms?

    pilot error?
    plane issue?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,991 ✭✭✭el tel


    One thing is for sure, the laundry bill is going to be big.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,133 ✭✭✭View Profile


    homerjay2005
    so can somebody sum up the incident in simple terms?

    pilot error?
    plane issue?

    While the weather wasnt the may-west it does seem he fooked up.:o

    Pitching the nose down in a flare is generally a no no, in jets anyway.

    Impacting the nose gear first, with 8° pitch down :eek: , causing 1.7g of force the first time then trying it again flying the same 8° nose down attitude with 2.3g of force is pretty severe.

    Im not familar with the approach to that runway, but if anyone else is can they explain the reason why he decided to aim for the end of the touchdown zone/runway mid-point?!
    I know mechanical turbulence can be bad on short finals but once you pass through it you at least have the full length of the runway to deal with.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,398 ✭✭✭cml387


    There is a problem with the location of the Shannon Aerospace hangar.Under certain wind conditions it seems to be creating turbulence at the touchdown point of runway 24.

    Remember the accident involving a Futura 737 in 2000. This also involved the loss of a nose wheel after a turbulent landing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,675 ✭✭✭ronnie3585


    Two female drivers - there's you're problem;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,787 ✭✭✭xflyer


    Not funny ronnie and inappropriate.

    Apparently from what I read on another forum there is an issue with certain ATRs in the RE fleet in that they are fitted with four blade props compared to six blade props on other aircraft. Apparently they have a tendency to drop the nose when power is reduced. Add that to difficult, turbulent gusty conditions with the result seen.
    So yes pilot error but that's not the full story. It never is. There are always lessons to learn.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement