Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Turkish A320 very hard landing+go around+crash landing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Turkish A320 very hard landing+go around+crash landing

    Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation


    Pretty serious...

    [photoid=8012938]

  • #2
    Wake turbulence? Separation issue?

    I'm surprised an A320 can get back in the air after a gear collapse.

    Comment


    • #3
      Is this the third airbus narrow body botched landing in a few weeks? Ouch.

      ARFF getting foam on that right engine pretty quickly. Lucky no one was seriously hurt.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Wake turbulence? Separation issue?

        I'm surprised an A320 can get back in the air after a gear collapse.
        I hope for the pilot flying's sake, it was wake turbulence...

        LTBA 250750Z 20004KT 160V240 CAVOK 15/07 Q1020 NOSIG
        LTBA 250720Z 17005KT 140V200 CAVOK 15/05 Q1020 NOSIG

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Wake turbulence? Separation issue?

          I'm surprised an A320 can get back in the air after a gear collapse.
          Why wouldn't it?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
            Why wouldn't it?
            Dragging along on an engine, that's a lotta drag.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Evan View Post
              Dragging along on an engine, that's a lotta drag.
              Oh okay - in that case most planes wouldn't be able to get back airborne, I guess. However, the information on avherald only states that the engine and wingtip struck the ground during the first landing attempt following by a hard touchdown and that there was an unsafe gear indication after the go-around... so, I assume the gear didn't actually collapse on the first landing attempt, but it just suffered damage and then collapsed during the second landing.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Peter Kesternich View Post
                Oh okay - in that case most planes wouldn't be able to get back airborne, I guess. However, the information on avherald only states that the engine and wingtip struck the ground during the first landing attempt following by a hard touchdown and that there was an unsafe gear indication after the go-around... so, I assume the gear didn't actually collapse on the first landing attempt, but it just suffered damage and then collapsed during the second landing.
                I'm not clear on that either, but it seems to me that the second landing was very gentle whilst the first landing was more likely the cause of the gear collapse (and the subsequent unsafe warning). ANd the A320 has almost two feet of engine ground clearance on the ground so even factoring in full suspension compression I'm estimating you would need around 20° of roll to strike an engine with the mains in place. On the other hand, it seems unlikely to me that the plane could get up again whilst dragging an engine....

                Comment


                • #9
                  There are a lot of questions here: why the bad first landing, why the go-around (my guess is that it was initiated before the actual touchdown which could not be avoided), why the gear collapse in the second landing...

                  However, by now I just want to congratulate the crew for the things that they did right (even if there were other things that they did wrong, we don't know yet). How about doing a successful go around after touchdown, likely single-engine, initially in landing configuration?

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    I'm not clear on that either, but it seems to me that the second landing was very gentle whilst the first landing was more likely the cause of the gear collapse (and the subsequent unsafe warning). ANd the A320 has almost two feet of engine ground clearance on the ground so even factoring in full suspension compression I'm estimating you would need around 20° of roll to strike an engine with the mains in place. On the other hand, it seems unlikely to me that the plane could get up again whilst dragging an engine....
                    Maybe the gear didn't collapse in the first landing but some strut got bent (or there was other damage) that, once the gear was retracted during the go-around, prevented the full retraction first, and the full extension and locking later. If the gear is not locked down, it will collapse no matter how smooth the second landing.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      ...why the go-around (my guess is that it was initiated before the actual touchdown which could not be avoided)
                      Indeed.

                      Most procedures frown upon go arounds after touch down, except maybe to avoid school buses full of nuns blowing their hold-short instructions.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Indeed.

                        Most procedures frown upon go arounds after touch down, except maybe to avoid school buses full of nuns blowing their hold-short instructions.
                        Like you said... "Most"... maybe the aircraft bounced so bad on the first attempt, that there seemed to be insufficient runway available to stop it.

                        Btw, Gabriel, in the second picture on avherald it looks like they did not retract the gear during the go-around.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          Maybe the gear didn't collapse in the first landing but some strut got bent (or there was other damage) that, once the gear was retracted during the go-around, prevented the full retraction first, and the full extension and locking later. If the gear is not locked down, it will collapse no matter how smooth the second landing.
                          Maybe, but this was a passenger witness report:

                          A passenger reported the aircraft was on its first approach to Ataturk's Airport uneventfully until about 100 feet AGL when the aircraft suddenly rolled heavily to the right and fell down onto the runway, while on the ground the aircraft was still tilted to the right, the engines accelerated and the aircraft became airborne again, the passenger thought the right main gear had collapsed at that point already.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
                            I hope for the pilot flying's sake, it was wake turbulence...

                            LTBA 250750Z 20004KT 160V240 CAVOK 15/07 Q1020 NOSIG
                            LTBA 250720Z 17005KT 140V200 CAVOK 15/05 Q1020 NOSIG
                            I decided to look up their landing heading and compare that to the winds: Runway 5, and light winds from sort of from the South...

                            ...Thus the classic light quartering tailwind from the AIM that might allow vortexes to last longer and to move the 'upwind' one back on top of the runway...

                            But no data yet on exactly what landed exactly when ahead of them?
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              Maybe, but this was a passenger witness report:

                              A passenger reported the aircraft was on its first approach to Ataturk's Airport uneventfully until about 100 feet AGL when the aircraft suddenly rolled heavily to the right and fell down onto the runway, while on the ground the aircraft was still tilted to the right, the engines accelerated and the aircraft became airborne again, the passenger thought the right main gear had collapsed at that point already.
                              Unless this passenger was familiar with aircraft operations in some way or a member of this forum here or both, I am not sure I would trust his judgement that the right main gear collapsed. Maybe the left gear was still in the air at that time...
                              Also, how would he/she know that they were 100ft AGL when everything started? I find it very difficult to judge the height above ground from looking out of a passenger window. At a wingspan of just over 111ft, an A320 at 100ft AGL can theoretically roll into a 90degree bank with room to spare and still not touch the ground...
                              Last edited by Peter Kesternich; 2015-04-27, 16:51.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X