Aircraft written off after 2011 incident

NO-one was injured in an incident involving an Aer Arann plane landing at Shannon in July 2011 but the aircraft had to be written off, so serious was the damage to it.

 

An Air Accident Investigation Unit report published on Wednesday found that excessive approach speed and inadequate control of the aircraft pitch during a crosswind landing, in very blustery conditions, was the probable cause of the incident.

It also found that contributory factors included incorrect power handling technique during the landing and the relative inexperience of the pilot in command. In addition, it stated that inadequate information was provided to the flight crew regarding cross-wind landing techniques.

The incident occurred on July 17, 2011 at 9.21am, when the plane was coming from Manchester to Shannon. Four crew members and 21 passengers were on board.

According to the report, it was a blustery morning, with a “strong and turbulent cross-wind”. It said two approaches were made to Runway 24 and the first one “resulted in a bounced landing, following which a go-around was performed”.

The second attempt was when significant damage occurred. “Following a number of bounces, the aircraft impacted the runway in a nose-down attitude and the nose gear collapsed. The aircraft skidded along the runway before coming to a stop. There were no injuries but the aircraft was deemed to be damaged beyond economical repair.”

In the section regarding wreckage and impact information, it stated that the nose of the plane was in contact with the ground for some time. “Marks were found on the surface of the runway for 1,197m, consistent with the nose gear leg and nose of the aircraft being in contact with the runway until the aircraft stopped.”

Video recordings of the landings were available and are described in the report. “The first touchdown was recorded by a camera of good quality. This showed the aircraft contacting the runway in a significant nose-down attitude well down the runway. The aircraft immediately bounced nose up, with the main gear momentarily contacting the runway and a go-around was performed.

“The recording of the second landing was of poorer quality but a number of bounces were observed, with the final touch-down being outside camera coverage and not recorded, as it occurred at an earlier point along the runway than the terminal camera covered. However, the subsequent ground roll was clearly recorded by the terminal camera. This showed the aircraft with the nose wheel collapsed and the nose scraping along the runway. Smoke/steam can be seen emanating from the nose area until the aircraft stopped. The aircraft continued along the runway but gradually veered to the left and exited the runway surface onto the grass to the left of the runway.”

The report said there should have been more communication between the pilots. “In turbulence, such as that which was experienced, the ability of a pilot to monitor airspeed is significantly reduced and assistance should be given by a co-pilot calling airspeed deviation from Vapp.

“The investigation notes in the CVR [cockpit voice recorder] the absence of SOP [Standard Operating Procedure] speed call-outs being requested or given during both approaches, which would have assisted the pilot flying in controlling airspeed in such conditions. It therefore recommends that the operator reviews this issue during its training.”

It also said the option of diverting to another airport should have been discussed. “The investigation is of the opinion that whilst the crew discussed the landing zone for the second approach, an evaluation of the first approach and the prevailing weather conditions should have been then conducted by the flight crew. This was not done and no discussion on diverting to another airport took place. Instead, a second approach was immediately requested with a different landing position on the runway chosen.”

It found that the crew didn’t fully recognise just how bad the weather was. “Although this was the first go-around during line operations by the recently promoted commander, command training and previous experience should have adequately equipped her to recognise and appraise the prevailing conditions relative to her experience. The investigation believes that the severity of the prevailing conditions was not recognised by either of the flight crew, either before or after the go-around.”

In the conclusions section of the report, it stated that the probable cause of the incident was “excessive approach speed and inadequate control of aircraft pitch during a cross-wind landing in very blustery conditions”.

Among the contributory factors identified were incorrect power handling technique while landing, the inexperience of the pilot command and inadequate information provided to flight crew regarding cross-wind landing training.

In a short statement released on Wednesday evening Aer Arann said, “We acknowledge and accept the report and have implemented its recommendations”.