|
| Title: | Hard Landing, Royal Jordanian Airlines Airbus A310-300 (JY-AGK) at Shannon Airport, Ireland, December 17, 1999 |
| Micro summary: | While landing in Shannon, the aircraft bounced several times and damaged its nose gear. |
| Event Time: | 1999-12-27 at 1609 UTC |
| File Name: | 1999-12-27-IE.pdf |
| Publishing Agency: | Air Accident Investigation Unit (AAIU) |
| Publishing Country: | Ireland |
| Report number: | 2001/005 |
| Pages: | 21 |
| Site of event: | Shannon Airport, Ireland |
| Departure: | Queen Alya International Airport, Amman, Jordan |
| Destination: | Shannon International Airport, Shannon, Ireland |
| Airplane Type(s): | Airbus A310-300 |
| Flight Phase: | Landing |
| Registration(s): | JY-AGK |
| Operator(s): | Royal Jordanian Airlines |
| Type of flight: | Revenue |
| Occupants: | 198 |
| Fatalities: | 0 |
| Serious Injuries: | 0 |
| Minor/Non-Injured: | 198 |
| Other Injuries: | 0 |
| Executive Summary: | The aircraft, operating as flight number Royal Jordanian RJ 263 was on a regular scheduled public transport flight from Amman-Jordan, to Shannon-Ireland, thereafter routing onwards to Chicago. The F/O was the designated handling pilot (PF) for the Amman-Shannon sector. The aircraft conducted a right hand approach to Runway 06 at Shannon. During the descent to 3,000 ft, ATC gave the aircraft a right turn onto 030 , to intercept the localiser for Runway 06. This instruction was accepted by the Pilot-In-Command (PIC). At 3000 ft., the leading edge slats were set to 15 and flaps were at 0. Engine power setting was 62% N1. ATC then informed the aircraft that they were 10 miles from touch-down. The F/O pointed out “very red WX radar Active CB activity to the left” (of their flight path). The aircraft then bounced on both main wheels. The ground spoilers, which had opened on the initial touchdown, retracted. While airborne during this bounce the throttles were briefly advanced and an elevator input of 9 nose down was made. The aircraft pitch angle decreased from 5.5 at a rate of 6 /sec. The aircraft then landed on the nose wheel, with a nose pitch-down rate still of 6 /sec., and an aircraft pitch angle of 3 to 4 nose-down. A vertical load of 1.65 G and lateral load of 0.195 G was recorded at this point. The main gear then came into ground contact and a vertical acceleration of 1.36 G was recorded. At this point the ground spoilers deployed, the pitch attitude increased to 2.5 , an elevator nose down input of 11 was made and the aircraft bounced again. During in this second bounce, it is probable that the main undercarriage reached full extension of the shock absorbers and that the aircraft did not become airborne again. However due to the pitch attitude of 2.5 , the nose wheel was airborne. The aircraft then “landed” again and a vertical load of 1.5 G was recorded. An elevator nose down input of 14 was made during this bounce and the nose wheel made ground contact again, recording 1.2G. With all three undercarriage legs on the ground, thrust reversers were selected and the aircraft stopped normally. During the rollout the crew reported to ATC that they experienced wind shear at touchdown. The aircraft then cleared the runway. As the aircraft approached the stand, the crew had a further discussion with ATC and stated that they experienced a variable head wind of 47 kts at touchdown. At 19.50 hrs, the staff of the company that was responsible for handling the aircraft at Shannon reported to Shannon ATC that the aircraft would be overnighting due to a damaged nose wheel. This was the only communication concerning possible damage on heavy landing, received by ATC. Shannon ATC then informed the AAIU that the aircraft was overnighting due to a damaged nose wheel. When ATC reported the event to the AAIU, it was initially regarded as a minor incident, as it was understood that only a nose wheel (tyre) required to be changed. In the course of another unrelated investigation in Shannon on 5 January, the AAIU looked at the A310, and noted considerable external damage to the nose area of the aircraft. Because of the extent of the damage observed an investigation was then launched. 3.2 Causes 3.2.1 The aircraft experienced a hard landing following an un-stabilised approach, combined with a late flare, increased engine power prior to touchdown and high speed at touchdown. 3.2.2 The aircraft bounced as a result of the hard landing. The bounce was aggravated by the closing of the ground spoilers, which was in turn due to the selected throttle position. 3.2.3 During the bounce there was an inappropriate control input. This resulted in the aircraft landing again heavily on its nose-wheel thereby damaging the nose structure of the aircraft. 3.2.4 The decision of the PF to continue the approach and landing from an unstable approach, aggravated by moderate turbulence and light wind shear, and possible downdrafts. |
| Learning Keywords: | Operations - Bounce |
| Operations - Hard Landing | |
| Systems - Landing Gear | |
| Consequence - Damage - Airframe or fuselage |
| Close match: | Bounce and Hard landing, Boeing 757-232, June 2, 1999 |
Accident Reports on DVD, Copyright © 2006 by Flight Simulation Systems, LLC. All Rights Reserved. All referenced trademarks are the property of their respective owners.www.fss.aero