TNT accident in BHX/Birmingham U.K.

cavok17 · Post by **cavok17** » 15 Jun 2006, 23:53

grnkg wrote:A/c was due for landing at MME. During CatIII approach, autopilot was disengaged on short final. A/c slammed into runway, thereby ripping off RH LDG. The gear then slammed into the inboard flaps and aft fuselage.
Go-around initiated and after being airborne again, crew requested emergency landing at BHX due to weather conditions.

Krgds,
GR.

Destination was STN, diversion to EMA, emergency landing at BHX.

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 16 Jun 2006, 11:05

How come that the autopilot was disengaged on short final? Did it happen beyond the knowledge of the flightcrew? Otherwise I really don't see why the plane 'slammed into the runway'...

pilatus · Post by **pilatus** » 17 Jun 2006, 15:29

What I've heard is that the aircraft did a touchdown with the RH main gear on the grass in Ema. This was the reason of ripping of this gear. Why it landed besides the runway is offcourse the question.

Regards,

DiverDriver

cochaos · Post by **cochaos** » 17 Jun 2006, 22:19

Drove by this morning and the a/c is on jacks at the far end of RWY 24.

All flaps down but not that much damage to the rest of the RH side

All markings already removed.Incl reg.

Looks like it's a total hull loss.

Post by **sn26567** » 19 Jun 2006, 09:47

What has been disclosed during the week end is that the plane did indeed make a first landing on auto-pilot (because of fog) at Stansted, its final destination (and not East Midlands as mentioned above). For an unknown reason, this landing did not work out as it should, and a part of the landing gear was ripped of in the grass. The plane took off again and went to an airport (Birmingham) where the weather conditions were perfect in order to try an emergencuy landing.

Bilboone · Post by **Bilboone** » 19 Jun 2006, 11:08

the gear ( tyres and strut) was found in EMA, like it was mentioned at the pprune.org forum not in Stansted.

RISK AVERSE wrote: Hi

A bit more information... We reported the undercarriage to EMA tower (wheel tyre and strut). They were quite surprised. The undercarriage was in the grass between the Alpha taxiway and the runway about 300m from TDZ - we were actually quite reluctant to tell ATC as we assumed that they knew already - but prudently we did.

The vis was about 350m rwy 27 and 250m rwy 09 at EMA at around 0540z, so any runway inspection may have missed the u/c in the grass. As we sit higher up we got a good view of the u/c.

This had been bugging us all day and on return to EMA for the 4th sector we had a good look at the grass with definite tyre marks in the grass - i.e. indicating that the aircraft had landed left of the runway before going around. The mayday reported gear and flap problems so I'll leave the flap problems to your imagination/knowledge of similar accidents...

Hope this info helps and that I've not made too many assumptions in the circumstances. Good luck to the pilots involved, hope they are ok.

Bilboone · Post by **Bilboone** » 21 Jun 2006, 15:29

picture after recovery :

It looks like not only the right gear but also the engine impacted sligtly the ground at EMA.

They were very lucky, but the FDR will reveal what real happend during the approach...

Bilboone · Post by **Bilboone** » 26 Jun 2006, 16:09

Link to the picture with the impact marks of gear and engine in the grass at EMA

Stepha380 · Post by **Stepha380** » 26 Jun 2006, 18:31

they should have landed on the taxiway

PAA · Post by **PAA** » 28 Jun 2006, 14:13

I hear the copilot is relatively unexperienced and not well rated, and the pilot had only 50 hours experience behind him - real or not? To a degree, how far is crew management responsible for - eventually - assembling crews that are not cohesive enough?

pilatus · Post by **pilatus** » 29 Jun 2006, 17:47

I hear the copilot is relatively unexperienced and not well rated, and the pilot had only 50 hours experience behind him - real or not? To a degree, how far is crew management responsible for - eventually - assembling crews that are not cohesive enough?

Can I take this as 2 junior together? If so it is illegal. You must fly at least 100 hours with a not junior crewmember within 90 days or 150 hours without time limit. After this period you are junior off.

Greetz,

DiverDriver

teddybAIR · Post by **teddybAIR** » 30 Jun 2006, 17:05

Euhm, how can the distance between those landingmarks and the runway be that big? I mean, even in an autopilot landing, you can read the ILS needle and in this case it should have been way of center, no?

LX-LGX · Post by **LX-LGX** » 07 Jul 2006, 18:47

I've received this by mail (sorry, without source):

[article removed - taken from Flight International , © Reed Business Information 2006 - see link hereunder - sn26567]

Kantoor007 · Post by **Kantoor007** » 07 Jul 2006, 22:59

An AAIB bulletin is now available: http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resource ... OO-TND.pdf

Stepha380 · Post by **Stepha380** » 08 Jul 2006, 00:34

Link to the Flight International article
Crash investigators reveal extraordinary story of TNT Boeing 737 accident at Birmingham

Post by **sn26567** » 08 Jul 2006, 16:48

Stepha380 wrote:Crash investigators reveal extraordinary story of TNT Boeing 737 accident at Birmingham

That's the same story as in LX-LGX's message!

Bilboone · Post by **Bilboone** » 27 Jul 2006, 21:10

The pilots whe sacked due to " zero accident tolerance level " of TNT

link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west ... 219956.stm

link : Flightmare of Boeing 737

Interesting flightpath ...

TCAS_climb · Post by **TCAS_climb** » 28 Jul 2006, 14:09

...and I guess that TNT will shut itself down due to the same "zero tolerance"-attitude, since they created an environment that wasn't good enough to avoid that accident.

A320joske · Post by **A320joske** » 31 Jul 2006, 12:35

“There would be no advantage to be gained by sowing a field of wheat if the harvest did not return more than was sown.”
Napoleon Hill