Incident Overview

Date: Saturday 18 August 2007
Aircraft Type: Avro RJ100
Owner/operator: Swiss European Air Lines
Registration Number: HB-IYU
Location: London City Airport (LCY) – ÿ United Kingdom
Phase of Flight: Landing
Status: Substantial, repaired
Casualties: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 93
Component Affected: Lower FuselageLower Fuselage
Category: Accident
An aircraft operating from Zurich to London City Airport experienced a sudden and significant loss of control during landing. The pilot initiated a controlled descent, but a combination of factors, including a sudden drop in airspeed, reduced headwind, and a loss of control, resulted in a hard landing. The commander pulled back on the control column, which exacerbated the situation and led to a pitch increase. The aircraft sustained significant structural damage to the lower fuselage, particularly in the cargo hold area between frames 35-43 and stringers 27 port to 27 starboard.An aircraft operating from Zurich to London City Airport experienced a sudden and significant loss of control during landing. The pilot initiated a controlled descent, but a combination of factors, including a sudden drop in airspeed, reduced headwind, and a loss of control, resulted in a hard landing. The commander pulled back on the control column, which exacerbated the situation and led to a pitch increase. The aircraft sustained significant structural damage to the lower fuselage, particularly in the cargo hold area between frames 35-43 and stringers 27 port to 27 starboard.

Description

The aircraft was operating a scheduled service from Zurich (ZRH) to London City Airport (LCY) with the commander as the pilot flying, which was in accordance with the operator’s requirements for landings at LCY. The weather forecast indicated southerly winds of 10 kt, with short periods of rain. The aircraft was fully configured for the landing, prior to intercepting the glideslope for the ILS approach to runway 28. The glideslope was intercepted at 3,000 ft and the autopilot was disconnected at 1,300 ft. The last surface wind reported by the tower before landing was from 190ø at 10 kt. As the automated radio altitude calls were announced at 50 and 30 ft the pilots sensed that the aircraft was dropping suddenly. The commander pulled the control column back and the aircraft touched down on the aft fuselage with a bump, before landing on the mainwheels. At touchdown the pitch attitude reached 9.3ø nose up and a 2.3g normal acceleration was recorded. Neither the pilots nor the cabin crew were aware that there had been a tailstrike, although the rear cabin crew member reported that there had been a loud noise on touchdown. An inspection revealed that significant structural damage had occurred to the lower fuselage in the area of the aft cargo hold between frames 35 to 43 and stringers 27 port to 27 starboard. During the approach, at 50 ft and 35 ft, the aircraft was some 4 kt below target speed. At this point the thrust levers were retarded to idle and the recorded groundspeed reduced, without a corresponding decrease in the airspeed, indicating a loss of headwind or an increased tailwind component. The aircraft was already in a low energy state; then thrust was reduced and this reduction, and the loss of headwind component, both made the situation worse. A combination of these factors reduced the energy of the aircraft, which was felt as a ‘sink’ by the pilots, and the commander responded by pulling back to prevent a hard landing. It was this, probably instinctive, pull back on the column that caused the pitch attitude to increase to 9.3ø at the point of touchdown.

Source of Information

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/august_2008.cfmhttp://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/august_2008.cfm

Primary Cause

Loss of control due to a combination of reduced airspeed, reduced headwind, and a loss of control during descent, exacerbated by the commander’s pull back on the control column.Loss of control due to a combination of reduced airspeed, reduced headwind, and a loss of control during descent, exacerbated by the commander’s pull back on the control column.

Share on:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *