fsa 0214 aviation news for december 2014.pdf

7/23/2019 FSA 0214 Aviation News for December 2014.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/fsa-0214-aviation-news-for-december-2014pdf 1/19

AVIATION NEWS FOR DECEMBER 2014

Incidents or accidents in which we could apply or learn from or information that directly affects the

safety of our operations.

Information that may not directly affect the safety of our operations but its knowledge may prove

beneficial.

For long articles read the paragraph in bold as the synopsis.

31/12 (not inclusive)

News

JAL Boeing 777-200 tailstrike during aborted landing at Tokyo-Haneda Airport

19 December 2014

Damage to the fuselage of the Boeing 777 (JTSB)



A Japan Air Lines Boeing 777-200 suffered a tailstrike during an aborted landing Tokyo-Haneda International Airport, Japan, according to a report released by the Japan TransportSafety Board.

Flight JAL82 took off from Shanghai, China, on March 31, 2012 with 296 passengers and 12 crew onboard. The captain on the flight was Pilot Monitoring, the co-pilot was Pilot Flying.

The en route and descent parts of the flight were uneventful. The aircraft landed on runway 34L atTokyo-Haneda Airport with a pitch angle of 3.3 degrees and vertical acceleration of 1.27 G. After that,the captain gave large pitch-up and pitch-down control inputs to assist the control of the copilot, andthe vertical acceleration of the aircraft fluctuated significantly twice. Due to these changes in verticalacceleration, the captain felt that the aircraft had bounced and was floating, although this was not thecase. At this time the speed brakes had activated and the reverse thrust was being applied, but thecaptain did not notice this. The captain diverted his attention to look outside of the aircraft to confirmits attitude, and then judged to make a go-around. When he noticed that the reversers had beenactivated, he still decided to continue the go around, although the AOM calls for a full stop landingwhen reversers have been activated. The captain called for a go around three times but the TO/GAswitch could not be activated by the co-pilot because the reversers were selected. The captain thencalled “I have control” and took over controls. All the time the airplane had been rolling on the runwayin a nose up attitude, causing a tailstrike. The go around was continued and the airplane landedsafely at 16:35.

The JTSB issued the following probable cause:“In this accident, it is highly probable that the Aircraft continued rolling with the pitch-up attitude aftertouchdown, causing the aft fuselage to come into contact with the runway and be damaged.It is highly probable that the Aircraft continued rolling with the pitch-up attitude due to the followingreasons: after touchdown, the PIC had felt that the Aircraft had bounced to the extent necessary forgo-around, and judged to make go-around to avoid a hard landing; even after he became aware thatthe reverse thrust levers had been raised, he continued go-around; hence, it tooktime for the engine thrust to increase and he continued to pull his control column. Moreover, it issomewhat likely that, in a situation in which the PIC had been assisting the control of the FO, and

without the PIC’s declaring a takeover, the intention of the PIC was not properly conveyed to the FO,the sharing of duties between PF and PM became momentarily unclear, and the monitoring of flightinformation such as pitch angle and speed, which was the duty of PM, was not performedadequately.”

More information:

ASN Accident JAL Flight 82

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20120331-0





EU bans all airlines from Libya over safety fears

17 December 2014

The European Commission has updated the European list of airlines subject to an operating ban oroperational restrictions within the European Union (EU air safety list). All airlines from Libya have now

been added to the list.

Fokker 50 runway excursion when tired crew lands outside crosswind limits

16 December 2014

The Fokker 50 came to rest off the side of the runway (photo: Swedish Accident Investigation Authority)

A Swedish Fokker 50 cargo plane suffered a serious runway excursion incident upon landingat Malmö Airport, Sweden when the tired crew carried out a landing under conditions thatexceeded the operator’s crosswind limitations for the aircraft. This was concluded bythe Swedish Accident Investigation Authority in their investigation.

The flight took off from Sundsvall Airport, Sweden at 23:47 hrs local time. Take-off and climb to FlightLevel 250 was performed according to normal procedures.

During the flight the crew received information on the latest current weather according to METAR at00:56 hrs. The wind was stated to be 270 degrees, 25 knots and 39 knots in the gusts, and visibility tobe 5000 metres in moderate rain.

Shortly thereafter, when the aircraft was abeam Jönköping, the warning for cabin pressure altitudewas activated. The crew made an emergency descent to Flight Level 80 and performed the measuresaccording to the checklist for emergency descent and cabin decompression. According to the CVR,both the crew members had begun to use oxygen masks within two minutes of the warning being

triggered.

http://news.aviation-safety.net/2014/12/17/eu-bans-all-airlines-from-libya-over-safety-fears/





At the crew’s request to descend to Flight Level 80 or 90, air traffic control gave the clearance“descend to flight level 80″ without any further information. Two and a half minutes later, air trafficcontrol communicated “no traffic reported flight level 80″. After this, the crew conducted an internaldialogue for just over ten minutes on the reduction of cabin pressure, which included reading theaircraft’s operating manuals and performing an inspection of the cabin space.

At 01:23 hrs, the crew noted an ATIS broadcast which, among other things, contained information thatrunway 17 was in use, wet runway, wind 280 degrees 21 max 33 knots and visibility 9 km in light rainand mist. The captain reported that the detail of the wet runway was not understood because ofsimultaneous communication on another frequency. After consultation with the co-pilot, the captainmade the decision to use runway 35.

The crew carried out a briefing and subsequently commenced the approach and implemented theassociated checklist. At 01:41 hrs, clearance was received to land on runway 35 with the wind statedto be 280 degrees 26 knots max 34. The landing clearance was acknowledged by the crew.

Shortly after touchdown, the engines were reversed. When the speed reduced, the aircraft began toyaw to the left. The captain used nose wheel steering to compensate the yawing tendency but

the yaw continued towards the left, and the aircraft left the runway and stopped with the nose wheeland left main gear in the grass, with the right main gear on the asphalted runway shoulder. Inconnection with the excursion, the nose gear and left main gear each ploughed a furrow in the groundon the grass area with a depth corresponding to just under half the diameter of the wheels.

Factors as to Cause and Contributing Factors:The incident was caused by the aircraft being suddenly subjected to a severe gust of wind during roll-out while maintaining thrust reversal.

Contributing factors were probably the crew’s lack of sleep, which probably affected decision -makingand attention, which in turn led to the landing being performed under conditions that exceeded theoperator’s crosswind limitations for the aircraft.

More information:

Report RL 2014:19e (PDF)

Helicopter drone came within 20 feet of A320 approaching London-Heathrow

12 December 2014

http://www.havkom.se/virtupload/reports/RL_2014_19e.pdf





Flight BA905 on final approach to Heathrow on the incident date (Planefinder.net)

A U.K. Airprox Board (UKAB) report details a near-miss incident in which a helicopter dronecame within 20 feet (6 meters) of an Airbus A320 that was on final approach to London-Heathrow Airport.

The incident occurred on July 22, 2014 as the airplane was flying at an altitude of 700 feet while onfinal approach to runway 09L at London-Heathrow Airport. The altitude of 700 feet would put theplane at a distance of about 2 nautical miles from the runway (3,7 km).

The pilot of the airplane stated that a small black object was seen to the left of the aircraft asthey passed 700 feet in the descent, which passed about 20 feet (6 meters) over the wing. Itappeared to be a small radio controlled helicopter. The object did not strike his aircraft and he made anormal landing but it was a distraction during a critical phase of f light. ATC was informed of theobject’s presence and following aircraft were notified.

The model helicopter did not appear on radar and, from the A320 pilot’s description, was probably ofa size that could not be considered likely to do so.

The Board concluded that the cause of the Airprox was that the suspected model helicopter dronehad been flown into conflict with the A320, and that the risk amounted to a situation that had stopped

just short of an actual collision where separation had been reduced to the minimum.

The identity of the airplane was not revealed in the report, other than the description that it was a ‘blueand white’ A320. The incident occurred at 14:16 UTC. About the incident time flight BA905 fromMilan-Linate was on approach to ruway 09L. The flight was performed by an Airbus A320, G-EUYM. Itis not confirmed that this was indeed the incident flight.

More information:

UKAB report (PDF) DroneRiskNews.com

The Washington Post reports that since June 1, 2014, commercial airlines, private pilots and air-trafficcontrollers have notified the FAA of 25 cases in which unmanned aircraft were observed in the vicinityof aircraft. These airprox reports were among more than 175 incidents in which pilots and air-trafficcontrollers have reported seeing drones near airports or in restricted airspace.

http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/docs/423/2014117.pdf


http://dronerisknews.com/






Touchdown with higher than idle thrust causes Boeing 737-800 bounce and tailstrike at

London-Stansted

11 December 2014

File photo of a Ryanair Boeing 737-800 (photo: ASN)

The U.K. AAIB released a correspondance investigation report on a Boeing 737-800 tailstrikeaccident at London-Stansted, UK.

On July 29, 2014 the Boeing 737-8AS, operating flight FR2369 from Ostrava, Czech Republic toLondon-Stansted, UK, sustained damage in a tailstrike on landing on runway 04. There were noinjuries among the 171 passengers and six crew members.

The pilots report that they flew an ILS approach for a Flaps 30 landing on runway 04 at Stansted Airport. At 500 feet, with the aircraft stabilised on the approach, the co-pilot, who was pilot flying,disconnected the autopilot and then the autothrottle and continued flying manually to land.The wind in the final 200 feet before landing varied slightly from the ATC reported wind of 330° at 7 ktand the co-pilot was applying left aileron, into wind, which resulted in a touchdown on the left main

landing gear first. The aircraft then bounced 5 feet back into the air. The thrust levers were retardedand reached idle approximately 2 seconds after the initial touchdown and the speedbrakes were deployed.

Then there was a second much firmer touchdown, during which the aircraft had a high-nose attitude.This landing occurred at a deceleration of 2.07g and the pitch reached a peak of 8.9° nose up.The landing rollout was normal. After shutdown, the cabin crew commented that the second landingwas hard, so the captain conducted a visual inspection of the aircraft and found damage to the lowerrear fuselage.The visible damage consisted of a large scrape along the skin of the tail section of the aircraft;numerous stringers and frames beneath the surface were also damaged, requiring a substantialrepair before the aircraft was returned to service on August 17, 2014.

The captain considered that the aircraft bounced because the first touchdown occurred with higherthan idle thrust. When the thrust lever was selected to idle during the bounce, the speedbrakes



deployed automatically; this caused a loss of lift, the nose of the aircraft to pitch up, and thesubsequent tailstrike on touchdown.

More information:

AAIB Bulletin 12/2014

Serious near-miss incident between Fokker 100 and helicopter despite mutual visual contact

11 December 2014

Flight path of the aircraft involved according to radar data (SUST)

A Fokker 100 jetliner of Helvetic Airways and a Swiss medical helicopter were involved in an

airprox incident in the Bern Airport Control Zone, Switzerland, according to a Swiss AccidentInvestigation Board report.

On 24 May 2012 the pilot of an Eurocopter EC 145 helicopter, registration HB-ZRC, operated bySchweizerische Luft-Ambulanz AG (REGA), received clearance from the Bern tower air traffic controlofficer (ATCO) to cross the Bern-Belp airport control zone at an altitude of 4500 ft QNH.

At the same time a Fokker 100 aircraft, flight OAW 5311, was approaching Bern-Belp airport. Afterreceiving clearance from Bern Approach for a visual approach on runway 32, the crew first contactedBern Tower. The ATCO requested the crew to continue the approach and at the same time issuedinitial traffic information about the helicopter. Immediately thereafter, the EC 145 pilot receivedcorresponding traffic information regarding OAW 5311, which was on an approach.

Shortly thereafter, the ATCO again issued both crews with traffic information. Approximately oneminute later, the helicopter pilot reported “traffic in sight”. The helicopter was in level flight at an

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Boeing%20737-8AS%20EI-EFB%2012-14.pdf





altitude of 4500 ft QNH. A little later the pilot received an aural warning on his traffic advisory system.The pilot then initiated a heading change to the left in order to cross behind OAW 5311.

Four seconds after the helicopter pilot reported visual contact, the crew of OAW 5311 reported thatthey had a helicopter in sight and would avoid it. OAW 5311 was descending and passing 5000 ftQNH. At approximately the same time, the crew received on their traffic alert and collision avoidance

system (TCAS) at first a traffic advisory (TA) and a little later the resolution advisory (RA) “climb,climb”. The crew attributed the resolution advisory to the helicopter they had in sight and thereforedecided not to comply with the resolution advisory and continued the approach while descending. Asa result of the continued descent, the TCAS generated the RA reversal “descend, descend NOW!”when the aircraft was passing 4500 ft QNH. Even after this command the crew did not change theaircraft’s rate of descent.

The two aircraft crossed with a lateral distance of 0.7 NM (1300 m) and an altitude difference of 75 ft(23 m).Air traffic control’s short term conflict alert system (STCA) was not activated at any point sinceit had been disabled for Bern air traffic control many years before. OAW 5311 subsequently landeduneventfully in Bern-Belp and the helicopter continued its flight to Zurich.

Causes:The serious incident is attributable to the fact that there was a dangerous convergence of acommercial aircraft and a helicopter despite mutual visual contact, because no appropriate avoidancemanoeuvre had been performed. The limited effectiveness of the “see and avoid” principle wasidentified as the systemic cause of this serious incident.

More information:

Final report No. 2220 (PDF)

EASA publishes Emergency AD following control issues on A321 with blocked angle of attack

probes

10 December 2014

http://www.sust.admin.ch/pdfs/AV-airprox/2220_e.pdf





File photo of AOA probes on an Airbus A330 (photo: ATSB)

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directivefor several Airbus models, detailing emergency procedures in the case of undue activation ofAlpha Protection.

An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 encountered a blockage of two Angle Of Attack(AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Machnumber increased. The flight crew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully.When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AOA probes, the flight control laws order a continuousnose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestickinputs, even in the full backward position. If the Mach number increases during a nose down order,the AOA value of the Alpha Prot will continue to decrease. As a result, the flight control laws willcontinue to order a nose down pitch rate, even if the speed is above minimum selectable speed,known as VLS.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the aircraft.This systems is installed on Airbus A318, A319, A320, A321, A330 and A340 aircraft. To address this

unsafe condition, Airbus have developed a specific Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) procedures. The Airworthiness Directive requires amendment of the applicable AFM.

This is considered to be an interim action and further AD action may follow.

More information:

EASA EAD 2014-0266-E (A318-A321)

EASA EAD 2014-0267-E (A330, A340)

In-flight entertainment screen smoke incident on Boeing 737-800

2 December 2014

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/20141209EASAAD20140266E.pdf








Display unit circuit card assembly (GCAA)

Smoke began emitting from a passenger entertainment system video display unit on aFlydubai Boeing 737-800 when the aircraft was descending towards Kiev, Ukraine, accordingto an investigation report published by the UAE GCAA.

On April 19, 2014, during the descent at approximately 15,000 feet altitude, the visual display unit(VDU) of the In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) system at seat 9A started to emit smoke. Accordingly, thecabin crewmember moved the passengers seated in 9A, 9B and 9C to other locations.The cabin supervisor switched off the power to the IFE system and advised the flight crew of thesituation by interphone. Another cabin crewmember obtained a fire extinguisher and smoke hood fromthe forward cabin and discharged the contents of the fire extinguisher in several applications until thesmoke diminished.

The captain, who was the Pilot Monitoring (PM), contacted Kiev Air Traffic Control (ATC) and declareda “mayday”. The captain commenced the ‘Smoke, Fire, Fumes’ checklist in the Quick ReferenceHandbook (QRH). While completing the checklist, the cabin supervisor called informing him that thesmoke had stopped and dissipated. The captain resumed his normal PM duties and handled ATC

communications until the aircraft landed uneventfully.

The Air Accident Investigation Sector (AAIS) determines that the causes of the smoke that emittedfrom the VDU of seat 9A were:

Gasses emitted from the printed circuit board (PCB) of the VDU backlight inverter board; the heatcaused by increased current demand after the break in the secondary coil of the transformer followedby the failure of the primary side transistor components; and the failure of the fuse to open quickly andisolate the circuit due to its inappropriate rating related to the VDU application and possibly otherreasons not determined by the Investigation.

A Contributing Factor to the Incident was that the material of the fuse might have helped intransferring heat by ‘conduction’ between the fuse and the PCB of the backlight inverter board.

Four safety recommendations were issued. Two recommendations to the operator, to: ship anyremoved VDU to the manufacturer for replacement of the fiberglass substrate material fuse by aceramic body, suspended-in-air filament fuse; and for any future orders for any aircraft type equippedwith similar VDU part number, to ensure that the VDU is of the modified LED backlight or modifiedopen-to-air fuse standard.Two safety recommendations are issued to the General Civil Aviation authority (GCAA) of the United

Arab Emirates, to: ensure that any future Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) relevant to IFEinstallation on any UAE-registered aircraft refers in the ‘materials required’ section to the modifiedVDU; and disseminate the information included in this Report to all UAE operators for their proactiveaction in relation to any existing affected VDUs or for the addition of aircraft to their fleets equippedwith similar part number VDUs.

More information:

Final report AIFN/0008/2014 (PDF)

Fatal Lao Airlines ATR-72 crash caused by mishandled go-around1 December 2014

https://www.gcaa.gov.ae/en/ePublication/admin/iradmin/Lists/Incidents%20Investigation%20Reports/Attachments/55/2014-Final%20Report%20-%20A6-FEK,%20AAIS%20Case%20No.%200008-2014.pdf





Wreckage of the ATR-72 recovered from the river

The Laos Aircraft Accident Investigation Committee (AAIC) concluded that the captain’smishandled go-around led to a fatal accident near Pakse, Laos on October 16, 2013.

Lao Airlines Flight QV301 originated in Vientiane, Laos and operated a domestic service to Paksewith 44 passengers and five crew members on board. Weather in the area of Pakse was poor as aresult of a passing typhoon.

The flight was cleared for a VOR-DME non-precision approach to runway 15. After passing the finalapproach fix, the procedure called for a descent to the minimum descent altitude of 990 feet. After thisthe approach may only be continued if ground visual references are available.The crew however incorrectly set the altitude preselect (ALT SEL) mode to 600 feet. This was stillbelow the (incorrectly) published height of 645 feet on their approach chart.Since the ground was not visible at 600 feet, the crew disconnected the autopilot and aborted theapproach with the intention to conduct a missed approach.

After the aborted approach, the Flight Director vertical mode switched to Go Around and immediatelywent into altitude capture mode because the altitude selected was 600 feet. The missed approach

was followed by a right turn instead of a nominal climb as published in the VOR-DME approach chart.The airplane began losing altitude during this turn.

A series of EGPWS warnings then sounded and the height reached the minimum value of 60 feetabove ground level and the roll reached approximately 37° to the right. When the flight crew realizedthat the altitude was too close to the ground, the captain over-reacted, which led to a high pitchattitude of 33°. The Flight Director command bars then disappeared from the screen because of theextreme aircraft position.The airplane climbed to an altitude of 1750 feet until the airplane pitched down again. The FlightDirector command bars then reappeared and centered during the descent, because the selectedaltitude was still 600 feet.The descent was continued until the airplane impacted the Mekong River. The fuselage broke andsank in the river.



OOI

Boeing 737-4H6 sustained damage in a runway excursion

30 December 2014

A Boeing 737-4H6 sustained damage in a runway excursion accident at Lahore-Allama Iqbal

International Airport (LHE), Pakistan. The flight from Karachi (KHI) was carrying 172 passengers and

an unknown number of crew members. There were no injuries.

After landing on runway 36L the airplane went to the right off the side of the runway. It came to rest

in the grass with a collapsed left hand main gear. Passengers deplaned using air stairs via the

forward left hand passenger door. Photos obtained by the Aviation Safety Network show evidence of

a bird strike on the nose landing gear. Blood spatter and a feather were present on the nose gear.

The airplane had been involved in a prior accident on April 22, 2012 when the left handundercarriage strut penetrated through the upper wing upon landing at Karachi. The aircraft was

repaired and flew again on May 16, 2014.

Boeing 747-400 Returns after Landing Gear Problems

29 December 2014



A Boeing 747-400 took off from London Gatwick Airport (LGW), U.K. at 11:43 hours local time,

bound for Las Vegas (LAS). After takeoff, the aircraft developed problems retracting the

undercarriage. The flight climbed to FL320 while heading in a westerly direction. The flight entered a

holding pattern over the sea near Barnstable from 12:08 until 12:54 when it headed back to Gatwick

Airport. It descended to 2275 feet and carried out a pass over the runway at 13:39. The flight then

entered a holding pattern at 2275 feet to the south of Gatwick. Then another low pass was made

over the runway at Gatwick at 1275 feet at 14:41. The flight then entered a second holding pattern

over the south coast of England at 5300 feet until it finally continued to land at 15:44. After landingthe aircraft leaned heavily to the right. Photos of the aircraft showed that the right hand main

undercarriage leg had become stuck sideways and could be fully deployed on landing.

Airbus A320-216 Indonesia AirAsia

29 December 2014

An Indonesia AirAsia Airbus A320-216, performing flight QZ8501, went missing over the Java Sea

between Surabaya and Singapore. On board are 155 passengers and seven crew members.

The flight took off from runway 10 at Surabaya-Juanda Airport (SUB) at 05:35 hours local time

(22:35 UTC) for Singapore Changi International Airport (SIN). The airplane turned left, tracking329° over the Java Sea. The planned cruising altitude of FL320 was reached at 05:54. At the same



time the airplane turned left to 319°. Ten minutes later the airplane slightly changed course to310°. Upon entering the Jakarta Flight Information Region (FIR) over the TAVIP waypoint at 06:12the flight contacted Jakarta ACC. The flight stated that they were deviating to the left of theirplanned route along airway M-635 to avoid clouds and requested a climb to FL380. The requestedclimb was not possible due to other traffic but the flight was cleared to climb to FL340.

According to the Indonesian Ministry of Transport the airplane was still on radar at 06:16 hours(Surabaya time, 23:16 UTC). At 06:17 only the ADS-B signal was visible with the targetdisappearing at 06:18.

On December 30 pieces of debris were located at sea. An official of the Ministry of Transportationconfirmed that these were from the missing flight. In the course of the day bodies were recoveredfrom the sea.

Boeing 737 Collides with another Boeing 737

28 December 2014

A Boeing 737-7H4 (WL) was on the taxiway at New York-La Guardia Airport (LGA/KLGA) when the

left hand winglet was severed by a Boeing 737-823 (WL). The Boeing 737 had arrived from Dallas,

Texas and was being towed to gate D7 when the incident happened.

Boeing 777-223ER Diverts Due to Injuries Suffered during Turbulence

16 December 2014

A Boeing 777-223ER from Incheon, South Korea (ICN/RKSI) to Dallas, USA (DFW/KDFW) diverted and

performed an emergency landing beyond the curfew at Narita, Japan due to turbulence. At least

twelve people out of 240 passengers and 15 crew members suffered injuries, and two among themare serious with broken bones. At the time of the accident, there was a developing low near the

accident site: 37N 142E 984hPa at the sea level, moving NNE at 35 knots at 21:00 JST (12:00 UTC).

The time of the accident was initially reported to be around 22:30 JST, however, the later news says

that it was between 19:30 and 19:40. The plane made a safe landing at Narita at 00:55 JST, 17th

December.

Airbus A380-861 Heavy Electrical Arcing During A-Check

12 December 2014

An Airbus A380-861 was undergoing A-check maintenance at Dubai. After engine runs, the aircraft



had heavy electrical arcing of a Residual Current Circuit Breaker (RCCB) located on the main Primary

Electrical Power Distribution Center (PEPDC) electrical center, forward cargo, that led to smoke and

burning/damage of surrounding structure. Last flight before maintenance was on December 10. By

December 29 the airplane was not yet back in service.

Boeing 747 Returns having Failed to Retract Undercarriage

11 December 2014

A Boeing 747 flying to Dubai returned to land at Heathrow following a problem retracting the

undercarriage.

Cabin Pressurization Issues cause Diversion of A380

8 December 2014

Cabin pressurisation and air-conditioning issues forced the crew of an Airbus A380-842 bound for

Sydney to divert to Perth where a safe landing was carried out.

Boeing 737-838 returns due to Smoke

8 December 2014

A Boeing 737-838 returned to Perth Airport, Australia after smoke and a strange odour were noted

in the cabin.

ATR-72 sustained damage to the nose landing gear upon landing

4 December 2014

An ATR-72 sustained damage to the nose landing gear upon landing on runway 14 at Zürich-Kloten

Airport (ZRH), Switzerland. As a result the aircraft lost nosewheel steering. The aircraft operated

from Dresden, Germany.

Weather reported about the incident time (07:04 UTC):

LSZH 040720Z VRB02KT 7000 BKN006 03/02 Q1013 NOSIG

LSZH 040650Z VRB02KT 7000 BKN006 03/02 Q1013 NOSIG

Boeing 737 damaged by electrical fire

4 December 2014

A Boeing 737 was damaged by an electrical fire. There were no personal injuries.

The bottom and at least one side of the plane were visibly scorched.



An airport spokesperson said a ground power unit (GPU) caught on fire under the airplane near the

A concourse at Port Columbus Airport.

Engine Vibration on ATR 72-500 leads to Single Engine Landing

30 November 2014

Due to vibrations on approach to Visby Airport (VBY/ESSV), the right engine of an ATR 72-500 was

shutdown. There was damage on right propeller hub.

ATR-72 Suffers Runway Excursion

29 November 2014

An ATR-72-200 aircraft from Abuja to Ilorin, Nigeria, suffered a runway excursion at low speed after

a normal landing on runway 05 at the Ilorin Airport. No injuries were reported among the fifty nine

passengers and four crew members. The airplane ran off the right side of the runway and came to

rest in the grass sustaining slight damage with a collapsed nose gear.

Engine Fire During Climb for ATR 72-500

27 November 2014

During climb from São Vicente-San Pedro Airport (VXE/GVSV), the number 1 engine fire alarm

triggered on an ATR 72-500. 2 bottles were discharged.

Boeing 737 Slides off Icy Taxiway

22 November 2014



A Boeing 737-832 from Portland, Oregon slid off an icy taxiway after landing at Detroit-Metropolitan

Airport, Michigan (DTW/KDTW). The airplane became bogged in the soil next to the runway.

METAR about the incident time (11:40Z):

KDTW 221153Z COR 17009KT 8SM -FZRA OVC017 M02/M06 A3016 RMK AO2 FZRAB1057 SLP222

P0002 60002 70002 T10221056 11022 21061 56027

KDTW 221059Z COR 16007KT 10SM -FZRA OVC029 M03/M08 A3019 RMK AO2 FZRAB57 P0000

Cabin pressurization malfunctions occurred onboard Airbus A330

21 November 2014

After descent initiation from FL 390, cabin pressurization malfunctions occurred onboard an Airbus

A330-343. An emergency descent was performed and the aircraft landed uneventfully at Zürich-

Kloten Airport (ZRH/LSZH), its destination.

Boeing 777-300ER Diverts Having Shut Down One Engine

15 November 2014

A Boeing 777-300ER had departed São Paulo-Guarulhos, in Brazil at 19:01 UTC, bound for Luanda,Angola. Initial reports indicate that the crew was forced to shut down one of the engines because of



a fire warning. A decision was made to divert to Guararapes International Airport (SBRF) Recife,

Brazil were an eventful landing was carried out at 22:34 UTC.

Airbus 330 Diverts after Oil Filter Problems

14 November 2014

An Airbus A330 from Detroit, MI, USA to Chubu Centrair, Japan diverted to New Chotose Airport,

Japan (CTS/RJCC), due to an oil filter problem of engine number 2, 200 km southeast of Kushiro,

Japan (KUH/RJCK). The plane landed at Chitose about 50 minutes later, and no injuries were

reported.

fsa 0214 aviation news for december 2014.pdf

Documents