Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Royal Air Maroc Hard Landing At JFK  
User currently offlineDuckredbeard From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 49 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 17887 times:

Anyone have any more info on a hard landing by Royal Air Maroc at JFK on April 20, 2009?

I heard it was substanial damage, and may be scrapped.

http://airflightdisaster.com/?cat=693

29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12475 posts, RR: 37
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 17415 times:

Wake turbulence ... for a landing acft? Haven't come across that before ... could just as easily be strong winds?

Anyway, as the article says, pax reported that the landing had been hard upon arrival at the gate.

http://avherald.com/h?article=418b9b6f&opt=0

Wouldn't like to be that crew when they get back to Casablanca!

CN-RNT is 2002 build aircraft, LN 867, leased from GECAS.

http://www.airfleets.net/ficheapp/plane-b767-30843.htm


User currently offlineJpax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16772 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
Wake turbulence ... for a landing acft? Haven't come across that before ... could just as easily be strong winds?

Wake turbulence is a critical factor during landing operations, especially for a small aircraft following a large aircraft, and should definitely not be compared to strong winds.


User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5141 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16544 times:



Quoting Jpax (Reply 2):
especially for a small aircraft following a large aircraft

But you can't call a old 767 a small aircraft right?


User currently offlineMjzair From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16489 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
Wake turbulence ... for a landing acft? Haven't come across that before ... could just as easily be strong winds?

Not true at all.
I'll give you a perfect example.
Landings on 35 are very subject to wake turbulence to landings from the intersecting 27R arrivals. And if you think that these have no effects on landings, think again,


User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5141 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16464 times:



Quoting Mjzair (Reply 4):
Landings on 35 are very subject to wake turbulence to landings from the intersecting 27R arrivals

But isn't a plane on the ground yet at the time of runway intersection?


User currently offlineJpax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1018 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 16060 times:



Quoting KL911 (Reply 3):
But you can't call a old 767 a small aircraft right?

Relatively small behind a 747, A380, or 225.  Wink But let's not forget American 587-- similar sized aircraft being toyed around by the wake of an even larger aircraft.


User currently offlineVAAengineer From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15790 times:

Significant Damage was done to the fusulage above the middle doors it looks like a crushed beer can. It was so bad water was leaking into the cabin, from what I could see the pilot might have touch down nose first but the nose wheel looks intact the aircraft is now at hangar 19 , Boeing will be making the repairs.


God's Gift To Aviation
User currently offlineAviateur From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1352 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15557 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
Wake turbulence ... for a landing acft? Haven't come across that before

There's no reason that wake turbulence can't be a factor on landing. In fact the most harrowing experience I ever had with wake occurred on short final. Granted that was in a 19-seater, following a 757, but not even a 767 is immune. It's not likely, but certainly an upset or hard landing is possible.

PS



Patrick Smith is an airline pilot, air travel columnist and author
User currently offlineAvroArrow From Canada, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 15503 times:

KL911. Don't forget that the vortices's from wake turbulence will be pushed by the prevailing winds so that they can have an effect quite a distance from where they were created so, if there was wake turbulence created on 27R it could have conceivably drifted to near the touchdown point on 35. Think of it like a little ball of tornado that gets rolled across somebodies yard.


Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
User currently offlineANITIX87 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 3305 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 14752 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Mjzair (Reply 4):
Landings on 35 are very subject to wake turbulence to landings from the intersecting 27R arrivals.



Quoting AvroArrow (Reply 9):
if there was wake turbulence created on 27R it could have conceivably drifted to near the touchdown point on 35.

Two of you mentioned 27 and 35. This RAM incident occurred at JFK...which doesn't have those runways. What airport or past incident are you referring to, exactly? Just out of curiosity...

TIS



www.stellaryear.com: Canon EOS 50D, Canon EOS 5DMkII, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Canon 24-70 2.8L II, Canon 100mm 2.8L, Canon 100-4
User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 793 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 14729 times:

The 767 can definately still get rocked from wake turbulance just as a 747 can get rocked by the wake of another 747 and even disturbed by wake from a 777 or 767. The vorticies are there and the airplane must deal with them regardless of its size, down to a point.

After reading the report it says they landed 4R with winds out of the east. With these winds the only way that wake would affect them was if a preceeding aircraft landed 31L however, with the wind velocity would not have been likely due to the tailwind component. More likely is that an aircraft may have been departing 31L full length and the jet blast impacted AT42 in it's flare. If the timing was just wrong this would definately cause a hard landing. I am skeptical as the timing would have to be perfect....er, that is perfectly the wrong moment.

727forever



727forever
User currently offlineVHSMM From Australia, joined Jul 2008, 132 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 14539 times:

Has anyone been on an aircraft during a hard landing? How hard does it have to be before it is officially hard?


Flown: 727,737,747,757,767,777,DC9,DC10,A300,A319,20,21,A330,A340,A380,CRJ-200,BAe146,AVRO100,Saab340B,MD82,F100,Dash8
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4522 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 13915 times:



Quoting VHSMM (Reply 12):
How hard does it have to be before it is officially hard?

When you can't use the Aircraft again...


Seriously, most modern Aircraft will record a landing that exceeds certain parameters in vertical speed 'G' etc this cannot be erased until maintenance has inspected the structure.


I do not know exactly what they are.


Some will even send a data link signal automatically so there's no hiding it !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineRFields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 31
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13671 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
Wake turbulence ... for a landing acft? Haven't come across that before

I've seen a Cessna 150 thrown to the ground like a kid's toy by a B747 wake, which landed six minutes earlier.

I took a ride across the top of the terminals at DFW in a TWA B727 which got tipped up with the left wing 40 degrees down by a B757 landing ahead.

Landing can be as bad or worse than taking off.


User currently offlineGulfstream650 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2008, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 13636 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
Wake turbulence ... for a landing acft? Haven't come across that before ... could just as easily be strong winds?

Huh? You never heard of: "Cleared to land, caution wake turbulence xxxx etc" because I get that a lot!!

It all depends on a load of factors such as what the winds are doing and so on.

BIG, BIG factor. Those large planes, flying slow tear up the sky like if one runs their hand though a bath.

You probably haven't come across it because you're not a pilot, and I don't mean to be rude by saying that..



I don't proclaim to be the best pilot in the world but I'm safe
User currently offlineCV990A From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11020 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 1):
Wake turbulence ... for a landing acft?

I got caught in the wake of a Dash-8-100 once while flying a 172- I was in a left base-to-final, and next thing I know, I'm in a steep nose-down right-hand turn- it happened instantaneously and was very startling.



Kittens Give Morbo Gas
User currently offlineMjzair From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 401 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10810 times:



Quoting KL911 (Reply 5):
But isn't a plane on the ground yet at the time of runway intersection?

Maybe, maybe not, don't for get, until, the nose gear is on the ground, wings are producing lift, so up until the point the nose gear touches the ground, there is a possibility of wake.

Quoting ANITIX87 (Reply 10):
Two of you mentioned 27 and 35. This RAM incident occurred at JFK...which doesn't have those runways. What airport or past incident are you referring to, exactly? Just out of curiosity.

I wasn't referring to any incident in particular, I was simply saying that wake can definitely be in issue on landing because the first person to respond to this thread seemed to indicate that wake couldn't be a problem on landing. So, no incident, just experience.

Also, last I checked, JFK had intersecting runways, so while i do not know the particulars of this incident, isn't it possible that an aircraft took off on 13R, and this aircraft was landing 4L, <-- Now, I am not saying that this is what happened, I am saying that something like that is very possible.


User currently offlineMyt332 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 9112 posts, RR: 70
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10691 times:

Quoting VAAengineer (Reply 7):
Significant Damage was done to the fusulage above the middle doors it looks like a crushed beer can. It was so bad water was leaking into the cabin, from what I could see the pilot might have touch down nose first but the nose wheel looks intact the aircraft is now at hangar 19 , Boeing will be making the repairs.

The pilot wasn't Canadian was he? 

http://www.skyserviceclassaction.com/info.html

This was B767-300ER C-GLMC on lease from UK airline MyTravel (then G-SJMC) to the Canadian charter outfit Skyservice. It was repaired where it 'crashed' on 22/05/05 and returned to service many weeks later. It now is flying around unsuspecting passengers with Thomas Cook UK as G-TCCA!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jid Webb



It's now probably the strongest B767 out there!


[Edited 2009-04-30 05:01:03]


One Life, Live it.
User currently offlineArcher From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 131 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10660 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If I remember my ground school correctly, similar sized planes
are affected very little by wake turb. Small planes are definitely
affected by larger planes. 757's have a wake that is very
dangerous to following planes. I think they have separation
distances similar to "heavy" jets. 5 miles for smaller traffic
behind "heavies:. Heavies are 350,000 lbs. or more (I think that's
the number).
All just from memory - my Archer is NOT a heavy, I do know that.


User currently offlineCaptain.md-11 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10114 times:

Even 737-800's can create problematic wake turbulence. Spanish airports in particular pre-warn you about possible wake vortex following a 737-800 departure.


Twins,twins, everywhere.... but where are the three holers?
User currently offlineAvroArrow From Canada, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 1045 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 9884 times:

Oops I took my runway numbers from Mjzair without actually thinking about whether they were correct, but regardless of the headings involved, what I said about turbulent air generated by wingtips still holds true. Just because the vortex is created at point A doesn't mean that the vortex will stay there, they move with the prevailing winds. And also don't forget that the heavier an aircraft is the stronger the vortex will be so 2 different aircraft of the same type could have vortexes of quite different strengths.


Give me a mile of road and I can take you a mile. Give me a mile of runway and I can show you the world.
User currently offlineTbird From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 851 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9392 times:

Here's the story behind the RAM 767. The pilot landed her hard on her nose gear last week. Damage was done to the fuselage’s outer skin and internal ribbing (you have to see it to believe it). Major internal damage was also done to the forward part of the fuselage around the nose gear. I went aboard her and saw the damage first hand.

Here's the rub of the story...the article above is a bit off. The hard landing was not reported when she parked at the gate. The arrival crew did their normal procedures and went on their merry way. The plane was turned around, fueled, catered, cargo loaded and during the walk around in the dark and pouring rain the FO saw the damage. The inspections are now complete but the repairs will take months to complete as Boeing has to manufacture the parts needed to repair the plane. Early estimated repair costs put it around 10 million. Funny thing she just had a C check two weeks ago in ATL. Something tells me the Capt. and FO may be looking for new jobs right now...
.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21634 posts, RR: 55
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9254 times:



Quoting 727forever (Reply 11):
More likely is that an aircraft may have been departing 31L full length

That's pretty unlikely. If they were landing 4R, chances are good that 4L departures were going at the same time. JFK can depart 31L in that configuration, but only from intersection KK, not the full length. The only way the scenario you described could have happened is if they were switching to an all-31 configuration, and the 31L departure was the first of many. But the winds weren't favoring that.

Quoting Archer (Reply 19):
If I remember my ground school correctly, similar sized planes
are affected very little by wake turb.

That's what I thought too, and then I got caught in the wake of a 172 while flying another 172. It didn't affect me that much - kind of like being in a small boat in sea swells, but it's still not something I'd want to have to deal with while landing.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMm320cap From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 227 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9067 times:

You don't need to have crossing runway ops to have Wake Turbulence. Wake is a funny thing, and can hang around in the arrival corridor for a LONGGGG time behind a preceding arrival. If you are (even slightly) below the flight path of the jet in front of you and within 5-6 miles of it, wake turbulence is a serious consideration. Slight quartering head/tailwind is the worst.

25 727forever : Yes, except one little fact that you leave out. The winds were from 090 at over 10 knots. The wind would blow the wake out to the Northwest away from
26 Mir : I'm aware of that. What I haven't seen them do is depart 31L from the full length while also landing 4R, except when a runway change is in progress.
27 727forever : Agreed. But it does happen.
28 JRodriguez136 : Today I saw the aircraft parked ramp area by HGR 17, (former Tower Air Hangar). Does anyone know when/where in JFK the repairs will be done?
29 Tbird : Not for a number of months as Boeing has to produce the parts needed to repair the plane. Hanger 17 is now an Evergreen hanger and they are not keen
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Precision Air Hard Landing At Nairobi posted Sat Aug 4 2007 21:25:20 by Omoo
Air Canada Emergency Landing At YYZ posted Thu Apr 16 2009 05:15:16 by Amritpal
Emergency Landing At JFK posted Sat Nov 29 2008 10:30:35 by Qantas744ER
China Airlines 744 In Hard Landing At DPS? posted Sat Sep 20 2008 04:08:03 by Kaitak
Icelandair 757 Emergency Landing At JFK? posted Fri Aug 29 2008 03:57:51 by SandroZRH
DL Emergency Landing At JFK posted Tue Jul 29 2008 16:20:23 by Fanoftristars
Air France Emergency Landing At Bogota posted Sun Jul 20 2008 04:59:19 by Fabi737
Air Algerie Hard Landing On B738 posted Thu Mar 27 2008 09:42:52 by GARUDAROD
Air Asia Crash Landing At KUL 20 March? posted Tue Mar 25 2008 04:14:46 by Industrybuff
Air Transat Emer Landing At FLL Due To Bad Food posted Wed Mar 5 2008 07:50:11 by Tom in NO