tcook052

My, my. After a number of post deletions I'll remind a few posters that this isn't the Argument Clinic but the Master AC Incidents Thread so let's please end the personal invective and return to discussing AC incidents and not each other.

tcook052
AC forum Mod.

24left

Well, this interesting.

Hong Kong SAR

Air Accident investigation Authority

Preliminary Report
Boeing 777-333ER
C-FITW
11 December 2018
ARC: Abnormal Runway Contact

https://www.thb.gov.hk/aaia/doc/Airc...%201-2019e.pdf




"Aircraft Damage: Substantial"

"The aircraft is currently unserviceable"

"The First Officer (FO) was the Pilot-Flying from the Top of Descent"


*****

And similar to what I wrote in posts about my experience at landing.

QUOTE:

"At approximately 200 feet above the runway while continuing to descend to the touch down point the aircraft entered into series of minor lateral roll deviations followed by a pronounced roll first to the left and then to the right, the Pilot-Flying introduced large control inputs into the aircraft to control the sudden and unanticipated roll behaviour.

The aircraft was not wings level at the touchdown point as it was rolling to the right. On touchdown the right-hand main gear contacted the runway first.

With a high rate of descent in conjunction with a nose high pitch attitude, the underside of the rear fuselage contacted the runway surface during the hard landing, the aircraft then bounced before returning to the runway centreline. "

FlyerTalker70

The plot thickens! Skimming the report it seems like a combination of weather and inexperience of the FO landing the plane were to blame on this one. In particular I'm surprised that this was the first actual flight the FO was on for that aircraft and the first time they've landed at HKG. From what I hear and have experienced first hand, while not as dangerous as good ol' Kai Tak, Chep Lap Kok is not the easiest approach either thanks to the often windy conditions and terrain risks. If anything AC should've had the FO try simpler low-risk approaches on the 777 like SFO or YYZ.

Combine this event and the two runway incursions at SFO and you've got to wonder whether AC is having a pilot rostering issue.

Out of curiosity what does substantial damage and the aircraft is currently unserviceable mean? Does that mean the aircraft is totalled? If so, I'm surprised AC didn't pass out celebratory cake and champagne to mark the end of their yellow stripe service

Safe Travels,

James

FlyerTalker70

Upon reading the report more carefully I noticed the following:

Seems like the damage whilst significant has been deemed repairable by AC. Who knows how long it'll take before that bird flies again but the next concern should be safety as @24left pointed out at the last D0. Improperly repaired fuselages have caused major incidents
Safe Travels,

James

transportprof

If these findings are upheld, would AC be liable to HKG for runway resurfacing costs following their "abnormal contact" with the pavement?

24left

To be clear, my comments at the Do were part of our group discussion on aircraft repairs. I had mentioned reading about a couple of accidents at other airlines that occurred years after major damage from a tail strike. I also commented on my conversations with a number of Boeing engineers I met in NRT who explained that they were there to check and certify ANA aircraft that had damage and had been repaired.

I'll assume AC's insurance company, any investigators and of course Boeing, have the knowledge and experience to decide if this "substantial damage" affects FIN 733's airworthiness.

Others on this forum who work in the aircraft business have more professional knowledge.

P.S. The same friend at HKIA who provided me with the Dec 30, 2018 photo of FIN 733 at the Haeco facility, sent me another photo recently and based on his viewing position, it appears she may have been painted all white, that is, had the AC livery removed. I have the photo but neither of us can confirm if it's the AC aircraft.
.

FlyerTalker70

If true that would seem to imply that AC has decided to sell it (presumably) deeming it to be not worth the hassle of repair. One thing I'm a bit concerned about is the FO, certainly not the best impression to make on your first flight on the 777. What happens to them? Do they go back to the simulator/training or does AC chalk this one up to "boys will be boys"? In any event, I suspect AC should review their training/rostering since recent events seem to suggest that AC might be cutting corners somewhere.

Safe Travels,

James

24left

Friend at HKIA just sent this photo. Taken 4 minutes ago. Here she is with her AC livery.

And he said a flock of UA birds keeping her company. lol

JustSomeGuy1978

First real flight on the 777. First flight into this airport. Talk about setting someone up for failure.

who thought this was a good idea?

FlyerTalker70

Bohemian1

By definition, there always has to be a first flight. But that's what training is for.

This airport can be tricky on approach but lots of other pilots have done this for the first time in the past too.

When the final report comes out no doubt there will be a lot of small, cascading issues listed as causing this outcome.

marchelli

AKA the Swiss Cheese Model of Accident Causation. Sometimes enough holes line up and stuff like this happens.

CZAMFlyer

For those unfamiliar with airline pilot progression, there is always a first flight on any given type of aircraft, and more often than not, it occurs with a full load of passengers in the back. The realism of the flight simulators is such that for most pilots, flying it vs a real plane is indistinguishable. There are peculiarities associated with most airports, and amongst the pilots I'm most familiar with (good friend is CX 77W captain and cousin is a GV captain - both based there) HKG is not considered particularly challenging from a weather* & terrain perspective. The stated wind in the report suggests benign flying conditions.

*typhoon season notwithstanding

I'm also surprised there was speculation about the aircraft being 'totalled'. It is, and always was, deemed repairable, and that fact was stated many posts ago. The only question is the length of time required to complete the repairs. There will likely be no need for pavement repairs - concrete usually wins in such incidences of contact.

There is never a good time to overcontrol an airplane - first flight on type is irrelevant. Not sure if there will be a need for further training, but AC and most other airlines are noticing the effects of comparatively less accumulated experience for their new hires. Note that we have no idea how new to the company the flying pilot is, nor their flying background. As for 'boys will be boys', I failed to notice any reference to gender in the prelim report. You must have some inside info. I also question the implication of the airline cutting corners based upon these incidents. Do we have evidence of inadequate training, procedures or oversight?

Bohemian1

Very succinct and no doubt very true. And kinda scary when you think about what was in contact.

smallmj

I think this came from the "unserviceable" part of the report mentioned recently. There was a bit of confusion.

unserviceable = needs repairs before returning to service
unserviceable ≠ will never be serviceable again