Posted on 7/7/2006, 1:52:43 PM by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Investigators have disclosed that the TNT Airways Boeing 737-300 freighter which conducted an apparent gear-up landing at Birmingham Airport, UK last month had actually lost its right main undercarriage during a failed attempt to land at Nottingham a few minutes earlier.
Owing to poor weather at London Stansted, following a flight from Liege, Belgium on 15 June, the aircraft had diverted to Nottingham East Midlands Airport and was carrying out a Category IIIA approach to runway 27 at around 05:40, reports the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB).
About 1nm (1.8km) from touchdown the aircraft’s approach became unstable, after a momentary disconnection and re-engagement of the autopilot. The 737 rose above the glideslope, before descending rapidly and deviating to the left of the centreline.
Although the crew began a go-around the aircraft landed heavily on grass to the left of the runway threshold – the impact tearing off the right main landing-gear and causing damage to the right inboard flaps, wing-fuselage fairing, hydraulic system and the rear freight hold door.
Despite the damage, and although the aircraft’s outer wing and starboard engine contacted the ground, the 737 managed to become airborne again. The crew declared an emergency and diverted to Birmingham, where weather conditions were good, touching down on runway 33 at 06:02.
With its right main-gear absent, the aircraft came to rest on its starboard engine. Neither of the two crew members of the 737-300, a 19-year old example registered OO-TND, was injured.
Both airports suffered disruption to operations as a result of the accident. AAIB personnel are carrying out an inquiry into the circumstances. The organisation says: “At this early stage of the investigation it is not considered necessary to make any formal safety recommendations.”
Best Airline Name Ever!
why not keep it on the ground at the first airport instead of going back around?
Sounds scary.
Thankfully everyone survived this accident. But that is some news I want to hear that a 737 with damage can get in the air and stay aloft. And a good job by the pilots.
A big Boeing bump.
A standing ovation for Boeing engineers and two superb pilots! Bounce it off the ground and still land it safely. Amazing.
Yes, the center fuel tank could have exploded or the tail could have fallen off/s/
The first sentence is a howl--you'd think it would be obvious that the plane lost its right undercarriage at the first airport, and not that investigators found this out.
Good work, lads!
I'd like to know where that photo came from. While it is a neat pic, having served on the Ranger (MarDet 91-93), I am wary. Fully loaded, the distance between the waterline and flight deck was only about 81 ft. She is at least partially loaded, because you can see the planes chalked down on the forward flight deck. That is an awful big plane to be flying that close to the water, with what appears to be a nose down attitude. The only aircraft I ever saw fly below the flight deck was a CH-47; which I happened to be on. It was an eye opener seeing the aft Sea Sparrow mount go by the slightly above the helo.
FWIW, look at the forward flight deck, where it dips down. That is where I spent a lot of time in the Gulf, manning an M-60 during gun-mounts; defense against small craft. I did manage to get some awsome pics of F-14s and EA-6s taking off with their wings about 15ft above my head. Aw, life is good:-)
> I'd like to know where that photo came from.
B-52 Flyby of USS Ranger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1661638/posts
> ... with what appears to be a nose down attitude.
Apparently the standard deck angle for a B-52 in flight.
Will we be taking Freeper submissions for company AD campaigns?...
Our service will blow your mind!
The Unibomber's airline of choice.
Dang! You can't even mention their name while your in the terminal without getting dragged into the security office...
Stands for Thomas Nash Transport IIRC - an Aussie trucker made good!
www.tnt.com
I stand impressed. The second pic in the other thread sells it for me. The plane looks lower in the first pic, the one you posted, than it really is. From the second pic in the other thread, I would venture that the bottom of the fusalage is probably 70-80 ft off the water. I've seen B-52s do that over dry land, so doing it over the water; with it's relatively smooth suface, is no sweat for the highly trained Jet Jockeys. You know inside every B-52 and C-130 pilot there is a fighter pilot yearning to get out:-)
book mark
What sold it for me was that the guy who posted the thread was in the tower and saw it happen.
Yeah, I don't know him, though. You know the difference between a fairy tale and a sea story, don't you?
Fairy tales begin, "Once upon a time...", sea stories begin, "This is no s***". :-)
I know, Marine, thank you for your service. Really good stories begin, "This one time at Band Camp..."
I was a USAF Flight Surgeon for 11 years. A few years in B-1Bs, (everybody ejects but the guy in the jump seat, me) a few years in KC-135s ("We don't need no stinkin' parachutes"), and a few years in special ops helos (f&ck it, nobody's coming back alive anyway.)
Semper Fi, Aim High.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.