ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 153602
This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information.
If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information
Narrative:The aircraft, an Airbus A321-200, VQ-BOC, experienced a tail strike following a bounced landing and go-around at Hurghada Int'l Airport, Egypt, runway 34. The aircraft sustained substantial damage.
|Thursday 28 February 2013
|Year of manufacture:
|Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 232
|Hurghada International Airport (HEGN) -
|Passenger - Scheduled
|Perm-Bolshoye Savino Airport (USPP)
|Hurghada International Airport (HEGN)
| Accident investigation report completed and information captured
None of the occupants were injured.
- Deviation from normal technique. The F/O who was making the landing did not handle the airplane properly, while the PIC did not intervene at the proper time in an
attempt to prevent exceeding pitch limit.
- The actual pitch while the airplane was on the ground was too high exceeding the geometric limit for the airplane on ground.
The following factors might have contributed to the event:
- The captain did not intervene at the proper time in order to prevent pitch from exceeding its limits (taking into consideration that the tail strike took place in few seconds, requiring captain direct interference with the flight control).
- The behavior of the F/O during landing might be affected by several contributing factors including the following:
- The actual total flying hours during the past 24 hours for both captain and F/O, besides the late landing time suggests fatigue condition.
- It was found that pilots were possibly affected by the fatigue influence of the long duty period and early time of the day but it was checked that the duty period of this flight was in strict compliance with Ural Airlines duty time regulations.
- The F/O was suffering from light intensity, though he did not announce or inform the captain.
- The factual information shows that the number of flying hours for the F/O is much higher than the flying hours of the captain. The feeling of the captain that the F/O is highly experienced with a large amount of flying hours might have some effect on his behavior towards his F/O. The captain might have felt high confidence in the F/O resulting in a feeling of relaxation assuming that the error probability from the F/O side is low.
- From pilot's statements, it was concluded - after touching down the RWY both pilots become sure that the aircraft bounced of RWY and was floating close to the ground.
The same time DFDR data showed both landing gears compressed. It was found that probable cause of the illusion might be combination of very little bounce followed by soft touch down and abnormal pitch attitude at the time of the landing. FO was holding the aircraft nose high to prevent hard landing. This pilot technique was against the Airbus recommendation (FCTM) and the operator SOP 9 for the case of bouncing at landing. The Captain failed to properly conduct his duties as a Pilot Non Flying for aircraft pitch monitoring at landing and timely announcing exceeding of this parameter.
Communication between the captain and the F/O throughout the event was not sufficiently efficient.
| Final report
https://lenta.ru/news/2013/02/28/hurgada/ http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/490036/ http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1043996&cid=9 http://www.rosbalt.ru/main/2013/02/28/1100320.html
History of this aircraft
Other occurrences involving this aircraft
|Updated [Source, Narrative]
|Updated [Aircraft type, Operator]
|Updated [Aircraft type, Registration, Cn, Operator, Location, Source, Damage, Narrative]
|Updated [Total occupants]
|Updated [Time, Total occupants, Source, Narrative]
|Updated [Total occupants, Location, Departure airport, Destination airport, Source, Narrative]
|Updated [Source, Accident report, ]
The Aviation Safety Network is an exclusive service provided by:
CONNECT WITH US:
©2024 Flight Safety Foundation