When the Belgian Red Devils fly to a foreign destination to play a qualifying game on their Road to Russia, they usually fly on Brussels Airlines’ A320 OO-SNA sporting their Red Devils livery. Not for the October 7th game in Sarajevo, for which they flew two other Brussels Airlines icons: OO-SNB #Rackham outbound on 6 October, OO-SNF #Amare inbound on 7 October.
Why? Simply because OO-SNA #Trident is out of service. On 27 September, carrying out flight SN3721 from Brussels to Madrid, the aircraft made a hard landing: 2.9 G and bouncing. The return flight SN3722 was cancelled and Airbus was contacted. After inspection, Airbus allowed the plane to fly back to Brussels on 1 October as a ferry flight SN9922, operated with the gear down at low speed (around 500 km/h) and low altitude (FL260).
Since then, OO-SNA did not operate any flight, being in a hangar to be further inspected: engine lowering, landing gear checks, wing attachment checks, etc… ).
Contrarily to what has been said in some media, there was no damage to the landing gear, only a mandatory deep check. This check revealed that there was no damage at all, and the plane is back in service since 13 October, when it carried out flight SN3631 to Paris CDG.
There is an ongoing investigation from Airbus.
According to Fred M. (see his full comment hereunder) the recorded data show a pitch up command at 20ft, the elevator did its job, but there was no pitch up/brake of the rate of descent. It seems that there was remaining wake turbulence from the preceding flight. And with little wind, these turbulences probably stay longer over the runway.
Thus, as a conclusion, the national football team had to rely on other Brussels Airlines aircraft to go to and come back from Sarajevo for its game against Bosnia/Herzegovina.
Not true… the Made A hard landing of 2.9 g
Tell me what’s untrue in the article. Doesn’t a very hard landing damage the landing gear?
The info About the Trident plane sna is incorrect .
The flight to Madrid was done by A first officer making his first flight and landed the plane to hard. 2.9g and bouncing . The plane was grounded and airbus had to be contacted . After a lot of inspections airbus granded a ferrie flight (ldg down locked and ldg pins installed ) back to brussels for full inspection ( engine lowering , ldg checks, wing attachment checks,… ) due to no hanger space was available In Madrid.
So … the aircraft had a problem with its landing gear 😀 It’s not incorrect what André is writing!
Yes it is …. there Where No problemes with the ldg . It was down and locked for savety…. so in your mind there Where Also problems with the wings, the engines , the tail, the wing box,the fuselage, …. with the hole plane but not with the crew . The crew Made A big error ….. thats the trued and nothing els. There Also people and not auto-pilots so the make mistakes and nothing to be a shamed about it. Shit happens. But blaming it on the maintenance that’s just to crazy for words
Pingback: http://www.nieuwsblad.be/cnt/dmf20171009_03120980
Nowhere in the article do we blame maintenance. The words ‘hard landing’ clearly indicate that the error is in the cockpit.
Attention nieuwsblad: we are not a blog ?
The report of The Aviation Herald mentions that the hard landing caused substantial damage to the landing gear: http://avherald.com/h?article=4af7bb44&opt=0
Avherald is writing bullsh*, as often.
There were no damage at the landing gear, only a mandatory deep check.
After this check, no damage at all, the plane is back on flight since 3 days.
There’s an ongoing investigation from airbus.
The recorded data show a pitch up command at 20ft, the elevator did is job, but there was no pitch up/brake of the rate of descend.
It seem there where remaining wake turbulence from the preceding.
And with not a lot of wind, these turbulences probably stays longer over the runway.
Aerodynamic issue.
Thanks for this clarification, Fred.
You’re welcome.
So Clarify this news according to.
Done