West Atlantic AT72 at East Midlands on Oct 25th 2022, runway excursion on landing

Last Update: June 8, 2023 / 17:59:41 GMT/Zulu time

Bookmark this article

Photo of West Atlantic G-CLNK, ATR ATR-72-200 — West Atlantic G-CLNK, ATR ATR-72-200 (Photo credit: Alec BHX/KKC / Flickr / License: CC by-sa)

Incident Facts

Date of incident
Oct 25, 2022

Classification
Report

Cause
Runway excursion on landing

Airline
West Atlantic

Departure
Jersey, United Kingdom

Destination
East Midlands, United Kingdom

Aircraft Registration
G-CLNK

Aircraft Type
ATR ATR-72-200

ICAO Type Designator
AT72

Airport
East Midlands Airport, Nottingham

Airport ICAO Code
EGNX

A West Atlantic Avions de Transport Regional ATR-72-200, registration G-CLNK performing freight flight NPT-905 from Jersey,CI to East Midlands,EN (UK) with 3 crew, landed on East Midlands' runway 09 at 21:41L (20:41Z) when the aircraft slowed to about 80 knots but then veered right, a nose wheel tyre damaged a runway edge light.

On Jun 8th 2023 the UK AAIB released their final bulletin concluding the probable cause of the serious incident was:

After landing in a light crosswind, as the aircraft decelerated through 80 kt, it swerved right and hit a runway edge light. The loss of directional control probably occurred because of insufficient in-to-wind aileron. The recovery of directional control was delayed by the use of nosewheel steering through the tiller, rather than the use of rudder.

The ATSB reported both pilots, captain (61,ATPL, 11,011 hours total, 63 hours on type) who was pilot flying and the first officer, had recently converted to the ATR-72. The captain had previously flown BAe ATPs.

The ATSB summarized the sequence of events:

G-CLNK was operating from Jersey Airport to East Midlands Airport and made a radar vectored autopilot coupled approach to Runway 09. During the approach, the reported wind at the airport obtained by the pilots was from 150° at 10 kt. The commander was PF. He stabilised the approach by 1,000 ft and then established the aircraft with a slight crab into wind and power set at 25% torque. In the latter stages of the approach the commander disconnected the autopilot, removed the small amount of crab in the flare and touched down aligned with the runway. Once all wheels were on the runway, he selected ground idle and, as the aircraft continued to decelerate along the runway, it began to swerve to the right. He handed control to the co-pilot and applied left nosewheel tiller to straighten the aircraft. The commander noticed that the right wing lifted, which he ascribed to the turn to the right in combination with the crosswind from the right. The commander then applied more tiller input to the left, aided by the application of left pedal and differential left brake input by the co-pilot, to which the aircraft slowly began to respond.

During the landing roll the commander reported seeing an object on the runway ahead and to the left. Review of the CCTV subsequently showed a ‘spark’ under the aircraft during the landing roll.

The METAR for the airport valid at the time of landing reported wind from 140° at 12 kt.

The commander reported the excursion to ATC, and a runway inspection was carried out which reported a broken edge light. An engineering inspection found damage to the tyre of the nosewheel, which was replaced.

The AAIB analysed:

There was probably insufficient in-to-wind aileron applied during the landing roll both before and after the handover of control, which resulted in the upwind wing lifting and the aircraft turning into wind. The initial attempt to correct the turn by nosewheel steering through the use of the tiller, rather than by use of rudder to maintain directional control also likely contributed to the runway excursion.

The PF applied insufficient in-to-wind aileron and may not have recognised the need in the light crosswind, having 63 hours on type and limited experience flying it in similar conditions. The use of the tiller was probably a reversion to the technique that the commander had used on the previous type that he had flown. The manufacturer’s guidance indicates that the use of rudder above 70 kt, instead of the tiller, would have resulted in better directional control.

Metars:
EGNX 252250Z 15013KT 9999 FEW025 13/11 Q1006=
EGNX 252220Z 14012KT 9999 FEW025 13/11 Q1006=
EGNX 252150Z 14012KT 9999 FEW025 13/11 Q1006=
EGNX 252120Z 14012KT 9999 FEW025 13/11 Q1006=
EGNX 252050Z 14011KT 9999 FEW025 13/11 Q1007=
EGNX 252020Z 15010KT CAVOK 13/11 Q1007=
EGNX 251950Z 15010KT CAVOK 13/11 Q1008=
EGNX 251920Z 14009KT CAVOK 13/11 Q1008=
EGNX 251850Z 13007KT CAVOK 13/11 Q1008=
EGNX 251820Z 13006KT CAVOK 13/11 Q1008=
EGNX 251750Z 14007KT 9999 FEW030 13/11 Q1008=
EGNX 251720Z 15006KT 9999 SCT027 13/10 Q1009=