曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

the support/monitoring pilot.
Figure 1: PK-YVE, Batavia Air Airbus A320 at Medan on 2 June 2008
There were 140 people on board; two pilots, five cabin crew, and 133 passengers.
The flight plan indicated that the aircraft was carrying sufficient fuel for the sector
to Medan, plus fuel to fly to alternate airport Batam, holding at Batam and
statutory reserves.
The aircraft touched down towards the departure end of the touch-down area of
runway 05 at Polonia Airport, Medan at 03:04. After a landing run of 41 seconds,
it stopped on the runway adjacent to taxiway ‘D’, approximately 1,200 meters
from the estimated point of touch down. Three main-wheel tires and two main
wheels were substantially damaged.
1 The 24-hour clock is used in this report to describe the local time of day, Central Indonesia Standard Time (Waktu
Indonesia Barat (WIB)) as specific events occurred. Central Indonesian Standard Time is Coordinated Universal Time
(UTC) + 7 hours.
3
During the final approach the left main landing gear position indicator light was
‘red’ color and the ECAM (Electronic Centralised Aircraft Monitoring) system
display indicator was ‘amber’ color. The PIC decided to abort the approach and
with approval from air traffic control he conducted a go around.
In accordance with ATC instructions he flew the aircraft to the north of Medan on
the 335 degree radial of the Medan VOR2, and climbed to the holding altitude of
5,000 feet and held for about 45 minutes.
While holding, the PIC instructed the copilot to recycle the landing gear several
times, but the indications remained the same; left landing gear indication red, and
ECAM display amber. The PIC then instructed the copilot to do the landing gear
extension manually, which he did several times without any change to the landing
gear indication.
The PIC instructed the copilot to review the aircraft’s Quick Reference handbook
(QRH), page 2.12 “landing with abnormal landing gear”. The items on the QRH
required:
Anti skid and nose wheel steering “OFF”.
Maximum brake pressure “1000 PSI”
Ground spoiler “Do not arm”
The airport authority was informed by air traffic control to prepare for an
emergency landing. The airport authority then prepared for the pending
emergency landing and fire fighting vehicles and personnel were positioned to
stand by near taxiway ‘D’.
The PIC decided to land the aircraft on runway 05 and subsequently landed with
anti skid OFF in accordance with the QRH requirements at page 2.12. However
the brake pressure was 4,032 psi, significantly higher than the QRH specified
maximum brake pressure.
The PIC reported that the right main landing gear touched down first. There was
no fire and the tire fuses did not melt.
An emergency evacuation was not required, and all of the aircraft’s occupants
disembarked normally through the aircraft’s forward left door and using airstairs.
There were no injuries.
The investigation found that the brakes for wheels 1, 2, and 3 were jammed,
however there was no evidence of those wheel brakes overheating, and there was
no evidence of excessive brake application by the pilots.
The PIC could not recall how many times the landing gear had been cycled in an
attempt to resolve the indication anomaly. The copilot informed the investigator
that he did cycle the landing gear several times (he could not remember exactly
how many times) without any improvement of landing gear indication (red and
amber). He had then lowered the landing gear manually. There was no published
limitation on the number of times the landing gear can be cycled.
2 Very High Frequency omni-directional radio range navigation aid.
4
The copilot reported that after a full turn (clockwise) of the landing gear cranking
mechanism, he turned the cranking mechanism anti clockwise, returning it to the
normal position.
In the touch-down area, tire marks for PK-YVE were only clear for wheels 1 and
2. (Figure 2 and Figure 3).
Figure 2: Touch down tire marks on touch down area
Figure 3: Rolling tire marks on runway up to final stop at adjacent to taxi way D
Tire number 1&2
Tire number 3
5
1.2 Injuries to Persons
Injuries Crew Passengers Others TOTAL
Missing/ Fatal 0 0 0 0
Serious 0 0 0 0
None 7 133 0 140
TOTAL 7 133 0 140
1.3 Damage to aircraft
Tire numbers3 1, 2 and 3 were substantially damaged and wheel numbers 1 and 2
were also substantially damaged.
Figure 4: Wheel number 1
1.4 Other damage
There was no damage to other property.
1.5 Personnel information
　
中國航空網 www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：航空資料10(108)