What happened
On 23 May 2006, an ATR72-202, registration G-BWDA, was performing a passenger flight from Gatwick to Guernsey. During the approach to Runway 27, the crew utilized a visual approach as the ILS glideslope was unavailable. The flight was operating under standard procedures with a planned approach speed of 111 kt.
As the aircraft neared the runway, the co-pilot, acting as the handling pilot, flared the aircraft at approximately 10 ft altitude. This initial touchdown resulted in the aircraft bouncing back into the air. In an instinctive attempt to arrest the sinking rate, the co-fly pulled back on the control column. This action caused the aircraft to touch down a second time with an excessive pitch attitude, resulting in the tail bumper making contact with the runway surface.
The commander immediately took control of the aircraft, completing the landing and vacating the runway. While there were no fatalities and no injuries to the 40 passengers or 4 crew members, the impact caused wear to the tail bumper skid-shoe.
The investigation
The AAIB investigation examined the aircraft's maintenance records, the runway surface, and the flight crew's training backgrounds. A runway inspection identified a scrape mark approximately 6 m long, consistent with the tail bumper skid-shoe. Engineering inspections confirmed that the contact was limited to the replaceable steel skid-shoe, which showed approximately 3 mm of wear.
The investigation focused on the flight crew's experience and the lack of standardized procedures. The co-pilot, while experienced in flying light aircraft, was on his first airline type and had no record of formal instruction regarding bounced landing recovery techniques. Furthermore, the company's operations manual contained no specific guidance on how to manage a bounced landing.
Findings
- The initial touchdown was characterized by an insufficient flare by the handling pilot.
- The subsequent tail strike was caused by the co-pilot over-pitching the aircraft in an attempt to cushion the second touchdown.
- There was a lack of formal, written company guidance regarding bounced landing recovery.
- The pilot lacked specific training in recovery techniques for this aircraft type.
Safety action
A safety recommendation was made to the UK Civil Aviation Authority, requesting that aircraft manufacturers, operators, and training providers issue appropriate guidance to pilots regarding techniques for recovering from bounced landings.