This article is published in Aviation Week & Space Technology and is free to read until Aug 29, 2024. If you want to read more articles from this publication, please click the link to subscribe.
According to iGA Istanbul Airport, its handling of this FedEx Boeing 767 with a failed nose gear on May 8 is an example of successful aircraft recovery.
Aircraft recovery is a complex process that requires significant technical knowledge and specialized equipment, but the lines between regulation, standards and preparedness are often blurred.
Runway incidents are rare, but they have been on the rise lately. Some recent examples include a FedEx Boeing 767 failed nose gear landing in Istanbul and a Boeing 737 that veered off the runway in Dakar, Senegal.
The operator is responsible for leading the recovery process in accordance with ICAO Doc 9137 Part 5, an airport services manual (ASM) for the removal of disabled aircraft.
Yudie Fishman, managing director at AMS Aircraft Recovery in Monrovia, California, says the operator will record how the process was completed and what abnormal loads were applied to the airframe or other parts of the aircraft.
“The operator is responsible to ensure the aircraft is airworthy regardless of the cause,” says Fishman. The airline will then engage with the OEM for any guidance on how to complete remedial repair work.
Some observers see a grey area in terms of regulatory oversight for aircraft recovery, especially when recertifying the airworthiness of the aircraft following a successful recovery.
Dennis Beck, global sales director at Dutch recovery specialist Resqtec, asserts the existing regulation is clear. “It is rather the lack of preparedness and knowledge across the industry that causes issues,” he says.
The hot topic currently seems to be the increasing preparedness at airports. In China, for instance, the local civil aviation authorities are pushing airports to have a specialized team and equipment in place. Local sources, however, suggest airlines feel they are losing control of their aircraft as a consequence.
Andreas Fuge, managing director at Kunz GmbH, also highlights the importance of ASM Part 5 as a guide for recovery processes. However, he says technically, it then refers the user to the aircraft manufacturers’ aircraft recovery manual (ARM).
The ARM is produced by the aircraft manufacturer and provides detailed information regarding the specific aircraft. It is imperative that an ARM be consulted for the required information during the removal process. Failure to access and effectively use the required information from the ARM can result in secondary damage to the aircraft and resultant delays in returning the aircraft to service.
“ARMs are generally not available to airports, though,” Fuge says. “They [airports] might ask their operating airlines for copies, but, from experience, we don’t see airlines sharing those ARMs.”
RECOVERY PREPAREDNESS
The most frequent incidents are usually blown tires, followed by runway excursions requiring de-bogging and nose gear failures. “Airports can face a blocked runway simply because no spare tires are available at the airfield,” notes Fishman.
The operator might not even have trained recovery personnel or basic equipment to resolve a non-complex incident within a timeframe that meets the airport's expectations.
On May 8, a FedEx Boeing 767 landed at Istanbul Airport with a failed nose gear. It is widely regarded as a textbook example of a successful recovery.
“Our team took immediate control of the situation, which resulted in zero loss of life or injury,” says Ozan Karakis, airside operation director at iGA Istanbul Airport.
Within 13 sec., the airport’s fire and rescue team applied fire extinguishers to prevent the incident from escalating further due to sparks caused by friction. The two pilots were quickly evacuated within a few minutes. The aircraft was then moved to a secure area and the runway was reopened 16 hr. later, according to iGA.
“We have a very efficient, highly trained aircraft recovery team with state-of-the-art equipment here,” says Karakis. “We carry out annual recovery training and maintain the equipment as a priority, focusing on preventable and quickly recoverable disasters through our business continuity and resilience plan.”
In a general context, recoveries include placing air bags under the wings and fuselage, and lifting the aircraft using cranes. If the aircraft is in a soggy or muddy area, recovery specialists will first need to prepare temporary roads to safely move the aircraft, lift it and then use de-bogging slings to pull it out.
“The aim is to prevent secondary damage to the aircraft,” Karakis says.
MROs ON STANDBY
Meanwhile, Resteq’s Beck hopes preparedness for incidents will increase across the industry, including for MROs. “We already see this happening in practice,” he says.
Singapore Changi Airport invested in aircraft recovery equipment in 2020. To ensure the capabilities of its aircraft recovery team, it decided to create a multidisciplinary team with members from the Changi operations and airport rescue and firefighting teams, as well as aircraft maintenance engineers from Singapore Airlines and local MRO provider SIA Engineering Co.
When the aircraft is damaged, Kunz’s Fuge refers back to ARMs, which contain information on key issues such as skin pressure limits, towing or lifting force limits and the allowed contact areas. “The use of inadequate recovery equipment might exceed allowed contact areas or might exceed the allowed forces to the aircraft,” Fuge says.
Fishman sees opportunities for independent MROs to get involved and assist the operator with repairs following a successful recovery, including provisioning equipment and technical personnel.
Typically, MROs will deploy experienced aircraft engineers familiar with the aircraft’s structures and systems. However, the OEM and operator always take the lead and remain responsible for the airworthiness of the aircraft.
RISK MANAGEMENT AND POOLING
Ideally, aircraft operators should have proactive risk management strategies in place to deal with such emergency responses, but due to the low incident rate, the amount an airline can reasonably invest is unclear.
“We do see gaps in the proactive risk management strategy across the industry,” says Fishman. He suggests performing a risk assessment including the frequency of landings, types and sizes of aircraft, and number of runways, for example. “A relatively small investment in planning and equipment will cover the vast majority of incidents,” he adds.
Beck notes that certain airlines, such as Air India and Qatar Airways, see the value of investing in preparedness. Both carriers are users of Resqtec’s air transportable aircraft recovery kits, which are deployable anywhere in the world.
The two airlines also share their recovery equipment and teams with the wider airline industry through membership in the International Airlines Technical Pool (IATP). In addition to increased preparedness, Air India and Qatar Airways collect revenue from assisting other airlines.
Several other airlines rely on the IATP recovery kits and its pool program. The latest data from the organization reveals that 74% of member airlines participate in the recovery pool, and this appeal also resonates with sponsored airlines—or those not actively involved with IATP but which are interested in a specific IATP pool service.
An efficient response to aircraft recovery incidents involves several key stages. According to IATP, it starts with the immediate response, so airline and airport authorities need to have a rapid deployment team available around the clock.
These teams often include technical experts, investigators and support personnel. Over the last few years, IATP has seen improved coordination between airlines, airports and local emergency services, and regular simulations are conducted to ensure preparedness.
IATP also sees an improvement in the quality of recoveries through specialized equipment and techniques designed to minimize secondary damage to the aircraft. Training in the industry is also improving.
New technologies are making it easier for investigators to work around the incident scene. For example, drones can be used for initial site surveys and to access difficult or dangerous locations. Additionally, they provide high-resolution imagery and data without putting investigators in harm's way.
IATP also sees increased emphasis on transparency and timely reporting of incident investigations.
The IATP aircraft recovery pool consists of 12 kits based at some of the busiest airports globally, which can be shipped to an accident site 24/7. The kits can also be sent to other secondary airports, provided they fall into the range of the kit operation and the qualified expertise.
