Serious incident Fokker 50 SE-MFZ,
ASN logo
ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 269890
 
This information is added by users of ASN. Neither ASN nor the Flight Safety Foundation are responsible for the completeness or correctness of this information. If you feel this information is incomplete or incorrect, you can submit corrected information.

Date:Thursday 25 November 2021
Time:17:07 LT
Type:Silhouette image of generic F50 model; specific model in this crash may look slightly different    
Fokker 50
Owner/operator:Amapola Flyg
Registration: SE-MFZ
MSN: 20159
Year of manufacture:1989
Fatalities:Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 34
Aircraft damage: None
Category:Serious incident
Location:S of Helsinki-Vantaa Airport (HEL/EFHK) -   Finland
Phase: Take off
Nature:Passenger - Scheduled
Departure airport:Helsinki-Vantaa Airport (HEL/EFHK)
Destination airport:Joensuu Airport (JOE/EFJO)
Investigating agency: SIAF
Confidence Rating: Accident investigation report completed and information captured
Narrative:
Amapola Flyg flight 322, a Fokker 50, made an emergency return to Helsinki-Vantaa Airport, Finland.

The airplane's warning system triggered a momentary alert during the initial phase of the takeoff run. The pilots heard the alert but did not have sufficient time to diagnose its origin. After liftoff, a failure occurred in the feathering system of the left propeller.
As a result, the propeller feathered but the engine continued to operate at high power. The captain, who was at the controls, continued to fly the airplane while the first officer shut down the left engine in accordance with the engine-out procedure.
The flight crew declared mayday, and air traffic control began to vector the airplane to the departure airport as requested by the flight crew. The flight was following a procedure that could have led to the airplane exiting controlled airspace, bringing it into conflict with a tall transmission tower. The controller responded by providing headings that ensured adequate separation from the tower.
The flight crew made preparations for landing on runway 15. They conducted the applicable checklists. On final approach, when the captain asked the first officer to lower the landing gear, the flight crew noticed that the gear had remained extended during the entire flight. The airplane landed at 17:19 h and taxied to the apron.

Conclusions:
- Upon signal interruption, the autofeather unit commanded feathering of the left propeller, but the engine continued to operate. Handling of similar situations is not drilled during pilot training.
- The pilots failed to raise the landing gear due to high workload and because they did not conduct the after takeoff checklist.
- Pilots should be trained to recognize and handle uncommanded feathering.
- Engine power cannot be used effectively, while the feathered propeller overstresses the engine.
- Both the pilot and the airline should ensure that the pilot’s license contains a valid language proficiency endorsement to enable the pilot to exercise the privileges of a flight crew member.
- A frequency that enables communication between rescue service and flight crews will help both parties to build situational awareness. The frequency should be readily available for flight crews.
- Special attention must be paid on the condition and correct installation of connectors.
- Before issuing an alert, controllers should use the color of the alert form to determine the pushbutton to be operated.
- Air traffic controllers shall agree positively on the responsibility for controlling a flight.
- The appearance of the abbreviation EM in a radar label should be accompanied by an aural alert that would focus the controller’s attention to the emergency situation.

Accident investigation:
cover
  
Investigating agency: SIAF
Report number: 
Status: Investigation completed
Duration: 12 months
Download report: Final report

Sources:

https://turvallisuustutkinta.fi/en/index/currentissues/releases/2022/multiplefactorscontributedtoseriousincidentonamapolaflight.html
https://www.flightradar24.com/2021-11-25/15:19/12x/60.31,24.8/10
https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000008432298.html
https://www.suomenmaa.fi/uutiset/helsingista-joensuuta-kohti-lahtenyt-reittikone-joutui-vaaratilanteeseen-heti-ilmaan-noustuaan/
http://www.lentoposti.fi/uutiset/amapola_flyg_lenn_tti_varakoneen_helsinkiin_joensuun_reittilento_k_ntyi_takaisin_ilmasta
https://twitter.com/OTKES_SIAF/status/1463970937431334928
http://www.lentoposti.fi/uutiset/moottorih_iri_syyn_amapola_flygin_lennon_k_ntymiseen_takaisin_helsinki_vantaalle_2511

Revision history:

Date/timeContributorUpdates
25-Nov-2021 17:45 Dolly564 Added
25-Nov-2021 17:47 harro Updated [Narrative]
25-Nov-2021 20:25 Dolly564 Updated [Source]
26-Nov-2021 07:19 Dolly564 Updated [Total occupants, Source]
01-Dec-2021 17:06 Dolly564 Updated [Source, Narrative]

Corrections or additions? ... Edit this accident description

The Aviation Safety Network is an exclusive service provided by:
Quick Links:

CONNECT WITH US: FSF on social media FSF Facebook FSF Twitter FSF Youtube FSF LinkedIn FSF Instagram

©2024 Flight Safety Foundation

1920 Ballenger Av, 4th Fl.
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
www.FlightSafety.org