Peach aviation airbus almost lands in sea
The "pilot" who ditched the plane in the river was the luckiest pilot of that period, all mistakes and bad judgment were made in 5 minutes, the worst CRM, the worst technical skills, but the best aircraft for ditching, and like what everybody remembers of a flight ( i.e. the landing), they made it.
Not only did Sullenberg do a stellar job on the day, he has gone on to be a brilliant ambassador for the profession.
You, sir, need to extract your cranium for a particularly smelly orifice.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wizofoz, please don't be so rude. CL300 gives his birth year as 1920, so he just got things a bit confused....could you amend your post appropriately?
There are a lot of very senior pilots who make excellent contributions to the website. Me included, of course. But I trust you would never be rude to me...would you? what goes around....
There are a lot of very senior pilots who make excellent contributions to the website. Me included, of course. But I trust you would never be rude to me...would you? what goes around....
CL300 gives his birth year as 1920, so he just got things a bit confused....could you amend your post appropriately?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Not lost, but slightly uncertain of position.
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Show some respect!!!
Capn Bloggs,
The only one being a DH here is you. Why don't you let CL300 answer mary meaghers question before launching your assault?
Could it be that he has mistaken the Hudson incident with the one in the Mediterranean Sea? Could it be that CL300 has not seen mary meaghers question yet, and therefore have not had the chance to clear up the confusion?
Not everybody on pprune is logged on 24/7 like you, and not everybody hold a posting average of more than 1 post a day since becoming a member.
PS. If your crew position is labeled either 0A or 0B, you claim of being a high speed aluminum tube operator is wrong. It’s only considered medium speed at best.
Mozella,
You should be ashamed of your post.
If both of you took the time to listen, to an old pilot like CL300, you might learn a thing or two about aviation. At an age of 94, his bag of experience is most likely full of more goodies than the two of you can pile up together.
The only one being a DH here is you. Why don't you let CL300 answer mary meaghers question before launching your assault?
Could it be that he has mistaken the Hudson incident with the one in the Mediterranean Sea? Could it be that CL300 has not seen mary meaghers question yet, and therefore have not had the chance to clear up the confusion?
Not everybody on pprune is logged on 24/7 like you, and not everybody hold a posting average of more than 1 post a day since becoming a member.
PS. If your crew position is labeled either 0A or 0B, you claim of being a high speed aluminum tube operator is wrong. It’s only considered medium speed at best.
Mozella,
You should be ashamed of your post.
If both of you took the time to listen, to an old pilot like CL300, you might learn a thing or two about aviation. At an age of 94, his bag of experience is most likely full of more goodies than the two of you can pile up together.
Last edited by F-16GUY; 7th May 2014 at 19:06.
Wrong river - wrong aircraft
I wouldn't be 100% sure, but I suspect the old fella was talking about the "Garuda in the river" trick
If I remember correctly that aircraft actually ended up on a shallow submerged sand bar
If I remember correctly that aircraft actually ended up on a shallow submerged sand bar
I wouldn't be 100% sure, but I suspect the old fella was talking about the "Garuda in the river" trick
all mistakes and bad judgment were made in 5 minutes
Though of course it doesn't bear any resemblance to the US1549 investigation findings either ...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Takeshima
Age: 55
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps CL300 was a consummate A330 pilot who knew instinctively to hit the " Ditching Switch " once taking a drink in the Hudson was inevitable. The ditching switch thingy is a thing drilled into guys who takes off or lands across water so much so it becomes a recall action...this had been done since the A330 came into operation at our backwaters around Borneo in the mid 90s.
Sully did a super great job...but some drills were also missed. Can't go around singing praises, burping butterflies and farting rainbows without having a balanced look at that heroic episode.
Sully did a super great job...but some drills were also missed. Can't go around singing praises, burping butterflies and farting rainbows without having a balanced look at that heroic episode.
Thread Starter
Recent update, erasure of cockpit conversation, etc.
Cockpit conversation from Peach jet that descended too soon erased ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion
Quote: "The National Transportation Safety Board says that the recording of the conversation between the pilot and co-pilot aboard a Peach Airlines jet during the moments before it descended to a dangerously low altitude while on approach to Naha airport has been erased and overwritten.
The airbus A320-200, carrying 59 passengers and crew, mistakenly descended to 75 meters above the water on its approach to Naha airport in Okinawa on April 28. According to aviation officials, aircraft usually begin their descent into Naha from a point about five kilometers away. However, the Peach plane began its descent 10 kilometers away and was only 75 meters above the water and still 7 kilometers from the airport before the pilot could regain control.
Aviation officials said planes have a ground proximity warning system that sounds an alarm if an aircraft is too close to the ground, water or a mountain. During the Peach plane’s descent, it sounded twice as the captain regained control.
Nobody on the plane was injured. A Peach spokesperson said afterwards that the pilot, who is from Argentina, had misunderstood air traffic control instructions. Peach said the pilot has been suspended, pending an investigation.
After the incident, the National Transportation Safety Board conducted an investigation into the matter. According to the safety board, the conversations between the pilot and co-pilot as they tried to connect with Naha airport officials and Kansai International Airport tower personnel had been altered and entirely erased by Peach Airline officials, TBS reported.
However, safety board officials discovered that the conversations had been recorded at the radio tower at Naha airport and still remained intact. The board is analyzing the sound files and investigating the state of affairs aboard the Peach Airlines flight leading up to the accident."
Cockpit conversation from Peach jet that descended too soon erased ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion
Quote: "The National Transportation Safety Board says that the recording of the conversation between the pilot and co-pilot aboard a Peach Airlines jet during the moments before it descended to a dangerously low altitude while on approach to Naha airport has been erased and overwritten.
The airbus A320-200, carrying 59 passengers and crew, mistakenly descended to 75 meters above the water on its approach to Naha airport in Okinawa on April 28. According to aviation officials, aircraft usually begin their descent into Naha from a point about five kilometers away. However, the Peach plane began its descent 10 kilometers away and was only 75 meters above the water and still 7 kilometers from the airport before the pilot could regain control.
Aviation officials said planes have a ground proximity warning system that sounds an alarm if an aircraft is too close to the ground, water or a mountain. During the Peach plane’s descent, it sounded twice as the captain regained control.
Nobody on the plane was injured. A Peach spokesperson said afterwards that the pilot, who is from Argentina, had misunderstood air traffic control instructions. Peach said the pilot has been suspended, pending an investigation.
After the incident, the National Transportation Safety Board conducted an investigation into the matter. According to the safety board, the conversations between the pilot and co-pilot as they tried to connect with Naha airport officials and Kansai International Airport tower personnel had been altered and entirely erased by Peach Airline officials, TBS reported.
However, safety board officials discovered that the conversations had been recorded at the radio tower at Naha airport and still remained intact. The board is analyzing the sound files and investigating the state of affairs aboard the Peach Airlines flight leading up to the accident."
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The board is analyzing the sound files and investigating the state of affairsaboard the Peach Airlines flight leading up to the accident."
Thread Starter
Yes, and surely incident is a better word than accident. Lost in translation?
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Double Oak, Texas
Age: 71
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jolihok... "Lost in translation" .....
When I wrote that " state of affairs" was an interesting (to me) choice of phrase in the report what I sarcastically and poorly related to was a long ago 737 crash on approach to Colorado Springs which crashed killing all aboard due to a hard over rudder. I remember B.S. rumors being tossed about by powers that be, of some sort of bad ending to a romantic relationship between the Capt and Copilot of the 737 might have something to do with the crash. The general rule of thumb for aviation accidents...... It is nearly always "pilot error", rarely aircraft system/design fault.
When I wrote that " state of affairs" was an interesting (to me) choice of phrase in the report what I sarcastically and poorly related to was a long ago 737 crash on approach to Colorado Springs which crashed killing all aboard due to a hard over rudder. I remember B.S. rumors being tossed about by powers that be, of some sort of bad ending to a romantic relationship between the Capt and Copilot of the 737 might have something to do with the crash. The general rule of thumb for aviation accidents...... It is nearly always "pilot error", rarely aircraft system/design fault.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious how a GPS MAP display a/c can be allowed to arrive in this situation. The MAP would show the a/c to be 10nm short of the runway; the RA would have alerted the crew that they were close to the ground/sea. SA seems to have been AWOL: by 2 qualified pilots. Nighttime/IMC has no bearing on interpreting the displays.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, it certainly has. Couple that with the most incompetent air traffic controllers in Japan and the place is seldom out of the incident books :roll eyes: Even at 0130, when the US Air Force are tucked up in bed, Naha insists on the procedure i.e. dragging it in at 1000' for half a lifetime.......but cannot land before 0130 due to noise abatement
For those who have never been into Naha, some info.
Yes there is an RNAV Approach published for RWY18. But many operators (including mine) DO NOT allow RNAV approaches.
So the alternative is a VOR approach. And since many operators (including mine) DO NOT allow Managed VNAV on an NPA - you're on your own there.
No big deal, eh?
Well, maybe, but the published approach has a MANDATORY 1,000ft altitude at 8DME from the VOR. So you are going to fly 5 miles (roughly) in FULL LANDING CONFIG.
Yes, you must, because you are required to be stabilised by 1,000ft in most airlines, right?
Not only that - but also - ATC in Naha will more than likely instruct you to descend to 1,000ft way earlier. I've had it on downwind and base leg.
So this approach is anything but normal, or regular. Yes, they descended too early. But is this not an accident waiting to happen?
Dragging a modern jet along at 1,000ft agl for a dozen or more miles is a STUPID idea to begin with.
Blame those who designed the approach (US Military?).
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Algol
Yes, you must, because you are required to be stabilised by 1,000ft in most airlines, right?
A little like crossing the 300' headland north-east of LPMA at 1300'/250kts positioning for downwind. Yes, it triggers a 'too low gear' but is quite safe, briefed - and explained. Alternative is to set 1400' if you don't want the phone call.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How?
My Airbus alt selector allows 100' increments.
So ATC clear you to 1,000ft, but you'd fly 1,100ft?
Cheating, isn't it.
And if there's an 'event' of any kind - guess who's going to get a whipping.
My Airbus alt selector allows 100' increments.
So ATC clear you to 1,000ft, but you'd fly 1,100ft?
Cheating, isn't it.
And if there's an 'event' of any kind - guess who's going to get a whipping.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides that - we obviously have very different viewpoints on how aviation works (or SHOULD work).
I don't see it as my responsibility to 'make things work' that are of crap design.
I don't see it as my responsibility to stretch my neck out on the block to make up for the ineptitude of others.
This is a systemic problem. Not a pilot problem. They should bloody well fix it.
In the Court of Enquiry they may recommend the intercept altitude be increased to 2,000ft - but they won't be putting the blame on ME for breaking ATC instructions, or ignoring the published altitudes.
I don't see it as my responsibility to 'make things work' that are of crap design.
I don't see it as my responsibility to stretch my neck out on the block to make up for the ineptitude of others.
This is a systemic problem. Not a pilot problem. They should bloody well fix it.
In the Court of Enquiry they may recommend the intercept altitude be increased to 2,000ft - but they won't be putting the blame on ME for breaking ATC instructions, or ignoring the published altitudes.