View Full Version : "Swiss" makes emergency landing in Germany
10th Jul 2002, 23:50
According to the German news "tagesschau" a Swiss Prop plane made an emergency landing @<hidden> Werneuchen. No injuries or fatalities are being reported. The plane was enroute from Basel to Hamburg, and it is thought that the plane was running low on fuel. On landing the plane overran the runway and damage to the landing gear is being reported.
Can anyone confirm?
11th Jul 2002, 00:12
more info about the field
1499 meters / 80 metes wide
limited to 5,7 tons
11th Jul 2002, 00:29
Sounds like ex Crossair is out flying..
Will they ever learn..
Before you little boys overspeculate :
Airport was Neubrandenburg. aircraft did not overrun but there was some debris from the storm on the runway.
Normal Hamburg alternates ( Bremen, Hannover, Berllin) apperently all closed due to weather.
11th Jul 2002, 07:53
Negative it was Werneuchen just northeast of Berlin. Former soviet MiG-25 base but almost unused and limited to light a/c today. Wonder why they picked it over Finow and many other available former military bases.
Indeed it was Werneuchen.
11th Jul 2002, 08:25
I am quite concerned about the planning that was going on. There are TAF's and even METAR's available for the destination, and they should know about the active cold front that passed by then. The flight from Basel (BSL) to Hamburg (HAM) usually takes 1h45min, which means even the METAR's are still valid. In any case you may expect a handfull of problems, delays and probable diversions on such a stormy evening. So why are you already short of fuel on approach to your *first* planned alternate? (How was that about fuel planning guidelines?) And why do you plan an alternate east of the destination, sitting within the cold front storm system, and don't divert to a westerly alternate where the winds already calmed?
The Saab 2000 is a 50 seater according to http://www.swiss.com/index/sw-oc-fl-saab-2000.htm, and it had just 16 PAX on board, so there's no problem to take some extra fuel due to the stormy circumstances. I am no Saab 2000 rider, but I suspect the endurance of the plane to be somewhere around 3,5 hours (range is about 1'265NM @<hidden> CRZ speed of 370KTS). I suppose it must be possible to divert safely, or you don't go flying... And Basle wasn't so stormy at all, so a safe return to the homebase would have been possible!
How was that old saying: "Learning to fly takes about 45 hours. Learning when to fly can take a lifetime..."
Hope you don't take me wrong about my critical thoughts, but as a Swiss I am rather concerned about happenings like this. The Swiss people have paid lots of money to get back a national airline, and the press department is quite busy telling us how ravishing the new airline is. But if you have a critical eye on some happenings at the shorthaul fleet, it's quite concerning. Swissair (the former Swiss national medium and longhaul airline) had ADAS on every single aircraft (data system recording aircraft parameters during the flight), and a safety department which investigated these data after the flight, checked every single movement out of tolerance, every bank angle more than 35°, every "not so smooth" landing, searched for the reasons which led to such incidents, and published the findings into a regular safety brochure which was handed out to the flight staff to improve awareness and safety. I am aware that you will never get a 100% safety record, but you may come close, and Swissair at least tried to get there. I learned some weeks ago that Crossair didn't have any ADAS systems on their planes, and (on political pressure from the Crossair Cockpit Personal) even tore the ADAS out of the MD-80's they got from Swissair in the mid 1990's. I guess they know why... At least it is reassuring that Swiss now plans to setup ADAS systems in the shorthaul fleet and to get the former Crossair planes under the same supervision as Swissair did (the same people are now in charge of the safety department that have been at Swissair).
We are very critically watching the ongoing things... flight safety and training status at the former crossair shorthaul fleet, top management decisions which often remind us that many of the now top chiefs of Swiss International Air Lines formerly led a regional carrier and have no experience in leading a major longhaul carrier, and many more... I hope they realize that talking about being "world class" and being up there might be a difference...
Just my two pence...
11th Jul 2002, 13:57
Airfield Info (http://www.airports.de/airport.php?ICAO=EDBW)
11th Jul 2002, 14:26
Well, but it looks bigger from the air:
2 pics at: http://www.werneuchen.de/geschichte/flugplatz2.htm
11th Jul 2002, 17:33
Berlin reported the cold front passing exactly at this moment, when the Saab was trying to get on ground (2050 LT). They had a temperature drop of 11° C (from 29° C to 18° C), with winds about 25 knots gusting up to 50 knots, accompanied with heavy thunderstorms with rain throughout the Berlin region.
In contrary, Bremen reported less than 10 Knots of wind, Frankfurt reported less than 10 knots earlier, and Dusseldorf was dry already in the afternoon, reporting less than 10 knots wind.
Why did they choose an alternate inside the "cold front laundry machine"?
And the bottomline: All the others did their job well! No LH, no Condor, no Air Berlin incident reported this night, as far as I know.
Webwings, just be carefull spreading your eager arrogance around. You have obviously problems with having a neutral critical reply on this matter.
Please spread your comments out of wisdom and not out complete stupidity.
To quote you : You really don't get it.
11th Jul 2002, 19:16
4:58PM 2002.07.11 (GMT+1)
Further details of the landing of a SWISS aircraft at Werneuchen, Germany
" A SWISS aircraft was forced to land at the former German military airfield of Werneuchen yesterday, July 10, at around 20:50, owing to exceptionally adverse weather conditions in the region. The aircraft suffered severe damage on landing as a result of an obstacle on the runway. The 16 passengers and four crew members were uninjured. The aircraft, a Saab 2000, was operating flight LX 850 from Basel to Hamburg. The crew had been unable to land at either the destination airport or the intended diversion airports because of the exceptionally stormy conditions.
In planning the flight before departure from Basel, the crew allowed for both the destination airport of Hamburg and the alternate airports of Bremen and Hanover in their fuel calculations, in full compliance with standard operating procedures.
The crew also elected to carry an additional fuel reserve permitting up to 45 minutes of flight in a holding pattern. All planning was performed in full accordance with the requirements of the European Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA). The flight departed from Basel at 17:55 – ten minutes later than its scheduled departure – for air traffic control reasons.
The flight – LX 850 – was unable to land in Hamburg owing to storm front conditions. Subsequent attempts to land at Bremen, Hanover and Berlin also had to be aborted in view of the adverse weather in the area.
With the fuel remaining approaching the minimum reserve, the crew asked air traffic control to urgently provide it with an open alternate airport. They were then directed to the former military airfield of Werneuchen, which has a runway of around 1500 metres length. Despite information provided by ATC, the crew were unable to detect any obstacles on the runway. And, in view of the minimal fuel reserves available and the still-adverse weather, they were forced to take the decision to land.
During the rollout after touching down, however, the aircraft was severely damaged by a metre-high ridge of earth extending across the runway. Upon coming to a halt, the Captain ordered the evacuation of the aircraft, in accordance with standard procedures for such situations.
The aircraft – a Saab 2000 with the registration HB-IZY – was carrying 16 passengers and four crew members. There were no injuries.
The Captain, who is 33 years old, has been a SWISS pilot (and formerly a Crossair pilot) since 1996. The 28-year-old First Officer has been flying for the company since 1999. The two cabin attendants have been flying for the company since 1992 and 1998.
Most of the passengers and crew spent the night in Berlin, where they were cared for by SWISS personnel. The accident will be investigated by the German investigation authorities.
SWISS deeply regrets this incident and the inconvenience caused to its customers. It is relieved to know that none of the passengers or crew were injured. The company has despatched personnel from its Flight Safety and Technical Services units to Germany to assist the investigating authorities.
Note to editors: This is a summary of the facts known to us by 16:00 today, Thursday, July 11. Further information will follow as soon as it is available."
SWISS Corporate Communications
P.O. Box, CH-4002 Basel
Phone: +41 848 773 773, +41 1 564 2120 or +41 1 564 0000
Fax: +41 61 582 3554
11th Jul 2002, 19:18
What a good job this didn't happen to BA - the replies would have been a bit different...
11th Jul 2002, 21:25
TS+ Says :Before you little boys overspeculate..... (and then proceeds to quote totally the wrong airfield !
Then TS+ Says : Webwings, just be carefull spreading your eager arrogance around......
You got a mirror ?
11th Jul 2002, 22:58
This incident (or should it be called an accident) seems to touch a raw spot in a few SWISS people, it seems......
A look at the respective profiles explains a lot. Emotions run high in Switzerland at the moment.
Maybe diverting to the East of a cold front was not such a good idea ?
But that's speculating and with the benefit of hindsight we all are a lot cleverer than before. It's up to the two guys up front at the time to know.
+TS: watch your language !!
I. M. Esperto
12th Jul 2002, 05:06
A good photo:
12th Jul 2002, 08:11
"elected to carry a 45 minute reserve"
would that mean 45 minutes on top of the minimum or just the normal 45 minutes holding which you can't really "elect" not to take.
A metre-high mound of earth on the runway doesn't sound like storm debris either........
Maybe ATC wasn't up to date on the status of the aerodrome. I have some feeling that ATC doesn't know too much about secondary airports anyway (I've seen a US controller position where the controllers could call up all info including approach plates for airports in their sector on a screen next to his (antiquated) radar screen). Any (german) ATCer to comment on this.
We wouldn't even have carried approach plates for anything but designated destinations and alternates............
Regarding the decision to take an alternate closer to the action than the destination itself: the met briefings we're routinely issued don't really give a graphic view of ground conditions. The standard met briefing consists of a FL100-450 significant weather chart, wind charts from FL50-FL390 and a text printout of METARs and TAFs. You never get a surface to FL100 chart (if such a thing even exists) and compared to the US a lot of information doesn't seem to exist or at least isn't distributed to pilots on a regular basis (weather briefers have long been eliminated as a cost factor). So you're on your own to identify any trends in ground weather reports. Might have been a factor here (even though the stuff happening on that day would have reflected on the >FL100 chart as well).
12th Jul 2002, 08:38
I completely agree with Alpine Flyer: If they really talk about the Final Reserve according JAR, it's a shame to consider this to be an amount of fuel "elected [by the crew] to ... permitting up to 45 minutes of flight in a holding pattern".
Flying is about weather since Orville made its first hop. Everything else has been made much easier during the past 100 years: We have planes with indifferent and labile behaviour made guidable by supercomputers on board. We fly at Mach 2+. We fly longest-haul routes. We have automated collision avoidance systems.
But the weather problems still exist, and regarding thunderstorm activities with the imminent danger of microbursts and severe windshears, I believe that this is one of the most challenging topics for a pilot, to decide if the weather is flyable or not.
Assessing meteo is considered to be a very important issue to every pilot, and I hope that in everybody's own interest an in the interest of the paying souls we are hauling every day, we should be able to interprete the weather accurately. And I would be wondering if these cold front thunderstorms and gusts haven't been on the TAF's (and at least on the VOLMET's during the doomed flight). If anyone is unsure of interpreting the met stuff, this should be considered as a topic for the next ground instruction...
A far as I know, Swissair had a perfect met service (by MeteoSchweiz, the Swiss Meteo Agency) until her last days, giving great briefings to their crews, and therefore enabling them to be aware of weather at destination and alternate. I don't know how it is today (as Swiss has taken over the controls and has initially phased out nearly every thing that reminded of Swissair, as this was considered to be too expensive). I hope for them that the old met office is still running, providing them the same valuable met info prior to the flight as they had it before.
But decisions still lay in the hands of the pilots...
I agree, it's harder to decide when being at the controls (every one "gets dumber behind the controls" because of the workload, to quote a pilot pal of mine).
Must have been a bad situation for them pals up there, but my bad feeling about the incident still exists...
12th Jul 2002, 11:10
As an ex-Crossair Saab 2000 captain I feel qualified to comment on this incident.
Short of having the information from the FDAU's, CVR's, radar and radio tape; an accurate analysis of this occurence cannot be made. Clearly however, the incidental history of Crossair over the past three years speaks volumes! It is way past the time for the FOCA to take action. Unfortunately, they sit by as a willing accomplice to this unending downward spiral.
The level of experience of some Crossair captains is incredibly low. The level of "hands-and-feet" expertise, even lower. Right now, more than 30 highly experienced Crossair captains, are being told that they will have to leave the company by July next year, due to them being foriegn nationals working on B-Permits. The experience level will once again be diluted, and I unfortunately have to say it again: there will be another Crossair accident soon.
Go ahead and shoot me down. Once your done doing that, read back in my past posts here on PPRuNe; you'll find I've said it a few times before....
12th Jul 2002, 11:34
If the flight departed at 17:55 and landed at 20:50 the time in the air was nearly 3h. If the LX Information is correct that the crew asked for an available alternate before using the fuel of the final reserve and considering the time on route for a SAAB 2000 between Basel and Berlin those 45min seem to be real extra fuel to me (non including final reserve fuel).
12th Jul 2002, 11:56
Latest pics on http://www.pccb.de/
Click the "Notlandung..." -button please.
12th Jul 2002, 12:45
Grüezi Alpine Flyer and maxrpm,
OK, let me quickly quote from jet_noseover´s post : The crew also elected to carry an additional fuel reserve permitting up to 45 minutes of flight in a holding pattern. This means that they probably took another + - 600 kg of extra fuel.
I´m getting a little bit irritated by your posts. As an "ATPL student", "current on the PA 34 Seneca" according to your profile I think that you could be a little bit less arrogant from behind your computer screen sitting on your comfortable chair, saying what the crew ´should have done.´ As you correctly stated : "Learning to fly takes about 45 hours. Learning when to fly can take a lifetime..." so as an ATPL student I guess you´re still in the first part of the equation. ;)
I learned some weeks ago that Crossair didn't have any ADAS systems on their planes, and (on political pressure from the Crossair Cockpit Personal) even tore the ADAS out of the MD-80's they got from Swissair in the mid 1990's. At least it is reassuring that Swiss now plans to setup ADAS systems in the shorthaul fleet and to get the former Crossair planes under the same supervision as Swissair did (the same people are now in charge of the safety department that have been at Swissair). Who told you this ? Maybe an ex-SR/Aeropers pilot pal ?
We are very critically watching the ongoing things... flight safety and training status at the former crossair shorthaul fleet, top management decisions which often remind us that many of the now top chiefs of Swiss International Air Lines formerly led a regional carrier and have no experience in leading a major longhaul carrier, and many more... WE.....??? Who are "we ?" Aeropers maybe, ? With your knowledge of the Swissair procedures and the false accusations against the CCP and Crossair, I wonder if you really are an ATPL student, or maybe just a very frustrated ex-SR pilot.
12th Jul 2002, 14:31
Robert Vesco, you can't defend Crossair's record - its appalling!
12th Jul 2002, 17:04
12:27PM 2002.07.12 (GMT+1)
Further update on the landing of SWISS flight LX 850
A debriefing of the crew of Wednesday’s flight LX 850 from Basel to Hamburg and further investigations have produced new findings on the aircraft’s landing at the former military airfield in Werneuchen, Brandenburg, Germany.
In addition to LX 850, the dramatic weather conditions on the evening of Wednesday, July 10 forced five flights of other airlines bound for Hamburg to land at alternate airports. In the case of LX 850, the closure of the various alternate airports selected (including, finally, Finow air force base) forced the crew to land at the former military airfield of Werneuchen in view of their dwindling fuel reserves.
The approach to Werneuchen, which had been recommended by air traffic control, was made to Runway 08, i.e. from the west. The crew had decided on this approach because it was Runway 08 which had been in use at Berlin (Tegel) before the approach there had had to be aborted in view of the weather conditions.
The former military airfield was equipped with a concrete runway of approximately 2400 metres during its service years. At present, only the eastern part of this is available for flying, providing a runway of 1500 metres. The westernmost 900 metres, which are no longer in use, are separated from this shortened runway by a low earth wall.
The pilots had no documentation on the airfield on board, since it is only used by sport aircraft. The western section is marked as closed by a series of crosses, though these have been severely weathered over the years. The old runway markings – centreline, threshold and distance markers within the former touchdown zone – are still shown, and are actually easier to identify than the out-of-use crosses. The pilots were also unable to see the earth wall during their approach, in view of the fading light and the generally poor visibility caused by the prevailing weather conditions. Werneuchen has no runway lights.
Note to editors: This is a summary of the facts known to us at 11:00 on Friday, July 12. Further information will follow as soon as it is available.
12th Jul 2002, 17:06
Don´t you agree with the ´fact´ that this anti LX campaign is getting a bit silly ?
Crossair operated about 500 daily regional flight before all this mess with Swissair started and has expended enormously in the last decade. Perhaps this expansion has taken a toll on the safety record, but please let´s not forget that even ´well respected´ airlines have their share of f*ck ups ! Swissair has also crashed it´s fair share of aircraft in it´s history, and so has Monarch (bend 757 in Gibraltar) KLM (Tenerife), Air France (overrun in Tahiti) , Hapag Lloyd (rememer ´landing´without fuel in VIE) and even Qantas (overrun in Bangkok)..... the list goes on and on of accident that could have been prevented.
Maybe it´s a sad part of the learning curve for any expanding airline. So it´s very easy (as an unemplyed SR pilot maybe ?) to sit behind your computer and judge everybody.
12th Jul 2002, 17:19
Dear Robert Vesco,
well, let's talk facts then, and stay with facts, mate, not speculations!
I am a student at the former Swissair Aviation School (now being called "Swiss Aviation Training"), and *am* on the very beginning of my carreer. I *never* told anything else.
BUT: Being on the very beginning does not have to mean that I am an innocent little sheepish aircraft spotter. I handle aircraft as you do, it may be a little smaller than your vessel, but this doesn't mean I am not confrontated with weather, minimum descent altitudes and fuel calculations. I hate to pint fingers at personsn, but in contrary to you, I do the whole thang on single pilot operation and on raw data with A/P inop, whereas you may delegate a whole load of work to your PNF, your "George" and your FMS, your fuel calc's and flightplans are done by a dispatch office, and you don't even have to bother about cleaning your windscreens. I do not intend to be a wiseguy neither a god, and I am aware of my 100h in my book. But common sense is something you don't get with hours.
So far about my actual position.
The ADAS thing: I had the chance to talk with Mr. Schmid, the Swiss Safety Pilot. He is the person who is most current concerning flight deck safety in the company, and I really *don't* tell you what he has said to me, I just posted what he told me about the ADAS thing, and this is 100% true, unbleached and unbent. And it's very alarming. Ask him yourself if you want to get the story in full.
The WE thing: I have spend a *really* big shitload of money to join this ATPL school. Until the breakdown of the SAir Group in fall 2001, talented applicants were given a preliminary working contract (so you had the chance - very good performance during the ATPL course given - to directly enter a Swissair A320 cockpit after the course, and the whole education had been financed by Swissair. I was one of them, and finished my university ten days before the ATPL course started, had literally no money, and was told three days before the start of the course that Swissair was broke, and our education not paid at all. We had the chance to decide within a week if we pay cash or forget being a Swissair pilot. I had *real* pains to get the money together, and am now on my way. And as our whole class is desperatly looking for a future job, we are very hopeful that Swiss is hiring when we finish our course. BUT: If Swiss continues to make bad press with incidents and accidents like yesterday, it will be soon over with passenger loyality and fat advertisements about "being the most civilised airline of the world". And *therefore* WE are watching this ongoings very close. Got it?
Listen Mate, get the facts: Swissair had no incidents that made it worth getting to the press since years and years, except the halifax incident which we have to admit couldn't have been worse, but how could one have saved this situation? Complete electrical failure, cockpit burning at a heat of hundreds of degrees celsius and thick smoke... but no runway overshoots, no main gear taxied off a taxyway and stuck in the mud during a turn, etc.
Crossair in contrary has a whole load of accidents and incidents, where I just have to say bless me, that was a very questionable thing again. There have been some rather strange incidents at Crossair, and I still feel *very* bad about these. Nassenwil and the Birchwil incidents. Busting a MDA on a Non-prec in adverse weather conditions is still one of the worst things to do in aviation, especially if you are driven by "homecomingitis". And how do you completely lose situational awareness in a SF340 cockpit during a wrongly started turn (Nassenwil)? Why did Crossair feature so many runway excursions (Zurich Avro last summer, Sarajevo Avro last december)/taxy problems (Pristina MD80 1998)? And why
does a classmate of mine observe an Avro landing with a tailwind component of nearly 20 knots on ZRH RWY 14, whilst sitting on the jumpseat of a Swiss Airbus going around on 4m finals due to the excessive tailwind information? What about the Aosta excursion (notably in the days of GPS)? Why did LX drivers hate and fight against the introduction of ADAS, a means which would improve safety and awareness? Why did a pal of mine who worked for the LX dispatch @<hidden> BSL complain about a MD80 flight to the Canaries, where - crusing over the Mediterranean - the Cabin Crew finds out that there are dozens of required life vests missing? And a jumpseat ride I made from ZRH to BSL where the captain was asked inbound to LUMEL if he could do a visual to RWY 26 at BSL, he cknowledged, and put the Avro on its nose, extending everything available, hunting down with more than 3000ft/min VS, and overflying the threshold 26 with still four
white on the VASIS and the speed 15 KTS over the Final Approach speed, really banging the plane to ground like I have never seen it before (try to produce a real "bang" on the Avro with it's trailing main landing gear!!) in order to get the thing stopped before the end of the runway.
I'm just giving you facts. I don't want to act as a wiseass, and I don't want to slate Crossair's pilots 'in globo'! I have good pals flying for Crossair where I would trustingly sleep in the back of the plane. But there are others, and these have to be phased out!
There's so much small things that not necessariy lead to an accident, but I'd say that Crossair has been very lucky not to have more accidents. I just feel bad about it..it's a deep fear that Swiss will be very miscredited by the flying public, if such incidents keep on happening. The eye of the world is on the Swiss
aviation, now that Crossair with Birchwil and Skyguide with the recent midair have been miscredited worldwide by TV stations like CNN.
That's facts. No stories, no bitter Aeropers or Ex Swissair pilot. No executive. No Crossair hater.
Just a ATPL student bloke with nearly 100h of piston shakers, some common sense and open eyes.
Welcome to reality!
I wish you all the best for your career, and hope you are not that stuck in financial troubles as WE yougsters, who have to bleed to fulfil our dreams and get our wings...
PS: Excuse me that I stressed your nerves and time budget... I hope I didn't bore you...
12th Jul 2002, 23:12
Wind your necks in and learn boys! You, could easily be next!
13th Jul 2002, 00:45
very good, that's exactly what we need right now - ex-SWR and ex-CRX-people bashing each other. this times should be over now, because THERE IS ONLY ONE AIRLINE LEFT!!! I preferred SWR too from the ops point of view, but right now, this doesn't matter anymore. if these people don't stop throwing dirt at each other, we will end up with no national airline at all, but only with slightly bigger foreign aircraft to EDDF and EGLL. there's enough hard work left to be done, and we really shouldn' t waste energy by fighting people which are in the same company, but came "from the other side". if it's what you want, then just go ahead. and especially thanks to all the people talking about all the nice details about things that went wrong on CRX-flights and "something will happen again". i guess we can read about it in the next SoBli.....
13th Jul 2002, 02:01
Wind your necks in and learn boys! You, could easily be next!
Exactly my point 126,9 ! It can happen to anybody, so let´s stop this airline bashing bullshit ! That´s what I wrote in my last reply.
Yo Webwings :
I do the whole thang on single pilot operation and on raw data with A/P inop, whereas you may delegate a whole load of work to your PNF, your "George" and your FMS, your fuel calc's and flightplans are done by a dispatch office I know dude ! Been there, done that (too) AND got my licence. ;)
I do not intend to be a wiseguy neither a god Nooo ! Not at all ! :rolleyes:
I just posted what he told me about the ADAS thing, and this is 100% true He told you, so therefore it must be true ! Jesus dude ! You´re more gullible then I thought ! :eek:
...and was told three days before the start of the course that Swissair was broke, and our education not paid at all. We had the chance to decide within a week if we pay cash or forget being a Swissair pilot. I had *real* pains to get the money together, and am now on my way. Yeah I know man ! "Learning to fly takes about 45 hours. Learning when to fly can take a lifetime..." Remember ??? It´s a judgement thing ! ;) Looking at the Swiss aviation future (with today´s fact´s) I think it´s fair to say that you made a poor decision.
Swisair had no incidents that made it worth getting to the press since years and years, except the halifax incident which we have to admit couldn't have been worse I´m absolutely not denying that SR was a safe airline, but following yoúr way of thought, anybody can (sitting behing their computer with 20/20 hindsight) judge and blame the crew for not making an immediate overweight landing, instead of trying to follow procdures by dumping fuel. It´s all so f*cking easy in the theory books, but I´m sure that the pilots on SR 111 tried their very best, but unfortunately did not successfully make it to Halifax. Just like the Crossair crew If that stupid wall of sand across the runway would not have severely damaged the aircraft, this whole story would not have been blown out of proportion like it is by people like you ! The crew did everything they could, carrying extra fuel and trying to divert to other airfields, unfortunately it did not completely work, although nobody was hurt.
13th Jul 2002, 02:37
What justifies a wall of earth at the approach/departure end of a runway anyway? Is that denoted in the taxiway plate?
If a runway (or parts of it) is still in use, aren't the markings supposed to be kept up to date, including the Xs?
13th Jul 2002, 04:36
well, here's how the wall (Hello Pink Floyd) looks like at EDBW
The wall and the plane (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/lx850/3.shtml)
Studi, I did not see any relevant facts (yet) about the incident.
The only socalled fact I have been reading are a list of things happened with Mr Webwings on a jumpseat (wich should be a privilege and not something to later criticise people upon) and other rumour-like stories.
Check; those are facts. Also fact is that all the airports where closed, also fact is that the gear collapsed after an emergency landing, also fact is everybody got out (alive).
Maybe there where better options, also worse.
13th Jul 2002, 09:19
labile behaviour made guidable by supercomputers on board
They are not all that brilliant. Mid-80:ies tech.. :D
13th Jul 2002, 09:46
Well, I'm sorry to see the waves going high about this theme.
I'll stop sharing my opinion about the incident at this point, and leave it to the german BFU (AIB) to get the facts about the incident and the conclusions.
About the whole rest I just say: There's enough facts from different sources around. Get them by yourselves. Take and interprete it as you like.
Perhaps this expansion has taken a toll on the safety record, but please let´s not forget that even ´well respected´ airlines have their share of f*ck ups ! [...] Maybe it´s a sad part of the learning curve for any expanding airline.
If you think it's just normal that an airline (I'm talking about *any* airline, not LX) takes a certain death and material toll during expansion, I am really concerned. To me, phrases like this one show the complacency concerning this theme. If the others already done it, why do we have to do it over again? Why not try with every means possible to avoid these things?
I'll leave the interpretation about these things up to everybody.
And after all, I want to underline my hope that the Swiss pilot's corps will find a common way ASAP, and this in my opinion can only be done by a common safety culture, a common high standard training and instruction culture, and a commonly good safety record. As I already said, my bad feelings (and the feelings of the other critics) will vanish as soon as the incident rate decreases.
We'll see what the future will bring...
13th Jul 2002, 10:08
If you think it's just normal that an airline (I'm talking about *any* airline, not LX) takes a certain death toll during expansion, I am really concerned. Maybe you should read the whole post again and try to see the big picture. Let me rephrase, almost all airlines (well respected and not so well respected, including Swissair) have had accidents which could have been prevented if you start annalyzing the chain of errors afterwards. It reminds me a little bit of the last world cup football, where all over sudden thousands of people from all walks of live turn out to be better coaches and/or refferees then the ones actually doing the job in Korea and Japan.
I want to underline my hope that the Swiss pilot's corps will find a common way ASAP, and this in my opinion can only be done by a common safety culture, a common high standard training and instruction culture, and a commonly good safety record. I fully agree with you on this point Webwings ! Unfortunately managment and Aeropers have decided differently where they seem strive for a company where the ex-LX pilots fly the ex-LX airplanes with the ex-LX procedures and the ex-SR pilots fly the ex-SR airplanes with ex-SR procedures, with different payscales that discourages ex-SR pilots to fly ex-LX airplanes and a seniority list that would prevent any LX pilot to go to the ex-SR fleet. This would have been the perfect opportunity for the Swissair pilots to enlighten the Crossair pilots with their infinite wisdom, unfortunaly they have decided not to share it with anybody. :( :( :( So much for that "great" safety culture of the bankrupt Swissair !
13th Jul 2002, 11:59
I don't want to lose much words about your latter part, because I am no insider about this. But if it is really this trench warfare that it seems to be, it's a sad chapter.
I completely agree: We have something new there, called Swiss, and I hope for all of us (and I inuclude the hopeful youngsters that are already peering for a job at this cmpany) that the merger will work well. For sure there can't be the big happiness within the next few weeks (as many company mergers have shown), but I hope that in the long term they find a solution concerning seniority, salaries and everything else.
And it's like all the times: There are good ones and there are bad ones. There have been certain Swissair pilots using odd callsigns on the radio for weeks, in order to illustrate to the world how bad this merger was in their point of view. Hmmm...
But I am happy about the latest improvements, as the transmission shows which I heard this morning in ZRH, a Swiss A320 in sequence behind a Swiss-ex crossair Embraer RJ: "Behind the company, will line up RWY 28!" It seems to get working... ;)
13th Jul 2002, 18:38
Hoi Webwings - I share your concerns, and my own future here in Züri in totally dependent on the future success of Swiss, but could you be a little more tactful on this public forum?
Züri and Switzerland are small places - I've probably been on the 759 bus with you and I can't even step off a train without bumping into some (ex-SR) colleage - and word gets around quickly.
I'm trying to say, don't wash dirty laundry in public:
maybe it loses something in the translation, but I read some of your comments as "...only an idiot Crossair pilot could be so stupid to make that dumb mistake". Personally, I don't like the tone of that. Incidents will happen to you in the future, no one is perfect. I wish you good luck with your training and if your LX A340 loadsheet is wrong in the future, then that'll be my fault!
Tchüss und grüssli
13th Jul 2002, 20:41
Yep I agree, DCS99, that emotions run high these times. And I will chose a more tactful wording concerning my opinion next time. Everybody who felt attacked by the form, I'm really sorry about that.
But a more tactful wording doesn't wipe away my concerns about the future of Swiss. I hope everything will go the right way... and that everyone will do whatever is in his hands to achieve that goal "no delay".
I'll do my part... and if it is that I moderate my tongue about that theme and keep the emotions part away from here... ;)
Cheers! And let's be careful up there!
13th Jul 2002, 21:06
This would have been the perfect opportunity for the Swissair pilots to enlighten the Crossair pilots with their infinite wisdom, unfortunaly they have decided not to share it with anybody. So much for that "great" safety culture of the bankrupt Swissair !
Did you ever think about your behaviour? Your way of approaching ex-SR pilots?
14th Jul 2002, 06:17
Sad to watch this "debat fratricide" ( sorry do not know how to translate this in English but the Swiss will know what it means ) in this forum.
Stop throwing stones at each other. The LX Saab2000 Capt that made this emergency landing in bad wx, with apparently no doc/chart did a very good decision and probably saved lives for not attempting something bolder at his intended destination or at his normal alt fields.
The real culprit of this mess for me is more the idiot that decided to put a sand wall in the middle of the runway, rather than LX management.
An by the way, overruning runways is not the exclusivity of LX . SR also had his a few years back in Athens. A bloody concrete wall at the end of the runway if my memory is correct. But there also the Greeks sent the crew in Jail, not the local guy that decided to put a wall in there.( to protect passing cars from beeing hit by overruning aircraft [true]..
But that was a long time ago. I wonder how the BFU will react ..
I have made many rides in SR and LX cockpits , as well as on many, many others airlines, and believe me, give me a Swiss crew anyday.
Learn from all this mess and improve. Help Swiss(air) getting back to their feet and be once again the airline that it was sounds a good option to me. I do not like to shoot at ambulances.
14th Jul 2002, 07:23
"The LX Saab2000 Capt that made this emergency landing in bad wx, with apparently no doc/chart did a very good decision and probably saved lives for not attempting something bolder at his intended destination or at his normal alt fields. "
Is he really as good as you wright ATC Watcher? How did the Saab came into this situation? Wy found all other aircrafts a safer solution with the current weather situation in north Germany?
I think it is a lot too early to make such statements....
14th Jul 2002, 08:20
it is easy for us to comment now he should have done this and could have done that. as i understand the guy did everything as sop and information available at planing stage. it would be unfair to jump into critical conclusions.
having said that i would think following plays some role:
- usually company policy, tri,tc and TRE tend to be bit critical of
pilots who tend to uplift higher fuel.
- as webboy pointed out, a smart dispatcher elects favourable
alternates by taking into consideration for wx,notam,ect.
it is too easy a job just following sop, a little commonsence and
extra effort of dispatcher makes colleages life in the air much
- let us not be too critical of our colleagues, let the investigator
do the job. noone is perfect,we alyas learn from mistakes.
- German TV reported the weather man in Germany were caught
by surprise that forcast was so far off. In the us or in tropics this
kind of weather is quite common but not in North Europe.
- When thing go wrong it will go wrong. murphy.
14th Jul 2002, 08:59
773829, good point. Let's wait .
Middlepath, I can also agree with you. I have met Murphy many times in my carreer. He is still out there ...waiting...
But expecting a sand wall in the middle of a runway needs some extraordinary imagination don't you think ?
14th Jul 2002, 09:31
The sand wall is as interesting as the problem that maybe even ATC didn't know about it. Otherwise the pilot might have been warned. The Saab 2000 doesn't seem to be sooo hot that you can't put it down in 4900ft with max-effort braking & reverse (any Saab 2000 driver to comment on this?)
Certainly do not have an insight into the "problems" of Crossair, but seems to me that the Saab 2000 Captain did the best he could under the circumstances. ATC pointed him toward the airfield, he approached in the direction he thought best (with the information available), landed in twilight on an unlighted runway, and would have been quite OK if the airfield authorities had NOT selected to put an obstruction on the runway, instead of (hello, what a novel idea) marking the runway properly in the first place.
This was certainly better than facing fuel exhaustion and trying to land on a road.
Give the guy(s) a break! They did their best, everyone walked away, so whats the problem?:confused: :rolleyes:
14th Jul 2002, 15:18
Alpine Flyer, the Saab Pilot had no 4900 ft for landing because he tried the 08. As the whole runway was not lighted, and is was short before becoming dark, he aimed for the 2950 ft unusable westerly part of the runway.
This part was in fact marked as unusable, but the markings were hardly visible. The old threshold, tdz and centerline markings were much better to see. Additionally the controller, who recommended to go to this airfield, had no local knowledge, so he could not inform the unlucky Saab driver about the silly obstacle.
If I were "Swiss", I would sue the Werneuchen Airport-Manager for putting up this senseless obstacle on an active and usable runway.
14th Jul 2002, 15:37
I am new on this site and as usual a chat starts with some interesting questions but quickly deviates to a stupid word-war, from my point of view, pilot should visit more frequently psy's to talk about their ego
14th Jul 2002, 16:06
Whilst I make some allowance for some of the debaters where English is not their first language I would like to point out to those who are not experienced in actual turboprop flying to beware of their comments. We all know how 'knowledgeable' you can become if you read all the books and even if you spend a lifetime in the jump seat. When it comes to the actual operation, people without the necessary experience only serve to antagonise those of us who have done this and still do this every day of our lives when they try to enter the debate with their 'knowledgeable' experience and theories, especially when they are critical of the pilots.
I would like to ask that the 'armchair experts', the ones without actual experience of this type of operation to stop winding the rest of us up with their hindsight and changing this thread into a debate about how good Crossair pilots may or may not be. As has been pointed out, the waether forecasters sometimes get it very wrong. Ask anyone about hurricanes in the south of England a few years ago.
When the a/c has a fuel emergency, for whatever reason, and the weather is much worse than forecast, then you have to get it down as soon as possible and preferably at an airport with a long enough runway. It appears that in this case the pilot was caught unawares as was the controller that this runway had a earth mound across it. At the end of the day no one was hurt and the investigation will no doubt reveal the actual chain of events that led to the accident. As is always the case it will not be one single item but a chain. All I ask is that the 'armchair experts', the ones with no actual experience of airline ops, to pipe down and stop trying to persuade the rest of us that just because you are on an ATPL course and have a few hundred hours in a Piper that you can tell the rest of us how it should have been.
Nothing to add and very well spoken, Capt PPRuNe!
To the mentioned guy:
Get your License first!
(And maybe some experience in an airline cockpit and airline ops!)
Didn't mean to attack anyone.
Read Cpt PPRuNe's posting again, please:
I would like to ask that the 'armchair experts', the ones without actual experience of this type of operation to stop winding the rest of us up with their hindsight....
It's just to easy to do those silly prejudgements comfortably on the ground after an incident happend without having been in the cockpit.
Let's wait for the BFU report, o.k.!
15th Jul 2002, 13:09
No, it's not because it has been withheld by the swiss government authorities in order to protect the taxpayer's money the government had invested in the new "swiss" airline...
But this time, the accident investigation is going to be conducted by the german authorities, which gives me hope that the outcome will be less banana-republic-style...
Hold at Saffa
15th Jul 2002, 13:15
Am I the only one who looks to accidents and incidents as a learning opportunity? I've been flying professionally for 22 years on every continent except Antarctica. If I've learned one thing above all else, it is that we as professional aviators have something to learn from EVERY incident and accident, no matter where or how is occurs.
I believe professional pilots are a global collective, and if one of our number makes a mistake, or is confronted with a difficult set of circumstances, then the entire collective is in a position to benefit from the investigation into accidents, so that similar problems are more appropriately handled in the future.
Churlish mud-slinging is not only wide of the mark, but grist for the journalist's mill. Personally, I am relieved that no-one was injured, or worse. As for the current growing pains of the new airline in Switzerland, might I suggest redirecting this dreadful wave of negative energy into an investment for a safer future within the context of international flight safety. Working together is the only way forward.
Does anyone have concrete information about how much fuel was left on board the aircraft after it stopped on the runway?
Also, regarding the proper marking of the runway with crosses, I don't think any pilot would have gone "Oh my, this runway has crosses on it, better go around and find another airport." Crosses on the runway don't even hint at the fact that there's a huge pile of earth on the runway.
Crosses on the runway or not, as long as it seems like a long slab of concrete which you can land on, I'd land, if I was running on fumes.
Still, when you're ultimately pushed in a situation where your final alternate is closing and you don't have much fuel, there's just two options:
1. Land at the closing airport anyway
2. Try to find somewhere else close to land without knowing IF there's anything else to land on.
In order to arrive at option 2 with your decision (as a crew of course), the weather at the closing airport has to be so incredibly bad that it's physically unwarranted to land the aircraft there.
At least, that's my opinion.
15th Jul 2002, 18:59
ATI is reporting 420kg left on board, information direct from investigators.
15th Jul 2002, 22:19
Regarding the runway markings: I don't really think that better markings would have made a significant difference. The visual approach was made in poor lighting and with no available runway lights. Maybe better markings would have given the flight crew two or three more seconds advance notice that the runway is closed and potentially unsafe.
I do not understand why a man-made obstruction was built on the runway. Is it the typical "we don't want big airplanes here" anti general-aviation attitude?
Whatever the exact reason(s) for the low-fuel status are, I think that the pilots did very good in landing the plane. And this is why we get paid for, to provide the best service in safety in any given situation.
7 7 7 7
15th Jul 2002, 22:39
ATI is reporting 420kg left on board, information direct from investigators Anyone to translate this into flight time ?
15th Jul 2002, 23:57
Ah well that's another off my holiday list,that's if there's no ATC PROB'S THIS SUMMER!!!!!!!!.
NJR.(FIRST OUT THE TAXI,LAST TO THE BAR)!!!!!!!!:D :D
16th Jul 2002, 03:13
It occured to me that not too long ago, a Saab 340 flying for a Mexican regional airline (probably Aeromexico) made an emergency landing in a dirt-strip runway. Apparently they were low on fuel. I wonder if there might be any connections in regards to systems etc. Never flown a 340 or 2000, so I cannot tell. It might just be an unlucky "coincidence"...
420 kgs gives about 28 minutes (900 kgs per hour)
16th Jul 2002, 09:14
420 kgs gives about 28 minutes (900 kgs per hour) Thanks for the info.
Just wondering: does that imply that there was no real "extra" reserve fiuel, short of the 45 min mandatory reserve ?
16th Jul 2002, 09:40
I can see what you're saying, atakacs, but I think the question is somewhat moot.
At what point does reserve fuel stop being reserve fuel? If there was 45 mins reserve on the Saab and still 30mins left even after the Tour de Deutschland then, IMHO, the safety net has done its job.
Look at it this way: if the 45min fuel reserve hadn't been there, this whole event might have ended less happily. As it stands, Swiss just has a Saab with knackered wheels.
Typical Fuel senario :
Taxi : standard x kgs
Trip : from a to b
CF : 5 % of trip (compensate stronger head wind e.g.)
Alternate (from b to c sid+star)
Final Reserve : 30 min holding
Extra : decided by crew to have as extra fuel. (eg. 600 kgs)
First part is the minimum required !
Extra = Extra
16th Jul 2002, 13:48
At what point does reserve fuel stop being reserve fuel? If there was 45 mins reserve on the Saab and still 30mins left even after the Tour de Deutschland then, IMHO, the safety net has done its job
Not really my point. I was reacting to the claim by Swiss that the pilots "elected to carry an additional fuel reserve permitting up to 45 minutes of flight in a holding pattern "
So IMHO they did nothing special - just followed regulations. I'd say that the PR folks outdid themselves on this one...
So IMHO they did nothing special - just followed regulations. I'd say that the PR folks outdid themselves on this one...
No again not correct; these 45 minutes are extra on the minimum required. (In the min. required there is 30 min. holding included)
16th Jul 2002, 16:34
Where do you see the 30 minutes holding fuel in the minimum required fuel?
The Final Reserve equals to 30 minutes flight time at holding speed at 1500 ft above aerodrom elevation in standard conditions at the estimated landing mass.
(OM A SWISS)
BUT this FINAL RESERVE has to stay on board is not for burning. That means you can not plan to burn it, but you have to calculate to have it on board after landing! So you still are able to do a go-around and still have some fuel left!!
16th Jul 2002, 20:54
Not really correct.
You fly from a to b.
b is closed due to weather.
Now you are going from b to c, your alternate.
Unfortunately the runway of c is closed due to a weird party.
You spend 30min in the holding 1500ft above the aerodrome until the police has chased away the weird people from the runway.
Now you land on the runway and all your engines die on the runway due to fuel exhaustion and so you need a tow.
This means, you were flying on minimum required fuel -
- totally legal!
16th Jul 2002, 21:45
Hello Midnight Blue
Here the exact wording from the SWISS OM A:
Commitment to Proceed
Situation may arise, where the applocationj of the rules is no longer possible or may lead to increased operational risks with no gain in safety. In this case, the commander has to make the choice whether to divert to the ALT or to continue to (or hold over) the DEST.
He must take into account:
- The remaining fuel;
- The weather at the intended landing aerodrom (actual, trend, seasonal aspects);
- The traffic situation (peak hours, familiarity with the aerodrom/apprtoach proceedures, single/multiple runway layout, etc.)
so as to land with not less than FINAL RESERVE FUEL!!
17th Jul 2002, 00:06
Thanks for your inut, 773829.
So to put this matter to a rest: according to those data, was there any "extra" fuel in the bird, i.e. anything more than what would have been dictated by the airline operation standards ?
17th Jul 2002, 16:38
Ok, I got the wording from EWG FOM 184.108.40.206.1 e) - the definition of final reserve fuel:
"Final reserve fuel must be the fuel to hold for 30min (45min, if planning without destination alternate) at holding speed at 1500 ft above aerodrome elevation in ISA, calculated with the estimated landing weight on arrival at the alternate or the destination, when no alternate is required."
So why take final reserve fuel anyway, if you are not allowed to use it?
We (EWG) are not allowed to land at destination with less the diversion fuel (alternate fuel + final reserve).
So if you need to go to your alternate due to the circumstances, of course it is legal to use you alternate fuel, and if you need to hold at the alternate, of course it is legal to start using your final reserve and land with less.
What are you doing at SWISS, when you get to your alternate with not more than final reserve fuel and need to hold there for 10min?
Or hold 10min and turn yourself in to jail for breaking aviation rules after landing?
I think, it might be a misunderstanding, as you read it from your manual.
To avoid all this scenario, I take extrafuel, whenever it deems necessary to me (TS,FG,wind,traffic...)
Grüezi to Switzerland!
I like ZRH very much, have been there yesterday, and I wish the very best for SWISS!!
17th Jul 2002, 16:41
I think it was stated, that the crew took 45min extrafuel with them, and after landing they had 480kg left in the tanks, which is around 28min flighttime. I am relating to previous posts.
17th Jul 2002, 21:39
If you come close to final reserve fuel you have to declare an emergency, so you get priority for landing and do not have to hold for 10 minutes!
Thats why you should plan to land with not less than final reserve fuel.
19th Jul 2002, 18:51
Interestingly, at our last ground refresher, we were told that on a flight to BSL, admitedly in fine weather, we do not have to plan an alternate. Look at the chart, crossing runways, and ILS on 16 and only circling approaches to two of the other runways. It's not surprising the poor guy was a bit confused. Granted the weather was bad but we're encouraged to go fast, carry min fuel and commit to an airfield like BSL.
20th Jul 2002, 07:46
Not planning for an alternate, is like having a pilot with a death wish. For something's sake, you permanently plan for an alternate even while riding a bike or driving a car, let alone going to a 3rd dimension.
I'll add that to my list of questions asked before deciding to fly with anybody.
And just for my understanding, which is kind of cloudy after your comments, wasn't BSL the point of departure in all of this rather than the destination (which was HAMBURG if my memory still serves).
Hope the above doesn't sound too aggressive - it is IMHO however necessary that it be said.
What goes up comes down - the opposite is not always true unfortunately
20th Jul 2002, 14:33
I would rather belive in a book, than what somebody tell at a GSR.
If you have the SWISS OM "A" you can read under Chapter 8.1 / page 28 para. 63.2 what you need, that one can plan without dest. alternat.
But still. I never would leave with this required fuel (legal amount), even if everything looks perfect!