PPRuNe Forums

Go Back   PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Forgotten your Username/Password?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:15   #101 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,141
A lot of people here who clearly don't fly seem obsessed by the fact they shot an approach at both ends. Traffic permitting there is nothing whatsoever wrong with this. The vis may be better at one end compared with the other. The tapes may expand on this.
silverknapper is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:16   #102 (permalink)

 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 45
Posts: 4,745
Quote:
so why dont we work on known fact instead of rumor and speculation when trying to learn from this accident.
Fact: Vis was bad
Fact: more than one approach was made
Fact: 75% of aeroplane accidents are caused by pilot error
Fact: they crashed.

English speaking is not a factor (you don't need to be able to speak English to read flight instruments), therefor either they had extreme bad luck and some sort of failure on approach which caused them to crash, or they messed up the approach and crashed. You also can tell from the flight instruments when you are above, at or below minimums and so even if they were not passed proper weather info, that judgement should have been made in the cockpit.

Therefore I'd suggest that there is a 25% chance that they had a failure which caused this.
englishal is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:19   #103 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 2,300
The weather was reported as fog with 375 meters vis and the cloud base was 100 ft. Since this was a Cat 1 approach there is no way you can have had the required visual references to land when at the DH. Personally on receipt of a Metar like the above I just head for the alternate, unless there is some weather phenomenon forecast to cause a significant improvement in the weather, which was not the case when this accident occurred. I could maybe see one approach with the hope that you get lucky and see a hole but to fly 3, that is lunacy.

I know we are supposed to not rush to judgement, let all the facts come out etc etc, but I think it is time to call a spade a bloody shovel. These guys obviously kept on going lower and lower on multiple approaches until they hit the ground.

The accident stats are clear. This is just another example, in a long line of tragic examples, of aircraft crashing after multiple approaches. The US statistics are that the third approach is up to 15 times more likely to result in an accident than the first.......
Big Pistons Forever is online now   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:26   #104 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverknapper View Post
A lot of people here who clearly don't fly seem obsessed by the fact they shot an approach at both ends. Traffic permitting there is nothing whatsoever wrong with this. The vis may be better at one end compared with the other.
Done it myself - into Leeds/Bradford. After holding because the fog put the RVR below minima, we undertook an ILS onto the active runway (32, I believe). At DA we were still not visual so I did a go around and flew the MAP. On the way, one of the crew saw that the other end of the runway was clear so we then did an ILS to runway 14 and landed without incident. All perfectly safe, perfectly sensible and perfectly legal.

Different point - I trained 4 chaps who went to Manx 2 to fly the Metroliner. 3 of them left at the first opportunity citing it as "the sort of company that you leave as soon as possible".
moggiee is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:28   #105 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 26
Posts: 9
Big Pistons Forever & englishal

Seems a bit wrong placing blame and assigning cause without any evidence.

Lets forget spanish or non-british pilots being an issue as stated you dont need english to read numbers on an insturment and also all JAR pilots must have some degree of ability to speak english as this is now tested so not an issue.

but you dont know whats gone on, you dont know if ATC advised the crew of a improvment in weather you dont know if there was a malfunction all the "facts" reported are from the media who lets face it arnt pilots. and also we all know that what a metar states and what is the actual can be very different.

So it seems a little insensitve this soon after a tragic accident where lives were lost that you go finger pointing at crew and poor flying when you have no facts above whats gone on.

I dont want to gloss over whats been a sad event but there needs to be time to asses whats happened before conculsions are made. Not based on stats of other accidents or what we think.
AlexAlcock is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:30   #106 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 45
Posts: 2,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by big pistons forever
The weather was reported as fog with 375 meters vis and the cloud base was 100 ft. Since this was a Cat 1 approach there is no way you can have had the required visual references to land when at the DH
I have personally seen Cork go from CAVOK to below CAT II from TOD to arriving at the LOC... (Off to Shannon we went) Vice versa, I've seen Cork go from NO-GO to CAT I in a couple of minutes. Ergo your comment vis a vis 375m/100' doesn't mean anything at this airport. Cork airport is on top of a cloudy and windy hill.... The weather changes very rapidly!

Besides - I've been cleared for CAT I approach (this is back in the 90s') only to be given RVR of 300m with the landing clearance As I say this was a while ago... Otherwise Cork is a great airport to operate to!
White Knight is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:34   #107 (permalink)

 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 45
Posts: 4,745
I'm not placing blame, only the facts.

It is irrelavent what ATC passed to the crew, if they couldn't see the runway at minimums (whichever applied) then they should have gone missed. They may well have had another situation developing that we don't know about, but fact is that pilots do screw up.

A friend of mine once screwed up on an IAP. Cost his life and 4 others (flew into a mountain when he should have gone missed).
englishal is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:34   #108 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 330
Fact or wild specualtion..?

Quote:
Therefore I'd suggest that there is a 25% chance that they had a failure which caused this.
Quote:
I could maybe see one approach with the hope that you get lucky and see a hole but to fly 3, that is lunacy.
As you rightly say 3 attempts is lunacy, most guys attempt a 2nd approach down to DA and then divert if not visual. Which means we may be making an assumption that because 3 approaches were made these guys were taking an unneccesary risk without thought. Not really fair to them given that no-one here was on the flight deck at the time.

Without invoking confirmation bias the thinking that may have been applied by this crew was driven by what they may have thought were their only option i.e. to attempt to get into Cork at all costs. Which then possibly suggests a critical failure of some form....perhaps a fuel issue? There didnt appear to be any signs of fire on impact although clearly this does not suggest a low fuel situation.

Lets consider all options before we start blaming crew and apportioning the title of "cowboy" to operators...
Pilot Positive is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:37   #109 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever View Post
The weather was reported as fog with 375 meters vis and the cloud base was 100 ft.
375m VISIBILITY or 375m RVR? There is a BIG difference.

If a measured RVR is not available then the "equivalent" RVR is calculated by multiplying the measured met vis by a factor of 1.5. So, 375m VIS becomes a factored met vis of 562m "RVR" (equivalent). But if the measured RVR was 375m then that is a different story.

As for cloudbase, the acceptable minimum on an ILS approach is 0'. Therefore, the only weather criterion that you need consider (legally at least) for an approach ban on an ILS is RVR.
moggiee is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:49   #110 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 2,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Knight View Post
I have personally seen Cork go from CAVOK to below CAT II from TOD to arriving at the LOC... (Off to Shannon we went) Vice versa, I've seen Cork go from NO-GO to CAT I in a couple of minutes. Ergo your comment vis a vis 375m/100' doesn't mean anything at this airport. Cork airport is on top of a cloudy and windy hill.... The weather changes very rapidly!
I am sure the weather can change rapidly at Cork, but it wasn't changing at the time of the accident as there was no significant wind and the temp and dew point were the same. It is one thing to come around for a second approach when there is clear evidence that there is both a weather phenomenon occurring that will cause the weather to improve and some evidence of that improvement but from the publish weather reports neither were occurring at the time of the accident.

I have a question for my European brethren. In Canada, regulations prohibit the pilot from proceeding past the FAF on a Class1 ILS, with the weather as reported. If a pilot did continue with the approach the control tower would submit an occurance report and Transport Canada enforcement would start an investigation. So is there no regulations that prohibit the conduct of very low visibility approaches at UK/Ireland airports ?
Big Pistons Forever is online now   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:53   #111 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 2,300
Quote:
Originally Posted by moggiee View Post
375m VISIBILITY or 375m RVR? There is a BIG difference.

If a measured RVR is not available then the "equivalent" RVR is calculated by multiplying the measured met vis by a factor of 1.5. So, 375m VIS becomes a factored met vis of 562m "RVR" (equivalent). But if the measured RVR was 375m then that is a different story.

As for cloudbase, the acceptable minimum on an ILS approach is 0'. Therefore, the only weather criterion that you need consider (legally at least) for an approach ban on an ILS is RVR.
The Metar at the time of the accident had the RVR for runway 17 as 350 meters and 375 meters for runway 35
Big Pistons Forever is online now   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:53   #112 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 718
BPF

Yes there is here in Euro land. But i don't think i have seen or heard an accurate RVR report as and when the aircraft approached the OM/1000 etc. All i have seen is METARs and they don't really provide real time RVRs that the tower would have been reporting. Not only that i'm still yet to see any concrete evidence that the aircraft was CAT1 only or CAT2.
WingoWango is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 17:56   #113 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: where I lay my hat
Posts: 29
Quote:
If a pilot did continue with the approach the control tower would submit an occurance report
That would happen at many UK airports, but Ireland? - not so sure!
midnight cruiser is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 18:00   #114 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Potland
Posts: 214
Cargo Heat - Can not can.

My post was clearly prefixed 'off topic' so don't read it.

BFP - as WingoWango says, the rules are exactly the same here in Europe. If you shoot an approach after being told at the OM/4D/1000' that the RVR is now below your limits, then it is deemed an 'illegal' approach and the ATC authority is obliged to report it.
judge11 is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 18:22   #115 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,653
Well, I remember a Viscount at Manchester many years ago where a practice engine-out go-around went wrong. The result looked very similar to that Metroliner - upside down, wheels in the air, by the side of the runway.

Did something go wrong during a go-around from minimums? Maybe this wasn't just a 'press-on-itis' accident?
Shaggy Sheep Driver is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 18:28   #116 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 330
aerofoil1

Yes you're kinda of right there (without going into the minutiae technicalities!) however in order for that kind of approach to be undertaken the runway needs to be certified for Cat II/III operations as does the aircraft and the crew trained to undertake these kind of approaches. Theres a lot of clues in this thread to suggest what the situation may have been with regards to those parameters.

Going to an airfield with better conditions/visibility? Yes, that would have been a good option as their legal fuel requirement would have included a divert to a suitable alternate. However, most pilots here are asking why they DIDNT do that...

...one of the options is a CFIT: Controlled Flight Into Terrain - i.e. the crew flew a fully serviceable/working aircraft into land. Or they had a critical failure which neccessitated them making the approach into Cork only and were unable to get the aircraft down safely due to the failure.

Dont mean to teach you how to suck eggs and hope this helps...
Pilot Positive is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 18:33   #117 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: fragglerock
Posts: 77
Can anyone tell me if Ireland has "Absolute Minima" below which ATC must inform a crew that if they commence an approach they will be required to take reporting action?

I am aware of this operator having to be reminded twice of this when requesting to make an approach when visibility was below Absolute minima at an airport operating under that requirement.
atprider is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 18:45   #118 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cork
Posts: 2
1) Visibility was terribly all around the valley below the Airport. I can only imagine how poor it was at the airport.

2) However it was improving significently all morning and quite quickly.

3) Reports here are that the pilot only made his third approach after a twenty minute wait - all the posts seem to have assumed the three approaches were in a short time period. At the time of the accident the fog had cleared fully in the city and a significent improvement in the area would have been evident. At the airport though it obviously was not so.

Can somebody clarify if it is possible when looking down through fog from above for visibility to be better than when looking ahead through it?

There has been mention that the aircraft landed on the runway but rather than continuing straight along ran at an angle and catapulated when the wheels hit the rain sodden grass. There has been so much rain in the area recently that I would imagine that it would have just hit mud if it ran off the runway.
Interesting is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 18:50   #119 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 70
Posts: 7,290
<<Can somebody clarify if it is possible when looking down through fog from above for visibility to be better than when looking ahead through it? >>

Unquestiomably, yes. However, aviation professionals are fully aware of this.
HEATHROW DIRECTOR is offline   Reply
Old 10th Feb 2011, 19:06   #120 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 439
Several years ago when in Lyenham Ops, one of our Hecs could see the runway and approach lights from over Exeter, but not from minimums. Ended up at Brize. Shallow fog, can see down through it but not horizontally, so yes, there is a significant difference.
Doctor Cruces is offline   Reply
Reply
 
 
 


Thread Tools


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:46.


vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network