...as Andrasz suggests this may have resulted in a CFIT..
I was actually suggesting the opposite. The wreckage attitude does not imply simple CFIT. SSD pointed out one posible scenario - a simultaneous one engine out - other accelerating to full power event will flip a twin prop on it's back in no time if not caught at once.
While the weather may have contributed in the lack of visual clues for a developing unusual attitude, so far I see nothing that would support a below minimums blotched NP approach accident scenario that seems to be discussed ad nauseam on this thread.
Just watched the news. The reporter made reference to PPRuNe, showing a laptop with the home page recognisable. I can't remember exactly what the reporter said but he mentioned a number of people on here from the profession were expressing concern that 3 attempts at an approach were made. Maybe it would be best to show some consideration with the speculation out of respect, as clearly the news teams are picking up on hearsay on this forum and I guess some of the people close to or touched by this tragedy would've seen that report.
I'd like to see a reference for this 3 approach 'rule'. In my airline we're strongly advised not to attempt more than 2 approaches to GIB before diverting but that is only company procedure...
I don't mind a bit of informed speculation but as another poster says at this stage with the info we have, it could have been anything. It's hard in these times of 24hr news, but we're just going to have to wait...and in the meantime consider this another example of the potential hazards of LVPs.
It seems reasonable to ask for info about the regs. Maybe under Spanish/Irish rules 3 approaches are legal. From memory only 2 are permitted under Uk rules unless there's a significant weather improvement. Maybe changing runways makes that 2 on one & only 1 on the other?
Video of a 17 Approach at Cork during excellent visbility. Looking at the AGL, loads of approach out, edge on right hand side of runway dont look too good, centreline looks iffy too (at date of video could be better or worse at the minute). I am not saying it would have anything to do with todays tragic accident but to me it does not look that good (on date of video). Saying that I really only ever see it at ground level and rarely from the air. At the end of the day AGL is there as visual aid, especially in LVP conditions, and as per CAP168 daily checks and maintenance is essential. Any pilots have an opinion of the AGL in the video ?
Guys I live in Cork an train in the flying school..Driving conditions around 9:30 were extremely poor on the way to the airport..Thick soupy fog,very tough flying conditions for anybody,especially a non CATII equpied aircraft.
"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?"
(SLF) I remember many moons ago coming into Wick from Aberdeen in a Viscount the approach was from the landward side . We could see the airport buildings , I could even see my car. But it was foggy over the runway and we endured 2 missed approaches - the captain came over the PA and said sorry - we are off to Kirkwall we'll try and drop you in Wick on the return journey. In the back we were relieved !! Guess that BA SOPs were similar to those discussed on this thread 30 years or so ago.
Next thing we were told that they had changed their minds and we were coming in down wind from the sea. What a fantastic ride in - great skill from the pilot - I guess a tailwind of 20 knots makes for an exciting landing for you guys up front !!!
I hate these threads when accidents occur. They'd be great if only we could view what we post, then we could rumour and muse to our hearts content, but unfortunately everyone can see them. See my above post. And that means whatever is theorised by anybody, expert or not can be seen by anybody and taken out of context. I think as a profession when posting on a public forum that is often plundered by the media we should watch our mouths when a tragedy has occurred out of respect of those involved and our fellow Airmen.
They approached twice then went into a hold for 20 mins. This would signify they followed the rules. As mentioned above the fog was very patchy. I was at traffic lights in Cork 20 mins before the accident and couldn't see 100m in front of me. Then all of a sudden I could see over 1km, then back down to about 300m. All in the space of a minute or so.
There are eye-witness reports, therefore the tower had to have seen it, unless the eye-witnesses were closer than the tower, unlikely in Cork.
Deeply sorry for the victims, and all their relatives. as a professional pilot of 30 years, I have just had a discussion with my wife regarding the speculation and reporting surrounding this accident. For those with a personal interest that alone must simply add to the deep distress.
Nobody should take any notice whatsoever of all the ignoramuses bumping their gums together on the basis of utter ignorance of the facts!
Only when the inquiry has taken place will anyone know what happened. IF (and that's a very BIG 'if') human error has been the cause, then those of us remaining in this safety critical industry, have to attempt to learn lessons, to prevent us falling into the same 'trap'.
There is no shame in humans making errors. It's what we are designed to do. It's a constant battle to avoid it. Everybody makes errors, but most have the luxury of simply screwing it up, chucking it in a bin, and starting again on a new sheet. This industry is rather less forgiving.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 11th Feb 2011 at 06:59.
No professional pilot would start pointing the finger and judging without knowing the full facts and even then it's unacceptable. All us pilots know how many variable hidden causes and reasons there are in aviation. RIP to all those involved. As far as I'm concerned I lost two colleagues today.
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but if the plane took off at 0812 and crashed at 0952, maybe he was all out of options. Flight time is normally 1 hr and 1hr 40mins into the flight the Reserve fuel may have been well eaten into and it was land no matter what. One of the doctors said none of the 6 survivors had burn injuries and the aircraft didn't have much fire damage suggests to me there wasn't alot of fuel onboard.
the three approach rule applies to the instrument runway
Please provide a reference to this if you quote it as a rule applicable to this operator
Did the RVR get up to CAT 1 minimums or didn't it? Sure don't look like it.
Oh, so you've listened to the tapes have you with the ATC readouts of the current / instant RVRs? Or you are saying the METAR RVRs bear any resemblance to the ATC RVRs in (as described above) dynamically changing vis
From memory only 2 are permitted under Uk rules unless there's a significant weather improvement
Might I suggest there is no such universal rule. I operate for a "major" UK airline, and the rule uses a "should", a "normally" about not attempting an "immediate" 3rd approach without significant improvement. As such it is a woolly / advice type rule, and I suspect only a company one anyway. The way I read it, is advice not to make a 3rd approach unless you've got some solid ground to say it has a better chance, and are prepared to justify it.
Location: A Whilom nimble brain. With 31 million posts.
Big Pistons quotes:
The US statistics are that the third approach is up to 15 times more likely to result in an accident than the first.......
This is an astonishing statistic, and seems to substantiate the 'advice' but I have to say, I always felt some annoyance at being refused an approach when I would be the only one with the required overall information to make such a decision.
Having said that, in 40 years it never came up, but it annoyed me anyway.
I am loathe to add to the speculation on here, but something someone said earlier made me look again. The aircraft appears to have made it to the runway. As all of us who've operated in Cat 3b conditions know, it is often difficult to taxi when its really thick pea soup. Perhaps they did land but the runway viz closed in and caused runway excursion at high speed or disorientation just prior to touchdown? I can imagine that suddenly hitting a wall of fog on landing could have caused some issues. And they do appear to be roughly the right distance from the threshold. Will be interesting to read the report.