Lionair plane down in Bali.
short flights long nights
I don't believe that some can actually contend that it was safe to go below the minima on that approach when they could not see the runway.....this industry is really falling apart.
The report attributes blame to the crew (quite reasonably), but makes no mention of organisational failings, company culture or policies.
With the Captain having flown 205 hours in 60 days, it is not unreasonable to expect some level of fatigue, particularly when conducting short-haul operations in the tropics.
Lion Air appears to have emerged from this without any change to their operating policies or practices (the Chief Pilot memo is surely a joke). This is not their first hull loss, and in view of the foregoing, is unlikely to be their last.
With the Captain having flown 205 hours in 60 days, it is not unreasonable to expect some level of fatigue, particularly when conducting short-haul operations in the tropics.
Lion Air appears to have emerged from this without any change to their operating policies or practices (the Chief Pilot memo is surely a joke). This is not their first hull loss, and in view of the foregoing, is unlikely to be their last.
Lion Air appears to have emerged from this without any change to their operating policies or practices (the Chief Pilot memo is surely a joke). This is not their first hull loss, and in view of the foregoing, is unlikely to be their last.
He knows smart money when he see it. Bookies make their money on "dumb money" ... and I wonder at Lionair (Corporate) understanding smart risk assessment versus dumb risk assessment.
Your points on there being a bit more to this than pilot error are reasonably put.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amazed by the lack of professionalism shown by folks on here who think they know better than the regulatory authorities about what is and what is not allowed at minima on a non precision approach. If the authorities say that it is OK to go below minima without having the runway in sight then what makes you all believe that it is not. I am not defending Lion Air and I did not say that the Lion air pilots did the right thing. Clearly they didn't or they wouldn't have crashed. I did say that if they had the required visual references at minimums as they claimed (visual references that the authorities specify not me) then they did not bust minima. Try reading the report, reading the section on minima in your ops manual and then re-reading my post.
No I do not work for lion Air. I work for a long established European airline but have had a great deal of experience of flying in Indonesia on Haj contracts over 15 years. I know about the standard of aviation in that country. The point I am making is that saying that going below minima without the runway in sight is against the rules is untrue and is not helpful in understanding the true cause of the accident.
By all means criticize Lion Air but do it for the right reasons otherwise it just devalues the lessons to be learned. Don't let your hatred of that airline distort your judgement.
No I do not work for lion Air. I work for a long established European airline but have had a great deal of experience of flying in Indonesia on Haj contracts over 15 years. I know about the standard of aviation in that country. The point I am making is that saying that going below minima without the runway in sight is against the rules is untrue and is not helpful in understanding the true cause of the accident.
By all means criticize Lion Air but do it for the right reasons otherwise it just devalues the lessons to be learned. Don't let your hatred of that airline distort your judgement.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am just SLF, but I find that view very worrying. I read the report, and the purpose of the SOPs appears to be clear, even obvious, to a non-pilot.
Is yours a widespread view amongst pilots?
Is yours a widespread view amongst pilots?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tightcircuit,
Yes, I read the report.
And luckily, yes, I know my legislation, and as Captain, I luckily realize that COMMON SENSE takes over from anything written in a dubious form or omitted, by the people who have never flown an aircraft ( like you I am certain), and put the safety of my aircraft, crew and passengers first.
The PIC claimed he had the Approach lights in sight. Well, RWY09 in DPS does not have approach light system. The PIC was thus lying during his post accident interview. FACT.
If you see approach lights at minima ( and minimum three by the way so you have a 3 dimensional reference,) it means that visual contact with the runway is imminent. If not...
If at ANY point during any approach below the DA/MDA you lose contact with the touchdown zone of the runway, you GO AROUND immediately. BASIC airmanship AND written in any FCOM.
If these jokers imply that you can land manually without a Vertical precision guidance and without full visual contact with the touchdown zone, you belong FAR away from any type of aircraft, you should probably not even be allowed to ride a bike due to an astonishing lack of Safety consciousness and intelligence.
Since when is an omission or unclarity in a manual a reason to totally forego decisionmaking, safety and airmanship?!
Yes, I read the report.
And luckily, yes, I know my legislation, and as Captain, I luckily realize that COMMON SENSE takes over from anything written in a dubious form or omitted, by the people who have never flown an aircraft ( like you I am certain), and put the safety of my aircraft, crew and passengers first.
The PIC claimed he had the Approach lights in sight. Well, RWY09 in DPS does not have approach light system. The PIC was thus lying during his post accident interview. FACT.
If you see approach lights at minima ( and minimum three by the way so you have a 3 dimensional reference,) it means that visual contact with the runway is imminent. If not...
If at ANY point during any approach below the DA/MDA you lose contact with the touchdown zone of the runway, you GO AROUND immediately. BASIC airmanship AND written in any FCOM.
If these jokers imply that you can land manually without a Vertical precision guidance and without full visual contact with the touchdown zone, you belong FAR away from any type of aircraft, you should probably not even be allowed to ride a bike due to an astonishing lack of Safety consciousness and intelligence.
Since when is an omission or unclarity in a manual a reason to totally forego decisionmaking, safety and airmanship?!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
despegue,
your tone leads me to conclude that you were probably still in nappies when I made my first NDB approach with no automatics in limiting weather conditions. Insults like yours do not add to a discussion in any meaningful way.
The PIC said he saw the approach lights. Maybe he lied. He also said he saw the flashing RWY indicator lights. Maybe he lied. The TWR say they saw the a/c on finals and then gave landing clearance. Maybe they lied too. None of that changes the fact that you do not need to have the RWY in sight to continue below minima. The rules do not say when you have to gain sight of the RWY. That is where the airmanship comes in. I suppose that just going-round anyway when you are in fact allowed to continue a little further dispenses with the need for airmanship that's all. To tell me that you need to see the RWY before you land on it is rather obvious in my opinion. I had managed to work that one out for myself thanks, close to 40 years ago now.
There are several approaches on our network (at least until recently) where the minima are so high that your methods would regularly preclude a landing even in weather approaching VMC. It is not an omission in the rules to allow descent below minima without sight of the rwy. in many places it can be a necessity.
Oh and by the way you do not need three consecutive lights for visual reference on an NPA under EU ops. You do however for cat I, cat II, cat IIIA and IIIB fail passive ILS.
your tone leads me to conclude that you were probably still in nappies when I made my first NDB approach with no automatics in limiting weather conditions. Insults like yours do not add to a discussion in any meaningful way.
The PIC said he saw the approach lights. Maybe he lied. He also said he saw the flashing RWY indicator lights. Maybe he lied. The TWR say they saw the a/c on finals and then gave landing clearance. Maybe they lied too. None of that changes the fact that you do not need to have the RWY in sight to continue below minima. The rules do not say when you have to gain sight of the RWY. That is where the airmanship comes in. I suppose that just going-round anyway when you are in fact allowed to continue a little further dispenses with the need for airmanship that's all. To tell me that you need to see the RWY before you land on it is rather obvious in my opinion. I had managed to work that one out for myself thanks, close to 40 years ago now.
There are several approaches on our network (at least until recently) where the minima are so high that your methods would regularly preclude a landing even in weather approaching VMC. It is not an omission in the rules to allow descent below minima without sight of the rwy. in many places it can be a necessity.
Oh and by the way you do not need three consecutive lights for visual reference on an NPA under EU ops. You do however for cat I, cat II, cat IIIA and IIIB fail passive ILS.
Last edited by tightcircuit; 2nd Sep 2014 at 19:31.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
surely you must know that it does not mean that if TWR saw landing lights, the aircraft involved saw the runway or any appropriate references.They are not related and frankly irrelevant, especially in weather involving rainstorms and low clouds.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes I know that. It is however corroborating evidence of what the vis was when they were cleared to land.
Look I am not defending what they did after passing minima. It clearly seems that the vis deteriorated and then they should have gone-around as you rightly point out. All I was trying to clarify in my original post is that if they did indeed have the required visual reference at MDA, which they claim they did and the investigation seems to accept, then they were not wrong to continue. IE they did not bust minima. If you do not agree with their decision at that point then fine but if perchance they were not lying then they were not breaking any rules.
Blaming the accident on busting minima stifles consideration of the real mistakes which came slightly later.
Look I am not defending what they did after passing minima. It clearly seems that the vis deteriorated and then they should have gone-around as you rightly point out. All I was trying to clarify in my original post is that if they did indeed have the required visual reference at MDA, which they claim they did and the investigation seems to accept, then they were not wrong to continue. IE they did not bust minima. If you do not agree with their decision at that point then fine but if perchance they were not lying then they were not breaking any rules.
Blaming the accident on busting minima stifles consideration of the real mistakes which came slightly later.
Last edited by tightcircuit; 2nd Sep 2014 at 20:10.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: downtown dustbowl
Age: 47
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What exactly is the point of having minimums then? Just fly down to airport elevation by cross checking heights with DME or follow the GS all the way down. Why bother with CAT 1, 2, 3 or let's add 4 just for your exemplary skills and insightful interpretation of the regs. And at 20 feet IF you don't have rwy in sight go around. Isn't that what these two guys did? Or shall we go with a self determined minimum which each pilot is comfortable with?
You might like playing chicken with terra firma but I will do it like it is done the world over as mandated by local and internationally mandated norms and regulations....Visual reference by MDA/DA. If not, I get the hell out of there.
I will echo grinning simians point that you really don't belong anywhere close to the pointy end of any airplane. You have in a span of a few posts single handedly destroyed the fundamental requirements of continuing an approach. I seldom contribute to any threads but this bulls#*$t you are spewing needs to be stopped.
You might like playing chicken with terra firma but I will do it like it is done the world over as mandated by local and internationally mandated norms and regulations....Visual reference by MDA/DA. If not, I get the hell out of there.
I will echo grinning simians point that you really don't belong anywhere close to the pointy end of any airplane. You have in a span of a few posts single handedly destroyed the fundamental requirements of continuing an approach. I seldom contribute to any threads but this bulls#*$t you are spewing needs to be stopped.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF they indeed had the required references, the crew was correct to continue, I agree on that Tightcircuit. The regulations however do assume that Captains have some intelligence and airmanship and the fact that the actual TDZ must not be visual at DA but the immediate surrounding must, implies that visual contact with TDZ is imminent. If not ....TOGA and Missed approach.
The regulation gives crews some leeway to use in a professional manner, nothing more nothing less and is based on a presumption that a crew is experienced, capable and in the posession of a brain.
The regulation gives crews some leeway to use in a professional manner, nothing more nothing less and is based on a presumption that a crew is experienced, capable and in the posession of a brain.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Cymru
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV8R76,
Are you talking to me? What do you not understand about the fact that they claim they had the required visual reference at MDA. Let me say it again with emphasis. THEY CLAIM AND THE REPORT SEEMS TO ACCEPT THAT THEY HAD THE REQUIRED VISUAL REFERENCES AT MDA. Of course I am not advocating continuing regardless. What do you do if you have the required references at decision? Are you suggesting you should go-round anyway just in case thing deteriorate? Blimey just read my posts properly please.
Are you talking to me? What do you not understand about the fact that they claim they had the required visual reference at MDA. Let me say it again with emphasis. THEY CLAIM AND THE REPORT SEEMS TO ACCEPT THAT THEY HAD THE REQUIRED VISUAL REFERENCES AT MDA. Of course I am not advocating continuing regardless. What do you do if you have the required references at decision? Are you suggesting you should go-round anyway just in case thing deteriorate? Blimey just read my posts properly please.
Last edited by tightcircuit; 2nd Sep 2014 at 20:33.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV8R76,
Are you talking to me? What do you not understand about the fact that they claim they had the required visual reference at MDA. Let me say it again with emphasis. THEY CLAIM AND THE REPORT SEEMS TO ACCEPT THAT THEY HAD THE REQUIRED VISUAL REFERENCES AT MDA. Of course I am not advocating continuing regardless. What do you do if you have the required references at decision? Are you suggesting you should go-round anyway just in case thing deteriorate? Blimey just read my posts properly please.
Are you talking to me? What do you not understand about the fact that they claim they had the required visual reference at MDA. Let me say it again with emphasis. THEY CLAIM AND THE REPORT SEEMS TO ACCEPT THAT THEY HAD THE REQUIRED VISUAL REFERENCES AT MDA. Of course I am not advocating continuing regardless. What do you do if you have the required references at decision? Are you suggesting you should go-round anyway just in case thing deteriorate? Blimey just read my posts properly please.
I have gone around more than once after having the required visual references at minimums. Once for losing sight of the approach lights on a 300 foot DH ILS and more than once in whiteout conditions on non-precision approaches where depth perception was inadequate leading to being high.
I doubt they saw anything useful. You have to know your distance versus height, what rate of descent is required among other variables such as runway length and conditions, etc and put it all together.
If you are going to just plow on down(such as in an emergency), then have a plan and create a stabilized descent rate on a proper glidepath using your technology well back from the MDA. We did that in the old days.
Tightcircuit, Indonesian CASR part 91.175 (c) (3) does require the runway, approach lights or threshold markings to be in sight before descending below the MDA. Since there are no approach lights leading to runway 09 at Denpasar, then the crew would need to at least have the threshold or runway end lights in sight to continue below MDA. To say that you do not need to have the runway in sight in this case is wrong.
If you did have it in sight, of course you could continue the approach. Noone is arguing against that (or else you would never ever land), but, as stated in the Indonesian CASR part 91.175 (e) a missed approach must be conducted at any time you lose sight of the runway when below MDA.
Even if the captain had sight of the runway at MDA, he definitely lost sight of it later on. And I suggest you re-read the report. The FO stated twice that he could not see the runway. It was only the captain who 'claimed' to have the runway in sight which he obviously didn't because the inbound course of the VOR is 091, but the runway track is 087. There is a 4 degree offset which must be corrected for when becoming visual to line up with the runway centreline. The data from the report indicated the aircraft continued on a track of 091 until it hit the water. The captain obviously wasn't visual at the MDA.
If you did have it in sight, of course you could continue the approach. Noone is arguing against that (or else you would never ever land), but, as stated in the Indonesian CASR part 91.175 (e) a missed approach must be conducted at any time you lose sight of the runway when below MDA.
Even if the captain had sight of the runway at MDA, he definitely lost sight of it later on. And I suggest you re-read the report. The FO stated twice that he could not see the runway. It was only the captain who 'claimed' to have the runway in sight which he obviously didn't because the inbound course of the VOR is 091, but the runway track is 087. There is a 4 degree offset which must be corrected for when becoming visual to line up with the runway centreline. The data from the report indicated the aircraft continued on a track of 091 until it hit the water. The captain obviously wasn't visual at the MDA.
There's nothing like wishful thinking
At 300 ft and 1100 fpm vertical and no runway in sight surely there was something telling the PF that a GA might be a good idea.
Opinions please, at what point would YOU have initiate the go-around.
Opinions please, at what point would YOU have initiate the go-around.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Paso Robles
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinions please, at what point would YOU have initiate the go-around.
Someone before showed the approach plate for this approach, there is a Mapt clearly visible on the chart, this is where they should initiate go-around. And by the way it's altitude (MDA) is depicted as 465 ft, you have no business descending even a foot below this altitude if you can't see runway.
Certain individuals in here defending the Captain need to open their eyes---
1/ there are no approach lights on 09
2/ if there are no approach lights then the Runway threshold and touchdown zone MUST be visible.
3/ you NEVER fly below any decision height without the required visual reference, EVER. We do not blindly sniff around feeling for the runway
4/ if you subsequently lose visual reference when below the minima you MUST IMMEDIATELY GO AROUND..... No if's or buts.
He didn't even switch on the wipers!!
he was obviously over loaded.
He admitted to waiting to see the runway, even when below MDA.
He's damn lucky he didn't kill anyone.
Now, Lionair must also accept some of the blame in respect to training, checking and the safety culture in the Airline.
1/ there are no approach lights on 09
2/ if there are no approach lights then the Runway threshold and touchdown zone MUST be visible.
3/ you NEVER fly below any decision height without the required visual reference, EVER. We do not blindly sniff around feeling for the runway
4/ if you subsequently lose visual reference when below the minima you MUST IMMEDIATELY GO AROUND..... No if's or buts.
He didn't even switch on the wipers!!
he was obviously over loaded.He admitted to waiting to see the runway, even when below MDA.
He's damn lucky he didn't kill anyone.
Now, Lionair must also accept some of the blame in respect to training, checking and the safety culture in the Airline.
Last edited by ACMS; 3rd Sep 2014 at 05:14.
I think tightcircuit's point was that "runway environment" suffices, not "the runway itself." I doubt that would be disagreed by anyone who has flown.
A bit of hair splitting, but a fair enough point. Details matter.
The issue regarding "we saw runway lights" that were not there does NOT mean the runway environment was in sight.
It may mean a number of other things ...
A bit of hair splitting, but a fair enough point. Details matter.
The issue regarding "we saw runway lights" that were not there does NOT mean the runway environment was in sight.
It may mean a number of other things ...
