Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Passenger plane almost crashed into mountain

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

Passenger plane almost crashed into mountain

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 23rd Feb 2017, 03:08
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tu.114 View Post
So what do we know now?

- A crew got a bit closer to the mountains [....]

- This incident has been reported to SUST, be it immediately or a bit later[....]
You seem to be having a very stretchable definition of A BIT.
I wonder, what would be not "A BIT" by your standards...excluding a crash, of course.
Sunamer is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2017, 05:40
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So again, I ask for anyone that may know this: In the states this incident likely would have been an ATC bust. Does Eurocontrol operate differently and is reporting (ATC) 'optional' in a case like this?
vapilot2004 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2017, 08:38
  #43 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does Eurocontrol operate differently and is reporting (ATC) 'optional' in a case like this
First as far as I know there is no "Eurocontrol" specific IGS regulation, ATC monitoring/reporting deviations on this , rather each individual State determine his rules, Common sense dictates that any Go around is normally reported on the ATC log. But this was not an ATC incident.
Remember also this was not an ILS but and IGS . You have a visual part in the end., and it is the pilot who is responsible for terrain clearance, not ATC.

On the Av Herald page there is a very interesting comment :

The IGS is not used by the DH8 due to systemic limitations with regards to maximum glideslope angle. The only approaches approved and used are the two LOC approaches leading to a circling into 19 and a visual approach into 01. No other approaches are executed.
This sounds to come from someone who knows what he is talking about, but ok this is Internet...

If true, then they were on a visual leg, and the incident is an interesting one..and explains why the SUST is looking into it seriously.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2017, 09:27
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fairly close to the colonial capitol
Age: 55
Posts: 1,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you for the insight, ATC Watcher - an apropos user name, good sir.

I am surprised there lacks a cohesive set of rules in an area where borders are both numerous and near. I might guess then that the Swiss rules do not record an approach deviation in terminal airspace. On the airline side, there must have been no FOQA.

Last edited by vapilot2004; 23rd Feb 2017 at 09:39.
vapilot2004 is offline  

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



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.