B1900 missing in the congo?

[Nickerbal]

Blame Games

Guys people died here, let us not investigate the crash yet, let us not jump to conclusions & let us not blame the crew. God forbid if I was in that cockpit seconds before impact.

However what I would like to say CLEARLY is that all aviators should rather look at the organizational methodologies that led to this disaster becasue once again people died.

And its not good enough for Suzanne Musgrave to say:

No Air Serv personnel were involved in the crash, group spokesperson Suzanne Musgrave told AP by telephone from Warrenton.

She said the plane was being flown by a South African commercial company, Cem Air.

Nor is it safe, good form or in any way professional to tag onto AOC's as ASI havent got one to start with and just like Cemair is being blamed for "blood on hands", ASI have a very sullied reputation becasue to date they have had:
1X C210 go down in Uganda
1X B200 have a gear failure = 100% mechanics error in West Africa.
IX Heli Pilot shot & killed in Afghanistan
1X Caravan totalled in Mozambique
1X Otter totalled in DRC
1X Heli side swipe a mountain in Afghanistan

And now 17 dead people; is that what its going to take to clean out this rotten apple barrel?

The above "blood on hands" is what normally happens when you are a nickel & dime organization with millions of dollars wasted, no AOC no Oversight etc.

I wish that this "killing of aircraft & crews" will stop when ASI closes its doors and stop riding the coat tails of others

Any good lawyers out there to start filing suit?

[Heli-Jet]

Prop job .... let it make it simple for you

B1900 have two engines, unless there is a catasthophic failure, they continue flying. If well maintained B1900's don't fall out of the sky.
IF rated Pilots, should know about Grid MORA, ( cumulo granite not good that's why there is Grid Mora)
WX bad in Bukavu, no Approved approach in Bukavu - wihout VMC conditions.... go to alternate and wait it out.

Insurance investigators will probably check maintenance records to see whether there were any oustanding MEL's .... sorry what am I thinking pilots in Africa don't write up defects, then when it bites them in the ass everybody says what great guys they were and how they are so professional and how they don't take any cr.p from their employers.

Prop Job at a tender age of 23 let this be a lesson for you ... nobody forces you to fly, and aircraft just don't fly into the ground or drop out of the sky. You as PIC are accountable and have to set a good example for your SIC. There are legal ramifications, it is a pity they don't teach or emphasis this with airlaw.

[Heli-Jet]

The DRC CAA has a GNSS approach and so does the SACAA into Bukavu both differ with steep approach (glide angles) and if you where in a B1900 on the missed approach single engine you would be flying to the crash site.

Jeppesen does not have either of these approaches in their data base, therefore when you load up your FMS or GPS data card you will not have them there to do the approach. There are legal ramifications and Jeppesen is not stupid.

Pilots seem to think that you can take these third world approaches and load the waypoints into their GPS's and then fly the approach. The problem is that when you do that you only have enroute accuracy which is 5nm instead of the 0.3nm accuracy required in APPROACH MODE. That is why you need a RNP stand alone FMS or a TSO145 stand alone GPS in your aircraft to do a GNSS approach where there are no other approach aids such as Bukavu. Accuracy is important when using the GNSS and remember to check your RAIM before you do the approach.

Grizzly that's why you need training before you blast off into GPS lala land. I sure would like to see you explain your way out in a court room using your logic ... I quote you "The RSA pilot licence no longer specifies rated approach types, so as long as the crew were current on GNSS approaches, they were legally entitled to fly the approach in IMC below the MSA"

Pity you cannot ask the Russians that flew into the side of the montain in Bukavu back in 2006 using their hand held GPS's. Why they didn't get the required training to do a GPS approach. I am sure the insurance investigators will be looking at the B1900's GPS to see what they had and if it was legal.

The UN issued a memo to all flight crews in August 2006 not to do a GNSS approach into Bukavu because of everything I have said above.

Grizzly you are demonstating your lack of knowledge of GNSS requirements for:
1. Aircraft requirements
2. Crew training
3. Operating the GNSS for the approach
4. Legal requirements to fly the said approach

All I can say is be careful before you use the GNSS on an approach anywhere in the world .... do your homework !!!!!!

[126,7]

Crew obviously not professional
1. Found out that UN does provide crews with wx and Bukavu is a UN operated airport. So they would have had a current TAF if they asked for it.
2. There is a high Grid MORA or as some have confused as the MSA, one has to have a published approach to get a MSA
3. ZS aircraft flying outside SA even for other contacting states are still under SA airlaw for operating aircraft. Therefore they cannot do GNSS approaches
4. Aircraft would have to have GPS coupled to HSI and be TSO129C approved
5. Crews would have to have the approved GNSS training if and when the SACAA approves GNSS approaches.
6. The Insurance company will probably not pay out any Insurance
7. The passengers families could sue the companies involved (Air Serv and Cemair) together with the Pilots estates

How do you know that they didn't have the TAF?
How do you know what kind of approach they were flying and what equipment they had on board or what training the pilots have had? How do you know what the insurance company will do or what they will figure out about the crash? Do you already have the transcripts of the CVR? Was there even a CVR?

[planecrazi]

Having flown into and out of Bukavu for a period of 4-5 years, just over 10 years ago, with B1900 and B200, it reminds me of a story I witnessed. (Many stories in Bukavu alone)

I landed in Bukavu in rain 1995, NDB approach, half tar, half gravel runway in those days and was hoping for a quick turn around. I called for start and was told by ATC “Standby, we have two B737 inbound”.

I listened out and watched the first B737 Air Zaire land. The ATC began asking the second one his position, to which he was not able to give exact details. Tower cleared him for approach and I continued to standby for start. After ten minutes, or so, the second B737, says “field in sight” to which he was cleared to land, however no one could see him. The first B737 asked the second guy what was his position and he said he had landed. No second B737 could be seen anywhere.

Then the first B737 captain asked the second (missing) B737 guy what was the runway heading and elevation of the runway he was on, to which the other guy responded.

It turns out that the second B737 over flew Bukavu, landed on the other side of Lake Kivu, in Kemembe Rwanda, into a 1400m strip, where SAFAIR L100 was operating from. An extremely short strip, high elevation for a B737. I was asked by ATC to overfly Kamembe and confirm that the B737 was on the airfield, which I was able to confirm. I am sure some of the SAFAIR guys will confirm this story of the B737 which was at the end of their runway. (Hey Paulo!)

This B737 landed in the wrong country, which was at war with Zaire in those days and on the wrong side of the lake, into the wrong runway, of wrong direction and wrong elevation and claimed to have completed and NDB app field insight and landed 5 nm away. It took years to get the B737 out, a piece agreement between two countries, unloaded to make it very light and it was flown to GOMA, refueled and back to Kinshasa.

The point is, it is very easy to screw up anywhere no matter the size or the experience of the crew or aircraft!

We all try to be professional with tools we have to work with! How we carry out the duties as individuals, is a different story!

[Heli-Jet]

Goffel wrote ... "Apparently it was CFIT.......Gear was apparently down and hit terrain on the descent.(8 nm's from touchdown)."

Will be interesting to see what the CVR and FDR reveals.

The Goma Caravan (KAS) crash a couple years ago .... investigator reported that the Captain's wife (passenger) was found still strapped to the PIC seat when they arrived on the crash site.

[setcruisepower]

guys and girls...it was NOT an UN operated a/c. it was operated by Airserv Intl. the airserv crews do not have access to any UN facilities!
they have to make use of the no good congolese weather service and pay $10 for...that is IF you get any weather!

[Airman56]

Heli-Jet

I think is not difficulty to do an approach in bad weather if you know how to use OBS MODE.
I'm russian pilot and I fly in RDC 14 years.

[Airman56]

This is Bukavu RNAV GNSS approach chart.

http://s46.radikal.ru/i112/0809/b5/92acd767d2cf.jpg

[V1... Ooops]

Heli-Jet:

Respectfully, may I point out that your posts are coming across as a bit 'belligerent'. You certainly have considerable knowledge to contribute to this discussion, but please, let's keep the focus on What is right and not on "Who was right".

Before you hit the 'post' button, review what you have written in your messages from a CRM perspective, drawing upon your knowledge in that area.

Thanks for your consideration of this request. It is, after all, a pretty somber topic - and a lot of the people who are participating here knew the crewmembers.

[V1... Ooops]

Originally Posted by Heli-Jet

"The DRC CAA has a GNSS approach and so does the SACAA into Bukavu both differ with steep approach (glide angles)...

I'm a bit perplexed by that observation. My understanding of how navigation information is published, according to ICAO practice, is that it works like this:

1) The regulatory agency for the country in which the approach exists approves the approach, which is actually written in ARINC 424 compliant text, not pictorial form, then publishes that information.

2) Commercial organizations that publish navigation information, such as Jeppesen, then depict that information as they wish to (pictorially, by text, or in electronic database format) and promulgate it to their customers. Airlines that are sufficiently large may also create their own documents from the original information published by the state in which the approach is located.

No organization other than the regulatory authority of the state in which the approach is published, or an air carrier acting with the approval of their regulatory agency, may modify the content of the published information in any way. In other words, all that organizations such as Jeppesen do is add value by publishing the information in an easy to read or easy to access format.

I could accept that the CAA of the DRC has published an approach for Bukavu - it's in their country - but I cannot comprehend how the South African CAA could publish an approach for Bukavu unless it was an exact rendition of the data promulgated by the DRC CAA.

As for the approach not being in your electronic database - that is not, by itself, proof that Jeppesen has not published it. Some electronic databases are abridged to keep the file size to a minimum, for example, by excluding airports with runways below a certain length. Very modern aircraft with fully integrated avionics will not even present an approach to the pilot if the aircraft does not have the equipment required to fly the approach (in other words, what's the point of an aircraft displaying a DME-DME approach if it only has one DME in it?) The best way to check to see if Jeppesen has published it would be to check in a printed Jeppesen manual that you know has complete coverage of the DRC.

[planecrazi]

[south coast]

As we are all aware it is a sad thread, a number of people have lost their lives and their families have lost loved ones.

It becomes even harder because some people who are posting also knew the people concerned, so emotion also plays a part in peoples' objectivity.

When it is someone we know who has died, it can sometimes seem impossible that they could have made a mistake or could have been at fault.

As it has already been said, all the facts are not known, so it falls to speculation.

However, the known facts are,

1.The crew decided to descend below the grid MORA.
2.They were in mountainous terrain.
3.The weather was bad.
4.The outcome.

We all have to make decisions and live with them. We all try to make the best decision possible given the factors present, the situation, our knowledge and many other factors.

Most of the time we make good decsions and sometimes bad decisions can be made. Sometimes good decisions are made and then an external factor which could not have been forseen can override what was initially a good decision.

Basically, I am sure the crew in question made a decision, was it the best one, that is open for debate, but they made it and tried their best to make it successful and as already said, none of us were there and therefore will never know what made them arrive at their decision.

All we can do is accept they made one, whether it was a good one or a bad one.

[Pitch&Fan]

While I certainly don't want to jump to any conclusions about the accident under discussion, there are a few important points that should be clearly understood, or expanded upon about modern (RNAV/GPS/GNSS) navigation methods that don't appear to be well-enough understood within the industry, and in particular, within the (very challenging) deep-dark African contract environment.

To be reasonable, I am obliged to admit not having operated under such conditions for some time, and as a pilot for a major airline, I am certainly not exposed to the highly variable conditions that contract pilots need to deal with on a daily basis.

That said, and as someone who has been heavily involved with the development and implementation of RNAV operations throughout the African continent, there are a few really important points, which I feel, should be made, and which may just help others to stay safe out there.

1. All South African registered operators require SA-CAA approval to conduct RNAV / GNSS operations. This approval is required for safety reasons, and any accident relating to the use of such nav' techniques would come under intense scrutiny by both the CAA and, of course, all related insurance companies. These will quite likely include the pilot’s life insurers.

CAA approval includes aircraft certification / technical compliance, pilot training, and organizational support issues.

2. The cockpit resource management aspects associated with such approaches are significantly different from the usual Radio-Nav operations which most of us were trained in, and warrant careful SOP development. Pilot situational awareness can very easily be lost during such operations, and this must be well catered for when planning, and training-for such a capability.

3. Electronic Navigation databases MUST be thoroughly checked for data integrity before being released for line use. Such checks are required over and above the basic quality checks, which are performed by the providers (EG: Jeppesen). The Nav databases change every 28 days, in accordance with the ARINC-424 cycle, and should be updated accordingly. This is often not done by operators in "far-off" places, and database integrity will certainly be compromised as a result of this reality. An out-of-date navigation database should not be used for IFR navigation... EVER.

Please forgive me if I sound like a smart-alek in this post, but the safety considerations surrounding RNAV operations are more involved than what many "smaller" (respectfully) operators realize. My advice to pilots operating in such an environment would be to avoid using this technology until the company has provided proper training, and the AOC is endorsed by the CAA for RNAV / GNSS operations.

Be careful... and don't allow yourselves or your colleagues to be lulled into an unsafe operation due to a lack of training or proper process. Your lives are worth more than that.

Safe flying folks!

Pitch&Fan.

[BUSHJEPPY]

The Jeppesen GNSS approach is for RWY 35. The first waypoint is at or above 11'000 feet before the step letdown SW of airport. Apparently, the wreckage is located 8 nm NW of the airport at 10'000 feet, right on the top of the highest mountain range when you come in from Kisangani. If you make a FliteStar route FZIC-FZMA direct GPS, the crash site is spot on the route. It was raining heavily in the region at that time.

[helldog]

Very sad to hear about this one. My thoughts are with the family and friends of those lost.

I have flown into Bukavu many a time, it is quite scary in bad weather. I made sure to keep visual contact with the ground at all times and tried to have an escape route at all times Never had a go at the approach that was posted.

RIP Lads

[celeron]

Bakavu jungle Jepp

I see here is jepp plates posted for bakavu. Can anyone post the Airserv jungle jepp for bakavu. I know they do have JJ for all rwy's they operate to in DRC with their own revised MSA. I have seen them.

[MungoP]

I doubt very much that a JJ exists for Bukavu... I never saw one during my time with ASI though it's possible that one exists from the days prior to Jepp plates including the airport in its modern form. JJs are produced by and for operators utilizing small strips for which no approach has been listed. They do not (in my experience) detail any form of 'grandmothers let-down', they simply give a brief basic layout of the airstrip showing areas of concern to pilots ... a hill... runway slope ... people / cattle in the vicinity etc. I've constructed them myself and have never detailed any form of suggested let-down, including only a very generous MSA from each sector. Bukavu is a major airport (for that region) with published approach plates and would not warrent a JJ.
I hope you weren't implying that ASI or any other respected operator laid out their own MSAs or procedures that ran contrary to accepted practices.
Bush flying requires flying skills not commonly found (or taught) outside of areas of extreme remoteness. Those skills are adapted, practised and polished over time and if the pilots are cautious, dedicated, develop good judgement and are not too unlucky they become sought after professionals.... they are not cowboys, they simply aquire over time, skills that are not ordinarily found outside of those remote regions, being it the Congo, Alaska or some vast desert. The flying doesn't suit everybody and I've had the experience of flying with people from cosseted airline backgrounds who while being very competant in their own field found it impossible to make the mental adjustment to operations away from their familiar, civilised environment. They simply thought it dangerous and were unable to make the mental leap required to become accomplished in the field of remote area operations.
This form of flying can never attain the safety margins enjoyed by scheduled airline ops and if the operators were forced to adopt those procedures then flying in remote areas would cease altogether.
To a large extent the pilots flying in these regions are their own policemen and their own safety inspectors... the majority that I've had the privilege to work with became extremely adept at fulfilling those posts while achieving a very acceptable rate of success in getting the job done.
My best wishes to all of them who have now moved on and especially to those still out there... Stay safe guys.

[Der absolute Hammer]

Bush flying requires.....etc

Absolutely the spot on, the best distinguishment between airline ops and bush ops I ever read.

[Gooneybird]

I second that, an awesome and realistic post...one of the first on this thread