PDA

View Full Version : Air Europa 738 at Katowice?


akerosid
28th Oct 2007, 12:42
Saw this thread on A.net; anyone have further information?

"Polish press reported that an Air Europa Boeing 737-800 almost crashed at Katowice, Poland on Saturday night.
The plane was chartered to bring Polish soldiers from the Middle East and was on its way from Beirut.
During the approach to Katowice in foggy conditions the aircraft descended too low and damaged approach lights to the runway stretching 870 meters before the runway. The approach lights varied in height from less than 1 meter to 10 meters.
The aircraft suffered extensive damage to the fuselage, wings and the engine coverings but managed to land safely with 111 passengers and 11 crewmembers. Polish Aviation authority is investigating the accident. The aircraft will remain in Katowice for repairs. The repairs to the approach lights will take a few weeks and will affect landings of some aircraft in bad weather conditions."

hisaki
28th Oct 2007, 17:40
Photos from polish site gazeta.pl

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/7/4619/z4619517X.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/9/4619/z4619519X.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/0/4619/z4619530X.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/1/4619/z4619531X.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/8/4619/z4619518X.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/5/4619/z4619515X.jpg

Ptkay
28th Oct 2007, 17:56
Looks they were lucky.

I am not sure, if and how they will be able to do the repairs there.

BoeingMEL
28th Oct 2007, 17:58
IMHO....I'd rather hve Pablo M. flying me than those guys.

Cheers, bm:eek:

CaptainSandL
28th Oct 2007, 18:00
Amazing photos. They were lucky to get away with that. The press report states "foggy", I wonder if it was an autoland or handflown?

Ptkay
28th Oct 2007, 18:37
Just in the main news in Polish national TV:
"the pilot didn't report the incident to the TWR,
he landed and taxied to position as nothing happened.
Only after the ground crew noticed damages rescue was informed.
The ground crew smelled alcohol on the pilot when inpecting the plane
with him after the incident..."
:ugh:
The plane was chartered by UN to bring back Polish UN
soldiers after their peace mission in Bejrut.
Glad everybody alive.
To survive Lebanon and die on landing at home... :eek:

eu01
28th Oct 2007, 18:44
They did breathalyse them at the airport, didn't they?

Ptkay
28th Oct 2007, 18:47
Officials say:
"the incident is under investigation by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board"

I doubt they were on time there to do the breath analyse... :mad:

boeingir
28th Oct 2007, 20:10
i think you should be care with your comments about the crew of that aircraft, because nobody of ground crew have said that the pilot smell alcohol. and maybe you should have good information about the airport and the conditions for the landing.
first have true news and then write don´t invent, that is sad

First segment
28th Oct 2007, 20:30
Look at the pictures,except of emergency,ACFT doesn´t look like this normaly after LDG. And arriving at the stand without noticing such extensive damage is unlikely. The crew has a lot to explain I think. But fortunately they have opportunity...

alexmcfire
28th Oct 2007, 23:04
Plane is 8-years old according to, http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20071028-0

B767PL
29th Oct 2007, 05:05
To survive Lebanon and die on landing at home...

x2, now that would be a heartbreaker.

Glad to see that a couple of banged up approach lights, and some dents here and there is all it ended at. Could have been worse.

ray cosmic
29th Oct 2007, 08:10
What facilities does this airport have CATII/III or CATor even only non-precision?

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 08:49
bad informer
...sorry, pal, but I just quoted what I've heard on main news,
19:30 Channel One Polish TV...
I put in "", to be sure everybody understands it's a quotation,
not my information or opinion.
:=

JW411
29th Oct 2007, 08:57
I have not been to Katowice for about a year and a half, but at that time it was CAT 1 only.

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 09:02
It is CAT 1...

http://www.ais.pata.pl/aip/aip.php?PHPSESSID=66cf20d8ca8d1a87fc289255fb6bb82c

Type of aid, CAT of ILS/MLS
ILS LLZ KAT 109.900 MHz H24 50°28’27.53”N 019°02’56.43”E
CAT I RWY 27. 266°, 0.42 km FM THR 09.

ILS GP - 333.800 MHz H24 50°28’32.08”N 019°05’20.93”E
GP 3.2°, 0.15 km N FM RCL
0.35 km W FM THR 27 along RCL, RDH = 16.7 m.

and maybe you should have good information about the airport and the conditions for the landing.
first have true news and then write don´t invent, that is sad

...they were obviously landing below minimums for this location...

EPKT 280300Z VRB02KT 0400 R27/0500 R09/1000 FG SCT002 BKN005 08/08 Q1027
EPKT 280230Z 00000KT 0300 R27/0500 R09/1000 FG BKN001 08/08 Q1027
EPKT 280200Z VRB02KT 0300 R27/0500 R09/0600 FG BKN001 08/08 Q1027

JW411
29th Oct 2007, 09:26
They were obviously landing below minimums for this location;

Can you please enlighten us further?

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 09:30
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1631532,11,item.html

...on Polish internet portal:

"Przedstawiciele lotniska nie chcą dywagować, czy przyczyną wypadku był przede wszystkim błąd pilota. Sprawę bada także prokuratura. Decyzją prokuratora pilotowi pobrano krew, która będzie zbadana na zawartość alkoholu."

"The airport representative do not want to speculate, if the pilot error
was the main reason of the accident. The public prosecutor's office is investigating the case. By the prosecutors order blood sample of the pilot was taken, which later shall be checked for alcohol content."

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 09:35
Can you please enlighten us further?

I might be wrong...

The ATC asserts to the same portal, that:

"W nocy nad lotniskiem była mgła, ale widoczność pozwalała na lądowanie."

"There was fog over the airfield that night, but visibility was sufficient for landing"

Would you land CAT I by such METAR ?

EPKT 280200Z VRB02KT 0300 R27/0500 R09/0600 FG BKN001 08/08 Q1027

BOAC
29th Oct 2007, 09:44
Ptkay - you have us all confused! The met you have posted for the night of 27/28 October is certainly ABOVE normal CatI requirements. The link at ASN in post #11 quotes weather for the night of 26/27 October which is even better.

Does anyone know for sure:-

a) which night this occurred?
b) Air Europa's minima for a CatI in EKPT R27 ILS?

hetfield
29th Oct 2007, 09:44
Would you land CAT I by such METAR ?

Maybe.....

JW411
29th Oct 2007, 09:50
Ptkay:

You said: "They were obviously landing below minimums for this location".

ATC said: "Their was fog over the airfield that night, but visibility was sufficient for landing".

You have made a very serious accusation. Were you there at the time? I doubt, it but ATC were.

You have trotted out the half-hourly METARS as your "evidence". The lowest RVR quoted on the METARS is 700 metres. The normal RVR minima for a CAT1 approach is 550 metres but I seem to remember that Katowice was nearer to 700 metres.

In any event, none of this matters unless we know what ACTUAL RVR was passed to the aircraft at the time of the approach before we can even begin to speculate. In this case, ATC state that it was sufficient for a landing so they clearly did not make an approach with the weather below minimuns. The METAR has got absolutely nothing to do with it

If you don't really know what you are talking about then keep quiet. Making such serious allegations could get you into serious trouble.

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 09:56
Sorry to everybody, I checked my information,
and according to it the accident happened in the night
27/28th "shortly after changing the summer to winter time",
so shortly after 28th 02 ZULU

I corrected the METARS in my earlier posts.
Sorry again for the confusion.

You have trotted out the half-hourly METARS as your "evidence". The lowest RVR quoted on the METARS is 700 metres. The normal RVR minima for a CAT1 approach is 550 metres but I seem to remember that Katowice was nearer to 700 metres.

My mistake, but RVR from 02 ZULU are 027/0500, so 500m

Let's wait for the official report, maybe in a year or two...
;)

EOT

Lazy skip
29th Oct 2007, 11:11
Just cked the minum for KAT:
RVR 550m with FULL light
DA 1194ft
Thr 27 elv 994ft so we have a 200ft DH
HIRL,HIALS+SFL but no PAPI

Ptkay looks like you are well informed,so if you have any friend working
at KAT ATC would be very nice to know what ACTUAL RVR was passed
to the crew at the time.
Anyway I think is quite amazing that in 2 pages of posts I can find
drink&fly allegation, landing below minima allegation but I can`t find
the date and time of the incident.(probably i missed it correct me if i`m wrong)

Wojtus
29th Oct 2007, 11:23
According to the media, it was 28.10.2007 at 0207Z.

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 11:57
Post #23: Sorry to everybody, I checked my information,
and according to it the accident happened in the night
27/28th "shortly after changing the summer to winter time",
so shortly after 28th 02 ZULU


Wojtuś, thanks for confirmation...
;)

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 12:03
would be very nice to know what ACTUAL RVR was passed
to the crew at the time.

If time of landing was 0207Z, then they probably got this:

EPKT 280200Z VRB02KT 0300 R27/0500 R09/0600 FG BKN001 08/08 Q1027

So general visibility was 300m,
RVR on 27 was 500m, so less than 550m mentioned above for CAT I
and ceiling was 100ft, so less than 200ft mentioned above for CAT I as well...
But I was supposed to shut up...
:p

Husky One
29th Oct 2007, 12:12
Ceiling is irrelevant, only the actual RVR passed to the crew is and the time it was passed (before or after the 1000ft point).

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 12:31
Ceiling is irrelevant...

Must not the DH (200ft in this case)
be below the ceiling (100ft in this case)??

DECISION HEIGHT [ICAO]- A specified height in the precision approach at which a missed approach must be initiated if the required visual reference to continue the approach has not been established.
Note: The required visual reference means that section of the visual aids or of the approach area which should have been in view for sufficient time for the pilot to have made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in relation to the desired flight path.

Of course maybe they could see through the clouds.

Lazy skip
29th Oct 2007, 12:36
Husky one,
Thank you for stressing the concept, you are perfectly correct,
so 500m... taking into account that in these situations RVR is seldom stable maybe they got a value higer than the minumum at the time.
This could be the case because as reported on www.flightglobal.com (http://www.flightglobal.com),
the next incoming a/c, a Wizzair A320, had to wait for the runway
to be clean from debris and then made an uneventfull landing; probably
with ALS out and in this case the RVR goes up to 1000m. But probably they
busted the minimum as well.... no

Bearcat
29th Oct 2007, 12:43
cough, but surely Jizz air is in the sh#t also, landing with half the approach light system ripped out in fog as the previous mentioned. :D

Lazy skip
29th Oct 2007, 13:51
Ptkay: You are speaking about METAR which is issue every 30 min.(normally), we are speaking about instantaneous RVR readings that are
available to the controller every 15 sec., BKN001 doesn`t constitute a limitation for ILS precision app.,Just to give an example: ATIS info A at 0200UTC RVR27 400m BKN 001, once in contact with TWR they tell you RVR now is 600/550/700 what do you do?He will not give you cloud base!
METAR and TAF are used for planning pourposes on the ground or inflight replannig!

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 14:25
Point taken.
;)

GfaRm
29th Oct 2007, 15:14
c'mon guys, in Poland there are not so many events of this gravity so it's very nice opportunity for guys like Ptkay to be in the "center of universe" for a short moment with his "expert" theoretical knowledge and sensational speculations... :D

JW411
29th Oct 2007, 15:59
Ptkay:
How many times do you need to be told that if you really don't know what you are talking about, then keep quiet.

The cloud base is irrelevant and plays no part in the minima for a precision approach as far as commencing and making the approach is concerned.

METARS are irrelevant.

The only thing that IS relevant is the ACTUAL RVR passed to the crew at the decision point on this precision approach (except in so much that the DH on a CAT 1 approach could well be the limiting factor).

Under JARs, it is perfectly legal to commence an approach if the touch down RVR is below minima provided that, AT THE DECISION POINT, the RVR is at or above minima. After the Decision Point (which could be defined as at the OM or 4 DME etc) the RVR can fall below the minima again and the approach can be contined to DH. (If no DME is involved in the approach, then this point becomes defined as 1,000 ft AAL).

To summarise, unless you know what RVR was passed to this aircraft AT THE DECISION POINT during this approach then you are talking absolute b*llocks.

If you don't really know what you are talking about then it is better to keep quiet rather than open your mouth and confirm the fact!

I have a pretty good idea about what might have happened, but even with 50years of experience, I would not dream of suggesting this on this forum. How can you possibly state that the crew obviously landed below their minimums?

AdamLT
29th Oct 2007, 16:40
awful accident...

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 17:37
JW411:

as mentioned before

Point taken.


You don't have to roll over me again...

Finally it is a RUMOUR forum. ;)

AdamJT:

Is this your comment to the incident or to JW411...

If to JW411, he might not understand, what you mean.
:}

JW411
29th Oct 2007, 18:06
Ptkay:

"It is a RUMOUR forum".

Accusing a professional crew of landing below minimums is not a rumour but an accusation of the most serious kind and you had no reason to make that accusation. I see from your profile that you have a JAR PPL (A). That hardly makes you an expert but I am sure you will learn rapidly as you progress.

Adam LT:

I see that you are an architectural assistant and that you dream of being an airline pilot. I shall say no more.

Perhaps both of you should realise that if you start talking nonsense on a professional pilots website, then you must expect to be attacked by those of us who have been around for more than a while.

I wish both of you good luck in your aspirations. In aviation, you NEVER stop learning!

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 18:37
In aviation, you NEVER stop learning!


This is what has been told to me all the time.

I am here to learn from professionals like you.
I post the information I can get, mostly the second hand,
and expect you, the professionals, to comment on it in
professional and informative manner.

I appreciate your comment, that we don't know what the minima were,
but what we know for sure, is that the "professional pilot"
cut 870m of approach lights almost killing 114 Polish soldiers
returning home...

Don't be surprised if I am looking for an answer why?

Also to learn something.

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 18:43
(except in so much that the DH on a CAT 1 approach could well be the limiting factor).
Anyway I appreciate, that you, at least partly agree that ceiling
is not totally irrelevant in this case.
The required visual reference means that section of the visual aids or of the approach area which should have been in view for sufficient time for the pilot to have made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in relation to the desired flight path.
Looking at the result, the pilot obviously didn't have the "required visual reference"
at the Decision Point at Decision Height.

captplaystation
29th Oct 2007, 18:43
It would be interesting to know if Air Europa is one of those companies enlightened enough to prefer their crew to Autoland ( assuming no restrictions are in force for coupled approaches on a particular ILS ) or whether , like a surprisingly high percentage of companies /regulatory authorities , they prefer the drivers to wrestle the b@stard onto the runway from a low altitude disconnect in crap vis , suffering from either glare or no depth perception depending on whether or not they used landing lights. It amazes me how many luddites in Airlines and Reg bodies still can't conceive that a properly executed and monitored autoland (assuming no restrictions to glidepath usage below minima/aircraft and crew status etc are OK) is several times safer due to increased crew monitoring capacity, coupled with less need for very precise handling and acute depth perception immediately following perhaps several hours of automatic flight. Yes I know we "have " to be able to do it, but it's safer to let Boeing play F15 than you trying to be Maverick. One would hope that some people could use some imagination and remember this incident (and TNT in EMA) when they decide whether to engage the second autopilot this winter.Try not to be the third, third time isn't always lucky. Edited to say . . Ptkay if you ain't been there you don't, with the greatest of respect, know what you are talking about. It is entirely possible , particularly somewhere like TFN, to lose visual reference AFTER decision altitude ( ask the BY 757 crew in GRO a few years ago. . although that may have been due to something rather rarer than drifting fog) Nonetheless it does happen, fairly often if you have a good sim instructor, and it is much easier in this case too if you are coupled, just push TOGA . .pray and hang on, much easier than a hand flown go- around from the flare IMHO.

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 19:01
captplaystation,

thanks for informative and professional comment.
The glare, landing lights etc. is a good point here.

...but it's safer to let Boeing play F15 than you trying to be Maverick...

My favourite quote for the nearest future. ;)

JW411
29th Oct 2007, 19:22
Ptkay:

OK. I will play along with you just a little bit longer.

The cloud base plays no part on the decision as to whether to start an approach or not. The only factor that matters in the decision process is the RVR.

For a CAT1 approach, the DH (Decision Height) is set as the minima and this would normally be around 200 feet above threshold on the servo altimeter. Below that height, thou shalt not go unless the required visual clues are there and sufficient to make a safe landing.

Now this height normally equates to an RVR (not visibility) of 550 - 600 metres.

Therefore, the decision as to whether to proceed or not is not predicated on the cloud base but the RVR. As far as the decision making process is concerned, the RVR is the only factor but the crew must not go below the DH unless sufficient visual clues are evident at DH.

This crew obviously found the runway otherwise they would not have been able to land and taxi to the gate.

What remains in doubt is what they did between making the decision to land and actually striking the runway (making use of all available cover).

Jagohu
29th Oct 2007, 19:24
I don't know about AEA minima, but CAT I:
DH: 60 m (200 ft) above touchdown zone elevation
Visibility: 800 m+ OR RVR: 550 m+

Clearly with the METAR below it was below the minima with still clouds at 100' and visibility between RVR 500 m on RWY27...
EPKT 280200Z VRB02KT 0300 R27/0500 R09/0600 FG BKN001 08/08 Q1027

Thank God they made it. They were much more fortunate than those poor Slovakian guys a few years back returning to Kosice from Yugoslavia with an AN-24 and crashing into the mountains on the Hungarian-Slovakian border in the dark, just a few kms from the airport... :(

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 19:26
JW411, thanks for informative and professional comment.

AdamLT
29th Oct 2007, 19:32
my comment was in regards to the accident.

apologies if i seem to have 'offended' some people. i didnt mean to.

ATC83
29th Oct 2007, 19:40
I diverted there a few nights ago and it took two hours for the baggage handlers to come and get the bags off.....wouldn't like to imagine how long it took to drag an engineer away from his coffee and his polish version of nuts magazine!! :rolleyes:

Ptkay
29th Oct 2007, 19:46
my comment was in regards to the accident.

apologies if i seem to have 'offended' some people. i didnt mean to.

So maybe edit your post with some asterisks... ;)

captplaystation
29th Oct 2007, 19:49
Jagohu, please read ALL of the previous thread before making accusatory comment. As has been stated several times already, unless you have heard a transcript of what RVR was passed to this crew immediately prior to OM or 1000' please make no further presumptions as to the legality of this approach. Furthermore unless you were sitting under the aircraft as it passed above you at 200' can you confirm that the "break" in the BKN001 ( do you actually even know what that means ? ) didn't happen to be over the threshold, or indeed that the density of the clouds ( ever heard of vv ? no probably not , but I won't complicate it further for you) could have allowed sufficient reference due to the H igh I ntensity approach L ighting system, or am I speaking a foreign language here? Please leave those of us who have an inkling of what is involved free from further silly suggestions and suppositions. PS, it was 600m on the 09 end, don't you think therefore that it is just a teensy weensy bit possible that he just might have had 550 for his approach and that we should be concentrating our discussion / speculation on why / how it all went so horribly wrong after minima ,rather than whether the approach should have been commenced. I think that is where we should be looking if we want to learn anything.

ron83
29th Oct 2007, 21:26
Guys,

there still was no info regarding if it was hand flown or autoland.
but if it were Autoland possibility of erroneous GP indication might be.Like the one in Air New Zealand incident.:confused:

NZ60: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GelRBhJ4gmI

uncle_maxwell
29th Oct 2007, 22:05
JW411, you mentioned that you may have a good idea of what potentially happened. Why don't you voice it? I think people should still be allowed to present their opinions and speculations (even in this forum) so long as they are labeled as such. Not only is it essentially the right of free speech but it might also raise points that nobody considered before.

Out of interest, what sort of 'serious trouble' could somebody get into for voicing an opinion that is later proved to be factually wrong or based on fallacious assumptions? (And the facts are still to come...)

Lastly, on the RVR - very interesting technical discussion - but what about 'good airmanship'? Is it ill-advised to do reconsider the decision to land/approach having a ****ty METAR or cloud base?

Jagohu
29th Oct 2007, 22:24
captplaystation:
Fair enough, I apologize, I was still at work in and only read the first couple of posts...
Still I only wrote my opinion - I've no experience in TWR control, but the only thing I've learned since I've been around aviation that all the rules are written with blood thus if it's for me then 500 m is not 550 m and that's the end of story. I don't know about the RVR passed to the crew, that's a good point.
Another good one that I didn't realize it says BKN, I only concentrated on the 001 ending. Mea culpa.
I don't like to question the pilots, since I don't know the exact situation, but the fact is that they did hit that bloody thing, so something must have gone wrong. And if there is a tiny chance that they didn't do something according to the rules and procedures, I guess we all know that the investigators will jump on it, even if maybe it wasn't the direct case of the incident.
"it was 600m on the 09 end, don't you think therefore that it is just a teensy weensy bit possible that he just might have had 550 for his approach "
You see that's the difference between us. As a controller I've been taught not to assume that there something will be a "teensy weensy bit possible" but to make damn sure that YOU guys will miss each other and rather have 8 nm than end up with 4.5. I'd expect the same from the other side as well, but that's an other story.

I wonder if they were listening to the GPWS at all... 10 m is still below 50', so there should have been a few announcements before - amongst them the 200' DH. What do you guys say for that? At that altitude they should have seen the runway if the continued, shouldn't they? Enlighten me please, I'd love to know what would you do knowing that the RVR is a "maybe", passing 200' and still I guess not seeing sh*t but the lights, 'cos otherwise I presume they wouldn't have ended up like they did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but please avoid the style used above, I'm not your brother or student of FO or whoever you used talk to like that.

Again, I don't want to blame them, I'm just curious and I'd love to see these things not happening again, since I did have lost some old friends through a very similar case a few years ago - they weren't this lucky. :(

BOAC
29th Oct 2007, 22:30
and still I guess not seeing sh*t but the lights - that's all you need to see (as long as they are the RIGHT lights.:))

BYALPHAINDIA
29th Oct 2007, 22:54
Jesus What a mess - Better not go there again:ugh:I bet AEA don't do any more 'pointless' trooping flights to that Airport, Don't the poles have there own transport anyway??:rolleyes:

AEA are a very safe Airline, This is the first incident I have ever heard involving AEA.

Regards.:ok:

Jagohu
29th Oct 2007, 23:50
I guess you can tell if they're... :) Of course only if you do see them and not just a blur...

looseobject
30th Oct 2007, 06:43
Ladies and gentlemen please look at some facts :

Hopefullly nobody was hurt or injured there.
The Acft is still in one piece, ( and so are the CVR and FDR )
The most important : the flight deck crew members are alive so they can testsify.
The investigators will have the opportunity to get all the explanations they need to enlighten the flying community.:confused:

Green Guard
30th Oct 2007, 07:21
RVR is the only factor but the crew must not go below the DH unless sufficient visual clues are evident at DH.


Correct. And here for some reason the crew descended below G.S. not one half of the scale, but 3 full scales of G.S. indicator (i.e. more then 10 dots low !!).

This crew obviously found the runway otherwise they would not have been able to land and taxi to the gate.


Yes they did. But before that they confused the RWY lights with APP Lights

Expressflight
30th Oct 2007, 07:38
JW411

Could you just clarify for a lowly, long retired Ops Director (so rather out of touch with today's SOPs), is it now standard practice to commence a CAT I approach with a DH of, say, 300' when METAR cloudbase is BKN or OVC at 100'?

I ask only because it seems to be generally stated on this thread that RVR is the sole criterion for deciding to commence an approach, regardless of the reported cloudbase, presumably in hope of finding a cloud break at DH.

BOAC
30th Oct 2007, 07:57
Basically YES - unless cloudbase is specified, RVR/vis is the limiting factor. Many are the times I have seen approach lights/'running rabbits' through 8/8 'cloud'. Twice I have not. It is, as always (in theory, anyway), 'Captain's discretion' whether to commence an approach and if there is no visual reference at DA/H, round we go.

Ptkay
30th Oct 2007, 08:50
Green Guard , BOAC, Expressflight,

thank you for some (finally) non-emotional and down to earth
comments and explanations to the matter.

Here I quote again regarding DH, DP and ceiling:
sufficient time for the pilot to have made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in relation to the desired flight path

Wojtus
30th Oct 2007, 09:38
News from rmf.fm:

"Piloci hiszpańskiego Boeinga, który podczas lądowania zniszczył światła naprowadzające na lotnisku w Pyrzowicach byli trzeźwi. Takie są wstępne ustalenia komisji badającej przyczyny niedzielnego wypadku. Piloci w rozmowach z komisją wskazywali na rozbieżne wskazania przyrządów wspomagających proces lądowania. Analiza zapisów z czarnych skrzynek pomoże w wyjaśnieniu okoliczności wypadku."
(http://www.rmf.fm/fakty/?id=126174&temat=76)

Pilots of spanish Boeing which damaged approach lights on landing at Pyrzowice were sober. These are preliminary conclusions of the investigating board. During the talks with the board pilots pointed inconsistent indications of landing-supporting instruments. Blackbox analysis will contribute to explain the circumstances.

Lazy skip
30th Oct 2007, 10:09
Expressflight,
Try to google "Approach ban"
Ls

B737Captain
30th Oct 2007, 10:15
Hello. I work for Air Europa. Low visibility app are performed in dual channel (both autipilots) and it's recommended to perform an autoland. In CAT II&IIIA autoland in mandatory in our company. I know very well the crew of that flight. There were two Captains and a F/O flying that day. Both Captains are very good professionals with more than 20 years flying commercial airplanes. One of them is a TRE/TRI who has flown in the Spanish Airforce as flight instructor on the F5 fleet. The other one has flown a lot of aircrafts type, from DC3 to B767. They know what they are flying and I have no explanation of what had happened in Katowice that night. Air Europa has a very high security standards and all crewmembers are very well instructed on simulators about all emergency situations that can be found in manuals.
Please be patient. As soon as I have news of what happened I'll let all of you know but ,please, don't blame the crew since you have all the information about the accident. They are good pilots,good persons and excelent professionals.

PD: One thing is for sure. They were no drunk at all!

captplaystation
30th Oct 2007, 11:15
Jagohu, apologies for my patronising tone. I can only say in my defence, that like many on here I am frustrated when the same question is asked , when a wholly accurate and comprehensive explanation has already been proferred. I am sorry, like many of us in aviation, you have known individuals involved in something like this, and I respect your desire to know how this could happen. B737 Captain has already clarified the experience levels of crew involved , and the AEA SOP's, so it becomes a little harder to understand. For sure the FDR and CVR will yield some clues, as, without some serious malfunction within A/C or ILS there would have been an awful lot of noise going on in the cockpit that seems to have been ineffective in persuading the crew to correct the trajectory. Perhaps the length of the duty,(and those preceeding it) finishing in the middle of the night may have some bearing here. As always, sod's law dictates that the approach to minima will "always" be the last one at the end of a long day/night.

Ptkay
30th Oct 2007, 11:37
Both Captains are very good professionals with more than 20 years flying commercial airplanes. One of them is a TRE/TRI who has flown in the Spanish Airforce as flight instructor on the F5 fleet.

Doesn't it remind you about the Lufthansa accident in WAW ??

"I am the Capitan, TRE/TRI in the right seat, go-around is not an option..."

...without some serious malfunction within A/C or ILS...

As long as this possibility cannot be excluded, any further speculations
are completely fruitless.

Bearcat
30th Oct 2007, 11:48
irrespective of how brilliant the crew are, the bottom line is the approach lights tore the arse out the 737 and Wizz lands.

captplaystation
30th Oct 2007, 11:54
Two Capt's together (depending on the personalities involved ) is not always the optimum configuration from a CRM point of view ( IMHO), and of course just makes any whoopsy even more inexcusable to the investigators, who conveniently ignore that one guy is not in his "normal" role. . .even if he is a LTC / TRI / TRE. Most days I have spent in this config have been very pleasant, but the odd one has reminded me why I am SOOOO glad I fly in the LHS.

eu01
30th Oct 2007, 13:33
The preliminatory results of the investigation: both Capt's were sober. :D Relief anyway.
Source: rmf.fm

B737Captain
30th Oct 2007, 14:16
"Two Capt's together (depending on the personalities involved ) is not always the optimum configuration from a CRM point of view "


Well, as you may know, there's only ONE Captain in every flight... So, one of them was acting like Pilot in Command at this time and the other was just sitting at the jump seat...with the F/O assisting the Pilot Flying during the app. The CRM is not a fact in this case.

B737Captain
30th Oct 2007, 14:19
"irrespective of how brilliant the crew are, the bottom line is the approach lights tore the arse out the 737 and Wizz lands."


That's true but as I said before, please don't blame the Crew before the investigation is over... I know it's easier to kill the messenger but wait untill you have more details of the accident!!!!!!!

Ptkay
30th Oct 2007, 14:26
The CRM is not a fact in this case.

Good to know.
We hope, that due to your contacts you will be able to tell us
soon what it actually was...

Latest reports say, the damage to the a/c might be bigger than expected,
it is possible that the left engine digested some of the debris.

In Katowice there are no facilities to do major repairs,
so it might be a real headache for the owner.

U 2
30th Oct 2007, 15:08
Capt playstation, and others

I would strongly advice against an autoland when ground equipment
is cat I only

The ground equipment can simply not provide guidance below 200 feet

Wojtus
30th Oct 2007, 16:03
Radio part of ILS equipment for Cat I beams the same signal as Cat III ones. The main differences are airfield LVP procedures, higher requirements for ground lighting/markings and of course tougher standards to be met during flight-test of ILS. So you can't say Cat I ILS does not provide guidance below 200ft. It does, however crew should not trust this guidance and monitor Cat I autolanding carefully by visual means.

However I'm not sure if DME part is required to make an autoland. EPKT has Cat I ILS without DME, only markers.

Some additional statement from the news (source: onet.pl (http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1632802,11,prokuratura_o_incydencie_z_udzialem_hiszpanskiego _samolotu,item.html)):
"According to pilots testimonials, during the the final part of landing contradictions of instruments readings have appeared, but there was no time to solve the doubts".

E. MORSE
30th Oct 2007, 17:57
Have to agree with U2

I would strongly advice against an autoland on Cat I ground equipment

hetfield
30th Oct 2007, 18:38
@Wojtus

ILS/DME is not required for autoland.

threemiles
30th Oct 2007, 18:57
"According to pilots testimonials, during the the final part of landing contradictions of instruments readings have appeared, but there was no time to solve the doubts".

That's why it is CAT I only and not certified for anything better.

Lucky Angel
30th Oct 2007, 18:58
With all the respect to the pilots i think this was a typical scenario of the tendency to dive for the lights once you have them in sight. I've seen it before and believe me if you don't place it in your mind not to do that beforehand then its very tempting to go below the G/S in poor visibility. I remind you that in 500m vis or thereabouts, the 1st thing you see is the approach lights so going towards them is your natural instinct. I think they realised but slightly late.
But then again thats my opinion and i could be wrong.

Ptkay
30th Oct 2007, 19:56
In the same link, that Wojtus posted,
the Prosecutors Office confirms, that all the pilots were sober.
Also information, that the damages exceed several millions $$,
and that both the carrier and the airport may be rising claims.
Question is, against whom ???
Against each other ???
;)

Ptkay
30th Oct 2007, 20:03
A7696/07 - Rwy 27 Precision Approach Category I Lightning System U/s. 28 Oct
05:30 2007
Until 30 Oct 23:59 2007 Estimated. Created: 28 Oct 06:01 2007a7702/07 - Rwy
27 Simplified Approach Lighting System Cross Installed.
Simplified Approach Lighting System Axis Length 420m And Bar
300m From Thr 27. 28 Oct 16:10 2007 Until 30 Nov 23:59 2007 Estimated.
Created:
28 Oct 16:11 2007
A7704/07 - Rwy 27 Flashing Lights Avbl Along Simplified Approach
Lighting System Axis. Flashing Lights System Length 420m. 28 Oct 16:40 2007
Until 30 Nov 23:59 2007 Estimated. Created: 28 Oct 16:41 2007

Mach trim
30th Oct 2007, 22:37
It amazes me people and the press jumping to conclusions and speculating
until the facts are in.

I ask some of you, do you think you are better than an accident investigator ?

Could it happen to you ?

Please let's just have facts only.

GfaRm
30th Oct 2007, 23:54
Ptkay:
you should post your last question on some lawyers' forum or perhaps ask that specific reptile's source for answer, who cares here who's going to pay for it? Everybody is alive and that matters and I guess that some people here are interested why it happend...
Once again, please, this is aviation forum, not a place for sensational questions, thank you!

Ptkay
31st Oct 2007, 09:44
GafRm:

You completely misunderstood my post.
It was "tongue in cheek".
Just quoting the journo text, trying to point the nonsense.

Mister Geezer
31st Oct 2007, 10:25
I wonder if the ground crew had a chance to tell the skipper what had happened before he wrote 'Nil Further' in the tech log!!! :}

RAT 5
31st Oct 2007, 10:37
Autoland & Cat 2/3 are different things. One is a procedure the other weather conditions. Naturally if the weather conditions are below Cat 1 an autoland is often required; (depends on operator's and a/c limitations).
An autoland on a Cat 1 instillation is allowed, but generally the conditions need to be visual as defined by the operator. The reason for allowing it is to allow the pilots to maintain their LVO currency, and the reason for visual is so that you can assertain before, and at the latest, 200' if the a/c is stable and in a good position to allow an autoland. If not, then disconnect and manually land. I know about the nose up trim, but this is the procedure that has been allowed by all airlines I have worked for.

To fly an autoland (Cat 2 or 3) approach in marginal CAT 1 conditions is to achieve a lower DH. However, this would require the runway to be authorised and LVP procedures to be in place. If the Rwy was so authorised and all criterea met, than this would be sound airmanship and give the best chance to achieve a landing. If the Rwy was Cat 1 only, and the conditons at or near Cat 1, then the best that could be done is a coupled approach to Cat 1 DA and manual landing.

I thought one important point in the spec difference between Cat 1 & Cat2/3 installations was the response time to power loss and switch over to the SBY power systems. For Cat 2/3 the time is an order of magnitude faster than Cat 1.

captplaystation
31st Oct 2007, 18:45
Sorry to disagree with a few of you but. . . unless the glidepath is promulgated as being unsuitable for coupled approaches below a certain height ( which as I previously stated it SOMETIMES is) there is no good reason NOT to take advantage of A- The increased availability of monitoring capacity for both pilots B - The reduced possibility of "ducking under" after you disconnect, or indeed that old tendency to "uncorrect the drift" C - no eye adaption required, from gloom and crap, to OW that is bright 4 - Reduced chance of smacking it in big time due to poor depth perception 5 - Less need to select landing lights until landing assured ( as you don't need to really see the runway surface as such) so more chance of actually seeing the approach/RW lights at minima. 6 - Less individual variation in performance (autopilot versus humans). . . if you work , as I do, in a company with a lot of inexperienced guys you will appreciate this one. 7 - Go-Around can be flown automatically, again , safer, more positive, much more consistent. 8 - If you are lucky enough to be performing approach on a CAT 2 or CAT3 runway and you briefed adequately, the only consideration required in the event the RVR worsens on approach are that you have LVP protection and that you rebrief the minima. The only disadvantage ( if you can call it one) is that you must be aware ( not a bad idea for any approach in crap vis) whether ATC is providing ( or even if they exist ) LVP'S , whether there are any specific limitations on plates or Notams for GP, and to be aware of what you actually NEED to see to call "LAND ", but that is only Airmanship and can hardly be seen as a demerit.With 19 European Winters in Command of an Autoland -capable aircraft I have made enough landing's in marginal Cat 1 conditions ( and at the same time felt equal measures of admiration/trepidation for colleagues who disconnected and landed manually) to know what is safer and less stressful. All the F/O's I have had the pleasure to fly with have commented that they have preferred this to what they had done with Capt A.N. Other the night before, so this is not my own obstinate opinion. If you respect the rules and know the limitations of the ground/ aircraft equipment it strikes me as a no-brainer, it's what Mr Boeing fitted it for.

boeingir
31st Oct 2007, 19:20
i am very sure you are not a pilot, because they are transporting people at 30000m of altitude every day and having the responsability of their passengers lives all the time . i don´t think they want to put all this lives including their owns under risk for nothing. I am not a pilot but i have a very important respect for them because they have a very risky job. they dont need people like you speculating what happened that day, there are already people making the investigation let the profesional do the work and then talk all you want.
Any way i have being reading information about this company and have so many prices of security. all the aircrafts are almost new.
give the pilots the chance of be professional, don´t blame them before the investigation :=

captplaystation
31st Oct 2007, 21:15
If they are flying at 30000m I think they are risking more than a few lives. Most 737-800's that were totalled this last 12 months were pretty much factory fresh ,so no guarantee's there amigo, but I agree, speculation is silly " INFORMED" discussion can be educational though.

pasoundman
31st Oct 2007, 21:52
"they are transporting people at 30000m of altitude every day"

That 'space plane' finally made it off the ground did it ? ;)

boeingir
1st Nov 2007, 08:05
:rolleyes:as i said i am not a pilot, so i have this stupid mistakes
i did mean 35000ft but i wroted wrong , any way you still transporting people under risk , do you?

lederhosen
1st Nov 2007, 10:14
A previous poster who says he works for Air Europa says there were two captains and an F/O assigned to the flight. This suggests this may have been a check flight or training and that, at least originally, the TRI was sitting on the jump seat. I do not know how often Air Europa fly in to Katowice, but it is probably not a very familiar airport for this crew.

Whilst Captplaystation's input is certainly educational it seems unlikely the crew were performing an autoland. However presupposing you were conducting a marginal CAT 1 approach into an unfamiliar airport, would he clarify exactly what he means by promulgated and where he would check this in the middle of the night in the cockpit. Jepp charts, Notams and ATIS spring to mind, but being sure something is allowed is always tricky.

I would be surprised if the CVR does not contain very loud warnings such as glideslope / sink rate etc. and the crew is regretting not going around from what had obviously become a non stabilised approach. Typical swiss cheese with the holes all lined up; middle of the night, tired from a long day, unfamiliar airport, marginal weather and then a dive for the deck! Just speculation, but a very dangerous situation.

Ptkay
1st Nov 2007, 11:32
I am a pilot, not a commercial one, and not very experienced,
but I am a pilot, and I am here to learn.

I appreciate your patriotism against the airline, its pilots and the country.
But lets talk about facts (as you wish it):
this excellent airline, with excellent pilots, and excellent aircraft
almost killed 114 of the soldiers from my country.
I have the right to know why for two reasons:

1. These were my people in danger there
2. We have to know, to avoid such cases in the future

I can assure you, I will be reading the final report of
the Polish Accident Commission (probably earlier than you)
but sometimes, before the final report is ready
the information should be made public, if
imminent safety flaws are discovered.

Please, read my posts carefully !

I was trying to pass the bits and pieces of information
available here to the public, not suggesting any conclusions.
There might have been a flaw in the ILS system as well
as in the a/c or anywhere else.

I am searching here in this forum for professional
and competent comments to these bits and pieces
of information and not such "patriotic" arrogant
attacks like yours.
:=

Ferrobus
1st Nov 2007, 17:47
Hi Ptkay,

I was reading all your posts related to the AEA accident, until... you said something related to navaids. An ILS flaw or something like this in Katowice, as I can see .

Please, could you be so kind to give me more detaildinformation about the navaids installed in that airport, or where to find it ?.

I´m interested in this subjects, because ( sorry, despite this is a pilot's forum ) I´m an ATSEP, and I want to know how is the situation of our colleagues in Katowice, and all related of it's possible implication in the accident.

Thanks a lot in advance.

boeingir
1st Nov 2007, 19:10
nobody almost kill 140 people
there was not a crash accident was an incident. any way Who is the arrogant? you take all the chances you have to write comments only about the crew,
they were drank or they were landing under minimuns. etc. all i said is to let the investigators do their job. and congratulations if you can read the inform before everybody.
you are very lucky because if you would be the pilot may be you would like someone like me defendig the profesionality of your profession.

Aviator_IT
1st Nov 2007, 20:19
Shearing metal with 160 KTS at 30 FT is something that classifies as "almost killing somebody".

This obviously is a worring incident, and some light has to be shed.

BYALPHAINDIA
1st Nov 2007, 22:23
Ptkay, Wouldn't it be a good idea if in 'future' - The polish transport their own people, in their own machines, In their own country?

Maybe if this was done instead, We may not be talking now?

Surely they have their own transport?

I bet AEA wish they never took on the contract now?:ugh:

Why charter a Spanish Airline?

Like a previous post said - Not everything is about money?:=

Anyway, Best regards.:ok:

mini
1st Nov 2007, 22:51
BYALPHAINDIA

" Like a previous post said - Not everything is about money?"

you've never been around the UN then... :E

Ferrobus
1st Nov 2007, 23:13
Hello again.

I think that we must wait to a Polish Civil Aviation Authority preliminary report, or something similar from the Polish Air Navigation Service provider or by AEA itself. All the rest can be only classified as unfounded suppositions.

Something said that despite of the damages, nobody was injured. Yes, he was right.
And that's all, by the moment !!.

Ok, not all !!.

We must learn, learn about the contributing factors to the accident ( Yes, it was an accident, according Spanish laws RD 21/2003, substantial damage to an aircraft ), and know how to prevent this lethal combination who was about to kill more than one hundred people.

Whatever the problem were: Human factors, training policies, aircraft maintenance, as well as ground equipment... wathever, we as proffesionals, must keep in mind that this situation, can't must happen never again!.

And now... yes, that's all!.

See you. :ok:

bradford737
1st Nov 2007, 23:45
Look Ptkay (and people like him), I am F/O at AEA and really did not want to write here, because I prefere to wait until I get more information about what happened even having info that you don't have and having talked to our ingeneers and pilots about the flight, airport, damage to the aircraft etc... Obviously you are not a pilot, forgive me if I tell you, but PPL doesn`t make you one, at least not to write things like you have written. Your comments about if the crew smelled like alcohol just a few hours after the incident is so sad and ugly. Even if you heared it from others, something like that is very serious and don,t worry, that is one of the things investigators will look first, as they did!! Your comments like:
"To survive Lebanon and die on landing at home"
"I doubt they were on time there to do the breath analyse" are so sensational, You look more like a reporter looking for a sensational story to tell than a pilot even PPL. You said you are here to learn, well let me tell you in my opinion you should spend less time writing in forums and spend more learning. Take you performance and meteorologic books, you will lern more there than in one hundred years reading in pilot forums. And once you are a profesioal pilot working for an airline you may read books like "The limits of expertice". Much better than learning from speculations.
You also replyed to boingir:
I appreciate your patriotism against the airline, its pilots and the country.
But lets talk about facts (as you wish it):
this excellent airline, with excellent pilots, and excellent aircraft
almost killed 114 of the soldiers from my country.
I have the right to know why for two reasons:

1. These were my people in danger there
2. We have to know, to avoid such cases in the future

First I have to say the tone and way you reply show no respect for the pilots and my company, as I said before, I don,t know exactly what happened, But have you thinked about, taht this excellent airline, with excellent pilots, and excellent aircraft may have saved the 114 soldiers from your contry. It looks like you allready judged for your own, blameing against pilots. This is why I told you with all respects that for me you are not a pilot. No prefesional pilot would do something you do, putting in doubt Pilot actuation without knowing what happend. For me all pilot colleagues are professionals unless evidence proves otherwise. Second, it looks like you took it personal saying it were your people in there, you forgot that there were also other crew members onboard apart from the pilots. They are less than your people, don`t think so. Also you look like you forget that the pilots are the frist ones that want to do a save flight.
Third, you have no more right than anyone else to know what happend, I allready told you why. And fourth if you really want to know, to avoid such things, wait until final report!! Stop speculating. Obviously you had time to take rumors from everywhere but didn`t have time to search a little about AEA. If you had You would probably shut up. I even will not tell you about our company, because my opinion might be seen as unparcial but you would wonder! As I allready said, dont`t take it to personal, maybe it is because of your unexperience, your age maybe, or your desire of knowledge, but stop speculating, take care with your comments, and if you really want to learn, take your aeronautical books out and work hard on them, and maybe one time you get to be a professional pilot and understand that talking is easy, but sometimes you must be there...
Be patient and wait for the final report (you will be one of the first ones as you said!)

And now just to clear some things, The fact that there where two captains and one F/O is becouse it was a long night flight, one of the captains is to reinforce the crew to avoid fatigue, it was no instruction flight. All crew members are well experienced pilots.

Wojtus
2nd Nov 2007, 00:34
@Ferrobus
Katowice has 2 NDBs (at 0.5NM and 4NM final rwy 27).
Runway 27: Cat I ILS with OM and MM (no DME) with 3.2 degrees glideslope. Full Approach lights, but no PAPI at this direction.

Runway 09: no radio aids, simplified approach lights and PAPI (3 degrees).

Runway has only edge lights (60m apart), no centerline nor touchdown zone lighting. Area in vicinity is very flat, so radio altimeter should give good readings through entire approach. Airfield elevation 994ft.

Radar service is not provided for the approach phase (Krakow Approach covers the Katowice until about 5000 due fade area), and aerodrome is under procedural control. At night (23-7 LMT) radar approach service is not provided at all (not enough staffing), and procedural approach service is provided by the tower up to FL095.

About 4-5 years ago ILS GS didn't made the flight-tests and it was suspended for about more half a year - unprecision LLZ approaches were in use. It was 2.9 degree glidepath then. It was finally raised to 3.2 degrees and passed all the checks. There was also a time (3-4 years ago) when some guy was unawarely using frequency close to GS transmitter for his private radio talks, which gave some wrong indications reported by crews. He got tracked down within a week. Since then there was no known to me problems with ILS.

You can check Polish AIP online (free registration required) at http://www.ais.pansa.pl/aip/

If you need some more information, please ask. However I'm not going to give away any details of the accident itself until it is officially verified. Just don't want to spread the rumours on the rumours forum ;)

Ptkay
2nd Nov 2007, 06:58
Due to mu language knowledge I just translated the
Polish TV and internet portal information to this forum.
Nowhere have I accused anybody of anything,
I just quoted information, as it was coming.
I, following the information I got, mentioned all
possible causes of the incident (see my posts)
and brought up all the "dementi" given in due time.

I was as shocked as you were, that the main information
channel of the Polish TV mentioned in prime time
the "smell of alcohol". It was not me !!!

Later I quoted many times that "the pilots were sober",
as the official test results came out.

Now to answer some of your questions:

1. It was a UN mission, not Polish Army,
so the decision, which airline to chose was done
by the UN administration, not the Polish authorities.
2. The information on ILS can be found in Polish AIP on line:
http://www.ais.pata.pl/aip/ (you can register and log in for free)
3. I have done research on AEA, and appreciate their safety record.

bradford737:
Just relax and keep the facts coming.
The fact that there where two captains and one F/O is because it was a long night flight, one of the captains is to reinforce the crew to avoid fatigue, it was no instruction flight. All crew members are well experienced pilots.
The above quote is the kind of posting I am looking forward to,
this brings something to the case, and not the emotional attacks.

As well as this one:

We must learn, learn about the contributing factors to the accident ( Yes, it was an accident, according Spanish laws RD 21/2003, substantial damage to an aircraft ), and know how to prevent this lethal combination who was about to kill more than one hundred people.


Sorry, if anybody feels offended by my posts,
but I am just looking for answers.

Since no factual answers or professional comments are coming any more,
it looks like there is no need to follow this topic any more.

With all respect.

Ptkay
2nd Nov 2007, 07:03
Just my last comment:

most of the attacks on my person are from PPRuNers
registered this week, with just 2-4 posts, almost all
on this topic.

I am here since 3 years, mostly lurking, and trying to help,
where my local knowledge is needed.

If I failed, sorry for that again.

Just my (last) $0.02 .....

lederhosen
2nd Nov 2007, 11:11
In Germany where I am a 737 captain our regulations do not give any credit for an enhanced crew unless separate (from cockpit and cabin) rest facilities are provided.

How much real benefit rostering an additional pilot provides is an interesting question. We certainly operate similar sectors overnight with two crew. Three crew spending ten plus hours in a cramped cockpit could even be argued to reduce safety. I do not say this is definitely the case, but it is a point of view. However unquestionably such flights are very tiring.

My company does not encourage autolands onto non CAT 2 or 3 runways and my experience is that without protection (e.g. LVPs) the autopilot disconnects a significant amount of the time when I do practice autolands for currency purposes. A low disconnect definitely brings its own risks.

Having said all that I can see advantages to carrying out an autoland in marginal conditions onto a runway with which I am familiar and where I have had a go previously in good conditions. Certainly food for thought and the type of debate (shed of national emotions) for which I find PPRuNe most interesting.

PMN
2nd Nov 2007, 11:40
This obviously is a worring incident, and some light has to be shed.

Some lights were shorn, if that counts?

sleeper
2nd Nov 2007, 12:38
Lederhosen,

1.Curtained off cabin seats count as being seperate from cabin and cockpit. So this then becomes a rest area.

2. Cat 1 autolands are perfectly normal. I never had an autopilot disconnect on one in 8 years of 737 flying. The 200 feet DH is there to cover for deviations at low altitude (no low vis procedures) that you can either correct by going manual or to go around. In fact our company strongly suggest to make autolands with vis below 2500m and cloudbase below 500 ft. (not mandatory though)

captplaystation
2nd Nov 2007, 12:58
I'm in agreement with you there sleeper. No disconnects in 19 years, and a lot of uneventful arrivals that might have finished in G/A if I'd chosen manual. LEDERHOSEN, I work for an Airline that some on here would accuse of lower standards, and I can assure you I have not, and never would attempt an Autoland without reading the appropriate notam or Jeppy sidenote. Maybe that is why I don't mind to Autoland and you do. Incidentally a previous poster said AEA encouraged crew to Autoland , so I think this is a likely scenario, contrary to what you have stated.

Ferrobus
2nd Nov 2007, 15:08
Thanks a lot for your complete info dear friend!.
And very useful too!.

Can I go far away ??:O.
If were possible, I would like also to know the manufacturer and model of the equipment, and a couple of details:

1.- Number of antennas in the LOC array ( maybe 8 )
2.- Same as in GP. ( Maybe two or three in the same mast)

Many thanks again in advance for your help and patience.

By the way, seems that an Autoland with an ILS CAT I can be performed too!. That's new for me (remember, I'm not a proffesional pilot, only amateur ). I was only aware that it can be used in CAT II/III operations.

During my job I've seen lot of navaids reports from flight inspections, including ILS, of course.

In some cases, those graphics shows a good "LOC/GP signal structure" ... but until intercepting the DH for an ILS CAT I minimums. From here to touchdown graphic is so full of reflections and extrange patterns, that it can't be flown. So that ILS can be used as CAT I but no more. I've seen also many ILS CAT I that can be flown until almost touchdown without problem too !!.

So, dou yo have a database of this facilities?. Or, why are you absolutely sure that the signal you're receiving ( from an ILS CAT I ) is so good that yon can make an approach and landing in "autoland" mode?.

Maybe I'm asking a nosense, but as I told you I'm not a proffesional pilot, I'm only working to giving you the best and safer navigation guidance, and supporting ATM services.:ok:

lederhosen
2nd Nov 2007, 15:17
Bit snide there Captplaystation

never would attempt an Autoland without reading the appropriate notam or Jeppy sidenote. Maybe that is why I don't mind to Autoland and you do

Seems like the robust charm of your emerald isle management is rubbing off on you.

Actually up to your last post you were doing a pretty good job of persuading me that autolanding off a CAT 1 approach made sense in certain circumstances.

Where your logic starts to break down is how this example of an unfortunate crew wiping out half the approach lights in Katowice, whilst you suggest probably trying to autoland, helps your argument.

PPRuNe at its best encourages an exchange of views and experiences amongst professionals. You guys must be very, very lucky in a combined 27 years of autolanding never to have had a disconnect. Some airports are much more prone to this, Munich as an example. It seems to happen most often when a previous aircraft lines up or vacates the runway, which I guess makes sense. Feel free to accept or reject this information as you wish.

Anti-ice
2nd Nov 2007, 15:19
quote 'BYALPHAINDIA'
"Ptkay, Wouldn't it be a good idea if in 'future' - The polish transport their own people, in their own machines, In their own country?
Maybe if this was done instead, We may not be talking now?
Surely they have their own transport?"

It would seem to be the most straightforward solution, but with all the complexities of the EU / UN , subchartering resources available at the time would seem more appropriate.

This probably happens all the time, and we shouldn't forget the terrible accident that befell the 62 spanish peacekeeping troops returning from duty in 2003, travelling on a Ukranian registered aircraft
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2937584.stm
(Have the findings from this accident yet been released?)

It would seem that you take which country has an a/c to offer regardless of nationality, but something obviously went very wrong on this occasion - thank goodness they got off alive/uninjured.....

sleeper
2nd Nov 2007, 16:34
Lederhosen,
Correct. You must use common sense. If you land at a very busy airport, ie a landing every 2 minutes with departures in between, it is not prudent to do an autoland. London also comes to mind. However with lower visibilities the separation between landing and or departing aircraft has to be increased. Furthermore, if you land at night at a small airport the chance is you are the only one landing.
And once again it is a cat one ILS, so the time between 200 ft and landing is to asses wether stable landing is likely. If not, manual, or goaround.

ps,
The 8 yrs was on the 737. I have been doing autolands at cat I ILSes for 20 years. No problems, just keep in mind when and when not to do it.

lederhosen
2nd Nov 2007, 22:29
Well we are all in agreement about the need for common sense.

Sleeper and Captplaystation claim never to have had a disconnect in what is now jointly 39 years of doing autolands. But they are regularly doing them on unprotected CAT 1 runways. Frankly this is getting a bit improbable.

I have witnessed aircraft going around because other aircraft infringed the protected area by crossingthe CAT 2 hold, which they are perfectly entitled to do in non LVP conditions. Other vehicles can have the same effect.

TNT came even closer to writing off a 737 not so long ago at East Midlands on an autoland. I believe it was actually written off after the go around and later landing in Birmingham. Completely different I hear you say. Maybe it was not so very different. Let us see what the report says.

One of my favourites in the sim is the engine failure on a dual channel approach below CAT 1 decision height. O.K. not very likely I hear you say, but the back trim combined with reduced visual cues is a handfull.

Airmanship in my book is not assuming the automatics are going to do a better job of it. We all know that you can do an autoland on some CAT 1 runways, some companies apparently recommend it and most of us probably have had or would have a go in good conditions.

In my book 1500 metres vis and 200' cloudbase are relatively good conditions. Cloudbase 100' and RVR hovering around absolute CAT 1 minimums would not be. Length of runway also plays a role. The question is if it is safer to carry out an autoland at an unfamiliar airfield in the middle of the night in extremely marginal conditions.

This is not speculation about what AEA did or did not do on that fateful evening. But I would be genuinely interested to learn what other 737 pilots think about doing autolands under these circumstances.

M609
2nd Nov 2007, 23:49
Not all pilots use sound judgment. Bitching to TWR about huge variations during autoland on a CAT1-ish ILS.... After the rather confused reply from TWR, discover the notation on the chart about the LLZ being offset two degrees with a RDH of -25ft.

Autoland on sub standard ILS is perhaps not to smart, at least not if it's your first time to the airfield.

CAT1 is CAT1. I've worked at another airfield, where we discovered that running runway sweepers parked at the CAT1 hold gave violent-ish effects for autolands below 100ft. (performed in VMC for training)
Gave a couple of SAS crews a jolt :cool:

sleeper
3rd Nov 2007, 11:39
Lederhosen,

One last time. Any cat I is suitable for autoland, unless it is notified as such, that is by notam, "no autoland" , offset localizer etc. You use judgement as when to use it on busy airports. However even then it can be used. The fact that the protection area might not be clear is covered by the visual segment below 200 feet. If the needles (or the aircraft) jump, then go manual or go around. I agree that with lowering vis the go around option is probably more prudent.

Look, we can all (or should be) manually fly an ils cat I down to minimums. But on the 5th day, fourth stretch, midnight, lousy weather, I definitely state that flying that autoland is more safe.
And yes, never had a low altitude disconnect (autoland) on all Boeing types.

LYKA
3rd Nov 2007, 14:08
FWIW: The Automatic Landing System perofrmance has been demonstrated during type certification with CAT 11 or CAT 111 ILS qualify beam, nevertheless automatic landing on CAT 1 ILS quality beam is possible provided the Airline has checked that the guidance below 200ft is satisfactory.
Operators should ask the airport authorities on ILS ground equipment quality and also check that specific restrictions do not apply with CAT 1 only.
Terrain profile before the runway threshold has to be considered since it can significanlty affect the automatic landing system performance. Also Automatic landing can only be performed on runways listed in the airlines operations manual.

captplaystation
5th Nov 2007, 10:57
lederhosen, first off, my apologies. . . . .maybe it is not their charm affecting me, but their rostered demands sometimes do. Perhaps sleeper and I have been lucky, but as of yet I have never had a disconnect. What I have had is a few wobbly moments below 200', and indeed the other night I sat and watched the LOC at GSE with more than a little interest as it wobbled from 1000' down, but still it landed OK. In spite of that I am firmly in the Autoland camp, but I agree wholeheartedly with your caution, it is very possible to end up with other probs, particularly when LVP's are not in force, or dare I say not understood or respected by another crew. I believe TNT @ EMA "may" have been due to someone suffering finger trouble and disconnecting instead of replying to a late RVR check ? ? and then trying to mistakenly resel dual chann (or not) below min engage height, which of course opens up the fatigue aspect, which I fear we may have to revisit in the AEA "incident" (to pacify our Spanish colleagues). Sorry again for my caustic nature lederhosen, us Scot's normally have less Gallic charm than the one's on the other side of the Irish Sea, I am obviously in need of visiting home to top up my charm school.As Ferrobus and LYKA have said, we only see a very small part of the picture as regards quality of signal at or below 200', I wonder how dodgy it has to be before a Warning to not use below 200' is notified ? or indeed is there any requirment to generate such a warning on the part of the airfield operator ?

Ferrobus
7th Nov 2007, 21:37
I don`t know if airfield operators must notify the state of the signal radiated by an ILS... below CAT I minimums, for example.

After a new installation, a big modification/repairment, or periodically, an in-flight inspection of the ILS system shoud be performed.

The company who carry out the flight test ( Flight Precision Ltd. for example ) should issue a certificate of availability of the navaid, and the subsequent report, including those "famous" graphics showing the behaviour of the beam along all of its nominal coverage, between others.

This documents should be preserved by the National Air Navigation Service Provider, wich is the company who is responsible of providing navigation services ( between others ) under several requirements ( In Europe, under "Single European Sky" certification requirements ).

Another copy of the report must be sent also to the Regulator Authority ( CAA in UK, for example ), for the archive files, as far as I know.

That's all I know about it.

As I told you before, I've seen CAT III ILS graphics that appeared very "critical", with a lot of "noise" in the beam received ... and CAT I ones, that could be used until touchdown. Even I've seen lot of problems concerning terrain profile in CAT III ones.

But I've never heard nothing about any official report or warning about beam quality, comung from Airport authorities. Apart from operations airlines manual, of course.

Why ?.

Pay attention to this, please.

If the enviromental conditions change ( buildings, trees, system ageing ) the signal quality can be affected, and we ( ATSEP's ) will not aware of it, because our monitors are reading "near field" signals. Far fierld monitors are used only in CAT III ( And they aren't not so far.
So, the signal structure may be affected but our ILS can be Ok for CAT I, according our monitors. Monitors are adjusted, of course in each flight test.
This is, of course apart from any violation of the protection area. We only will know something about this changes in the next periodical flight test, not before.

The first one to see the "real one" beam, can be anyone of you at the arrival. If you are performing an Autoland landing in this CAT I ILS, please take care !

This is why I think that real information about beam quality below CAT I minimums... In my humble opinion it's a risk suppose that!.

Anyway, if during your trips are witness of any problem in the air navigation signal provided, please make a sort of complaint in your OPS office, or best of all, simply tell the problem encountered to the ATCo. They will know what to do. And local ATSEP's will correct it, for sure !.

captplaystation
8th Nov 2007, 17:27
Ferrobus, thanks for that comprehensive reply. Occasionaly it as frustrating on here to have a discussion "dumbed down" because of non "professional pilot" participation, and other times, like this, it is very valuable to have contributions from someone with different skills and specialities. Thanks again.

lederhosen
8th Nov 2007, 17:50
It has taken me a while to respond as I got called out for a trip to the eastern Med. and then a succession of earlies, so I know about rostering demands. Talking of fatigue, I have in the past experienced six leg days with 25 minute turnarounds, starting and finishing in the dark.

Thanks for you response Captplaystation and we all seem to be pretty much in agreement. My recollection of the TNT business is much as you described it. To paraphrase Sleeper you can always autoland off a CAT 1 except when you can't, or maybe when it is not a good idea.

Perhaps we differ in the degree of our preference or need for autolanding. But the debate has certainly flushed out some interesting points and given food for thought.

Incidentally are your autopilots fail operational? Ours are not. But the Boeing flight crew training manual says that for fail operational airplanes, the AFDS includes a monitor to detect significant ILS signal interference. The autopilot disregards erroneous ILS signals and remains engaged in an attitude stabilizing mode based on inertial data. No immediate crew action is required unless erratic or inappropriate autopilot activity is observed.

captplaystation
8th Nov 2007, 18:01
I'm deeply embarassed to tell you I have no idea . . . . that would account (at least partially) for our different experiences, re disconnects, maybe mine is dumbly following last good signal, I'm on 800, and you ? If it was a customer option mind you, I can't imagine MY employer paying extra for it. I'm in the Sim soon, so I am going to try and find someone who might know better than me. There was a long thread on here a while back (in Tech Log) about whether the aircraft would autoland (NG that is, Classic not if I remember) single channel, don't think I finished reading it, must make the time. Enjoy those precious Day's Off.

16024
8th Nov 2007, 19:48
Again, many thanks to Ferrobus for the informed technical advice, and to Lyka who introduced the terrain issue.
In response to the posts encouraging us to use autoland on a cat1 ils, my own feelings are that you would have to use caution for 2 reasons:
Firstly, if the facility is graded as cat1, there is possibly a good reason. For instance, if the terrain close to the threshold is particularly steep (up or down) then the abnormaly fast ramping of the Radalt may affect the trimming of the autopilot(s). Cork, Knock and Leeds spring to mind.
Secondly, your company limitations may specifically prohibit this.
As for a low-level disconnect, on the Fluff at least, against autoland trim, in disorientating viz, I would rather just have another go...

lederhosen
9th Nov 2007, 12:36
Good point 16024 makes about terrain. In fact I remember a big airways tristar going off the end at Leeds many moons ago after an autoland went wrong. The report mentioned a bump in the runway confusing the autothrottle. The aircraft was stuck there for weeks.

Thanks for your kind wishes Captplaystation, unfortunately days off has turned into 36 hours and a fun 15 hour day tomorrow!

Flying classics and NGs I haven't seen fail operational autopilots. If you don't see the annunciation Land 2 or Land 3 then you are fail passive.

U 2
9th Nov 2007, 12:52
Said it once, I'll say it again:
I would strongly advice against an autoland on CAT I ground eqpt.


Has nothing to do with the aircraft capability, being fail passive or fail operational.
Has everything to do with the ground eqpt. and environment as outlined already in various replies.

New definitions for DH made an interesting read though...

Wojtus
9th Nov 2007, 13:41
I would strongly advice against an autoland on CAT I ground eqpt.Well, from your point of view you should also advice against an autoland on CAT II ILS when CAT II procedures are not in use.

ILS named "CAT II" on the charts is worth it's category ONLY when appropriate signal-securing procedures are in use (called LVP). If they are not, you have no guarantee that heavy steel truck is not parked 300m from threshold, imparing ILS significantly - but legally.

lederhosen
9th Nov 2007, 14:21
This is certainly an interesting debate, although I am conscious that we are getting some way away from the original thread. Maybe we should start another thread about autolanding....or maybe we have already done it to death.

As I have indicated in previous posts I am more of a CAT 1 autoland sceptic but am always keen to get a wider view. We have had a number of assertions along the lines 'you can always' or 'I would not advise it'.

U 2 would you mind backing up with some evidence your view, that aircraft autoland capability plays no role in disconnections. The Boeing training manual revision 5 section 5.19 suggests otherwise. I am also not clear what you mean by new definitions of decision height. I do not think anyone has seriously suggested it can be any lower than 200 feet.

U 2
9th Nov 2007, 17:31
Yes indeed Wojtus,

Allthough the CAT II and CAT III ground eqpt. is more reliable and tested for autoland,
I would advice against an autoland when the signal area is not protected.
The signal area is not protected when LVPs are not in force.

Hi Lederhosen, I am with you and your remarks all the time on your posts, think there is a small misunderstanding, regardless of aircraft capability, like 2 A/Ps on 737 or A320 family or 3 A/Ps on e.g.757/767 and fail safe/operational aspects and IRS track keeping after signal loss etc.
All this is besides the point because the only thing that matters in this scenario is the ground equipment.
Interesting new definition(s) of DH are found in sleepers posts, or I am misreading them, as may very well be the point.

I am talking advices, but very strong advices and agree with all you wrote.

cheers !

Ferrobus
12th Nov 2007, 23:40
Yes it's true. If you move an aircraft, or a big truck like "fire and rescue" ones, crossing in front of an array of LOC antennas, the LOC "far field monitor" will be in "red condition " during some seconds, because all signal structure will be "moved". Same happens, of course, in front of GP antennas. I've seen it just one hour before more or less, believe me!.

On the contrary, I don't know what will happen in the modern on-board computers that manages the automatic flight, when receiving this distorted signal.

My experience about this systems it's now history, I mean, the autopilot systems in DC-9 and B-727 ( Oh My God, how old am I! ;)). In that cases, for example, I saw how the autopilot was "rejected" when trying to manage a distorsion in a GP beam on board a DC-9... just over MM.

But today, with this IRS "coverage" that "lederhosen" told us here, and even GPS and D-GPS in the very next future, I hope that safety will be increased in all conditions.

Nice flights! :ok:

loulou
13th Nov 2007, 13:07
Hi folks,
we received a note at TNT as we go there every morning and it's often foggy, I think i would be nice to share it with all of you :


Dear All,
We have received a report from Panair that one of their BAe 146 aircraft on
approach to KTW experienced a sudden and rapid 'high on GS' indication,
followed by rapidly fluctuating Glideslope indications above / below GS,
starting at 500 feet RA and continuing until touchdown. This occurred on
the same day that an accident occurred to another aircraft (B737) at KTW,
which impacted the approach lights on final. Panair has alerted the KTW
authorities of this occurrence.

All TAY crews operating into KTW are recommended to be alert for erroneous
GS indications. If an unstable approach arises, a Go Around would be the
only safe option in the circumstances.

captplaystation
13th Nov 2007, 17:55
We shouldn't - of course - jump to conclusions, but that sounds a very plausible scenario for AEA's mishap. If that is the case, good for them that someone else had problems. Is it noted if the 146 had probs before or after AEA? if before, and it was reported to tower, one would like to think that subsequent crew were notified, but I know how these things are sometimes categorised as "one-off" and the communication doesn't happen, unfortunate if that turns out to be the case.

Wojtus
13th Nov 2007, 18:40
This occurred on the same day
According to the information we've received from Panair, their GS-event occured 3 days before AEA accident. And was reported on 5th November.

J.O.
13th Nov 2007, 20:08
According to the information we've received from Panair, their GS-event occured 3 days before AEA accident. And was reported on 5th November.

Which begs the question, why was the glideslope on the air?

Wojtus
13th Nov 2007, 20:45
Nobody was aware of Panair's event at the moment of AirEuropa landing. Check the dates. And many troublefree approaches were performed before and after the accident.

I've seen radar replay of the landing, I've seen the site and the plane. Some things are now more obvious for me then for you. But I'm impatiently waiting for the findouts from plane's FDR and preliminary report written by authorized ones.

M609
13th Nov 2007, 20:46
It's possible to fix and test fly a GS in less than 3 days.
A notam would have been out in that time, and should be easy to track down.

I'm not saying it happened, but it's possible.

It's more probable though, that if no error was found on the GS monitor, the techs declared it serviceable on the spot. :uhoh:

On a more general note, intermittent failures in navaids/radar/com are a pain. You can change components, calibrate and monitor test transmissions all you want, only to have them fail on you one week after the test flights OK them. :(

Ptkay
14th Nov 2007, 18:53
Polish edition of Aviation Revue (in the November edition)
informed in a short notice about the accident.
It said that the 738 touched down first before the threshold,
then again two times on the runway, braked and taxied
to the apron.

PEI_3721
15th Nov 2007, 00:21
Canadian view on Cat 1 autoland. (www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp14371/AIR/2-1.htm#2-15 ) See para 2.15
Also see COM Para 3.13.1 (e). (www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/publications/tp14371/COM/3-1.htm#3-13 )

Wojtus
16th Nov 2007, 15:02
The Europa's 737 had it engines removed and driven away somewhere. Local rumour says they will be repairing it at Katowice, dismounting of wings included. It shall be flyable on february.

U 2
17th Nov 2007, 11:43
My point exactly PEI 3721,

And note : this Canadian view is on : a practice autoland.
naturally it is highly inadvicable to practice around autolands on cat I ground equipment in lovis weather.

Good read.

By the way, best oysters in the world are from PEI , me thinks !

Cheers !

Wojtus
18th Dec 2007, 00:28
Some update for those of you interested:

1. Plane
Both engines of AirEuropa 738 (seriously damaged) were removed and took away some weeks ago. And the plane itself has been recently moved to a temporary hangar built especially for it. So they will do the work on place, I hope the goal is to restore airworthiness, not harvest the spares ;)
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/517/aireuropa1rz8.jpg
(photo published on EPKT-spotters forum)

2. Approach lighting
All damaged lights had to be completely removed, and new installation has been put in place, including new foundations. It's now ready and waiting for flight test which is to be done this week.

3. ILS
About two weeks after the incident, investigation board ordered extra flight testing of the ILS. The results were within limits. Some weeks later, regular biannual flight test was being done... and GS went off the limits. GS is now shut down and tech people try to eliminate the reason. However, GS fluctuations were observed only in area of about 5 NM final and they were not very excessive.

4. Investigation board
...still published nothing. They usually do after a year or so... :/

Ptkay
18th Dec 2007, 17:20
Thanks for the update.

:ok:

boeing_eng
19th Dec 2007, 22:35
Boeing are to send a team to repair this in the New Year

Ptkay
1st Feb 2008, 07:13
Some more pics.

http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=segm5.jpg

Wojtus
9th May 2008, 08:02
Plane is flying, new approach lights shining, investigation board working. I'll make an announcement here if the report is published.

levantes
9th May 2008, 11:11
What about the GP at EPKT?
Still u/s?
Hate those LOC APP w/o DME and w/o PAPI's on RWY27, especially at marginal weather!
Not to mention the TWC we have to face sometimes!
RWY 09 is only for circling!

slip and turn
9th May 2008, 12:03
Good read this thread - missed it previously.

I might take issue with U2 on just one small point in post #135, though.

In my view the oysters from Southern EI might well give those from PEI a run for the money :ok:

Ptkay
9th May 2008, 14:05
During the Safety Conference on April 9th the Chief of the Investigation Commission
Dr. Edmund Kilch reported (among others) about this accident.
It was not the final report, just the description of the work in progress...

I am quoting from my memory (his presentation was not published),
so excuse any errors...

1. they approached too high over the ILS glide slope,
2. to catch the glide slope they were descending
with double the prescribed vertical speed,
3. crossed the glide slope with high vertical speed below decision height in clouds,
4. FO was flying, CPT took over when they were already below glide slope,
pulled, but it was too late
5. they started cutting the approach lights with the gear and engine cowling
6. they hit the ground 900m before threshold, jumped and hit the runway
7. they taxied to the apron without reporting to the ATC about the event
8. they were told by ground crew about the damage, but left for the hotel
without filing any report.
9. they were interviewed by police and prosecutors office next day
10. ILS was checked after the event and was OK and operational

I leave it without comment, because (as I stated before) there may be some errors...

BUT what I remember VERY well, the Chief of the Commission was using very
strong and explicit words describing the accident itself and
the behaviour of the crew, especially after the accident...

Let's wait for the official report for the conclusions.
I have my private opinion on this one.

With my best regards to:

boeingir, bradford737 and others...

Ptkay
9th May 2008, 15:03
In the meantime I found out that the presentation m.a.
was published on the official page of the Polish Civil Aviation Office:
(see pages 8-12)

http://www.ulc.gov.pl/_download/bezpieczenstow_lotow/konferencje/2008/prezentacja_edmund_klich.pdf

So once again, this time translation from the original document.


- approved direct approach
- approach on autopilot
- meteorological conditions below minima class I
- app. 5.4 NM from threshold intecepted direction above 3 deg. glideslope
- high descent rate (1200-1800 fpm) 2 x higher than acc. to ILS
- crossing the glide slope below decision altitude
- approach not stabilized
- activation of EGPWS (sink rate, pull up)
- CPT takes over
- hitting 2 and then following rows of lamps of the CALVERT system
- touch down 850 m before threshold
- landing run on runway
- no reports about ILS malfunction
- substantial damage to the aircraft
- approach light system destroyed
- no report about accident

HeadingSouth
9th May 2008, 15:23
I would assume one notices contacting structural parts and ground contact 850m before threshold.
Running away from the scene straight to the hotel, not mentioning the incident, seems just a tad strange to me....

(then again I have only a limited number of posts on my account yet...)

Ptkay
9th May 2008, 15:28
Running away from the scene straight to the hotel, not mentioning the incident, seems just a tad strange to me....


On that subject I recall only the speech of Dr. Kilch mentioning it (using straight and explicit words).

In the published document it says in original:
"brak informacji o zdarzeniu",
which translates to:
"no report about event"

Andrén
11th Mar 2012, 19:20
Is there a final report on this accident?

Wojtus
12th Mar 2012, 21:33
No report yet. Shame

Callsign Kilo
12th Mar 2012, 23:21
Air Europa :ouch:

Two publisised incidents - EPKT and GCRR. 2 unstable approaches culminating in two landings. Both with EGPWS hard warnings of 'PULL UP.' One incident causing damage to the aircraft (crew advised and elected not to report); the other results in a runway excursion.

It's what isn't publisised that worries me. I'll give this lot a wide berth.

carlosr
13th Mar 2012, 00:03
You don't need to worry about the one at GCRR. Investigation findings are published here:

http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/054C08A8-398E-43BB-AC54-635409583282/109460/2008_041_IN_ENG.pdf

Super VC-10
22nd Dec 2017, 18:59
A report has now been published.

Report: Europa B738 at Katowice on Oct 28th 2007, touched down 870m before runway threshold on ILS approach (http://avherald.com/h?article=4b2a7cd7&opt=0)

DaveReidUK
22nd Dec 2017, 20:07
Final Report: Accident to Boeing 737-800 EC-HBM, October 28, 2007 (http://mib.gov.pl/files/0/1797511/466ang.pdf)

IRRenewal
22nd Dec 2017, 21:07
Only took them 10 years. Smashing!

czarnajama
23rd Dec 2017, 02:43
This accident is eerily similar to the Smolensk disaster of April 10, 2010. Had this report been published in timely fashion and properly studied, it might have prevented a national calamity and all that has followed since. The damage to the B738 is astonishing, but they were very lucky just to take out a bunch of lights instead of colliding with a solid tree as at Smolensk and losing much of one wing causing a barrel roll into the ground.

rog747
23rd Dec 2017, 03:02
yikes the photos are astonishing - this one passed me by --- beggars belief they did nowt and popped to the hotel without saying a word

i see there was an ''instructor'' on the jump seat - how many landing accidents have there been now recently with this scenario?

DaveReidUK
23rd Dec 2017, 08:00
This accident is eerily similar to the Smolensk disaster of April 10, 2010. Had this report been published in timely fashion and properly studied, it might have prevented a national calamity and all that has followed since.

Hmmm.

I suspect that most pilots already know, without having to read the Smolensk report, that colliding with solid objects is likely to ruin your entire day.

RAT 5
23rd Dec 2017, 16:39
I've read the report, especially the flight data and crew actions section. Astonishing. 3 experienced pilots must have known they were outside legal limits attempting the approach. Were they hoping for a tiny RVR improvement outside the OM? Dodgy. They discussed fuel use for the approach, but no mention made if they discussed diversion options and fuel available. Surely the diversion plan should have been made and understood before TOD to destination; but even the approach set-up & brief was done late in the descent, and the captain's decision to shorten the approach, put them high from that time, but with plenty of distance to recover. In those Wx conditions I'd expect sharp pilots to be well ahead of the game, no rushing and be very certain everything would be set up to give the best chance of success. Proper descent profile planning with idle thrust does not use extra fuel. It doesn't matter what route they chose, there is no excuse for getting high on the glide. Noting the point when they lowered the gear and had F40 shows they knew they were rushed. The CVR text doesn't tell the whole story. I'm sure the LHS captain would have been prompting drag etc. considering it was his idea to shorten the approach route. An idle thrust descending orbit uses a breath of fuel, so why not do it?
The whole approach, from FL100, would have had my neck hairs tingling like a barbecued pig on a spit. Continuing as they did in such weather questions their self-survival instincts. Different on a good vis day flight with 1000' cloud base, but CAT 2 RVR at night to a man land. No way. And what was PIC doing? Not a lot it seems.
As they had gear down & F40 very early they might have made a 1:1 profile and captured the glide earlier. The chopping & changing of LVL CHG & V/S suggests a weak understanding of the a/c and systems. I can not understand how 3 professionals can hurtle towards a black concrete hole, having no sense of danger to their survival, in the hope, rather than expectation, of success. There was no startle factor in this.
It is always curious to read the investigations 'cause of the accident'. The prime reason is given as failure to make a go-around. That may be true; indeed they would not then have crashed, true, but the root causes goes much further back. Indeed there might even have been trends in the individuals' history, but it would be the bad luck coincidence of all bad lucks to have 3 weak performers on the same flight deck.
The report mentions CRM improvements at the operator. To me that is to be welcomed, but I find weak CRM is often trotted out as an excuse for what is loss of SA, lack of basic airmanship and lack of self-survival. Those were required characteristics of individual pilots long before CRM was ever thought of. CRM came about as a counter to the dictatorial dogmatic semi-deaf belligerent captains. CRM did not suddenly replace good airmanship. The PIC instructor should have had no qualm chirping up and telling the PM captain that the approach was not on and they should divert. Not doing that he should have still have chirped up and said the 1000' gate was missed by a mile and called a GA. That's exercising authority when as a relaxed observer, who is PIC, can see the manure is about to hit the ventilation and he's going to have all the paperwork to write.
Is the report really saying that an EU airline, in 2008, did not have a strong landing gate discipline in its approved OM? Air Europa is not a young airline. Extraordinary. The root cause of this crash started a long time before, perhaps contributed to even by the choice of fuel load at departure. They were not that flush after a medium length flight. I'm sure there was fuel left in the bowser.
I take the point about the delay in the publishing of the report. The FDR & CVR & Crew and a/c were all available PDQ after the event. From the data it seems a slam dunk for the investigators. Perhaps there should be a report about the delay, but perhaps that could also take 8 years. I can't remember the Smolensk event, but this event seems pure human self-inflicted, not mechanical/systems. How would the Smolensk event have been avoided?

Time Traveller
24th Dec 2017, 00:00
Some years ago, our Spanish subcontractors would routinely land below RVR minimums.

One would hope standards have improved since then.

Dogma
24th Dec 2017, 05:51
RAT 5

Well meaning post no doubt, but the above highlights all the aspects of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.. it would take about 30 minutes to address correctly the multiple wrong ends of sticks and reality of flight ops & investigation

411A NG
24th Dec 2017, 13:36
Does anyone know what happened to the crew?

Intrance
24th Dec 2017, 18:13
Earlier linked report says crew went back to work after extra sim and line training... How in heavens name, I don't know. I'm all for just culture but walking away from a plane that looked like that, knowing you must have cut down a whole hedge of approach lights, and still just going to the hotel like nothing happened, not notifying anyone... I'd say that's a whole lot of negligence and bad intent that does not belong in a just culture, without even considering the actual incident itself.

Super VC-10
24th Dec 2017, 19:07
Still employed by the airline in question according to the report. :}

IRRenewal
25th Dec 2017, 15:30
Well, we are talking about an airline that publishes an addendum called 'allegations to report' in which it agrees with everything in the report. Maybe something got lost in Google translate or just another Spanish pilot with English level 6?

act700
25th Dec 2017, 23:46
They should have gone with "the being drunk" excuse, at least they would have had a good excuse!

Elephant and Castle
26th Dec 2017, 08:58
The fact that they went to the Hotel and said nothing is enough of a reason never to fly with Aea ever again..... How spineless you need to be to do that!

RAT 5
26th Dec 2017, 09:12
The fact that they went to the Hotel and said nothing is enough .........

If that is true, and after a car crash, it is an offence to leave the scene of an accident. Would there not also be an offence in the this case? This is the type of operation, well out of normal territory, where you would take your own engineering support. There must have been some raised eyebrows on the walk round.

penitpete
27th Dec 2017, 09:55
I can't see any photos.

physicus
27th Dec 2017, 09:59
download the pdf: http://mib.gov.pl/files/0/1797511/466ang.pdf

RVF750
27th Dec 2017, 14:35
I also suspect shock played a key part in them not telling ATC at the time, or anyone. Quite out of character for any pilot.

Quite frankly, they were very lucky! It could have ended up far worse....

Cirrussy
27th Dec 2017, 14:35
With three people in the cockpit, you'd have thought someone could have said something, anything, to change the outcome of this obviously rushed and out-of-limits approach?

I only hope that if I ever find myself in this position I can step back and ask "are we really doing the right thing here" or "is there another way to do this any better?"

HundredPercentPlease
28th Dec 2017, 14:53
It's interesting that the report doesn't even mention crew alertness or fatigue.

They reported at 1830L and pushed at 2008L. The accident happened at 4 in the morning after a long duty. 0400 is the perfect time of day for some suboptimal decision making (same time of day as the flydubai) - and may well explain the lack of gumption when it came to alerting authorities of their ploughing activities.

Callsign Kilo
28th Dec 2017, 22:28
I completely respect the fact that they would’ve been at a particularly low ebb physiologically, however these were the actions of a crew where there was no bottom line. I won’t even comment on the integrity matter post event. The whole report shocks tbh