PDA

View Full Version : Henan Airlines Crash in China


Airbubba
24th Aug 2010, 15:32
Plane crashes in northeast China, 96 people on board

English.news.cn 2010-08-24 23:34:13

HARBIN, Aug. 24 (Xinhua) -- A passenger plane with 96 people on board crashed in Yichun City, northeast China's Heilongjiang Province Tuesday night, government and airline company sources said.

The plane belonged to Henan Airlines and had 96 people on board when it crashed, airline company said.

Officials in Yichun said the plane crashed at about 10:10 p.m. Tuesday.

Rescuers are rushing to the crash site, sources said.

DjerbaDevil
24th Aug 2010, 15:45
CH-Aviation have the following registered:

Henan Airlines
Status: Scheduled
Base: Xian Xianyang IATA Code: VDICAO Code: KPA
Website: www.kunpeng-air.com (http://www.kunpeng-air.com/) Country: China
Fleet: 5 EMB190-100

akerosid
24th Aug 2010, 15:45
Just seen LoadToad's post, so it does indeed look like it is Henan Airlines; my error.

I believe this is the first fatal accident for the Embraer 170/190 (if indeed it is a fatal accident, as reports suggest).

Load Toad
24th Aug 2010, 15:45
There is a Henan Airlines.
Henan is a province in China.

Henan Airlines, previously Kunpeng Airlines.

http://www.kunpeng-air.com/

first_solo
24th Aug 2010, 15:49
Henan_Airlines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henan_Airlines)

ratherbehunting
24th Aug 2010, 15:51
And thus it starts.

Aviation expansion has never been without problems in any country's history.

What will be interesting to see is the outcome...especially for the pilots...assuming we ever find out the full and unedited truth which can be a problem even in developed countries.

salivamonster
24th Aug 2010, 16:05
Anyone got access to weather info?

EDIT:
Fresh Xinhua report indicate the type is E90 instead of E190. But the airline never acquire E90 plane. Is there a type call E90?

Falcon666
24th Aug 2010, 16:24
Just reported on Sky News that 20 taken to hospital.
No reports of fatalities yet so possibly a runway excursion/overrun

akerosid
24th Aug 2010, 16:34
Salivamonster, the code given by the news agency is just the three letter aircraft code, much like "73G" for 737-700, "77L" for 777-200LR etc etc; the aircraft is an Embraer 190.

The latest info from flight is that the accident happened on landing and survivors are reported; the aircraft was operating a flight from Harbin to Yichun; total on board now revised to 91.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/08/24/346507/survivors-reported-from-henan-embraer-190-crash.html

rp122
24th Aug 2010, 17:42
Airport at Yichun City in Heilongjiang province.
Henan Airlines Embraer E190.
Overshot the runway.

Source (http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2010/08/xinhua-aircraft-with-96-on-board-crashes-in-china/109315/1)

Piper_Driver
24th Aug 2010, 18:30
Runway overrun. Casualty report as follows:
42 dead
49 injured

CBC News - World - Northeast China plane crash kills 42 (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/24/china-plane-crash024.html)

RegDep
24th Aug 2010, 20:04
http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4300bc3c&opt=0

ELAC
24th Aug 2010, 20:29
from the Avherald Report:

Aviation Sources in China say, that at the time fog prevailed with a visibility of 300 meters. The airplane touched down 1000 meters from the runway.

...

The airport, located 9km (4.8nm) from the city center, is capable to accept Airbus A320, Boeing 737 and similiar aircraft with a runway length of 2400 meters (7870 feet) and width of 45 meters (150 feet). The runway 12/30 features PAPIs for both ends, VOR/DME and NDB approaches are available for both ends.

If the visibility and available approaches are as stated in the report this one is going to get really ugly, really quickly.

Capi_Cafre'
24th Aug 2010, 20:53
Can someone post a link to some aerial imagery of ZYLD? The Google Earth image of the location predates the construction of the field by ~5 years.

Sunnyjohn
24th Aug 2010, 22:10
From Telegraph online (UK) 7.21 pm yesterday:
The Henan Airlines plane crashed in Heilongjiang province抯 Yichun City, according to state media, who said 49 of the 91 passengers had been rescued. State media last night confirmed 42 passengers had been killed.
Wang Xuemei, vice mayor of Yichun, told Chinese television that three of the 49 hospitalized were in critical condition but gave no specifics.
The plane had taken off from Heilongjiang抯 capital of Harbin shortly before 9pm and crashed during landing at the Lindu airport a little more than an hour later.
China抯 last major civilian aircraft crash was in 2004, when a CRJ200 operated by China Eastern Airlines came down in a frozen lake in northern Inner Mongolia shortly after take-off, killing more than 50 people.
Yichun airport is a small domestic facility which opened only last year, and is one of an increasing number of airports built in remote parts of China to help boost economic development.
Henan Airlines is a small regional carrier controlled by Shenzhen Airlines, which is itself part-owned by Air China. The airline is based in Henan, a province in central China.
It changed its name from Kunpeng Airlines earlier this year and flies only domestic routes using the Brazilian-made Embraer.

Massey1Bravo
25th Aug 2010, 00:48
Here are some info glanced from a safety audit by China Southern which is currently floating around on the internet. Some info may not be accurate as charts for this airport are proprietary information.

AFAIK No ILS at ZYYC Yichun, VOR-DME/NDB-DME only.

Runway 12/30, dimensions 2300m/45m

Rwy 12 approach has higher MDH, a/c on approach to level at MDH at 4 DME.

Procedure turn for rwy 30 approach starts at 3800ft due to steep terrain, (note not in meters) descent gradient 5.8 deg. (FPA 3.4 deg)

Night ops to be banned on 1st September. (Note the report is for CZ)

Flights from Harbin must carry return fuel in case weather stuffs up.

IMO it looks like a CFIT during approach, rather than a runway overrun.

Edit:Typo

jmc830
25th Aug 2010, 02:40
The pilot in command is alive but could not tell what had happened.

Brookfield Abused
25th Aug 2010, 03:04
Take note that ALL forms of reporting through the News Papers, Eye Witness Reports on TV, etc. are sensored in China.
"Facts" may take a while to be made available.

MucMuc
25th Aug 2010, 04:51
..IF they ever come out unsanitized :oh:

Load Toad
25th Aug 2010, 05:09
All reporting, by any media - state or corporation owned is censored. Mostly simplified and usually sensationalized.

VONKLUFFEN
25th Aug 2010, 05:42
tell us what Chinese CAA is made of. If the pilot is alive and later on found "guilty" and jailed or executed, it will be time for everyone to run away out of China :}

Massey1Bravo
25th Aug 2010, 06:26
If the pilot is alive and later on found "guilty" and jailed or executed, it will be time for everyone to run away out of China

Like....umm.....Italy? :}

VONKLUFFEN
25th Aug 2010, 06:44
just like Italy...

noelbaba
25th Aug 2010, 06:44
Chinese Henan Airlines E-190 crashes *updates*

www.tourismandaviation.com (http://www.tourismandaviation.com)
躰al Başusta
Henan Airlines Flight 8387 was a flight from Harbin, Heilongjiang, China to Yichun, Heilongjiang, China. On August 24, 2010, it overshot a runway and burst into flames at Yichun Lindu Airport. According to reports, around 96 people were onboard, of which Yichun's emergency services confirmed, that 42 bodies were recovered, 54 people were rescued alive.
A middle-age man who survived the crash told China Central Television there was bad turbulence as the plane descended, then several big jolts that caused the luggage to come crashing from the overhead bins.
"After we stopped, the people in the back were panicking and rushed to the front," the unidentified man, who had no visible injuries, said in an interview from a hospital bed.
"We were trying to open the [emergency exits], but they wouldn't open. Then the smoke came in ... within two or three minutes or even a minute, we couldn't breathe. I knew something bad was going to happen."
The man said he and a few others escaped from a hole in the wall of the cabin near the first row of seats, then ran from the burning wreckage.
Investigators recovered two black boxes from the wreckage Wednesday and were waiting to question the pilot, Qi Quanjun, who survived but was badly injured.
Shortly before the crash, Qi told air traffic controllers he saw the runway lights and was preparing to land, Xinhua quoted an Yichun city official as saying.
But fog shrouded the airport tucked into a valley, with visibility less than 2,000 feet (600 metres). Survivors described seeing nothing but blackness outside the windows as the plane slammed into grass and fell apart about 1 mile (1.5 kilometres) from the runway at Yichun city's Lindu Airport.
The crash and subsequent fire were so severe that little of the fuselage remained, though the charred tail was still largely intact. China Central Television said eight of the victims were found 65 to 100 feet (20 to 30 meters) from the plane's wreckage in a muddy field.
China's Civil Aviation Authority said, the Embraer ERJ-190 registration B-3130 with 96 passengers (thereof 5 children) and 5 crew came to a rest approx. 1500 meters from the runway while landing at 21:36L.,
The E-190 was manufactured by Embraer, the Brazilian aerospace company. The Embraer E-Jets are narrow, twin engine jets first introduced into travel in 1999. The E-190/195 family a long-body version of the jet typically used by JetBlue. It was introduced into sevice in 2004. JetBlue ordered 100 of the jet that year. Flybe in Europe made a 14 jet purchase of the E-190 in 2004 while Air Canada has 45 of them in their fleet. Typically the plane can carry 9 business-class seats and 84 economy-class seats.
It says the aircraft is registered B-3130. Flightglobal's ACAS database last listed the jet as a two-year old airframe, leased from RBS Aviation Capital.
The Civil Aviation Administration of China confirms that the aircraft had been operating as flight VD8387 between Harbin and Yichun, adding that the jet departed Harbin at 20:51.
Yichun is in Heilongjiang province, in the northeast of China. Henan Airlines has a fleet of five Embraer 190s.
Henan Airlines is based in the central Chinese province of the same name and flies smaller regional jets, mainly on routes in north and northeast China. Previously known as Kunpeng Airlines, the carrier was relaunched as Henan Airlines earlier this year.
Henan Airlines and many other regional Chinese airlines flying shorter routes have struggled in the past few years, losing passengers to high-speed railroad lines that China has aggressively expanded.
Fast expansion of Chinese air traffic in the 1990s led to a series of crashes that gave China the reputation of being unsafe. The poor record prompted the government to improve safety drastically, from airlines to new air traffic management systems at airports.
The last major passenger jet crash in China was in November 2004, when an China Eastern airplane plunged into a lake in northern China shortly, killing all 53 on board and two on the ground.
Aviation Sources in China say, that at the time fog prevailed with a visibility of 300 meters. The airplane touched down 1000 meters from the runway.
Yichun's Lindu Airport [ZYLD] in the Heilongjiang province of China about 165nm northeast of Harbin Airport was opened to operation only on Aug 27th 2009 (construction began in 2008), the current route operated is Beijing-Harbin-Yichun. The airport, located 9km (4.8nm) from the city center in the Yichun Forest , is capable to accept Airbus A320, Boeing 737 and similiar aircraft with a runway length of 2400 meters (7870 feet) and width of 45 meters (150 feet). The runway 12/30 features PAPIs for both ends, VOR/DME and NDB approaches are available for both ends.
The local weather station reported fair weather (few cloud), 20km visibility, calm winds (<4 knots), temperature at 27 degrees C and dew point at 24 degrees C with 81% humidity two hours prior to the accident. 5 hours prior to the accident the station reported light rainshowers at 30km visibility, temperature at 30 degrees C with the dew point at 26 degrees C (71% humidity).
Henan Airlines, a small regional carrier, previously reported alleged problems with their Embraer 190 jets, including finding turbine cracks and erroneous information showing up in their flight control systems.
The Civil Aviation Administration of China reported in its official magazine last June that the airline, then called Kunpeng Airlines, discussed the problems with technicians from Brazil's Embraer, U.S. engine-maker General Electric Corp. and officials from CAAC at a meeting. The report said CAAC officials urged the parties to find and fix the problems, but it was not clear if the issues were resolved.
Tracy Chen, a spokeswoman for Embraer in Beijing, said she could not confirm the report but noted the company was co-operating with authorities in the investigation.
A crew of technicians at Embraer, the world's largest maker of regional jets, flew on Tuesday to China to investigate a crash of one of its ERJ-190 planes, which has been called the Asian nation's worst accident in recent years.
"The company has made available the crew, which is now en route to the crash site, to help the Chinese authorities with the investigation," Embraer said in an e-mailed statement on Tuesday.
The crash is the first involving an Embraer plane of the ERJ-170/190 family, whose four models have more than 650 planes currently operating with more than 4 million hours of service. The ERJ-190, the more popular of the family, has about 290 planes under service.
Aviation officials at a relatively new airport in northeast China searched through debris Wednesday for clues to why a passenger jet crashed and burned while trying to land on a fog-shrouded runway.
The newly built Yichun airport sits in a forested valley and has operated for a year. Concerns about the safety of night landings there had been raised by at least one major airline.
China Southern Airlines decided last August to avoid night flights in and out of Yichun, switching its daily flight from Harbin to the daytime. A technical notice cited concerns about the airport's surrounding terrain, runway lighting and wind and weather conditions.
"Principally there should be no night flights at Yichun airport," said the notice from China Southern's Heilongjiang province branch that was posted online. An employee with the branch's technical office confirmed the notice's authenticity. He declined to give his name because he was not authorized to talk to the media, but said China Southern decided to cancel night flights at Yichun "for safety concerns. We're cautious."
Critics are coming forward, accusing the Chinese aviation industry of lax standards and overgrowing without checek.
"Henan Airlines should not have been operating that flight," said Zhang Qihuai, a lawyer from the Lan Peng Law Firm in Beijing who represents victims of aviation accidents. He blamed in part the Civil Aviation Administration of China for permitting the flight.
"China's aviation industry has been growing rapidly, but blindly, for a long time," he said. "When it grows that fast, there will always be loopholes" in the safety regulations.
A frequent cause of aviation disasters during the approach and landing phase is known as "controlled flight into terrain," in which an otherwise airworthy plane is accidentally flown into the ground or water. This usually occurs because of the pilots' spatial disorientation due to low visibility or other factors.

Henen Airlines suspended all flights in response to crash of an Embraer 190 that killed 42 and injured 54 at Yichun airport. . CAAC Minister Li Jiayang said Henen's remaining four E-190s would remain grounded pending safety inspections. This was China's first fatal airline accident in more than six years.
Xinhua announced that Henan GM Li Qiang has been relieved of his duties and replaced by Cao Bo on an acting basis. Xinhua said Vice Prime Minister Zhang Dejiang arrived Wednesday at the crash site to help set up an investigation team, which will examine the flight data and cockpit voice recorders, both of which have been recovered, in an effort to determine the cause of the crash. Embraer technicians flew to the site Tuesday to assist in the investigation.
China aviation official says no safety issues at airport where plane crashed, killing 42
Li Jian, vice director of the Civil Aviation Authority of China, defended the safety of an airport in remote northeast China where a plane crashed while coming in for a night landing .
"It is no comparison to big airports, but the safety standards are guaranteed," Li was quoted as saying by the official Xinhua News Agency. The airport was built to handle nighttime flights, he said.
The 40-year-old captain, Qi Quanjun, who survived the crash but was injured, told Xinhua he couldn't remember anything.
Shortly before the crash, Qi told air traffic controllers he saw the runway lights and was preparing to land, Xinhua quoted an Yichun city official as saying.
Survivor Xue Xilai was also quoted as saying that the crew announced the plane would be landing soon but did not say conditions were foggy or that there was any danger.
Henan's board of directors fired the airline's general manager, Li Qiang, and appointed an acting manager to replace him, Xinhua said. Cao Bo, Li's replacement, served as the chief pilot of Shenzhen Airlines, the parent company of Henan Airlines.

dubh12000
25th Aug 2010, 08:07
BBC also reporting that the survivors couldn't open the emergency exits...

Zeflo27
25th Aug 2010, 08:24
YouTube - Raw Video: China Plane Crash Aftermath (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eEy4TOymY)

bf109hartmann
25th Aug 2010, 12:22
METAR ZYLD 241600Z 00000MPS 0600 FG NSC 13/13 Q1015=
METAR ZYLD 241500Z 00000MPS 0600 FG NSC 13/13 Q1015=
METAR ZYLD 241400Z 15001MPS 1000 BR NSC 12/12 Q1014=
METAR ZYLD 241300Z 15001MPS 8000 NSC 13/13 Q1014=


The deteriorating visibility caused by thickening fog in ZYLD from 2100 to 2400, Aug. 24, local time. Limited round trip fuel on board might forced the captain broke non-precision approach visibility limit (>2800 meters) and made a landing decision. According to the Henan Airlines ZYLD operation manual, night flight is "generally" not permitted after Sep. 1 each year in this airport but no reason is provided. The airport even does not equipped with ILS, only non-precision approach procedures are available. Poor weather coupled with poor navigation system, as well as incorrect decision making by crews might put down the plane.

Soave_Pilot
25th Aug 2010, 12:52
Yeap! That all sounds like a recipe for a crash... If the pilot doesn't know what happened, hmmm. He is hoping they find a problem in the aircraft.:=
But that磗 all speculation...
Embraer has a good safety record, I hope stays that way.

Lonewolf_50
25th Aug 2010, 15:19
Aviation Sources in China say, that at the time fog prevailed with a visibility of 300 meters.

The airplane touched down 1000 meters from the runway.

The airport is capable to accept Airbus A320, Boeing 737 ... runway length of 2400 meters (7870 feet) and width of 45 meters (150 feet).
The runway 12/30 features PAPIs for both ends, VOR/DME and NDB approaches are available for both ends.

The local weather station reported fair weather (few cloud), 20km visibility, calm winds

Interesting, the different perceptions of wx depending upon source ... :confused:

Sincerely hope the pilot rallies/heals so he can explain what happened ...

ChristiaanJ
25th Aug 2010, 15:37
....the pilot, Qi Quanjun, survived the crash but was badly hurt and cannot speak.What I saw, was that "he cannot speak due to serious facial injuries".
Sounds plausible, so maybe we can give that a rest for a moment?

Getting a cockpit shoved in your face can be detrimental to your health.

CJ

Massey1Bravo
25th Aug 2010, 18:40
That looks like facial injuries to me.

http://pic-hzrb.hangzhou.com.cn/0/10/49/49/10494902_981615.jpg

source (http://news-hzrb.hangzhou.com.cn/system/2010/08/25/010892671.shtml)

EDMJ
25th Aug 2010, 18:49
BBC also reporting that the survivors couldn't open the emergency exits...

Thought that rang a bell:

Air Accidents Investigation: Embraer ERJ 190-200 LR (Embraer 195), G-FBEH (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/june_2010/embraer_erj_190_200_lr__embraer_195___g_fbeh.cfm)

Spendid Cruiser
26th Aug 2010, 02:56
The local weather station reported fair weather (few cloud), 20km visibility, calm winds
Looking at a couple of those photos, the background away from the crash scene appears foggy, so I suspect 20km is incorrect.
A middle-age man who survived the crash told China Central Television there was bad turbulence as the plane descended, then several big jolts that caused the luggage to come crashing from the overhead bins.
Environmental turbulence would be very unlikely considering the foggy conditions.

protectthehornet
26th Aug 2010, 03:38
splendid cruiser...you make some fine points.

I think all the ''turbulence'' was the plane hitting some terrain or striking trees on its way to the crash.

Prawn2king4
26th Aug 2010, 04:06
From China National Radio:

"Investigators yesterday recovered the black box, but experts from the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), said it may take months, even years to determine the cause of the crash."

18 members of the Ministry of Human resources and Social Security were on board. Their Vice Minister, Sun Baoshu, is critically injured.

Henan Airlines(who are partly owned by China Southern) sacked their General Manager, Li Qiang, after the crash and have rushed a team to Yichun to arrange compensation for the victims and their families.

It is confirmed that a few months ago China Southern Airlines (Heilongjiang branch) issued a bulletin stating that, "in principle, there are to be no night operations at Yichun", citing concerns regarding "airport terrain, runway lighting and weather". China Southern are part owners of Henan Airlines.

Well, well, well........ any prizes for guessing why, with the black box recovered, ATC interrogated and the pilot alive; it may takes "years to determine the cause of the crash" ? !!!

Bus Junkie
26th Aug 2010, 04:44
Pilot fell down stairs during interrogation and died.
Either that or pilot fell out of fourth story window during interrogation and died.
If they try him and shoot him, it would raise too many questions.
They may have to hire western/southern pilots on their 190s who don't care how many go arounds they are entitled to in a career.

deSitter
26th Aug 2010, 05:45
I was studying a report of an arriving Beech 1900C that collided with a departing King Air on intersecting runways at Quincy IL - everyone died because the airstair door (only one on this plane) could not be opened either from inside or out. When I saw that raised flange with the right rear door still firmly in the frame, I shuddered. These regional airliners have steeply curved fuselages and it doesn't take much dinging to make them stick in their frames. After the Beech crash, the FAA issued an urgent advisory and the door was apparently redesigned. I'll guess that many of the casualties here resulted from that stuck door in the back. Horrible!

This is a bad year - I'm getting pretty tired of seeing mangled and charred airframes. Drive safely y'all.

ps here's the report

SmartCockpit - Airline training guides, Aviation, Operations, Safety (http://www.smartcockpit.com/pdf/safety/beechcraft/0267)

-drl

FlightlessParrot
26th Aug 2010, 06:43
Well, well, well........ any prizes for guessing why, with the black box recovered, ATC interrogated and the pilot alive; it may takes "years to determine the cause of the crash" ? !!!


Perhaps because careful investigations of aircraft accidents typically take a long time before they're published--wherever they're undertaken.

I'm no fan of the government of the PRC, but come on.

HKPAX
26th Aug 2010, 06:59
As an observer, I note a undercurrent of cynicism re Chinese government attitudes in this thread. When I arrived on these shores 20 years ago there was a hull loss in China every three months or thereabouts, regularly topped up by the clowns in Taiwan with their free harbour cruises when arriving in Hong Kong.

Since then civil aviation in China must have grown by AT LEAST 10X (I have no data but we are in that order of numbers) but this horrible accident was the first for nearly six years (70 months). I'll let the real Pruners decide, but there should be credit where credit is due. Can this transformation be won without a good solid approach to pilot / ATC selection and training, equipment maintenance and the whole gamut of other things that turn events round from regular carnage into world class operations in terms of safety? I would hazard a guess that the root cause of this one was pressure from management to reach good numbers, and if so heads will roll. One has already, but that may be just for PR reasons. I'd venture that the crash will be very thoroughly investigated, and lessons will be learned. Hopefully it is at least another six years before the next bad one, in which time air traffic will have grown by 50% perhaps.

FLEXPWR
26th Aug 2010, 07:23
A whole set of pictures here :

高清:伊春失事客机机身断裂起火 黑匣子找到_新闻_腾讯网 (http://news.qq.com/a/20100825/000123.htm#p=1)


Flex

yssy.ymel
26th Aug 2010, 16:09
I agree with HKPAX - yes, the Chinese Government have censored stuff in the past and will probably will do in the future, but this incident appears to have been pretty transparent.

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. It's not a Chinese plane and Embraer will be very interested in what the outcome of the investigation will be.

From my very very humble opinion this looks like CFIT. Very similar to KE all those years ago in Guam (yes that was INOP ILS but the results are similar no?).

Sunnyjohn
26th Aug 2010, 17:51
"Well, well, well........ any prizes for guessing why, with the black box recovered, ATC interrogated and the pilot alive; it may takes "years to determine the cause of the crash" ? !!!"

You may recall the Spanair crash at Madrid - almost exactly two years ago. The judge will provide a report in November - if we're lucky. My guess is more like next August - that's three years. So 'years' is what it takes in Europe, too. I agree - don't knock China for the transparency of their reporting.

snowfalcon2
26th Aug 2010, 20:41
Looks as if the fuselage was relatively intact after impact but fire then made things worse.
A case to learn from for the future? Did the exit doors really not open as some news items say? What about evacuation procedures? It appears that some lives might have been saved if everything had gone by the book. Hopefully the investigation will find ways to prevent a repeat.

Mark in CA
26th Aug 2010, 22:46
Do photos 68/77 and 69/77 show the bottom of a wing (facing up) with damage to the leading edge?

Jetset320
26th Aug 2010, 22:47
I cannot help but notice that most, if not all of the several accidents this month (737-700 Carribean/L410 Congo/E190 China etc as well as the Air Blue A321 in Pakistan a month ago, weather was a factor, if not the cause in each crash.

I wonder whether this a question of crew training stadards, or should aviation standards by authorities dictate and stop flying in certain weather?

Brookfield Abused
27th Aug 2010, 01:19
In China the following as observed daily;

Flight Duty Period in excess of 14 hrs, often up to 18 or 20 hrs. for two crew duty.
When REST is provided in the form of split duty, often in; noisy, dingy, dirty, stuffy, insect infiltrated poorly constructed hotels or crew bases.
So if they give you 2 hrs REST in the above, the Company assumes you slept the entire time and expects you to operate for 18 hrs.
4 hours of REST (could mean staring at the ceiling the entire time), you will be expected to operate 18 hrs.
Even if no rest, just keep going.
So fatigue a HUGE issue!

Company pressure! Call in that you are suffering from "fatigue" and you get the same old story! "We have no Cps, no Standby's, we'll have to cancel the flight, think about the company, etc."....... I've seen too many crumble and accept to continue.

Get to Home Base fixation.

Up to 8 sectors being flown in one Duty Period in such an operation.

This Airport had only VOR approaches, at night, plenty of visual illusions. which equals a classic CFIT trap when combined with an unstabilized approach.

Often operating near or at Min. Diversion Fuel when arriving at your destination, then being greeted with this sort low visability or another form of delay.

If the diversion option is correctly selected, no doubt a phone call from the Manager after landing at the Diversion Airport giving you serious verbal criticism on your "safety minded decision".

Many Chinese Airlines practice a Visual Descent Profile (VDP). Meaning they choose to descend to the MDA, level off, then calculate the lastest point to begin descent (allows for the minimum distance to the runway) to not exceed 1000 fpm. This conflicts with most western airlines, who have chosen to use Constent Descent Profiles (never a level off at the MDA).

Yet to see a Chinese airline to have proceedures for Pilot protection or support in such a case.
For example if a Foreigner was part of this Crew, you can well imagine over $100,000 in legal costs from the get-go.
After hospital release, directly to jail carrying your own IV in your mouth while using Crutches with 2 broken arms.
Perhaps being jailed for up to 5 yrs. while this process un-folds into multi $100K expenses - all from your own resources!
You will just rot here!
If found negligent - death penalty possible and ypu pay for the bullet or injection!

Flight Crew Training - well that is another issue.

So flyers beware working or considering it here in China.

Colocolo
27th Aug 2010, 02:43
In China the following as observed daily;

Also would like to add to your list:

-Unwillingness to disseminate WX observations when needed(significant changes) in addition to the top and bottom of the hour reports.
-Control tower that are fully lighted(interior) at night, preventing controllers a visual confirmation of WX conditions and traffic.
-Functional, and at night lighted, wind socks.
-Substandard airport, taxiway and runway signs.(not applicable to all airports)
-Unwillingness, by the vast majority of local flight crews, to enter (record) any maintenance issues into the logbook.


have many more, but need to measure my level of frustration:ugh: for the day.::}


COLOCOLO

KAG
27th Aug 2010, 02:52
8 sectors a day!

Which airline are you talking about?

Jasavir
27th Aug 2010, 03:17
Brookfiels Abused,

H I L A R I O U S!!!!! :}

Prawn2king4
27th Aug 2010, 07:05
To those who equate Chinese investigative procedures with Western ones:

Read between the lines please. I'm not knocking the timing. Flight Safety, CRM and transparency in incident/accident reporting are not on a par with the West. A rigid system of conformity and penalties, the reliability of the airframes and some good pilots have combined to produce a low accident rate.

You will not see an AIB type report on this accident.

Stubenfliege 2
27th Aug 2010, 07:42
Hi ya.

"You will not see an AIB type report on this accident."

I totally agree. With one exception, the Korean MD-11 crash in Shanghai in 1999, I haven磘 seen a Chinese accident report in my professional live. And this report was some kind of strange, because it was just a list of things "what" happened, but no try to find out the "why".

For other accidents in China, (even in western a/c types) I have seen just extracts or summaries. If you have a look on the website of the Chinese civil aviation authorities, the respective part is "under construction" forever.

On the other hand, in comparison to the early nineties, the statistics proofed an obvious improvement.

But this was in fact not very hard to achieve: I remember a story from a friend, how has a transition course at Airbus together with some pilots from China: To his opinion, the most skilled and gifted pilot from this group was the accompanying translator.

Regards,

Stubenfliege

de facto
29th Aug 2010, 05:20
Brookfield abused and colocolo,

Flying for a chinese airlines here are my thoughts..

Flight plans are accurate and 99% of time the most distant alternate is used so you end up carrying way to much fuel.
Any tempo CBs at your destination or alternate,dispatch will reward you with 1t extra.
Issue in china is ATC is not reliable and you may have to hold for 2 or 3 turns in the middle of your flight because the next sector cant accept you just yet(and thats after 2 hours flow control on the ground)..
But so far 400 kgs was the max used for these problems anf fligjt plans account for it.
I diverted once due to atc no being able to advise me how long would be the delay due to bad weather at destination.
The company NEVER blamed the crew.A detailed report was made by me explaining the reason for diversion.

Concerning the maintenance i can tell you that our aircraft are very well maintained and if you deem necessary to change a tire it will be done expeditiously.
Any requests to maintenance was dealt with efficiently.
I do write into techlog for your info..

Concerning duty time, they are indeed long.however if you are expecting to go over just call your dispatcher.
A friend of mine had to call the fom who then agreed with him that he couldnt continue and dispatch was told the same.
Dispatch may try to convince you otherwise but hey you are the captain and it is your final decision.
Believe me this happens everywhere even where i flew in europe.

14 hours can be extended to 16 hours for 2 crews.long duties are mostly due to long flow control( mostly summer).yes,one local CB and u git urself 1 hour delay..makes your task easier..just seat and wait.

Flights are easy,mostly 2 sectors(4-7 hours long), not like low costs..so all in all i prefer the stress staring at the ceiling in a 1star hotel for 3 hours than constantly making decisions whether you can safely takeoff during a stormy evening with no flow control.

Substandard airports...
Bejing atc is poor,any queries outside of their usual perrot aviation,they are lost,this is when your fo comes handy!!!
I guess u must be american cause in europe some airports are much worse than here..ever flew to bucharest baneasa? Krakow in poland?

Yes they dont use continious descent here but the vdp point is calculated befire starting the approach not when at mda...
Either works for me eventhough i prefer continious descent.
Salaries:
beat all that is on offer and way more than europe.

There may be the reason for all you whiners to still stay around here while dreaming about your home golden spoon major airlines in and out of bankrupcy.

Safe flights!

Lucky747
29th Aug 2010, 09:56
It seems the airline are being told to change their name.

Not sure on how accurate the source is.

AFP: China's Henan Airlines to change name: report (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5glciN7ireNWqzy-IpIh0X9iRr96g)

Sunnyjohn
29th Aug 2010, 14:31
"It seems the airline are being told to change their name."

This is entirely possible. Spanair changed their tailfin logo after the Madrid crash.

hexboy
29th Aug 2010, 15:17
I am a passenger , not a pilot, but have a son flying out of HK.
a month ago we were making our first trip to China mainland and I contacted a friend in Hamburg who has a brother working for Airbus, to ask about the type, age etc. of planes we might encounter on the internal flights.
In short he told me that Airbus alone sell 19 -20 aircraft per month to Reginal airlines in China and I would at least not have to worry about the airframe being old.
Our experience was a wonderful surprise with 4 flights on 4 different airlines - 3 Airbus single aisle and one 737 - all brand new with Chinese flight deck and cabin crew. Very polite and proud of their jobs.
Landings were some of the smoothest I have ever had. - some in poor visibility.
Airports were new with lots of construction going on and all flights left on time.
Thanks de facto for a bit of positive insight from the flight deck side.

Piltdown Man
29th Aug 2010, 16:54
Many Chinese Airlines practice a Visual Descent Profile (VDP). Meaning they choose to descend to the MDA, level off, then calculate the lastest point to begin descent (allows for the minimum distance to the runway) to not exceed 1000 fpm. This conflicts with most western airlines, who have chosen to use Constent Descent Profiles (never a level off at the MDA).

Unlikely in an E190. A continuous descent for an NDB or VOR/DME approach is easier than dirty dive and fly level type of arrival. The Nav. system, despite all of its poor design and implementation, does a pretty respectable job of these type of approaches and turns them into a "virtual ILS". A LOC/DME is the most difficult approach you'll ever fly. So, unless we have the FDR analysis and know for sure what was selected and engaged, what mode they were in, etc... we would just be making silly guesses.

PM

Neptunus Rex
29th Aug 2010, 17:05
Take cover! Incoming from 411A.

Sunnyjohn
29th Aug 2010, 20:48
"The aircraft which crashed at Madrid wasn't in Spanair colours. It was in Star Alliance colours." . . .with Spanair written in very large letters on the forward fuselage. My point remains relevant - Spanair changed it's tailfin and corporate logo after the Madrid crash.

Colocolo
29th Aug 2010, 21:50
de facto:

There may be the reason for all you whiners to still stay around here while dreaming about your home golden spoon major airlines in and out of bankrupcy.

What?

Substandard airports...
Bejing atc is poor,any queries outside of their usual perrot aviation,they are lost,this is when your fo comes handy!!!
I guess u must be american cause in europe some airports are much worse than here..ever flew to bucharest baneasa? Krakow in poland?

Did you ever fly in Colombia, Guyana (all 3), Africa, etc, etc. Who cares! Just because there is much worse does not justify shortcomings. Besides, I was referring to the markings not their abilities as air traffic controllers.
You guessed wrong, and again, what difference does it make what nationality I am?

Salaries:
beat all that is on offer and way more than europe

On this theme we are in agreement.

Boa Sorte

Colocolo

SMT Member
29th Aug 2010, 22:18
Guess the fact that new owners had bought Spanair from SAS a couple of months earlier wasn't a factor then... http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/yeees.gif

Negative, SAS was still part (if not majority) owner of Spanair when the accident happened. The CEO of SAS was on scene very shortly after the accident.

Brookfield Abused
30th Aug 2010, 00:03
If you are flying in China - ask your Employer/Broker/Agent, if you were the CP on this flight, what support would you receive legally from them?
Would they retain a Legal Counsel, provide Bonds, Bail, medical expenses, etc.

At the time ask for an English version of the Liability Insurance that you as a Crew Member are covered under? If you ever get that info, then please REPLY here with details.

The average Death Benefit paid for each person will be RMB 200,000 on this flight.

Compare this to the $2.73 Million on average on US Registered Airlines..

birds8bees
30th Aug 2010, 08:07
Too much poetic license in your description of the flight management here in China. Too bad to be true. Air crash could have been a lot more in China in the last six years should your information be real.

Brookfield Abused
31st Aug 2010, 16:54
Latest news on this.

The CP was in his mid 40's, above average experience on the EMB, no ICAO 4.
He had enough time to be well rested before this sector, was to fly only 2 sectors that evening which started from Harbin (172 nm's away).
This was his very first flight to this airport by the way, which is a CAT A.
Not sure about the FO's, age, experience, etc.
The flight was Tankering from Harbin as no fuel available.
When they departed from Harbin, vis. was reported at Dest. 8000 m's.
Prior to the approach, it was reported 1000 m's.
Approach was a VOR/DME RWY 12.
Seems it was stable air, low level fog generated from forests, wet grounds that surround the A/P.
Now here is a very sad fact - the CC was 3.
The Purser was celebrating her B-day. Her Husband who also worked for the same Co. He changed his flight to be with her.
When the A/C hit the ground, both were on the forward seats.
They survived and managed to start the evac.
Sadly during this process they both died either inside the cabin or at the Exits.
So from the crew of 2/3 the F/O, and the 2 CC lost their lives.

Massey1Bravo
1st Sep 2010, 10:44
Does anyone still remember the old BA "November Oscar Incident" at LHR? The Capt was convicted of criminal negligence and committed suicide, pretty sad story all around.

I'm also wondering whether Mesa Air Group's previous shareholding in the airline had any bearing on this accident. Mesa is quite well known for making their pilots work like hell, and they may well have transferred their practices to China. Remember the Go Hawaii pilots who overshot their destination?

Brookfield Abused
5th Sep 2010, 08:40
The official Xinhua News Agency reported Tuesday that Henan Airlines will give about $140,000 to each victim's family.

Brookfield Abused
29th Sep 2010, 14:05
Henan Airlines Flight 8387 (VD 8387) which belongs to Schenzen Airlines (has nothing to do with Hainan Airlines (HNA-HU)? was a flight from Harbin Taiping International Airport to the new Yichun Lindu Airport (ZYLD) which is 172 nm's flight, both located in Heilongjiang province, China.
On the night of August 24, 2010, it crashed on approach 1.5 km's prior to the runway with 91 passengers and 5 crew members on board.
43 were found dead at the scene. This included the FO and 2 Cabin Crew.

CAAC Inspector has told the following and this may be the closest we get to the facts;
ZYLD has a FF Cat. of 4.
Airport is CAT C due to terrain and Non-Precision Approach.
Aircraft had no MEL/DDL items and was "tankerng this sector' as no fuel available at ZYLD.
All Crew Members (2 Pilots and 3 CC) were Chinese.
VOR/DME RWY 30 Approach is only available and attempted.
RWY 30/12 - 2101 m's.
RWY 30 elevation 841', RWY 12 elevation 812'
Simplified Approach Lighting installed on RWY 30.
Required Vis. 2,800 m's. for Apch.
The Final Approach Segment has rising terrain extending from the runway.
Reported Vis. by Tower was 1,000 m's.
PIC was PF - 1st flight to this CAT C Airport and no previous JS flight nor sim. training for this airport.
ZYLD was NOT in the FMC Data Base!
Therefore TERR INHIBIT selected prior to the approach!
Company Procedure was Constant Angle Decent Profile (CADP).

FDR revealed the following;
At FAF, PF selected V/S -950 FPM and left there until impact.
Lateral guidance selected by the PF was not mentioned.
The Go Around Altitude was reselected after passing the FAF.

The CVR reveals in Chinese language;
No DME vs. height calls were made.
Approaching Minimum was called out by the PF.
At the MDA the PM called out "5 Lights!". 7 are legally required in China to continue.
The PF called "Landing".
No further calls from either Crew Member were recorded.
The CVR then records in English "50, 40, 30, 20 , 10"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The aircraft broke apart on impact and caught fire.
CVR and FDR data not recorded after this initial impact due to fuselage breach.

Both CP and FO survived the impact.
The CP, was seriously wounded but without hesitation or delay evacuated through the Cockpit Door before the passengers.
The FO semi-conscious and immobilized was seeking help from his seat.
A female passenger prior to evacuating entered the cockpit and could not undo the seatbelt harness and was forced out of the cockpit due to smoke, heat and flames.
The FO died in his CM2 seat due to blunt trama, burns and affixiation.

Both the Purser and forward CC (married to each other) perished in the fire while performing their EVAC duties.

The approach was reconstructed and flown with the same parameters.
The "5 lights" seen were indeed the first 5 of the Approach Light System.
However at the MDA vs. distance to the Threshold the aircraft flew, the VASI indicated FULL REDS (with the required Vis.).
Seems the 2.8 km vis. requirement was for good reason!?

The CAAC has now instructed ALL Chinese Airports that when the required vis. falls below the appropriate minimum required, an APPROACH BAN is issued by the Tower and no Clearances issued for Approach or Landing until improvement at or above mins.

Henan Airlines (with 4 remaining Aircraft) has been grounded since this accident!

According to The Provisions on the Limited Compensation Liabilities of Carriers in Civil Aviation Transport, which was approved by the State Council in 2006, the next of kin in such incidents are eligible for 400,000 yuan ($58,750.95) in compensation, an extra 3,000 yuan ($440.63) for lost belongings and a maximum of 2,000 yuan($293.76) for checked luggage, making a total of 405, 000 yuan ($59,533).

Due to the increase in the cost of living in China, Henan Airlines has increased the basic payment to 592,300 yuan ($87,017.84) and, with other additions including damages for emotional distress, the next of kin in this incident are entitled to 960, 000 yuan ($141,116).

So for those flying in China on Chinese Carriers - you now know what your life is worth!

ManaAdaSystem
29th Sep 2010, 15:05
Do not use the look-ahead terrain alerting and terrain display functions:
-within 15 nm of takeoff, approach or landing at an airport not contained in the GPWS terrain database.


From 737 NG Limitations chapter. I presume they had the same limitations, so switching it off would be SOP.

safetypee
29th Sep 2010, 22:49
搮 at an airport not in the EGPWS Terrain Database I presume they had the same limitations, so switching it off would be SOP.

Operators should notify Honeywell of any omission who should be able to add airports/runways at the next update. Of course, this assumes that operators will update the database regularly.

Teddy Robinson
29th Sep 2010, 23:23
In human term alone .. to those that fly the line ... that is simply horrific, my s/o was many times operational on our sectors ... and frequently put down by pax as a flying waitress ... it really bring it home. ouch.

GroundProxGuy
30th Sep 2010, 05:49
ERJ190 has Honeywell Epic EGPWS, according to the EGPWS database airport search site, ZYLD was available in the last two databases

http://egpws.com/cgi-bin/epic_search.pl?method=exact&search=zyld

So it looks like the database was probably out of date, and they inhibited the terrain function to prevent (nuisance) terrain warnings on landing.

Dan Winterland
30th Sep 2010, 05:57
''The CAAC has now instructed ALL Chinese Airports that when the required vis. falls below the appropriate minimum required, an APPROACH BAN is issued by the Tower and no Clearances issued for Approach or Landing until improvement at or above''.

I've always been amazed at the 'flexible' attitude Chinese operators have to minima. If implemented, this should stop me having to explain to my passengers why some of these clowns are still flying when we are not!

vieri007
30th Sep 2010, 07:09
If they did't have airport in FMC Data Base, it means that they had to construct approach. That is the only way to conduct VOR/DME app. on EMB 190. In circumstances which were present (low visibility, first time on airport for PF,...), there is lot of space for mistake during drawing on FMS.

Greetings

ManaAdaSystem
30th Sep 2010, 07:56
Are you saying you can't fly a raw data VOR/DME in this aircraft?

BOAC
30th Sep 2010, 08:08
Best not to ask:mad:

renard
30th Sep 2010, 09:36
You can flew a raw data VOR approach i.e. track the VOR using HDG. The EMB cannot "capture" a VOR signal. Normally you would do the approach in FMS NAV.

Slightly interesting that they used a VS mode of descent, when the EMB can fly Flight Path Angle.

BOAC
30th Sep 2010, 10:48
The EMB cannot "capture" a VOR signal. - is it also unable to 'capture' a localiser?

Micky
30th Sep 2010, 11:25
- is it also unable to 'capture' a localiser?

Hello

The EMB can capture and follow a LOC signal but no VOR signal. There for the must "difficult" approach to fly would be a LOC/DME approach as the flight path angle or ROD has to be manually adjusted by the PF.(VS or FPA both possible).

All other non Precision approaches are flown as Virtual ILS and are armed by selecting the app mode. So if the Airfield was not included in the data base you can not programme the approach.
You could only work around that with flying a raw data approach, but if this is true At FAF, PF selected V/S -950 FPM and left there until impact. they where not doing that either.

All this "information" is leading to nothing. At least I can not make nothing of it.

Regards

Micky

kilwhang
30th Sep 2010, 11:29
As renard says, you cannot fly a VOR coupled approach in the E170/190. For lateral guidance, one of the recommended methods is to use FMS NAV with PREVIEW selected using the VOR freq. This allows the VOR to be monitored very easily. The reasoning behind this is that the accuracy of a VOR/DME is 1nm and the accuracy of the GPS is 0.3nm, therefore the GPS/FMS NAV is much more precise.
The vertical path is normally controlled using Flight Path Angle (FPA). Just prior to the FAF an FPA is selected. This is, usually, the same angle as indicated on the approach chart. During the descent to the MDH the descent profile can be checked against the DME but ALSO visually - by looking at the lower half of the MFD, the Vertical Profile. It is very easy to compare the actual descent profile (green line) against the FMS profile (magenta line). Any variation from the profile is obvious.
In this instance, however, they appear to have used Vertical Speed. They may have decided to use the 'Dive and Drive' method.
Even using this technique, the vertical display on the MFD is still available to show you where you are (within 0.3nm).

I offer this info to allow readers to understand the system better - not as a criticism of the crew.

vieri007
30th Sep 2010, 14:42
Just to be precise: it is not possible to change approach in FMS, but is possible to make your approach in both LNAV and VNAV, for some new defined point (which can be runway treshold).
Also, according to Embraer SOPM, VOR app. is only to be flown as LNAV (FMS) in lateral plane.

Regards

A4
30th Sep 2010, 20:54
Am I missing something here? So the EMB cannot capture and follow a VOR radial. Guess what. Neither can the Airbus. Are people saying they cannot fly a "raw" VOR approach on the EMB because if it's not in the database.......

What I cannot understand is how when the Radalt started calling out...... they just let it fly into the ground.

kilwhang
1st Oct 2010, 04:22
Of course, it is possible to fly a 'raw' VOR approach in the EMB but, and I hope you agree with me that, faced with the following:

A/F not in the database
Capt's first visit to the A/F
Tricky terrain
VOR/DME only available

it would be prudent to use all other available info and displays to assist you.

As far as 'A/F not in database' is concerned; it is possible that the FMS had not been updated but, being China, there is another possibility. The Chinese authorities are very security conscious and, if an airfield is both military and civil, it is quite often 'not in database'. I don't know the status of this particular airport.

Now for the vertical approach profile: as vieri007 says, it is possible to manufacture waypoints in the FMS. For this particular approach it would be very easy to construct 2 extra waypoints - one at the FAF and the other at the MAP. The easiest way would be to use the P/B/D (Place/Bearing/Distance) method with the VOR being the 'Place'. Add vertical definitions to the waypoints (eg Platform Height to the FAF and MDH to the MAP) and the FMS will construct a descent profile which you can monitor on the MFD. As previously discussed you can use FPA or V/S in the descent. With the PNF giving distance and altitude reminders from the Approach Chart, or a manual table (remember those?) scribbled on the back of the PLOG, you have covered most of the bases.

Apologies to any 'grandmothers' on here who already know 'how to suck eggs'.

Neptunus Rex
1st Oct 2010, 04:59
An Approach Ban should be spelt out in clear language in the relevant company Operations Manuals. It is normally predicated on RVR and is not negotiable, nor open to interpretation. The usual caveats apply, such as dire emergency.

It is not, and should not be, up to ATC to issue an Approach Ban.

A4
1st Oct 2010, 07:59
Hello kilwhang,

Constructing your own approach in the FMS and then flying it is a NO NO!! I agree on using all available information but don't confuse or overload yourself with (possibly incorrect) PBD's/track lines.

I agree that circumstances facing the crew were not ideal. But that should make you all the more cautious and conservative in your operation. You slow down, check, check and double check everything you are doing. 950fpm from the FAF does not sound like the actions of a crew who's situational awareness was at its peak. The fact that required viz was below minima and they continued backs this up.

What I'm getting at is that even if there is no airport in the database, for whatever reason, the crew should be able to fly it using raw data.

There is a VOR. There is a runway. There is an approach plate with specified tracks, descent points and minima. If a crew are unable to utilise the three to put the aircraft at a point from which a safe landing can be made or a missed approach flown..... then they shouldn't be sitting in the front seats.

Many references have been made to "children of the magenta line" - production line pilots who are great with the FMS but found wanting when it either fails or does not behave as expected. Is this another example?

kilwhang you said The reasoning behind this is that the accuracy of a VOR/DME is 1nm and the accuracy of the GPS is 0.3nm, therefore the GPS/FMS NAV is much more precise.

I'm not sure I fully understand this, could you elaborate? 0.3nm is RNP for GNSS approaches and 1.0nm is for P-RNAV SID/STAR's. The EMB is a modern type so I assume it is P-RNAV/GNSS capable? Does it have twin GPS RX's?

Enjoying the discussion.

vieri007
1st Oct 2010, 08:37
Constructing approach in FMS, is must, for some regions in world. There are airports in Asia, Africa, which are not covered by Honeywell data base.
This airport was that case, and I suppose, that pilots construct approach, maybe as a help tool, for raw data app, or to fly it as LNAV approach.
Any way, it makes sense for me, to construct something like that, in that case, for lateral navigation, having in mind its capabilities (but not in weather conditions which were below minimum).
Regarding reasoning behind Embraer policy for VOR/DME app., kilwhang is right. EMB simply says that, why to allow flying app. with 1nm, as VOR/DME app., when you can fly LNAV app. with RNP 0.3 in terminal area.
That is also policy for future for all manufactures and airports. Simply to reduce cost in all segments, by changing non precision app.(somewhere and precision app.) to GNSS appproaches (aircraft based navigation).

Regards

kilwhang
1st Oct 2010, 09:37
I, too, am enjoying this discussion. If we get too boring I'm sure that the Mods will shunt us off to a siding somewhere till we see the error of our ways.

I will try and confine my comments to the subject of the thread and some of the features of the E170/190.

First of all, communications. It's amazing - before I posted my last missive I read it over and over to make sure it conveyed what I wanted. Yet you and, I've no doubt others, read into it something I had not intended. I do not advocate 'constructing your own approach in the FMS and then flying it'. The approach in question is a VOR/DME. It should be flown according to the correct procedures. All I suggested was that you could construct a visual representation of the descent path on the MFD. This would have no effect on the ACTUAL descent path other than, maybe, make you query the situation if a discrepancy appeared. I agree that there is no substitute for careful planning and briefing.

Can I make a comment on the 'children of the magenta line?' I am 62 yrs old and pre-date the FMS by longer than I care to think. The new guys are not to blame for the knowledge and techniques they've been taught. That is the system. It is no good us 'old-uns' complaining about young pilots - the fault, if there is one, lies with the system of training. Let me give you an example: a few weeks ago I was demonstrating a VOR/DME approach to a group of young F/O's. They were from an airline that advocates the 'dive and drive' method of descent from FAF to MDH. Their approach plates do not have distance/altitude tables. I wanted to use FPA to descend and needed to construct a table to illustrate my points. I can't remember the exact figures but the descent was from about 9.5 miles at 3000ft. As I was talking I made up a table on the whiteboard, mentally calculating the distances and altitudes. I realised that they were looking at me with wonder - I wasn't using a calculator. The point is that they are from a different generation and have different tools at their disposal. In my opinion, they are usually very sharp cookies but they can only learn what we teach them.

Now I'm really going to have to get the grey matter working. You asked a question about accuracies and RNP........OK here goes.

Navigational equipment accuracies:

In the E170/190 the accuracy of the GPS is +/- 0.3nm (however, I'm led to believe that Nicki have requested an accuracy of +/- 0.1nm for use in really restricted areas)
The standard accuracy for DME/DME is +/- 0.5nm
The standard accuracy for VOR/DME is +/- 1.0nm
On the E170/190 the drift rate of the IRS is a max of 2.0nm/hr

RNP is the Required Navigation Performance that must be adhered to in specific airspace, eg:
Departure, Arrival, Missed Approach............1nm
EnRoute.................................................2nm
Approach...............................................0.3nm

You can now see why the GPS accuracy is 0.3nm; if it wasn't we couldn't do GPS based approaches (VGP etc)
It is also the reason why you have to do all those extra checks (RNP, EPU, RAIM, etc) prior to attempting a GPS based approach.

Now, I have plucked those numbers from my head - not a ref book - so please don't jump down my throat if they are not 100% accurate. I'm trying to convey the principle so be nice. If, however, I've really got it wrong please tell me........I'm never too old to learn.

It is now 17.30 here in Singapore so I'm off to say hello to a 'Tiger'.

8314
1st Oct 2010, 10:21
Lauda Air has no E-Jets:ok:

kilwhang
1st Oct 2010, 10:36
Sorry.....................I meant 'Nicki' :(

Mike-Bracknell
1st Oct 2010, 11:53
Sorry.....................I meant 'Nicki' :(

...or 'Niki' :ok:

Piltdown Man
4th Oct 2010, 08:27
...or 'Niki'

Are you really sure? (http://wn.com/EMBRAER_FlyNiki)

Quick rewind regarding the E-Jet and making approaches at airfields not in the FMS - they are just a little more painful than old fashioned aircraft because the Embraer's SOPM implies that you can't practice them in the real aircraft (that is what the sim. is for). It's nothing to do with the magenta line, it's to do with the way the aircraft is designed and the SOPM is written. The aircraft itself will let you (as along as you wind up the selected altitude before you start the descent) but you are flying the approach in a manner for which the aircraft was not designed and in a style which you will have rarely practiced. Even the different scan takes some getting used to. And if some of the posts here are correct, this was a CAT C airfield being approached for the first time without sim practice, being flown on a non-precision, approach using abnormal procedures with weather below minima.

kilwhang
5th Oct 2010, 04:31
' it's to do with the way the a/c is designed and the SOPM is written'

If only it were that straightforward. I've just had a quick look round my office and I have 7 different AOM's and 4 different SOPM's for the E170/190 family. The extra ingredient in all this is the controlling authority of the respective airline: in this case the Civil Aviation Authority of China (CAAC). As I wrote earlier, co-located civil/military airfields in China tend not to be in the FMS database. Now, I don't know how many airfields are like this but, in a country the size of China, it must be a lot.
So, until evidence to the contrary, we have to surmise that the CAAC are happy for a Capt (who has never been there before) to attempt a Non-Precision Approach into a Cat 'C' airfield - which isn't in the FMS database - and which he/she hasn't practiced previously in the sim. I wonder if they have videos of the approaches which they can view prior to a flight.
Notice that I haven't mentioned the weather - that is still 'under investigation'.

"The a/c itself will let you(as long as you wind up the selected altitude before you start the descent) but you are flying the approach in a manner for which the a/c was not designed..........."
Not so long ago I would have agreed with you, but would it surprise you to know that there are some authorities who tell you to wind the selected altitude DOWN before the descent?
For instance, in a very famous airline, controlled by a very well respected authority, the SOP for a Non-Precision Approach descent is this:
Prior to FAF select MDH on the Altitude Selector.
At FAF select a rate of descent greater than that required to maintain the descent angle.
Level off at MDH and select Go-Round Altitude
At MAP, if no visual references, carry out Missed Approach Procedure.

They call this the 'Dive and Drive' method, and it is the method recommended by the authority.

I totally agree with you that making approaches at airfields which are not in the FMS should be reasonably straightforward if you stick to the procedures. Once again I say that the reason I mentioned (notice I say 'mentioned' NOT 'recommended') inserting a descent into the FMS is merely to give an extra indication to the crew to help them monitor what is going on.

A4
5th Oct 2010, 08:38
Why is the airfield cat C? Any charts available? I understand there is terrain or is it TERRAIN! which restricts distance from FAP/FAF to runway

Piltdown Man
5th Oct 2010, 08:51
I've just had a quick look round my office and I have 7 different AOM's and 4 different SOPM's for the E170/190 family.

Oh dear - I can see possible confusion here. I'm just starting to realise how lucky I am. We have good document control, we actually read the things and have a technical depart who give us the heads-up on changes.

co-located civil/military airfields in China tend not to be in the FMS database

Hmm.. and couple this with a CAT C airfield, marginal weather, no prior training, raw data approach - this is a perfect recipe for crew to... Maybe someone from the Training and Standards department within the CAAC should be reviewing the way they allow their operators to conduct their operations or there again, maybe they aren't up to the job of oversight. Also, are the CAAC immune from litigation? They'll need it because this will be the first of many such incidents if they don't change their ways.

kilwhang
5th Oct 2010, 10:25
The airfield doesn't show on Google Earth because it is only a couple of years old and post-dates the Google picture but, if you want to check out the terrain, the airfield co-ordinates are N47 45 06 E129 01 05

newty74
22nd Oct 2011, 23:08
any updates on this accident? the news is...silent...or censored...one or the other...perhaps both?!

RogerGliding
10th Apr 2015, 19:23
From here : Court rejects pilot?s appeal | Shanghai Daily (http://www.shanghaidaily.com/national/Court-rejects-pilots-appeal/shdaily.shtml)
Source: Xinhua | April 11, 2015

A COURT in northeast China抯 Heilongjiang Province yesterday upheld the verdict of a lower court that had sentenced a pilot to three years in prison for misoperation in a 2010 plane crash that killed 44.
The Intermediate People抯 Court of Yichun found that Qi Quanjun, the captain of the ERJ-190 regional jet that crashed in Yichun on August 24, 2010, had violated aviation rules by attempting to land when visibility was below safety standards. He was also found guilty of failing to fulfill his duty as the aircraft抯 pilot by ensuring all passengers were evacuated.
The crash resulted in the death of 44, including the co-pilot, and 52 others sustained injuries.
Qi抯 behavior had serious consequences, the court ruled.
揟he facts are clear, the evidence was solid and ample, the verdict accurate, the sentence appropriate, and the procedure legitimate, it said.
Qi was first tried by the Yichun District People抯 Court on December 19 last year.
The defendant appealed, claiming that the conviction was made without a thorough probe or adequate evidence, and the penalty was too harsh.