Crash-Cork Airport

[gazcork]

Airfield closed. Seems to be Manx2 from Belfast. Details vague

[RegDep]

Plane crashes at Cork airport

Cork airport

A small aircraft has crashed on the runway of Cork airport this morning.

The Manx2 airline flight from Belfast to Cork reportedly overturned and caught fire when landing.

The plane was due to arrive in Cork at about 9.45am.

It is understood there are some 12 people on board the plane.

Local reports say the airport has been closed and that emergency vehicles are en route.

Motorists have been asked to avoid the area.

On irishtimes dot com

[Super VC-10]

Belfast flight crashes at Cork Airport - RTÉ News (http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0210/cork.html)

[40KTSOFFOG]

Eick 101030z 09007kt 1800 R17/p2000 R35/p2000 Br Few001 Sct002 Bkn003 06/06 Q1010 Becmg Vis 5000
Eick 101000z 09008kt 0400 R17/0600n R35/0450n Fg Bkn001 05/05 Q1010 Nosig
Eick 100930z 08005kt 050v110 0300 R17/0375n R35/0350n Fg Bkn001 04/04 Q1010 Nosig
Eick 100900z 06003kt 0300 R17/0325n R35/0450n Fg Sct001 03/03 Q1010 Becmg 3000
Eick 100830z 04004kt 0300 R17/0400 R35/0450 Fg Few001 02/02 Q1010 Becmg 3000
Eick 100800z 01004kt 0400n Fg Few001 R17/0400 R35/p2000 02/02 Q1010 Nosig
Eick 100500z 1006/1106 Vrb03kt 0300 Fg Bkn001
Becmg 1007/1009 08005kt
Becmg 1009/1011 11010kt 9999 Nsw Sct010 Bkn020
Tempo 1015/1021 5000 Br -radz Bkn003
Becmg 1018/1020 14010kt
Becmg 1021/1024 19010kt
Becmg 1100/1103 3000 -radz Br Bkn003
Tempo 1103/1106 0300 Fg Ovc001

[Temet_Nosce]

http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg610/scaled.php?tn=0&server=610&filename=d3itp.jpg&xsize=640&ysize=640

[MidlandDeltic]

TV3 as accurate as ever - newsflash just reported it as Aer Arann :ugh:

[d88]

Plane crash at Cork Airport - TV3 (http://www.tv3.ie/article.php?article_id=53458&locID=1.2&pagename=news)

Plane crash at Cork Airport

10.02.11

Avia Flight No FLT400C a metroliner SW4 with ten passengers and two crew has crashed at Cork Airport. No details of injuries or fatalities are available.

The aircraft made an approach to Runway 17 in low visibility conditions (Category 2) and went around and did not land and attempted a second landing on Runway 35.

The aircraft then went around a second time and came back for an approach to Runway 17. On the second approach to Runway 17 the aircraft crashed adjacent to Taxiway C. Rescue and Fire crew are in attendance.

There is a fire and debris has been scattered onto the runway and over a wide area.

The accident will be investigated by the Air Accident Unit of the Dept. of Transport.

This is correct at this time and may be amended as more detail becomes available.

[MidlandDeltic]

Another newsflash on now - with "on the scene" report from radio correspondent. No mention of operator, but no correction. An ambulance has left the scene with Gardai escorting, so there is some hope there.

The web piece above is lifted directly from IAA website here :

Irish Aviation Authority - Aircraft Crashes at Cork (http://www.iaa.ie/index.jsp?p=93&n=96&a=1007)

[Super VC-10]

Sky News just reported it as Flight 7100 from Belfast City to Cork. Learmount now on Sky giving his wisdom.

[RegDep]

Cork Live Arrivals at appr 11:15.

http://i1103.photobucket.com/albums/g472/RegDep/Bildschirmfoto2011-02-10um123400.png

[kingair9]

Does somebody here know whether Manx2 is using nowadays D-registered FLM or EC-registered Flightline SWM Metros?

[superspotter]

The aircraft involved appears to be EC-ITP of Flightavia.

[IrishJason]

Cork Plane Crash: Three Reported Dead After Aircraft From Belfast Crashes In Ireland | World News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Cork-Plane-Crash-Eight-Reported-Dead-After-Aircraft-From-Belfast-Crashes-In-Ireland/Article/201102215927419?lpos=World_News_Carousel_Region_0&lid=ARTICLE_15927419_Cork_Plane_Crash%3A_Eight_Reported_Dead _After_Aircraft_From_Belfast_Crashes_In_Ireland)

[FlightCosting]

Would such an aircraft have a DFDR (data recorder) and or CVR on board?If it was a Metroliner rather than a Merlin it should have both.

Seem to remember that the DFDR was located in the tail section outside the pressure bulkhead

[Super VC-10]

Sky now reporting 6 dead, 6 injured.

[FlightCosting]

From the BBC

'Three killed' in plane crash



A small plane travelling from Belfast has crashed in fog at Cork Airport.
It is understood three people have been killed, four are unaccounted for and several others injured.

[Temet_Nosce]

Shannon WX not great for diversion:
METAR: EINN 101100Z 11005KT 0300 R24/0400N R06/0400N FG VV002 04/04
Q1011 NOSIG=
EINN 101030Z 09003KT 0300 R24/0300N R06/0375N FG VV001 03/03
Q1011 NOSIG=
EINN 101000Z 01004KT 0300 R24/0300N R06/0325N FG VV001 03/03
Q1011 NOSIG=
EINN 100930Z 04002KT 0300 R24/0300N R06/0325N FG VV001 03/03
Q1011 NOSIG=

[p1andy]

Sky news reports showing rwy 17 and rwy 35 at 90 degrees from each other?? How does that work?

[INLAK]

Is this aircraft CAT 1 only?

[The_green_penguin]

Surely this approach was below minima??? "RVR 350m, broken cloud at 100 feet...."

Is Rwy 17 ILS Cat I or II...?? What is aircraft certified to??

[lfc84]

RTE

1133 The aircraft made three attempts to land at the airport, which was experiencing heavy fog at the time.
The second half of the airplane remains turned upside down.

[Captain-Random]

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/2827/article13555150d1e56130.jpg (http://img62.imageshack.us/i/article13555150d1e56130.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[akerosid]

Cork suffers regularly from poor visibility. I think the runway is Cat II.

EC-ITP has been operating for Manx for at least three years now:

JetPhotos.Net Photo » EC-ITP (CN: BC-789B) Top Fly Fairchild SA227-BC Metro III by John Fitzpatrick (http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6327382&nseq=17)

This is the first fatal accident involving a commercial aircraft in Ireland for many years. Can't remember the last one (has there been one since EI-AOM?)

[SevernTMA]

Superspotter "The aircraft involved appears to be EC-ITP of Flightavia. "

May I ask where this information came from?

[lfc84]

http://img.rasset.ie/0004369a-640.jpg

[wayupthere]

Cork also has a smaller (4300ft) 07/25 runway, guess that's what they mean?

[hhobbit]

photo showing u/c intact...?

[atprider]

Flight Avia had 2 Metorliners operating Manz2 routes. EC-GPS and EC-ITP.
From comparison of the photos it certainly seems to have been EC-ITP involved.

[Chipzilla]

Reports say two crew on board. How does that work? One person flying and one in the back with the punters? Two flying and nobody in the back with the punters? Or a bit of both?

[Sparelung]

Cork crash tragedy: four walking wounded climbed from burning wreckage - Republic of Ireland, Local & National - Belfasttelegraph.co.uk (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/republic-of-ireland/cork-crash-tragedy-four-walking-wounded-climbed-from-burining-wreckage-15079766.html)

Eyewitness account says that four pax got themselves out...

[FlightCosting]

Reports say two crew on board. How does that work? One person flying and one in the back with the punters? Two flying and nobody in the back with the punters? Or a bit of both?

Years ago an Aussie commuter airline hired a 4'6" hostee to be able to do an on-board service - Max cabin height 4' 9"

When the Metro was operated in Sweden 25 years ago, it was mandatory to have ear defenders on every seat

[lfc84]

there is a pilot and co pilot.

there is no other cabin crew. and no in flight service.

the pilot / co pilot do the safety briefing or play a video.

[midnight cruiser]

3 approaches?

Did he declare a mayday? Many places wont allow you to make 3 approaches unless you do.

Wx at DUB looked OK, albeit some distance away.

Single pilot? - V tough job.

[lfc84]

for clarity.

"manx airlines" no longer exist.

this is "manx2"

no conenction to "manx airlines" or "bral"

[asteroid01]

EC is a Spanish registration - would the crew also be spanish?
Regarding two crew - the metroliner seats 19 pax and this does not require a cabin attendant. Thus it was operated with a Captain and First Officer.

[lfc84]

pilot and co pilot on other manx2 some flights have been german

i dont know about the crew nationality on this flight

[gcal]

There's a spanish flag on the tail!

[jbsharpe]

How common an occurrence is it to miss an approach, then come back and make an attempt in the opposite direction?

According to the IAA report (Irish Aviation Authority - Aircraft Crashes at Cork (http://www.iaa.ie/index.jsp?p=93&n=96&a=1007)) the initial approach was into RWY 35, then 17, then 35 again.

Is this normal, or possibly indicative of mechanical problems which hastened the subsequent attempts to land?

[Whispering Giant]

Chipzilla - the flight would have operated with 2 pilot's only as there is no requirment to carry Cabin Crew on a aircraft fitted with less than 20 seats (air navigation order, annex1, article20 - composition of crew of the aircraft)
- For Public Transport flight's, cabin attendent's separate from the members of flight crew must be carried for safety duties when : - 1) Carrying 20 passengers or more. 2) carrying at least 1 passenger if the C of A permits the carriage of more 35 passangers.

The company would have required there passngers to watch a safty demonstration or a safty video prior to boarding the flight.

[LetsFlyAway]

The aircraft was owned by Spanish company as per a previous post.

Barcelona-based operator Flightline BCN has confirmed that a Fairchild Metroliner which crashed in Cork this morning was one of its aircraft.
Metroliner which crashed in Cork belongs to Flightline BCN (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/10/353035/metroliner-which-crashed-in-cork-belongs-to-flightline.html)

[Cows getting bigger]

RW17 at Cork is Cat II. RW35 is Cat I.

[vintage ATCO]

3 approaches?

Did he declare a mayday? Many places wont allow you to make 3 approaches unless you do.

Is this a company thing? Certainly ATC in the UK would not get involved in the decision process.

Live RTE RTÉ News Player, Live News events, Live News Programmes & Rolling News (http://www.rte.ie/news/player_newsnow.html)

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

Of the two aircraft mentioned earlier, EC-ITP is clearly marked with a blue tail (as in the Cork photo) but a recent photo of EC-GPS shows it in white markings ...

Photos: Fairchild SA-227AC Metro III Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-%28Euro-Continental/Fairchild-SA-227AC-Metro/1759078/&sid=b7a330ab9aa3f65f276b40d24e8476e9)

My understanding of instrument approaches, at least those I do, is that you can make as many attempts as you feel safe to do so, taking account of fuel remaining, visibility, aiport status (ie open) and any ATC instructions. I was once on a Virgin 747 that took 6 attempts to get into San Francisco. So no reason why this Metroliner crew couldn't make 3 attempts (other than the reported viz and cloudbase seem incredibly poor).

And to the news hacks logged in, runways 17 and 35 are in opposing directions (170 and 350 deg)

[Ringi]

A reason for making an approach to opposite runway is if the visibilty increases at that end. Visibilty can differ along the length of runway.

[Boing7117]

How common an occurrence is it to miss an approach, then come back and make an attempt in the opposite direction?

Due to the nature of fog, you might find that as the fog sets in at one end of an airfield, the other side can be slightly better and after a go-around, after a discussion with your colleague on the flight deck and ATC, the information presented may well suggest an attempt on the opposite end would be your best chance of landing successfully before diverting elsewhere.

[midnight cruiser]

Must admit I've never seen it written down, but I once did 2 unsuccessful NPA's, then they opened the ILS, but wouldn't permit me to do a third approach! (Maybe it was a local rule) Was also told of the max 2 approach rule, but dunno where it comes from.

[4015]

The a/c does appear to be EC-ITP from the photos.

The Daily Mail ( :eek: ) appear to have all the photos anyone could need:

Cork airport crash: Six people confirmed dead after plane overturned on landing in heavy fog | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355515/Cork-airport-crash-Six-people-confirmed-dead-plane-overturned-landing-heavy-fog.html#ixzz1DYkuVMSo)

It looks like all the survivors where at the back of the a/c, I doubt anyone forward of the wings got out. So we won't be receiving any pilot reports by the looks of it.

[lfc84]

Manx2 : Flights from the Isle of Man to Blackpool, Belfast, Leeds , Gloucester (M5), Jersey, East Midlands and Newcastle. (http://www.manx2blog.com/2011/02/manx2-com-statement-on-incident-at-cork-airport/)

[TolTol]

Our company SOP's state that in order to make a third approach the weather would have to improve by by double, ie the visibility would have to double in order to make a third approach.

[fireflybob]

The number of approach attempts you are allowed will be defined in that Company's Operations Manual (which is approved by the authority).

With the airlines I have operated for you are only allowed a third attempt if there has been a significant improvement in the weather (this also is usually defined). There are also sometimes stipulations that the previous 2 attempts must be on autopilot. (Once again though this would depend on that Company's OM).

So this decision rests with the aircraft Commander (he obviously should be obeying the rules!).

Only exception would be if you have to declare an emergency for some reason.

Another reason for doing approaches onto a different runway is that this might save time and therefore fuel but usually it's because of better RVR etc.

[juice]

Medic at Cork University Hospital tells national radio RTÉ two patients were received there with soft tissue injuries, four with more serious but non-life threatening injuries.

[Golf-Mike-Mike]

decoding the weather from an earlier post (below) gives:
09.30 status, runway viz 300metres but 375m to the north on 17, 350m to the north on 35
At 10.00, they had 400m viz with 600m to the north on 17, 450m to the north on 35
Cloudbase 100ft but viz marginally improving but still pretty poor

Eick 101000z 09008kt 0400 R17/0600n R35/0450n Fg Bkn001 05/05 Q1010 Nosig
Eick 100930z 08005kt 050v110 0300 R17/0375n R35/0350n Fg Bkn001 04/04 Q1010 Nosig

[Phil Space]

decoding the weather from an earlier post (below) gives:
09.30 status, runway viz 300metres but 375m to the north on 17, 350m to the north on 35
At 10.00, they had 400m viz with 600m to the north on 17, 450m to the north on 35
Cloudbase 100ft but viz marginally improving but still pretty poor

Eick 101000z 09008kt 0400 R17/0600n R35/0450n Fg Bkn001 05/05 Q1010 Nosig
Eick 100930z 08005kt 050v110 0300 R17/0375n R35/0350n Fg Bkn001 04/04 Q1010 Nosi
I'm too old to want to try that.

I guess if you do it for a living it is OK but I wonder if you polled the punters in the back with the facts how many would board?

[FourTrails]

If the RVR was below minima when they passed 1000ft all I can say is 'Cowboys!'.

[hhobbit]

The condition of the u/c indicates the wheels made no contact with the ground, so it seems the a/c contacted in present and final attitude. Therefore this was more than a hard landing from a botched approach, or so it would appear.

[IslandPilot]

Were the A/C and crew certfied for Cat 2? If not it seems that the W/X was marginal at best. Some companies SOP's and some countries enforce an approach ban - did this apply?

[Horsepowerrr]

Flew into Kerry this morning and that was nice and clear, but flying in there you could see lot of fog in the valleys and also over large parts of Ireland. Including Cork, which we overflew coming in from the East, but that was before the time of the crash in Cork.

@ FourTrails: actual current readings in wind or vis can be different then on a METAR or ATIS. And even with vis lower than minimum required passing 1000ft you can continue, because once you pass the OM and the vis then drops below minima you are allowed to continue to your mimimum alt for your approach. So please be a bit careful in what you say and have some respect as you dont know the exact details and the guys are not around anymore to defend themselves.:=

[UGC Hub]

Hello, Lorna from the BBC here, did you take this photo yourself? Were you at the airport at the time of the accident? Could you call me on 0205768200

[Pilot Positive]

Latest from BBC news...


BBC News - Six killed as Belfast plane crashes in Cork (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12415541)

[SpiralStability]

Just for correctness, The 'n' in the metar means 'no change' in the RVR rather than 'to the north'. If n was tagged on to the met viz that would mean 'to the north'.

Eick 100930z 08005kt 050v110 0300 R17/0375n R35/0350n Fg Bkn001 04/04 Q1010 Nosi

[Super VC-10]

The aircraft was reported to be landing on 17. Crash site is very close to the start of that runway according to Flight International.

Manx2 Metroliner crashes in Cork: fatalities reported (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/10/353032/manx2-metroliner-crashes-in-cork-fatalities-reported.html)

[mark25787]

what was the nationality if the crew?

I'm sure the crew and passenger manifests will be released in due course. Let the authorities have chance to contact the families of the deceased and injured crew and passengers.

[Boing7117]

If the RVR was below 550m when they passed 1000ft all I can say is 'Cowboys!'.

Well we don't know what the RVR was when they passed 1000' so let's not speculate, nor, insult those who have died.

A bit more respect wouldn't go amiss FourTrails.

[silverknapper]

Very sure the Metro isn't cat II.

[max_continuous]

I am assuming that my post quoting the Daily Mail article linked earlier is causing some kind of issue or is in some sense contrary to term of use.

Anyway, according to said report eyewitnesses saw, saw, the plane held in a queue for 20 minutes before making the third approach.

???

[Lord Spandex Masher]

Slant range in fog. It's perfectly feasible to be able to see up!

[Super VC-10]

Runway 35 is nearby runway 17 - it's within 7,000 feet! :D

[IrishJason]

Defo one Spanish crew member I'm afraid

[pilotmike]

hhobbit:The condition of the u/c indicates the wheels made no contact with the ground, so it seems the a/c contacted in present and final attitude. Therefore this was more than a hard landing from a botched approach, or so it would appear.
Unfortunately this thread has quickly descended into the usual amateur-investigator nonsense.

You have clearly overlooked the fact that undercarriages appear to be in good condition thousands of times every day after 'contact with the ground'. How the hell can you detect that this undercarriage didn't contact the ground from pictures?

How the hell can you conclude that the aircraft 'contacted in present and final attitude'. That is highly improbable amateur speculation.

Who the hell are you to judge that it was a 'botched approach'?

You have provided clear evidence that amateurs should leave it to the professional accident investigators to do their job, rather than spout utter drivel and unfounded nonsense in an attempt to look clever - which, for the record, you don't!

[Epsilon minus]

IAP EICK RWY17 ILS CAT I/II (http://www.iaa.ie/safe_reg/iaip/Frame1.htm)

Only Cat II on RWY17

[perceval]

Just wanted to add something : to people drawing quick conclusions (ie : 'cowboys' ...weather analysis based on METARs ....) . Remember that those crewmembers were friends and family members of some of us so , please , have a minimum amount of respect . Also try to understand that if they decided to leave the hold for a third approach on 17 , I'm pretty sure that they received an indication from Cork tower/App at that precise time that the VIS/RVR was at or above their Minima . For the rest , could we possibly wait until some form of official report gets out .

[Pin Head]

JAR OPS i believe, two go-arounds and you have to divert, unless guarantee of third landing can be made.

having recently done a poll amoung a mix of aviators, not many knew about this rule.

[Heathrow Harry]

No-one is going to wait for "the official report" for heavens sake - it might be years

I don't hold with slagging off the pilots but we need to know what happened and why ASAP

I'll bet todays disaster will make a few people think again about approachs in bad conditions - for a while anyway

[max_continuous]

I am not familiar with the metroliner, and far from experienced, but I have a question about the fuel range of the aircraft.

Given that the flight originated in Belfast, flew to Cork and made two approaches and then may have held for some period of time (ie the 20 minute queue, maybe waiting for the weather to improve?) before making a final approach, is it possible that at that time the fuel status necessitated an approach in to Cork again?

I'm not implying that they were close to emergency levels but if the weather over much of Ireland was similar is it possible they had no divert options at that point?

My deepest sympathies go to all who are involved or affected.

[midnight cruiser]

Max - If fuel is expected to go below that required to divert to the (viable) alternate, plus 30 minutes holding, then a Mayday should be declared.

Cork would not have met requirements to "commit to stay"

[Exnomad]

What was weather like above the fog? visibility in fog can be very different up sun or down sun, perhaps that was the reason for the reverse approach

[sfsdssfsfsd]

lets just say this company is quite adverse to diverts to airfields at which it doesnt have any presence.

[sevenstrokeroll]

I flew this type (and hold a type rating, USA in this type) in the middle 1980's.

We flew it at a regional airline in the USA. AT that time we were not required to have either a flight data recorder or a cockpit voice recorder. European rules may be different.

In the USA, even for regional airlines, YOU SIMPLY CANNOT BEGIN AN INSTRUMENT APPROACH BELOW MINIMUMS. IF the weather is reported below approach minimums, you may not even attempt the approach.

Our metroliners did not have autopilots whatsoever. Nothing. That's the way it was...now I'm not saying you couldn't put one in as (an option)...but the idea that this plane was Cat II is very, very unlikely.

Oddly enough, the short body version of the swerengin, crashed at the place I learned to fly...foggy night, no instrument approach. It seemed that during the go around it sucked a bird, or somehow lost an engine...and the plane rolled up side down, crashing and killing all aboard...

AS many of you know, if an engine fails during an instrument go around, you are suddely quite busy, and if you get too slow, upside down you go. (imagine full discussion of Vmca).

I would also like to point out something. Some operators of this type choose to make the approach with about half flaps, selecting full flaps upon visual with runway. Selecting full flaps can cause a slight roll..

I never cared for the metroliner. Noisy, cramped, POS of the highest order.

The rule of thumb here is one approach, two approach, go somewhere else...

Wondering if anti ice/ignition was selected for engines/props etc....I didn't look at the temps on the wx

[aterpster]

Cork Jepp charts and AIP source:


http://tinyurl.com/4clhe5v

[rabcnesbitt]

Some time ago the IOM CAA sent a Spanish operator home because the crew couldn't speak English well enough. Might this incident be related? Perhaps they couldn't fully understand the controller and thus did not realise that the weather was that bad.

As the gentleman before said if they had diverted they would have got their hands slapped. Manx 2 have had MORs for trying to land at RAF Warton thinking it was Blackpool. I am reliably informed that some crew have level 4 certification but need a Slovak/English speaking Pilot on board to cover for them, why? If they have level 4 they should be able to understand.

Remember a couple of years ago when it was blowing over 50 kts in the Irish Sea a Manx2 L-410 was blown off its main u/c so that the tip tanks scrapped along the taxi-way on Ronaldsway.

It was only a matter of time. To much get there itis. Manx2 are a ticketing agency not an airline. This is down to Flightline BCN not Manx2. Manx2 can walk away any time, nobody official can touch them as selling the ticket is not illegal and also means that they have no responsibility.

[pilotmike]

Heathrow Harry:No-one is going to wait for "the official report" for heavens sake - it might be years
On the contrary: everyone will have to wait for the official report. Anyone thinking they can learn from what they BELIEVE to be mistakes is highly likely to be making plenty of mistakes of their own.
...but we need to know what happened and why...

True.
...ASAP...
Not true. Your impatience does you no favours, Heathrow Harry in Haste.
I'll bet todays disaster will make a few people think again about approachs in bad conditions - for a while anyway
Why? What sort of extra thinking are you expecting people to do? If conditions are CatI, then CatI approaches are fine. If conditions are CatII, then a CatII approach needs to be made by CatII qualified crew, in a CatII certified aircraft, to a CatII runway. What extra are you proposing?

[tallaonehotel]

Rab C, you hit the nail in the head with Manx2, I witnessed the Let 410 tipping at Ronaldsway.
I also witnessed a few landings from my own experience that were below minimas.

I'll get shot down for this, but this outfit were operating like an accident waiting to happen.

[stroppy]

"I'll bet todays disaster will make a few people think again about approachs in bad conditions - for a while anyway"

Are you a professional avaitor?

That has to be the dumbest statement.

All pilots think hard about any approach. In bad weather they look at their limits, the aircraft's limits, the runway limits, the current & forecast weather and their fuel options and make a judgement. We plan to operate within the parameters and carry the legal and utlimate responsibility for our judgements but are trained to make those judgements.

Think again? In what way?

[perceval]

Wow ! Hold your horses ! Neither Manx2 nor the contracted operators ever pushed anyone to fly below Minimas or above limitations or anything like that .My experience is that the Captain's decisions regarding diversions/LVP take offs/Icing/Wind... were always fully supported by the company(ies) as it should be .
If one wants to chitchat about the accident ; I'd be more interested to hear your views about the position of the aircraft . How did it get upside down ? The fog might not be the only factor here .

[AlexAlcock]

I feel that something must be said about the speculation about the tragic crash today.

There's alot of posts some obviously not from professional pilots which speculate about the causes of this accident.

End of the day it will take time to discover the real reasons for the accident, and assigning blame to crew / operator is unfair and not what the aviation saftey culture is about. Remeber the pilots on board that aircraft was somebodies partner / family / son / daughter, and i feel at this sad time or any time its unfair to point the finger and blame without any findings or research being known or published.

so why dont we work on known fact instead of rumor and speculation when trying to learn from this accident.

[MagnusP]

Because I use Cork as SLF a fair bit, I was watching the news on this at lunchtime. Quote: "the aircraft made 3 attempts to land, and crashed on the final attempt". :ugh:

I feel sorry for you professional folks who have to hear/read that type of utter nonsense all too often.

[skyblue72]

Quite agree, not the fisrt time manx 2 land when every one else has diverted !!!!!!!!!!!!! hope i'm wrong on this one

[AlexAlcock]

And whats wrong with making 2/3/4 approaches to the same airfield if ATC gives the rvr/vis above minimums and you have sufficent fuel to do so.

[judge11]

He may have gone about it in a more subtle way but silverhawk has only raised the subject of safety v the bottom line. There are dozens of pages held on this server not only about Ryanair and those foretelling disasters waiting to happen amongst the locos because of perceived 'lower standards' but also questions concerning fuel policy and fatigue. All thses matters are being driven by the 'bottom line' and he raises a legitimate concern that many authorities care to turn a blind eye to so give the chap a break.

stroppy - You may think hard about approaches and I think hard about approaches but regretably the standards to which you and I and the majority of professional pilots operate to are not universal, even within a well managed company with a sound training system. Just ask any TRI/TRE about what they see in the sim from some of your colleagues and some of the stories would make your hair curl. Sadly, the standards between NW European mainline operators and 'others' (even within our 'expanded' Europe and I'll include the kind of outfit Manx2 goes to for wet-lease services) is massive.

Rab C - I've also watched Manx2 and the original euromanx aircraft 'get in' when others have been going around. Common factor - low priced, wet-leases running on a shoe string. Indisputable.

[AlexAlcock]

and yes i do agree with that, ive seen here on the isle of man manx 2 landing when the likes of flybe are not even considering it. And i too hope that its not the case this time

[Scottso]

From recollection, the ground beneath the approach to RW 17 at Cork has a significant up-slope gradient thus rad ht and baro ht would be appreciably different. Food for distraction. Is there any mention of this anomaly on the approach plate??

[jayc004]

This is truly a tragedy of huge proportion, especially for a small island like IOM.

I did read on the Manx2 website that the aircraft made 3 attempts to land.

AlexAlcock And whats wrong with making 2/3/4 approaches to the same airfield if ATC gives the rvr/vis above minimums and you have sufficent fuel to do so.

As far as I were aware, you can shoot an approach passed the OM/1000ft/4nm only if the RVR is acceptable.
What is the maximum CAT of the aircraft?

Also, even if the weather is ABOVE minimums, but you have to make a "weather related missed approach", I was also under the impression that the weather must improve x2 in order to make a 3rd approach?

It shows here, and in the case of the recent BHX Biz Jet incident in near LVP conditions just how vigilant and cautious you have to be when operating at limits. They are limits for a reason!

[IslandPilot]

How many of us have continued an approach down to minima only to experience lower than reported conditions? Cork weather can change fast and conditions on the final (visual) segment of the approach may have been very different those reported.

[judge11]

Plenty of times and a well-trained, disciplined crew would go-around - no questions asked. Unless your company and operator are scraping along the bottom of the bottom line.

Sorry to return to silverhawks pet subject but safety and finance are linked and the further down the airline food chain one goes, the more inextricably linked they become.:{

[Artie Fufkin]

Pin Head- I have also heard a number of guys state that according to JAR OPS "2 approaches and then divert", but I've never found any reference in JAR OPS to this.

Can you provide a ref?

[AlexAlcock]

Yes correct you can only continue past the OM/1000 AAL If the report Vis/RVR is above the minima, Nothing to do with cloud. And i do not work for Manx2 i work as a professional pilot and live on the island so im not sure about what CAT the manx2 was (lets not speculate now).

As far as number of approaches goes I've never heard of any rules about number of approaches that can be made in sequence or respective weather rules for this. As far as i am aware you just need the vis as detailed above and sufficent fuel for the approach a missed approach and divert plus the normal final reserve then there no limit on approaches.


But we dont know what happened and as said before we should learn from facts instead of blame on speculation.

[IslandPilot]

All of which bring us back to the approach ban! (Ariana, EGKK, many years ago)

[wiggy]

I was also under the impression that the weather must improve x2 in order to make a 3rd approach?



FWIW I agree with the others here (e.g. Artie and Alex) in that there is no general rule. It will be down to the individual operator and will be stated in the carrier's Operations manual. For example our rule set ( and we are a JAROPS outfit) allows a third approach if the weather conditions are reported to have significantly improved.

[NigelOnDraft]

Also, even if the weather is ABOVE minimums, but you have to make a "weather related missed approach", I was also under the impression that the weather must improve x2 in order to make a 3rd approach?As stated earlier, I doubt it is a "law" anywhere, but something similar might be in company manuals.

It is in our Co Manuals about 3rd approach only in certain circs, but not as strict as stated above. One of the factors is to avoid "distress to pax"...

[silverknapper]

A lot of people here who clearly don't fly seem obsessed by the fact they shot an approach at both ends. Traffic permitting there is nothing whatsoever wrong with this. The vis may be better at one end compared with the other. The tapes may expand on this.

[englishal]

so why dont we work on known fact instead of rumor and speculation when trying to learn from this accident.
Fact: Vis was bad
Fact: more than one approach was made
Fact: 75% of aeroplane accidents are caused by pilot error
Fact: they crashed.

English speaking is not a factor (you don't need to be able to speak English to read flight instruments), therefor either they had extreme bad luck and some sort of failure on approach which caused them to crash, or they messed up the approach and crashed. You also can tell from the flight instruments when you are above, at or below minimums and so even if they were not passed proper weather info, that judgement should have been made in the cockpit.

Therefore I'd suggest that there is a 25% chance that they had a failure which caused this.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The weather was reported as fog with 375 meters vis and the cloud base was 100 ft. Since this was a Cat 1 approach there is no way you can have had the required visual references to land when at the DH. Personally on receipt of a Metar like the above I just head for the alternate, unless there is some weather phenomenon forecast to cause a significant improvement in the weather, which was not the case when this accident occurred. I could maybe see one approach with the hope that you get lucky and see a hole but to fly 3, that is lunacy.

I know we are supposed to not rush to judgement, let all the facts come out etc etc, but I think it is time to call a spade a bloody shovel. These guys obviously kept on going lower and lower on multiple approaches until they hit the ground.

The accident stats are clear. This is just another example, in a long line of tragic examples, of aircraft crashing after multiple approaches. The US statistics are that the third approach is up to 15 times more likely to result in an accident than the first.......

[moggiee]

A lot of people here who clearly don't fly seem obsessed by the fact they shot an approach at both ends. Traffic permitting there is nothing whatsoever wrong with this. The vis may be better at one end compared with the other.
Done it myself - into Leeds/Bradford. After holding because the fog put the RVR below minima, we undertook an ILS onto the active runway (32, I believe). At DA we were still not visual so I did a go around and flew the MAP. On the way, one of the crew saw that the other end of the runway was clear so we then did an ILS to runway 14 and landed without incident. All perfectly safe, perfectly sensible and perfectly legal.

Different point - I trained 4 chaps who went to Manx 2 to fly the Metroliner. 3 of them left at the first opportunity citing it as "the sort of company that you leave as soon as possible".

[AlexAlcock]

Big Pistons Forever & englishal

Seems a bit wrong placing blame and assigning cause without any evidence.

Lets forget spanish or non-british pilots being an issue as stated you dont need english to read numbers on an insturment and also all JAR pilots must have some degree of ability to speak english as this is now tested so not an issue.

but you dont know whats gone on, you dont know if ATC advised the crew of a improvment in weather you dont know if there was a malfunction all the "facts" reported are from the media who lets face it arnt pilots. and also we all know that what a metar states and what is the actual can be very different.

So it seems a little insensitve this soon after a tragic accident where lives were lost that you go finger pointing at crew and poor flying when you have no facts above whats gone on.

I dont want to gloss over whats been a sad event but there needs to be time to asses whats happened before conculsions are made. Not based on stats of other accidents or what we think.

[White Knight]

The weather was reported as fog with 375 meters vis and the cloud base was 100 ft. Since this was a Cat 1 approach there is no way you can have had the required visual references to land when at the DH

I have personally seen Cork go from CAVOK to below CAT II from TOD to arriving at the LOC... (Off to Shannon we went) Vice versa, I've seen Cork go from NO-GO to CAT I in a couple of minutes. Ergo your comment vis a vis 375m/100' doesn't mean anything at this airport. Cork airport is on top of a cloudy and windy hill.... The weather changes very rapidly!

Besides - I've been cleared for CAT I approach (this is back in the 90s') only to be given RVR of 300m with the landing clearance:ugh: As I say this was a while ago... Otherwise Cork is a great airport to operate to!

[englishal]

I'm not placing blame, only the facts.

It is irrelavent what ATC passed to the crew, if they couldn't see the runway at minimums (whichever applied) then they should have gone missed. They may well have had another situation developing that we don't know about, but fact is that pilots do screw up.

A friend of mine once screwed up on an IAP. Cost his life and 4 others (flew into a mountain when he should have gone missed).

[Pilot Positive]

Therefore I'd suggest that there is a 25% chance that they had a failure which caused this.

I could maybe see one approach with the hope that you get lucky and see a hole but to fly 3, that is lunacy.

As you rightly say 3 attempts is lunacy, most guys attempt a 2nd approach down to DA and then divert if not visual. Which means we may be making an assumption that because 3 approaches were made these guys were taking an unneccesary risk without thought. Not really fair to them given that no-one here was on the flight deck at the time. :=

Without invoking confirmation bias the thinking that may have been applied by this crew was driven by what they may have thought were their only option i.e. to attempt to get into Cork at all costs. Which then possibly suggests a critical failure of some form....perhaps a fuel issue? There didnt appear to be any signs of fire on impact although clearly this does not suggest a low fuel situation.

Lets consider all options before we start blaming crew and apportioning the title of "cowboy" to operators...:ok:

[moggiee]

The weather was reported as fog with 375 meters vis and the cloud base was 100 ft.
375m VISIBILITY or 375m RVR? There is a BIG difference.

If a measured RVR is not available then the "equivalent" RVR is calculated by multiplying the measured met vis by a factor of 1.5. So, 375m VIS becomes a factored met vis of 562m "RVR" (equivalent). But if the measured RVR was 375m then that is a different story.

As for cloudbase, the acceptable minimum on an ILS approach is 0'. Therefore, the only weather criterion that you need consider (legally at least) for an approach ban on an ILS is RVR.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I have personally seen Cork go from CAVOK to below CAT II from TOD to arriving at the LOC... (Off to Shannon we went) Vice versa, I've seen Cork go from NO-GO to CAT I in a couple of minutes. Ergo your comment vis a vis 375m/100' doesn't mean anything at this airport. Cork airport is on top of a cloudy and windy hill.... The weather changes very rapidly!



I am sure the weather can change rapidly at Cork, but it wasn't changing at the time of the accident as there was no significant wind and the temp and dew point were the same. It is one thing to come around for a second approach when there is clear evidence that there is both a weather phenomenon occurring that will cause the weather to improve and some evidence of that improvement but from the publish weather reports neither were occurring at the time of the accident.

I have a question for my European brethren. In Canada, regulations prohibit the pilot from proceeding past the FAF on a Class1 ILS, with the weather as reported. If a pilot did continue with the approach the control tower would submit an occurance report and Transport Canada enforcement would start an investigation. So is there no regulations that prohibit the conduct of very low visibility approaches at UK/Ireland airports ?

[Big Pistons Forever]

375m VISIBILITY or 375m RVR? There is a BIG difference.

If a measured RVR is not available then the "equivalent" RVR is calculated by multiplying the measured met vis by a factor of 1.5. So, 375m VIS becomes a factored met vis of 562m "RVR" (equivalent). But if the measured RVR was 375m then that is a different story.

As for cloudbase, the acceptable minimum on an ILS approach is 0'. Therefore, the only weather criterion that you need consider (legally at least) for an approach ban on an ILS is RVR.

The Metar at the time of the accident had the RVR for runway 17 as 350 meters and 375 meters for runway 35

[midnight cruiser]

If a pilot did continue with the approach the control tower would submit an occurance report

That would happen at many UK airports, but Ireland? - not so sure!

[judge11]

Cargo Heat - Can not can.

My post was clearly prefixed 'off topic' so don't read it.

BFP - as WingoWango says, the rules are exactly the same here in Europe. If you shoot an approach after being told at the OM/4D/1000' that the RVR is now below your limits, then it is deemed an 'illegal' approach and the ATC authority is obliged to report it.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

Well, I remember a Viscount at Manchester many years ago where a practice engine-out go-around went wrong. The result looked very similar to that Metroliner - upside down, wheels in the air, by the side of the runway.

Did something go wrong during a go-around from minimums? Maybe this wasn't just a 'press-on-itis' accident?

[Pilot Positive]

Yes you're kinda of right there (without going into the minutiae technicalities!) however in order for that kind of approach to be undertaken the runway needs to be certified for Cat II/III operations as does the aircraft and the crew trained to undertake these kind of approaches. Theres a lot of clues in this thread to suggest what the situation may have been with regards to those parameters. :E

Going to an airfield with better conditions/visibility? Yes, that would have been a good option as their legal fuel requirement would have included a divert to a suitable alternate. However, most pilots here are asking why they DIDNT do that...

...one of the options is a CFIT: Controlled Flight Into Terrain - i.e. the crew flew a fully serviceable/working aircraft into land. Or they had a critical failure which neccessitated them making the approach into Cork only and were unable to get the aircraft down safely due to the failure.

Dont mean to teach you how to suck eggs and hope this helps... :)

[atprider]

Can anyone tell me if Ireland has "Absolute Minima" below which ATC must inform a crew that if they commence an approach they will be required to take reporting action?

I am aware of this operator having to be reminded twice of this when requesting to make an approach when visibility was below Absolute minima at an airport operating under that requirement.

[Interesting]

1) Visibility was terribly all around the valley below the Airport. I can only imagine how poor it was at the airport.

2) However it was improving significently all morning and quite quickly.

3) Reports here are that the pilot only made his third approach after a twenty minute wait - all the posts seem to have assumed the three approaches were in a short time period. At the time of the accident the fog had cleared fully in the city and a significent improvement in the area would have been evident. At the airport though it obviously was not so.

Can somebody clarify if it is possible when looking down through fog from above for visibility to be better than when looking ahead through it?

There has been mention that the aircraft landed on the runway but rather than continuing straight along ran at an angle and catapulated when the wheels hit the rain sodden grass. There has been so much rain in the area recently that I would imagine that it would have just hit mud if it ran off the runway.

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

<<Can somebody clarify if it is possible when looking down through fog from above for visibility to be better than when looking ahead through it? >>

Unquestiomably, yes. However, aviation professionals are fully aware of this.

[Doctor Cruces]

Several years ago when in Lyenham Ops, one of our Hecs could see the runway and approach lights from over Exeter, but not from minimums. Ended up at Brize. Shallow fog, can see down through it but not horizontally, so yes, there is a significant difference.

[andrasz]

Lot of talk about minimums and weather, but to me the key to this sad event is how did the a/c end up inverted. Low visibility CFIT accidents are typically wings level, slight nose down impacts. Hard landing induced inversion happens if one wing separates (the MD 11 patern), does not appear to be case here. One possible scenario a mis-handled engine failure on applying go-around power, the resulting torque imbalance inverting the a/c very rapidly... ?

[D O Guerrero]

Classic PPRUNE debate - mostly no facts and people talking 100% out of their arses.
Big pistons - I love the way that you have decided that the weather was not changing, and you do it in such a forceful manner. Pity you're talking rubbish - I departed from ORK about an hour or so before the accident this morning. On both arrival and departure the conditions were rapidly changing. The runway went from completely obscured at about 1000ft to completely visible and back again - all in a matter of seconds. We were given several visibility/RVR reports during the approach, in quick succession - ATC at Cork are very helpful and understand their environment.
The Cat II approach there is known for its idiosyncrasies given the undulating terrain. TBH I was wondering myself how long it would be before there'd be an accident.
Now we know.

[Pilot Positive]

surely the pilot had the option of diverting

Its a good point - however i think someone may have mentioned that the crew may have entered the hold for 20 minutes after making their 2nd go-around (wait until conditions improve as conditions at alternate advised as not much better)? Which could of then resulted in a possible low fuel scenario...

...as Andrasz (szia Andrasz, hogy vagy?) suggests this may have resulted in a CFIT (due to pressures of running out of fuel?) or it could have been fuel starvation & engine failure which might have been mishandled resulting in inversion and impact.

[CargoOne]

There are different weight mods (MTOW/MZFW) for Metro 3, without knowing for sure operating weights and payload it is hard to estimate whether a fuel shortage could have been a factor. Metro fuel burn is quite low for its speed (ca 250 kgs/hour) so depending of the weights it could have anything between low fuel or enough fuel to divert as far as Gatwick.
10 pax range is something like 1200 nm + standard reserves with an average weight specs.

[twentypoint4]

Very sad to hear about this tragic event.

I'm pretty new to the world of ATC and am curious about RVR minima, especially for an aircraft of this type.
Where I work (Cat 3b ILS) we regularly have modern biz-jets coming in during LVPs with minima around 550-600. Obviously when the RVR remains below this they divert.
Now looking at the reported RVRs at Cork this morning it seems like they were floating around the 300-400 mark. At our Cat3 airport we would be seeing a lot of the biz-jets and possibly even airliners flying off to alternate aerodromes. Would the Manx2 crews' minima actually be down that low for a Cat2 ILS approach?

Regarding the snippit from the AIP pasted below, I can only guess this kind of thing would increase a crews' AOM?

Looking forward to some expert insight into my curiosity.

From the AIP:

Caution: Operational evaluation has indicated that the performance of automatic landing systems may be affected by the profile of the terrain under the approach to RWY 17. Operators' procedures should take account of this during CAT II approaches.

[lfc84]

irish investigators saying the initial report is anticipated in weeks rather than months

[juice]

The Cat II approach there is known for its idiosyncrasies given the undulating terrain. TBH I was wondering myself how long it would be before there'd be an accident.
Now we know.

Opened in 1961. First such accident afaik.

[Shaggy Sheep Driver]

andrasz said: andrasz Lot of talk about minimums and weather, but to me the key to this sad event is how did the a/c end up inverted. Low visibility CFIT accidents are typically wings level, slight nose down impacts. Hard landing induced inversion happens if one wing separates (the MD 11 patern), does not appear to be case here. One possible scenario a mis-handled engine failure on applying go-around power, the resulting torque imbalance inverting the a/c very rapidly...

Pretty much what I said a few posts up from this... that Viscount at Manchester looked uncannily like the pictures of the inverted Metroliner.

[virginblue]

Different point - I trained 4 chaps who went to Manx 2 to fly the Metroliner. 3 of them left at the first opportunity citing it as "the sort of company that you leave as soon as possible"

How can that be with Manx2 only being a ticket agent? They have used Metroliners from different sources over the years, various Spanish ones (Euro Continental, TopFly) and also German ones (FLM).

[PBL]

Most of the people who have actually been involved in aircraft accident investigation have not appeared on this thread.

Exception; aterpster, who posted the charts.

For those of you who don't know (apparently most posters), let me give a brief lesson in the very beginnings of accident analysis.

Lesson 1: Determine any facts you can.

The facts as I understand them reading this thread.

1 There is an aircraft upside down near or on some asphalt at Cork Airport
2 The aircraft appears to be EC-ITP
3. This aircraft belongs to XYZ airline.
4. The Metar for Cork for the time at which the accident is reported to have happened suggests general foggy conditions
5 Some passengers are reported in hospital; some passengers are reported dead.

And to obtain this extremely meagre information, slightly longer than a T-W-I-T-T-E-R message, I have waded through about 140 messages. (Interesting that I have to spell the WWW site name that way, to prevent the SW substituting "PPRuNe" for it!)

Lesson 2: Determine the causal relations, if any, between the facts.

Result: The passengers dead and in the hospital are probably in this condition because of the state of the aircraft.

Let me suggest what it would be good to know next.

A. If the aircraft was performing an approach at the time it crashed, which approach was it?
B. Where is the crash location on the airport plan?
C. What was the reported weather/actual weather/any weather details at the actual time at which the crash occurred?

When this is known, one might be able to write a very brief factual report. (Edit: and of course the usual sources have this info by now - PICTURE & GRAPHIC: Crashed Metroliner in Cork identified as EC-ITP (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/02/10/353043/picture.html))

For people choosing to slam the airline/pontificate about LoCos, and so on, give us a break from your personal politics. For all we know at the moment, the aircraft could have collided with an albatross on very short final, which went through the windshield and did for the PF.

[STANDTO]

This is a really sad day, and a sad one for Manx2. Despite the fact they are a virtual airline, they have been quietly expanding and providing a service for an Island where transport links are always at a premium. We have a lot less choice to stab at these days, and for the puddle jump, they were always pretty good. That said, listening to a mate who returned into Blackpool in a J31 on Monday at 30 degrees of yaw, you do wonder. that said, they got them down, but how differently that could have turned out one begins to wonder on the back of this.

Flying is a difficult job these days, and no pilot commits to the approach with the intention of killing themselves or their passengers. Lessons will be learned, and hopefully remembered.

[MIKECR]

That said, listening to a mate who returned into Blackpool in a J31 on Monday at 30 degrees of yaw, you do wonder. that said, they got them down, but how differently that could have turned out one begins to wonder on the back of this.

What rubbish. Have you any idea what the crosswind limit is on a J31? I fly a turboprop not that much bigger than a J31 and the crossind limit is 35 knots. Have you ever seen a crabbed approach in that kind of wind? What utter and utter bull*it some people come out with on these forums. Stick to your bloody armchairs for gods sake.

[Avenger]

PBL, with respect, I don't think anyone is trying to "investigate" this incident. This is a forum for aviation people and those interested in the same, as such, people have a right to voice their opinions, however far off the mark they may be. One common thread is the regret and sorrow felt, nobody questions that accord.

The " reliable" information, i.e from the tower controllers, the police, pax in the terminal is that the weather was so foggy they could not see the crash site, only hear the noise and then see the flames.

The pictures on the various newspaper sites show the position of the aircraft relative to the runway, and holding point, some marks on the grass of excursion. They also show the nose almost broken off and the bent upwards with the Nose Gear, the fracture of the hull, aft of the nose, and the Main landing gear in tact.

Returning to your process, the weather was confimed as foggy, vis unconfirmed, but from the tower report to the press very low vis.

The aircraft was making an approach to RW 17 and crashed, the exact phase of flight, i.e landing flare or go-around or glide path is not known.

Of course human nature is that people want to ventilate their theories, that is why this is a forum..you know well the preliminary report, just like Hellios, TY will be ambiguous

In Photos: The Cork plane crash tragedy TheJournal (http://www.thejournal.ie/pictures-from-the-scene-at-cork-airport-crash-2011-2/#slide-slideshow3)

Your sober approach to this is to be commended, however, it is still a forum for debate, having said that, it is frustrating to see debate on JAR Ops material that is freely available outside of this thread and can be researched without the painful implications that the crew were slack.

[TrafficPilot]

Blimay!

I came here for informed opinion and am getting more accurate info from SKY!

Please please please PPRUNE close this forum to non aviation professionals. It is embarassing reading the amount of BS written today by FlightSim enthusiasts and other ill-informed wannabe's. I visit this site less and less now because of the quality of information posted here.

If you don't work in the industry or don't have a valid licence READ but do not POST.

Everyone who works in aviation will be trying to learn from this tragic incident.
Sifting through loads of rubbish achieves nothing and makes Pprune look like a*rliners.net.

[Mr.Bloggs]

TrafficPilot, you are quite right. I came in this evening and looked to this website to provide some useful information. It is there, (wx, times, flight details), but there is a vast amount of irrelevant and hysterical rubbish obscuring facts and educated discussion. Most participants here are enthusiasts, interested observers, and others. Some idiots included. These folk are not qualified, but no qualifications are required for the Professional Pilots Rumour Network.

As a pro pilot, I'm off for an hour or two to input my expertise in nuclear physics, neurosurgery, or international derivatives finance site, if I can find one! Makes about as much sense!

[leadinghedges]

the three approach rule applies to the instrument runway i.e 2 approaches to 17 and 1 approach to 35 is counted as 2 and 1 not 3. it's like counting each end as two different runways. also the 3rd approach may only be carried out if their is double improvement in weather i.e a sudden change from cat III to cat I conditions.
technically you could make 4 approaches to one runway, two onto 17 and two onto 35 and STILL be within the 3 approach limit. Not that i would advise it.

until the hard facts are out it is wrong and wholly inaccurate to speculate. the mitigating circumstances must be discovered.

My condolences and sympathy to those who lost their lives and their friends and relatives

[beamender99]

BBC News - President's relative among six killed in Cork crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12415541)

Some more details and some of those who were onboard.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

The report will state the facts of this sad event when it comes out.

I looked at the thread to see if the RVR went above CAT 1 minimums while they were there.

It's a long way from 375m up to 550 or whatever the CAT 1 min RVR is at Cork.

Did it get good enough to attempy a CAT 1 (3 times!) or didn't it?

If it didn't, then clearly the approach ban was in force and they should have been holding or diverting.

[andrasz]

...as Andrasz suggests this may have resulted in a CFIT..

Szia PP,

I was actually suggesting the opposite. The wreckage attitude does not imply simple CFIT. SSD pointed out one posible scenario - a simultaneous one engine out - other accelerating to full power event will flip a twin prop on it's back in no time if not caught at once.

While the weather may have contributed in the lack of visual clues for a developing unusual attitude, so far I see nothing that would support a below minimums blotched NP approach accident scenario that seems to be discussed ad nauseam on this thread.

[Wireless]

Just watched the news. The reporter made reference to Pprune, showing a laptop with the home page recognisable. I can't remember exactly what the reporter said but he mentioned a number of people on here from the profession were expressing concern that 3 attempts at an approach were made. Maybe it would be best to show some consideration with the speculation out of respect, as clearly the news teams are picking up on hearsay on this forum and I guess some of the people close to or touched by this tragedy would've seen that report.

[Dunbar]

I'd like to see a reference for this 3 approach 'rule'. In my airline we're strongly advised not to attempt more than 2 approaches to GIB before diverting but that is only company procedure...

I don't mind a bit of informed speculation but as another poster says at this stage with the info we have, it could have been anything. It's hard in these times of 24hr news, but we're just going to have to wait...and in the meantime consider this another example of the potential hazards of LVPs.

[Southernboy]

It seems reasonable to ask for info about the regs. Maybe under Spanish/Irish rules 3 approaches are legal. From memory only 2 are permitted under Uk rules unless there's a significant weather improvement. Maybe changing runways makes that 2 on one & only 1 on the other?

[aterpster]

BarbiesBoyFriend:

It's a long way from 375m up to 550 or whatever the CAT 1 min RVR is at Cork.

I posted the Jepp CAT I and CAT II charts at Post #83.

Unrestricted CAT II: 300m

Unrestricted CAT I: 550m

Limited CAT I: 750m

[ILS25]

YouTube - Jonathan Callanan Cork Airport Night Landing Feat John John (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9bVWd0jMw)

Video of a 17 Approach at Cork during excellent visbility. Looking at the AGL, loads of approach out, edge on right hand side of runway dont look too good, centreline looks iffy too (at date of video could be better or worse at the minute). I am not saying it would have anything to do with todays tragic accident but to me it does not look that good (on date of video). Saying that I really only ever see it at ground level and rarely from the air. At the end of the day AGL is there as visual aid, especially in LVP conditions, and as per CAP168 daily checks and maintenance is essential.
Any pilots have an opinion of the AGL in the video ?

[Eirjet]

Guys I live in Cork an train in the flying school..Driving conditions around 9:30 were extremely poor on the way to the airport..Thick soupy fog,very tough flying conditions for anybody,especially a non CATII equpied aircraft.

[dfstrottersfan]

Shaggy Sheep Driver

"Well, I remember a Viscount at Manchester many years ago where a practice engine-out go-around went wrong. The result looked very similar to that Metroliner - upside down, wheels in the air, by the side of the runway.

Did something go wrong during a go-around from minimums? Maybe this wasn't just a 'press-on-itis' accident?"
(SLF) I remember many moons ago coming into Wick from Aberdeen in a Viscount the approach was from the landward side . We could see the airport buildings , I could even see my car. But it was foggy over the runway and we endured 2 missed approaches - the captain came over the PA and said sorry - we are off to Kirkwall we'll try and drop you in Wick on the return journey. In the back we were relieved !! Guess that BA SOPs were similar to those discussed on this thread 30 years or so ago.

Next thing we were told that they had changed their minds and we were coming in down wind from the sea. What a fantastic ride in - great skill from the pilot - I guess a tailwind of 20 knots makes for an exciting landing for you guys up front !!!

[Wireless]

I hate these threads when accidents occur. They'd be great if only we could view what we post, then we could rumour and muse to our hearts content, but unfortunately everyone can see them. See my above post. And that means whatever is theorised by anybody, expert or not can be seen by anybody and taken out of context. I think as a profession when posting on a public forum that is often plundered by the media we should watch our mouths when a tragedy has occurred out of respect of those involved and our fellow Airmen.

[widebody69]

They approached twice then went into a hold for 20 mins. This would signify they followed the rules. As mentioned above the fog was very patchy. I was at traffic lights in Cork 20 mins before the accident and couldn't see 100m in front of me. Then all of a sudden I could see over 1km, then back down to about 300m. All in the space of a minute or so.

There are eye-witness reports, therefore the tower had to have seen it, unless the eye-witnesses were closer than the tower, unlikely in Cork.

[SR71]

Prior to arriving ORK you check your alternate(s). They're good.

You make 2 approaches into ORK and miss twice because between the outer marker and decision, the RVR drops significantly and you don't get the visual reference.

You get into the hold above ORK off the back of your company procedures and check your alternate(s) again to find they've dropped below minimums. There is nothing good in range.

You've done everything by the book so far, but your day just got a lot worse.

No idea what the alternate(s) were and whether there was widespread fog down there this morning...

:eek:

I've been into ORK many times.

I have Manx2 guys living next door to me.

Terrible day.

[Tandemrotor]

Deeply sorry for the victims, and all their relatives. as a professional pilot of 30 years, I have just had a discussion with my wife regarding the speculation and reporting surrounding this accident. For those with a personal interest that alone must simply add to the deep distress.

Nobody should take any notice whatsoever of all the ignoramuses bumping their gums together on the basis of utter ignorance of the facts!

Only when the inquiry has taken place will anyone know what happened. IF (and that's a very BIG 'if') human error has been the cause, then those of us remaining in this safety critical industry, have to attempt to learn lessons, to prevent us falling into the same 'trap'.

There is no shame in humans making errors. It's what we are designed to do. It's a constant battle to avoid it. Everybody makes errors, but most have the luxury of simply screwing it up, chucking it in a bin, and starting again on a new sheet. This industry is rather less forgiving.

[Avenger]

I would like to know where in JAR Ops or PAN OPs there is ref to the 3 approach rule? it may be company SOP but I am yet to be convinced it is a " Rule"

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

We have the '2 approaches, then divert' rule but if your alternates have gone out what idiot would go to them if a third app where you are would save the day?

Did the RVR get up to CAT 1 minimums or didn't it?

Sure don't look like it.

[mary meagher]

Just possibly, running off the tarmac into a grassy area could have flipped the aircraft. It happened to me in Ireland, years ago, at Kerry. What looked like grass turned out to be a bog.

[HidekiTojo]

No professional pilot would start pointing the finger and judging without knowing the full facts and even then it's unacceptable. All us pilots know how many variable hidden causes and reasons there are in aviation. RIP to all those involved. As far as I'm concerned I lost two colleagues today.

[Airbus321-200]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but if the plane took off at 0812 and crashed at 0952, maybe he was all out of options. Flight time is normally 1 hr and 1hr 40mins into the flight the Reserve fuel may have been well eaten into and it was land no matter what. One of the doctors said none of the 6 survivors had burn injuries and the aircraft didn't have much fire damage suggests to me there wasn't alot of fuel onboard.

[NigelOnDraft]

Leadinghedges the three approach rule applies to the instrument runway Please provide a reference to this if you quote it as a rule applicable to this operator :eek:

BarbiesBoyfriend Did the RVR get up to CAT 1 minimums or didn't it? Sure don't look like it. Oh, so you've listened to the tapes have you with the ATC readouts of the current / instant RVRs? Or you are saying the METAR RVRs bear any resemblance to the ATC RVRs in (as described above) dynamically changing vis :ugh:

Southernboy From memory only 2 are permitted under Uk rules unless there's a significant weather improvement Might I suggest there is no such universal rule. I operate for a "major" UK airline, and the rule uses a "should", a "normally" about not attempting an "immediate" 3rd approach without significant improvement. As such it is a woolly / advice type rule, and I suspect only a company one anyway. The way I read it, is advice not to make a 3rd approach unless you've got some solid ground to say it has a better chance, and are prepared to justify it.

[Loose rivets]

Big Pistons quotes:

The US statistics are that the third approach is up to 15 times more likely to result in an accident than the first.......


This is an astonishing statistic, and seems to substantiate the 'advice' but I have to say, I always felt some annoyance at being refused an approach when I would be the only one with the required overall information to make such a decision.

Having said that, in 40 years it never came up, but it annoyed me anyway.

[Airbus Girl]

I am loathe to add to the speculation on here, but something someone said earlier made me look again. The aircraft appears to have made it to the runway. As all of us who've operated in Cat 3b conditions know, it is often difficult to taxi when its really thick pea soup. Perhaps they did land but the runway viz closed in and caused runway excursion at high speed or disorientation just prior to touchdown? I can imagine that suddenly hitting a wall of fog on landing could have caused some issues. And they do appear to be roughly the right distance from the threshold. Will be interesting to read the report.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Nigel on draft. It was a question.

[Pilot Positive]

I see nothing that would support a below minimums blotched NP approach accident scenario that seems to be discussed ad nauseam on this thread.

Couldnt agree more with you Andrasz! I think there could have been a number of compunding factors (low fuel, met conditions, schedule pressure, etc, etc...) which resulted in the accident or there could be a single factor as has already been suggested (loss of directional control with OEI or bird strike just prior to touchdown etc...). Your post suggests that it could be either as does mine in its full context. :ok:

[bubbers44]

Sometimes going into TGU in Honduras if we missed the south approach our company procedure was to land on the opposite runway with lower altitude limits to circle to land on the same runway as from the north sector. We did it a few times with no problems. We could make as many approaches as we wanted but on low ceiling approaches we usually did one each direction then held until we had to divert to an alternate. It was very safe. You could only bust your butt there if you did something stupid. Pilots might get desperate on the third approach but ATC shouldn't be involved in cockpit decisions. Let them do a dozen approaches if they choose to.

TGU was named the most dangerous airport in the world to land at by a commercial airline. Hundreds of landings there convinced me it was just an airport and you have to pay attention.

[hhobbit]

hhobbit: Quote:
The condition of the u/c indicates the wheels made no contact with the ground, so it seems the a/c contacted in present and final attitude. Therefore this was more than a hard landing from a botched approach, or so it would appear.
Unfortunately this thread has quickly descended into the usual amateur-investigator nonsense.

You have clearly overlooked the fact that undercarriages appear to be in good condition thousands of times every day after 'contact with the ground'. How the hell can you detect that this undercarriage didn't contact the ground from pictures?

How the hell can you conclude that the aircraft 'contacted in present and final attitude'. That is highly improbable amateur speculation.

Who the hell are you to judge that it was a 'botched approach'?

You have provided clear evidence that amateurs should leave it to the professional accident investigators to do their job, rather than spout utter drivel and unfounded nonsense in an attempt to look clever - which, for the record, you don't!
A sad effort of an ad hominem, with no attention paid to the tentative speculatory tone of those words,
They are written with a confidence level of 50% (carefully re-read the wording) which is appropriate with said tone. The remarks are to be interpreted as ruling out a simple hard landing.

[mickjoebill]

Daily mail quote;
"Witnesses said the plane struck the runway which catapulted it into the air. The plane then spun over in the air before landing on its roof."

Studying the daily mail pictures one can clearly see that there is no mud or grass on the wheels and that there appears to be a dusting of dirt on the fuselage,perhaps indicative that propellers were turning and that the wheels did not contact the grass.

[EastCoaster]

Moggiee:
"As for cloudbase, the acceptable minimum on an ILS approach is 0'. "

Only for CAT III ILS approaches. CAT II approaches have a 100' cloud base minimum, and CAT I minimum is 200'.


ATPRider:

"Can anyone tell me if Ireland has "Absolute Minima" below which ATC must inform a crew that if they commence an approach they will be required to take reporting action? "

There is no such legislation in Ireland. There are published minimum RVR values (whether iRVR or HORVR) for each instrument runway, which are calculated using factors such as instrument approach aids and AGL etc. available for the runway concerned; but there is nothing to stop a crew making an approach to DH. It is very possible that the wx could have improved sufficiently on completion of the approach to make a landing possible where it would have been impossible on commencement! I have seen it happen. The onus is on the crew to exercise professional responsibility.

I am not speculating as to cause of this unfortunate accident - merely correcting an error and answering a question. I for one will await the official investigation report.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Its a tragedy. It is unclear to me if the plane ended up on the runway or not. It does seem to me that engine failure during a missed approach could have lead to an upside down crash.

[NigelOnDraft]

Moggiee:
"As for cloudbase, the acceptable minimum on an ILS approach is 0'. "

Only for CAT III ILS approaches. CAT II approaches have a 100' cloud base minimum, and CAT I minimum is 200'.I'm with Moggiee, in that Approach bans only apply to RVRs. You can start/continue a CAT1 ILS with any cloudbase. At DH you are required to have certain visual references, not be "below cloud" (which is of undefined opacity).

BarbiesBoyfriend Nigel on draft. It was a questionWell, the 1st part yes.... the second part I would suggest not ;) Did the RVR get up to CAT 1 minimums or didn't it?
Sure don't look like it. which sounds quite an assertion at 2 deceased colleagues :(

[bubbers44]

The upside down crash is interesting. The main gear looks fine and the nose gear seems tweeked a bit. How did they do that?

[rabcnesbitt]

I don't care whether you can read the instruments or not although that ability does help.

If you don't fully understand what the controller is saying and therefore are then unaware of the actual conditions you can read your instruments all the way into the ground.

Manx2 have previous for this sort of getthereitis. There have been previous incidents at IOM and BHD. German pilot I believe got fired for busting minimas.

People are dead in the drive for profit no other way to put it.

[Moonwalker]

Few seem to have noticed the environmental factor as a cause for things to go wrong. Hint; Try to find out when these guys started their shift and I think you will find the answer to a lot of your questions.

[wiggy]

Yet again I'm with NoD on the subject of the the "three approach rule". Unless and until someone can show it's in the Manx Ops manual can we drop it.....it is not a generic rule.

[rabcnesbitt]

Manx2 do not have an ops manual they are a ticketing agency. This incident will look at the ops manuals and procedures covered under the Flightline BCN AOC.

Manx2 can walk away from this, they have no responsibility, they have no safety oversight and the only thing it may cost them is lost bookings. Any law suites will be between the airport, the manufacturer and Flightline BCN.

[wiggy]

rab

Thanks for the clarification....

[Super VC-10]

Daily mail quote;
"Witnesses said the plane struck the runway which catapulted it into the air. The plane then spun over in the air before landing on its roof."

So how could they have seen that :mad: happen when it was reported that the fog was so thick the aircraft couldn't be seen and witnesses were unaware of the crash until they heard it? :ugh:

[BFGCT]

The condition of the u/c indicates the wheels made no contact with the ground, so it seems the a/c contacted in present and final attitude. Therefore this was more than a hard landing from a botched approach, or so it would appear.

I've seen some amazing posts in my time but this one surely tops the lot. What an incredible piece of drivel.

[englishal]

I don't care whether you can read the instruments or not although that ability does help.

If you don't fully understand what the controller is saying and therefore are then unaware of the actual conditions you can read your instruments all the way into the ground.
??
Yes but you have altimeters, radar altimeters, and approach plates. When you reach minimums as read from your altimeters, and you can't see the runway you go missed.

If it reached the runway then was "catapulted". That almost suggests it was "flown into the ground"...Reminds me a bit of that Fedex MD11 which had the bad landing in Japan. Sounds like no flare, heavy landing....bounce....etc...

[andrasz]

...Manx2 can walk away from this, they have no responsibility...

Incorrect. The ticketed passengers had a contract with Manx2, not the actual operator, financial and legal responsibility lies with the contracting party. However under normal wet-lease conditions, the insurer of the operating airline will be responsible for all financial settlements, probably this will be the case here too.

...it reached the runway then was "catapulted". That almost suggests it was "flown into the ground"...

If this was actually seen from the tower, that pretty much rules out the low visibility scenario. The intact-looking MLG does not imply any structural failure, a bounce that does not collapse the gear may be unpleasant, but is no reason for ending belly up. There is certainly more to this...

[His dudeness]

Manx2 have previous for this sort of getthereitis. There have been previous incidents at IOM and BHD.

Thats not good.

German pilot I believe got fired for busting minimas.

So who did sack him? Did Manx2, in an effort to get 'their' pilots to obey the rules, fire him or was he fired for being caught something thats suppossed to be hushhush?


People are dead in the drive for profit no other way to put it.

Well, as airline operations are usually profit driven, one could say that for any airline crash and likewise for railroad fatalities, bus fatalities, anyone dying in a taxi....

Got to say I don´t find your post completely logical...

[fmt3]

Anyone know who Flightline BCN is? Anything to do with old Flightline of Southend which disappeared just over 2 years ago? Not perhaps a rebirth ?

[Tandemrotor]

Moonwalker at post 175 raises perhaps the most interesting question I have seen so far on here.

What time did they commence their duty, and how was their work pattern in the hours and days leading up to yesterday morning?

You seem to imply you know the answer Moonwalker?

[fcom]

Seems the aircraft was on the glide as it crashed by the transmitter, also seems he became visual just off the localiser indicating to me he made a last minute attempt to regain the centrline possibly overbanking near the ground and clipping the wing causing the A/C to overturn. A fine example of press on regardless and looking at the weather at the time he should have thrown it away on first attempt.

[rabcnesbitt]

BTW can someone tell me how to work this quote system.

On your logic then if you buy your ticket from the Co-op and something happens that the Co-op are responsible. They are not like Manx2 they sold you a ticket on behalf of the carrier.

From Manx2 Ts & Cs

General
Manx2 Ltd. is providing your tickets for this flight booking. We proudly claim to offer great service at competitive prices, and we are constantly looking at ways in which we can improve our service.On behalf of Manx2, Van Air Europe As will be the main operator for flights from the Isle of Man to Blackpool, Belfast City, Galway, Newcastle and Leeds; also between Belfast City & Galway, and Galway to Cork. FLM Aviation will be the main operator for flights from the Isle of Man to Gloucestershire Airport and Cardiff to Anglesey. Flightline BCN will be the main operator for flights from Belfast City to Cork. Please see our terms and conditions for full details or enquire at check in.

So there you have it they are the ticket provider nothing else or so it seems. (Manx2 : Terms and Conditions (http://www.manx2.com/cgi-bin/airkiosk/I7/191003?110211081549.213.122.94.189.14972+/manx2/I7/EN/static/termsandconditions.html))

The pilot who was fired was asked by Manx2 to have a look and see if he could get into BHD he did and because the powers that be were doing an investigation he got fired by Vanair.

It is a very sticky situation and the authorities should clarify it and stop the practice of multiple wet leases with AOC support to a non AOC holder. Manx2 have used over 12 airlines since they started.

As for the profit motive yes airlines have to make a profit but not at the expense of safety. Was the Captain pressured into doing the flight? Did he feel some sort of misplaced loyalty or did Manx2 just say do it or your company is going home? Some people are that callus. Money means everything and to hell with everything else.

As I said Manx2 have as much responsibility in Law as Co-op Travel would. But it will all come out in the wash. I'm passing everything I've found out to the investigators and I'll let them interpret it.

[Kelly Hopper]

[QUOTE]Flightline BCN ???
Anyone know who Flightline BCN is? Anything to do with old Flightline of Southend which disappeared just over 2 years ago? Not perhaps a rebirth ?/QUOTE]

No I think not. Clearly of Spanish origin looking at the website.

[scr1]

Moonwalker at post 175 raises perhaps the most interesting question I have seen so far on here.

What time did they commence their duty, and how was their work pattern in the hours and days leading up to yesterday morning?

You seem to imply you know the answer Moonwalker?


i have been told that the a/c flew from edi to inv as a mail flt on behalf of loganair after 1 of theirs went tech and then possitioned to belfast. would have left inv after 03:30.

[The Blimp]

http://cdnmo.coveritlive.com/media/image/201102/phpPd2HcACorkAirportCrashPlaneOffRunwayDENISM.jpg

Pic from Denis Minihane - Irish Examiner

[andrasz]

rabcnesbitt

I'm not familiar with the complete legal structure of Manx2, but they do operate all their flights under the NM designator, which means that they must have a basic AOC. Otherwise they would have to sell the tickets under the code of their operating partners. The contract is always between the passenger and the airline under whose code the ticket is issued, full stop. Ticket agents are just that - they issue tickets on behalf other airlines, without any legal responsibility, but this does not appear to be the case here.

Re quote, you need to put the tag "quote" in square brackets ("[" and "]"), and finish with "/quote" in square brackets. To add the name, type after quote "=" followed by the name between quote marks: quote="name"

[perceval]

Things taken out of context here : RE the BHD incident .
When you say the pilot was asked to go have a look and see if he could get into BHD , it was not a request to bust minima but to depart and see if the weather would improve by the time they get there ...there's a difference !
The Van Air SOP's are following every aspect of EU-OPS and the pilots are NOT encouraged to disregard the regulations and Ops manual , on the contrary ... hence the consequences to individuals who did . That's all I have to say besides asking everyone to refrain from making incendiary statements without knowing what they are talking about .

[rabcnesbitt]

I'm not familiar with the complete legal structure of Manx2, but they do operate all their flights under the NM designator, which means that they must have a basic AOC. Otherwise they would have to sell the tickets under the code of their operating partners. The contract is always between the passenger and the airline under whose code the ticket is issued, full stop. Ticket agents are just that - they issue tickets on behalf other airlines, without any legal responsibility, but this does not appear to be the case here.

Now Manx2 do not have an AOC the NM number they use has IATA questioning its system. Manx2 are not an airline, do not have nor ever did have and AOC. Since when did a travel agent get involved with the AAIB?

You can call David Kendrick at the CAA in London and he will tell you.

Wake up and smell the coffee I'm going to open this can of worms and its going to stink big time. I told all the authorities months/years ago that they were an accident looking for a place to happen.

They even got MORs for trying to land at RAF Warton thinking it was Blackpool (3 go-arounds I was told). You have to be blind not to know when you are not at Blackpool - no miniture Eiffel Tower at the end of the runway.

As I said Manx2 can't be done on this but I'm sure they are now busy making sure the books look perfect.

The truth will out!!!!

Here is a tit-bit

thanks for your reply!

Well, I can´t say anything against manx2.com, as they treated me fair all the time...
and I don´t have any information about any unlawfull or questionable operation.

Except...
on my last flight to Belfast they asked me to "look and see" whether an approach would be posible, or not...

It ended up with me shooting the approach without proper WX-information, but with sufficient actual visibility.
As a result of it, I was fired by VanAir!
As far as I see the case, my co-pilot blackmailed me in the company!!
The company was looking for a reason to fire me...
that´s what another co-pilot told me later!

The getthereitis is endemic.

BTW thanks for the posting lesson.

Also before anyone says anything CAA authorised Post Holder (retired)

[Raven1972]

I think the circle to land theory is a bit foolish since you need 1500m visibility to perform that and they were in low vis conditions. They were on the CATII ILS from what I heard the IAA guy say but he mentioned that they didn't contact the runway but rather crashed abeam the runway...so must have been off centre line...pilot error or faulty instrumentation...sad really...

[Skipskatta]

The picture posted by The Blimp: is that a feathered propeller (left side)? The right engine misses all the propeller blades, and if you look right above it, that grey streak, isn't that the left, feathered propeller?

[moggiee]

Moggiee:
"As for cloudbase, the acceptable minimum on an ILS approach is 0'. "

Only for CAT III ILS approaches. CAT II approaches have a 100' cloud base minimum, and CAT I minimum is 200'.
A common misconception.

The minimum DH for Cat I is 200' and for Cat II is 100. But that's not what I was saying. If you check publications such as the UK AIP it clearly states that the minimum permissible cloudbase for commencing the approach is 0' and that it's the RVR which triggers the approach ban (usually 550m for Cat I and off the top of my head, 300m for Cat II. I find that an awful lot of inexperienced pilots fresh out of their CPL/IR believe that the cloudbase is the limiting factor on an approach ban, when in fact it is not.

As I say, a very common misconception.

[andrasz]

Now Manx2 do not have an AOC the NM number they use has IATA questioning its system. Manx2 are not an airline, do not have nor ever did have and AOC. Since when did a travel agent get involved with the AAIB?

Hmmm... In theory to obtain a IATA/ICAO designator, you must have a commercial air operator license issued by the CAA of the country of resistration (registration of business, not necessarily of the a/c), which is verified before the designator is awarded. If somehow this is not the case here, I too envision a pretty big can of thin wriggly things, with the lid slowly rising...

Last time I checked, EU-OPS minimum requirements for a commercial air operator license are the full-time employment of three suitably qualified post holders, one each for flight ops, maintenance & safety & security, plus a proof of adequate funding.

[Manxman11]

Couple of sections from Manx2's website - Terms & Conditions - that may help clarify the legal status:

"Definitions
As you read these Terms and Conditions, please note that:
"We", "our", "ourselves" and "us” means VanAir Europe AS (see also definition of "Carrier") or FLM Aviation.; and

"Carrier" Van Air Europe, FLM Aviation, or Flightline BCN (see also definition of "we, "our", "ourselves" and "us");

The following conditions apply to all carriage of passengers by our operators:
(a) We shall be liable to you in the event of an accident resulting in your death or other bodily injury whilst on board an aircraft operated by us or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking."

Therefore liability rests with the operator not Manx2, hence their tag as a virtual airline.

[rabcnesbitt]

Hmmm... To obtain a IATA/ICAO designator, you must have a CAA issued commercial air operator license, which is verified before the designator is awarded. If somehow this is not the case here, I envision a pretty big can of thin wriggly things with the lid slowly rising...

Last time I checked, EU-OPS minimum requirements for a commercial air operator license are the full-time employment of three suitably qualified responsible managers, one each for flight ops, maintenance & safety & security, plus a proof of adequate funding.

I complained about this to the CAA and IATA last year about this but nothing was done. The NM designator I was told was never issued to Manx2 at any stage. Call the CAA in London and ask them. Call IATA and ask them. Manx2 are just a bucket shop with a fancy website.

BTW when a company boss comes to you as a pilot and asks if you can have a look and see it is a euphemism for bust minimums we need this flight to get in. Personally I would have told him to go play with himself but that's me, my pax and crews always walked away from their flights. Keep bending the rules and eventually you get caught out. Is it worth lives?

Again everything is going to the investigators, the local CAAs and the press. These people need not have died.

[flyingguy1984]

Just a note to say I knew the FO on this plane, trained with him at Cabair and regardless of what happened, he was a lovely bloke and a good pilot. He had his career ahead of him and he will be missed. A sad day for all involved.

[FlyingTinCans]

Can we lay the 'no more than 2 approaches' rule to rest please.

There is NO CAA/JAR OPS/EU OPS regulation regarding this, period.

There is also no danger in shooting 3, 4, even 10 approaches to minimums, as long as you adhere to the published approach, you will have all the required and safe terrain clearance you need.

Yes, it some airlines (like mine), it is company SOP that we only carry out two, unless there is an improvement in the wx, then we can carry out a third. But it’s also SOP in my company to have my uniform jacket buttoned up, SOP's are not always safety orientated.

The no more than two approaches rule in my company is there for passenger comfort.

[andrasz]

Couple of sections from Manx2's website - Terms & Conditions - that may help clarify the legal status...

The plot thickens... The Conditions of Carriage is one of those documents that require CAA approval, and is another precondition for the granting of a Commercial Air Operator license. Any subsequent modification must be cleared with the license issuing CAA.

From the emerging picture it seems whatever the actual cause will turn out to be, the wider implications will hopefully be far reaching.

Getting back to the event, regardless of the above I'm still not convinced that the accident was simply the result of low visibility/bust minimums. That usually results in lots of broken twigs and branches marking out the silhouette of level wings, or if they are luckier deep furroughs in a field, marked with bits and pieces of the shorn off landing gear. An airplane will only become inverted (unintentionally) after a loss of one wing or torque imbalance. Cartwheeling after a wingtip strike will result in severe damage to both nose and tailplane, not evident on the wreckege.

[Swiss Cheese]

I recall in some detail two previous Metro accidents that I was and am involved with, both in bad weather, one involving Flightline.

The first was October 10, 2001, when Flightline lost an aircraft EC-GDV nr Valencia FIR . Probable cause of electrical failure due to electrical storm and loss of control. Ten died. There was insufficient insurance cover on the aircraft for the families.

The second, was May 7th, 2005, when Transair lost an aircraft VH-TFU in fog on approach to Lochhart River, in Northern Queensland. The ATSB report makes for very interesting reading. Litigation is ongoing in State Court in Chicago, Illionis, on behalf of the families on the basis that the GPWS failed to perform as designed (i.e. last line of defense against CFIT).

I can guarantee that the Irish AAIU will do a superlative job with this tragedy, I have been impressed by Leo Murray and his team and their work in recent years. If there are systemic safety deficiencies within manx2 and/or Flightline, then those will be identified and remedied.

From experience, I can also suggest that Flightline/AOC holder will be subject to close and detailed scrutiny by EU regulators in Brussels.

[BALLSOUT]

Regarding an AOC for Manx2, does manx2 not belong to Woodgate Aviation?

[EastCoaster]

Moggiee,

Please accept my apologies, you are of course correct, the height limitations on the approaches are of course DH.

But from my perspective on the ground, there wouldn't be much point in you commencing an approach if the cloud base was below the DH minimum for the category of approach that you are flying - thereby precluding the probability of achieving the visual cues required to complete a landing. So, ATC tend to be inclined to interpret this minimum as a cloud base minimum, and will not expect you to commence an approach if such conditions prevail. They are not police however, and will not attempt to stop you making an approach. At the end of the day, it is the pilot's decision, ATC will assist with as much relevant/pertinent information as is required.

Likewise with RVR values, they are limiting factors in the decision as to whether or not to commence the approach. I should have been more specific about this in my original post. If the RVR is below the required minimum for the runway and the Category of approach, this will be passed to the pilot and an approach would not be expected, however it is the pilot's decision and he can still elect to fly the approach to DH if so desired. As I mentioned previously, I have seen this happen. Unlike the scenario in the paragraph above, however, an approach in these conditions would result in some paperwork.

This is at odds with UK Absolute Minima legislation and procedures. There is nothing to stop the pilot descending below 1000' if RVR values are below minima for the approach, but as mentioned previously, a measure of professional responsibility is expected.

[lfc84]

National News - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/manx2-chairmans-grief16853/)

Defends the actions of the crew

[fireflybob]

But from my perspective on the ground, there wouldn't be much point in you commencing an approach if the cloud base was below the DH minimum for the category of approach that you are flying - thereby precluding the probability of achieving the visual cues required to complete a landing.

Not true - the AOM are well constructed such that if you have the required RVR it is highly likely you will have the required visual reference at DH in order to continue the approach to a safe landing. CAT 2/3 lighting will punch through a hundred feet of cloud. I have done many instrument approaches (CAT 1) where the reporting vertical vis was 100 ft and have acquired visual reference by or even before 200 ft.

Also there is a difference between cloud base (the lowest cloud) and cloud ceiling.

[virginblue]

I'm not familiar with the complete legal structure of Manx2, but they do operate all their flights under the NM designator, which means that they must have a basic AOC. Otherwise they would have to sell the tickets under the code of their operating partners.

That's apparently what they do. If I am not mistaken, "NM" is the designator of FLM Aviation, the German airline that over the years has operated most of the flights for Manx2 with their Dornier 228s and Metroliners. Not sure how the legal construction is in relation to VanAir (the Let 410 operator) and Topfly (the Metro operator) as they operate under the "NM" designator (at least in the marketing stuff published by airorts nad Manx2) - maybe technically FLM sub-leases their aircraft when operating Manx2 flights.

As for the T&C of MAnx2, I find them rather bizarre as the passenger as a partner to the contract apparently is in no position to ever find out who he has entered into a contract with. Because at no point he is told who will actually operate the flight although, according to the T&C, the operator is the partner to the contract. At least in my jurisdiction, this uncertainty would void the contract.

[BRUpax]

Some years ago a Spanish registered Metro crashed on landing in low vis at PMI. The exact details escape me, but I seem to remember that it too flipped over.

Edit: EC-GKR 12-04-2002

Photos: Fairchild SA-227AC Metro III Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Tadair/Fairchild-SA-227AC-Metro/0416792/M/)

Note the similarities.

[BitMoreRightRudder]

But from my perspective on the ground, there wouldn't be much point in you commencing an approach if the cloud base was below the DH minimum for the category of approach that you are flying

Cloud base only affects non-precision approaches. An ILS approach and the rules surrounding the legality of making any such approach are governed by RVR. DH affects CAT II/III operations so cloud base is even more irrelevant in this case. As mentioned low viz ops require a certain visual reference, in CAT II/III ops this is going to vary between runway lighting/elements of the approach lighting down to one runway light or even no visual reference required for CAT IIIB. Cloud base has no bearing in these circumstances.

[lesserweevil]

it appears to me that most people in this thread are indeed talking s***. Nobody has any idea what happened, whether it was the pilots' fault, the airplane's fault, or just an "Act of God" (!!) nobody will know until the accident investigation is carried out.

Everybody citing the whole "two approaches" thing - wth? I have no idea what Manx2's (or indeed, the operating company in this case) limitations are, but our company SOPs state that you can carry out 2 approaches to one runway (ie 17) and one to the reciprocal end (ie 35). Obviously nobody would do this unless they were pretty sure that they would get in off the third approach.

The approach ban question is valid I suppose, but nobody will know the answer to this question until they officially give it. There is no use all this misinformation being bandied around like it is Fact, giving a company a bad name.

I agree with the idea that all these non-professionals on pprune should at least take a step back and realise how wrong/unwanted/unprofessional their views are.

LW

[andrasz]

NM designator is listed everywhere as belonging to Manx2, not FLM or Flightline (for the record, the accident flight was operated under the NM code).

From a purely legal perspective, whoever is the rightful user of the NM code (the legal entity to whom the code was designated, based on supporting documentation at time of designation) is the contracting party for the issued tickets, irrespective of what entity collected the money. Of course if it turns out that nobody legally owns the NM code, that will raise some very akward questions...

[Agaricus bisporus]

This thread is a real wake-up to anyone who thought this was a forum for Professional pilots. It has turned into a feeding-ground for the media to hoover up the most idiotic misinformation to pass on to the public. The signal to noise ratio here is not just dismal, it is almost zero. If the press are printing gobbledegook about this incident they could do no better than get it here, because the preceeding pages are bursting with it.

We have people prating on about an imaginary "three approach rule" and a fabulously inventive "2X improvement" whatever that may be - it is clear even they don't know.
There is clearly a major misunderstanding among some of the basic concept of a "rule", with advice and guidance being assigned this normally unambiguous designation. That is a very worrying trait indeed if the people involved are pilots but one that is, in my experience, becoming more common nowadays since the plethora of rules and rigid SOPs displaced airmanship. There is a widespread concept in some circles that if something is not mandatory it is forbidden - a worrying trend in misunderstanding the simple and fundamental concept of "must" and "should" which hitherto every ten year old knew instinctively. That appears not the case now.

We have constant discussion of Cat II and III minima in an incident involving a Cat I aircraft. Why, why would anyone bring up autoland minima with reference to a Metroliner? It cannnot perform even a Cat II approach so why the discussion? Worse, much worse is the evident misconception among some that Cat I minima include a cloudbase component, an admission that is to my mind simply incredible in a pilot, and inexcusable from someone who is not sufficiently knowlegeable to blab such utter nonsense from a position of ignorance.

"Go and see if it is landable at XXXX" is a euphemism for busting minimas? In your fertile imagination pal, and nowhere else. Do we really have people flying public transport aircraft who read that sort of content into a plain language statement? What's the difficulty with finding it isn't landable and acting accordingly- that's your Professional responsibility isn't it?

Some clearly don't understand the approach ban, something so fundamental that I would not have believed it possible until I read it here.

I shan't even start on RVRs vs Vis or taking METARS as being indicative of vis/RVR passed to an aircraft on its approach, or the ability claimed by some to divine the detailed dynamics of an accident from the position and cleanliness of an undercarrriage leg. Gawdelpus!

Please, this incident is in the spotlight right now, have a care about what you post as "facts", especially if you believe that a 200' cloudbase is part of the approach ban or that autoland minima affect Metroliners...

[HundredPercentPlease]

There is nothing to stop the pilot descending below 1000' if RVR values are below minima for the approach, but as mentioned previously, a measure of professional responsibility is expected.

Er... apart from the "Approach Ban". No descent below 1000' is permitted if RVR is below system/aircraft/crew minima.

[EastCoaster]

Fireflybob,

We could allow this to descend into symantics, but I think it would be best to allow this particular thread drift to disappear. I appreciate what you're saying, but in response - I have seen CAT I conditions where there is near perfect visibility below a solid, thick cloud layer at 100', with a cloud base below 100'. Likewise, I've seen CAT II conditions with the required RVR minima but vv///. Every approach is different. LVP conditions, by their very nature, are extremely dynamic.

But there again, my 10 years as a Tower and Approach controller probably precludes me from having any clue about what I'm talking about.

Enough of the drift, I've tried to help what I considered to be poorly informed posts, but there are obviously those who aren't interested in listening.

HundredPercentPlease: No such legislation exists in Ireland.

And before anyone suggests it: No this is not a toys out of the pram moment. Rant over.

[hetfield]

Hint; Try to find out when these guys started their shift and I think you will find the answer to a lot of your questions.Oh please, enlighten us.

Thx

[virginblue]

NM designator is listed everywhere as belonging to Manx2, not FLM or Flightline (for the record, the accident flight was operated under the NM code).

From a purely legal perspective, whoever is the rightful user of the NM code (the legal entity to whom the code was designated, based on supporting documentation at time of designation) is the contracting party for the issued tickets, irrespective of what entity collected the money. Of course if it turns out that nobody legally owns the NM code, that will raise some very akward questions...

I have checked again - from the horse's mouth, the IATA website:

Codes - Airline and Airport Codes Search (http://www.iata.org/ps/publications/pages/code-search.aspx)

NM = FLM Aviation

Suggest you check your sources - many of the non-official decoding websites are inaccurate As Manx2 is not an airline anyway, they cannot hold a IATA code.

[Hiduly Damper]

Brother of survivor on Irish radio reporting the right wing hit the ground.

[Agaricus bisporus]

The things I'd like to know are;

a) A transcript of RT from the start of the first approach. (esp. was RVR/vis passed at values below minima for an approach to commence/continue & was Wx for diversions passed)

b) TAFs and METARS for relevant stations as available at the time of their departure.

c) Fuel on board at departure.

d) The crew's duty records for the previous week or so.

e) Maintenance standards for that particular fleet, and I mean subjective opinion from company pilots, not fudgeable paper records. (Having experienced appalling standards in similarly sized aircraft in the past that could easily have resulted in an accident such as this)

[Avenger]

Just a thought, were LVP's and ILS Protection in force? given the crash site it is possible there may have been interference with the ILS signals. Security radios and blocking devices may have been active at the time, given the " content" of the aircraft. Apparently when the PMs convoy passed LHR just before the BA 777 crash, the ILS bent like a banana! Ok we accept it was not a factor there.. but food for thought??

[virginblue]

An interesting question will be if the whole rather intransparent Manx2 set-up now comes under scrutiny, given that flights are sold as "Manx2", scheduled under the designator of a German airline (FLM) and operated under that designator - according to the Manx2 website - by a Spanish airline (Euro Continental) - although the aircraft acutally belonged to another Spanish airline (Flightline BCN) which appears to be linked to yet another Spanish airline (Ibertrans).

[hetfield]

Whether this was a private flight, a public transport flight, where the tickets were sold from, the nationality of the aircraft, crew, or operator, all these things are irrelevant.Oh really?

[hhobbit]

@BCFT


Quote:
Originally Posted by hhobbit
The condition of the u/c indicates the wheels made no contact with the ground, so it seems the a/c contacted in present and final attitude. Therefore this was more than a hard landing from a botched approach, or so it would appear.

I've seen some amazing posts in my time but this one surely tops the lot. What an incredible piece of drivel.


I am humbled by your insight:ok:. OK speculate for me how those wheels look so pristine given that crashlandings right way up nearly always collapse u/c? (otherwise they would be...good landings:))

Does anyone know if the airplane came to rest pointing in the landing direction or not? I cannot figure how a hard CFIT type of crash could end up with the top of fuselage so badly damaged and at the same time the u/c unscathed. If the nosewheel collapsed and then the plane went over on its back then we would reasonably expect to see a badly damaged nosewheel and maybe also some bending of the main legs.

[rabcnesbitt]

"Go and see if it is landable at XXXX" is a euphemism for busting minimas? In your fertile imagination pal, and nowhere else. Do we really have people flying public transport aircraft who read that sort of content into a plain language statement? What's the difficulty with finding it isn't landable and acting accordingly- that's your Professional responsibility isn't it? When money is tight bosses have and will continue to ask pilots to do things that are illegal it happens, some pilots give in other do not. Just like some truckers will swap out a tacho and drive over hours others do not.

Judging by the weather report and knowing that the forecast was for the fog to lift and baring in mind the aircraft wasn't due out from Cork until late afternoon why didn't the pilot just stay in Belfast and wait? If the weather is cack leave it a while best to arrive late than not at all.

Did the crew have the proper rest period before they reported for duty?

I don't think the crew did their best as that would have been sit tight in Belfast until they know the fogs starting to lift and put some extra fuel in the tanks in case you have to return to Belfast.

Was the third approach we can't divert anywhere now we have to get in and was the reason for the flip that a donkey ran out of fuel and stopped?

The AAIU will get to the bottom of it and hopefully this will not be allowed to happen again and that all companies doing this sort of thing will have to get an AOC.

[Hiduly Damper]

Does anyone know if the airplane came to rest pointing in the landing direction or not? I cannot figure how a hard CFIT type of crash could end up with the top of fuselage so badly damaged and at the same time the u/c unscathed. If the nosewheel collapsed and then the plane went over on its back then we would reasonably expect to see a badly damaged nosewheel and maybe also some bending of the main legs
As said, now being reported on Irish radio that right wing contacted the ground. Possibily this inverted the aircraft into the position it ended up in.

[Owlery]

I'm in no way qualified to comment, but in case it's relevant (and in case someone is capable of reading the Spanish), here's the link to the report from the "similar looking" accident in 2002. I'm not assuming any connection between the two accidents; but as mentioned above, the damage and final position of the plane is quite similar.

http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/DFC493EE-1995-470F-8957-E7BEBFEA6CF4/18983/2002_015_A.pdf

As an occasional Manx2 traveller, let me express my sympathies to those who have suffered from this unfortunate incident.

[radar0976]

This is what a foggy approach to Cork Airport runway 17 looks like from the cockpit. However conditions in this video are not bad at all. The fog would have been alot worse for the ill-fated Manx2 crew yesterday.

9BRzFK-gjL4

[CargoOne]

IATA is a commercial organisation which have nothing to do with operations and flight safety even they presenting themselves in this way too. So there are 2-letter IATA designators assigned to non-airlines, and I recall there are some designators assigned to non-aviation companies.

What is more bizzare there ICAO 3-letter codes issued to organisations which never had AOC.

p.s. came to my mind - a landing which ended wheels up with no engine probelms involved UTair Flight 471 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTair_Flight_471)

[BRUpax]

Reading what Spanish I can remember, I stand corrected as it was not a low vis accident. It occurred in darkness but with good vis. I too am not suggesting or speculating, only pointing out that the final position of the a/c is very similar to the Cork one.

This photo is clearer than that in the report:

Photos: Fairchild SA-227AC Metro III Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Tadair/Fairchild-SA-227AC-Metro/0416792/M/)

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

Looking at the METARs posted in thread 5, page 1 of this thread, one could be forgiven for concluding that an approach ban was in force.

We know they tried 3 approaches.

So, did the RVR lift 3 times during the time they were trying to land, thus allowing them to continue past '4 miles or 1000' legally,

Or didn't it?

[virginblue]

IATA is a commercial organisation which have nothing to do with operations and flight safety even they presenting themselves in this way too. So there are 2-letter IATA designators assigned to non-airlines, and I recall there are some designators assigned to non-aviation companies.


The sub-discussion was about with whom passengers are actually doing business when booking a flight with Manx2, i.e. about contractual issues, not about oversight and licensing.

Anyway, I think it is a safe bet that Manx2 does not use the IATA code "NM" of its main partner airline without the knowledge and authorization of that airline. And if you check the IATA database, no IATA code has been issued to Manx2 - although you are correct that they also issue codes to non-airlines (e.g. railway companies).


Btw, as far as ICAO codes are concerned, there is similar confusion. Manx2 is often mentioned in connection with the ICAO Code "BPS", which happens to be the ICAO code of Budapest Air Services, the company that initially operated the Let 410s for Manx2 before Manx2 switchted to Slovak carrier VanAir.

[rabcnesbitt]

Btw, as far as ICAO codes are concerned, there is similar confusion. Manx2 is often mentioned in connection with the IATA Code "BPS", which happens to be the IATA code of Budapest Air Services, the company that initially operated the Let 410s for Manx2 before Manx2 switched to Slovak carrier Vanair.

Got that one wrong. Vanair are CZ and they used the BPS AOC as they didn't have their AOC issued until after they started working with Manx2. IATA rules if you read them state that only AOC holders can have the two letter code. New rules. I don't see Co-op Travel with a two letter code. All part of the act to fool the public and a lot of people on here into thinking they were a genuine airline. Perhaps the 20 seat rule for ATOL holders will now be rescinded and that someone looks into the contracts between Manx2 and the AOC holders. I'm sure there must some interesting reading for the authorities in there.


.

[WHBM]

I'll leave the technical aspects of this accident to the experts, but might comment on the commercial/organisational aspects.

Firstly I am reminded here of the continuing issues with the main USA commuter carriers, who operate with major airline tickets, aircraft livery, flight numbers (as far as the passengers are concerned), etc, where the total image is that of the major airline, but as soon as an accident happens the PR team have all the press releases ready for a "nothing to do with us" distancing from what has now suddenly become a quite separate airline.....

In this case we have :

A Manx airline (is there a separate registration body for the Isle of Man, as they have their own aircraft registration sequence ?), based in a place which is not part of the European Union.

A flight between two EU states, but operating away from the airline home base.

An aircraft belonging to an operator from a third EU state.

An aircraft type which, I believe, has never been on the registers of the UK or Ireland.

Two crew with different native languages.

I wonder whose insurance they were on, which country's law will apply to that insurance, and which AOC authority does the daily oversight of the operation.

[waaf]

In among all this, whose SMS will have to be investigated and which authority will have responsibility for that? It is time the public took a close look at what is fast becoming a very unregulated and underpoliced industry where companies can hide behind national borders while operating throughout the EU. The shipping world safety was destroyed by flags of convenience it is time aviation woke up to what is going on.

[BOAC]

Looking at the METARs posted in thread 5, page 1 of this thread, one could be forgiven for concluding that an approach ban was in force.

We know they tried 3 approaches.

So, did the RVR lift 3 times during the time they were trying to land, thus allowing them to continue past '4 miles or 1000' legally,

Or didn't it? - "one could be forgiven for concluding that an approach ban was in force." ?? ok, BBF - post what you know please. At what times GMT was the RVR on R17 given as below 300m and below 750m on R35?

[lfc84]

Brother of survivor on Irish radio reporting the right wing hit the ground.



Jan 2007
PLANE DRAMA AS GALES LASH ISLE OF MAN - Isle of Man News - iomtoday (http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/plane_drama_as_gales_lash_isle_of_man_1_1760244)

plus

Dec 2007

Airport runway probe - Isle of Man News - iomtoday (http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/airport_runway_probe_1_1768532)

July 2008

Burst aircraft tyre was a first, says Manx2 - Isle of Man News - iomtoday (http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/burst_aircraft_tyre_was_a_first_says_manx2_1_1776588)

Airport emergency involving Manx2 aircraft - Isle of Man News - iomtoday (http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/airport_emergency_involving_manx2_aircraft_1_1776506)

Manx2 passenger relives burst tyre landing - Isle of Man News - iomtoday (http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/manx2_passenger_relives_burst_tyre_landing_1_1777195)

June 2009

Tyre alert on Manx2 aircraft - Isle of Man News - iomtoday (http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/tyre_alert_on_manx2_aircraft_1_1773524)

Manx2 aircraft suffers burst tyre in airport emergency - Isle of Man News - iomtoday (http://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/isle-of-man-news/manx2_aircraft_suffers_burst_tyre_in_airport_emergency_1_177 6570)

[rabcnesbitt]

In this case we have :

A Manx airline (is there a separate registration body for the Isle of Man, as they have their own aircraft registration sequence ?), based in a place which is not part of the European Union.
A flight between two EU states, but operating away from the airline home base.
An aircraft belonging to an operator from a third EU state.
An aircraft type which, I believe, has never been on the registers of the UK or Ireland.
Two crew with different native languages.
I wonder whose insurance they were on, which country's law will apply to that insurance, and which AOC authority does the daily oversight of the operation.

Why you no read Manx2 is not an airline, no way zilch.

Regarding the rest we are all in EASA land now so technically we should be singing of the same hymn sheet. All EU a/c are required to have the insurance that the regulatory bodies decide is appropriate. Any EU operator can fly to any other EU country. Suffice to say Flightline BCN were authorised under Spanish CAA and the rest came under the IAA and CAA.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

BOAC
I'm sure they'd need at least 550m for a CAT 1 and I don't see that on the wx info (on page 1) until quite late on.

But maybe (presumably even) it DID go above minimums. That's what I'd like to know.

Did it or didn't it?

[BRUpax]

WHBM wrote:

An aircraft type which, I believe, has never been on the registers of the UK or Ireland.

That's not correct. At least these three have at some time:

EI-BRI
G-BUKA
G-CEGE

[glad rag]

"Note the similarities." Having just googled " that " accident report all I can say is

Thin Ice indeed BRUpax, Thin Ice :=

[WHBM]

Why you no read Manx2 is not an airline, no way zilch.
Although we may be well aware of that nicety here, I wonder how many, if any, of the unfortunate pax perceived it that way.

As American writer James Whitcomb Riley said :

"When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck."

[sidestickbob]

So folks, let me see if i've got this right. This was a UK airline (without an AOC) using a GERMAN carriers AOC, who were using SPANISH registered a/c and crew flying routes in IRELAND. Great combo...

I'm a bit :confused: and :mad:

RIP to those who paid the unlimate price for companies who insist on circumnavigating legislation!

[Tinwald]

Fellas this old chestnut of is it an airline or not was done to death when the first euromanx set itself up. Issued nothing but tickets and brought in the aircraft from all over europe.

Common factor - its the Isle of Man. Nothing wrong with that but the deadwood we have running the show here have continually refused to take any responsiblity about the air services here cos they have loved their 'open skies' policy.

They're too thick to recognise the shambles air services have been top and fro the rock for the past 10 years. Ive lost count of the airlines that have come, been beaten off by bigger fish on routes, bigger fish FO when they don't make money and so it goes on.

The manx register wont have commercial aircraft on it.

I knew a few pilots who lost their jobs with euromanx (second version) and went to Manx2. One left after a week cos he was an ex BACon fella and couldn't stand what was going on there. Anothe rgot the boot after he raised questions about the tech state of the aircraft.

Like most things in life, you get what you pay for and Manx2 woulodn't have been paying much, yessir.

[BOAC]

BOAC
I'm sure they'd need at least 550m for a CAT 1 and I don't see that on the wx info (on page 1) until quite late on.

But maybe (presumably even) it DID go above minimums. That's what I'd like to know.

Did it or didn't it? - and what do they need on R17 then? Rather than clutter up this thread about a sad loss of life with irrelevant (and incorrect) rubbish, why don't you look up what 'RVR' is and how it is reported? Do us all a favour.:mad:
While you are doing your homework, also find out the minimum RVR for R35.

[moggiee]

Moggiee,

Please accept my apologies, you are of course correct, the height limitations on the approaches are of course DH.

But from my perspective on the ground, there wouldn't be much point in you commencing an approach if the cloud base was below the DH minimum for the category of approach that you are flying - thereby precluding the probability of achieving the visual cues required to complete a landing.
As a pilot I would expect to give it a go if the weather was legal - but I have also in the past told my employer (over the radio) to forget it when they tried to order me to "have a go" at a Cat I ILS when the RVR was 200m!

If I didn't at least try once when it was legal then I would expect my employer to be (rightly) upset. Likewise, they can have no complaints if I refuse to fly one when it is below minima.

As for getting the required visual references, you don't actually have to be able to see the runway (of course) just things such as runway lights, threshold lighting, elements of the approach lighting and so you have a reasonable chance of seeing enough references if you have the required RVR. Remember, at Cat I DH you are only looking down through about 80-100m of cloud (allowing for slant ranges) whereas the minimum horizontal RVR is 550m - that actually gives quite a good chance of seeing some approach lights.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

BOAC.

Wind your (expletive deleted) neck in.

I don't have a chart for Cork here in Zurich but I expect the CAT 1min RVR will be 550 or greater for all runways.

All I'm saying is I dont see that on those METARS.

Do you?

[Ron Herb]

RabC, I have to say that some of your comments reflect my worst fears. Before I worked for the non-virtual outfit my former employment sent me to operators all over the place.
I have certainly known of some commercial pressure accidents which were entirely avoidable.
I think we all need to wait until some factual evidence is forthcoming before jumping to conclusions, but I have a gut feeling......

By the way, I'll bet you haven't seen this name on the forum for a while!

[Mercenary Pilot]

Flight crew named as Captain Jordi Gola Lopez (Spanish) and First Officer Andrew Cantle (British).

The comments I've read on the thread have been hugely embarrassing and completely disrespectful to those who lost their lives yesterday and I hope that most of you are not actually involved at the sharp end of the airline industry.

[BOAC]

I'll try again:mad:
I don't have a chart for Cork here in Zurich- then why talk about Cat II minima when you plainly don't know what they are? What was the given RVR as they passed the FAF/4/1000' point on R35?The comments I've read on the thread have been hugely embarrassing and completely disrespectful to those who lost their lives yesterday and I hope that most of you are not actually involved at the sharp end of the airline industry. - I quite agree. Simply disgraceful. An embarrassment to a professional forum.

[BarbiesBoyfriend]

BOAC

Did I mention CAT II?

Are you posting from the pub?

This was a CAT 1 aircraft, making a CAT 1 approach.

He needed 550m or better.

All the RVRs on the METAR are worse than that.

Further, they made 3 approaches so they'd need 550 or better 3 times during that period.

Thats all.

I see a lot of lower case 'n' attached to the RVR. Thats 'not changing' to save you looking it up.

[CarbHeatIn]

Rwy 35 CAT I: RVR required 750m
Rwy 17 CAT I: RVR required 550m

[Jack1985]

Airport expected to resume operations at 20:00 GMT. Aircraft currently being removed from the Grass verge adjacent to taxiway c. You all need to get a serious grip, its grand to comment online about things you glance over in the news, or if you've seen those horride pictures. I was working yesterday, and all i can say is my collegues at the Airport have never made me feel so proud, it was like a family bereavement this time yesterday and the pain still aches on. We will find out in due course what happened but speculation does nothing only make matters bigger then what they are. Manx2 is great airline and has provided a great service to Cork since it commenced operations to/from here last July 2010, its as hard on the staff there as it is with anyone else.

[Cows getting bigger]

BB (my bold)

METAR EICK 101000Z 09008KT 0400 R17/0600N R35/0450N FG BKN001
05/05 Q1010 NOSIG=

METAR EICK 100930Z 08005KT 050V110 0300 R17/0375N R35/0350N
FG BKN001 04/04 Q1010 NOSIG=

Of course, like most of the stuff on here, that could mean absolutely nothing.

[Agaricus bisporus]

What do we know of the flying and handling characteristics of the Metroliner? Anyone with experience there? Few seem to like them. Why?

[Ouch2]

I am a total outsider but I read these forums often. I am a survivor (passenger) of Kegworth. (and fascinated by aviation though I won't fly again)

The human brain will always try to solve connumdrums and it is good to see those professionals amongst you trying to do that - perfectly natural to do that and don't stop

Just try not to be too disrespectful of anyone at this time. The facts will come out in time. Everyone, including the pilots were trying their hardest to get a successful landing - it just did not work out. We are all human - we all fail at times. Sometimes that failure can be due to a chain of events, those events can include commercial pressures, tiredness, bad weather, equipment failure, bad design, etc..

Ok - I am going back to just reading these now :)

[Pull what]

Strange no one has speculated about the possibility of a loss of control due to low airspeed and the possibility of airframe icing, especially after a 20 minute cold soak hold.

The position in which the aircraft ended up, its inversion and the apparent undamaged main legs suggests to me that the aircraft flew into that position or if you like 'fell out of the sky' . An alleged passenger statement seems to confirm a wing tip striking the ground which would then have quite possibly inverted the aircraft which it seems then possibly pitched nose down into the ground severing the fuselage with the nose section possibly impacting the rear fuselage and giving that slight bend to the nosewheel leg before coming to rest .

My guess is a loss of control occurred below decision height, most likely in the go around configuration, possibly due to low airspeed bringing about a stalled wing down condition possibly aggravated by wing icing, engine failure or /and mis-handling.

I can confirm that both airlines I worked for had ops manuals that contained SOPS that said-A third approach may only be made after a SIGNIFICANT weather improvement. (brought about by the G-ANTB accident at Jersey in 1965)

May I respectfully appoint out to the whingers that this forum started life as a PROFESSIONAL pilots RUMOUR forum-my posts are an attempt to meet that criteria!

[Evanelpus]

I am a total outsider but I read these forums often. I am a survivor (passenger) of Kegworth. (and fascinated by aviation though I won't fly again)

The human brain will always try to solve connumdrums and it is good to see those professionals amongst you trying to do that - perfectly natural to do that and don't stop

Just try not to be too disrespectful of anyone at this time. The facts will come out in time. Everyone, including the pilots were trying their hardest to get a successful landing - it just did not work out. We are all human - we all fail at times. Sometimes that failure can be due to a chain of events, those events can include commercial pressures, tiredness, bad weather, equipment failure, bad design, etc..

Ok - I am going back to just reading these no

Wise words Ouch. Sorry to hear that you won't fly again, one can only imagine what must have gone through your mind that night.

Enjoy your reading.

[BRUpax]

glad rag said:

Having just googled " that " accident report all I can say is

Thin Ice indeed BRUpax, Thin Ice :=

Wind your neck in glad rag (:mad:) and read both my posts. The "similarities" I refer to are the final positions of the a/c, i.e., inverted with main gear more-or-less intact. At the time, I had not seen the accident report to the PMI accident. I just happened to remember seeing a Metro wreck which was similar to this wreck. At no time did I infer that the cause could be linked.