Crash in Laos [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums

Skyjob

16th Oct 2013, 13:43

A Lao Airlines plane crashed into the Mekong river in southern Laos on Wednesday, according to an airline official, in an accident Thai television channels said killed 39 people.

A Lao Airlines official said the plane had crashed at about 4 p.m. (0900) near Pakse, Champasak province, which is on the borders of both Thailand and Cambodia.

Thai television showed a photograph of the ATR 72 turboprop plane partly submerged in shallow water on a stretch of the Mekong, the tail severed. Another television channel showed what appeared to be several bodies on the bank of the river.

"We do not yet know the number of casualties, our executives are currently in a meeting and will provide more details in the morning," the airline official said by telephone.

Thai media said 39 people were killed, among them two Thai nationals. It did not give the source of the information.

Lao Airlines is the national carrier of the communist state and has operated since 1976. Its aircraft carried 658,000 passengers last year and it has a fleet of just 14 planes, mostly propeller-driven.

It operates on seven domestic routes and has international flights to China, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam and Singapore.

MagnusP

16th Oct 2013, 13:58

BBC now reporting 44 lost.

fenland787

16th Oct 2013, 14:01

Reports seem confused:
A photograph being widely circulated as of the crashed aircraft in Laos actually appears to be from the crash in July of a flight in Russia, according to the report on the usually reliable Aviation Herald site:

Accident: Angara AN24 near Nizhnevartovsk on Jul 11th 2011, water landing after engine fire (http://avherald.com/h?article=43f853ce&opt=1)

readywhenreaching

16th Oct 2013, 14:14

JACDEC - Current News (http://www.jacdec.de/news/news.htm)

Thaihawk

16th Oct 2013, 14:33

Registration RDPL-34233 according to FR24 (subject to confirmation).

Passenger list released at 14.00Z.A total of 27 foreigners out of a total POB of 44.

FLEXPWR

16th Oct 2013, 15:49

JACDEC says ATR72-600, not MA60. Although initially one would definitely suspect an MA60 as part the story, since this type has some of the worst safety records in aviation and no western country wants to approve it (except MOL, if he had a chance!)

From Reuters:

"Thai television showed a photograph of the ATR 72 turboprop plane partly submerged in shallow water on a stretch of the Mekong, the tail severed. Another television channel showed what appeared to be several bodies on the bank of the river."

Sad day. Aviation in Asia is expanding at such a fast pace, keeping up with it generates a lot more risky environment, be it pilot training, systems update, and experience.

SMT Member

16th Oct 2013, 18:47

If it is indeed a -600, then we're talking about a brand new airframe.

Super VC-10

16th Oct 2013, 18:52

Just over six months old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lao_Airlines_Flight_301

DaveReidUK

16th Oct 2013, 18:54

If it is indeed a -600, then we're talking about a brand new airframe.Yes, delivered at the beginning of April this year.

hyzhao11

17th Oct 2013, 06:20

That is unprofesional and unfair comment which sounds like a political biased insane judge toward MA-60 even though you got know that it is ATR-600!

DaveReidUK

17th Oct 2013, 06:34

That is unprofesional and unfair comment which sounds like a political biased insane judge toward MA-60 even though you got know that it is ATR-600! Fair point. At this stage we don't know whether technical issues, or indeed anything to do with the specific aircraft type, were implicated in the accident..

As for the wider issue of the MA-60's safety, it's worth bearing in mind what the NZ government has said on the subject, in advice to travellers to Tonga:

"Tonga’s domestic airline fleet currently includes an MA-60 aircraft. This aircraft has been involved in a significant number of accidents in the last few years. The MA-60 is not certified to fly in New Zealand or other comparable jurisdictions and would not be allowed to do so without a thorough certification process under Civil Aviation rules. Travellers utilising the MA-60 do so at their own risk."

NZ government travel advisory - Tonga (http://www.safetravel.govt.nz/destinations/tonga.shtml)

Sunnyjohn

17th Oct 2013, 13:08

Cleared Visual with respect - as you've been a Ppruner since 2007, you should know, as I do, that as soon as any concrete and substantiated information is available, it is posted. There quite clearly is no such information so far.

training wheels

17th Oct 2013, 13:15

JACDEC says ATR72-600, not MA60. Although initially one would definitely suspect an MA60 as part the story, since this type has some of the worst safety records in aviation and no western country wants to approve it (except MOL, if he had a chance!)

Worst safety records in aviation? Where did you get that from, or is that from your own self-appointed expert assessment? The MA60 has only been involved in one major fatal accident and that was due to pilot error. And you'll find that most of the other major incidents can also be attributed to pilot error.

It's ironical that an advanced turbo-prop such as the ATR72-600 is the type that crashes here, but yet you're blaming the MA60 for it. Where's the logic in that? :rolleyes:

Xeque

17th Oct 2013, 13:45

Bit of reality needed here.
The aircraft was 6 months old so no major maintenance issues.
I live in Thailand where we are experiencing the aftermath of a major weather system the same system being a contributing factor to this accident in Laos. At times here (and we are several hundred miles from the crash site) the rain has been so heavy that road traffic has been slowed to a crawl because you simply cannot see any distance in front of you.
There is only one question to ask. Was it prudent to continue the approach in such severe weather conditions?

aterpster

17th Oct 2013, 13:59

Xeque:

Bit of reality needed here.
The aircraft was 6 months old so no major maintenance issues.
I live in Thailand where we are experiencing the aftermath of a major weather system the same system being a contributing factor to this accident in Laos. At times here (and we are several hundred miles from the crash site) the rain has been so heavy that road traffic has been slowed to a crawl because you simply cannot see any distance in front of you.

There is only one question to ask. Was it prudent to continue the approach in such severe weather conditions?

Do you have a copy of the METAR in effect at the time of the accident?

If the rain was as heavy as you allege they probably wouldn't have had the required visual references at MDA or DA.

BOAC

17th Oct 2013, 14:20

The weather station at Pakse Airport [VLPS] transmitted only NIL Metars on Oct 16th

aterpster

17th Oct 2013, 16:14

The only two IAPs at the airport:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/VLPS_131_zpsced478d5.jpg

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/VLPS_161_zps1e2d8ee8.jpg

physicus

17th Oct 2013, 21:44

If the impact location on wikipedia is correct, that would indicate something happened halfway through the immediate righthand turn in the missed approach of the VOR DME 15 approach.

Are Laotian pilots perhaps ex military and trained on soviet hardware? If so, spatial disorientation resulting from the attitude indicator working the other way around vs in western airplanes might have been a factor. Crossair 498 comes to mind.

For those who don't know: Soviet era attitude indicators move the airplane symbol, not the background/horizon. So instead of levelling out of a bank, the instinctive reaction would increase the bank, as happened with the Crossair 498 crew (who were Moldavian/Latvian nationals trained on said hardware).

swh

18th Oct 2013, 02:00

physicus

18th Oct 2013, 03:02

nobody posted NOTAM's, hence haven't seen them. You obviously have, perhaps you'd care to share? PAK VOR U/S?

MountainBear

18th Oct 2013, 03:54

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/tropical-storm-downed-laos-flight/story-e6frg6nf-1226741990781)

The media already has all the answers, of course. I will warn you that it is a rather egregious case of sensationalism. :ouch:

Super VC-10

18th Oct 2013, 07:48

AFAIK, coords in the Wikipedia article were sourced from The Aviation Herald, so should be reliable. :ok:

27/09

18th Oct 2013, 08:04

David R

As for the wider issue of the MA-60's safety, it's worth bearing in mind what the NZ government has said on the subject, in advice to travellers to Tonga:

"Tonga’s domestic airline fleet currently includes an MA-60 aircraft. This aircraft has been involved in a significant number of accidents in the last few years. The MA-60 is not certified to fly in New Zealand or other comparable jurisdictions and would not be allowed to do so without a thorough certification process under Civil Aviation rules. Travellers utilising the MA-60 do so at their own risk."
Politics at its best, I wouldn't place too much value on what was quoted in the article.

DaveReidUK

18th Oct 2013, 08:53

I wouldn't place too much value on what was quoted in the article.Well, of the 4 statements made:

Tonga’s domestic airline fleet currently includes an MA-60 aircraft.

This aircraft has been involved in a significant number of accidents in the last few years.

The MA-60 is not certified to fly in New Zealand or other comparable jurisdictions and would not be allowed to do so without a thorough certification process under Civil Aviation rules.

Travellers utilising the MA-60 do so at their own risk.2 are undisputed facts (Tonga does operate an MA-60; no aircraft gets to carry pax in NZ, or indeed in most countries, unless certificated - which the MA-60 isn't)

1 is arguably true (6 hull losses in less than 5 years)

and 1 is simply a recommendation (albeit a prudent one IMHO)

Super VC-10

18th Oct 2013, 09:43

Experience has shown that Simon Hradecky takes great care not to post incorrect info. Note the criticism from some quarters re the time it took him to post details of the accident at Aviation Herald, and the supporters who back him up in only posting verifiable facts, not speculation. Note also the lack of speculation in the Wikipedia article.

BOAC

18th Oct 2013, 09:58

After swh's entry in 'the chocolate fireguard of the year' award, has anyone got the relevant Notams?

Finn47

18th Oct 2013, 10:42

Aircraft crashed onto land first, before plunging into the river (see photo of skidmarks)

Bodies recovered in Mekong after Laos plane crash | Aiken Standard (http://www.aikenstandard.com/article/20131017/AIK0106/131019456/1013/bodies-recovered-in-mekong-after-laos-plane-crash)

Super VC-10

18th Oct 2013, 11:08

Thanks for that link, Finn. Very useful for updating the Wiki article. :)

swh

18th Oct 2013, 22:40

Any professional pilot should know how to obtain notams, did not realise we needed to go to this level.

A0020/97 NOTAMN
Q) VLVT/QNMCT/IV/BO /AE/000/999/1512N10545E020
A) VLPS B) 9704030935 C) 9707020935EST
E) NEW PAKSE VOR/DME 115.0/CH97X ON TEST.
CREATED: 06 Nov 2002 05:50:00
SOURCE: VLVTYNYX

Ye Olde Pilot

18th Oct 2013, 23:20

PhysicusIf the impact location on wikipedia is correct, that would indicate something happened halfway through the immediate righthand turn in the missed approach of the VOR DME 15 approach.

Are Laotian pilots perhaps ex military and trained on soviet hardware? If so, spatial disorientation resulting from the attitude indicator working the other way around vs in western airplanes might have been a factor. Crossair 498 comes to mind.

For those who don't know: Soviet era attitude indicators move the airplane symbol, not the background/horizon. So instead of levelling out of a bank, the instinctive reaction would increase the bank, as happened with the Crossair 498 crew (who were Moldavian/Latvian nationals trained on said hardware).

If Lao pilots are not ex military where do you think they get their experience?
We are talking about a poor country where only military and a very few handful of elite can learn to fly. Laos has no flying schools or private flight training.If you've ever been to some of the small airports you'll know facilities are basic to say the least. From my conversations with friends in Lao the weather was not good over the last week. Trying to land in a place like that would not have been easy given the circumstances.

I doubt it was anything more than severe weather that caused this accident.
Worth looking back on the Phuket OneTwoGo accident for more info.

FlyingChipmunk_01

19th Oct 2013, 05:22

Lao Airlines pilot told to change course before crash (http://www.smh.com.au/world/lao-airlines-pilot-told-to-change-course-before-crash-20131018-2vr23.html)

According to news report, the pilot was Cambodian with over 30 years of flying experience and trained in Russian and France.

mikedreamer787

19th Oct 2013, 05:39

The weather station at Pakse Airport [VLPS] transmitted only NIL Metars on Oct 16th

Probably the wind vane and temp box got blown away in the breeze the day before.

training wheels

19th Oct 2013, 08:00

1 is arguably true (6 hull losses in less than 5 years)

Do you have a reference for that statement? I know of two (due to pilot error on both occasions) but I'm interested to know of the other 4. And whilst you're at it, how many hull losses have there been for the ATR in that period of time, just to compare?

BOAC

19th Oct 2013, 08:17

Thanks for taking me to 'that level', swh - to complete your entry can you explain the significance of an 11 year old NOTAM in this accident?

Do we assume there are, in fact, no relevant NOTAMS?

swh

19th Oct 2013, 08:30

In Asia there are a lot of nav (eg Philippines Laos) and even ATC systems (eg Jakarta) installed without the required flight testing to enable operational use. This airport has a lot of significant terrain near the base turn, and probable location effects due to the river, along with a vor that is located around 4 nm from the airport.

mikedreamer787

19th Oct 2013, 10:10

...the significance of an 11 year old NOTAM

More like 16 years BOAC.

In any case I can't see the relevance to this prang either.

jolihokistix

19th Oct 2013, 11:13

Can this really be the same plane? See photo in article.
The Chosun Ilbo (English Edition): Daily News from Korea - 3 Koreans Among Dead in Lao Airlines Crash (http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2013/10/17/2013101701893.html)

Carbon Bootprint

19th Oct 2013, 11:22

Can this really be the same plane? See photo in article.Highly doubtful, unless ATRs now sport Russian styling! :eek:

Super VC-10

19th Oct 2013, 11:24

That's the Antonov crash mentioned by the Aviation Herald.

jolihokistix

19th Oct 2013, 11:38

Thanks, yes, this article here
Crash: Lao AT72 at Pakse on Oct 16th 2013, went into Mekong River on approach (http://avherald.com/h?article=46a05359&opt=0/)

BOAC

19th Oct 2013, 12:18

More like 16 years BOAC - yes - I was being kind! I think we can ignore the swh input. The news that some areas of the world have less than perfect aviation systems comes as a shock................

MrMachfivepointfive

19th Oct 2013, 14:01

Do you have a reference for that statement? I know of two (due to pilot error on both occasions) but I'm interested to know of the other 4. And whilst you're at it, how many hull losses have there been for the ATR in that period of time, just to compare?

ASN shows 3 from 2009.

Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > ASN Aviation Safety Database results (http://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Xian-Yunshuji-Y-7/losses)

training wheels

19th Oct 2013, 14:26

ASN shows 3 from 2009.

Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > ASN Aviation Safety Database results (http://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Xian-Yunshuji-Y-7/losses)

Ok, thanks for that. I missed the one from Zest Air. But that one was also due to pilot error, it seems.

Ye Olde Pilot

20th Oct 2013, 20:05

Pakse is a 'one way' airport. You land on 15 and take off from 33.
There is a line of high ground on the Laos side of the Mekong.

It is parallel to the Mekong but with limited aids compared to a normal western commercial airport. It has an NDB and VOR.As I understand it the latter is still on test.

Add to that the fact the weather was extremely challenging plus Pakse having no radar or ILS and the holes in the cheese line up nicely.

The final component will be the captain. Been there,done it and 30 years flying.
No first officer in his right mind would ever question his senior whatever the potential outcome in Asia.

In this case the aircraft was below minima in bad weather. Talking to friends at Pakse the story is that this guy was ex military and had been in to Pakse many times. Tower suggested he divert to alternate.It appears he was trying to creep in under the weather using GPS along the Mekong when he hit an island
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a24/Oldpilot/ab9405ca-9938-483b-ab8f-fd7889eb4e01_zps37006fc0.jpg?t=1382302067

Just read the One Two Go thread at Phuket.

training wheels

21st Oct 2013, 07:55

Tower suggested he divert to alternate.It appears he was trying to creep in under the weather using GPS along the Mekong when he hit an island

IFR mean different things in some parts. Was this a case, of an IFR "I Follow River" approach??

Jack Harper

21st Oct 2013, 11:04

It has an NDB and VOR.As I understand it the latter is still on test. For my understanding the VOR was operable, the NOTAM is from the days when the PAK Vor was installed 11 years ago.
E) NEW PAKSE VOR/DME 115.0/CH97X ON TEST.
CREATED: 06 Nov 2002 05:50:00
SOURCE: VLVTYNYX It appears he was trying to creep in under the weather using GPS along the Mekong when he hit an island The skid marks from the initial impact are on the western Mekong riverbank about 2 NM south west heading to the north east. Thats pretty much exactly in the MAP path.

Ye Olde Pilot

21st Oct 2013, 13:21

This appears to be a fairly accurate appraisal of the accident.

Pakse’s landing systems below par
October 21, 2013 by Don Ross
Filed under Aviation, Laos PDR, News

BANGKOK, 21 October 2013: Difficult landing conditions made worse by tropical storm Nari are the most probable causes for a fatal crash of a Lao Airlines plane that plunged into the Mekong River on its approach to Pakse last Wednesday.
One of the worst of 16 tropical storms to sweep across the mainland Southeast Asia, during this year’s monsoon season, Nari hit central Vietnam and southern Laos with gales and torrential rain reducing visibility considerably around Pakse.
In an email response to questions from TTR Weekly a private aircraft captain who has flown to Pakse and has extensive knowledge of Mekong Region flying conditions said investigations would probably blame the accident ultimately on pilot error.
However, he noted there were other contributing factors one being the innate difficulty of landing at Pakse under normal flying conditions.
“Even in the best of conditions a pilot approaching Pakse has to fly in low to locate the runway visually,” he explained. “I have flown to the airport and it took about three minutes at low level to locate the runway in relatively good weather conditions.”
He noted that Pakse Airport has only “non-precision approach charts, there is no ILS” (Instrument landing system) at the airport.
“Since the runway runs parallel to the Mekong River, it would be easily possible in hazy and stormy weather to mistake the Mekong River for the runway,” he said.
“The urgent solution to make Pakse safer under all flying conditions would be for the Laotian Airport Authority to invest in new satellite based precision approach systems called LPV.”
Meanwhile in a separate report, AFP said that search teams have pulled six more bodies of air crash victims from the Mekong River in Laos, the national carrier said Sunday, taking the number of corpses recovered to 38.
In the nation’s worst known air disaster, all passengers and crew on the Lao Airlines turboprop ATR-72 died after the plane plunged into the river in bad weather on Wednesday near Pakse airport in Champasak province.
More than half of the 49 passengers and crew were foreigners from some 10 countries.
Search teams from neighbouring Thailand have been scouring the river for bodies along with experts from the airline and the French-Italian aircraft maker.
But they have been hampered by strong currents which have swept some bodies several kilometres away from the crash site.
“Now the total found bodies are 38,” Sengpraseuth Mathouchan, the airline’s vice-president, said in a statement Sunday, after six more bodies were found overnight.
“Lao forensic teams and experts from Thailand are continuing to identify the bodies,” he said, adding “Our thoughts and prayers are with the families affected by this terrible tragedy.”
On Saturday the airline said it had identified 14 of the 32 bodies hauled from the river by that point.
Two Australian passengers, the Cambodian captain and several members of the crew were among those named so far.
The airline has revised the passenger list to show that a Canadian citizen was also on board when the plane went down.
According to an updated passenger list released late Saturday by the airline, there were 16 Laotians, seven French travellers, six Australians, five Thais, three South Koreans, two Vietnamese, and one national each from the United States, Canada, Malaysia, China and Taiwan.
There were also five crew, including the Cambodian captain.
Volunteers have fought strong currents in the painstaking search for bodies from the plane, most of which has sunk and is believed to have broken up.
In some cases, rescue teams have plucked the dead from turbulent waters many miles from the crash site.
Founded in 1976, Lao Airlines serves domestic airports and destinations in China, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam.
Previously the country’s worst air disaster was in 1954 when 47 people died in an Air Vietnam crash near Pakse, the organisation said.
© 1994-2013 Agence France-Presse

BaBaBoey

22nd Oct 2013, 19:02

Part of fuselage recovered. Relatives to get approx $7,500 per victim in compensation - Bangkok Post article (http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/375860/part-of-crashed-lao-airlines-plane-lifted-from-the-mekong)

No black box yet - Lao Airlines Press Release (http://www.laoairlines.com/hotnews/announcement9.html)

Question: why after recovering the fuselage would they paint out the airline name and number???

Jack Harper

23rd Oct 2013, 13:12

Did any of you Gentlemen notice that the Jeppesen Chart is wrong?

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa214/aterpster/VLPS_131_zpsced478d5.jpg

The "DME vs Altitude" strip is actually showing Heights instead of Altitudes which gives you an error of something over 300ft.

The MDA is 990 but on the "DME vs Altitude" strip at 1.9DME (MDA) it says 645ft.

MOE EDSK

23rd Oct 2013, 17:08

Nicely spotted. The only explanation I have is that the final part of the procedure is to be flown with QFE altimeter setting. But I have never heard of that. The term "altitude" would be wrong in any case.

donut_thailand

23rd Oct 2013, 22:01

Black box located.

26 bodies identified, Lao aircraft lifted from Mekong River | MCOT.net | MCOT.net (http://www.mcot.net/site/content?id=526744ca150ba0386e00016e#.UmhGuXBkMrU)

Sorry....I don't know how to make the link...Mods? can you help?

kristofera

24th Oct 2013, 01:33

It appears he was trying to creep in under the weather using GPS along the Mekong when he hit an island

Was he using iOS maps on his iPhone...?

BOAC

24th Oct 2013, 08:18

"erbuscap" what on earth are you talking about?:sad: Can you quote the Jepp introduction that says altitudes will always be displayed AGL?

Looks like a major :mad: by Jepp. Anyone seen a recent chart? That one was Dec 2010.

Mach E Avelli

24th Oct 2013, 11:07

About now Jeppesen would be in damage control via their lawyers. They have departed from convention on that chart, with the profile obviously and wrongly (to those of us sitting in the comfort of our armchairs) referenced to QFE, though no statement to that effect is anywhere to be seen.

Even so, flown accurately with the correct QNH set the aircraft should have been approximately 300ft above ground at the MAP.

Dan Winterland

24th Oct 2013, 11:11

A strong possibility that the somatogravic illusion was a factor IMHO.

Jack Harper

24th Oct 2013, 16:02

"erbuscap" what on earth are you talking about?
There is nothing wrong with the chart really?:E.
You obviously haven't studied enough your basic PPL stuff, ehh?
They talk there about Altitude and Heights. Go back to the books, come back and rephrase your statement a bit.

Ye Olde Pilot

25th Oct 2013, 21:00

My take on the accident.

The captain had been in to this airport many times before.

Given the weather he knew he was in for a very rough ride on approach.

He thought he slip in over the river to get visual and it all went pear shaped.

For the guys who fly in the western developed countries you have to understand turning back to base will cause you big problems not least if there is a politician/high ranking policeman etc on board:=

Livesinafield

26th Oct 2013, 11:09

Question: why after recovering the fuselage would they paint out the airline name and number???

I believe this is standard after an accident in some places

Anyone seen a recent chart? That one was Dec 2010.

that is the current chart still i think

Looks a terrible error even if it didn't cause the accident

Shaman

26th Oct 2013, 16:23

Jack Harper,

The "DME vs Altitude" strip is actually showing Heights instead of Altitudes which gives you an error of something over 300ft.

Yup, I agree with you - well spotted; I think I would have missed this in my briefing.

jfill

26th Oct 2013, 19:14

Approach Chart for PAKSE

The part in question appears to be the "NON·PRECISION RECOMMENDED ALTITUDE DESCENT TAB" as described by Jeppesen glossary-legends at:

http://ww1.jeppesen.com/documents/aviation/business/ifr-paper-services/glossary-legends.pdf

It is designed to be an aid for non precision approaches giving a distance vs altitude table for a steady descent approach to a runway. According to Jepp:

"General Description: The Recommended Altitude Descent table, shown to facilitate the CDFA technique *, contains "check" altitudes that correlate directly to the Vertical Descent Angle (VDA) used in conjunction with the final approach segment of the procedure."

* Continuous Descent Final Approach (CDFA): see Continuous Descent Final Approach (http://code7700.com/cdfa.html)

In this case it would place the aircraft at an altitude of 645 ft (300 AGL) at the middle marker which appears about right. Remember its non precision so would not be used in low ceiling situations.

Its amazing how much information is on these charts but you must do your homework to use them properly. I hung my wings up years ago so would appreciate any further opinion or clarification.

MOE EDSK

27th Oct 2013, 08:04

In this case it would place the aircraft at an altitude of 645 ft (300 AGL) at the middle marker which appears about right.jfill, you are not quite right here. Let me put in my five cents as retired military ATCO and PANSOPS procedure designer (+MEPL IFR).

The whole procedure looks to me that it was constructed pre-PANSOPS with the VOR/DME as FAF at 3.8 NM from TD and the MAPt most probably at the threshold for RWY 15. Note the obstacle situation in the departure sector (terrain 3006 ft MSL). The charming aspect is that you could have flown the procedure even with DME inop or the aircraft not equipped accordingly by using a time table to determine when passing the MAPt

With the introduction of PANSOPS and its excessive requirements (just ask any PANSOPS guy to fit a CAT C holding at 5000 ft MSL to an NDB surrounded by a 10 x 15 NM controlled airspace) there was apparently no chance to keep the MAPt at passing threshold at 400 ft AGL. Using the required climb gradients for the missed approach they had to relocate it starting 1.9 NM outward from the THR RWY15 and change the FAF to DME 2.3 to allow for the required max descent gradient. The designer had to find a compromise between the required minimum visibility and minimum ceiling for the approach. Putting the MAPt closer to the TD would have resulted in a higher MDA, and putting it further out would have resulted in higher visibility requirement.

It is safe to assume that the pre-PANSOPS minima for Pakse were a lot lower, but PANSOPS insists on creating procedures based on the "worst case" scenario - sloppy flying, inaccurate on-board instruments, shoddy nav aids and hideous wind speeds (omnidirectional) not compensated by the pilot.

Your interpretation of the required altitudes based on this misleading table shows the inherent danger of sloppy charts. Breaking out of clouds at 300 ft AGL on a 500 ft/min descent rate in a non-precision approach and still being almost 2 NM from the RWY at the "middle marker" (actually it is the MAPt based on DME as there are no marker beacons for this type of approach) does not meet any safety standards.

The correct straight-in minima are:
- Ground Visibility 3200 meters
- MDA (MSL) Cat. A-C: 949 ft MSL
- HAT (AGL) Cat. A-C: 645 ft AGL
- Ceiling: Cat. A-C: 700 ft AGL
- No credit for lights (despite SALS)

Dan Winterland

28th Oct 2013, 01:15

The whole procedure looks to me that it was constructed pre-PANSOPS

There are a lot of those in South East Asia. Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia Vietnam abound with these 'hybrid' approaches. The aviation authorities need to amend them - it's just laziness.

(just ask any PANSOPS guy to fit a CAT C holding at 5000 ft MSL to an NDB surrounded by a 10 x 15 NM controlled airspace)

There isn't such a thing as a PANSOPS pilot. There are those who are more used to PANSOPS and those more used to TERPS, but pilots aren't certified on each standard. I think you will find many of us are used to both.

This approach is sloppy, but shouldn't have been too difficult on the ATR with it's flight management system. We don't know the exact reason and the circumstances as to why they went around. It wasn't the approach that killed them It was impacting the ground on go around and we don't know why that happened either.

Centaurus

28th Oct 2013, 02:29

A strong possibility that the somatogravic illusion was a factor IMHO.

Strong possibility? I doubt that. Hadn't the captain been flying for 30 years? Somatogravic illusion is a catch phrase used all too often to explain a so far unknown reason for a crash.

There would be hundreds of crashes every month all over the world that could be blamed on somatogravic illusion especially for aircraft catapulted from aircraft carriers where the acceleration on take off is mind-boggling on the senses.

MOE EDSK

28th Oct 2013, 13:20

Quote:
The whole procedure looks to me that it was constructed pre-PANSOPS
There are a lot of those in South East Asia. Thailand, Malaysia, Cambodia Vietnam abound with these 'hybrid' approaches. The aviation authorities need to amend them - it's just laziness.

Quote:
(just ask any PANSOPS guy to fit a CAT C holding at 5000 ft MSL to an NDB surrounded by a 10 x 15 NM controlled airspace)
There isn't such a thing as a PANSOPS pilot. There are those who are more used to PANSOPS and those more used to TERPS, but pilots aren't certified on each standard. I think you will find many of us are used to both.

This approach is sloppy, but shouldn't have been too difficult on the ATR with it's flight management system. We don't know the exact reason and the circumstances as to why they went around. It wasn't the approach that killed them It was impacting the ground on go around and we don't know why that happened either. Dear Dan,

it seems that I created a bit of misunderstanding with my last post.

The current procedure at Pakse is according to PANSOPS. At least this is what the Jeppesen chart states. It just appears to me that a VOR placed smack in the middle of the approach, being neither IAF, IF nor FAF shows that the original location was calculated pre PANSOPS.

With the "PANSOPS guy" I of course meant a certified procedure designer, not a pilot.

You call the approach sloppy. As a retired PANSOPS procedure designer I cannot understand this statement. With the adverse affects of location, terrain, available navaids and the PANSOPS restrictions it looks pretty decent to me. I have flown some rather hair raising approaches in California single-handed IFR night w/o autopilot, this one - not taking into account adverse weather - is pretty straightforward and easygoing to me.

Dan Winterland

28th Oct 2013, 15:20

Like any spatial disorientation, the somatogravic illusion doesn't respect experience. There are many case involving 10,000 hrs plus pilots. Unfortunately, the somatogravic illusion is hard to identify - largely because so few pilots who succumb live to tell the tale. Very few accident reports identify it - the true figure is probably far higher than the statistics reflect.

In this case, a crash soon after a GA in poor weather/at night bears all the hallmarks of the somatogravic illusion.

There aren't hundreds of crashes per month anywhere, but somatogravic illusion accidents do feature heavily in carrier launches. During one period during the Vietnam war, the USN were losing a pilot a month to it.

BOAC

28th Oct 2013, 15:53

Aterpster - no comments on the chart error?

MOE - from where did you get the MDA you posted?

perceval

28th Oct 2013, 15:59

Looking at the IAP published in the Lao AIP , a mistake was actually made by Jeppesen . The table in the AIP plate shows distance to/from PAK versus Height and NOT altitude . It is an oversight because in the Vientiane (VOR/DME 13) charts , the same height info is published on the AIP ( no altitude reference , just height ) but Jeppesen converted it to altitudes on their plate . Interestingly enough , on the more recent plates designed for Luang Phabang , the AIP gives you both Altitude and height in brackets instead of height only .
Conclusion : Oversight from the designers of the original Vientiane/Pakse plates who should have given both references instead of just the height AND oversight(actually more of a wrong info ) from Jeppesen on the Pakse plate .
Probably unrelated to this accident but interesting nevertheless .
MDA for the straight in approach is 990 ft AMSL , MDH-645 ft ( Cat A,B,C) . Info published in the AIP as well .

MOE EDSK

28th Oct 2013, 17:18

MOE - from where did you get the MDA you posted?I have to admit it - from the Jeppesen chart. But I did also check whether it made sense to me. The giveaway are the horrendous minima for the circle to land. Without a detailed map depicting terrain and other obstructions it is a "best guess" but I assume that the required obstacle clearance in the missed approach area can only be met by adjusting the MDA from a possible 400ft above TDZEL to 645ft above TDZEL and additionally by relocating the starting point of the missed approach (MAPt) to 1.9 NM from the THR.

Another point is whether a height should be added to any given altitudes in an approach procedure apart from the MDA/DA. To me adding a height above TDZEL to an altitude restriction 5 NM from the runway is irrelevant at best and dangerously misleading at worst. Depending on the underlying terrain these heights based on the TDZEL can deviate considerably from actual values. The Smolensk crash showed this clearly.

aterpster

28th Oct 2013, 17:56

BOAC:

Looks like a major http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif by Jepp. Anyone seen a recent chart? That one was Dec 2010.

That is the current chart. Before I would comment on that strip I would need to see state source.

I'm out in Hawaii at present so my resources are limited.

I do know that strip is usually the result of state source.

Lonewolf_50

28th Oct 2013, 19:02

Dan:

"somatogravic illusion" covers a bit of ground. On a Missed, the addition of power, if you remain on your primary attitude reference (call it Artificial Horizon/Attitude Gyro/Attitude Indicator, or whatever the term is in your aircraft) should not be a "sudden acceleration." Smooth addition of power and increase in pitch is how it's supposed to be done. The illusion in any case is mitigated if your instrument departures in crap weather are flown on the instruments. Pilots do this every day in bad weather.

Are you suggesting that the PF got the leans or that his scan broke down?
If so, on what basis, from the info available, other than "aircraft hit the ground?"
Like any spatial disorientation, the somatogravic illusion doesn't
respect experience. Agreed. Nor does gravity.
Unfortunately, the somatogravic illusion is hard to identify - largely because so few pilots who succumb live to tell the tale.
Are you suggesting that pilots are neither trained nor educated regarding this phenomenon?
There aren't hundreds of crashes per month anywhere, but somatogravic illusion accidents do feature heavily in carrier launches. During one period during the Vietnam war, the USN were losing a pilot a month to it.
The year is currently 2013, not 1968. Would you do us the favor of not mixing past and present tense? The USN no longer loses an aircraft a year to this feature of flying, no less one per month. (There are ample other causes, thanks very much. :suspect:)

Why do you think that is?

I'll tell you what I think the reason is: the phenomenon is known, and a thing called aviation physiology training works to mitigate that risk. I went through that training back in the early 80's for the first, and not the last, time when it was already well established.

Question for you: Do professional pilots in commercial aircraft not get training and education on this fundamental physiology problem?

Ye Olde Pilot

28th Oct 2013, 22:48

You've all missed the big picture.

The guy was riding a bucking bronco in that weather.

If you've ever experienced those conditions you'll know what I mean.

Trying to get in to a difficult strip marginal VFR with no aids and being thrown around the sky.

BOAC

28th Oct 2013, 22:51

Basically. Lonewolf, having been through both 'schools' like you, the answer is essentially 'no'. I recall (A USAF film, I think, from the 60's?) called 'Get on the Gauges' which was pushed hard in the British military. I suspect that unless the trainers in civilian aviation have had the same sort of strict indoctrination, it is not properly 'taught'/stressed to the same extent - but then of course, the 'manoeuvres' and potential exposure to it are far less.

In any case, like others, I suspect this has nothing to do with this crash.

YOP - what do you mean 'no aids'? Were both the NDB and VOR/DME off the air?

Ye Olde Pilot

28th Oct 2013, 23:09

When you get that low below the weather all the aids let you down.

Private pilots often operate below minima and fly a combination of VFR/IFR.
That's the killer trying to mix both and all the kit in the world won't help you when it comes to basic panel flying in bad weather low level.

I've landed at lot's of airstrips in bad weather at night with nothing more than car headlights on the threshold. Severe turbulence is another issue.

Basic panel flying is a skill lacking in a lot of commercial pilots these days hence the Air France accident.

However in this case I think trying to get in on a visual approach in severe turbulence beat a very experienced pilot.

VR-HFX

29th Oct 2013, 02:30

Ye Olde

Indeed. Very experienced flying with a Russian ADI and add to that no METAR.

It will be interesting to see what QNH he was working with.

God alone knows what he was doing anywhere near Pakse on a day like that.

noplan

29th Oct 2013, 09:05

flying this way is usual in lao.

laocentral is example. ask american captan there, i think he read forum here and answer about laocentral

everyday only violation, dca not exist,

BOAC

29th Oct 2013, 10:45

Private pilots often operate below minima - Hmm - I could have sworn this was a commercial flight.

I actually think he was probably 'lost' judging by where they crashed and the direction at impact (as reported here)..

frexpat

29th Oct 2013, 13:55

He is not from airamerica and he is American

I think is only one there. pm for name if you want.

Yeoldepilot you are right, the weather was very very bad and he still try to fly under.

For all you who are not familiar with this country, a big issue is alcohol.
It will not be a surprise if they find high alcohol concentration in the pilots bodies. Locals (including Cambodian like captain) drink very much.

st martin

29th Oct 2013, 14:20

I knew an American guy that used to fly for one of those outfits in Indonesia that crash every other week. Think he was Training or Safety Director for them:ok:
Heard he got a job from a Lao company, he must be there. They must have read of his stellar record and hired him to improve theirs.

Dan Winterland

31st Oct 2013, 03:11

Lonewolf.

"somatogravic illusion" covers a bit of ground. On a Missed, the addition of power, if you remain on your primary attitude reference (call it Artificial Horizon/Attitude Gyro/Attitude Indicator, or whatever the term is in your aircraft) should not be a "sudden acceleration." Smooth addition of power and increase in pitch is how it's supposed to be done. The illusion in any case is mitigated if your instrument departures in crap weather are flown on the instruments. Pilots do this every day in bad weather.

I doesn't take a sudden acceleration to generate a somatogravic illusion. An acceleration of just 30kts over a period of 10 seconds will produce an acceleration of 1.54m/s² which translates into a perceived pitch up of 9°. As many aircraft will climb at a lesser angle than this, the aircraft can conceivably enter a descent if the illusion is not correctly countered. In recent cases of the illusion, the majority seem to be from GA aircraft taking off at night in areas with few visual clues. Recent airliner crashes caused by the illusion tend to be on Go Arounds - a notable one being the A330 crash at Tripoli on 12 May 2010.

Are you suggesting that pilots are neither trained nor educated regarding this phenomenon?

They are educated. Since the introduction of the Human Performance and Factors course in the early 1990s, it's included in commercial training syllabi. military pilots have been trained in it for far longer - as it was perceived to be a military high performance aircraft phenomenum. However, the HPF theoretical course is usually about as much training as most get. The mitigation for the illusion is emphasised in initial instrument training, but making sure you don't sink on an IF departure is usually as far as it goes.

I've been conduction research into the phenomenum and questiong pilots in my own airline has raised some interesting facts. Most remember the illusion in their HPF syllabus, but many don't really know how it applies to them or what it means. More than a couple had a moment of revalation when I expalined it regarding their experiences. Some had forgptten about it, and some who had trained before the 1990s had never heard of it. Of course, their instrument training provides protection - but still - they had never heard of the phenomenum.

As for training, it's virtually impossible. Wheras the IF syllabus covers other forms of sensory illusions such as the coriolis and oculogyric illusions can be physically demonstrated in the instrument flying syllabus, the somatogravic illusion is nearly impossible to successfully demonstrate in the air. And as simulators simulate acceleration by pitching the pilot up while maintaining the visual and instrument attitudes, quite clearly, they cannot replicate the somatogravic illusion if the human body is being convinced that it is accelerating by tricking the very mechanism which is responsible for the illusion in the first place.

Question for you: Do professional pilots in commercial aircraft not get training and education on this fundamental physiology problem?

Largely yes, but in my opinion, the education does not have sufficent emphasis and is rarely reinforced after initial training. And due to the nature of the problem, the first time a pilot experiences the illusion, it may be many years after initial training, in bad weather, at night during a poorly executed go around. A common set of circumstances in cases where it has been a cause of a crash.

The somatogravic illusion cannot be ruled out in this accident.