Sky News reporting bizjet crash Jan 12

[robbreid]

Skynews newsdesk is reporting a small business jet on a flight form the UK to a German airfield has crashed with 4 fatalities - all on board.

No details yet. Reported 4 minutes ago.

[Pace]

Yes heard it too ! We are a small band of pilots so hope no one I know !

Pace

[robbreid]

BERLIN (AP) — Police say a small jet has crashed near an airfield in western Germany and four people on board are believed to have died.
The plane came down Sunday lunchtime at a landfill site near the city of Trier. City police said in a statement that it appears to have been a Cessna Citation business jet carrying two pilots and two passengers from England to an airfield at Foehren, near the crash site.
The aircraft damaged an electricity pylon as it came down and was ablaze when firefighters arrived at the scene.

[hetrotrolleydolly]

Reports are it's a Citation flying from the UK , sadly no survivors :( RIP

[His dudeness]

Föhren is a VFR field. Have a look at the apparently foggy conditions...

Look at the webcam:

Flugplatz Trier-Föhren EDRT | Webcam (http://www.flugplatz-trier.de/c_service_webcam.php?l=de)


Heres a pic:

Nahe Trier: Vier Tote bei Flugzeugabsturz - N24.de (http://www.n24.de/n24/Nachrichten/Panorama/d/4112458/vier-tote-bei-flugzeugabsturz.html)

Looks like a straight citation...

More pics:

Vier Tote bei Flugzeugabsturz nahe Trier (http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/deutschland/vier-tote-bei-flugzeugabsturz-nahe-trier-bid-1.3956040)

According to:

In der Nähe von Trier: Vier Tote bei Flugzeugabsturz - Panorama - Stuttgarter Zeitung (http://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inhalt.in-der-naehe-von-trier-vier-tote-bei-flugzeugabsturz.9ef6f606-132b-4f6d-baea-19e5bb37823f.html)

its N-reg.

The crash site seems to be at about 2-3nm final:

http://goo.gl/maps/sy0BZ

Point B is the landfill site the reports talk about ("Mülldeponie")


Apparently a C501:

In Rheinland-Pfalz: 4 Tote bei Flugzeugabsturz - News Inland - Bild.de (http://www.bild.de/news/inland/flugzeugabsturz/kleinflugzeug-stuerzt-nahe-der-mosel-ab-34206834.bild.html)

[robbreid]

ASN has reported it is a N.... number?

You can see the hydro lines in the photo;

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdyUlGpCMAAhtLK.jpg:large

Trier-Föhren Airport @ OurAirports (http://www.ourairports.com/airports/EDRT/)

[Pace]

N reg ? CJ or 500 series ? Anyone know departure airfield uk ?

Pace

[Geo73]

Needs confirmation but a twitter post has it as N452TS.

[Kubalson]

Propably:
Reg: N452TS

Last flight:
Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker! (http://www.flightradar24.com/2014-01-12/10:16/12x/50.99,2.03/7)

[EGMH]

Live flight information - Brighton Airport (http://www.shorehamairport.co.uk/flightinfo)

Cessna 501 Citation. N452TS. | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyllama/11905172255/in/pool-15529695@N00/)

[Jetblu]

What a relief to see your post Pace :):ok:

I have just heard the type and departure airfield and thought of you instantly.

As much joy as flying does give to us, it also draws reflection to the sudden sadness that can follow.

Condolences to family and friends.

[silverware]

News indicated that they might have struck a powerline in bad viz.
However, aircraft was based at EDRT and owned by a local company, guess they know the area well enough not to hit one of those?

[Annex14]

Horrible CFIT crash - unexcuseable seen the circumstances.
Trier-Föhren is a plain VFR / VMC landingsite, no navaid - no nothing !!
Trier - Föhren lies in a valley with the surrounding hills topping field elevation by 600 - 1000 ft. Possible diversion a/d nearby are on top of these hills.
Weather was definately IMC at a bad state >> see Metar Spangdahlem airbase attached to the report in Aviation Safety Network.
Apparently at the time of the crash nearby Frankfurt-Hahn airport - just south of the Mosel valley had gone to VFR conditions.
Even if still at IMC Hahn has a 3800 m long RWY and cat III ILS on both ends.
Luxemburg obviously was down to IFR minima at the time of the crash, so no good diversion a/d.
Finally, EDDK - Cologne - was plain CAVOK the entire day !! So why no diversion into safety, followed by a 1:45 h car drive??

[FSXPilot]

I guess we will never know. Having to get there kills time and again.

[His dudeness]

guess they know the area well enough not to hit one of those?

If you can´t see em cause they are in bloody fog ?

My home base has a 460ft minima partly because of powerlines crossing the approach path. Knowing that they are there does not help.

These accidents will never stop, cause there is always an idiot out there flying. Unless there was a very temporary very steep positive change in visibilty when they tried to approach this was simply not flyable. ELLX was fogged out all day and EDFH was CAVOK from 1020utc onwards. I have lived in the area for a year -> this is not a place to mess around.

[worldpilot]

perhaps an accident with a root cause in flawed decision making? :confused:

It is unfortunate that they left us too early under some how avoidable circumstances.

RIP.

WP

[RevMan2]

Regional TV news (SWR) yesterday evening quoted airport officials as saying visibility <200m and no contact with tower prior to crash.

[ATC Watcher]

I was flying VFR yesterday in the area. The ground fog was only a few hundred feet thick in the valleys with full blue sky/CAVOK above.
In places the High Power lines poles and windmills tops were sticking out the fog base on some hills.
As Annex 14 correctly and wisely said earlier , there were plenty on airfields open in full sunshine on the high terrain, all around Trier. Attempting yesterday to go inside the Mosel valley with this weather ( plus the fog was in icing conditions as well ) on a strip with no Nav aids is not understandable for me.

Brings another question, how can you cancel IFR, ( they had to at some point for destination Trier ) and then enter known IMC ?
Pressure of the guy in the back paying for the trip ?

An accident that should not have happenned.

[Pace]

What a relief to see your post Pace
I have just heard the type and departure airfield and thought of you instantly.

jetBlu

Thanks for concern Surprisingly the reg is very close to one of the Citations I fly which are both 550s and never taken a jet into Shoreham.

Graham Hill and get me home Itis springs to mind

Pace

[Teddy Robinson]

The Graham Hill accident is precisely the first thing that came to my mind too.

[chuks]

Well, the accident crew must have had some reasonable expectation of getting away with it, going VFR into IMC.

There have been a couple of similar accidents at Egelsbach, near Frankfurt am Main, so that it's not that unusual a thing to see happen, a bizjet crew hitting obstructions while trying to make it into a place without aids or even one with weather below minimums. You try it and get away with it, you are an ace; you divert, you are a putz, so ....

There was even a profile of an ex-CEO of a big German manufacturer that showed him boasting about how his crew made it into someplace or other when lesser mortals were all forced to divert because of bad weather, due to the force of his personality. The point was to show what a hard charger the CEO was, and this was in a mass-circulation non-aviation magazine so that his sheer stupidity went unremarked. (I think it was a guy running Daimler-Benz, profiled in Stern, certainly not the incumbent. I might have those details wrong; it was a while ago that I read the article, when it caught my eye since I am a pilot.)

[JamesGBC]

Before we condemn the pilots I noticed that one of the local newspapers noticed a large number of birds around the aircraft and concluded they had been pheasant shooting in the UK? I had seen the UK chart earlier and it did not seem like pheasant shooting weather to me. Perhaps this is a clue, as I had seen a large number of ducks in the area a few days before flying in formation.
As for a GPS approach High voltage power lines in fog generate a large amount of interference. In hindsight a safe look at the conditions knowing a safe diversion airfield is in reach, and next thing all the holes in the cheese line up fast.

[Annex14]

F900 EX
I initially have spend some thoughts to that possibility of a self braided GPS procedure.What doesn´t fit as I see it is the fact they where at field elevation 2 NM prior target coordinates. At the same time off the centre line by about 700 m.
Hard to believe that an experienced crew would fall for such faults. And GPS is in generell a much too precise device for navigation.
JGBC
Kind of honest try that should be appreciated to point towards the possibility of a multiple bird strike. The mystery of the many reported pheasants around the wreckage might be lifted. However what speaks against a birdstrike is the fact that part of the right wing was located on the pole they hit.As one can see on div. Foto of the inverted wreckage the right wing and gear is missing.

I believe, as was mentioned by others, most likely the "big boss" in the rear of the plane wanted them to try. Probably they got a glimps of the Autobahn and tried to follow it. The tricky part of that idea is, the Autobahn follows the valley of river Salm and one has to swing to the right to get onto final. The impacted power pole stands on a terrain step that rises roughly 150 ft from the valley floor. Terrain elevation at crash site is comparable to that of the airport.
Though we will not know what actually made them take that decision, the fact they were that low so early in approach doesn´t leave much different possibilties. Especially if one considers what ATC Watcher wrote in his post about the fog situation.
Jo

[ATC Watcher]

Birds congestion around garbage landfills are very common. However most birds have a stronger conservation instinct than humans and they do not fly in formation in Fog. Certainly not ducks. And birds do not Fly VFR on top either. So I do not believe bird strike was a factor, but , seen the wreckage, the investigation surely will detect if it was.

But the decision to enter a dense fog layer so close to terrain for a VFR/Visual APP is the primary cause.

[worldpilot]

A German news agency (Sueddeutsche Zeitung Newsticker) is reporting that the crew might have actually violated aviation rules by cancelling IFR flight plan and changing to VFR for a destination without VMC.:ugh:

Flying VFR under IMC is a basic tenet that I was constantly reminded of when I started my PPL training. It is hard to believe that some pilots out there put their lives at risk by not observing this simple rule.

WP

[His dudeness]

WP, most likely they were VMC the time they cancelled. Their destination wasn´t.

[Pace]

If it was fog or low cloud no amount of home made GPS approach accuracy would make any difference!
It would not matter if there was an ILS on the field unless the pilot was prepared to go below minima.
No pilot should use GPS on its own! In my piston twin days I used to operate into an airfield with terrain around. There was an NDB and a DME but no approved approach.
I overlayed a GPS approach over the NDB/DME used the GPS for precision and the NDB/DME as well a a RadAlt to confirm the GPS.
Just to use GPS would be very foolhardy.
More likely with areas being in the clear that the pilots were flying in visually and seeing cloud ahead made some mistake on their location especially if you think you know the area well.
That fact alone will make a pilot less cautious but more prone to a serious mistake.
Hence why Graham Hills crash came to mind as he misidentified visually albeit at night where he was and continued beleving he knew where he was on an approach he had made many times.

Pace

[Annex14]

F900 EX
Fully agree with what you write about all the many faults that can slip into a normal operation. Humans tend to forget that human error is a very common desease.
WP
There is nothing wrong with cancelling IFR with that type of aircraft as long as one stays in VMC afterwards. Flying fully IMC into a landing site with zero Navaid or published Instrument Procedure is what makes the case illegal.

One other point that rises additional questions and came to scene in a local TV report this afternoon where the controller on duty was interviewed. Apparently neither a standard radio contact nor a hint they were trying an approach was made.
Jo

[ATC Watcher]

Annex 14 : the controller on duty was interviewed.
Just a point of semantics , but there is no ATC in Trier, so no controllers. Just an AFIS run but the local flying school. But journalists ususally call them Controllers.

[Annex14]

ATC Watcher
it´s not a case of semantics, just another case of human error and trying to relay a story 1 : 1.
You are of course correct, no ATC at Trier - Föhren and I should have known better!!
Jo

[RevMan2]

DFS statement yesterday: Airport only approved for VFR with 1500m visibility. Visibility at time of accident:100m

[yron]

Full stop....

[what next]

No pilot should use GPS on its own!

Well, in theory maybe. But we have quite a few GPS-only RNAV approaches here (I fly one of them once per week) where no other navaid is in useful range. Approved, official procedures.

[chuks]

There's a picture of a high-tension mast with a large piece of Citation wing jammed into it, at about 30 metres (100 feet) AGL. In the accompanying article they speak of "pilot error."

I don't think Citations are usually equipped with FDRs or CVRs, so that there probably will not be much more than guessing about what the crew were saying and doing as they entered what was reported as 100 metres (330 feet) visibility under VFR, but it should be fairly easy to guess it was something on the order of "Expletive deleted" (sound of impact).

What a waste. Divert to someplace with suitable weather, let the pax take a taxi to Trier, and catch up with them later once the fog had cleared... what's wrong with that? Hindsight: it's a wonderful thing!

[His dudeness]

"Just to use GPS would be very foolhardy"

My airplanes approved to fly the North Atlantic just with 2 GPSes. Granted - no power lines there....

Anyhow, possibly you meant no pilot should use his DIY GPS approach ? That I would sign...

To split hairs further, visibility in Trier can be "measured" only by the pilot, nobody else. (unless there is an approved and calibrated VAISALA or the like installed)
Given the white I saw 1,5 hrs after the accident on Triers Webcam, the WX reports and the witness account - "we did not see the airplane but heard a jet noise and then a crash, it was very foggy" I´d say its save to assume the weather being very well below anything remotely close to VMC.

ATCwatcher hitted the nail on the head:

there were plenty on airfields open in full sunshine on the high terrain, all around Trier. Attempting yesterday to go inside the Mosel valley with this weather ( plus the fog was in icing conditions as well ) on a strip with no Nav aids is not understandable for me.

In this Video - at the very end - one can see the birds, pheasants, some of them in plastic bags. I guess we can discard the birdstrike theory....

Nach Flugzeugabsturz: Pilot hätte in Föhren nicht landen dürfen - Nachrichten :: Rheinland-Pfalz | SWR.de (http://www.swr.de/landesschau-aktuell/rp/flugzeugabsturz-sehlem-ermittlungen/-/id=1682/nid=1682/did=12685198/1uagibz/index.html)

[ATC Watcher]

What next : do not compare following a published RNAV APP with trying to get to a VFR field , buiding an APP on your own using a GPS .
For info the requirements to follow a published RNAV RNP 1 GPS APP procedure :
No single-point-of-failure can cause the loss of guidance compliant with the RNP value associated with a missed approach procedure. Typically, the aircraft must have at least dual GNSS sensors, dual flight management systems, dual air data systems, dual autopilots, and a single inertial reference unit.

His dudeness. Thanks for the link to the video. explains a lot ,if not everything , unfortunately.

Just a final remark, contary to what the Jounalist ( or the Trier Staatanwalt ) said , it is not against the rules to cancel IFR in this situation, i.e. you can always divert to another open VFR field, what is against the rules is flying VFR in IMC.

[His dudeness]

No single-point-of-failure can cause the loss of guidance compliant with the RNP value associated with a missed approach procedure. Typically, the aircraft must have at least dual GNSS sensors, dual flight management systems, dual air data systems, dual autopilots, and a single inertial reference unit.

Are you sure on the "and" ?

My airplane has no IRS/U, no second A/P and is RNP compliant dwon to .3.

Sorry for the offtopic.

[First.officer]

Same for me His Dudeness, although the statement does say "typically", and wondering if you have AHRS on your aircraft? ;-)

F/o

[ATC Watcher]

HD and FO : I am not sure, not being an expert on RNP APP and RNAV, but based on my doc ( for ATC) it would seem that the min requirements are what I said, the word " typically " is probably there as you can mitigate the non avail of some component(s) , e.g. . an IRU if you use DME/DME. But not sure.

From another book :
The RNAV system may be based on:
• DME/DME
• DME/IRU
• GNSS/IRU

Also maybe continent specific , in the USA , they use Ground GPS augmentation systems for instance.

[172driver]

Sadly we may never find out, given an old C500 / 501 has no data or voice recorders and the cockpit looks destroyed with probably with no instrumentation evidence of any use left.

The commentator in the video makes reference to a GPS unit that survived the crash. That said, it'll only show the flightpath.....

[20milesout]

A quick translation of the 2 "official" sources in the TV report posted by His Dudeness: (http://www.pprune.org/biz-jets-ag-flying-ga-etc/531765-sky-news-reporting-bizjet-crash-jan-12-a-2.html#post8263277)
-----------------------------
00:25, Mr. Friedemann, BFU:
We are awaiting a lot more information from sources outside the accident site. As of now we have (..unintelligible..) from ATC like radar data, the flight track has been recorded that is. The radiotelephony with the respective ATC stations is of course also recorded.

01:00, Mr. Samel, federal prosecutor:
Until now we have learned that they had cancelled the flight under IFR with ATC, and continued under VFR, the last stage of the flight was conducted under VFR. At that time they would have been required to establish radio contact with (Trier-) Foehren, which obviously had not happend.
-------------------------------

One thing is puzzling:

The pilots (both German) were very familiar with EDRT and, according to airport sources, normally used to contact Trier Info for WX even before cancelling IFR (which makes sense in my book). But they obviously didn´t contact Info at all on this flight.

Why ?

[His dudeness]

Foto-Detail - volksfreund.de (http://www.volksfreund.de/nachrichten/fotos/detail/cme477736,2946330.html)

Some more pics, in pics 3 & 7 one can see the power line mast and part of the wing hangig from it.

[CaptainProp]

Already been said but well worth mentioning again....and again....and again. Do NOT confuse flying a PUBLISHED GPS approach with flying some DIY GPS approach!! Some of you seem to argue that its completely acceptable to fly GPS only approaches just because the accuracy of the GPS is high......

CP

[deefer dog]

Thread drift, but a valid topic...I'll play the devil's advocate:

Already been said but well worth mentioning again....and again....and again. Do NOT confuse flying a PUBLISHED GPS approach with flying some DIY GPS approach!! Some of you seem to argue that its completely acceptable to fly GPS only approaches just because the accuracy of the GPS is high......


Yes, of course. But in order for your statement to be of value as a warning I think it would be helpful to state WHY DIY approaches do not compare.

Personally I do not make up my own approaches, but I do understand why many pilots might have a need to do so. Perhaps such pilots actually check their approaches several times in VMC to validate the fixes, and perhaps also they build in lateral and vertical limits, and include sensible minimums. If they do this, what is the difference between their DIY procedure and a published one? Surely a GPS fix is a GPS fix.

Is it only due to the fact that a DIY procedure might not make allowances for all of the regulatory design criteria - or are there other reasons?

[CaptainProp]

But in order for your statement to be of value as a warning I think it would be helpful to state WHY DIY approaches do not compare.

Well forgive me, but I thought that was self explanatory...:confused:

Anyway, I'll play along so here are some of the reasons DIY GPS approaches, and any other DIY approaches, are not a good idea:

1 You end up killing yourself and other people

2 They provide no terrain clearance (leads to nr 1)

3 Even if you clear terrain you have no idea if you will clear other obstacles such as TV and radio masts, power lines etc (leads to nr 1)

4 It's not legal (due to nr 1)

CP

[maxred]

I am just back from a holiday in the Seychelles.

I flew an Air Seychelles Twin Otter from Mahe to Bird. Interestingly, they had Garmin 430, as standard kit.

For the strictly VFR islands, they had approach fixes linked into the 430. It appears that they depart Mahe, commercial ops, in IFR, then convert to VFR as they approach the islands, head to an approach fix, which has been built in, and this is the approach set up fix. I assume if they are not visual or VFR, then they go away.

Perhaps someone more familiar could confirm, or not, but they definitely looked like self made fixes.

[maxred]

F900EX, thank you for the insight.

As you can imagine, the build ups, particularly at this time of year, can be interesting.

[20milesout]

We don´t know yet if the pilots really had been on a 'home-built' approach. Must have been a very crappy one then that had them come down more than 2 miles short of the runway. They surely were aware of the higher terrain in the approach path. I still am reluctant to assume they brought themselves into this mess deliberately.

Two main questions:

Why didn´t they climb to safety and diverted, instead of descending further into low to no visibility?
Why didn´t they contact Trier Info?


@maxred:
There´s nothing wrong with programming personal fixes into a Garmin and using them for whatever purpose, e.g. as turning points on cross country (in your case: inter-island) flights or as individual IAF for an uncontrolled airfield. Still, as you have stated, you have to be visual to use them, i.e.must be flying in VMC. Otherwise: stay away, divert or contact ATC, ask for IFR-pickup and fly the published procedures (or whatever ATC instructs you to do).

[Deep and fast]

Anyone know what the QNH was? I hope not 993hpa

Deep and fast

[what next]

Anyone know what the QNH was? I hope not 993hpa


Nearby EDFH had between 1021 and 1024 that day.

[20milesout]

Anyone know what the QNH was?Spangdahlem AFB just some miles north was reporting 1023-1024.

Now you do the math

[JamesGBC]

Information on the pilot has came out and he was a very experienced local flyer. I know the weather north of the area was blue sky Cav OK. They probably picked up the Autobahn as a guide. It has also been reported they hit trees before the power pole.
I use GPS a lot in China for getting around on foot in the humidity it jumps around like crazy when I track my route later, the power lines in the fog would be just the same level of spark interference.
Anyway apart from an engine problem turn off the wrong one error, it is a do not even go there situation we read time and time again.

[Aphrican]

A more general question from a lowly PPL working on my IR : Why is there an apparent reluctance to create published satellite based approaches in Europe?

For GA airports, this must be much cheaper (and therefore affordable in a declining GA market) than creating and maintaining ground based navaids (apart from NDBs : there is one for sale for £350 on EBay).

Increasing the number of published approaches at say 3,000 ft to 5,000 ft runways across Europe would surely increase safety dramatically.

[His dudeness]

Because.... that would be a sane and inexpensive approach to things. Not the european way. Like IFR in airspace G - for decades the German ATC did everything to keep it forbidden, with SERA they should allow it, yet there is rumours that they will not.
And then technical incompetency - when the LBA (German FAA) found out that their Beechjet had GPS installed in the "depths of their FMSes" despite them not allowing the use of GPS in aircraft at all we all had a good laugh. (many moons ago)

Flying individually is seen more and more as a bad thing. Hence EASA-Ops with crazy unwarranted regulations/requirements for anything flying bigger than a Colibri.

OTOH, given the topography (clearance to the sides), I doubt that Trier could have an approach with a low enough minima. For this case the minima would most likely been above the fog. And CAT III with GPS (GBAS) - which would have been required here - at Trier won´t happen soon. Bremen/EDDW does trials with system destined to become the CAT II/III replacement AFAIK.

[chuks]

For one thing, you need a way to ensure that the GPS signal remains valid during the approach. Otherwise you may find yourself following a dead reckoning course without noticing that, absent software that generates a loss-of-signal warning. Also, you have to survey the area around the destination to ensure obstacle clearance, including the area used for a go-around. There's a lot more to this than just drawing a couple of lines leading to the runway with waypoints at various altitudes, although that would usually do the job, yes.

I distinctly recall operating with a little GPS unit that only gave left-right guidance, combined with sighting various visual points that let us descend to something like 150' AGL in thick African dust haze to land on a rather short and narrow air strip. That was something everyone just turned a blind eye to, since it was the only option for getting into that particular strip. It took a peculiar combination of skill and stupidity to do that day-in, day-out, but as far as I know, nobody ever crashed doing that particular approach.

On the other hand, I remember a crew that was fairly new in-country who found a radio mast with a Gulfstream II in pretty much the same way it seems this German accident crew found that high-tension mast. They were taking a short-cut into an airport that did happen to have approved approaches and they must not have known about an isolated radio mast that was located not far away from their destination, but well off any approach path. They knew where they were, sort of, but they did not know where that radio mast was, or perhaps even that there was one there, so that they probably popped out of a small rain shower to find it waiting for them, even assuming that they saw it at all.

It sounds crazy, but it's very often so that you take risks because, while you can never prove that you prevented having an accident, it's easily proved that you did not make it into your destination.

I have been lucky in not having to fly for many VIPs, but I did notice a certain amount of pressure when I did, pressure that seemed to come from some lack of understanding of reality that applies to the rich and powerful the same as it does to everyone else. It's this, "What do you mean by, 'You will have to take a taxi, Boss; we can't make it in to Hackelschmackeldorf International today.'? Do I have to find myself another Captain, one who can manage this simple thing? I have an important appointment, but now you expect me to show up for it an hour late, in a taxi instead of in my private jet? What am I paying you for?" And so on and on. I guess you have to have been there, to understand how an experienced crew can make such a stupid mistake with such deadly consequences, going VFR in IMC, especially when that is something we teach beginners to avoid completely.

It's like being taught not to drink and drive, something that seems quite obvious, yet we see people doing exactly that, all the time.

[Annex14]

Also Because . . of cost / performance ratio!!
As much as I can see the advantages of GPS - at least in theory and running under ideal conditions - as much I know also about the constraints using it for approach purposes. Too many possible errors and deteriorations are imminent. It takes a very serious approach to the topographical situation and the obstacles to even have the base at hand for a good calculation of the CRM - collision risk model. And even then a thorough calibration session of the procedure follows before it becomes published. Might look at first glance a bit too excited and bureaucratic, but the results count, not the wishes!

I fully agree with his dudeness the local situation will not allow for a really useable / mindful GPS approach. Even if invented and approved by the responsible administration the minima will be so high that a diversion to a better equipped and situated airport is the better solution.

Finally the ongoing trial with augmented GPS - GBAS -EGNOS - WSAS have taken several years of time and still remain in progressive development. It might become the replacement of ILS in the future, but even then as mentioned before -the cost / performance ratio has to be okay.
Jo

[Aphrican]

Thank you both. I have always assumed the designing approaches and misses is a difficult thing to do with a lot of subtleties involved that people like me will miss so we should be very disciplined about following the plates without exception and certainly never "make up" our own.

I have also always assumed that there will be fields that will always be VMC approaches only due to obstacles on the approach or during the miss which would render an IAP irrelevant due to the MDA that would result. I have come to understand that the miss is more critical to the overall design than I had initially thought.

My question is a bit more general though. Are there a lot of GA fields which would be eligible for an IAP where the cost of ground based systems would make them cost inefficient relative to traffic volumes but where a satellite based system would make the establishment of a GPS IAP cost efficient?

If so, the reluctance to establish cost efficient GPS based approaches is a safety issue that also reduces the usefulness of GA for those who refuse to build "homemade" GPS approaches.

The "S" in EASA is for Safety after all.

[Aphrican]

How many of the EGNOS / WAAS approaches in Europe are at fields that have never had a ground system based IAP?

[deefer dog]

Well forgive me, but I thought that was self explanatory...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

Anyway, I'll play along so here are some of the reasons DIY GPS approaches, and any other DIY approaches, are not a good idea: 1 You end up killing yourself and other people Not necessarily if designed with lateral and vertical spacing from terrain and obstacles, and allowance for turning radii.

2 They provide no terrain clearance Why can a DIY approach NOT not make appropriate allowances?

3 Even if you clear terrain you have no idea if you will clear other obstacles such as TV and radio masts, power lines etc. Why would you have no idea? If you map the area beforehand, and fly the DIY procedure in VMC beforehand one could make allowances for obstacles, and monitor the vicinity in what is likely to be your home base.

4 It's not legal Indeed, and we all know this but, as stated previously people ARE going to make up their own approaches. This being the case, and provided terrain and obstacle clearances are taken into account, and the vicinity is mapped from time to time to check for new obstacles, what other considerations do legally designed approaches take into account?

[ATC Watcher]

How many of the EGNOS / WAAS approaches in Europe are at fields that have never had a ground system based IAP?

Not a single one as far as I know ( but waited to be corrected)
WAAS is only in the USA. So none again in Europe.

[chuks]

I dislike the term "DIY." It reads just like "bodging it," to me, probably because that is exactly what it is.

There are very many accident reports where a highly experienced crew, one that knew the area like the back of the hand, made a wrong assumption about where they were.

There's no substitute for flying a legal approach, one that has been surveyed, charted and approved, using the equipment legally required for that. That is not to say that we can always do that, of course, just that it's inarguably the safest way to make an approach. Once you depart from all those niggling legalities, well, you are now swimming rather than being on dry land. Then it's just a matter of not going in over your head, I guess.

[Aphrican]

F900 Ex. I did see that list before my previous post.

How many of them do not already have a ground based published approach? In other words, for how many of them is a satellite based the first published approach? To give some benefit of the doubt, how many of them are an upgrade from a ground based non-precision approach to a satellite based precision approach?

[Annex14]

F900 EX
Thanks for the link.
Don´t know wether or not others notice too, German airports count for most of 136 total - 84 app.proc. But only one a/d has the single LPV type. All the others are certified LNAV/VNAV - EGNOS and few - 10 - in addition to LPV.
The airports listed in other countries have all that LPV type. Of which it is said to be the more userfriendly version of an augmented GPS approach
Rethorical question: Can this - probable reluctance - be considered a more conservative approach to the implementation of these new types of app.procedures ? I thought with the installation of DFS as a private enterprise in German ATC some 22 years ago all the old threadmills became abandoned !!
Jo

[His dudeness]

thought with the installation of DFS as a private enterprise in German ATC some 22 years ago all the old threadmills became abandoned !!

Just because the guys aren`t working for BFS but DFS does not change a thing. The BAF (Bundesamt für Flugsicherung - the government agency for air traffic control) never changed and was not known for proper knowledge on the subjects on hand then and certainly has not changed much.

After decades of offloading civil servants that weren´t excelling in their fields onto air traffic control what would one expect ? My father was an ATCO for the BFS and his superior was an architect with no knowledge of ATC whatsover, nor had that guy ever worked the ridiculous shifts they had in BFS. Yet this bigmouth told the working ATCOs how to do their job...

Even when these dinosaurs are dying out (and probably are gone by now), DFS focusses on the big airports and flows, AKA cash-flows. If your tower is not DFS run, then DFS and BAFs coorperation seem to lack 'enthusiams', I´m told. And BAF consults with DFS when a procedure is to be established....

The design of airspace and flows speaks volumes. We - homebased at a small IFR airfield S of EDDF - are considered an annoyance and treated accordingly: descending 270-300 trackmiles before homebase is not uncommon and flying the last 80 miles below FL140 is the usual thing.

Last time I arrived from the southeast, this cost us 1000lbs of fuel plus whatever we have to spent for the ETS and I landed min div fuel + 20lbs.

DFS means Descend, Fly Slow.

[CaptainProp]

Deefer dog - Great, so you go on and fly your home made approaches. I wish you good luck with that, you'll need it.

To the rest of you, my advice is still - don't do it.

CP

[Annex14]

his Dudeness
A real pitty to read what you have experienced. Sometimes traffic situation may require a non optimum approach guidance but as I remember those dinosauers at least knew what the word service means and they also knew what "top of descend" is described as.
As for the early descends the old "crackies" had a very simple answer. "Cheat the system, file the wrong destination". And of course either refile or divert to your intended destination.(not too often or a "Cleverli" might imagine what´s going on)
By the way, had the crew of the crashed C 501 done the diversion in time they all would be alive. Becoming killed by ones actions mostly starts with minor flaws.
Jo

[CaptainProp]

That part was just a general comment and not directed at anyone in particular.

CP

[ATC Watcher]

FX 900x , thanks for your answer, I know the ESA web site too but the question was not the current list, it was :How many of the EGNOS / WAAS approaches in Europe are at fields that have never had a ground system based IAP?
And I maintain I think none. I think all of them had a good old IAP before. But I do not knew all and everyone of them before, hence my remark , but my guess is none or if any, it is 2 or 3 max.

As an aside I fully and whohearthly share CaptainProp advice.

[His dudeness]

Annex, I was more refering to the guys in what was then called 'le belle etage' than about the real ATCOs. They are for the most part top notch. But they have to work with the procedures / handover Levels etcetc they get by the planners. And they plan solely for the big flows which are in/out of EDDF and EDDM and to a lesser degree EDDS/EDDN. We always would collide with these, especially since the bigger airliner on longhaul often need ages to climb.

The example I gave starts in Czech airspace or Austrian depending on the route they will hand us over between FL260 and 300. So eeven if the DFS guys are good willing, one needed to rely on the others to coordinate which they often can´t do (workload).

[deefer dog]

Capt Prop,

I suggest you read my posts again! Reading seems not to be a strong point of yours.

I merely asked why in response to your lecture. You demonstrated that you didn't RTFQ, and then didn't read the response. Chill out dude!

[Annex14]

Hd
I appreciate after so many years to see the term "le belle Etage" reappear. I think I too belong to the group of people that have heard this sentence before and how an Architect in civil service thought to run ATC.!!
From what I remember from my years in "thin air control", routing and structure in south western German airspace was always a problem. May be a hint on "excessive" fuel consumption on lower FL may delay these unwanted early descends. Coordination on the ground should be not your concern, thats now a days only pushing some knobs, and workload is a too often misused phrase.
Jo

[ATC Watcher]

Ha ! the memories of " le bel etage" so we all 3 have been through the same "thin air control " place " ?

Indeed this corner ( DIK-LNO-NOR) was and still is the most complex piece of airspace in Europe because it involves the airspace of 4 different ANSPs and the USAF ( Spangdalhem ) and it is where the departures ( and arrivals) of 5 major airports collide ( EBBR, EDDL, EDDK, EDDF and to a lesser extend LFPG ) not to mention the dozen of smaller airports around them .

Without drawing strict procedures , it would not work. Another thing is that the traffic levels today are 4 times what they used to be when the " bel etage" was in operation.. and the levels of incidents/ Airprox in there is close to nil.
So the price to pay for some "Bicycles" to stay slow and low in this area .:E

[CaptainProp]

Deefer dog -

I read everything you wrote, every single bit of it. I kindly suggest you read your own post again ask yourself this question "Am I really making sense here?"

No lecturing from my side, just my opinion and you are free to agree/disagree.

But do you REALLY not agree?

There were several reasons as to why I did not reply more in detail to your comments and questions on my four points on why not to fly DIY approaches. One of them was that I suspected your comments were made either to wind people up, or if that was not the case, then because you do not know what you are talking about. Another reason was that I did not want to end up spending too much space here focusing on this part of the discussion.

You see, IF we assume that your comments, questions and suggestions on "DIY" approaches, with regards to terrain clearance, lateral and vertical, turn radius etc etc were all taken in to consideration, and I mean properly surveyed by professional surveyors, then it would not be the kind of DIY approach that we are talking about here anymore. That would make them surveyed approaches that could get approved and PUBLISHED.
What we are talking about here, and that I presume you were talking about in your response to my comments, are the ones where pilots fly around in VFR conditions and make their own fixes, altitude restrictions, turn points etc. and then they go and do the same in IFR conditions thinking this is "safe"!!!!

For anyone, with any type of flying license, to keep banging on about how DIY approaches can be flown in a “safe” way is just beyond my understanding.

CP

[Annex14]

CP
Fully agree, just another point hit!! Wanted to write that earlier but drifted off the case.

Meanwhile I have spend some time with the evaluation of the pictures 3 - 5 - 7 of Hd´s post # 46.
Clearly visuable in # 7 is the second and parallel running powerlines. None of these was obviously touched or cut.
On # 3 one has to look at the steel structure - how it is bent and into which direction. If one draws a line through the most rearward(eastern) and most foreward(western) main structure of the pole it becomes obvious they were not on a final heading. The main hit was on the most right (Sout - southeastern) structure and the impact happened in a direction that leeds toward final heading / centre line.
From this observations I take - assumption - that indeed they were following the Autobahn and - because well aware of the local situation - knew they had to turn right upon passing the exit "Klausen" on A 1/48 to position on final for Föhren.
What obviously never came to their mind is the little ridge with the power poles on top of it. Looks very different from a normal approach path and angle. Obviously in an avoiding manoevre because of the ridge they undershot the first powerline and collided than with the pole of the second.

Because of this theory I tend not to believe they used some kind of a home braided approach procedure, though this possibility cannot totally denied.
Jo

[Annex14]

A bit of an insight of the situation is achievable via Google Earth.
Enter "Föhren" into the search tab >> next amplify a bit and focus on the RWY 22 marking. Very well visuable is a displaced threshold. Apparently even the obstacle surface sloped 1 : 40 for VFR flights and runways is not clear of obstacles, therefore the displacement.
Than moving east beyond the village of "Hetzerath" near extended center line there is a foto linked into Google Earth named "Flugplatz Trier - Föhren; langer Endanflug".
I assume those of the community that have to deal with similar airfields more frequent immediately know that this is not a "honey".
Definately and for all recognizable a VFR / VMC field only.
Jo

[ATC Watcher]

Saw a detailed radar tracking/plotting of the last part of the flight. I think we can disregard the self-designed GPS theory. From what I saw, the aircraft looked for and then followed exactly the motorway , until one point where it left it to head roughly towards the airport, but in a wrong general direction ( off track by approx 20-30 degr) . The aircraft also made a few brief left/right turns while descending lower .

Looks more like trying to get visual contact with ground than following a GPS track . Icing is another possibility/factor as Spangdhalem nearby was reporting Freezing Fog at the time . But pure speculation. The guys of the BFU Investigation Team who have access to far more data may get the answer in the end.

[jetopa]

DFS means Descend, Fly Slow.

Never thought of it... But makes sense! :ok:

[JammedStab]

PIC Blamed for Fatal 2014 Citation Crash

http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Investigation%20Report/2014/Report_14_CX001_C501_Trier-Fohren.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

A January 2014 fatal crash of a Cessna Citation 501 was caused by the pilot-in-command (PIC) deciding to “conduct the VFR approach even though he was aware of the prevailing [IMC in fog] at the airport,” according to a newly released final report from the German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU). The PIC, copilot and the two passengers perished when the twinjet struck obstacles 2 nm short of Runway 22 at Germany’s Trier-Fohren Airport, which is a VFR-only field.

The U.S.-registered twinjet was being operated as a private flight by industrial company Theo Steil GmbH. The report also cited “insufficient situational awareness of the pilots” and “insufficient crew resource management.”

Possible pressure by the passengers to land at Trier was also investigated. The son of one of the passengers told investigators that his father had called him on the morning of the day of the accident and told him that the airplane would probably land at Frankfurt-Hahn Airport, where the forecast weather was VMC. He said it was “inconceivable” that his father would pressure the pilot to fly to Trier.

Investigators asked three pilots, who were working for the same company, about the personality of the PIC. He was described as “rather dominant and assured of himself.” Another pilot told investigators that on the weekend before the accident flight there had been a dispute between the PIC and the copilot. He said the PIC had voiced his intention to have the working relationship with the copilot terminated.

The PIC’s wife said that her husband had been “displeased with the work of the copilot and had assessed his skills and proficiency as low.” The pilots interviewed by the BFU described the copilot as “reticent, level-headed and a cooperative team player.”

[Zeffy]

B/CA magazine

An Improvised Approach And Wrong Setting Lead To Tragedy (http://aviationweek.com/bca/improvised-approach-and-wrong-setting-lead-tragedy)