Peach aviation airbus almost lands in sea

[jolihokistix]

Naha, Japan, Tuesday 29th April.

Airbus descends to 75 meters above water on approach to Naha airport ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/airbus-descends-to-75-meters-above-water-on-approach-to-naha-airport)

Quote:
"NAHA — A Peach Airlines airbus mistakenly descended to 75 meters above the water on its approach to Naha airport in Okinawa, airline and transport ministry officials said Tuesday.

Flight 252, carrying 59 passengers and crew, had left Ishigaki and was due to land at Naha at around noon on Monday, Fuji TV reported. According to aviation officials, aircraft usually begin their descent into Naha from a point about five kilometers away. However, the Peach Airbus A320-200 began its descent 10 kilometers away and was only 75 meters above the water and still 7 kilometers from the airport before the pilot could regain control.

Nobody on the plane was injured, airline officials said.

A Peach spokesperson told media that the pilot, who is from Argentina, misunderstood air traffic control instructions. Peach said the pilot has been suspended, pending an investigation, Fuji reported.

Aviation officials said planes have a ground proximity warning system that sounds an alarm if an aircraft is too close to the ground, water or a mountain. During the Peach plane’s descent, it sounded twice as the captain regained control, Fuji reported.

Japan Today"

[Lonewolf_50]

From the news report
before the pilot could regain control.
Oh dear, did HAL and David have a disagreement on final? :}
Or
Was that journalistic license? Did me mean "captain" when he wrote "pilot" there?
During the Peach plane’s descent, it sounded twice as the captain regained control, Fuji reported.
Or
Was the FO flying and the Captain took controls with the intention of staying dry? :ok:

75 meters ... about 240-250 feet ... low on final ... corrected the error before something bad happened. All dry. Good.

[Stone_cold]

Lonewolf_50

I would have to disagree with you that 4.5 nm final at 250 feet altitude is anywhere near "good " .

[Lonewolf_50]

I agree that it isn't "good" flying, and it would not pass any check ride.
What is "good" is that the error was corrected and nobody got wet.

"Better" would have been correcting it sooner.

"Best" would to have been on the approach and not off of it.

"Bad" would have been going for that swim.

Unclear the way I presented that.
corrected the error before something bad happened. All dry. Good.

The good part is that plane stayed dry, nobody good hurt.

[barit1]

Then there's the plane that got wet (http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR72-04.pdf), although the people didn't. :rolleyes:

[steelbranch]

What does it mean: 'before the pilot could regain control'?

As though it was out of control?

Another stupid, needless article.

[barit1]

The proper statement is "before the pilot could regain control of his senses!"

[West Coast]

Too many pedants here.

[Luke SkyToddler]

Pilot shortfall forces Peach Aviation to trim summer schedule | Airports & Routes content from ATWOnline (http://atwonline.com/airports-routes/pilot-shortfall-forces-peach-aviation-trim-summer-schedule)

I don't know a lot about Peach but I do know that a very large percentage of contract pilots can't be bothered with Japan in general, with the stupendously high cost of living, superior and rigid attitudes of local trainers, astronaut medicals, and the ridiculous up-to-a-year-of-training that's required for a current type rated pilot to join a Japanese airline.

Japan could be a really great place to work, if only the JCAB would drag itself out of the 19th century, and the pay was actually proportionate to the cost of living - but until then, no thanks. I fear this incident and this pilot shortage might only be the first visible symptoms of a wider problem affecting Japanese aviation :hmm:

[PURPLE PITOT]

Also, being an airbus, the pilot(s) can never actually gain control.

[Dan Winterland]

Also, being an airbus, the pilot(s) can never actually gain control.

What an @rse comment!


I guess this would be the RNAV 18 approach which has you trucking in from about 8nm finals at 1000ft to 3nm for the descent due to the requirement to be below the Kadena AFB approach path. It has quite a few threats!

[Fratemate]

Yep, it certainly has. Couple that with the most incompetent air traffic controllers in Japan and the place is seldom out of the incident books :roll eyes: Even at 0130, when the US Air Force are tucked up in bed, Naha insists on the procedure i.e. dragging it in at 1000' for half a lifetime.......but cannot land before 0130 due to noise abatement :ugh:

Having said all that, I can see no reason whatsoever why, having flown along at 1000', one would then begin descent at 6 miles. No amount of 'misunderstanding ATC' can cause you to think that the 3 times table has suddenly changed and it's a good idea to descend so soon. Crap airfield, crap ATC but an equally crap bit of flying and one that demonstrates a complete lack of SA on the part of the crew.

[Ice Man]

Purple Pitot, what an idiotic post. Clearly you know nothing about Airbus aircraft!:ugh:

[SKS777FLYER]

I too, know little to nothing about Airbus aircraft, but the remark hits my type of Bus sarcasm.
I know that Capt Sullenburger asked for just a little more flare from his airbus glider just prior to touchdown to slow his rate of descent slightly. I also know that the software within the all-knowing Airbus flight computer/confusers, prohibited Sully from extracting a few more bits of lift energy from his wing, to prevent possible loss of lift in the near future......so instead of allowing Sully's practiced, gifted hand flying skills to perform a more gentle touchdown,a little more damage occurred than probably Sully would have generated with his asked for but denied pitch request.
I know it was a happy ending anyhow:)

Sure lots of unhappy ending over the years however in those supposed-to-be-pilot-proof Airbuses involving overwhelmed confused pilots whose trusty steeds have acted up with some provocation at times for sure:{

[Lexif]

SKS777FLYER, so you know "next to nothing about Airbus aircraft", but you still need to get your uninformed BS out into the public? Are you trolling? Got anything to say about this incident?

[SKS777FLYER]

Nope, just chiming in with the humerous (to me) sarcastic comment about pilot control of Airbus aircraft earlier in the thread.

Some more BS...... The TRE on a re-acceptance or such flightmonkeying with I think alpha floor or some such with maybe a 320 Bus and ending up in the water some time ago....something to do with automatic near or full nose up trim while airspeed decays.

Remembering Chief pilot Captain Asseline (spelling) and the hosing he got when going outside normal flight envelope with another 310 or 320. Something about elevator authority not allowed by computer in his (self induced) situation.....and of course the drama of the flight recorder alterations/ switching involved in the aftermath.
Just everyday normal aviation BS that I dreamed up about the Bus.....ladmittedly fine aircraft with some seriously quirky quirks:8

[CL300]

Mistakes happens in flight decks , they did and they will. Only bean counters and uneducated people are thinking that the robots in seats 0A and 0B are bound to zero faults operation.
We, ( monkeys up front) have the best equipment of human race : an adaptative brain in case of immediate threat; even the most imbecile of human will to everything to survive in front of an unexpected danger. Therefore, when everything fails, our little reptilian brain just makes what is necessary to make us realize the situation; sometimes it is too late, sometimes it is a pass.

The "pilot" who ditched the plane in the river was the luckiest pilot of that period, all mistakes and bad judgment were made in 5 minutes, the worst CRM, the worst technical skills, but the best aircraft for ditching, and like what everybody remembers of a flight ( i.e. the landing), they made it.

As far as non precision approaches are concerned, some people here have to realize that , although GPS has a worldwide coverage, many countries do not have this type of approaches published, so it is not a WASS ILS like every time ; it is not even constant descent rates because of old PAN-OPS design criteria or even not PAN-OPS ( not mentioning TERPS).

As it was said above, they made a mistake, realized it, corrected it, and landed the plane..period. Now that an investigation needs to be made in order that this error will not happen again ( at least in this company) is the essence of commercial aviation nowadays. There is NO other industry that self improve itself so often, learning from it's own mistakes and on a routine basis.
For the Airbus FBW , talking about what was 20+ years ago and nowadays, is like making a comparison between an ATL crossing in a Constellation and a 777; but something lacks in the industry though : educated persons; and this shows in a blatant manner here on pprune; the moment of fame is very acute and the anonymity ( or sense of) is not helping; it is funny to see the behavior of the people IRL compared to the attitude on forums for example.

So next time you make a mistake ( would it be in the plane, your car, boat, street..whatever) and that you REALIZE it, just slip in the feet of the crew that did just what they are paid for, take the plane from A to B, and after B being reusable...

[mary meagher]

CL300, could you please clarify your post? You refer to an airbus that lands in a river and say

..."all mistakes and bad judgement were made in 5 minutes, the worst CRM, the worst technical skills, but the best aircraft for ditching....and they made it."

Unless you are referring to another river landing that hasn't come to my attention, perhaps the above statement may lead to misunderstanding and you may wish to rephrase it???????

[Groundloop]

I think you'll find that the incident referred to by SKS777FLYER is not the Hudson River ditching but the A320 lost over the Mediterranean on a test flight when the crew started doing things totally against the book.

[Lonewolf_50]

The "pilot" who ditched the plane in the river was the luckiest pilot of that period, all mistakes and bad judgment were made in 5 minutes, the worst CRM, the worst technical skills, but the best aircraft for ditching, and like what everybody remembers of a flight ( i.e. the landing), they made it. If I may pile on to mary m's band wagon ... huh? :confused:

[Wizofoz]

The "pilot" who ditched the plane in the river was the luckiest pilot of that period, all mistakes and bad judgment were made in 5 minutes, the worst CRM, the worst technical skills, but the best aircraft for ditching, and like what everybody remembers of a flight ( i.e. the landing), they made it.

Nominated as the worst, most moronic post in the history of PPRUNE.

Not only did Sullenberg do a stellar job on the day, he has gone on to be a brilliant ambassador for the profession.

You, sir, need to extract your cranium for a particularly smelly orifice.

[mary meagher]

Wizofoz, please don't be so rude. CL300 gives his birth year as 1920, so he just got things a bit confused....could you amend your post appropriately?

There are a lot of very senior pilots who make excellent contributions to the website. Me included, of course. But I trust you would never be rude to me...would you? what goes around....

[Capn Bloggs]

CL300 gives his birth year as 1920, so he just got things a bit confused....could you amend your post appropriately?

No, he wasn't confused, he is being a total DH. If that's what he thinks of Sully's effort, he deserves every criticism that comes his way. Maybe then he'll control his ravings.

[F-16GUY]

Capn Bloggs,

The only one being a DH here is you. Why don't you let CL300 answer mary meaghers question before launching your assault?

Could it be that he has mistaken the Hudson incident with the one in the Mediterranean Sea? Could it be that CL300 has not seen mary meaghers question yet, and therefore have not had the chance to clear up the confusion?

Not everybody on pprune is logged on 24/7 like you, and not everybody hold a posting average of more than 1 post a day since becoming a member.

PS. If your crew position is labeled either 0A or 0B, you claim of being a high speed aluminum tube operator is wrong. It’s only considered medium speed at best. ;)

Mozella,

You should be ashamed of your post. :=

If both of you took the time to listen, to an old pilot like CL300, you might learn a thing or two about aviation. At an age of 94, his bag of experience is most likely full of more goodies than the two of you can pile up together.

[WingNut60]

I wouldn't be 100% sure, but I suspect the old fella was talking about the "Garuda in the river" trick

If I remember correctly that aircraft actually ended up on a shallow submerged sand bar

[DaveReidUK]

I wouldn't be 100% sure, but I suspect the old fella was talking about the "Garuda in the river" trickI doubt he's going to come back and tell us either way, but the reference to

all mistakes and bad judgment were made in 5 minutescertainly doesn't sound like the Garuda event.

Though of course it doesn't bear any resemblance to the US1549 investigation findings either ...

[gerago]

Perhaps CL300 was a consummate A330 pilot who knew instinctively to hit the " Ditching Switch " once taking a drink in the Hudson was inevitable. The ditching switch thingy is a thing drilled into guys who takes off or lands across water so much so it becomes a recall action...this had been done since the A330 came into operation at our backwaters around Borneo in the mid 90s.

Sully did a super great job...but some drills were also missed. Can't go around singing praises, burping butterflies and farting rainbows without having a balanced look at that heroic episode.

[jolihokistix]

Recent update, erasure of cockpit conversation, etc.
Cockpit conversation from Peach jet that descended too soon erased ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion (http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/cockpit-conversation-from-peach-jet-that-descended-too-soon-erased)

Quote: "The National Transportation Safety Board says that the recording of the conversation between the pilot and co-pilot aboard a Peach Airlines jet during the moments before it descended to a dangerously low altitude while on approach to Naha airport has been erased and overwritten.

The airbus A320-200, carrying 59 passengers and crew, mistakenly descended to 75 meters above the water on its approach to Naha airport in Okinawa on April 28. According to aviation officials, aircraft usually begin their descent into Naha from a point about five kilometers away. However, the Peach plane began its descent 10 kilometers away and was only 75 meters above the water and still 7 kilometers from the airport before the pilot could regain control.

Aviation officials said planes have a ground proximity warning system that sounds an alarm if an aircraft is too close to the ground, water or a mountain. During the Peach plane’s descent, it sounded twice as the captain regained control.

Nobody on the plane was injured. A Peach spokesperson said afterwards that the pilot, who is from Argentina, had misunderstood air traffic control instructions. Peach said the pilot has been suspended, pending an investigation.

After the incident, the National Transportation Safety Board conducted an investigation into the matter. According to the safety board, the conversations between the pilot and co-pilot as they tried to connect with Naha airport officials and Kansai International Airport tower personnel had been altered and entirely erased by Peach Airline officials, TBS reported.

However, safety board officials discovered that the conversations had been recorded at the radio tower at Naha airport and still remained intact. The board is analyzing the sound files and investigating the state of affairs aboard the Peach Airlines flight leading up to the accident."

[SKS777FLYER]

The board is analyzing the sound files and investigating the state of affairsaboard the Peach Airlines flight leading up to the accident."

Interesting choice of phrase:}

[jolihokistix]

Yes, and surely incident is a better word than accident. Lost in translation?

[nathanroberts2K8]

Where is the baro settings on an the airbus? Could he have failed to input the correct decision hight?

[Nigd3]

Nathan

DH shouldn't be coming into it at 10 miles out.

[MD83FO]

TAWS terrain clearance floor envelope "to low terrain" warning comes up at 400 AGL that must have been tho first of those two warnings they mention.

[SKS777FLYER]

Jolihok... "Lost in translation" .....
When I wrote that " state of affairs" was an interesting (to me) choice of phrase in the report what I sarcastically and poorly related to was a long ago 737 crash on approach to Colorado Springs which crashed killing all aboard due to a hard over rudder. I remember B.S. rumors being tossed about by powers that be, of some sort of bad ending to a romantic relationship between the Capt and Copilot of the 737 might have something to do with the crash. The general rule of thumb for aviation accidents...... It is nearly always "pilot error", rarely aircraft system/design fault.

[RAT 5]

I'm curious how a GPS MAP display a/c can be allowed to arrive in this situation. The MAP would show the a/c to be 10nm short of the runway; the RA would have alerted the crew that they were close to the ground/sea. SA seems to have been AWOL: by 2 qualified pilots. Nighttime/IMC has no bearing on interpreting the displays.

[Algol]

Yep, it certainly has. Couple that with the most incompetent air traffic controllers in Japan and the place is seldom out of the incident books :roll eyes: Even at 0130, when the US Air Force are tucked up in bed, Naha insists on the procedure i.e. dragging it in at 1000' for half a lifetime.......but cannot land before 0130 due to noise abatement

Well said Fratermate.

For those who have never been into Naha, some info.

Yes there is an RNAV Approach published for RWY18. But many operators (including mine) DO NOT allow RNAV approaches.
So the alternative is a VOR approach. And since many operators (including mine) DO NOT allow Managed VNAV on an NPA - you're on your own there.
No big deal, eh?
Well, maybe, but the published approach has a MANDATORY 1,000ft altitude at 8DME from the VOR. So you are going to fly 5 miles (roughly) in FULL LANDING CONFIG.
Yes, you must, because you are required to be stabilised by 1,000ft in most airlines, right?
Not only that - but also - ATC in Naha will more than likely instruct you to descend to 1,000ft way earlier. I've had it on downwind and base leg.
So this approach is anything but normal, or regular. Yes, they descended too early. But is this not an accident waiting to happen?
Dragging a modern jet along at 1,000ft agl for a dozen or more miles is a STUPID idea to begin with.
Blame those who designed the approach (US Military?).

[BOAC]

Yes, you must, because you are required to be stabilised by 1,000ft in most airlines, right? - well most (sensible) FQA administrators I have dealt with would accept you being gear up/clean if the situation was explained to them. Why not raise a report to company OR fly at 1010'?

A little like crossing the 300' headland north-east of LPMA at 1300'/250kts positioning for downwind. Yes, it triggers a 'too low gear' but is quite safe, briefed - and explained. Alternative is to set 1400' if you don't want the phone call.:)

[Algol]

How?
My Airbus alt selector allows 100' increments.
So ATC clear you to 1,000ft, but you'd fly 1,100ft?
Cheating, isn't it.
And if there's an 'event' of any kind - guess who's going to get a whipping.:ugh:

[Algol]

Besides that - we obviously have very different viewpoints on how aviation works (or SHOULD work).
I don't see it as my responsibility to 'make things work' that are of crap design.
I don't see it as my responsibility to stretch my neck out on the block to make up for the ineptitude of others.
This is a systemic problem. Not a pilot problem. They should bloody well fix it.
In the Court of Enquiry they may recommend the intercept altitude be increased to 2,000ft - but they won't be putting the blame on ME for breaking ATC instructions, or ignoring the published altitudes.

[BOAC]

.........andWhy not raise a report to company? Done that?

[e1229]

@Algol

If I understood your post correctly, the approach was initiated too early anyway, but sometimes the ATC asks you to do exactly that? Won't say 10nm, but perhaps at 7 or 8 nm ?

[Algol]

[BOAC]........and
Quote:
Why not raise a report to company
? Done that?

BOAC, Do you work in Asia? With a name like that I doubt it. In which case, you probably aren't familiar with the Asian attitude to 'advice' or even 'concerns' expressed by foreign devils. And even if they took heed of such concerns, the chances of them pursuing them with Naha, or even altering their own SOPs because of you - minimal to zero.
Much easier to hang blame on flight crews.


If I understood your post correctly, the approach was initiated too early anyway, but sometimes the ATC asks you to do exactly that? Won't say 10nm, but perhaps at 7 or 8 nm ?

I don't understand your post.
The plate says 1'000ft at 8DME - MANDATORY.
What part of MANDATORY is not understood by you two?

[BOAC]

No, thank the Lord.

If no-one will 'listen' then I suggest you just fly those extra 5 in landing config and then there will be no blame to hang, will there? Simples.

[Algol]

Now you get it.
And we are back to the original point - that this is not 'simples' or 'normal', and those who are rushing to judge that crew are ignoring the inherent traps in this stupidly designed procedure. It is plainly dumb and dangerous.

[Algol]

Oh, and by the way, Naha also has a requirement for departing aircraft to LEVEL OFF at 1'000ft on departure!
Can you imagine? A Heavy jet going from take-off thrust to level flight in about, what, 20 seconds? Altitude busts and flap over speeds are commonplace.
Loads of low level military traffic around too. Fast jets and choppers.
Watch out at this place.

[Piltdown Man]

It's not that I didn't believe Algol, but I didn't think any airport could ever have such ridiculous constraints. But it does! Only the ILS 36 makes sense. Having such a stupid (dangerous) set of low level altitude constraints means that this place has set a trap for crews operating into and out if this airfield. A miss-set altimeter would quickly generate brown underpants. I also reckon unstable approaches and altitude busts are a daily occurrence. In my opinion, at airports like this SOPs do not apply because they can only be applied at standard airports.

[HornetDrvr]

Well, just to set the record straight as I was the aircraft right behind him that day, we were both flying PAR approaches to RWY 18 - that's what he managed to screw up. And as far as the low altitude level off when you depart RWY 36, it's not a big deal, you simply use a low thrust setting (assumed, derate, etc.) and hand fly the aircraft if you aren't too trusting of the automatics.

[unworry]

@HornetDrvr

Thanks for correcting the record. So the PAR approach provides glidescope and coarse guidance -- basically an ILS, only with the controller giving you guidance instead of the NAV?

Do you receive on glidepath/above/below calls and instructions to descend at a specific VSI or provided step down fixes?

[ATC Watcher]

unworry :So the PAR approach provides glidescope and coarse guidance -- basically an ILS, only with the controller giving you guidance instead of the NAV?
Well, it is a bit more complicated than that .
Radar Vectors and vertical guidance are given by the controller until DH ( or DA) then it is advisory info only below that,
But above DH the procedure says : If an aircraft is observed by the controller to proceed outside of specified safety zone limits in azimuth and/or elevation and continue to operate outside these prescribed limits, the pilot will be instructed to execute a missed approach or to fly a specified course unless the pilot has the runway environment (runway, approach lights, etc.) in sight

So It would be interesting to hear the R/T on that one. Not on you tube yet ?

[peekay4]

In my company a loss off control is defined as a deviation from the intended flight path.
The phrase "intended flight path" isn't what you think it means. A better phrase might be, "a deviation from the commanded flight path".

In this case the captain "intended" to descend... (just from the wrong place). He commanded a 900 fpm descent by programming the AP and pulling the VS knob. The aircraft descended perfectly as commanded. There was never a deviation from the flight path the pilot set, so there was never a loss of control.

Had the aircraft impacted the terrain, we would have classified this as CFIT, not LOC-I.

Lots of holes in the swiss cheese on this incident, including the PF not verbalizing what he was doing, the PM being distracted by the continuous PAR instructions, and a trainee controller being complacent.

[slast]

Official report issued July 28 2016

http://www.mlit.go.jp/jtsb/eng-air_report/JA802P.pdf

[pfvspnf]

I've flown in here a few times , yes it's a gotcha if you aren't careful but a lot better with the RNAV on 18, 1000ft on restriction doesn't always apply but if it does, automation as early as possible and any gpws warnings are briefed.

What I didn't like was holding at 1000ft, very alarming for the passengers and cabin crew

[armchairpilot94116]

Sitting "deaf , dumb and blind " to any dangers in the back, it was AWESOME flying into Naha in that Japan Asia Airways DC10-40 some years back. So long and so low to the water, you could almost reach out and shake hands with people in the boats. It was a highlight of my trip to Okinawa.


Question: Why not have the civilian flights stay high then drop down just in time while keeping the military jets low ? Would that be more dangerous for both?

[ATC Watcher]

Why not have the civilian flights stay high then drop down just in time while keeping the military jets low ? Would that be more dangerous for both?

Not a question of " more dangerous" but common sense , mil jets are faster on APP and drop altitude very fast , so keeping them above just make sense and easier to handle ATC wise.