Runway excursion at Lord Howe Island

[Squawk7700]

I heard on the bush telegraph that a Kingair allegedly had an excursion at Lord Howe Island within the last week, causing runway fodder and damage to some ground equipment. Speaking with a passenger, word is that they literally missed the runway.

Can’t see this on the ATSB website. Would that be enough of an incident to trigger an ATSB entry?

[mates rates]

It’s not a place for inexperienced pilots,it will be interesting to see the details if the report is true!!

[Desert Flower]

I heard on the bush telegraph that a Kingair allegedly had an excursion at Lord Howe Island within the last week, causing runway fodder and damage to some ground equipment. Speaking with a passenger, word is that they literally missed the runway.

Can’t see this on the ATSB website. Would that be enough of an incident to trigger an ATSB entry?

Lord, how?!!!!!!

DF.

[XP-72]

G'day,
just wondering about those of you who use FS2020.
There is an add on for LHI scenery that is great(payware) & it also has a 'Landing Challenge".
THe LHI landing challenge is what I always start my sim session with - in RL I have landed there in an AC690B & a Navajho - both times were very interesting to say the least for somebody who was not ever checked into LHI - so left to learn it the hard way.
Obviously the 690 was the easier of the 2 to do an acceptable landing - never liked the Navajho in a x/wind - always seeemed to run out of aileron control troo soon.
In my retirement I am realy enjoying FS2020 - no bloody CASA - no annoying ATC - go anywhere & do anything - all great fun. The visuals are stunning but gotta have a good computer to really make it sing.

[Gunner747400]

Well the report is out. Some interesting quotes in there too.

Touchdown off the runway surface involving Raytheon B200, VH-MVP, at Lord Howe Island Airport, NSW, on 18 February 2022 | ATSB (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2022/aair/ao-2022-007)

[Mach E Avelli]

genuine question, NOT criticism of the pilot...
Unless there was a considerable time saving (e.g. POM from the south) why would an operator or pilot prefer a DME arrival over a RNP Runway approach?
Lack of approved equipment? Pilot not approved? Company 'culture'?

[PiperCameron]

It’s not a place for inexperienced pilots,it will be interesting to see the details if the report is true!!

Certainly wasn't an inexperienced pilot.

It's easy for us (and the ATSB) to arm-chair quarter-back these things, but it does appear he was a little reluctant to go around..

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Certainly wasn't an inexperienced pilot.

It's easy for us (and the ATSB) to arm-chair quarter-back these things, but it does appear he was a little reluctant to go around..

how dare the ATSB arm-chair quarterback these things - that’s my job….

[Squawk7700]

I heard that the islands council (operator) were VERY unhappy about this. There last thing they would ever want there is a plane crash of any kind.

[PiperCameron]

I heard that the islands council (operator) were VERY unhappy about this. There last thing they would ever want there is a plane crash of any kind.

Are you kidding?? LHI is famous for it's plane crash history. It's one of the best things about the place.

I heard that's why they put a mountain either side of the runway to induce plenty of turbulence on final - plus zero over-run area so errant pilots would end up in the ocean... Makes for awesome viewing from the terminal! :}

[Capt Fathom]

I heard that the islands council (operator) were VERY unhappy about this.

You seem to hear so much Squawky.
Sadly the ‘islands council’ have little control over what happens. Thankfully they are not unhappy that often!
I’m sure the pilot was also VERY unhappy about this, as the usual intent is to stick to the runway! Stuff happens!

[Squawk7700]

You seem to hear so much Squawky.
Sadly the ‘islands council’ have little control over what happens. Thankfully they are not unhappy that often!
I’m sure the pilot was also VERY unhappy about this, as the usual intent is to stick to the runway! Stuff happens!

The islands’ people have the ability to decide who lands there… I’d say they have LOT of input into this!

[Capt Fathom]

The islands’ people have the ability to decide who lands there… I’d say they have LOT of input into this!

Yes! But they have no control over where they actually land! :E

[Lookleft]

It's easy for us (and the ATSB) to arm-chair quarter-back these things, but it does appear he was a little reluctant to go around..

You might want to have another read of the report if your only conclusion was the pilot was reluctant to go-around. The fact that the ATSB has issued two recommendations and does not accept EAL's response to it is an indication of their elevated concern that there will be a fatal accident at LHI. The decision to not go-around was the safer option in a situation where the safety margins had already been reduced to a point that it had become a game of Russian Roulette. The report goes as close to suggesting that the pilot and the company have not been complete with the truth as their not apportioning blame policy allows. In this instance the ATSB has done what they are required to do. Investigate a serious incident to ascertain the facts and then issue recommendations to avoid a similar circumstance resulting in a fatal accident in the future. Hopefully other operators and pilots will learn from the incident as well.
I get that LHI, like Norfolk, is a place where the niceties of plenty of alternates with diversion fuel to go there are not available. However circling approaches in non-circling areas and marginal to non-existent VMC is going to kill you eventually, regardless of its location. Let that be your lesson from this report.

[brokenagain]

The report goes as close to suggesting that the pilot and the company have not been complete with the truth as they’re not apportioning blame policy allows.

Some of the comments on the ATSB FB page from people who appear to be close to this company seem to support this assertion.

[PiperCameron]

You might want to have another read of the report if your only conclusion was the pilot was reluctant to go-around. The fact that the ATSB has issued two recommendations and does not accept EAL's response to it is an indication of their elevated concern that there will be a fatal accident at LHI. The decision to not go-around was the safer option in a situation where the safety margins had already been reduced to a point that it had become a game of Russian Roulette.

You might want to read up on LHI's accident history. There have been a few accidents at LHI over the decades - but none that I'm yet aware of caused by sheer stupidity. It's drummed into every rookie flight student from First Solo onwards that you should ALWAYS be prepared to go around. ..and if you're not prepared to go around at least once and still have enough fuel on board to divert, you have no business flying into LHI. This is not unique: there are plenty of other challenging airports around Oz that are not much different (YHOT in winter is one that springs to mind).

That ATSB is calling out EAL's culture is a good indication that, as a company, they're an accident waiting to happen. Hopefully they'll take this seriously and do something about it.

[Styx75]

Seems to me the operator was trying to impress on the ATSB that the safest option, in this instance; was to land slightly off the runway rather then trying to conduct a go around in the high wind low vis situation. Outcome kinda of speaks for itself: nil aircraft damage, nil injuries, 1 busted runway light.

If the aircraft had gone around, while suffering wind induced controllability issues with those mountains either side in low vis, could've been catastrophic. I'm sure the LHI board would find that a lot less palatable.

[Lookleft]

around at least once and still have enough fuel on board to divert, you have no business flying into LHI.

Clearly we are in the presence of an aviation legend. So you have got yourself boxed in low to the ground and can see jack yet you are going to attempt a go-around and try and outclimb hills you can't see?

Then you think that YHOT is equivalent? YHOT is on top of a hill, not surrounded by them. YHOT is also only a stones throw fuel wise to many other airports. Seeing as you bought YHOT up though it is a prime example of what can go wrong when dodgy visual approaches are used to somehow outsmart the system.

[Checkboard]

genuine question, NOT criticism of the pilot...
Unless there was a considerable time saving (e.g. POM from the south) why would an operator or pilot prefer a DME arrival over a RNP Runway approach?
Lack of approved equipment? Pilot not approved? Company 'culture'?

The DME arrival allows you to dive down to 1700' at 15DME, so you'll get to 1700' at about 9 miles from the threshold. If you can find a gap, with the cloud reported broken at 1100', overcast 1900' then you can call yourself visual and proceed VFR. That means you can descend visually to 500' AGL - if you have the VFR minima of 5km visability and remain clear of cloud.

If you fly the RNP approach as a straight in, then you fly the constant 3º slope down to an 800' minima (at about 2.5 miles to the threshold), and once visual you only need 4.5 km vis on this approach. The DME is easier to fly (less lateral tracking) than the RNP (depending I suppose on how sophisticated your autopilot is).

Given the cloud, it looks like the pilot thought that option A would be the more assured way of getting visual ... the problem was that it very much looks like he didn't maintain VMC.

The pilot stated that visual contact with the runway was maintained throughout the final approach but, due to crosswind from the left and as the aircraft tracked into the lee of the mountain to the north of the runway, some realignment with the runway was necessary.
He decended to 400' AGL at 3.3 DME when a normal approach path would have him at about 1000' AGL. He was 125m right of centreline at 1.5 miles to go, increasing to 140m right of centreline at 400m to go, and talking about looking at islands for height and tracking information - that's not someone visual with a runway (and if he's not visual with the runway then he doesn't have the required 5km for a visual, not even the 4.5km if he had conducted the instrument approach) and he should have climbed to join the missed approach procedure once he lost VMC.

Regardless, he pushed on with the (now illegal) approach and once he finally saw the runway just 400m away slammed in a left/right turn combination that had him overshoot and land on the grass - then said that he began a go-around, but cancelled that when he felt the touch-down (also a bad decision - once you begin a go around, you commit to it.).

[Capt Fathom]

There have been a few fatal accidents at LHI over the decades

Has there? I couldn’t find any references, (apart from the Catalina in 1948, with the wreckage still on the hill), but maybe looking in the wrong place.

[Checkboard]

If the aircraft had gone around, while suffering wind induced controllability issues
The only wind mentioned in the report was 020º at 6 kt. You can barely fly a kite in that.

So you have got yourself boxed in low to the ground and can see jack yet you are going to attempt a go-around and try and outclimb hills you can't see?
Well, that's what compasses are for, eh? And I think that the point is, if you can't see the hills and they are close enough to be an issue, then you don't have the visibility to be there in the first place.

[mmm345]

You have to carry an alternate for remote islands under the new regulations.

The suggesstion that there is a situation where a go around is more unsafe than actually landing in that conditions are telling. Your in less than VMC, at the bottom of a DME Arrival, in a no circling area in less than VMC and cant see obstacles in the circiling area when below the circling MDA but apparantly that much safer than flying the published MAP which provides obstacle clearence or just doing the RNP.

[PiperCameron]

Has there? I couldn’t find any references, (apart from the Catalina in 1948, with the wreckage still on the hill), but maybe looking in the wrong place.

My bad. Ignore the 'fatal' bit and you'll find there are a few one-way flights to the island, mostly before the airport was built.

This one was interesting: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1990/aair/aair199001981 In short: "It was determined that the Captain had made some mis-calculations in his pre-flight assessments."

The ERSA entry lists quite a few obstacles on the ground for an errant pilot to hit. It certainly isn't a pace to mess around:
Because of the topography of Lord Howe certain wind COND may generate SEV TURB in the APCH to the RWY and preclude a safe LDG. The only safe course of action in such cases is to divert to a mainland AD. The Bureau of Meteorology is not able to FCST SEV TURB in all cases. The final responsibility for the safe conduct of a flight to Lord Howe rests with the pilot in command who must consider the possibility of a diversion to a mainland AD should TURB preclude a safe APCH.

[Lookleft]

Doing the RNP would have been the better option as at least that gives you a published missed approach. A DME arrival gives you a published missed approach if you are not visual at the end of it. When you a circling the only missed approach guidance is to turn towards the runway and do the best you can to avoid the terrain. Like I said this bloke had put himself into a game of Russian roulette. His choice basically was a forced landing somewhere in the runway environment or a high chance of CFIT. On this occasion he and his passengers walked off the aircraft, the bullet was not in the chamber. Next time not so lucky

[Squawk7700]

We should be celebrating the fact that the report only took 15 months to come out :-)