Dash8 crash in NZ

[corblimey]

I've done a search and can't find anything regarding the Dash8 that crashed a few years ago a few miles short of its destination.
It was a bad wx accident, and the CRM was a bit lacking.
Does anyone know where I could find more info.

Thanks

[herman]

www.taic.org.nz

aviation

9 june 1995

[BattleSTARGalatica]

Bought the book on the incident a couple of years ago at the 'Whare' House. Strangely enough I think it was called "Dash 8 Down" Based on personal accounts of survivors etc.

I'll go have a look for it.

[nike]

It was a bad wx accident, and the CRM was a bit lacking.
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:



BSG: was the book any good?

[Anti Skid On]

The report can be found here (http://www.taic.org.nz/aviation/95-011.pdf) all 3.5mb of it!

[corblimey]

Thanks for the help guys. Very interesting reading.

[troppo]

book on sale for $5 at whitcoulls at the moment (apparently)

[stillalbatross]

Aside from being IMC at the time, I don't think you could say the weather was a factor. Though it made the rescue difficult. Book was ok, nothing ground breaking but a good sunday afternoon read.

[Thump & Go]

Wasn't there a fairly stiff Palmy breeze blowing at the time?

Poo Troppo, I paid $29.95 last year for that book!:(

[nike]

again, not sure how afairly stiff Palmy breeze blowing caused this aircraft to crash.

I certainly would not call this a bad wx accident

[Thump & Go]

Not suggesting thata fairly stiff Palmy breeze
caused this A/C to crash, merely making an observation. Some may suggest this, coupled with an arguably defective VOR 25 approach(windshear,turbulence,downdraughts-hilly terrain) may have contributed to the dash spudding in:(
I don't think there's any question that this is NOT a bad wx accident-just a classic human factors one.

ps: book was pretty good and reasonably balanced considering the polarisation of opinion on the subject.

[corblimey]

Sorry to be mis-understood, guys.

I didn't mean to imply that wx was a factor, I just remember from many years ago when I first heard about this unfortuneate accident that they were doing an instrument approach.

The main reason I wanted to find more about this accident is the human factors side of things ..CRM or lack of it.

I fly RPT turbine, both Single pilot and Multi crew, and my thoughts are that single pilot in some ways is safer than multi crew, unless the multi crewing (CRM) is taught in a professional manner.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Did the crew live??

:sad:

[reynoldsno1]

an arguably defective VOR 25 approach
Where does that appear in the report?

[corblimey]

1 crew member died:sad:

[Yankee_Doodle_Floppy_Disk]

This rather interesting NOTAM was issued a while ago:

A E R O D R O M E I N F O R M A T I O N

PALMERSTON NORTH (NZPM)

B1607/03 FROM: 03/05/25 21:18 TO: 03/08/26 21:00
RWY 25 VOR/DME APCH. IN STRONG WIND COND ACFT MAY ENCOUNTER
SEV
TURB, DOWNDRAUGHTS AND LEE WAVES DRG THIS APCH AND DIFFICULTY
MAY BE EXPERIENCED MAINTAINING THE APCH PROFILE. INFO ON ACTUAL
WIND CONDITIONS IN THE APCH AREA IS NOT ROUTINELY AVBL.
IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT WINDS IN THE APCH AREA MAY BE 2 TO 3
TIMES STRONGER THAN THE NZPM WIND. PILOTS ARE REMINDED OF THE
NEED TO OBTAIN CURRENT MET INFO PRIOR TO COMMENCING FLIGHT.

[Thump & Go]

Reynoldsno-one, did someone say an arguably defective VOR 25 approach appeared in the report?
Arguably -as in some pundits believe it was a factor in this accident-one link in a classic error chain HF incident.
I concede Airways dont consider their approach to be in error,some others do.
Yank, saw the NOTAM when it was issued and raised an eyebrow:confused: clearly someone thought the approach warranted extra care? I know of one GA company that doesnt permit their pilots to do the 25 app.,so perhaps the reputation is growing.

I've never done the approach myself so have no educated opinion on the subject

[CT7]

The PMR 25 approach itself is not that bad.

Yes it can get bumpy in windy conditions, as it does anywhere, esp Wellington!

It does however require a bit more crew coordination and/or planning than say the straight-in 07 approach.

OH/PM ATC are quite good regarding this approach and you can normally get the 07 circ 25. Obviously with the inherent problems associated with a rather large tailwind and the circling bit. And depending on departing tfc.

If you use PM then do the approach on a nice day to get the feel of it. Then it won't be the big boogy-man on a not-so-nice day.

:ok:

Pass-A-Frozo - The F/A was one of the 5 casualties.

[nike]

I have not read the book, nor do I assume to know the reasons for the crash. Based on informal comments/rumours I would believe this was a largely HF/CRM senario and would tend to lean away from the wx being a major factor.

That being said, I would like to open a discussion on the pro's/con's of taking any non-normal situation onto an approach, or continuing the approach if said situations arise after the approach has been commenced.

Your thoughts/ideas and reasons appreciated.

[CT7]

Simple DON'T

The last thing you need is something distracting you near the ground and/or in a high workload environment.

Commence a missed apph, ask ATC for help, find a nice quiet hold and sort it out.

Fix the problem; find a better airfield to land at; or one with better nav aids (like an ILS).

If there's two of you, so much the better!

[stillalbatross]

There was nothing defective about the aids or the approach at the time. The minimum altitude steps down the approach were as per ICAO regulations for terrain clearance. They got distracted, got low and hit the hill. And now there is a notam out saying that if it is windy at the airfield then it will be more windy along the ranges at altitude? What next? The approach is no more difficult than any other VOR Arc anywhere and the buck has to stop somewhere. Next they'll suggest it is carried out day VMC only. Maybe in NZ they should ban non-precision approaches since we can't fly them.

[Eurocap]

The crew member who died was the cabin attendant who was out of her seat at the time of impact.

I cant remember how many passengers died; I think it was 4, one who died of burns later who had successfully evacuated but then went back into the aircraft to rescue others and was caught in a flash fire; a real hero.

CRM was lacking , but there was more to that accident than just CRM, as there usually is in most accidents.

Both flight crew members were low time in their respective positions.

The weather, for those Australians that don't understand the terrain problems in NZ, was also a major factor in causing the aircraft to descend below the approach profile.
The aircraft started the approach on the leeward side of a range of hills and had to cross the range to the missed approach point.
This approach was only used when westerlies winds were blowing and when strong as they were that day caused a lot of wind shear and turbulence on the leeward side.

The most important fact was that the aircraft had a landing gear malfunction which the crew were trying to deal with and the number one rule with a malfunction "fly the aircraft" was forgotten as the FP was trying to help the NFP with the checklist for this malfunction and not concentrating on the approach.

Why the Capt did not carry out a missed approach and then sort out the problem I guess only he will know.

Always bear in mind that incidents/accidents always have multiple causal factors.

[jungly]

Thank goodness eurocap mentioned it. Of course weather was a causal factor! IF they werent IMC they wouldn't have descended 1500ft below the step-alt and hit the damn ground!

The FA was standing up as she was asked to visually check the the RH gear was not down.

Re the VOR25 and wind/turb.......Ive flown that approach 50+ times in all sorts of weather. Quite honestly, even in a strong westerly, the only bumps and thumps have been during the Arc (when you are in the lee of the hills). The IAF is at 14DME (from memory - its been a few years) and that too is in the lee. The crash site is mid-way across the hill.

(Nice NOTAM though!....could we be getting into the realms of litigation. You have to admit that it is amusing that there is a NOTAM reminding us to check the weather.... I would suspect that a fool who doesnt check the weather is even less likely to check the NOTAMS.!!! ;) )

[stillalbatross]

Garbage

Of course weather was a causal factor! IF they werent IMC they wouldn't have descended 1500ft below the step-alt and hit the damn ground!

So if they were VMC, they would have thrown the step alts out the window like you always do and they would have been looking out the window and missed the hills. They both had their head in the books, not out the window and not at the altimeter. You don't normally need to be VMC to fly an approach, and it wasn't a huge downdraft that drove the aircraft onto the hills. Apply weather to this as a casual factor, and you may as well apply it to every accident out there. What about the Queen Air prang, it was VMC on a gin clear day so they had too many paddocks to choose from................