Merged: Air New Zealand A320 crashes into the Mediterranean
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: BN196R @ 20nm
Age: 59
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely flabbergasted!
So sorry to hear that 5 of our NZ brothers passed away. As much as we try to give each other a hard time on the sporting field, etc - this has to be the hardest of times.
My condolences to the families and to the NZ aviation community
So sorry to hear that 5 of our NZ brothers passed away. As much as we try to give each other a hard time on the sporting field, etc - this has to be the hardest of times.
My condolences to the families and to the NZ aviation community
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Not NZ anymore sadly!
Age: 62
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting "reports / eye-witness" off net.
An Air New Zealand Airbus A320-200, registration D-AXLA (ZK-OJL), test flight GXL888T from Perpignan to Perpignan (France) for a touch and go and then onward to Frankfurt/Main (Germany) with 7 people (2 Germans, 5 New Zealanders) on board, crashed into the Mediterranean Sea off the coast near Perpignan (France) at 16:46 local (15:46Z), approximately 7km (3.8nm) before Saint-Cyprien.
The airplane was heard on Perpignan's approach frequency at approximately 16:45 local (15:45Z), when the crew established contact with approach descending through flight level 120 on a heading of 090. The approach controller cleared the airplane for the LANET ILS 33 approach (see chart below) and a descent to 4000 feet. That instruction was acknowledged, which was the last transmission from the aircraft.
The pilot of a Piper yelled on the radio shortly thereafter, that an airplane had crashed. The pilot started to circle the crash site at radial 110 PPG VOR DME 10.5 until first rescue forces, a helicopter immediately dispatched from Perpignan, arrived on scene. The helicopter crew subsequently reported a white spot on the sea via radio, no aircraft visible, but debris spread out one kilometer (~0.6nm).
Coast Guard patrol boats as well as a helicopter by the Navy found floating parts, the airplane itsself has been located on a sandy ground at a depth of 35 meters. The search and rescue operations were suspended at around 22:30Z Nov 27th and resumed at daybreak Nov 28th.
The French Maritime Prefecture Mediterranean leading the search and rescue mission reported Nov 28th, that two bodies were recovered, five occupants are still missing. The chances for survivors are virtually nil. A navy ship arrived Nov 28th at around 7am local (06:00Z) tasked to search the black boxes and conduct investigation of the wreckage.
The French Secretary of State for Transport said, that the airplane was on an acceptance flight and was expected to return to Perpignan for a touch and go before continuing directly to Frankfurt/Main (Germany), where the airplane would have been officially returned to Air New Zealand. The airplane made an unexpected turn, not required by the procedures, and started a "brutal" climb.
The alert of the crash was raised by a boater before the coast of Canet-en-Roussillon, who had seen the airplane fall into the ocean. A worker in Saint-Cyprien saw the airplane "prick up its nose" and go into the sea almost vertically. Another eye witness in Saint-Cyprien reported, that the Airbus was at a height of estimated 300 meters (1000 feet), when it suddenly fell into the sea, no explosion had occured. Another witness at Canet-en-Roussillion believed, that the airplane had just started the usual DME arc leading towards intercept of the ILS.
XL Airways Germany said, they don't know exactly what happened. Their aircraft D-AXLA was to be transferred to Air New Zealand, resuming its original registration ZK-OJL in the New Zealand aircraft register. The airplane came out of the maintenance and was to be verified. Initially XL Airways received the information, that the airplane had successfully ditched until the news of the crash arrived. Two German employees of XL Airways were on board as well as 5 New Zealanders. The airplane was already back in Air New Zealand colors with the original Air New Zealand interior restored. The airplane should have returned to New Zealand in December.
Air New Zealand confirmed the loss of their aircraft. The airplane was flown by two XL Airways Germany pilots, as the plane still belonged to XL Airways and was on the German register. Aboard were also one senior Air New Zealand captain sitting in the jump seat, 3 ANZ engineers and 1 inspector from New Zealand's CAA. The airplane was expected back in New Zealand later this week. The flight was the final test flight to establish, that the airplane was up to Air New Zealand standards.
According to their information only one body has been found, although there are reports of three bodies being recovered. Air NZ continued, that according to the chairman of XL Airways the airplane had been flying for around 2 hours, had concluded the test program, was returning to Perpignan and on final approach. The control tower in Perpignan did not receive any emergency call. The submerged tail of the airplane is visible from the surface of the sea.
The airplane was heard on Perpignan's approach frequency at approximately 16:45 local (15:45Z), when the crew established contact with approach descending through flight level 120 on a heading of 090. The approach controller cleared the airplane for the LANET ILS 33 approach (see chart below) and a descent to 4000 feet. That instruction was acknowledged, which was the last transmission from the aircraft.
The pilot of a Piper yelled on the radio shortly thereafter, that an airplane had crashed. The pilot started to circle the crash site at radial 110 PPG VOR DME 10.5 until first rescue forces, a helicopter immediately dispatched from Perpignan, arrived on scene. The helicopter crew subsequently reported a white spot on the sea via radio, no aircraft visible, but debris spread out one kilometer (~0.6nm).
Coast Guard patrol boats as well as a helicopter by the Navy found floating parts, the airplane itsself has been located on a sandy ground at a depth of 35 meters. The search and rescue operations were suspended at around 22:30Z Nov 27th and resumed at daybreak Nov 28th.
The French Maritime Prefecture Mediterranean leading the search and rescue mission reported Nov 28th, that two bodies were recovered, five occupants are still missing. The chances for survivors are virtually nil. A navy ship arrived Nov 28th at around 7am local (06:00Z) tasked to search the black boxes and conduct investigation of the wreckage.
The French Secretary of State for Transport said, that the airplane was on an acceptance flight and was expected to return to Perpignan for a touch and go before continuing directly to Frankfurt/Main (Germany), where the airplane would have been officially returned to Air New Zealand. The airplane made an unexpected turn, not required by the procedures, and started a "brutal" climb.
The alert of the crash was raised by a boater before the coast of Canet-en-Roussillon, who had seen the airplane fall into the ocean. A worker in Saint-Cyprien saw the airplane "prick up its nose" and go into the sea almost vertically. Another eye witness in Saint-Cyprien reported, that the Airbus was at a height of estimated 300 meters (1000 feet), when it suddenly fell into the sea, no explosion had occured. Another witness at Canet-en-Roussillion believed, that the airplane had just started the usual DME arc leading towards intercept of the ILS.
XL Airways Germany said, they don't know exactly what happened. Their aircraft D-AXLA was to be transferred to Air New Zealand, resuming its original registration ZK-OJL in the New Zealand aircraft register. The airplane came out of the maintenance and was to be verified. Initially XL Airways received the information, that the airplane had successfully ditched until the news of the crash arrived. Two German employees of XL Airways were on board as well as 5 New Zealanders. The airplane was already back in Air New Zealand colors with the original Air New Zealand interior restored. The airplane should have returned to New Zealand in December.
Air New Zealand confirmed the loss of their aircraft. The airplane was flown by two XL Airways Germany pilots, as the plane still belonged to XL Airways and was on the German register. Aboard were also one senior Air New Zealand captain sitting in the jump seat, 3 ANZ engineers and 1 inspector from New Zealand's CAA. The airplane was expected back in New Zealand later this week. The flight was the final test flight to establish, that the airplane was up to Air New Zealand standards.
According to their information only one body has been found, although there are reports of three bodies being recovered. Air NZ continued, that according to the chairman of XL Airways the airplane had been flying for around 2 hours, had concluded the test program, was returning to Perpignan and on final approach. The control tower in Perpignan did not receive any emergency call. The submerged tail of the airplane is visible from the surface of the sea.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 804
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Condolences to all the family and friends of the crew. Never a good day.
I just heard a very nasty rumour going through Air NZ at the moment that the crew flying may have turned the autos off, flying manual and attempted a low level stall recovery prior to landing.
I hope to god not - but anyone else hearing this as a possibility?
I just heard a very nasty rumour going through Air NZ at the moment that the crew flying may have turned the autos off, flying manual and attempted a low level stall recovery prior to landing.
I hope to god not - but anyone else hearing this as a possibility?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
I just heard a very nasty rumour going through Air NZ at the moment that the crew flying may have turned the autos off, flying manual and attempted a low level stall recovery prior to landing.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South of the border
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+TSRA
Please be very careful circulating that kind of speculation on a public site such as this - journo's scour this site and others and will willingly pluck this kind of thing out and next you will hear it blasted through the media as a quote from "reliable aviation sources".
Not admonishing you, just a heads up to be bloody careful.
My thoughts and condolences to all staff and familys affected.
Please be very careful circulating that kind of speculation on a public site such as this - journo's scour this site and others and will willingly pluck this kind of thing out and next you will hear it blasted through the media as a quote from "reliable aviation sources".
Not admonishing you, just a heads up to be bloody careful.
My thoughts and condolences to all staff and familys affected.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: New Zealand
Age: 56
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My condolences to all the families in this tragic accident, especially to Brians wife and there 2 kids, he was a pleasure to fly with & a very good operator who will be deeply missed by us all.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad event indeed.
I am sorry I was not going to comment but I am unable to contain myself.
Why, oh why, was a "test Flight" needed?? I take it the aircraft was in airline service on the D (JAA) register. The why did it need another test flight?? What did this flight achieve? Nothing but sadness.
I think it is high time test flying was left to "test pilots" who are current in test flying and nobody else.
It is time playing around or training in aircraft was stopped and done in the simulator.
I am sorry I was not going to comment but I am unable to contain myself.
Why, oh why, was a "test Flight" needed?? I take it the aircraft was in airline service on the D (JAA) register. The why did it need another test flight?? What did this flight achieve? Nothing but sadness.
I think it is high time test flying was left to "test pilots" who are current in test flying and nobody else.
It is time playing around or training in aircraft was stopped and done in the simulator.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doubleu-anker,
As your name suggests, that's a dramatic stance to take on this tragic event.
If you leased your Ferrari to some stranger for 2 years, wouldn't you want to take it for a spin before accepting it back??
I hardly think they would be doing anything out of the ordinary from normal flight envelopes.
Test flights can be for something as simple as checking the pressurisation works to full on stall vane testing. Somethings can't be checked in a simulator, as it might be specific to a particular aircraft.
It's a tragedy, simple. Condolences to those affected....
S2K
As your name suggests, that's a dramatic stance to take on this tragic event.
If you leased your Ferrari to some stranger for 2 years, wouldn't you want to take it for a spin before accepting it back??
I hardly think they would be doing anything out of the ordinary from normal flight envelopes.
Test flights can be for something as simple as checking the pressurisation works to full on stall vane testing. Somethings can't be checked in a simulator, as it might be specific to a particular aircraft.
It's a tragedy, simple. Condolences to those affected....
S2K
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi doubleu-anker,
The aircraft had just undergone reburbishment in anticipation of it's return to Air New Zealand. This refurbishment included repainting the exterior and refitting the interior to Air NZ's requirements. Also at that time the aircraft was serviced. In these situations it is not unusual for a flight check to be undertaken after all the work has been completed. In this case, as the people on board consisted of German pilots and Air NZ staff including a senior pilot, engineers and a NZ CAA inspector, this could also have been a handover/acceptance flight as the aircraft was due to be returned to Air NZ later in the week.
This is not a "test flight" in the normal context of that phrase. As far as I am aware, "Test flight" is the term normally used when testing a new aircraft type by the manufacturer before it is put into full production. As such, this flight did not require "test pilots". Usually this type of flight check is performed by senior pilots and is to check that the aircraft systems are operating normally after all the work that had been performed. The presence of the various Air NZ and NZ CAA staff would support this conjecture.
Your comment "It is time playing around or training in aircraft was stopped and done in the simulator." confuses me.
This flight was neither a training flight nor were they playing around. Because of the high costs associated with these types of aircraft the majority of large aircraft flight training is already done in simulators. And for the same reason, cost, no "playing around" is tolerated by the operators.
Of course some pilot conversion training is done in the "real" aircraft. I'm sure you would not like to board an aircraft which was to be flown by pilots who had never actually flown the real aircraft before.
Regards
Stephen
The aircraft had just undergone reburbishment in anticipation of it's return to Air New Zealand. This refurbishment included repainting the exterior and refitting the interior to Air NZ's requirements. Also at that time the aircraft was serviced. In these situations it is not unusual for a flight check to be undertaken after all the work has been completed. In this case, as the people on board consisted of German pilots and Air NZ staff including a senior pilot, engineers and a NZ CAA inspector, this could also have been a handover/acceptance flight as the aircraft was due to be returned to Air NZ later in the week.
This is not a "test flight" in the normal context of that phrase. As far as I am aware, "Test flight" is the term normally used when testing a new aircraft type by the manufacturer before it is put into full production. As such, this flight did not require "test pilots". Usually this type of flight check is performed by senior pilots and is to check that the aircraft systems are operating normally after all the work that had been performed. The presence of the various Air NZ and NZ CAA staff would support this conjecture.
Your comment "It is time playing around or training in aircraft was stopped and done in the simulator." confuses me.
This flight was neither a training flight nor were they playing around. Because of the high costs associated with these types of aircraft the majority of large aircraft flight training is already done in simulators. And for the same reason, cost, no "playing around" is tolerated by the operators.
Of course some pilot conversion training is done in the "real" aircraft. I'm sure you would not like to board an aircraft which was to be flown by pilots who had never actually flown the real aircraft before.
Regards
Stephen
Last edited by SARMC; 30th Nov 2008 at 21:52. Reason: Update and minor corrections
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said....there has been too much talk of this being a "test flight", which an experienced aviation person would know is a completely different animal to an acceptance flight.
There has been much speculation so far, most of it appearing to come from people who seem to think themselves experts in areas their comments give lie to.
I'm no Peter Clark supporter, but his comments on TV3 this morning were some of the most sensible I've heard from anyone in the media....the actual cause will only be known when the investigation is complete (if then!) and other comments are nothing better than wild assumptions.
I'm sure the German pilots were experienced and competent. BH, as those of us who knew him know, was meticulous, experienced, sensible and practical.
Let's let the CVR and FDR tell the story, and refrain from stupid comments that the media invariably get hold of and publish as fact.
There has been much speculation so far, most of it appearing to come from people who seem to think themselves experts in areas their comments give lie to.
I'm no Peter Clark supporter, but his comments on TV3 this morning were some of the most sensible I've heard from anyone in the media....the actual cause will only be known when the investigation is complete (if then!) and other comments are nothing better than wild assumptions.
I'm sure the German pilots were experienced and competent. BH, as those of us who knew him know, was meticulous, experienced, sensible and practical.
Let's let the CVR and FDR tell the story, and refrain from stupid comments that the media invariably get hold of and publish as fact.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: dubai
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SARMC
Thanks for your post and your point taken.
Lets see now. The tragedies of the DC 8 at Auckland years ago and the RAAF B707 crash were avoidable IMHO. These exercises could have been carried out in a simulator. Playing around in aircraft I call it, as if you look for trouble you quite often find it. A test pilot is trained and is current to look for trouble, line pilots regardless of experience are trained to stay out of trouble.
Yes I have approval to carry out C of A air tests on "high performance" aircraft but don't like doing it any air test and will avoid it if possible. Why? I am not a graduate of the ETPS or the equivalents. It takes millions of dollars to train a test pilot, who will have an engineering degree at the very least, to do the job with any degree of safety.
The point I am trying to make is that I think some of this unnecessary flying is costing more lives than it is designed to save. If it aint broke don't fix it!
Thanks for your post and your point taken.
Lets see now. The tragedies of the DC 8 at Auckland years ago and the RAAF B707 crash were avoidable IMHO. These exercises could have been carried out in a simulator. Playing around in aircraft I call it, as if you look for trouble you quite often find it. A test pilot is trained and is current to look for trouble, line pilots regardless of experience are trained to stay out of trouble.
Yes I have approval to carry out C of A air tests on "high performance" aircraft but don't like doing it any air test and will avoid it if possible. Why? I am not a graduate of the ETPS or the equivalents. It takes millions of dollars to train a test pilot, who will have an engineering degree at the very least, to do the job with any degree of safety.
The point I am trying to make is that I think some of this unnecessary flying is costing more lives than it is designed to save. If it aint broke don't fix it!
The point I am trying to make is that I think some of this unnecessary flying is costing more lives than it is designed to save. If it aint broke don't fix it!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
These post maintenance/acceptance test flights are generally routine and carried out by trained technical pilots. If you don't know what is broke, how can you fix it?
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Daghdaghistan
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doubleu-ankler, I think you've got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
This was an acceptance flight NOT a test flight.
A test flight is as you point out, is conducted by test pilots to test an aircraft flight envelope. These aircraft are often undergoing test flying in order to obtain an type certificate as they are first of type.
This was an acceptance flight, just like a test drive of a car. In acceptance flying, you are not taking the aircraft outside the already established flight envelope. Your checking that everything works as advertised. Simulated asymmetric is not usually included in acceptance flying, theres no point to it.
Certain maintenance procedures require a flight check before revenue flying is carried out. And those procedures come from the manufacturer of the aircraft.
Having done an acceptance flight for a first entry of type aircraft (NZ register), we never planned to or did take the aircraft outside the limits set in the flight manual nor was any asymmetric planned. The aircraft had not flown for a year after undergoing a major refit of avionics and interior. Things as simple as galley drawers may work smoothly on the ground, but airborne and pressurized, you may find they no longer work and need attention. Far better to find that out in the a test flight than a revenue flight with pax onboard.
It's just as well we did our acceptance flight because we found an unacceptable autopilot problem that was rapidly remedied by disconnecting and hand flying the aircraft. This fault was not evident on the ground, but only with airloads did the problem manifest itself.
I would hardly call that flying unnecessary. And your not going to find those problems in a simulator.
Did I feel there was a higher risk with this flight I did? Yes, but we took precautions such as additional experienced crew, a flight engineer and a independent GMU and GPS nav system. We were fresh out of the simulator and briefed well on the ground before flight.
As such I believe that our ill-fated colleagues would have been as equally well prepared.
I believe you should check your facts. The DC8 accident you refer to was a training accident as was the RAAF B707 accident. These flights were conducted for a completely different purpose, not for aircraft acceptance testing and yes, can be conducted in a simulator and often are. If you read those accident reports, you would have seen that a large contributing factor in those accidents was a overzealous training captain.
This was an acceptance flight NOT a test flight.
A test flight is as you point out, is conducted by test pilots to test an aircraft flight envelope. These aircraft are often undergoing test flying in order to obtain an type certificate as they are first of type.
This was an acceptance flight, just like a test drive of a car. In acceptance flying, you are not taking the aircraft outside the already established flight envelope. Your checking that everything works as advertised. Simulated asymmetric is not usually included in acceptance flying, theres no point to it.
Certain maintenance procedures require a flight check before revenue flying is carried out. And those procedures come from the manufacturer of the aircraft.
Having done an acceptance flight for a first entry of type aircraft (NZ register), we never planned to or did take the aircraft outside the limits set in the flight manual nor was any asymmetric planned. The aircraft had not flown for a year after undergoing a major refit of avionics and interior. Things as simple as galley drawers may work smoothly on the ground, but airborne and pressurized, you may find they no longer work and need attention. Far better to find that out in the a test flight than a revenue flight with pax onboard.
It's just as well we did our acceptance flight because we found an unacceptable autopilot problem that was rapidly remedied by disconnecting and hand flying the aircraft. This fault was not evident on the ground, but only with airloads did the problem manifest itself.
I would hardly call that flying unnecessary. And your not going to find those problems in a simulator.
Did I feel there was a higher risk with this flight I did? Yes, but we took precautions such as additional experienced crew, a flight engineer and a independent GMU and GPS nav system. We were fresh out of the simulator and briefed well on the ground before flight.
As such I believe that our ill-fated colleagues would have been as equally well prepared.
I believe you should check your facts. The DC8 accident you refer to was a training accident as was the RAAF B707 accident. These flights were conducted for a completely different purpose, not for aircraft acceptance testing and yes, can be conducted in a simulator and often are. If you read those accident reports, you would have seen that a large contributing factor in those accidents was a overzealous training captain.
Last edited by Cypher; 1st Dec 2008 at 09:31.