Air NZ Perpignan crash reaction
Thread Starter
Air NZ Perpignan crash reaction
See below.
Thoughts?
Another typically aggressive overreaction from NZ it would seem.
Learmount's one of the world's most experienced and respected aviation writers - unlike certain `commentators' here.
Without at all wanting to besmirch the memory of dead men - sadly - it would appear our pilots were suffering from get-home-itis.
There's a lesson in this for all of us.
Air New Zealand has rejected suggestions its crew may have contributed to the crash of an A320 airbus off the French coast almost two years ago.
The five New Zealanders and two German pilots on board were killed when the plane, which was on a test flight, plunged into the Mediterranean Sea near the town of Perpignan on 27 November 2008.
A report by French court-appointed experts concludes the crew lost control of the plane as they tried to perform a low altitude, low-speed test in inappropriate conditions.
Air New Zealand says FlightGlobal website editor David Learmount has claimed the New Zealand crew encouraged the German pilot to perform the manoeuvre in frustration.
It says this claim is baseless and speculative. The airline says the flight recorder shows discussion about the low-speed check happened well before the German pilot began the test at his own initiative.
However, an interim report from French air accident investigators says the New Zealand pilot repeated a request to attempt the manoeuvre three minutes before the crash.
Thoughts?
Another typically aggressive overreaction from NZ it would seem.
Learmount's one of the world's most experienced and respected aviation writers - unlike certain `commentators' here.
Without at all wanting to besmirch the memory of dead men - sadly - it would appear our pilots were suffering from get-home-itis.
There's a lesson in this for all of us.
Air New Zealand has rejected suggestions its crew may have contributed to the crash of an A320 airbus off the French coast almost two years ago.
The five New Zealanders and two German pilots on board were killed when the plane, which was on a test flight, plunged into the Mediterranean Sea near the town of Perpignan on 27 November 2008.
A report by French court-appointed experts concludes the crew lost control of the plane as they tried to perform a low altitude, low-speed test in inappropriate conditions.
Air New Zealand says FlightGlobal website editor David Learmount has claimed the New Zealand crew encouraged the German pilot to perform the manoeuvre in frustration.
It says this claim is baseless and speculative. The airline says the flight recorder shows discussion about the low-speed check happened well before the German pilot began the test at his own initiative.
However, an interim report from French air accident investigators says the New Zealand pilot repeated a request to attempt the manoeuvre three minutes before the crash.
Thread Starter
Angry
The above reply... a typical case in point.
An organisation characterised by public aggression.
I, like you presumably, am a pilot.
I worked at NZ for many years and know it very well indeed - much, much better than you I suspect.
Read what I posted again... and calm down.
I stand by my post... it was get home-itis that was a contributing factor to this crash... as painful as that may be for people like you to read.
An organisation characterised by public aggression.
I, like you presumably, am a pilot.
I worked at NZ for many years and know it very well indeed - much, much better than you I suspect.
Read what I posted again... and calm down.
I stand by my post... it was get home-itis that was a contributing factor to this crash... as painful as that may be for people like you to read.
Thread Starter
Sorry - I didn't realise how small I was and unknowledgeable I am.
I cower before your grey-headed IFR, multi-engine heavy rated whatever, my big Daddy's yacht driving friend!
Whether it's got one engine or four - big or small - get home-itis still applies.
Good men might be good - but they also make mistakes and bad calls.
And when they're sitting in your seat or mine - good man or not - make a mistake or a bad call and the result's potentially the same - you end up dead.
Don't you think...?
I cower before your grey-headed IFR, multi-engine heavy rated whatever, my big Daddy's yacht driving friend!
Whether it's got one engine or four - big or small - get home-itis still applies.
Good men might be good - but they also make mistakes and bad calls.
And when they're sitting in your seat or mine - good man or not - make a mistake or a bad call and the result's potentially the same - you end up dead.
Don't you think...?
Thoughts?
Yep I have a few.
I think the French are trying to shift the blame. They have a less than stellar record when it come to impartially investigating aviation accidents, plus they have a lot at stake here. (The reputation of Airbus and the work done on the aircraft prior to the fateful flight was done in a French facility.
Regarding the decision to conduct part of the test at low level.
I think it would be fair to say that it was not prudent to carry out the test at the altitude that they did, but certainly not dangerous, under normal circumstances. At least three of the crew (The two German pilots and the Air NZ observer) on board considered it OK to to at that altitude. One has to presume that if any of the the crew thought it a bad idea it would not have taken place.
To try and blame Air New Zealand for this is grossly unfair.
Regarding the faulty sensors.
If these had been working as they should have been the accident would not have happened. Who is to say that even if the aircraft have been at a more appropriate altitude that the crew would have been able to regain control of the aircraft. Look what happened to AF447, it is suspected that faulty sensors might have been the cause of that crash, the aircraft was at cruise altitude and the pilots were unable to regain control. Granted there were possibly min flight speed and Vmo issues to content with.
Tartare
From the tone of your posts, you sound like a disgruntled ex Air NZ employee. Therefore I'm not sure many here will take all of your comments regarding Air NZ seriously.
Yep I have a few.
I think the French are trying to shift the blame. They have a less than stellar record when it come to impartially investigating aviation accidents, plus they have a lot at stake here. (The reputation of Airbus and the work done on the aircraft prior to the fateful flight was done in a French facility.
Regarding the decision to conduct part of the test at low level.
I think it would be fair to say that it was not prudent to carry out the test at the altitude that they did, but certainly not dangerous, under normal circumstances. At least three of the crew (The two German pilots and the Air NZ observer) on board considered it OK to to at that altitude. One has to presume that if any of the the crew thought it a bad idea it would not have taken place.
To try and blame Air New Zealand for this is grossly unfair.
Regarding the faulty sensors.
If these had been working as they should have been the accident would not have happened. Who is to say that even if the aircraft have been at a more appropriate altitude that the crew would have been able to regain control of the aircraft. Look what happened to AF447, it is suspected that faulty sensors might have been the cause of that crash, the aircraft was at cruise altitude and the pilots were unable to regain control. Granted there were possibly min flight speed and Vmo issues to content with.
Tartare
From the tone of your posts, you sound like a disgruntled ex Air NZ employee. Therefore I'm not sure many here will take all of your comments regarding Air NZ seriously.
Thread Starter
Now... there is a reasoned response.
Thank you 27/09.
You're the sort of guy I'd feel comfortable flying with.
No - not disgruntled - in the operational part of the business there are a lot of great people at the airline, and I left on good terms.
What I hate is the way they are so corporately, publicly defensive and aggressive - and its an on-going pattern.
Thank you 27/09.
You're the sort of guy I'd feel comfortable flying with.
No - not disgruntled - in the operational part of the business there are a lot of great people at the airline, and I left on good terms.
What I hate is the way they are so corporately, publicly defensive and aggressive - and its an on-going pattern.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: back to the land of small pay and big bills
Age: 50
Posts: 1,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this the same investigation team that is taking Continental to court in order to deflect criticism away from Air France's litany of failures in the Conchord case..
eg Takeoff overloaded
Takeoff downwind
Maintenance fails to replace undercarriage spacer
etc
Never let facts get in the way of a good coverup
Concorde crash trial begins - Wikinews, the free news source
eg Takeoff overloaded
Takeoff downwind
Maintenance fails to replace undercarriage spacer
etc
Never let facts get in the way of a good coverup
Concorde crash trial begins - Wikinews, the free news source
I think there has been a lot to learn from this crash, and Air NZ has certainly changed the way it conducts operational flight checks. However, I too remain unconvinced that even if the low speed check been carried out at the recommended altitude the result would have been materially different.
I also really don't like the way the investigation is carried out but unfortunately that's just the way the French do things and I really don't see our condemnation changing anything.
I also really don't like the way the investigation is carried out but unfortunately that's just the way the French do things and I really don't see our condemnation changing anything.
Regarding the decision to conduct part of the test at low level.
I think it would be fair to say that it was not prudent to carry out the test at the altitude that they did, but certainly not dangerous, under normal circumstances. At least three of the crew (The two German pilots and...
Ummm, no I don't think I would be at all interested in stalling a jet at 3000" on approach, that is so unbeleiveable that there may be more to this story?
Yes this certainly is dangerous under ANY circumstances and should have never been done or asked to be done if indeed this reporting is correct which may not be the case.
Persoanlly I would not do it even at the recommened 6000", 10000: min FL200 pref.
I think it would be fair to say that it was not prudent to carry out the test at the altitude that they did, but certainly not dangerous, under normal circumstances. At least three of the crew (The two German pilots and...
Ummm, no I don't think I would be at all interested in stalling a jet at 3000" on approach, that is so unbeleiveable that there may be more to this story?
Yes this certainly is dangerous under ANY circumstances and should have never been done or asked to be done if indeed this reporting is correct which may not be the case.
Persoanlly I would not do it even at the recommened 6000", 10000: min FL200 pref.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: NZ
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggles.
Fair call. I may have been a tad harsh. I was tired at the time. I have nothing against ppls, and would like to do nothing but encourage their development...and have done over the years. I still believe tartares post to be provocative......and inaccurate...get homeitis? were the boys due home in NZ that night for dinner at 6? seems like a puerile comment to me, to make about professional pilots and engineers. I stand by my comments that the flight was not conducted by Air NZ. It was conducted by XL airways, and had there been a request, or several requests to conduct a low speed test, the decision to do so was, at the end of the day, for the German Captain to decide. I have removed my previous posts.
Fair call. I may have been a tad harsh. I was tired at the time. I have nothing against ppls, and would like to do nothing but encourage their development...and have done over the years. I still believe tartares post to be provocative......and inaccurate...get homeitis? were the boys due home in NZ that night for dinner at 6? seems like a puerile comment to me, to make about professional pilots and engineers. I stand by my comments that the flight was not conducted by Air NZ. It was conducted by XL airways, and had there been a request, or several requests to conduct a low speed test, the decision to do so was, at the end of the day, for the German Captain to decide. I have removed my previous posts.
Thread Starter
I didn't intend to be provocative.
Some of you have lost good friends as a result of this - the anger is entirely understandable.
My point r/e get home-itis was more around the focus on achieving a set task within a set time frame causing fixation on that outcome, and becoming one of the human factors in the chain of events that caused the crash.
Tenerife is an example - a highly experienced, multi-engine heavy rated Captain fixating on getting out and home - I've read that accident report in detail.
Anyway - maybe enough said.
Fly safe.
Some of you have lost good friends as a result of this - the anger is entirely understandable.
My point r/e get home-itis was more around the focus on achieving a set task within a set time frame causing fixation on that outcome, and becoming one of the human factors in the chain of events that caused the crash.
Tenerife is an example - a highly experienced, multi-engine heavy rated Captain fixating on getting out and home - I've read that accident report in detail.
Anyway - maybe enough said.
Fly safe.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read through all of the different threads on this subject I think that it is important to fully consider the human factor sides of this event. As a profession we should not be afraid to admit to an accident being primarily attributable to human error. There is no question that there seemed to be some technical faults on this aircraft, but it must not be forgotten that the accident was a direct result of conducting a low speed flight test in a totally inappropriate area at a ludicrous height.
The only explanation for this was the desire to conduct the 'full' acceptance regieme on that sector. It doesn't matter which airlines pilots were flying or not flying, the decision to conduct this test at that time was a poor one, everyone on that flightdeck must shoulder some responsibility for this poor piece of airmanship. Ultimately the PIC must be where the final decision rests but good CRM would dictate that all the flight deck crew also had a responsibility towards allowing this to take place. The aircraft was in the midst of a recovery when it impacted with the water, another few thousand feet as specified in the test outline MAY have made the difference here between a wasteful loss of life and just a bloody scary incident.
Air New Zealand is quite rightly asking for people to wait for the full report before trying to apportion blame, I think that they have to be very careful though because some of the quotes coming out of ANZ do seem to be a bit over the top and sometimes do smack of a company that maybe sticks their head in the sand. I am sure that this is not the case but that is the perception that can develop.
We are all capable of c*cking up, when it is pilot error, we should not be afraid to say so.
The only explanation for this was the desire to conduct the 'full' acceptance regieme on that sector. It doesn't matter which airlines pilots were flying or not flying, the decision to conduct this test at that time was a poor one, everyone on that flightdeck must shoulder some responsibility for this poor piece of airmanship. Ultimately the PIC must be where the final decision rests but good CRM would dictate that all the flight deck crew also had a responsibility towards allowing this to take place. The aircraft was in the midst of a recovery when it impacted with the water, another few thousand feet as specified in the test outline MAY have made the difference here between a wasteful loss of life and just a bloody scary incident.
Air New Zealand is quite rightly asking for people to wait for the full report before trying to apportion blame, I think that they have to be very careful though because some of the quotes coming out of ANZ do seem to be a bit over the top and sometimes do smack of a company that maybe sticks their head in the sand. I am sure that this is not the case but that is the perception that can develop.
We are all capable of c*cking up, when it is pilot error, we should not be afraid to say so.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: All over the show like a madwomans crap
Posts: 494
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeez, a fair, reasonable and measured debate on prune?!?! What the hell is the world coming to?! 
As an Airbus pilot, what test were they conducting? Was it stalling? If so, whats the point in stalling or a low speed test with Airbus protections, or was that the point, to test the protections? Or were the Prims and/or Secs pulled? I haven't read the report if its in there, if anyone has a link?
Nosey
As an Airbus pilot, what test were they conducting? Was it stalling? If so, whats the point in stalling or a low speed test with Airbus protections, or was that the point, to test the protections? Or were the Prims and/or Secs pulled? I haven't read the report if its in there, if anyone has a link?
Nosey
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the lessons in this - from the limited information we have so far - is the ease with which 3 experienced and sensible pilots got suckered into an unrecoverable situation. I don't think it was get-home-itis, I am going to assume they were all quite professional enough to not get caught by that one, to me it sounds more like complacency and a perfunctory approach to the task at hand.
Anyway as this is one of those occasions when we really do have to wait for the report before passing judgement, not much more to say on that.
Regarding Air NZ, can we please get past Erebus and Air NZ's past indiscretions? It is a completely different company now. Yes, they do have a monopolistic view of their role in NZ aviation, but the culture seems a lot more professional and open these days. I can still remember the days when wearing glasses was an instant disqualification for pilots looking to join the company... they seem to have moved on.
Regarding the French and their approach to accident investigation, we should be sceptical. There are more politics and pandering going on in the DGAC than is seemly, that's for sure.
Anyway as this is one of those occasions when we really do have to wait for the report before passing judgement, not much more to say on that.
Regarding Air NZ, can we please get past Erebus and Air NZ's past indiscretions? It is a completely different company now. Yes, they do have a monopolistic view of their role in NZ aviation, but the culture seems a lot more professional and open these days. I can still remember the days when wearing glasses was an instant disqualification for pilots looking to join the company... they seem to have moved on.
Regarding the French and their approach to accident investigation, we should be sceptical. There are more politics and pandering going on in the DGAC than is seemly, that's for sure.
Now that the thread has matured, no-one has yet mentioned that late last year Airbus introduced a Technical Flight Familiarisation Course. It's a 5 day course (sim and classroom) pitched at airline pilots doing just such acceptance flights like the tragic one under discussion as these flights go "beyond" what a normal airline pilot would do.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway as this is one of those occasions when we really do have to wait for the report before passing judgement, not much more to say on that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Must be a bit of amnesia floating around here.
From NZ Tragedies Aviation by John King.
"Until November 1979 Air New Zealand had not lost a single passenger on a scheduled flight, but it wrote off one-third of its fleet in training accidents."
The Electra ZK-TEC written off at Whenuapai on the morning of 27 March 1965 was a particularly bad so called training practice.
" It's a 5 day course (sim and classroom) pitched at airline pilots doing just such acceptance flights like the tragic one under discussion as these flights go "beyond" what a normal airline pilot would do."
This exercise, with the Electra, as stated in mentioned reference,
" It had absolutely no relevance to anything that might be encountered at any time in airline flying."
So what has been learnt in the intervening years???
The First commandment is still very relevant.
"Thow shalt not make a stuff up or the ground will arise and smite thee"
From NZ Tragedies Aviation by John King.
"Until November 1979 Air New Zealand had not lost a single passenger on a scheduled flight, but it wrote off one-third of its fleet in training accidents."
The Electra ZK-TEC written off at Whenuapai on the morning of 27 March 1965 was a particularly bad so called training practice.
" It's a 5 day course (sim and classroom) pitched at airline pilots doing just such acceptance flights like the tragic one under discussion as these flights go "beyond" what a normal airline pilot would do."
This exercise, with the Electra, as stated in mentioned reference,
" It had absolutely no relevance to anything that might be encountered at any time in airline flying."
So what has been learnt in the intervening years???
The First commandment is still very relevant.
"Thow shalt not make a stuff up or the ground will arise and smite thee"
Last edited by prospector; 2nd Jul 2010 at 23:44.
