King Air crash at Egelsbach Airfield (EDFE)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not debating your experience of flying in and out of VFR airfields in 'Schermoney'. Nor do I want to get in an argument about who's more knowledgeable.
You're right, some WX-values can change rapidly over a given distance. And - believe me - I have my share of flights that started or ended with a VFR-portion ('Z-' or 'Y-flightplans', if I remember correctly), even if it's a long time ago and I'm glad that I don't have to do this any more on a daily basis
Iīm not doing this too often any more, thanks god, the more you do it, the relaxter you get, which is really the wrong thing to be at marginal VFR...
So I concur.
The point I'm trying to make is merely this: far too many pilots press on in marginal weather, lowering their limits as they go along and the poor passengers behind (or next to) them or the non-flying public on the ground are suffering the consequences from their marginal judgement.
I have now had a chance to look through the High Performance Aircraft (HPA) procedures for Egelsbach as published by the German Authorities. I have compared this information with the profile of the C90 (as released on Pprune and therefore not in any way official); nevertheless, I feel that some interesting conclusions can be made.
A worrying aspect is that the HPA procedures themselves have a couple of important inconsistencies. Page 7 (Required waypoint pattern and procedures) shows the lat and long for H1, H2 and H3. I plotted these positions on Google Earth, as well as the threshold of RWY 27 and also the impact point of the C90.
Page 8 (Section of flight path on straight-in 27 approach) shows the distance of H1 as 18nm from the threshold, whereas I made it 16nm (where they have put a red blob at the TOD from 3450ft). More worryingly, they have published a slope of 150ft/nm from 1350ft at 9 miles down to the threshold. This would be correct if the threshold was at sea level, but the actual airfield elevation is 385ft. Taking this into account, the actual required descent gradient from 1350ft at 9nm is only 107ft/nm. If you followed the recommended slope of 150ft/nm, you would impact the terrain at about 4nm, 600ft amsl. This corresponds with the position of H3, which is missing from page 8 of the HPA document.
The C90 impact point was at 2.2nm from the threshold, at an elevation of approx 640ft amsl, or 255ft above the airfield elevation. If he started his descent from 9nm and 1350ft as published, he would have had an average descent gradient of 104ft/nm, almost exactly the same as the 'required' gradient of 107ft/nm. This implies that he could have calculated the required profile for a constant descent approach and perhaps used some VNAV or VS display to follow it. Unfortunately, the terrain rises towards the east from the threshold of RWY 27. Of course, this is only one possibility and the actual flight path may have been quite different, but the point of impact is consistent with this hypothesis.
This means that it is virtually impossible to follow a constant descent profile from 9nm and 1350ft without impacting the terrain. This is due to the rising ground to the east of the airfield.
In my opinion, The published profile on page 8 is dangerous and misleading. A colleague of mine had an 'unexplained' EGPWS alert on a previous visit in daylight CAVOK. I now wonder whether this profile could have been responsible?
A much safer option would be to maintain 1350ft from 9nm until 3nm (i.e. 1nm past H3) and then commence a standard 3 degree descent. This equates to 320ft/nm or 5.2% which is the same as a standard ILS glidepath. You are only 965ft above the airfield at this point, so gear and land flap should be extended prior to this point and a VS of approx 600fpm 'dialled in' if you have a groundspeed of 120kts. As there is a slight delay while the Autoflight system achieves the selected VS, it may be worth commencing this process at 3.3nm so that the aircraft actually leaves 1350ft at 3nm.
As always, a picture is worth a thousand words, so I attach my interpretation of the data as an aide to understanding what I have said above.
This is, of course, purely my own take on what happened and what has been published by the German Authorities and on Pprune. It may be that I have omitted some important fact or detail which will render my views obsolete. I have to say that I am worried by the misleading profile published by the German authorities on page 8 of the HPA guidance.
The bottom line is: Always try to fly a standard 3 degree slope on final approach if at all possible! Also, always use all available aids (Rad Alt, DME, GPS, FMS) to enhance situational awareness, whatever the weather.
Kind regards, Eckhard.
Imageshack - page7ky - Uploaded by eckhard747
Imageshack - page8o - Uploaded by eckhard747
Imageshack - egelsbachapproachprofil - Uploaded by eckhard747
A worrying aspect is that the HPA procedures themselves have a couple of important inconsistencies. Page 7 (Required waypoint pattern and procedures) shows the lat and long for H1, H2 and H3. I plotted these positions on Google Earth, as well as the threshold of RWY 27 and also the impact point of the C90.
Page 8 (Section of flight path on straight-in 27 approach) shows the distance of H1 as 18nm from the threshold, whereas I made it 16nm (where they have put a red blob at the TOD from 3450ft). More worryingly, they have published a slope of 150ft/nm from 1350ft at 9 miles down to the threshold. This would be correct if the threshold was at sea level, but the actual airfield elevation is 385ft. Taking this into account, the actual required descent gradient from 1350ft at 9nm is only 107ft/nm. If you followed the recommended slope of 150ft/nm, you would impact the terrain at about 4nm, 600ft amsl. This corresponds with the position of H3, which is missing from page 8 of the HPA document.
The C90 impact point was at 2.2nm from the threshold, at an elevation of approx 640ft amsl, or 255ft above the airfield elevation. If he started his descent from 9nm and 1350ft as published, he would have had an average descent gradient of 104ft/nm, almost exactly the same as the 'required' gradient of 107ft/nm. This implies that he could have calculated the required profile for a constant descent approach and perhaps used some VNAV or VS display to follow it. Unfortunately, the terrain rises towards the east from the threshold of RWY 27. Of course, this is only one possibility and the actual flight path may have been quite different, but the point of impact is consistent with this hypothesis.
This means that it is virtually impossible to follow a constant descent profile from 9nm and 1350ft without impacting the terrain. This is due to the rising ground to the east of the airfield.
In my opinion, The published profile on page 8 is dangerous and misleading. A colleague of mine had an 'unexplained' EGPWS alert on a previous visit in daylight CAVOK. I now wonder whether this profile could have been responsible?
A much safer option would be to maintain 1350ft from 9nm until 3nm (i.e. 1nm past H3) and then commence a standard 3 degree descent. This equates to 320ft/nm or 5.2% which is the same as a standard ILS glidepath. You are only 965ft above the airfield at this point, so gear and land flap should be extended prior to this point and a VS of approx 600fpm 'dialled in' if you have a groundspeed of 120kts. As there is a slight delay while the Autoflight system achieves the selected VS, it may be worth commencing this process at 3.3nm so that the aircraft actually leaves 1350ft at 3nm.
As always, a picture is worth a thousand words, so I attach my interpretation of the data as an aide to understanding what I have said above.
This is, of course, purely my own take on what happened and what has been published by the German Authorities and on Pprune. It may be that I have omitted some important fact or detail which will render my views obsolete. I have to say that I am worried by the misleading profile published by the German authorities on page 8 of the HPA guidance.
The bottom line is: Always try to fly a standard 3 degree slope on final approach if at all possible! Also, always use all available aids (Rad Alt, DME, GPS, FMS) to enhance situational awareness, whatever the weather.
Kind regards, Eckhard.
Imageshack - page7ky - Uploaded by eckhard747
Imageshack - page8o - Uploaded by eckhard747
Imageshack - egelsbachapproachprofil - Uploaded by eckhard747
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,439
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Donīt know if I should agree...
First of all, regardless of what we think, EDFE is still a pure VFR field. If Iīm VFR, I maintain VFR with a plan what to do if canīt stay VFR.
Secondly, I read somewhere that the aircraft (a F90 not a C90 btw) was based in EDFE, so Iīd think the pilots knew the terrain etc. Workload is usally very high in these situation, I donīt know the particular aircraft, but have flown similar ones and if this one wasnīt retrofitted, weīd talk about a standalone GPS not necessarely connected to the F/D, at least no vertical guidance apart from VS. Now in such a scenario it just takes a small distraction to bring you behind the airplane, close to the ground with little margin as one can see from the 'official' profile. Therefore point one reapplies.
Thirdly, I do like the HPA and that the profile is available, that is a good information source to me (the airspace structure could be more accomodating, but thats another topic). I donīt find it misleading, although I see your point.
Again its VFR.
If you look up the webpage of EDFE, under this link you can virtually fly the arrivals with hints to airspace etc.
Frankfurt Egelsbach Airport : Virtual arrival
I remember flying into EDFE in Bravos, KingAirs etc without the HPA at night with very very tight turns in the pattern. THAT was dangerous. In marginal wx I ended up more than once in EDDF where the HPA probably would have seen me landing. (bit of a generalization I know)
I already said that without a CVR and a FDR it is unlikely that we will get a precise cause unless an failure in avionic or airframe can be found....
To me, with hindsight and all the time to 'judge', it looks like the classical CFIT under 'getheritis pressure'.
First of all, regardless of what we think, EDFE is still a pure VFR field. If Iīm VFR, I maintain VFR with a plan what to do if canīt stay VFR.
Secondly, I read somewhere that the aircraft (a F90 not a C90 btw) was based in EDFE, so Iīd think the pilots knew the terrain etc. Workload is usally very high in these situation, I donīt know the particular aircraft, but have flown similar ones and if this one wasnīt retrofitted, weīd talk about a standalone GPS not necessarely connected to the F/D, at least no vertical guidance apart from VS. Now in such a scenario it just takes a small distraction to bring you behind the airplane, close to the ground with little margin as one can see from the 'official' profile. Therefore point one reapplies.
Thirdly, I do like the HPA and that the profile is available, that is a good information source to me (the airspace structure could be more accomodating, but thats another topic). I donīt find it misleading, although I see your point.
Again its VFR.
If you look up the webpage of EDFE, under this link you can virtually fly the arrivals with hints to airspace etc.
Frankfurt Egelsbach Airport : Virtual arrival
I remember flying into EDFE in Bravos, KingAirs etc without the HPA at night with very very tight turns in the pattern. THAT was dangerous. In marginal wx I ended up more than once in EDDF where the HPA probably would have seen me landing. (bit of a generalization I know)
I already said that without a CVR and a FDR it is unlikely that we will get a precise cause unless an failure in avionic or airframe can be found....
To me, with hindsight and all the time to 'judge', it looks like the classical CFIT under 'getheritis pressure'.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Good morning!
There are enough published GPS approaches into uncontrolled airfields in Germany. More than in many other parts of the world (just ask our colleagues in the UK!). One of my weekly destinations (in Germany...) has only this kind of instrument approach. And no control zone like in EDFE, just class F airspace. And the authorities are permitting it. Have been for many years already. So really, don't blame those you are not at fault.
IFR approaches, including GPS, into Egelsbach have been discussed for many, many, many years already. Just ask your friend Google about it. (This german language article from PuF here is from 2006 but still contains some valid points: http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/servlet/use/Home.class?frame&main={http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2006-11-26/Luftraum_Egelsbach}).
From what I heard about this accident, the clouds were below the typical minimum for GPS approaches anyway, so a legal approach wouldn't have been possible.
Greetings, Max
plugster: The safest option would be the german authorities permitting GPS approaches on uncontrolled airfields like anywhere else in the world. It's not rocket science guys...
IFR approaches, including GPS, into Egelsbach have been discussed for many, many, many years already. Just ask your friend Google about it. (This german language article from PuF here is from 2006 but still contains some valid points: http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/servlet/use/Home.class?frame&main={http://www.pilotundflugzeug.de/artikel/2006-11-26/Luftraum_Egelsbach}).
From what I heard about this accident, the clouds were below the typical minimum for GPS approaches anyway, so a legal approach wouldn't have been possible.
Greetings, Max
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys, I actually logged a few hours on D-IDVK. Back when the airplane was USA based (hence my username), my dad and his friend flew her. My dad logged about 70 hours on her and his friend about 100. I flew her with my dad's friend back in 2007. Never in my life have I flown a King Air as smooth as D-IDVK. Beautiful paintjob, great avionics, and great handling qualities. My dad got teary-eyed as he read about the accident, and I can't even imagine how his friend felt. My dad was also good friends with two of the three guys that died in this crash (the two pilots). Very sad.
Beware
Came across this thread as I was researching prior to a landing in EDFE at night in an aero commander. Must admit it turned out to be probably the most challenging approach I have ever done... Frankfurt ATC changed from the Westerly to the Easterly runway just as I had started my transition from IFR to VFR...
Anyone unfamiliar with the locality planning a night landing into EDFE please be aware that on the easterly runway a 90 deg turn onto 1 mile finals with 700ft high pylons as you start the turn makes for a very unpleasant approach
http://www.egelsbach-airport.com/_img/aip/dfs_09.jpg
Anyone unfamiliar with the locality planning a night landing into EDFE please be aware that on the easterly runway a 90 deg turn onto 1 mile finals with 700ft high pylons as you start the turn makes for a very unpleasant approach
http://www.egelsbach-airport.com/_img/aip/dfs_09.jpg
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: U and K
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Took a Saab 340 in there a couple of years ago. Was an interesting arrival onto 27 but an even more interesting departure off 27 later on due to the pylons / EDDF Rwy 18 and climbing to around 1500ft if I remember correctly.
Made an "airshow" style departure !
You really have to study it well before operating in/out of there.
Made an "airshow" style departure !
You really have to study it well before operating in/out of there.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: VENEZUELA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MISTERY
I have made the approach path picture as simulated - see attached - my desktop picture and see it EVERY day because I am unable to understand
for what the Pilot and/or Pilots where looking - one at least should have been glued with his eyes to Altimeter... could not find anything at the BFU site yet - wait and see....
Sry this is the link - the upper left one !
<http://www.pictureupload.de/Egelsbach-gid36583.html>
for what the Pilot and/or Pilots where looking - one at least should have been glued with his eyes to Altimeter... could not find anything at the BFU site yet - wait and see....
Sry this is the link - the upper left one !
<http://www.pictureupload.de/Egelsbach-gid36583.html>
Last edited by flameouts; 16th Feb 2010 at 01:38. Reason: MISING LINK
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: VENEZUELA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FALCON 50 Crash in Rwanda/Burundi
Hi again,
whoever might be interested in the a.m. crash some time ago should read this:
<http://mutsinzireport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Falcon-Report-english.pdf>
Outstanding report considering the political circunstances - long and heavy
but you will be an expert on this matter after the reading !
Only for Africa Expertīs.......
whoever might be interested in the a.m. crash some time ago should read this:
<http://mutsinzireport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Falcon-Report-english.pdf>
Outstanding report considering the political circunstances - long and heavy
but you will be an expert on this matter after the reading !
Only for Africa Expertīs.......
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: VENEZUELA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kingg Air Egelsbach
HELLO,
here are some more details:
<http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_007/nn_223968/DE/Publikationen/Bulletins/2009/Bulletin2009-12,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Bulletin2009-12.pdf>
Donīt know what to say - CHECK YOU ALTIMETER - may be they had
the wrong QNH ?
Saludos
here are some more details:
<http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_007/nn_223968/DE/Publikationen/Bulletins/2009/Bulletin2009-12,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Bulletin2009-12.pdf>
Donīt know what to say - CHECK YOU ALTIMETER - may be they had
the wrong QNH ?
Saludos
Hi guys, the final report about this accident is out. Unfortunately it is written in German only. In condensed form it was concluded that:
- the PIC and the other two persons on board did have alcohol in their blood. They must have consumed it within the last 30 minutes of flight, yes INFLIGHT!
- the PIC had a noticeable amount of drugs in his blood, that are used against Parkinson's disease
- the plane's airworthy certificate was out of date since quite a few weeks
- probably due to spacial disorientation (alcohol+drugs) the pilot descended way too early and way too fast and entered a large patch of fog that was hanging around the tree tops just east of the airfield. Had the crew stayed on the normal descent path and then later on the PAPI, everything would have been fine
Life's too short for ironing
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Scotland, & Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good grief. Why?
I guess we'll never know, unless there was an atmosphere of "its ok to have a drink whilst flying" accepted in that company.
I guess we'll never know, unless there was an atmosphere of "its ok to have a drink whilst flying" accepted in that company.
Well, the PIC had a PPL with an IFR-rating. His total experience, at an age of 61, was more than 2000 hours, which is quite a lot for a private pilot. The passenger on the right seat had a PPL + IR, too. He was also qualified to fly that airplane, but probably did not speak up, because the PIC was more experienced. Essentially he was there as a passenger, doing the radio communications only.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the pilots license wasn't renewed, just his typeratings were. So he basically flew without a current license.
However, 2000 hours is not all that much, even for a PPL depending on when he started to fly. It is not inexperienced either though, especially as both pilots were based in Egelsbach and therefore knew the field.
However, 2000 hours is not all that much, even for a PPL depending on when he started to fly. It is not inexperienced either though, especially as both pilots were based in Egelsbach and therefore knew the field.
Well, let's not forget that his licence had only expired because of this completely unnecessary and idiotic ZÜP (check of reliability, a background check, only done in Germany). So I would not say that his licence was not valid, it was just a formal thing.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Hello!
I see it that way too. And as for his alcohol consumption, .2 is really not much, like a small beer or so. Maybe they had chocolates or sweets with an alcoholic filling on board? Two or three of those will probably give you that kind of blood alcohol content. Not that I want to defend alcohol consumption by pilots on duty in any way!
But what's really strange is the fact that they did not use the GPS receiver they carried on board. Even if it was their homebase, descending through clouds close to the ground on a "visual" approach without any distance readings is a bold way to do things. And more so, considering they weren't able to stay on the centerline, even after getting vectors from the controller? We will never know what they were thinking.
Happy landings
max
So I would not say that his licence was not valid, it was just a formal thing.
But what's really strange is the fact that they did not use the GPS receiver they carried on board. Even if it was their homebase, descending through clouds close to the ground on a "visual" approach without any distance readings is a bold way to do things. And more so, considering they weren't able to stay on the centerline, even after getting vectors from the controller? We will never know what they were thinking.
Happy landings
max