Sky News reporting bizjet crash Jan 12
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dislike the term "DIY." It reads just like "bodging it," to me, probably because that is exactly what it is.
There are very many accident reports where a highly experienced crew, one that knew the area like the back of the hand, made a wrong assumption about where they were.
There's no substitute for flying a legal approach, one that has been surveyed, charted and approved, using the equipment legally required for that. That is not to say that we can always do that, of course, just that it's inarguably the safest way to make an approach. Once you depart from all those niggling legalities, well, you are now swimming rather than being on dry land. Then it's just a matter of not going in over your head, I guess.
There are very many accident reports where a highly experienced crew, one that knew the area like the back of the hand, made a wrong assumption about where they were.
There's no substitute for flying a legal approach, one that has been surveyed, charted and approved, using the equipment legally required for that. That is not to say that we can always do that, of course, just that it's inarguably the safest way to make an approach. Once you depart from all those niggling legalities, well, you are now swimming rather than being on dry land. Then it's just a matter of not going in over your head, I guess.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: British Columbia / California
Age: 63
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F900 Ex. I did see that list before my previous post.
How many of them do not already have a ground based published approach? In other words, for how many of them is a satellite based the first published approach? To give some benefit of the doubt, how many of them are an upgrade from a ground based non-precision approach to a satellite based precision approach?
How many of them do not already have a ground based published approach? In other words, for how many of them is a satellite based the first published approach? To give some benefit of the doubt, how many of them are an upgrade from a ground based non-precision approach to a satellite based precision approach?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 84
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F900 EX
Thanks for the link.
Don´t know wether or not others notice too, German airports count for most of 136 total - 84 app.proc. But only one a/d has the single LPV type. All the others are certified LNAV/VNAV - EGNOS and few - 10 - in addition to LPV.
The airports listed in other countries have all that LPV type. Of which it is said to be the more userfriendly version of an augmented GPS approach
Rethorical question: Can this - probable reluctance - be considered a more conservative approach to the implementation of these new types of app.procedures ? I thought with the installation of DFS as a private enterprise in German ATC some 22 years ago all the old threadmills became abandoned !!
Jo
Thanks for the link.
Don´t know wether or not others notice too, German airports count for most of 136 total - 84 app.proc. But only one a/d has the single LPV type. All the others are certified LNAV/VNAV - EGNOS and few - 10 - in addition to LPV.
The airports listed in other countries have all that LPV type. Of which it is said to be the more userfriendly version of an augmented GPS approach
Rethorical question: Can this - probable reluctance - be considered a more conservative approach to the implementation of these new types of app.procedures ? I thought with the installation of DFS as a private enterprise in German ATC some 22 years ago all the old threadmills became abandoned !!
Jo
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thought with the installation of DFS as a private enterprise in German ATC some 22 years ago all the old threadmills became abandoned !!
After decades of offloading civil servants that weren´t excelling in their fields onto air traffic control what would one expect ? My father was an ATCO for the BFS and his superior was an architect with no knowledge of ATC whatsover, nor had that guy ever worked the ridiculous shifts they had in BFS. Yet this bigmouth told the working ATCOs how to do their job...
Even when these dinosaurs are dying out (and probably are gone by now), DFS focusses on the big airports and flows, AKA cash-flows. If your tower is not DFS run, then DFS and BAFs coorperation seem to lack 'enthusiams', I´m told. And BAF consults with DFS when a procedure is to be established....
The design of airspace and flows speaks volumes. We - homebased at a small IFR airfield S of EDDF - are considered an annoyance and treated accordingly: descending 270-300 trackmiles before homebase is not uncommon and flying the last 80 miles below FL140 is the usual thing.
Last time I arrived from the southeast, this cost us 1000lbs of fuel plus whatever we have to spent for the ETS and I landed min div fuel + 20lbs.
DFS means Descend, Fly Slow.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deefer dog - Great, so you go on and fly your home made approaches. I wish you good luck with that, you'll need it.
To the rest of you, my advice is still - don't do it.
CP
To the rest of you, my advice is still - don't do it.
CP
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 84
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
his Dudeness
A real pitty to read what you have experienced. Sometimes traffic situation may require a non optimum approach guidance but as I remember those dinosauers at least knew what the word service means and they also knew what "top of descend" is described as.
As for the early descends the old "crackies" had a very simple answer. "Cheat the system, file the wrong destination". And of course either refile or divert to your intended destination.(not too often or a "Cleverli" might imagine what´s going on)
By the way, had the crew of the crashed C 501 done the diversion in time they all would be alive. Becoming killed by ones actions mostly starts with minor flaws.
Jo
A real pitty to read what you have experienced. Sometimes traffic situation may require a non optimum approach guidance but as I remember those dinosauers at least knew what the word service means and they also knew what "top of descend" is described as.
As for the early descends the old "crackies" had a very simple answer. "Cheat the system, file the wrong destination". And of course either refile or divert to your intended destination.(not too often or a "Cleverli" might imagine what´s going on)
By the way, had the crew of the crashed C 501 done the diversion in time they all would be alive. Becoming killed by ones actions mostly starts with minor flaws.
Jo
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FX 900x , thanks for your answer, I know the ESA web site too but the question was not the current list, it was :
And I maintain I think none. I think all of them had a good old IAP before. But I do not knew all and everyone of them before, hence my remark , but my guess is none or if any, it is 2 or 3 max.
As an aside I fully and whohearthly share CaptainProp advice.
How many of the EGNOS / WAAS approaches in Europe are at fields that have never had a ground system based IAP?
As an aside I fully and whohearthly share CaptainProp advice.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Annex, I was more refering to the guys in what was then called 'le belle etage' than about the real ATCOs. They are for the most part top notch. But they have to work with the procedures / handover Levels etcetc they get by the planners. And they plan solely for the big flows which are in/out of EDDF and EDDM and to a lesser degree EDDS/EDDN. We always would collide with these, especially since the bigger airliner on longhaul often need ages to climb.
The example I gave starts in Czech airspace or Austrian depending on the route they will hand us over between FL260 and 300. So eeven if the DFS guys are good willing, one needed to rely on the others to coordinate which they often can´t do (workload).
The example I gave starts in Czech airspace or Austrian depending on the route they will hand us over between FL260 and 300. So eeven if the DFS guys are good willing, one needed to rely on the others to coordinate which they often can´t do (workload).
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt Prop,
I suggest you read my posts again! Reading seems not to be a strong point of yours.
I merely asked why in response to your lecture. You demonstrated that you didn't RTFQ, and then didn't read the response. Chill out dude!
I suggest you read my posts again! Reading seems not to be a strong point of yours.
I merely asked why in response to your lecture. You demonstrated that you didn't RTFQ, and then didn't read the response. Chill out dude!
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 84
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hd
I appreciate after so many years to see the term "le belle Etage" reappear. I think I too belong to the group of people that have heard this sentence before and how an Architect in civil service thought to run ATC.!!
From what I remember from my years in "thin air control", routing and structure in south western German airspace was always a problem. May be a hint on "excessive" fuel consumption on lower FL may delay these unwanted early descends. Coordination on the ground should be not your concern, thats now a days only pushing some knobs, and workload is a too often misused phrase.
Jo
I appreciate after so many years to see the term "le belle Etage" reappear. I think I too belong to the group of people that have heard this sentence before and how an Architect in civil service thought to run ATC.!!
From what I remember from my years in "thin air control", routing and structure in south western German airspace was always a problem. May be a hint on "excessive" fuel consumption on lower FL may delay these unwanted early descends. Coordination on the ground should be not your concern, thats now a days only pushing some knobs, and workload is a too often misused phrase.
Jo
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha ! the memories of " le bel etage" so we all 3 have been through the same "thin air control " place " ?
Indeed this corner ( DIK-LNO-NOR) was and still is the most complex piece of airspace in Europe because it involves the airspace of 4 different ANSPs and the USAF ( Spangdalhem ) and it is where the departures ( and arrivals) of 5 major airports collide ( EBBR, EDDL, EDDK, EDDF and to a lesser extend LFPG ) not to mention the dozen of smaller airports around them .
Without drawing strict procedures , it would not work. Another thing is that the traffic levels today are 4 times what they used to be when the " bel etage" was in operation.. and the levels of incidents/ Airprox in there is close to nil.
So the price to pay for some "Bicycles" to stay slow and low in this area .
Indeed this corner ( DIK-LNO-NOR) was and still is the most complex piece of airspace in Europe because it involves the airspace of 4 different ANSPs and the USAF ( Spangdalhem ) and it is where the departures ( and arrivals) of 5 major airports collide ( EBBR, EDDL, EDDK, EDDF and to a lesser extend LFPG ) not to mention the dozen of smaller airports around them .
Without drawing strict procedures , it would not work. Another thing is that the traffic levels today are 4 times what they used to be when the " bel etage" was in operation.. and the levels of incidents/ Airprox in there is close to nil.
So the price to pay for some "Bicycles" to stay slow and low in this area .
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Up north
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deefer dog -
I read everything you wrote, every single bit of it. I kindly suggest you read your own post again ask yourself this question "Am I really making sense here?"
No lecturing from my side, just my opinion and you are free to agree/disagree.
But do you REALLY not agree?
There were several reasons as to why I did not reply more in detail to your comments and questions on my four points on why not to fly DIY approaches. One of them was that I suspected your comments were made either to wind people up, or if that was not the case, then because you do not know what you are talking about. Another reason was that I did not want to end up spending too much space here focusing on this part of the discussion.
You see, IF we assume that your comments, questions and suggestions on "DIY" approaches, with regards to terrain clearance, lateral and vertical, turn radius etc etc were all taken in to consideration, and I mean properly surveyed by professional surveyors, then it would not be the kind of DIY approach that we are talking about here anymore. That would make them surveyed approaches that could get approved and PUBLISHED.
What we are talking about here, and that I presume you were talking about in your response to my comments, are the ones where pilots fly around in VFR conditions and make their own fixes, altitude restrictions, turn points etc. and then they go and do the same in IFR conditions thinking this is "safe"!!!!
For anyone, with any type of flying license, to keep banging on about how DIY approaches can be flown in a “safe” way is just beyond my understanding.
CP
I read everything you wrote, every single bit of it. I kindly suggest you read your own post again ask yourself this question "Am I really making sense here?"
No lecturing from my side, just my opinion and you are free to agree/disagree.
But do you REALLY not agree?
There were several reasons as to why I did not reply more in detail to your comments and questions on my four points on why not to fly DIY approaches. One of them was that I suspected your comments were made either to wind people up, or if that was not the case, then because you do not know what you are talking about. Another reason was that I did not want to end up spending too much space here focusing on this part of the discussion.
You see, IF we assume that your comments, questions and suggestions on "DIY" approaches, with regards to terrain clearance, lateral and vertical, turn radius etc etc were all taken in to consideration, and I mean properly surveyed by professional surveyors, then it would not be the kind of DIY approach that we are talking about here anymore. That would make them surveyed approaches that could get approved and PUBLISHED.
What we are talking about here, and that I presume you were talking about in your response to my comments, are the ones where pilots fly around in VFR conditions and make their own fixes, altitude restrictions, turn points etc. and then they go and do the same in IFR conditions thinking this is "safe"!!!!
For anyone, with any type of flying license, to keep banging on about how DIY approaches can be flown in a “safe” way is just beyond my understanding.
CP
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 84
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CP
Fully agree, just another point hit!! Wanted to write that earlier but drifted off the case.
Meanwhile I have spend some time with the evaluation of the pictures 3 - 5 - 7 of Hd´s post # 46.
Clearly visuable in # 7 is the second and parallel running powerlines. None of these was obviously touched or cut.
On # 3 one has to look at the steel structure - how it is bent and into which direction. If one draws a line through the most rearward(eastern) and most foreward(western) main structure of the pole it becomes obvious they were not on a final heading. The main hit was on the most right (Sout - southeastern) structure and the impact happened in a direction that leeds toward final heading / centre line.
From this observations I take - assumption - that indeed they were following the Autobahn and - because well aware of the local situation - knew they had to turn right upon passing the exit "Klausen" on A 1/48 to position on final for Föhren.
What obviously never came to their mind is the little ridge with the power poles on top of it. Looks very different from a normal approach path and angle. Obviously in an avoiding manoevre because of the ridge they undershot the first powerline and collided than with the pole of the second.
Because of this theory I tend not to believe they used some kind of a home braided approach procedure, though this possibility cannot totally denied.
Jo
Fully agree, just another point hit!! Wanted to write that earlier but drifted off the case.
Meanwhile I have spend some time with the evaluation of the pictures 3 - 5 - 7 of Hd´s post # 46.
Clearly visuable in # 7 is the second and parallel running powerlines. None of these was obviously touched or cut.
On # 3 one has to look at the steel structure - how it is bent and into which direction. If one draws a line through the most rearward(eastern) and most foreward(western) main structure of the pole it becomes obvious they were not on a final heading. The main hit was on the most right (Sout - southeastern) structure and the impact happened in a direction that leeds toward final heading / centre line.
From this observations I take - assumption - that indeed they were following the Autobahn and - because well aware of the local situation - knew they had to turn right upon passing the exit "Klausen" on A 1/48 to position on final for Föhren.
What obviously never came to their mind is the little ridge with the power poles on top of it. Looks very different from a normal approach path and angle. Obviously in an avoiding manoevre because of the ridge they undershot the first powerline and collided than with the pole of the second.
Because of this theory I tend not to believe they used some kind of a home braided approach procedure, though this possibility cannot totally denied.
Jo
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 84
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A bit of an insight of the situation is achievable via Google Earth.
Enter "Föhren" into the search tab >> next amplify a bit and focus on the RWY 22 marking. Very well visuable is a displaced threshold. Apparently even the obstacle surface sloped 1 : 40 for VFR flights and runways is not clear of obstacles, therefore the displacement.
Than moving east beyond the village of "Hetzerath" near extended center line there is a foto linked into Google Earth named "Flugplatz Trier - Föhren; langer Endanflug".
I assume those of the community that have to deal with similar airfields more frequent immediately know that this is not a "honey".
Definately and for all recognizable a VFR / VMC field only.
Jo
Enter "Föhren" into the search tab >> next amplify a bit and focus on the RWY 22 marking. Very well visuable is a displaced threshold. Apparently even the obstacle surface sloped 1 : 40 for VFR flights and runways is not clear of obstacles, therefore the displacement.
Than moving east beyond the village of "Hetzerath" near extended center line there is a foto linked into Google Earth named "Flugplatz Trier - Föhren; langer Endanflug".
I assume those of the community that have to deal with similar airfields more frequent immediately know that this is not a "honey".
Definately and for all recognizable a VFR / VMC field only.
Jo
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Saw a detailed radar tracking/plotting of the last part of the flight. I think we can disregard the self-designed GPS theory. From what I saw, the aircraft looked for and then followed exactly the motorway , until one point where it left it to head roughly towards the airport, but in a wrong general direction ( off track by approx 20-30 degr) . The aircraft also made a few brief left/right turns while descending lower .
Looks more like trying to get visual contact with ground than following a GPS track . Icing is another possibility/factor as Spangdhalem nearby was reporting Freezing Fog at the time . But pure speculation. The guys of the BFU Investigation Team who have access to far more data may get the answer in the end.
Looks more like trying to get visual contact with ground than following a GPS track . Icing is another possibility/factor as Spangdhalem nearby was reporting Freezing Fog at the time . But pure speculation. The guys of the BFU Investigation Team who have access to far more data may get the answer in the end.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PIC Blamed for Fatal 2014 Citation Crash
http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publication...ublicationFile
A January 2014 fatal crash of a Cessna Citation 501 was caused by the pilot-in-command (PIC) deciding to “conduct the VFR approach even though he was aware of the prevailing [IMC in fog] at the airport,” according to a newly released final report from the German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU). The PIC, copilot and the two passengers perished when the twinjet struck obstacles 2 nm short of Runway 22 at Germany’s Trier-Fohren Airport, which is a VFR-only field.
The U.S.-registered twinjet was being operated as a private flight by industrial company Theo Steil GmbH. The report also cited “insufficient situational awareness of the pilots” and “insufficient crew resource management.”
Possible pressure by the passengers to land at Trier was also investigated. The son of one of the passengers told investigators that his father had called him on the morning of the day of the accident and told him that the airplane would probably land at Frankfurt-Hahn Airport, where the forecast weather was VMC. He said it was “inconceivable” that his father would pressure the pilot to fly to Trier.
Investigators asked three pilots, who were working for the same company, about the personality of the PIC. He was described as “rather dominant and assured of himself.” Another pilot told investigators that on the weekend before the accident flight there had been a dispute between the PIC and the copilot. He said the PIC had voiced his intention to have the working relationship with the copilot terminated.
The PIC’s wife said that her husband had been “displeased with the work of the copilot and had assessed his skills and proficiency as low.” The pilots interviewed by the BFU described the copilot as “reticent, level-headed and a cooperative team player.”
http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publication...ublicationFile
A January 2014 fatal crash of a Cessna Citation 501 was caused by the pilot-in-command (PIC) deciding to “conduct the VFR approach even though he was aware of the prevailing [IMC in fog] at the airport,” according to a newly released final report from the German Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (BFU). The PIC, copilot and the two passengers perished when the twinjet struck obstacles 2 nm short of Runway 22 at Germany’s Trier-Fohren Airport, which is a VFR-only field.
The U.S.-registered twinjet was being operated as a private flight by industrial company Theo Steil GmbH. The report also cited “insufficient situational awareness of the pilots” and “insufficient crew resource management.”
Possible pressure by the passengers to land at Trier was also investigated. The son of one of the passengers told investigators that his father had called him on the morning of the day of the accident and told him that the airplane would probably land at Frankfurt-Hahn Airport, where the forecast weather was VMC. He said it was “inconceivable” that his father would pressure the pilot to fly to Trier.
Investigators asked three pilots, who were working for the same company, about the personality of the PIC. He was described as “rather dominant and assured of himself.” Another pilot told investigators that on the weekend before the accident flight there had been a dispute between the PIC and the copilot. He said the PIC had voiced his intention to have the working relationship with the copilot terminated.
The PIC’s wife said that her husband had been “displeased with the work of the copilot and had assessed his skills and proficiency as low.” The pilots interviewed by the BFU described the copilot as “reticent, level-headed and a cooperative team player.”
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
