That's a picture of fog, what is that to do with the weather conditions at the time of landing on the runway?

The exact words of the people waiting nearby the runway to take the organ.

"Fog was around Brum - but not over the airport at that precise time. Bright sunshine, clear skies."

I'm sure even a paramedic can get that right.

APRN

(Pronounced "Apron")

:E

Qualified pilots?
 

Were the pilots both instrument-rated, type-rated , current, and LVP-qualified?

Just an obvious question, no insinuation.

Road Hog, read the Metars, there is no discussion needed, irrelevant of what a member of the public told you.

Egbb 191650z 01003kt 0100 R15/0300 R33/0300 Fg Vv/// 06/05 Q1012=
Egbb 191620z 01003kt 0100 R15/0300 R33/0275 Fg Bkn000 06/05 Q1011=
Egbb 191550z 01004kt 0250 R15/0275 R33/0325 Fg Nsc 07/05 Q1011=
Egbb 191520z 13003kt 9999 3000nw Prfg Few007 08/06 Q1011=
Egbb 191450z 15004kt 9999 Few007 09/07 Q1011=
Egbb 191420z 12004kt 090v160 9999 4500nw Few007 09/07 Q1011=
Egbb 191350z 12004kt 9999 Few007 09/07 Q1011=
Egbb 191320z 11004kt 070v140 9999 Sct007 08/07 Q1011=
Egbb 191250z Vrb03kt 9000 Sct005 08/08 Q1011=

Skynews now.....2 crew minor injuries also organ OK and delivered to hospital.

CLDRVR
 

Not sure I agree with you, I spent many years flying a business jet called a Boeing BBJ, if I had crashed at Birmingham I wonder where the news would be discussed?

Seems to me that we're second class citizens around here...........

Think about it, quite the opposite.

CLDVR
 

Don't get your drift?

Bloggs, no such thing as an LVP qualification for pilots.

Bloggs

How many AOC jets do you know of operate day VFR? Maybe not lvp qualified, but asking if the guys are instrument rated? Come on. Its a business jet not a VFR ppl in a Seneca.

SF, it keeps the amount of armchair pilots and trolls down and the discussion generally tends to centre around Bizjet crew.

DB6
 

Beg to differ old chap, theres LVP qualifications necessary to operate below CAT 1 minima. I held CAT 3A LVP on both an MD-87 and 737-BBJ. You can't just fly CAT 2 and 3 without holding a company qualification to do so.

CLDVR
 

Fair point, I see what you mean.

SF, LVP on a Citation would only apply if you wanted to takeoff under an AOC with RVR less then 400m, otherwise no LVP required. a Citation is not cat II or III.

Anybody out there able to correct me on this?

Why ?
 

I quite agree - why was this thread moved ????

CLDVR
 

You're right but this was a landing accident in conditions that seem to have been below CAT1, therefore Article 39 and 40 of the ANO applies (unless you have passed the OM or 4 mile point). With no LVO capability on a Citation something else may have been going on to foce the crew into this approach?

I'd rather nor speculate too much, I hate Bizjet accidents, ours is a small world and it always feels very close to home when some of our colleagues come to grief.

Lets just hope they both fully recover.

They were spitting bits out the back and on fire, I can hazard an educated guess that EU-OPS was the last thing on their mind.

ANO has been history for a while.

I was at the airport about 30 seconds after they closed the A45 road.
One police car and van were there.
There was no fog at the airport, however about 2 miles down the road whilst driving to the airport, the fog was very thick, and I would guess it was not far from the perimeter.
An ambulance was driving FROM the airport towards the A45. Maybe the ambulance there to collect the organ?
Major amounts of Police motorcycles and Fire engines major incident units arrived about 5 mins after I went into the airport.
Where are the crash gates into the airport?.........I know there is one at the threshold of 33, which is connected to the A45.
Anyway, I hope that all everyone that was involved is OK. My heart and thoughts go out to all the people injured, and I wish them a speedy recovery.

CLDVR
 

Agree fully, it wouldn't be on my mind in those circumstances..........

Sods law isn't it? You have a major problem on the day that theres fog around?

I wish them well.

The aircraft took out the "ILS antenna" [not sure which] on landing, according to Birmingham airport. This was not your normal variety approach and landing, they made it within the perimeter and according to most sources have only minor injuries, they did well.

Time will tell the rest.

StressFree, it is my understanding that Cat2/3 ops are known as LVOs. LVPs are ground procedures put in place during low visibility to ensure things aren't where they're not meant to be when no-one can see them (more or less). LVPs don't imply Cat 2/3 conditions. Your company may have called them LVP qualifications, however I am not aware of a JAA LVP qualification. Having said that I will stand corrected and have learnt something new if wrong!

If you have a look at Google Maps, you'll see that the ILS localiser antenna (for 33 I presume) is pretty close to the perimeter fence.

From memory, I think that the fence is on lower ground than the runway itself, but if they hit the antenna they must have been very close to coming down outside the fence.

This could have ended up so much worse, let's hope that they both recover quickly.

Could not agree more. I will probably get banned for this but this was a really poor (and very quick) decision!

The BBC news article first reports the aircraft took out the ILS antennae (plural) it then goes on to report a Mr. Kehoe as saying the aircraft took out the ILS glide path antenna. It also reports him saying the aircraft ended-up to the right of the southern-facing runway. Mr. Kehoe's reported comments would at least be consistent. There is no mention anywhere of the aircraft specifically hitting the ILS localiser antenna having just made it to the airfield perimeter.

As is common in accidents, there are more questions than answers so, as said before, it is pretty useless at this time attempting to speculate on cause based on snippets of information from arbitrary news articles.

AVF

Good point, I hadn't considered that.

Looking at Google Maps again, I can see the glideslope antenna, and in fact it's between runway 15 and Hatchford Brook golf course where one of the originally interviewed witnesses was located so it seems quite likely that this was the antenna that was involved in the collision. It's hundreds of metres from the perimeter fence that's next to the localiser antenna.

From Home - Birmingham Airport

The only people who knew if there was thick fog on the approach/ threshold are the pilots on this approach. On the ground you can be in thick fog and then 10m later be in a clear patch. So please can all the non commercial pilots please stop saying it was a gin clear day. At the time and place the jet landed, the only people who knew the weather at that specific point of the airport would have been the pilots.

And yes, I am a pilot, thousands of hours on jets and yes, LVO qualified.

A very sad day for all concerned.
Until a few months ago I used to work for the operators of the aircraft involved and had flown the aircraft concerned on many occasions.
I await the investigation report with interest.
My heartfelt thoughts go out to the two crew members and their families. Get well soon guys.
CR

Airbus Girl,
Really? Bloke in the tower? Ranger guy in the landy, where was he? Anyone else at the hold waiting? Aircraft 5 or 10 miles behind them?

So are you saying that I can't see fog 10m away? If I could see fog 10m away would I say it was a gin clear day?

Are commercial pilots, like you and I, the only people capable of seeing the weather? Non-commercial pilots (whatever that means) don't know what fog looks like?

Agreed but entirely irrelevant. We are more concerned with the visual range down the runway rather than "that specific point of the airport" are we not?

Good for you.

Thats what I like about this place. You read through the posts and realise that on the face of it the pilots did a fantastic job and look like there going to be fine. They may well have saved some ones life (the purpose of the flight in the first place)

So how many posts actually congratulate the drivers. Not many.

Slagging each other off. Check
Slagging off the press. Check
Slagging off the mods. Check
Arguing about the weather when most of you were not even there. Check
Putting in your 2p's worth about how it happened Not yet but it won't be long.

To the pilots on the day when you start to read this thread about you first off get better soon and hope you return to what your good at and love and I :D you for what you did.

standby by and see how long some of this ends up blue and slagged off. 5 4 3 2 1

Airbus Girl
 

You are talking out of your retto. You are not a commercial pilot and I have arrived at that decision by simply examining your posts.

We need to get back on topic chaps. Stick to the facts and the facts only.

Malicious rumours, lies, fabrications of the truth or mere and uneducated speculation can end up being sourced in the media. The family of the pilots injured would not like that to happen.

You remember what happened to Peter Burkill?

Good. Let's remain on topic.

I believe the pilots were carrying out a CAT III approach when they shouldn't have been in the first place. Pilot error. :ugh:

Appropriate terminology
 

Human error, old chap. (Unless you employ terms like wife error, police error, ATC error, politician error, fireman error, judge error, doctor error)

about the thread being moved...

This is the biz jet section, and the accident was a biz jet, it happened at a UK airport. Most of the news on the R&N main page is of INTERNATIONAL importance. Since the title is visible on the R&N page (where I also went looking for it), what's the problem? :rolleyes:

Good luck to the pilots and patient waiting for the new liver!

<<Really? Bloke in the tower? Ranger guy in the landy, where was he?>>

The Air Traffic Control Officers in the tower have instrumented RVR readings which would have been passed to the pilot. They have no discretion on otherwise reporting visibility. "Ranger guy in the landy"?? I think you are some years behind the times if you mean the counting the edge lights!

The reported weather would indeed suggest that the runway was CAT III at the time of the accident. However, it is not pilot error if the aircraft commander reasonably believed that he needed to land immediately; an uncontained fire would surely qualify.

Now this is speculation, but if the a/c had been able to safely maintain flight, and had diverted to a suitable alternate, it is likely that the organ would have been lost, which would have endangered the life of the recipient. I am curious - would that in itself constitute sufficient reason to continue the approach below minima? Not saying this is what actually happened, just curious.

In the event, it appears that the decision to continue saved at least one life. Respect to all concerned.

Here's an eyewitness report of sorts for you.

At the time of the accident the airfield was in brilliant sunshine however a fog bank could be seen around the 15 threshold (viewed from the Elmdon Building (old terminal). Myself and colleagues had watched the previous landings (a BEE DH8D and AUR AT72) disappear into the fog on short finals and emerge well over the runway. We commented that we were surprised they hadn't gone around, especially the ATR. Comments from those crews would be illuminating.

The fog was purely at the 15 end and we were actually questioning why ATC were still positioning traffic for 15 when the 33 end was in the clear and the wind negligable. The fog bank was steadily moving along the runway, hence the rapid drop in touch down RVR. I didn't see the Citation on approach or hit(?) the ground but did see it emerge from the fog nose pointing away from the runway and saw a rapid fire and a very large plume of black smoke (I assume this was as it hit the 15 GP aerial). A few seconds later it was obscured by the fog. There was then a delay of several minutes before the fire service turned out which lead us in the office to question what we had actually seen, particuarly as the aircraft could no longer be seen because of the fog

From my viewpoint the fog seems to have been a serious factor here with a rapid deterioration of visibility at low level. I cannot say what the touchdown RVR was at the precise time of the accident but it had been above CAT 1 imediately before, but within about 10 minutes of the accident the whole airport from our viewpoint was enveloped in thick fog although the Helimed Agusta from Coventry let down visually on the 33 threshold but could not be seen from the tower.

From my perspective the two areas of interest would be the rapid loss of visability around the 15 touchdown zone and the initial confusion and delay in responding to the accident, probably the sudden loss of visibility played a part in that?.

After seeing the above I cannot tell you the relief at hearing the Helimed depart to Walsgrave Hospital and seeing an ambulance leave on blue lights shortly after...

Regards
OV

Aviophage........oh, she is a commercial pilot.....that much is definite.....and you can tell what a/c she flies, hint is in her profile name (oh, and the fact i've flown with her whilst i was working out back helps confirm my knowledge)

As for talking out of her "retto" (not heard that before lol), i think not - all she is saying that due to the rapidly changing nature of the "fog bank","mist", etc., only the crew know what THEY could or could not see from a visual perspective, regardless of who else was in the vicinty of the accident area - i believe that might be the point she was making, apologies Airbus Girl if it isn't ?!



Ah, Aviophage - definitely no uneducated speculation in your post there then, nice to see someone berate a colleague, post his/her reasons and then apply absolutely no thought - and even in the same post - still, maybe that's because your head is in your "retto" ?? (i still don't know what a "retto" is ??)

Good to hear that the liver transplant operation went ahead last night.

Decision Height......Nothing Seen.....Going Around ???!?? :uhoh: