G550 closes Stansted
 

Just heard a G550 has closed Stansted by damaging ILS. Anyone know more?

BBC News has something.

Flights were barred from landing at Stansted Airport after equipment was damaged by an incoming aircraft.

The Gulfstream G550 jet damaged part of the Essex airport's instrument landing system (ILS) but landed safely.

Excuse my ignorance, but is there only one such device at most international airports?

No, there is often one associated with each runway direction, so an airport with a single runway will often have two. The system also has multiple components at various locations on the airfield as it offers both lateral and vertical guidance.

http://www.eng.mu.edu/~drakopoa/cour...H/landpath.jpg

Any clues to the operator yet?

Allegedly, it was HZ-A6

Landing G550 damages London Stansted ILS

Landing G550 damages London Stansted ILS

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7424/1...0f288f72_b.jpg

Gulfstream 550 HZ-A6 departing Luton for Le Bourget on 29 March 2013 Photo: Antony and Austyn Pratt

Very close to an accident by the sounds of it.

Is a G550 likely to be Autoland capable, or is it some sort of HUD/FLIR CAT II deal?

The G550 is not auto land capable.

Instrument approaches are limited to CAT I visibility/ceiling. FYI: The EVS/HUD combination allows continuation of the instrument approach below CAT I DA to 100' above threshold elevation (TDZE), as long as certain conditions regarding the instrument approach and visual cues are satisfied.

In particular:
- approach is flown using HUD/EVS to CAT I DA
- before reaching CAT I DA, PF must be able to see runway approach lighting in the EVS - if so, the PF calls 'EVS lights - continuing to XXX feet'
- if EVS approach lights are not observed before CAT I DA, and PM does not observe runway environment, then 'Go Around' is called
- if runway approach lights are observed in the EVS and called, but runway environment is not observed at or before 100' above TDZE, then 'Go Around' is called


I truly hope that this was not a case of a crew deliberately aiming short/diving below the glideslope for some purpose... if so, the reasons why you shouldn't are all too evident in this case.

Another possibility is that the crew employed a non-standard procedure using the EVS, and with inadequate/misinterpreted visual cues misjudged their short final approach path.

No doubt there are many other possibilities...


Having said all of that: it remains for a BOI to determine what happened and ascertain causal factors, if one is convened. Should be some good lessons learnt, no doubt.

Envoy,

Good call on the EVS, if they have the OpSpec. 550 is CAT II though.

Ray

Out of the box, the G550 is limited to CAT I. Getting CAT II requires an ASC (Another Source of Cash) plus the opspecs, crew training, ongoing maintenance etc. Most operators stick to CAT I; CAT II is the exception.

No doubt some operators consider their EVS as a pseudo-CAT II!

The aircraft was high on final approach and this was picked up by ATC using a tool called AFDAS (Approach Funnel Deviation Alerting System). The pilot was advised and then corrected and regained the normal glideslope. I don't know how close in this was, but maybe his higher descent rate to regain the glidepath was not fully corrected in time and he ended up a little low in the last hundred metres of the Approach.

The UK AAIB are investigating so we should see actual events in a report in due course.

Seeming dearth of information.
 

I find it surprising that we have an aircraft on an ILS which lands some 25 m short of the runway threshold, damages an ILS antenna and itself at a major international airport yet there is so little apparent information or interest in the event. (60 hours passed and only 15 posts.) Had the same occurred and the aircraft be a major carrier would the response have been the same? Somehow I doubt it.

There seems to be nothing about the weather conditions at the time or the ‘nature’ of the approach in use.

It would seem that there can be no doubt about the integrity of the ILS installation since it seems to have been reinstated pretty quickly so presumably someone in authority knows something with a pretty high degree of certainty. It is my belief that, a few years ago, a post incident or post accident flight inspection would have been deemed necessary or prudent for all parties. Maybe this has happened already.

Perhaps the information is there somewhere but I can not find it on this thread.

As it presently stands, to me the incident/accident seems just a minor irritation and not to be concerned with. Does anyone else see it this way? Perhaps it really was not that significant in the scale of things but it is one of very few accidents/incidents in the UK involving an ILS since the 90’s.


I hope this does not sound arrogant or dismissive and grateful for any information. There are many questions lurking..

Scotty, I agree some of the more frequent posters seem to staying away from the thread.

Is it indifference or are there some subtle sensitivities not apparent to us.

SGC

10/12/2013 04:50-> metar egss 100450z auto 17005kt 0050 r04/0200 sg ovc001 01/01 q1030
10/12/2013 04:20-> metar egss 100420z 16005kt 0200 r22/0225 fg ovc001 01/00 q1030
10/12/2013 03:50-> metar egss 100350z 16005kt 0400 r22/0275 fg ovc001 01/00 q1030
10/12/2013 03:20-> metar egss 100320z 18005kt 0400 r22/0325 mifg sct001 01/00 q1030
10/12/2013 02:50-> metar egss 100250z 17003kt 0100 r22/0300 fg bkn001 01/01 q1030
10/12/2013 02:20-> metar egss 100220z 16004kt 0100 r22/0250 fg bkn001 02/01 q1030=

Scotty,

Its because you can't fix stupid!!!:ugh:

J

The aircraft was high on final approach


Should have done a go around rather than be smart and cock it up. Better still, divert !

Scottso

A temporary repair was made in the morning, using parts from the opposite end aerials. This was flight tested and released to service late afternoon after checks and calibration by the AAIB and the Airport Authority. Meanwhile, spares were obtained and new aerials fitted to bring everything back up to full serviceability by early evening. Pretty impressive feat by the engineering and calibration teams.

HZ-A6
 

Managed by Alfa Star Aviation Alpha Star


I was parked next to HZ-A6 last week in Saudi.


The claim to be the leading Saudi aircraft management company. Not a training organization.


Usual destination is Luton, not Stansted.


******* removed as not relevant*******


Glf