Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Runway excursion at Lord Howe Island

Wikiposts
Search
The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Runway excursion at Lord Howe Island

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 21st Feb 2022, 11:14
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,880
Received 193 Likes on 100 Posts
Runway excursion at Lord Howe Island

I heard on the bush telegraph that a Kingair allegedly had an excursion at Lord Howe Island within the last week, causing runway fodder and damage to some ground equipment. Speaking with a passenger, word is that they literally missed the runway.

Can’t see this on the ATSB website. Would that be enough of an incident to trigger an ATSB entry?
Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 22nd Feb 2022, 04:45
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 350
Received 17 Likes on 6 Posts
It’s not a place for inexperienced pilots,it will be interesting to see the details if the report is true!!
mates rates is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2022, 06:40
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Next door to the neighbor from hell, who believes in chemtrails!
Age: 75
Posts: 1,808
Received 25 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
I heard on the bush telegraph that a Kingair allegedly had an excursion at Lord Howe Island within the last week, causing runway fodder and damage to some ground equipment. Speaking with a passenger, word is that they literally missed the runway.

Can’t see this on the ATSB website. Would that be enough of an incident to trigger an ATSB entry?
Lord, how?!!!!!!

DF.
Desert Flower is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 22nd Feb 2022, 20:23
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 1 Post
G'day,
just wondering about those of you who use FS2020.
There is an add on for LHI scenery that is great(payware) & it also has a 'Landing Challenge".
THe LHI landing challenge is what I always start my sim session with - in RL I have landed there in an AC690B & a Navajho - both times were very interesting to say the least for somebody who was not ever checked into LHI - so left to learn it the hard way.
Obviously the 690 was the easier of the 2 to do an acceptable landing - never liked the Navajho in a x/wind - always seeemed to run out of aileron control troo soon.
In my retirement I am realy enjoying FS2020 - no bloody CASA - no annoying ATC - go anywhere & do anything - all great fun. The visuals are stunning but gotta have a good computer to really make it sing.
XP-72 is offline  
Old 26th May 2023, 00:18
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: AUS
Posts: 62
Received 12 Likes on 5 Posts
Well the report is out. Some interesting quotes in there too.

Touchdown off the runway surface involving Raytheon B200, VH-MVP, at Lord Howe Island Airport, NSW, on 18 February 2022 | ATSB


Gunner747400 is offline  
Old 26th May 2023, 01:22
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 2,194
Received 155 Likes on 103 Posts
genuine question, NOT criticism of the pilot...
Unless there was a considerable time saving (e.g. POM from the south) why would an operator or pilot prefer a DME arrival over a RNP Runway approach?
Lack of approved equipment? Pilot not approved? Company 'culture'?
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 26th May 2023, 01:25
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 552
Received 81 Likes on 63 Posts
Originally Posted by mates rates
It’s not a place for inexperienced pilots,it will be interesting to see the details if the report is true!!
Certainly wasn't an inexperienced pilot.

It's easy for us (and the ATSB) to arm-chair quarter-back these things, but it does appear he was a little reluctant to go around..
PiperCameron is offline  
Old 26th May 2023, 01:49
  #8 (permalink)  
When you live....
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: 0.0221 DME Keyboard
Posts: 983
Received 13 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
Certainly wasn't an inexperienced pilot.

It's easy for us (and the ATSB) to arm-chair quarter-back these things, but it does appear he was a little reluctant to go around..
how dare the ATSB arm-chair quarterback these things - that’s my job….
UnderneathTheRadar is offline  
Old 26th May 2023, 08:09
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,880
Received 193 Likes on 100 Posts
I heard that the islands council (operator) were VERY unhappy about this. There last thing they would ever want there is a plane crash of any kind.
Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 26th May 2023, 08:12
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 552
Received 81 Likes on 63 Posts
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
I heard that the islands council (operator) were VERY unhappy about this. There last thing they would ever want there is a plane crash of any kind.
Are you kidding?? LHI is famous for it's plane crash history. It's one of the best things about the place.

I heard that's why they put a mountain either side of the runway to induce plenty of turbulence on final - plus zero over-run area so errant pilots would end up in the ocean... Makes for awesome viewing from the terminal!
PiperCameron is offline  
Old 26th May 2023, 11:04
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,292
Received 169 Likes on 86 Posts
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
I heard that the islands council (operator) were VERY unhappy about this.
You seem to hear so much Squawky.
Sadly the ‘islands council’ have little control over what happens. Thankfully they are not unhappy that often!
I’m sure the pilot was also VERY unhappy about this, as the usual intent is to stick to the runway! Stuff happens!
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 26th May 2023, 11:06
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,880
Received 193 Likes on 100 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
You seem to hear so much Squawky.
Sadly the ‘islands council’ have little control over what happens. Thankfully they are not unhappy that often!
I’m sure the pilot was also VERY unhappy about this, as the usual intent is to stick to the runway! Stuff happens!
The islands’ people have the ability to decide who lands there… I’d say they have LOT of input into this!
Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 26th May 2023, 11:34
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,292
Received 169 Likes on 86 Posts
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
The islands’ people have the ability to decide who lands there… I’d say they have LOT of input into this!
Yes! But they have no control over where they actually land!
Capt Fathom is offline  
Old 28th May 2023, 00:19
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,254
Received 195 Likes on 90 Posts
It's easy for us (and the ATSB) to arm-chair quarter-back these things, but it does appear he was a little reluctant to go around..
You might want to have another read of the report if your only conclusion was the pilot was reluctant to go-around. The fact that the ATSB has issued two recommendations and does not accept EAL's response to it is an indication of their elevated concern that there will be a fatal accident at LHI. The decision to not go-around was the safer option in a situation where the safety margins had already been reduced to a point that it had become a game of Russian Roulette. The report goes as close to suggesting that the pilot and the company have not been complete with the truth as their not apportioning blame policy allows. In this instance the ATSB has done what they are required to do. Investigate a serious incident to ascertain the facts and then issue recommendations to avoid a similar circumstance resulting in a fatal accident in the future. Hopefully other operators and pilots will learn from the incident as well.
I get that LHI, like Norfolk, is a place where the niceties of plenty of alternates with diversion fuel to go there are not available. However circling approaches in non-circling areas and marginal to non-existent VMC is going to kill you eventually, regardless of its location. Let that be your lesson from this report.

Last edited by Lookleft; 28th May 2023 at 00:51.
Lookleft is offline  
The following 4 users liked this post by Lookleft:
Old 28th May 2023, 02:47
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Timbuktoo
Posts: 264
Received 153 Likes on 47 Posts
The report goes as close to suggesting that the pilot and the company have not been complete with the truth as they’re not apportioning blame policy allows.
Some of the comments on the ATSB FB page from people who appear to be close to this company seem to support this assertion.
brokenagain is offline  
Old 29th May 2023, 01:44
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 552
Received 81 Likes on 63 Posts
Originally Posted by Lookleft
You might want to have another read of the report if your only conclusion was the pilot was reluctant to go-around. The fact that the ATSB has issued two recommendations and does not accept EAL's response to it is an indication of their elevated concern that there will be a fatal accident at LHI. The decision to not go-around was the safer option in a situation where the safety margins had already been reduced to a point that it had become a game of Russian Roulette.
You might want to read up on LHI's accident history. There have been a few accidents at LHI over the decades - but none that I'm yet aware of caused by sheer stupidity. It's drummed into every rookie flight student from First Solo onwards that you should ALWAYS be prepared to go around. ..and if you're not prepared to go around at least once and still have enough fuel on board to divert, you have no business flying into LHI. This is not unique: there are plenty of other challenging airports around Oz that are not much different (YHOT in winter is one that springs to mind).

That ATSB is calling out EAL's culture is a good indication that, as a company, they're an accident waiting to happen. Hopefully they'll take this seriously and do something about it.

Last edited by PiperCameron; 30th May 2023 at 02:17. Reason: "Fatal" removed from post
PiperCameron is offline  
Old 29th May 2023, 02:33
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Sydney
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Seems to me the operator was trying to impress on the ATSB that the safest option, in this instance; was to land slightly off the runway rather then trying to conduct a go around in the high wind low vis situation. Outcome kinda of speaks for itself: nil aircraft damage, nil injuries, 1 busted runway light.

If the aircraft had gone around, while suffering wind induced controllability issues with those mountains either side in low vis, could've been catastrophic. I'm sure the LHI board would find that a lot less palatable.
Styx75 is offline  
Old 29th May 2023, 03:07
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,254
Received 195 Likes on 90 Posts
around at least once and still have enough fuel on board to divert, you have no business flying into LHI.
Clearly we are in the presence of an aviation legend. So you have got yourself boxed in low to the ground and can see jack yet you are going to attempt a go-around and try and outclimb hills you can't see?

Then you think that YHOT is equivalent? YHOT is on top of a hill, not surrounded by them. YHOT is also only a stones throw fuel wise to many other airports. Seeing as you bought YHOT up though it is a prime example of what can go wrong when dodgy visual approaches are used to somehow outsmart the system.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 29th May 2023, 11:09
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,795
Received 116 Likes on 56 Posts
genuine question, NOT criticism of the pilot...
Unless there was a considerable time saving (e.g. POM from the south) why would an operator or pilot prefer a DME arrival over a RNP Runway approach?
Lack of approved equipment? Pilot not approved? Company 'culture'?
The DME arrival allows you to dive down to 1700' at 15DME, so you'll get to 1700' at about 9 miles from the threshold. If you can find a gap, with the cloud reported broken at 1100', overcast 1900' then you can call yourself visual and proceed VFR. That means you can descend visually to 500' AGL - if you have the VFR minima of 5km visability and remain clear of cloud.

If you fly the RNP approach as a straight in, then you fly the constant 3º slope down to an 800' minima (at about 2.5 miles to the threshold), and once visual you only need 4.5 km vis on this approach. The DME is easier to fly (less lateral tracking) than the RNP (depending I suppose on how sophisticated your autopilot is).

Given the cloud, it looks like the pilot thought that option A would be the more assured way of getting visual ... the problem was that it very much looks like he didn't maintain VMC.

The pilot stated that visual contact with the runway was maintained throughout the final approach but, due to crosswind from the left and as the aircraft tracked into the lee of the mountain to the north of the runway, some realignment with the runway was necessary.
He decended to 400' AGL at 3.3 DME when a normal approach path would have him at about 1000' AGL. He was 125m right of centreline at 1.5 miles to go, increasing to 140m right of centreline at 400m to go, and talking about looking at islands for height and tracking information - that's not someone visual with a runway (and if he's not visual with the runway then he doesn't have the required 5km for a visual, not even the 4.5km if he had conducted the instrument approach) and he should have climbed to join the missed approach procedure once he lost VMC.

Regardless, he pushed on with the (now illegal) approach and once he finally saw the runway just 400m away slammed in a left/right turn combination that had him overshoot and land on the grass - then said that he began a go-around, but cancelled that when he felt the touch-down (also a bad decision - once you begin a go around, you commit to it.).

Checkboard is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by Checkboard:
Old 29th May 2023, 11:27
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,292
Received 169 Likes on 86 Posts
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
There have been a few fatal accidents at LHI over the decades
Has there? I couldn’t find any references, (apart from the Catalina in 1948, with the wreckage still on the hill), but maybe looking in the wrong place.
Capt Fathom is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.