Dash8 crash in NZ
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was nothing defective about the aids or the approach at the time. The minimum altitude steps down the approach were as per ICAO regulations for terrain clearance. They got distracted, got low and hit the hill. And now there is a notam out saying that if it is windy at the airfield then it will be more windy along the ranges at altitude? What next? The approach is no more difficult than any other VOR Arc anywhere and the buck has to stop somewhere. Next they'll suggest it is carried out day VMC only. Maybe in NZ they should ban non-precision approaches since we can't fly them.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew member who died was the cabin attendant who was out of her seat at the time of impact.
I cant remember how many passengers died; I think it was 4, one who died of burns later who had successfully evacuated but then went back into the aircraft to rescue others and was caught in a flash fire; a real hero.
CRM was lacking , but there was more to that accident than just CRM, as there usually is in most accidents.
Both flight crew members were low time in their respective positions.
The weather, for those Australians that don't understand the terrain problems in NZ, was also a major factor in causing the aircraft to descend below the approach profile.
The aircraft started the approach on the leeward side of a range of hills and had to cross the range to the missed approach point.
This approach was only used when westerlies winds were blowing and when strong as they were that day caused a lot of wind shear and turbulence on the leeward side.
The most important fact was that the aircraft had a landing gear malfunction which the crew were trying to deal with and the number one rule with a malfunction "fly the aircraft" was forgotten as the FP was trying to help the NFP with the checklist for this malfunction and not concentrating on the approach.
Why the Capt did not carry out a missed approach and then sort out the problem I guess only he will know.
Always bear in mind that incidents/accidents always have multiple causal factors.
I cant remember how many passengers died; I think it was 4, one who died of burns later who had successfully evacuated but then went back into the aircraft to rescue others and was caught in a flash fire; a real hero.
CRM was lacking , but there was more to that accident than just CRM, as there usually is in most accidents.
Both flight crew members were low time in their respective positions.
The weather, for those Australians that don't understand the terrain problems in NZ, was also a major factor in causing the aircraft to descend below the approach profile.
The aircraft started the approach on the leeward side of a range of hills and had to cross the range to the missed approach point.
This approach was only used when westerlies winds were blowing and when strong as they were that day caused a lot of wind shear and turbulence on the leeward side.
The most important fact was that the aircraft had a landing gear malfunction which the crew were trying to deal with and the number one rule with a malfunction "fly the aircraft" was forgotten as the FP was trying to help the NFP with the checklist for this malfunction and not concentrating on the approach.
Why the Capt did not carry out a missed approach and then sort out the problem I guess only he will know.
Always bear in mind that incidents/accidents always have multiple causal factors.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Hello Kitty City
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank goodness eurocap mentioned it. Of course weather was a causal factor! IF they werent IMC they wouldn't have descended 1500ft below the step-alt and hit the damn ground!
The FA was standing up as she was asked to visually check the the RH gear was not down.
Re the VOR25 and wind/turb.......Ive flown that approach 50+ times in all sorts of weather. Quite honestly, even in a strong westerly, the only bumps and thumps have been during the Arc (when you are in the lee of the hills). The IAF is at 14DME (from memory - its been a few years) and that too is in the lee. The crash site is mid-way across the hill.
(Nice NOTAM though!....could we be getting into the realms of litigation. You have to admit that it is amusing that there is a NOTAM reminding us to check the weather.... I would suspect that a fool who doesnt check the weather is even less likely to check the NOTAMS.!!!
)
The FA was standing up as she was asked to visually check the the RH gear was not down.
Re the VOR25 and wind/turb.......Ive flown that approach 50+ times in all sorts of weather. Quite honestly, even in a strong westerly, the only bumps and thumps have been during the Arc (when you are in the lee of the hills). The IAF is at 14DME (from memory - its been a few years) and that too is in the lee. The crash site is mid-way across the hill.
(Nice NOTAM though!....could we be getting into the realms of litigation. You have to admit that it is amusing that there is a NOTAM reminding us to check the weather.... I would suspect that a fool who doesnt check the weather is even less likely to check the NOTAMS.!!!
)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garbage
So if they were VMC, they would have thrown the step alts out the window like you always do and they would have been looking out the window and missed the hills. They both had their head in the books, not out the window and not at the altimeter. You don't normally need to be VMC to fly an approach, and it wasn't a huge downdraft that drove the aircraft onto the hills. Apply weather to this as a casual factor, and you may as well apply it to every accident out there. What about the Queen Air prang, it was VMC on a gin clear day so they had too many paddocks to choose from................
Of course weather was a causal factor! IF they werent IMC they wouldn't have descended 1500ft below the step-alt and hit the damn ground!
