accident in austria, flight UK to hungary (?)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for that, 172driver.
I never doubted what the ST and SC meant, but why have the OVC or BKN at the end of the line, by itself?
While on the phone, did you ask him for the Jetprop's radar track? Would save us all a lot of speculation
I never doubted what the ST and SC meant, but why have the OVC or BKN at the end of the line, by itself?
While on the phone, did you ask him for the Jetprop's radar track? Would save us all a lot of speculation
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO, no I didn't ask about the BKN/OVC at the end, see my earlier post re this. In addition to which I think the reason for putting it in every time may be to show a trend. Look at this group in the context of the whole morning's METARs and it makes sense.
Van Horck, you are correct, while I did mention why I was calling i.e. discussion of the accident in an online forum, I didn't want to push the chap or come across as a journo. No info was volunteered. And yes, wind blowing fog up into the slopes is something that was mentioned (and, btw, something I have experienced in that region myself, albeit from the ground).
Van Horck, you are correct, while I did mention why I was calling i.e. discussion of the accident in an online forum, I didn't want to push the chap or come across as a journo. No info was volunteered. And yes, wind blowing fog up into the slopes is something that was mentioned (and, btw, something I have experienced in that region myself, albeit from the ground).
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moi aussi.....
overcast at higher altitude, layers below broken or scattered with in the background hills obscured by rising fog and a grey/white ground from snow/frost....
Would be hard to see. It s like skiing on an overcast day, you don't see the bumps... at all!
overcast at higher altitude, layers below broken or scattered with in the background hills obscured by rising fog and a grey/white ground from snow/frost....
Would be hard to see. It s like skiing on an overcast day, you don't see the bumps... at all!
Bookworm is the specialist on this stuff...
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bookworm, I got the explanation of the BKN/OVC at the end of the METAR from this site. You have to scroll down to the bottom of page 16 (this is some weird form of e-paper that you cannot copy and paste or deep-link to).
Btw, the met man at LOAV explained that in Austria only the GA fields report all types of cloud, not the main airports which use the standard version, i.e. CB and TCU only.
Btw, the met man at LOAV explained that in Austria only the GA fields report all types of cloud, not the main airports which use the standard version, i.e. CB and TCU only.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting; looks like a U.S. aviation weather document. It is some kind of a publisher's website, and the "ipaper" is done to prevent people doing a copy/paste. You can achieve this with Flash. Of course it is silly because nothing stops you doing a PrtSc into a PDF writer, cropping as desired, and then combining the pages into a single PDF document
Anyway, the difference between BKN and OVC is not a lot - especially when there are layers above. Were there layers above? The Vienna sounding may not be valid if this place has very different weather.
Anyway, the difference between BKN and OVC is not a lot - especially when there are layers above. Were there layers above? The Vienna sounding may not be valid if this place has very different weather.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO, you can actually download this doc as a .pdf if you register (free) on the site. Didn't do it, though.
Re the Vienna soundings - I'd say they are valid, as LOAV sits just across the plain from LOWW.
Re the Vienna soundings - I'd say they are valid, as LOAV sits just across the plain from LOWW.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Vienna sounding does correspond to the LOAV airport Metars, as far as it can do on the cloudbase alone which on the sounding is so low one cannot tell very much from it, and it shows solid IMC to about 5000ft. Which takes us back to the beginning...
Thread Starter
it seems he had already cancelled IFR NW of LOAV way out and had continued VFR for quite some distance. so obviously didn't fly an IFR approach into LOAV.
landing then was intended to be VFR.
landing then was intended to be VFR.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it seems he had already cancelled IFR NW of LOAV way out and had continued VFR for quite some distance. so obviously didn't fly an IFR approach into LOAV.
To me, this kind of strategy (cancelling IFR very early) means either the pilot is genuinely VFR and can see the airfield from miles away, or he is going to execute a DIY letdown in IMC and doesn't want anybody in ATC hassling him until he pops out of the cloud on short final.
Not that I have ever done thing kind of thing of course, nor have I ever met the significant number of pilots who have never done it either, and if I had ever thought of it, it would have been in my G-reg days
But WHY? Why not remain IFR and fly the VOR approach even if you can see the airport and earn another instrument approach for your logbook, towards the 6/6 FAA IR rolling currency requirement? Is there a charge for flying the VOR approach? And if I was flying a DIY approach to the runway I would have also flown the VOR approach (for logging an approach, to get a guaranteed obstacle clearance during the enroute to terminal segment transition, and to end up in an "officially precise" place). I don't really get it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me neither.
We don't know the direction of the impact. So perhaps the analysis that he mistakingly extended the downwind for 13 was wrong and he attempted a more or less straight in for 13 coming from the NW, completely bypassing the IFR approach procedure which would have given him security till at least 1505ft AGL as well as a known clear track (5 degrees slope and a heading) for either 31 or a low level circuit
Thank you (vielen Dank) herr Fluglehrer for the info. Perhaps somebody will be able to find out the direction of the crash and post it here?
We don't know the direction of the impact. So perhaps the analysis that he mistakingly extended the downwind for 13 was wrong and he attempted a more or less straight in for 13 coming from the NW, completely bypassing the IFR approach procedure which would have given him security till at least 1505ft AGL as well as a known clear track (5 degrees slope and a heading) for either 31 or a low level circuit
Thank you (vielen Dank) herr Fluglehrer for the info. Perhaps somebody will be able to find out the direction of the crash and post it here?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found a website with historical TAFs:
Formulario para peticion de mensajes aeronauticos
and these two are applicable to LOAV
200812141130 TAF LOAV 141130Z 1412/1424 15013KT 6000 FEW010 BKN012 TEMPO 1412/1416 4000 BR FEW006 BKN008 PROB30 TEMPO 1412/1416 15015G25KT BECMG 1416/1418 15008KT 4000 BR FEW004 BKN007 PROB40 TEMPO 1421/1424 1200 -DZ BCFG BKN003=
200812140830 TAF LOAV 140830Z 1408/1418 16014KT 7000 FEW004 BKN008 TEMPO 1408/1412 16015G25KT TEMPO 1408/1418 4000 -DZ BR FEW003 BKN006=
Obviously, given the accident c.1200Z, he could have seen only the 0830 one.
Formulario para peticion de mensajes aeronauticos
and these two are applicable to LOAV
200812141130 TAF LOAV 141130Z 1412/1424 15013KT 6000 FEW010 BKN012 TEMPO 1412/1416 4000 BR FEW006 BKN008 PROB30 TEMPO 1412/1416 15015G25KT BECMG 1416/1418 15008KT 4000 BR FEW004 BKN007 PROB40 TEMPO 1421/1424 1200 -DZ BCFG BKN003=
200812140830 TAF LOAV 140830Z 1408/1418 16014KT 7000 FEW004 BKN008 TEMPO 1408/1412 16015G25KT TEMPO 1408/1418 4000 -DZ BR FEW003 BKN006=
Obviously, given the accident c.1200Z, he could have seen only the 0830 one.
Investigations take a long time
I witnessed a fatal accident in August '07 and lost a good friend.
The report is still in the works.
While we pilots are familiar with the length of this process, relatives and friends need to prepare for a long interval before the facts come out.
It is also possible that the accident investigation authorities may decide that this accident will not be as thoroughly investigated as would be an air carrier crash. It depends on workload and resources.
The report is still in the works.
While we pilots are familiar with the length of this process, relatives and friends need to prepare for a long interval before the facts come out.
It is also possible that the accident investigation authorities may decide that this accident will not be as thoroughly investigated as would be an air carrier crash. It depends on workload and resources.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the relatives get access to at least some of the data pretty early - if they ask for it. I am sure they could get the radar track for example.
I gather the main reason for reports taking years is that there is haggling between the relatives, the insurers and the investigators, and the report doesn't come out until all have agreed to it. That is what somebody posted here a while ago, anyway, and it is probably true, looking at the complicated legal / insurance angles. For example the pilot is not liable to passengers unless shown to have been negligent, so the estates of any deceased passengers have a big incentive to nail the "negligence" tag onto the pilot because they then get a payout.
Only regarding ground damage is the pilot or operator strictly liable, AIUI.
In this case there were no passengers but there may still be some liability (will the Austrians want the pilot to pay for cleaning up the avtur spillage, which one of the press articles amazingly made such a fuss about?).
IMHO the causes of this accident were apparent within minutes, to anybody seeing the radar data. And speaking to crews operating in/out of nearby Vienna would fill in the weather picture.
I gather the main reason for reports taking years is that there is haggling between the relatives, the insurers and the investigators, and the report doesn't come out until all have agreed to it. That is what somebody posted here a while ago, anyway, and it is probably true, looking at the complicated legal / insurance angles. For example the pilot is not liable to passengers unless shown to have been negligent, so the estates of any deceased passengers have a big incentive to nail the "negligence" tag onto the pilot because they then get a payout.
Only regarding ground damage is the pilot or operator strictly liable, AIUI.
In this case there were no passengers but there may still be some liability (will the Austrians want the pilot to pay for cleaning up the avtur spillage, which one of the press articles amazingly made such a fuss about?).
IMHO the causes of this accident were apparent within minutes, to anybody seeing the radar data. And speaking to crews operating in/out of nearby Vienna would fill in the weather picture.
Thread Starter
to my knowledge the accident is being investigated by an expert witness, so i assume, there will be a final report.
as for the tragic accident itself, among pilots over here it is assumed - so please accept the following to be >assumptions< -
#) the pilot having approached the airfield from the W [see my earlier post on the topic], trying to enter the pattern via WHISKEY (please refer to http://www.austrocontrol.co.at/en/Im...m586-67006.pdf [might take some time to download (!)] for details) for a straight in on RW 13.
he probably passed whiskey, might have overflown LINDKOGEL (2339 ft) first, then when passing the A2 (highway to the south) inbetween LEOBERSDORF and AUTOBAHN - runway in sight - knew (i assume that type of aircraft also has some GPS onboard) he was abeam midfield RW 13 and thus he turned into traffic pattern 'B' to make it for 13 ( according to the MET-reports published earlier, i assume 13 was in use) - 'B' is a wide right-hand traffic pattern for 13.
minimum altitude on downwind until passing TANGO is 2500 ft.
concluding from the area of impact, i assume, he probably tracked more or less into downwind 'B';
why he didn't turn into right-hand base 13 overhead TANGO towards WHISKEY - i don't know.
instead he continued on his downwind....
according to the chart, the altitude of the place of impact at the MERKENSTEIN area (see my previous post on that) seems to be inbetween 1500 and 1900 ft.
there is another right-hand base for 13 on the chart, the one from LEOBERSDORF to AUTOBAHN, and that can be flown at 1500 ft. that leg, a kind of short-cut, is only used when passing TANGO in 2500 isn't possible due to low clouds and so you can stay below these.
#) a second scenario could be he came in from the W via BERNDORF area, then after having passed A2 (see above) he turned left to head for right-hand downwind pattern 'B' and passed right-hand base inbetween TANGO and WHISKEY as well, no right turn into base 13, and continued on a downwind-heading. that procedure might also take him into the crash-area.
on second thought that scenario might be more realistic than the first one, there might have been an inbound tracking to SNU VOR prior to going for LOAV.
as has already been stated, as long as there are no tracks available, we can only assume.
some assumptions on a quite tragic event - the final report will reveal the facts !
my thoughts are with his beloved !
wolfgang, VIE
as for the tragic accident itself, among pilots over here it is assumed - so please accept the following to be >assumptions< -
#) the pilot having approached the airfield from the W [see my earlier post on the topic], trying to enter the pattern via WHISKEY (please refer to http://www.austrocontrol.co.at/en/Im...m586-67006.pdf [might take some time to download (!)] for details) for a straight in on RW 13.
he probably passed whiskey, might have overflown LINDKOGEL (2339 ft) first, then when passing the A2 (highway to the south) inbetween LEOBERSDORF and AUTOBAHN - runway in sight - knew (i assume that type of aircraft also has some GPS onboard) he was abeam midfield RW 13 and thus he turned into traffic pattern 'B' to make it for 13 ( according to the MET-reports published earlier, i assume 13 was in use) - 'B' is a wide right-hand traffic pattern for 13.
minimum altitude on downwind until passing TANGO is 2500 ft.
concluding from the area of impact, i assume, he probably tracked more or less into downwind 'B';
why he didn't turn into right-hand base 13 overhead TANGO towards WHISKEY - i don't know.
instead he continued on his downwind....
according to the chart, the altitude of the place of impact at the MERKENSTEIN area (see my previous post on that) seems to be inbetween 1500 and 1900 ft.
there is another right-hand base for 13 on the chart, the one from LEOBERSDORF to AUTOBAHN, and that can be flown at 1500 ft. that leg, a kind of short-cut, is only used when passing TANGO in 2500 isn't possible due to low clouds and so you can stay below these.
#) a second scenario could be he came in from the W via BERNDORF area, then after having passed A2 (see above) he turned left to head for right-hand downwind pattern 'B' and passed right-hand base inbetween TANGO and WHISKEY as well, no right turn into base 13, and continued on a downwind-heading. that procedure might also take him into the crash-area.
on second thought that scenario might be more realistic than the first one, there might have been an inbound tracking to SNU VOR prior to going for LOAV.
as has already been stated, as long as there are no tracks available, we can only assume.
some assumptions on a quite tragic event - the final report will reveal the facts !
my thoughts are with his beloved !
wolfgang, VIE
Last edited by fluglehrer; 31st Dec 2008 at 17:32.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I suppose both are possible. What I don't understand is why he flew a normal visual circuit as you suggest, but hit the ground. He wouldn't have hit the ground if he could see it.
He must have been in IMC at the time of the impact, and as I wrote previously one would not be flying the normal visual circuit in IMC because it doesn't do anything useful for positioning you onto the final approach track.
Perhaps he was in VMC, in the visual circuit, and entered a bit of IMC and hoped to come out of it to continue the visual circuit? But I don't see how he could have been in any VMC to start with, given the cloudbase in the weather reports. Maybe there were layers?
For me, it doesn't add up. We need the radar track.
It sounds like local knowledge suggests that he definitely never flew the VOR approach but cancelled IFR anyway - is that right?
Was there VOR approach traffic? If so, how was that traffic expecting to proceed from the MAPt to a visual landing, given the conditions?
He must have been in IMC at the time of the impact, and as I wrote previously one would not be flying the normal visual circuit in IMC because it doesn't do anything useful for positioning you onto the final approach track.
Perhaps he was in VMC, in the visual circuit, and entered a bit of IMC and hoped to come out of it to continue the visual circuit? But I don't see how he could have been in any VMC to start with, given the cloudbase in the weather reports. Maybe there were layers?
For me, it doesn't add up. We need the radar track.
It sounds like local knowledge suggests that he definitely never flew the VOR approach but cancelled IFR anyway - is that right?
Was there VOR approach traffic? If so, how was that traffic expecting to proceed from the MAPt to a visual landing, given the conditions?
Thread Starter
IO540 wrote:
"[......] It sounds like local knowledge suggests that he definitely never flew the VOR approach but cancelled IFR anyway - is that right?"
he is said to have canceled IFR way out of LOAV, NNW of the field; MET up there (e.g. LOWG [correct is LOWL (!) (corrected on 010109)] ) as far as i remember was cavok and the like.
so, to my knowledge, no VOR approach.
IO540 wrote:
"Was there VOR approach traffic? If so, how was that traffic expecting to proceed from the MAPt to a visual landing, given the conditions?"
if there is other IFR traffic for the SNU VOR approach into LOAV they keep them stacked in the SNU VOR holding, and there's only one approach per time - the missed approach goes back to SNU
IFR Approach Bad Vöslau LOAV
- also if out of clouds but no visual contact to runway.
supposing you are VMC at MAPt - also the point at which IFR must be canceled latest - you descend into 'C' for 13 or 31 - that's what the locals do, with an eye on possible traffic in C
http://www.loav.at/images/loav_tp__big_05.jpg
radar informs LOAV beforehand about inbound traffic from SNU VOR, so all traffic in the pattern know about the incoming traffic from SNU VOR.
usually pilots of bigger planes cancel IFR already overhead SIERRA - if in VMC with visual contact to runway in use of course and go for either 31 via ECHO or 13 via TANGO and WHISKEY
question on my side:
is there any information which NAV-equipment the malibu had?
regards
wolfgang, VIE
"[......] It sounds like local knowledge suggests that he definitely never flew the VOR approach but cancelled IFR anyway - is that right?"
he is said to have canceled IFR way out of LOAV, NNW of the field; MET up there (e.g. LOWG [correct is LOWL (!) (corrected on 010109)] ) as far as i remember was cavok and the like.
so, to my knowledge, no VOR approach.
IO540 wrote:
"Was there VOR approach traffic? If so, how was that traffic expecting to proceed from the MAPt to a visual landing, given the conditions?"
if there is other IFR traffic for the SNU VOR approach into LOAV they keep them stacked in the SNU VOR holding, and there's only one approach per time - the missed approach goes back to SNU
IFR Approach Bad Vöslau LOAV
- also if out of clouds but no visual contact to runway.
supposing you are VMC at MAPt - also the point at which IFR must be canceled latest - you descend into 'C' for 13 or 31 - that's what the locals do, with an eye on possible traffic in C
http://www.loav.at/images/loav_tp__big_05.jpg
radar informs LOAV beforehand about inbound traffic from SNU VOR, so all traffic in the pattern know about the incoming traffic from SNU VOR.
usually pilots of bigger planes cancel IFR already overhead SIERRA - if in VMC with visual contact to runway in use of course and go for either 31 via ECHO or 13 via TANGO and WHISKEY
question on my side:
is there any information which NAV-equipment the malibu had?
regards
wolfgang, VIE
Last edited by fluglehrer; 1st Jan 2009 at 12:51.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he is said to have canceled IFR way out of LOAV, NNW of the field; MET up there (e.g. LOWG) as far as i remember was cavok
METAR LOWG 140920Z 13002KT 3800 -DZ BR FEW001 SCT003 OVC005 04/03 Q1013 1729//95 TEMPO OVC007
METAR LOWG 140950Z 16004KT 3500 -DZ BR SCT002 SCT003 OVC007 04/03 Q1013 1729//95 TEMPO 3000 OVC004
METAR LOWG 141020Z VRB01KT 2600 -DZ BR SCT002 OVC004 04/03 Q1013 1729//95 TEMPO 3500 OVC006
METAR LOWG 141050Z VRB02KT 3000 -DZ BR SCT002 OVC004 04/03 Q1013 1729//95 TEMPO 3500 OVC006
METAR LOWG 141120Z VRB01KT 2600 -DZ BR SCT002 OVC005 04/04 Q1013 1729//95 TEMPO OVC004
METAR LOWG 141150Z VRB02KT 2800 -DZ BR SCT002 OVC004 04/04 Q1013 1729//95 TEMPO 3500 OVC005
METAR LOWG 141220Z VRB01KT 3500 1700S -DZ BR SCT002 OVC005 04/04 Q1012 1729//95 TEMPO 3000 OVC004
METAR LOWG 141250Z VRB02KT 3500 -DZ BR SCT002 OVC004 04/04 Q1012 1729//95 TEMPO 3000
METAR LOWG 141320Z VRB01KT 3000 -DZ BR SCT002 OVC004 04/04 Q1013 1729//95 NOSIG
METAR LOWG 141350Z 00000KT 2500 -DZ BR SCT002 OVC004 04/04 Q1013 1729//95 NOSIG
METAR LOWG 141420Z VRB01KT 3000 -DZ BR SCT002 OVC004 04/04 Q1013 1729//95 TEMPO 3500
is there any information which NAV-equipment the malibu had?
Last edited by IO540; 1st Jan 2009 at 12:44.