Passenger plane down in Sharjah UAE?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The outside
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You're right, the possibility of pilot error must be considered, particularly with third world airlines.".....Airbubba
Thanx for reminding us that we are more fallible than our first world colleagues, I had forgotten.
Third world vagrant
Thanx for reminding us that we are more fallible than our first world colleagues, I had forgotten.
Third world vagrant
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This site woul be much more "professional" if we all stuck to factual things rather than vent any feelings about any pilots or procedures from any company anywhere. Ehy do we spend 70% of the time venting unfounded feelings towards collegues or fellow companies without any facts to back these ideas up.
Lets keep this site "professional"
My thoughts are with all the families of those who were affected by this tragedy. May they find the strenght to overcome the grief.....without anyone adding to that grief by unfounded statements....
Lets keep this site "professional"
My thoughts are with all the families of those who were affected by this tragedy. May they find the strenght to overcome the grief.....without anyone adding to that grief by unfounded statements....
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My collegue at SHJ, who visited crash site, said that rumors around indicating inflight engine failure (on final approach I understand) with the following failure of propeller blade feathering system and subsequent lost of control. Just rumors.
Condolencies to all.
Condolencies to all.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Holland
Age: 47
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with a couple of other people. Indeed it is a 3rd world carrier. However remember all the first world "gossip" about airlines as Southwest, Easyjet how they had to cut back on maintenance to offer the tickets for their prices.
At the end of the day the most of us still are simple pilots and not crash examiners. People look up to us as (airline)pilots to get them home safely. These same people look at how we discriminate here, not to say about other people looking for news on this site i.e. reporters.
<personal note>
I think it is safe to say the F50 suffered an engine faillure and that we have to look if the procedures have been followed, if there was an bird strike, negative autofeather etc etc.
</personal note>
At the end of the day the most of us still are simple pilots and not crash examiners. People look up to us as (airline)pilots to get them home safely. These same people look at how we discriminate here, not to say about other people looking for news on this site i.e. reporters.
<personal note>
I think it is safe to say the F50 suffered an engine faillure and that we have to look if the procedures have been followed, if there was an bird strike, negative autofeather etc etc.
</personal note>
Join Date: May 2003
Location: India
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do agree about keeping this site professional.
To quote " we are all pilots and not crash examiners "
" people rely on us to get us home safely "
Interestingly, I wonder if you consider Khazakhistan First World or Third World. There was a mid-air collision over New Delhi some years ago with a Saudi linerThe worst actual midair collision to date occurred in 1996 when a Saudi Arabian Airlines 747 collided with a Kazakh-owned cargo jet near New Delhi, India, killing 349.
And do you know what was quoted as the cause of the crash ?
" An inability by the pilot of the KHazakh plane to interpret the ATC commands in English !!!"
Read what CNN had to say on July 4, 2002 very carefully.
We all go through the SAME motions everytime we hear of a crash on this site !
QUOTE :
Tuesday morning's crash over the Swiss-German border took place at what Eckes describes as "a crossroads of the sky."
The area near Lake Konstanz marks the intersection of some of the world's busiest air corridors as well as being at the frontier of German, Swiss and Austrian air traffic control.
Standard aviation rules dictate that aircraft traveling across the same territory in different directions fly at different altitudes.
Aviation experts say in the case of the two aircraft involved in Tuesday's collision the distance separating them should not have been less than 600 meters (2,000 feet).
What caused them to break that limit will be the focus of the investigation.
Human factor
One possibility is that instructions from ground controllers were misinterpreted or were simply incorrect.
Eckes says that initial reports on the crash indicate that this human factor was the most likely cause of the crash, as has been the case with previous collisions and near misses.
Another possible factor may have been the handover from one country's air-traffic controllers to another -- a consideration that Eckes says could focus attention on Europe's extremely fragmented air space.
Aside from the human error possibility another consideration will be on the technical capabilities and their functioning on the two aircraft.
Many modern aircraft are fitted with a collision avoidance system known as TCAS, which can automatically pull the plane off collision-course or sound an alarm alerting pilots and telling them which way to turn.
However, although mandatory in many Western countries, TCAS is only slowly being retrofitted onto older aircraft and is not required on Russian-owned aircraft.
Eckes says the only way to ensure mid-air collisions do not occur is for all aircraft to be fitted with TCAS -- and even then the possibility remains that technical problems or poor maintenance will cause the equipment to fail.
To quote " we are all pilots and not crash examiners "
" people rely on us to get us home safely "
Interestingly, I wonder if you consider Khazakhistan First World or Third World. There was a mid-air collision over New Delhi some years ago with a Saudi linerThe worst actual midair collision to date occurred in 1996 when a Saudi Arabian Airlines 747 collided with a Kazakh-owned cargo jet near New Delhi, India, killing 349.
And do you know what was quoted as the cause of the crash ?
" An inability by the pilot of the KHazakh plane to interpret the ATC commands in English !!!"
Read what CNN had to say on July 4, 2002 very carefully.
We all go through the SAME motions everytime we hear of a crash on this site !
QUOTE :
Tuesday morning's crash over the Swiss-German border took place at what Eckes describes as "a crossroads of the sky."
The area near Lake Konstanz marks the intersection of some of the world's busiest air corridors as well as being at the frontier of German, Swiss and Austrian air traffic control.
Standard aviation rules dictate that aircraft traveling across the same territory in different directions fly at different altitudes.
Aviation experts say in the case of the two aircraft involved in Tuesday's collision the distance separating them should not have been less than 600 meters (2,000 feet).
What caused them to break that limit will be the focus of the investigation.
Human factor
One possibility is that instructions from ground controllers were misinterpreted or were simply incorrect.
Eckes says that initial reports on the crash indicate that this human factor was the most likely cause of the crash, as has been the case with previous collisions and near misses.
Another possible factor may have been the handover from one country's air-traffic controllers to another -- a consideration that Eckes says could focus attention on Europe's extremely fragmented air space.
Aside from the human error possibility another consideration will be on the technical capabilities and their functioning on the two aircraft.
Many modern aircraft are fitted with a collision avoidance system known as TCAS, which can automatically pull the plane off collision-course or sound an alarm alerting pilots and telling them which way to turn.
However, although mandatory in many Western countries, TCAS is only slowly being retrofitted onto older aircraft and is not required on Russian-owned aircraft.
Eckes says the only way to ensure mid-air collisions do not occur is for all aircraft to be fitted with TCAS -- and even then the possibility remains that technical problems or poor maintenance will cause the equipment to fail.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Holland
Age: 47
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest gossip here in the UAE is that the aircraft was all over the ILS L/R above/below glideslope, some people came up with a story of a cabin fire (I don't know if this was from a survivor, ATCO or whatever) According to the gossip the fumes spread to the cockpit.
The gossip doesn't mention if the fire was caused by maintenance or an pax smoking a thick cigar.
The gossip doesn't mention if the fire was caused by maintenance or an pax smoking a thick cigar.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zanzi's Bar
Age: 59
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joel
U don't know s--t about TCAS.
And could u pls keep yr ignorance to yrself - all a/c flying in Europe in RVSM airspace, no matter if dey are made in ole Santa's shop or operated by the Almighty himself need to have a TCAS installed...
Basically Russian jets r better flyers than Western types. Ask me, I 've flown most of them plus B735 plus B762/763...
And could u pls keep yr ignorance to yrself - all a/c flying in Europe in RVSM airspace, no matter if dey are made in ole Santa's shop or operated by the Almighty himself need to have a TCAS installed...
Basically Russian jets r better flyers than Western types. Ask me, I 've flown most of them plus B735 plus B762/763...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Similarity to the Luxair accident?
DUBAI, March 2 (AFP) - An Iranian Kish Airlines plane crashed,
killing 43 people, after the engines went into reverse and the pilot
lost control coming into land, the civil aviation authority said
here Tuesday.
€ "The engines went into reverse which would have made it
impossible to control" the Fokker 50 twin-turboprop aircraft as it
approached the international airport in the neighbouring emirate of
Sharjah on February 10, said a statement carried by the official WAM
news agency.
€ It did not say if the pilot put the engines into reverse or not,
promising "more details at the end of the inquiry."
€ The flight had come from Iran's Gulf island of Kish when it went
down in an open area between the villas of a crowded residential
zone about two miles (nearly four kilometres) from the airport, on
the border between Sharjah and Ajman, another emirate in the
seven-member UAE federation.
€ Only three of the 46 people on board survived the crash.
€ tm/bp/mb
€AFP 021307 GMT MAR 04
killing 43 people, after the engines went into reverse and the pilot
lost control coming into land, the civil aviation authority said
here Tuesday.
€ "The engines went into reverse which would have made it
impossible to control" the Fokker 50 twin-turboprop aircraft as it
approached the international airport in the neighbouring emirate of
Sharjah on February 10, said a statement carried by the official WAM
news agency.
€ It did not say if the pilot put the engines into reverse or not,
promising "more details at the end of the inquiry."
€ The flight had come from Iran's Gulf island of Kish when it went
down in an open area between the villas of a crowded residential
zone about two miles (nearly four kilometres) from the airport, on
the border between Sharjah and Ajman, another emirate in the
seven-member UAE federation.
€ Only three of the 46 people on board survived the crash.
€ tm/bp/mb
€AFP 021307 GMT MAR 04
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The manufacturer has also issued an all operator message stating that preliminary FDR and CVR recordings point into the direction of the reverse blade angle of the props.
This was also the case in the luxair crash.
Further similarities, if any, will come forward as the investigation progresses.
Spuis
This was also the case in the luxair crash.
Further similarities, if any, will come forward as the investigation progresses.
Spuis
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: inmysuitcase
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here something from CNN.....it indeed looks like a second luxair.....
Death crash plane 'in reverse'
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 Posted: 7:28 AM EST (1228 GMT)
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- The propellers of an Iranian plane inexplicably went into reverse minutes before it crashed last month, killing 46 people, the civil aviation authorities in the United Arab Emirates said Tuesday.
"Instead of the propellers going forward, they were going in reverse, which is an abnormal situation in flight," Mohammed Ghanem al-Ghaith, the director of the General Civil Aviation Authority told reporters.
"We cannot tell whether it was a human or technical factor," he said of the malfunction. He said a pilot of a turboprop Fokker-50 would put the propellers into reverse while the plane is taxi-ing on the ground, but never in flight.
The Kish Air plane crashed in an open area about two miles from Sharjah airport on February 10, killing 46 people of the 49 passengers and crew onboard. The plane was flying to Sharjah from the Iranian island of Kish in the Gulf.
The three survivors -- an Iranian, Egyptian and a Filipino -- remain in hospital.
Al-Ghaith said the preliminary examination of the plane's cockpit voice recorder revealed "normal conversation." He repeated earlier reports that the pilots did not send out an emergency call.
In a statement Tuesday, the General Civil Aviation Authority said the plane "appears to have operated normally until about two-and-a-half miles (three kilometers) from the end of runway 12 at Sharjah International Airport."
The plane suddenly embarked on a nose dive and turned left before crashing, the statement said.
Al-Ghaith said the investigation was continuing.
The plane was 11 years old. Kish Air bought it in 2002.
Kish Air officials in Iran, where Tuesday was a national holiday, did not answer their office or mobile phones.
Death crash plane 'in reverse'
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 Posted: 7:28 AM EST (1228 GMT)
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- The propellers of an Iranian plane inexplicably went into reverse minutes before it crashed last month, killing 46 people, the civil aviation authorities in the United Arab Emirates said Tuesday.
"Instead of the propellers going forward, they were going in reverse, which is an abnormal situation in flight," Mohammed Ghanem al-Ghaith, the director of the General Civil Aviation Authority told reporters.
"We cannot tell whether it was a human or technical factor," he said of the malfunction. He said a pilot of a turboprop Fokker-50 would put the propellers into reverse while the plane is taxi-ing on the ground, but never in flight.
The Kish Air plane crashed in an open area about two miles from Sharjah airport on February 10, killing 46 people of the 49 passengers and crew onboard. The plane was flying to Sharjah from the Iranian island of Kish in the Gulf.
The three survivors -- an Iranian, Egyptian and a Filipino -- remain in hospital.
Al-Ghaith said the preliminary examination of the plane's cockpit voice recorder revealed "normal conversation." He repeated earlier reports that the pilots did not send out an emergency call.
In a statement Tuesday, the General Civil Aviation Authority said the plane "appears to have operated normally until about two-and-a-half miles (three kilometers) from the end of runway 12 at Sharjah International Airport."
The plane suddenly embarked on a nose dive and turned left before crashing, the statement said.
Al-Ghaith said the investigation was continuing.
The plane was 11 years old. Kish Air bought it in 2002.
Kish Air officials in Iran, where Tuesday was a national holiday, did not answer their office or mobile phones.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any similar accidents likely to happen with a Dash8-100?
The probable cause of these two Fokker 50 accidents; is it likely that the same thing could happen to the engines of a Dash 8-100 (I'm travelling a lot on these machines...)
Now I am really confused
between the speculation and the plethora of out of date and up to date news articles, I can't tell if its factual or just plain speculation that the engines for this latest crash went into reverse.
My experience tells me that only an investigator who has examined the prop blades on this machine or who has read out the Flight recorder can draw such a conclusion.
I don't mind the speculation or inferences but I sure wish that the posters would clarify fact from speculation.
between the speculation and the plethora of out of date and up to date news articles, I can't tell if its factual or just plain speculation that the engines for this latest crash went into reverse.
My experience tells me that only an investigator who has examined the prop blades on this machine or who has read out the Flight recorder can draw such a conclusion.
I don't mind the speculation or inferences but I sure wish that the posters would clarify fact from speculation.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Barrie, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I found pictures from the same airline, the same aircraft and the same region but this was on February 28, 2004 
But registration number is different. 
http://airliners.net/search/photo.se...nct_entry=true
But registration number is different. http://airliners.net/search/photo.se...nct_entry=true
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
The accident report has been out for a while.
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/677.pdf
It was a nice sunny day. It appears that the captain handed control over to the F/O at 2500' on descent. The F/O did not want to fly the approach saying that he didn't have the same experience as the captain and that he was not confident about his own ability to fly this approach(which was odd because he had 2400 hrs PIC on C-130's).
The captain insisted that the F/O fly the approach. The F/O positioned the aircraft high on approach less than 3 nm from the threshold at least 50 knots above ref speed while not configured for landing.
The captain took control of the aircraft to configure, with the flaps and gear coming down above their limiting speed.
In order to prevent selection of reverse thrust or less than flight idle blade angle in flight, there are two protections. The first is an always fixed mechanical stop, which is where the power levers stop when they are moved fully aft in flight(closing the power levers). The power levers can be moved aft of this stop by lifting the levers up and over this stop as is normally done on landing. There is a secondary protection which is a solenoid operated stop which is designed to only be available in flight in order to prevent intentional movement of the power levers into reverse(or anywhere in the ground control range with its corresponding lower blade angles) in flight. This stop is removed once on the ground allowing ground blade angles (such as reverse).
There is slight movement(by design apparently) aft of the mechanical stop to reach the solenoid stop allowing a slight increase in drag. Therefore according to hearsay, pilots had been known to intentionally lift the power levers and move them aft of the mechanical stop to the solenoid stop on occasion. This activity was prohibited.
There was a known abnormality in the secondary solenoid stop system(not a certification requirement when the aircraft was designed by the way) where it was deactivated for 16 seconds after the gear was selected down. An airworthiness directive with a future compliance date(to modify the system) had been issued after a well publicized incident to the same type being operated by Luxair. The Kish Airlines plane was unmodified at the time.
When the Captain selected the power levers aft of the mechanical stop soon after gear down selection, the prop blades moved rapidly into an undetermined ground range blade angle resulting in a rapid aircraft pitchdown.
The power levers were rapidly moved forward in an effort to correct the situation. One prop moved slowly to the flight range but the other stayed in full reverse to impact.
The report says that a CVR transcript is attached but it is not available from this link. If anyone has the transcript, please post.
http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/677.pdf
It was a nice sunny day. It appears that the captain handed control over to the F/O at 2500' on descent. The F/O did not want to fly the approach saying that he didn't have the same experience as the captain and that he was not confident about his own ability to fly this approach(which was odd because he had 2400 hrs PIC on C-130's).
The captain insisted that the F/O fly the approach. The F/O positioned the aircraft high on approach less than 3 nm from the threshold at least 50 knots above ref speed while not configured for landing.
The captain took control of the aircraft to configure, with the flaps and gear coming down above their limiting speed.
In order to prevent selection of reverse thrust or less than flight idle blade angle in flight, there are two protections. The first is an always fixed mechanical stop, which is where the power levers stop when they are moved fully aft in flight(closing the power levers). The power levers can be moved aft of this stop by lifting the levers up and over this stop as is normally done on landing. There is a secondary protection which is a solenoid operated stop which is designed to only be available in flight in order to prevent intentional movement of the power levers into reverse(or anywhere in the ground control range with its corresponding lower blade angles) in flight. This stop is removed once on the ground allowing ground blade angles (such as reverse).
There is slight movement(by design apparently) aft of the mechanical stop to reach the solenoid stop allowing a slight increase in drag. Therefore according to hearsay, pilots had been known to intentionally lift the power levers and move them aft of the mechanical stop to the solenoid stop on occasion. This activity was prohibited.
There was a known abnormality in the secondary solenoid stop system(not a certification requirement when the aircraft was designed by the way) where it was deactivated for 16 seconds after the gear was selected down. An airworthiness directive with a future compliance date(to modify the system) had been issued after a well publicized incident to the same type being operated by Luxair. The Kish Airlines plane was unmodified at the time.
When the Captain selected the power levers aft of the mechanical stop soon after gear down selection, the prop blades moved rapidly into an undetermined ground range blade angle resulting in a rapid aircraft pitchdown.
The power levers were rapidly moved forward in an effort to correct the situation. One prop moved slowly to the flight range but the other stayed in full reverse to impact.
The report says that a CVR transcript is attached but it is not available from this link. If anyone has the transcript, please post.
