MK Airlines B747 crash at Halifax

[DownIn3Green]

Yo, Bart,

Let your Chief Pilot know your feelings and you may just get your wish...no more flying for you until every airport in the world can protect you from yourself...

[jumbodrvr7]

Somewhere in between lies the truth..

This argument about the berm seems to have become very polarised.
As someone who knew all the crew allow me to give my (hopefully unbiased) take.

1) Of course the berm did not cause the accident, human error did that.

2) Mere compliance with the regulations does not necesarily make the presence of the berm acceptable. The investigators of this accident clearly believe the berm played a role. From page 77, para 4.3.1:

"The Board is concerned that, because man-made objects, such as the berms off the ends of runways 06 and 24 at Halifax International Airport, are not evaluated in terms of their potential risk to aircraft landing or taking off, there is the potential that an unnecessary hazard may be allowed to exist when mitigation for such risk may be reasonably undertaken."

The way I read this is that the YHZ airport authority chose to take what used to be a long and clear over-run area, and spoiled it by placing an earthen berm on it, when there were other options available which could have achieved their aims and maintained a nice clear over-run.

That is not to say that any airport with such obstacles is automatically unsafe, just that it is a bit silly to place an obstacle where there is a remote possibility of it playing a part in an accident, when other options exist.

[anartificialhorizon]

As with most accidents there is a primary cause of loss (crew fatigue in this case) with the berm being a secondary factor which ultimately caused the unfortunate demise of the crew.

As with the other recent high profile loss in Canada ( Air France A340 overun ) at Toronto the fact that there was a large gully at the end of the active did not cause the accident, but was a factor in the destruction of the aircraft. Very luckily there were no deaths.........

Safety in Aviation is all about mitigating potential dangers and therefore whilst hazards at airports such as the berm and the gully exist in close proximity to the runways, incidents such as this will continue to happen. Whilst it is always going to be a possibility that an aircraft could overun, slide off the the side of a runway, land short or indeed for whatever reason get off the deck late, the chances of getting away with the incident should be made as great as possible by ensuring proper clearway's at both ends of runways and employing as much frangible equipment as possible in close location to the runway.

I am not talking about knocking down blocks of flats a mile from the runway as by this point any impact is likely to be disastrous, but ensuring there is nothing too hard to run into at close quarters to the runway................

simple really...........

[411A]

>>.....primary cause of loss (crew fatigue in this case)...<<

Nonsense.

The REAL cause was the crew simply were not paying attention to details.
Very similar to the recent C-5 accident.

Minds occupied elsewhere is never a good idea in transpoirt aircraft operations.

More and more I see crews trying to grasp at the 'fatigue' issue, when in actual fact many times they simply do NOT pay attention.
Perhaps they are bored with the job?
If so, these folks should definitely think about another profession.

Good 'ole Harry Truman said it best, many years ago...

'Can't stand the heat, stay OUT of the kitchen'.


True then, true just as well today.

[Rockhound]

411A,
You may well be right but we should not discount the possibility (probability?) that fatigue promoted the MK crew's inattention As I've said before, the crux of the isssue, it seems to me, is why was the pilot error committed?As you point out, the C-5 accident also resulted from inattention by the crew but fatigue does not seem to have played a part. This suggests to me that every accident is different and we should be careful to examine each one individually.
Rockhound

[GlueBall]

. Common Sense Flight time limitations would encompass & simplify "duty" periods.

Mr "MK" should go to jail for scheduling his crews to be on duty 20+ hours. Nuff said.

Sensible regulations should be rewritten to stipulate that any scheduled flight time exceeding 8 hours in a 14 hour period per calendar day can only be operated nonstop and with an augmented or extra crew; no multi-stop sectors exceeding 8 hours scheduled flight time should ever be allowed.

[ShotOne]

I am surprised to see the "berm" issue has come up again after all this time. Had this accident happened at some of MK's other destinations, the overrun would have been even less forgiving. Would we now be blaming the shopping centre or apartment blocks as opposed to the berm??

[fantom]

Originally Posted by GlueBall

Mr "MK" should go to jail for scheduling his crews to be on duty 20+ hours. Nuff said.

I take it, Sir,or Madam, you have sufficient evidence to support your case in court. Needless to add, you will have ample funds to pay damages and costs, if awarded against you.
I respectfully remind you: your assumed anonymity is not assured on a public site such as as this.
I have no connection whatever with any organisation here mentioned.
Just trying to be helpful...

[the_hawk]

You've been helpful indeed fantom - in making me laugh

[Mad (Flt) Scientist]

Originally Posted by anartificialhorizon

I am not talking about knocking down blocks of flats a mile from the runway as by this point any impact is likely to be disastrous, but ensuring there is nothing too hard to run into at close quarters to the runway................
simple really...........

One problem might be that there are often things around on airports which, if hit by an aircraft departing its runway, would not only cause the likely loss of the errant aircraft and passengers/crew, but would ALSO cause the loss of the passengers and crew aboard that SECOND AIRCRAFT. By which Im alluding to the relatively small separations between taxiways and runways; if one is to worry about overrun areas past any allowed stopway, one should also logically worry about departures off the side of the runway. If you start to impose restrictions forwards outside the accel-stop allowances, why not sideways?

As an example, when we are conducting Vmcg type testing, our lateral safety distance allowance usually means that the ground support personnel cannot park on the parallel taxiway because they are in the 'danger zone' - if we're worried about hitting a pickup truck, we certainly should worry about an airliner. Now, in theory, once Vmcg is known and speeds are scheduled accordingly, no-one should be going anywhere near the adjacent taxiway; but the same logic says you shouldn't be overrunning either ....

[GlueBall]

fantom: "...I take it, Sir,or Madam, you have sufficient evidence to support your case in court...."

The evidence is in the public domain, sir, ...puplished by TSB Canada:
"at the time of the accident the crew had been on duty 19 hours!"

[MrBernoulli]

GlueBall,

Will you be calling for the heads of the JAR authorities as well? After all, they allowed the following (quote from the Halifax accident report):

"Italy . After the accident, an Italian-registered company was found to have an approved duty time limitation scheme with a maximum allowable duty period for an augmented crew, consisting of three pilots (in an aircraft equipped with an inertial navigation system), of 24 hours and a maximum of six sectors."

Note the use of the word APPROVED!

Snarfel,

MK are very deep into being audited by the CAA for a UK AOC. I was under the distinct impression, from colleagues in MK, that this would likely be granted this summer (2006).