Mahan air impounded at Birmingham
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: leamington Spa
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think its fairly certain that the aircraft was trying to fly the localiser DME approach rather than an NDB precedure for 33,
It certainly brings to the surface Birminghams missing glide path - isn't it about time we got it back, surely a year without one is long enough,
Take this morning pre the incident, Runway in use changed from 33 to 15 and then back to 33 due to the low visibility, within the same hour, its not ideal by any means for pilots or controllers.
It certainly brings to the surface Birminghams missing glide path - isn't it about time we got it back, surely a year without one is long enough,
Take this morning pre the incident, Runway in use changed from 33 to 15 and then back to 33 due to the low visibility, within the same hour, its not ideal by any means for pilots or controllers.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montsegur
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am still interested who had the authority to impound the aircraft
Originally Posted by BEagle
"An aircraft approaching without assistance from ILS or radar shall follow a descent path which will not result in its being at any time lower than the approach path which would be followed by an aircraft using the ILS glidepath."
I can see an excellent money-saving opportunity for airports here, and bleak years ahead for the manufacturers of UHF glideslope equipment.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally Posted by Cathar
I assume that this is an AAIB accident inspector from what has been said in the news report. Inspectors have various powers under the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996. The Regulations can be found here
TheOddOne
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guam... Korean Air Crash
VOR/DME approach and the crew descended before passing the VOR instead of afterwards. All dead (i think)
Birmingham... HON VOR approx 6 miles from the airfield and not far off the centreline of 33. Aircraft on LOC/DME approach to 33 descends to around or below MDA 6 miles from the airfield. Sounds to me like someone was using the HON DME and not the LOC/DME. Another lucky escape.
VOR/DME approach and the crew descended before passing the VOR instead of afterwards. All dead (i think)
Birmingham... HON VOR approx 6 miles from the airfield and not far off the centreline of 33. Aircraft on LOC/DME approach to 33 descends to around or below MDA 6 miles from the airfield. Sounds to me like someone was using the HON DME and not the LOC/DME. Another lucky escape.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eyeinthesky..... Precisely...... another CFIT waiting to happen.
Amazing how many desk pilots there are here ready to tell us about what happens in darkest Africa, or what it says somewhere in the depths of the UK AIP. Aviation has far too many poorly qualified/unqualified commentators pointing at rulebooks. Between them and the accountants it's a wonder there are not more smokin' holes around the world.
Amazing how many desk pilots there are here ready to tell us about what happens in darkest Africa, or what it says somewhere in the depths of the UK AIP. Aviation has far too many poorly qualified/unqualified commentators pointing at rulebooks. Between them and the accountants it's a wonder there are not more smokin' holes around the world.
Probably also worth noting that on the LLZ approach for 33 the descent from the platform altitude of 2000 feet doesn't even start until 5.1 miles. Looks like they must have started descending far too early.
Shame the aircraft is not equipped with EGPWS which would have forcefully registered it's displeasure at being so low, so far out. Mind you, perhaps it has got it and was being to told to "shut up". A great piece of kit that should stop this sort of thing happening, mandatory I think for JAA carriers now.
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bookworm: I can't see from your profile if you're a professional pilot or not. I was. Both the LLZ/DME and the NDB/DME procedures for 33 at Birmingham have notes which state that DME is mandatory. There's a further note which states that the DME I-BM reads zero at D THR (displaced threshold). Therefore, in spite of the absence of the ILS glideslope, there is provision to follow a vertical profile.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For BEagle, please remember that the part of the Birmingham AIP entry you quote is from the noise abatement section. Not making too much noise is good practice. However making too much noise by not complying with the airports wishes in that regard is not in itself dangerous or illegal. It is perfectly possible to exceed noise requirements on a daily basis and simply factor the charges into the operating costs.
While the dive and drive is not considered best practice these days, it is not illegal and provided that the procedure requirements are complied with it is not dangerous.
I would indeed be looking at the poibility that HON dme was being used in error as a distance from threshold reference. Would be looking into what navigation aids were briefed, set and identified during the arrival and approach phases.
Regards,
DFC
While the dive and drive is not considered best practice these days, it is not illegal and provided that the procedure requirements are complied with it is not dangerous.
I would indeed be looking at the poibility that HON dme was being used in error as a distance from threshold reference. Would be looking into what navigation aids were briefed, set and identified during the arrival and approach phases.
Regards,
DFC
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: zz plural 5
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are the crew and the aircraft still being held?DFC I totally agree with your post.Non-precision approaches started as cloud-break procedures,which allowed you to get visual contact with the airport and then complete a visual circuit to land.This is still normal practice at many airfields. Flying at low altitude is not conducive to your health but how many posters have done a circling approach in a heavy jet?The one at Sanford used to be done at 500ft .Very interesting during hurricane season!I once did a prof check with Airbus Training and had to fly a single-engine circling approach at 600ft.Dive and drive is not "best practice" but sometimes you are left with nothing else.
Last edited by cornwallis; 24th Feb 2006 at 12:11.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cornwallis:
In answer to your question, ATI (subscription required) says this morning:
In answer to your question, ATI (subscription required) says this morning:
Although the aircraft was held at Birmingham Airport yesterday while flight data was extracted, the A310 was allowed to depart for Tehran at about midnight.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: gate 67 JFK
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cornwallis
A circle to land is a visual procedure after an approach (manually flown or autopilot) the level segment is (depending on type) normally done with out final landing flap set is really no different to a visual circuit and not a big deal and usefull at places like Verona, Pisa, Chambrey even Dundee.
The important thing here is that they can't have been visual otherwise the picture would have looked very wrong, i gather that a frieght aircraft got down to 200ft agl at NEMA two weeks ago at about 5 miles out no EGPWS and configured for landing so only realised when the saw fields, but no airfield.
It can only be a matter of time before before one isn't spotted by some on the ball ATC bod
Viktor
The important thing here is that they can't have been visual otherwise the picture would have looked very wrong, i gather that a frieght aircraft got down to 200ft agl at NEMA two weeks ago at about 5 miles out no EGPWS and configured for landing so only realised when the saw fields, but no airfield.
It can only be a matter of time before before one isn't spotted by some on the ball ATC bod
Viktor
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by eyeinthesky
Guam... Korean Air Crash
VOR/DME approach and the crew descended before passing the VOR instead of afterwards. All dead (i think)
VOR/DME approach and the crew descended before passing the VOR instead of afterwards. All dead (i think)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle, looks like your post has been picked up by good old Campbell Docherty in today's Brum post, who then wasted no time in trying to relate this issue to CVT's expansion, even though there is nothing to suggest an airprox here.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mahan Air
Perhaps some of you guys could enlighten me without me having to go find an AIP. Back in the old days (70s early 80s) we were taught to fly an NDB approach(no DME) by crossing the FAF at the prescribed height and then setting up a rate of descent, comensurate with time and distance that would enable you to reach the MAPt a little before your time expired. The safe height calculated for an MAP took into account the height of all obstacles back as far as the FAF, so in THEORY you could make a dirty dive to the MAP height and fly at that height all the way to the MAP. Clearly that would not have been best practice so we used to set up an ROD of no more than 1000fpm to ensure you had time to level out at the MAP height before reaching the MAP. This situation pertained for some years before the perceived wisdom decreed that this level flying bit might be inherently dodgy especially with large jet aircraft with an in-built high inertia. So it was decided that one should still calculate the descent rate to get you down to the MAP in time, but on reaching the height, if nothing seen, lots of noise and away you went. I presume that is still so. My question really is about that safe height back to the FAF. Are you actually prohibited from flying level at MAP height. It would seem in theory you can, except at Birmingham otherwise why make the statement? Offers?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabird:
Gosh, yes, I see what you mean.
[
Am I the only one who has a problem with "three times lower than required" when it surely should be "only one-third as high as required"? Hmm, maybe the latter doesn't sound dramatic enough.]
(Full story here)
Gosh, yes, I see what you mean.
An Airbus A310, operated by Iranian passenger airline Mahan Air, was logged at 600ft - three times lower than required - above Warwickshire as it came into Birmingham International Airport at mid-day yesterday.
Am I the only one who has a problem with "three times lower than required" when it surely should be "only one-third as high as required"? Hmm, maybe the latter doesn't sound dramatic enough.]
Opponents of the proposed increase in passenger operations at Coventry said it proved their fears were justified.
A spokeswoman for the Campaign Against Expansion at Coventry Airport said: "Do we have to see a near miss or potential disaster turn into reality before people realise our concerns are real and justified?
"This is an area that is also used by Thomsonfly jets using Coventry and an incident like this is even more likely to have turned into a disaster if the airport is allowed to expand its operations and more planes are in the sky more often." ...
A spokeswoman for the Campaign Against Expansion at Coventry Airport said: "Do we have to see a near miss or potential disaster turn into reality before people realise our concerns are real and justified?
"This is an area that is also used by Thomsonfly jets using Coventry and an incident like this is even more likely to have turned into a disaster if the airport is allowed to expand its operations and more planes are in the sky more often." ...