Mahan air impounded at Birmingham
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm only surprised that there hasn't been more incidents. Someones bound to cock up eventually if the ILS is left off long enough!
That glideslope has been off for ages.
That glideslope has been off for ages.
From today's Flight International:
" Radar-derived information inidcates that the twinjet arriving from Tehran on 23rd February could have been as low as 175ft (53m) above ground level while still 7nm (13km) from touchdown."
" Radar-derived information inidcates that the twinjet arriving from Tehran on 23rd February could have been as low as 175ft (53m) above ground level while still 7nm (13km) from touchdown."
Two winters now that BHX facilities have been almost constantly downgraded - no surprise indeed that this type of incident occurred. Many is the time upon departure or arrival that we have commented that once again ' not much work going on today then' ! For an International airport to be so denuded for so long is surely inacceptable ?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United Arab Emirates
Age: 49
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
recently flown NDB-DME15 BHX
I recently flew an NDBDME apch rwy15 in Birmingham and first of all what is sad the ILS 15 was unserviceable and it seems often that in this airport NDB apch is in use.nothing was in NOTAM but only in the ATIS(most probably it came u/s during my flight.min 820 ft QNH for a CANPA apch NDBDME15
it is sad that there is no VOR/DME apch at least in order to be able to lower the minimas a little bit.
it is sad that there is no VOR/DME apch at least in order to be able to lower the minimas a little bit.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In a far better place
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Article from Flight International
I thought you guys would like to read the article I came accross in Flight International.
Iranian jet flew as low as 175ft
Investigations continue into why A310 was far below required height during UK approach
Preliminary investigations into the unexplained low approach by a Mahan Air Airbus A310 into Birmingham airport in the UK have revealed that the aircraft was much closer to the ground than initially thought.
© TOBIAS ROSE / AIRTEAMIMAGES.COM
Radar-derived information indicates that the twinjet, arriving from Tehran on 23 February, could have been as low as 175ft (53m) above ground level while still 7nm (13km) from touchdown.
Initial information from the airport suggested the aircraft had been at 600ft over Honiley, south-east of the airport, but this was the height above mean sea level (AMSL) (Flight International 28 February–6 March). Birmingham airport is 325ft AMSL, but UK charts show the Honiley VOR navigation beacon is 400-425ft AMSL, indicating that the aircraft could have been just 175ft above the ground. The jet had been on a non-precision approach to Runway 33 when it descended below the height required in the procedure. “We do not have the precise terrain height at the lowest point for the aircraft,” says Birmingham airport. “No doubt this will be determined by the inquiry.” The aircraft was instructed to execute a go-around and subsequently landed safely.
Birmingham airport’s Category 3b instrument landing system was unavailable at the time due to scheduled maintenance.
Iranian jet flew as low as 175ft
Investigations continue into why A310 was far below required height during UK approach
Preliminary investigations into the unexplained low approach by a Mahan Air Airbus A310 into Birmingham airport in the UK have revealed that the aircraft was much closer to the ground than initially thought.
© TOBIAS ROSE / AIRTEAMIMAGES.COM
The Mahan Air A310 landed safely after executing a go-around
Radar-derived information indicates that the twinjet, arriving from Tehran on 23 February, could have been as low as 175ft (53m) above ground level while still 7nm (13km) from touchdown.
Initial information from the airport suggested the aircraft had been at 600ft over Honiley, south-east of the airport, but this was the height above mean sea level (AMSL) (Flight International 28 February–6 March). Birmingham airport is 325ft AMSL, but UK charts show the Honiley VOR navigation beacon is 400-425ft AMSL, indicating that the aircraft could have been just 175ft above the ground. The jet had been on a non-precision approach to Runway 33 when it descended below the height required in the procedure. “We do not have the precise terrain height at the lowest point for the aircraft,” says Birmingham airport. “No doubt this will be determined by the inquiry.” The aircraft was instructed to execute a go-around and subsequently landed safely.
Birmingham airport’s Category 3b instrument landing system was unavailable at the time due to scheduled maintenance.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: A oneworld lounge near you
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
questions and the odd answer
1. For this unit, why was the minimum safe altitude warning not triggered at approach control? have they forgotten to install it?
2. I have done CFIT reduction projects for some JAR OPS airlines that were still doing dive and drive, although all are meant to be doing constant descent.
3. MDA is just that, so you may need to add 30 to 50 feet. IF you do the correct obstacle survey, then you may be able to go below, but as flightdeck you may not be aware of the yes/no to the correct survey, risk assessment and regulatory approval on this one. However, the investigators will examine in the event of a report, or at least should. Please do not break MDA without being visual.
4. VDP is the LAST time that you can descend, at relatively high rate, to the runway. This is often set around 3.8 or 4.0 degrees, beware!
5. ICAO PANS OPS v2 does not make it a requirement for constant descent angles, therefore, carriers from outside JAR OPS, FAA and a few other countries are allowed to dive and drive.
6. If BHX wanted to stop the low approaches, then you have to make the DME vs Altitude table ALL STEP DOWN FIXES. The airport operator is responsible for the Instrument Flight Procedures, oh, is it, or is that UK CAA DAP, the procedure design team and self regulating organisation not overseen by UK CAA SRG and with no safety management system.....
7. I seem to remember that the crunched Aztec on the accident investigation course at Cranfield seemed to suffer from a remarkably similar "event" although there was a piece of it found in a tree or vice versa. Should be a standard answer from AAIB course notes then!
2. I have done CFIT reduction projects for some JAR OPS airlines that were still doing dive and drive, although all are meant to be doing constant descent.
3. MDA is just that, so you may need to add 30 to 50 feet. IF you do the correct obstacle survey, then you may be able to go below, but as flightdeck you may not be aware of the yes/no to the correct survey, risk assessment and regulatory approval on this one. However, the investigators will examine in the event of a report, or at least should. Please do not break MDA without being visual.
4. VDP is the LAST time that you can descend, at relatively high rate, to the runway. This is often set around 3.8 or 4.0 degrees, beware!
5. ICAO PANS OPS v2 does not make it a requirement for constant descent angles, therefore, carriers from outside JAR OPS, FAA and a few other countries are allowed to dive and drive.
6. If BHX wanted to stop the low approaches, then you have to make the DME vs Altitude table ALL STEP DOWN FIXES. The airport operator is responsible for the Instrument Flight Procedures, oh, is it, or is that UK CAA DAP, the procedure design team and self regulating organisation not overseen by UK CAA SRG and with no safety management system.....
7. I seem to remember that the crunched Aztec on the accident investigation course at Cranfield seemed to suffer from a remarkably similar "event" although there was a piece of it found in a tree or vice versa. Should be a standard answer from AAIB course notes then!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non-precision approaches flown at a constant rate of descent are preferred and encouraged for obvious reasons, but are not mandatory - inside or outside of JAA states. Some procedures require dive and drive as you chose to put it - but not BHX. Most operators, mine included, whilst encouraging CD, leave it up to the operating Captain.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report concludes that the primary cause of the incident was the use by the crew of the incorrect DME for the approach. The difference between the two DME distances is is approximately 6nm.
Also doing things like this really doesn't help:
"Almost coincident with the FO making the radio call,
the commander asked “what ’s the procedure”, the
supernumerary captain advised the first check altitude,
which was 1,650 ft at 4 DME, before adding “from
four dme we can go to minimum”. The commander
inquired what the minimum was and the FO and
supernumerary captain both advised that it was 740 ft.
The commander repeated “minimum seven four
zero…..we go for five hundred”,"
Also doing things like this really doesn't help:
"Almost coincident with the FO making the radio call,
the commander asked “what ’s the procedure”, the
supernumerary captain advised the first check altitude,
which was 1,650 ft at 4 DME, before adding “from
four dme we can go to minimum”. The commander
inquired what the minimum was and the FO and
supernumerary captain both advised that it was 740 ft.
The commander repeated “minimum seven four
zero…..we go for five hundred”,"
Very scary reading. The poor old F/O made many attempts at pointing out what was wrong but was pretty much ignored by the Captain and heavy Captain (who wasn't there for the descent brief).
Also, by law, the Airbus should have been fitted with a position/terrain-aware GPWS but it hadn't been. They had a descent rate of c.1,500fpm at 300'AGL near Honiley that triggered a sink rate warning; if they'd been at 800fpm for a 3deg approach it would have stayed silent...
The whole thing reads like an engineered CRM demonstration (how not to do it!) What's worse, they tried to fly it the same way a second time round; no wonder they got impounded after the incident.
Also, by law, the Airbus should have been fitted with a position/terrain-aware GPWS but it hadn't been. They had a descent rate of c.1,500fpm at 300'AGL near Honiley that triggered a sink rate warning; if they'd been at 800fpm for a 3deg approach it would have stayed silent...
The whole thing reads like an engineered CRM demonstration (how not to do it!) What's worse, they tried to fly it the same way a second time round; no wonder they got impounded after the incident.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: BHX
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeoman, what are you talking about??? Mahan were/are a scheduled operator selling tickets through travel agents, not blocks of seat to tour operators. Main target was the Indian and far east market with connections sold to DEL and BKK.
