EGPWS saves Finncomm Airlines Flight FC205 01.01.2007
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: EU
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGPWS saves Finncomm Airlines Flight FC205 01.01.2007
Todays Helsingin Sanomat: (only in Finnish)
Finnish CAA restricts Finncomm Airlines flight operations due to the series of incidents in December 2006 and January 2007.
11.12.2006: Finncomm ATR 42 skidded off the runway (not fully off) when landing in crosswind conditions.
01.01.2007: EGPWS saves Finncomm ATR 42 when pilots were
making the NDB approch to the Seinäjoki airport without setting the local altimeter setting, instead they used the standard altimeter setting 1013 and almost stalled the aircraft when making go-around.
08.01.2007: Finncomm ATR 42 pilots forget to make sure that the autopilot was engaged before starting to reprogram the FMS, the airplane pitched
15 degrees nose up and rolled to 45 degree bank before captain resumed control of the aircraft.
Finnish CAA restricts Finncomm Airlines flight operations due to the series of incidents in December 2006 and January 2007.
11.12.2006: Finncomm ATR 42 skidded off the runway (not fully off) when landing in crosswind conditions.
01.01.2007: EGPWS saves Finncomm ATR 42 when pilots were
making the NDB approch to the Seinäjoki airport without setting the local altimeter setting, instead they used the standard altimeter setting 1013 and almost stalled the aircraft when making go-around.
08.01.2007: Finncomm ATR 42 pilots forget to make sure that the autopilot was engaged before starting to reprogram the FMS, the airplane pitched
15 degrees nose up and rolled to 45 degree bank before captain resumed control of the aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sub Continent
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They use an FTD with some special features instead of an FFS for training that under JAA/FAA regs should only be performed on a level C/D FFS by ‘arrangement’ with the DGAC.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err... hold on a minute! Before Finncom (or any other airline) is labelled as an usafe operation, what do we know about these incidents? Seems that these reports emanate from a daily newspaper, so there probably aren't many technical details - it so happens I can't read Finnish 
Skidding (partly) off the runway? What were the weather conditions at the time? I recall that an ATR and an ERJ-145 recently went off the runway at Bristol due to a combination of strong x-winds, ungrooved runway and contaminated surface (standing water). As far as I know, the CAA hasn't come down on the two airlines concerned - but the airport got into some trouble... Remember, the ATR is a high-wing aircraft with a narrow wheel track - which can make it tricky to land in strong or gusting x-winds.
The EGPWS event: might be a case of poor cross-checking or "confirmation bias". Maybe the same for the AFCS event, with both pilots having their head down; however, the ATR AFCS is notoriously not very user-friendly (thank you Honeywell!); too short a push on a mode push button and it may not engage. Here again, "confirmation bias" might have played a part.
If indeed that is the case, then these two (CRM-related) mistakes are pretty basic and I can't see the link with ATR using fixed-base sims for part of the type rating.
Cheers
FM (trained on ATR FFS throughout)
Skidding (partly) off the runway? What were the weather conditions at the time? I recall that an ATR and an ERJ-145 recently went off the runway at Bristol due to a combination of strong x-winds, ungrooved runway and contaminated surface (standing water). As far as I know, the CAA hasn't come down on the two airlines concerned - but the airport got into some trouble... Remember, the ATR is a high-wing aircraft with a narrow wheel track - which can make it tricky to land in strong or gusting x-winds.
The EGPWS event: might be a case of poor cross-checking or "confirmation bias". Maybe the same for the AFCS event, with both pilots having their head down; however, the ATR AFCS is notoriously not very user-friendly (thank you Honeywell!); too short a push on a mode push button and it may not engage. Here again, "confirmation bias" might have played a part.
If indeed that is the case, then these two (CRM-related) mistakes are pretty basic and I can't see the link with ATR using fixed-base sims for part of the type rating.
Cheers
FM (trained on ATR FFS throughout)
