Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air Europa 738 at Katowice?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air Europa 738 at Katowice?

Old 9th Nov 2007, 12:52
  #121 (permalink)  
U 2
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Said it once, I'll say it again:
I would strongly advice against an autoland on CAT I ground eqpt.


Has nothing to do with the aircraft capability, being fail passive or fail operational.
Has everything to do with the ground eqpt. and environment as outlined already in various replies.

New definitions for DH made an interesting read though...
U 2 is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2007, 13:41
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EPKT
Age: 44
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I would strongly advice against an autoland on CAT I ground eqpt.
Well, from your point of view you should also advice against an autoland on CAT II ILS when CAT II procedures are not in use.

ILS named "CAT II" on the charts is worth it's category ONLY when appropriate signal-securing procedures are in use (called LVP). If they are not, you have no guarantee that heavy steel truck is not parked 300m from threshold, imparing ILS significantly - but legally.
Wojtus is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2007, 14:21
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
This is certainly an interesting debate, although I am conscious that we are getting some way away from the original thread. Maybe we should start another thread about autolanding....or maybe we have already done it to death.

As I have indicated in previous posts I am more of a CAT 1 autoland sceptic but am always keen to get a wider view. We have had a number of assertions along the lines 'you can always' or 'I would not advise it'.

U 2 would you mind backing up with some evidence your view, that aircraft autoland capability plays no role in disconnections. The Boeing training manual revision 5 section 5.19 suggests otherwise. I am also not clear what you mean by new definitions of decision height. I do not think anyone has seriously suggested it can be any lower than 200 feet.
lederhosen is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2007, 17:31
  #124 (permalink)  
U 2
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes indeed Wojtus,

Allthough the CAT II and CAT III ground eqpt. is more reliable and tested for autoland,
I would advice against an autoland when the signal area is not protected.
The signal area is not protected when LVPs are not in force.

Hi Lederhosen, I am with you and your remarks all the time on your posts, think there is a small misunderstanding, regardless of aircraft capability, like 2 A/Ps on 737 or A320 family or 3 A/Ps on e.g.757/767 and fail safe/operational aspects and IRS track keeping after signal loss etc.
All this is besides the point because the only thing that matters in this scenario is the ground equipment.
Interesting new definition(s) of DH are found in sleepers posts, or I am misreading them, as may very well be the point.

I am talking advices, but very strong advices and agree with all you wrote.

cheers !
U 2 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2007, 23:40
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SW Europe
Age: 59
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Yes it's true. If you move an aircraft, or a big truck like "fire and rescue" ones, crossing in front of an array of LOC antennas, the LOC "far field monitor" will be in "red condition " during some seconds, because all signal structure will be "moved". Same happens, of course, in front of GP antennas. I've seen it just one hour before more or less, believe me!.

On the contrary, I don't know what will happen in the modern on-board computers that manages the automatic flight, when receiving this distorted signal.

My experience about this systems it's now history, I mean, the autopilot systems in DC-9 and B-727 ( Oh My God, how old am I! ). In that cases, for example, I saw how the autopilot was "rejected" when trying to manage a distorsion in a GP beam on board a DC-9... just over MM.

But today, with this IRS "coverage" that "lederhosen" told us here, and even GPS and D-GPS in the very next future, I hope that safety will be increased in all conditions.

Nice flights!
Ferrobus is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2007, 13:07
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: belgique
Age: 44
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi folks,
we received a note at TNT as we go there every morning and it's often foggy, I think i would be nice to share it with all of you :


Dear All,
We have received a report from Panair that one of their BAe 146 aircraft on
approach to KTW experienced a sudden and rapid 'high on GS' indication,
followed by rapidly fluctuating Glideslope indications above / below GS,
starting at 500 feet RA and continuing until touchdown. This occurred on
the same day that an accident occurred to another aircraft (B737) at KTW,
which impacted the approach lights on final. Panair has alerted the KTW
authorities of this occurrence.

All TAY crews operating into KTW are recommended to be alert for erroneous
GS indications. If an unstable approach arises, a Go Around would be the
only safe option in the circumstances.
loulou is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2007, 17:55
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We shouldn't - of course - jump to conclusions, but that sounds a very plausible scenario for AEA's mishap. If that is the case, good for them that someone else had problems. Is it noted if the 146 had probs before or after AEA? if before, and it was reported to tower, one would like to think that subsequent crew were notified, but I know how these things are sometimes categorised as "one-off" and the communication doesn't happen, unfortunate if that turns out to be the case.
captplaystation is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2007, 18:40
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EPKT
Age: 44
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This occurred on the same day
According to the information we've received from Panair, their GS-event occured 3 days before AEA accident. And was reported on 5th November.
Wojtus is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2007, 20:08
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 977
Received 10 Likes on 4 Posts
According to the information we've received from Panair, their GS-event occured 3 days before AEA accident. And was reported on 5th November.
Which begs the question, why was the glideslope on the air?
J.O. is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2007, 20:45
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EPKT
Age: 44
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nobody was aware of Panair's event at the moment of AirEuropa landing. Check the dates. And many troublefree approaches were performed before and after the accident.

I've seen radar replay of the landing, I've seen the site and the plane. Some things are now more obvious for me then for you. But I'm impatiently waiting for the findouts from plane's FDR and preliminary report written by authorized ones.
Wojtus is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2007, 20:46
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 5945'36N 1027'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's possible to fix and test fly a GS in less than 3 days.
A notam would have been out in that time, and should be easy to track down.

I'm not saying it happened, but it's possible.

It's more probable though, that if no error was found on the GS monitor, the techs declared it serviceable on the spot.

On a more general note, intermittent failures in navaids/radar/com are a pain. You can change components, calibrate and monitor test transmissions all you want, only to have them fail on you one week after the test flights OK them.
M609 is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2007, 18:53
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Polish edition of Aviation Revue (in the November edition)
informed in a short notice about the accident.
It said that the 738 touched down first before the threshold,
then again two times on the runway, braked and taxied
to the apron.
Ptkay is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2007, 00:21
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 997
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Canadian view on Cat 1 autoland. See para 2.15
Also see COM Para 3.13.1 (e).
PEI_3721 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2007, 15:02
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EPKT
Age: 44
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Europa's 737 had it engines removed and driven away somewhere. Local rumour says they will be repairing it at Katowice, dismounting of wings included. It shall be flyable on february.
Wojtus is offline  
Old 17th Nov 2007, 11:43
  #135 (permalink)  
U 2
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My point exactly PEI 3721,

And note : this Canadian view is on : a practice autoland.
naturally it is highly inadvicable to practice around autolands on cat I ground equipment in lovis weather.

Good read.

By the way, best oysters in the world are from PEI , me thinks !

Cheers !
U 2 is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2007, 00:28
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EPKT
Age: 44
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Update

Some update for those of you interested:

1. Plane
Both engines of AirEuropa 738 (seriously damaged) were removed and took away some weeks ago. And the plane itself has been recently moved to a temporary hangar built especially for it. So they will do the work on place, I hope the goal is to restore airworthiness, not harvest the spares ;)

(photo published on EPKT-spotters forum)

2. Approach lighting
All damaged lights had to be completely removed, and new installation has been put in place, including new foundations. It's now ready and waiting for flight test which is to be done this week.

3. ILS
About two weeks after the incident, investigation board ordered extra flight testing of the ILS. The results were within limits. Some weeks later, regular biannual flight test was being done... and GS went off the limits. GS is now shut down and tech people try to eliminate the reason. However, GS fluctuations were observed only in area of about 5 NM final and they were not very excessive.

4. Investigation board
...still published nothing. They usually do after a year or so... :/
Wojtus is offline  
Old 18th Dec 2007, 17:20
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thanks for the update.

Ptkay is offline  
Old 19th Dec 2007, 22:35
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hyperspace
Posts: 723
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Boeing are to send a team to repair this in the New Year
boeing_eng is online now  
Old 1st Feb 2008, 07:13
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some more pics.

http://img299.imageshack.us/my.php?image=segm5.jpg
Ptkay is offline  
Old 9th May 2008, 08:02
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: EPKT
Age: 44
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Plane is flying, new approach lights shining, investigation board working. I'll make an announcement here if the report is published.
Wojtus is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.