British Midland Kegworth Crash on T.V Tonight
Guest
Posts: n/a
British Midland Kegworth Crash on T.V Tonight
ITV - 22:50 - National Disasters
Seems to be only 1/2 hour long so probably wont get much info.
It'll be interesting to see the level of research though. Hopefully better than we've seen in the past from our friends in the media.
Teroc
Seems to be only 1/2 hour long so probably wont get much info.
It'll be interesting to see the level of research though. Hopefully better than we've seen in the past from our friends in the media.
Teroc
Guest
Posts: n/a
This is part 2 of a 6-part series concentrating on "National Disasters". Looking at the preview, it looks as though it is going to concentrate on the "effect" rather than the "cause".
This is cut from the program listing:
"......including interviews with survivors and rescue workers, many of them speaking publicly for the first time. This edition tells the story of the Kegworth air crash in January 1989 when an error by the pilot resulted in a British Midland Boeing 737 crashing onto the M1 motorway with the loss of 52 lives."
This is cut from the program listing:
"......including interviews with survivors and rescue workers, many of them speaking publicly for the first time. This edition tells the story of the Kegworth air crash in January 1989 when an error by the pilot resulted in a British Midland Boeing 737 crashing onto the M1 motorway with the loss of 52 lives."
Guest
Posts: n/a
The same programme last week on the Herald of Free Enterprise was CRAP - at least as far as the technical stuff was concerned - inaccurate, used the wrong terminology and betrayed a basic lack of understanding of shipping/navigation etc....
...so I really wouldn't expect too much from tonight's programme, as the media seem to be even shakier on aviation than on nautical matters.
...so I really wouldn't expect too much from tonight's programme, as the media seem to be even shakier on aviation than on nautical matters.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Two point -
firstly, you can access CVR transcripts all over the place (NTSB, AAIB, etc. all have them on the web) - if they were not allowed out on legitimate media, there is a risk they would be 'leaked'
secondly - the Herald - now refloated and repaineted and allegedly working in the southern hemisphere; nice to see the design probs of Ro-Ro's being addressed (NOT) - at least the B737 had a rethink on the engine management systems and confusion re engine numbering (1 & 2, or left and right, or port and starboard!)
firstly, you can access CVR transcripts all over the place (NTSB, AAIB, etc. all have them on the web) - if they were not allowed out on legitimate media, there is a risk they would be 'leaked'
secondly - the Herald - now refloated and repaineted and allegedly working in the southern hemisphere; nice to see the design probs of Ro-Ro's being addressed (NOT) - at least the B737 had a rethink on the engine management systems and confusion re engine numbering (1 & 2, or left and right, or port and starboard!)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Quite frankly I'm a little hacked off that they've dragged this up again - after all, it happened twelve years ago now.
Maybe I'm a bit naive, but why can't they just let it rest as an unfortunate incident.
Haven't the guys concerned a right to some peace ?
Its pure ill-informed sensationalism and nothing else - how about some decent programmes on the box before we all desert to Sky?
[This message has been edited by Sleeve Wing (edited 28 March 2001).]
Maybe I'm a bit naive, but why can't they just let it rest as an unfortunate incident.
Haven't the guys concerned a right to some peace ?
Its pure ill-informed sensationalism and nothing else - how about some decent programmes on the box before we all desert to Sky?
[This message has been edited by Sleeve Wing (edited 28 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chaps,
There is another perspective on this one.
Following the Townsend Thoresen disaster, there was a radical rethink of procedures, not the inherent design faults of Ro-RO ferries. We all know that this ferry design is in use all round the world and legislation cannot just prevent their use because of a (tragic) accident. However, procedures can prevent a repeat. Similar to the Beau Belle tragedy on the Thames - pleasure boats continue to mix with other commercial nautical traffic - procedures have been tightened to make it safe.
I don't think we collectively (ie society) try to hide the major accidents of the past. Sure it was a tragedy for all involved - I had a distant, but personal loss in the BM accident and can only stagger a guess at how it must feel for close F & F.
But, for those who did lose their lives or loved ones, is it not part of the reckoning process to know that SOME good might come from the accident. Let's not forget the lessons immediately learnt in the aftermath of the accident.
We should not be complacent about air travel, nor should we expect others to have such an in depth knowledge of the technical aspects of aviation. We are all experts in our own fields.
I may be wrong and will openly admit it if the research team proves me wrong. But let's not prejudge the outcome until we've seen the portrayal.
God help me if I'm wrong.
SW
There is another perspective on this one.
Following the Townsend Thoresen disaster, there was a radical rethink of procedures, not the inherent design faults of Ro-RO ferries. We all know that this ferry design is in use all round the world and legislation cannot just prevent their use because of a (tragic) accident. However, procedures can prevent a repeat. Similar to the Beau Belle tragedy on the Thames - pleasure boats continue to mix with other commercial nautical traffic - procedures have been tightened to make it safe.
I don't think we collectively (ie society) try to hide the major accidents of the past. Sure it was a tragedy for all involved - I had a distant, but personal loss in the BM accident and can only stagger a guess at how it must feel for close F & F.
But, for those who did lose their lives or loved ones, is it not part of the reckoning process to know that SOME good might come from the accident. Let's not forget the lessons immediately learnt in the aftermath of the accident.
We should not be complacent about air travel, nor should we expect others to have such an in depth knowledge of the technical aspects of aviation. We are all experts in our own fields.
I may be wrong and will openly admit it if the research team proves me wrong. But let's not prejudge the outcome until we've seen the portrayal.
God help me if I'm wrong.
SW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Stall_warner
I for one agree with your reply. I certainly believe that procedures/cockpit design are at times be less than perfect and often a major factor in mishaps but of course it is so much more convienient to blame the crew outright.
Teroc
press releases are usually only accurate because they contain only part of the story.
I for one agree with your reply. I certainly believe that procedures/cockpit design are at times be less than perfect and often a major factor in mishaps but of course it is so much more convienient to blame the crew outright.
Teroc
press releases are usually only accurate because they contain only part of the story.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, just podting at 1/2 way through the programme, and so far not a bad effort. Normal terminology mistakes "jump start 
"
Interesting human factors involved, re:- the reliability of the vibration indicators, and the routing of cabin air.
As a layman found it interesting, would be interested to know how accurate the programme was.
"Interesting human factors involved, re:- the reliability of the vibration indicators, and the routing of cabin air.
As a layman found it interesting, would be interested to know how accurate the programme was.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Well, I don't think any apologies are required from my camp.
airgeezer - you're absolutely right on the blame apportionment side. Thankfully this was mitigated throughout the programme by the fact that inadequate and/or oversights in the training programme partially caused confusion.
Pdub - good to read your comments, even thought you are a lay man...!!! Good observations and I agree with you, technically the facts were reasonably well portrayed. Most of it was straight from the AIB report.
Interesting comment at the end about exterior CCTV - I have my doubts about the effectiveness of such equipment, given the diversity of possible scenarios, but what do others think?
SW
airgeezer - you're absolutely right on the blame apportionment side. Thankfully this was mitigated throughout the programme by the fact that inadequate and/or oversights in the training programme partially caused confusion.
Pdub - good to read your comments, even thought you are a lay man...!!! Good observations and I agree with you, technically the facts were reasonably well portrayed. Most of it was straight from the AIB report.
Interesting comment at the end about exterior CCTV - I have my doubts about the effectiveness of such equipment, given the diversity of possible scenarios, but what do others think?
SW
Guest
Posts: n/a
Program over,
Not bad compared with the X file garbage a week or so ago BUT did rather gloss over lack of training on specific type.
Bit worried about the fireman -" fuel is basically kerosene mixed with high octane petrol" - did I miss something in BMA's fuel policy?
At least program was not sensationalist!
Not bad compared with the X file garbage a week or so ago BUT did rather gloss over lack of training on specific type.
Bit worried about the fireman -" fuel is basically kerosene mixed with high octane petrol" - did I miss something in BMA's fuel policy?
At least program was not sensationalist!
Guest
Posts: n/a
This was a "Human Factors" accident and I think the programme managed to get that message across.
Nitpicking points:
1. Where did the programme makers get the notion that the pressurisation air comes from No.2 engine only?
2. Where did that fireman get the notion that Jet A1 is a kerosene/petrol mix?
It's desperately sad that, but for the lack of a few more precious feet, everyone would have walked away.
[This message has been edited by Georgeablelovehowindia (edited 28 March 2001).]
Nitpicking points:
1. Where did the programme makers get the notion that the pressurisation air comes from No.2 engine only?
2. Where did that fireman get the notion that Jet A1 is a kerosene/petrol mix?
It's desperately sad that, but for the lack of a few more precious feet, everyone would have walked away.
[This message has been edited by Georgeablelovehowindia (edited 28 March 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Have to say I was pretty pleased with last nights programme. A few errors but nothing like were used to from this kind of broadcast. Overall pretty OK.
Airgeezer,
Agree with you about press releases containing only part of the story. This is more due to pending/upcoming investigations and legal limitations regarding liability etc than an attempt to mislead (generally). But just because part of the story is missing doesnt excuse making the rest of it up. I take it you're involved in the media industry somehow ?
Airgeezer,
Agree with you about press releases containing only part of the story. This is more due to pending/upcoming investigations and legal limitations regarding liability etc than an attempt to mislead (generally). But just because part of the story is missing doesnt excuse making the rest of it up. I take it you're involved in the media industry somehow ?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Teroc
I was once a cameraman with the BBC, and have worked as a broadcast engineer/lighting director more recently, sadly often on news programmes which means I work with journos.
I find it is more often the egos of producers or poor quality of the researchers that leads to poor, unaccurate reporting but the jounos are often to blame.
I was once a cameraman with the BBC, and have worked as a broadcast engineer/lighting director more recently, sadly often on news programmes which means I work with journos.
I find it is more often the egos of producers or poor quality of the researchers that leads to poor, unaccurate reporting but the jounos are often to blame.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My nitpick is that
"The ANGLE of descent was too steep and the plae was travelling too fast"
If it crashed at 132mph, then it sounds like the crew were doing there damnest to keep the nose of the aircraft up and minimise the rate of descent.
I have not read the report but would like to ask your opinions. For such a turbine failure, and the associated engine fire, what sort of readings were the crew getting on their engine instruments?
Was their a failure of some sensors, such that the crew did not realise no1 was on fire?
It was a terrible accident and there were a number of contributory factors. I am only looking for the reasons behind the crew not realising that no1 had failed and was on fire, that lead to them shutting down no2.
"The ANGLE of descent was too steep and the plae was travelling too fast"
If it crashed at 132mph, then it sounds like the crew were doing there damnest to keep the nose of the aircraft up and minimise the rate of descent.
I have not read the report but would like to ask your opinions. For such a turbine failure, and the associated engine fire, what sort of readings were the crew getting on their engine instruments?
Was their a failure of some sensors, such that the crew did not realise no1 was on fire?
It was a terrible accident and there were a number of contributory factors. I am only looking for the reasons behind the crew not realising that no1 had failed and was on fire, that lead to them shutting down no2.