Crash at ZRH
Guest
Posts: n/a
Swiss carrier Crossair says that the BAE Systems Avro RJ100 which crashed on approach to Zurich International Airport two days ago was not among the handful of aircraft on which the airline has installed Enhanced Ground-Proximity Warning Systems (EGPWS).
Four aircraft in Crossair’s remaining Avro RJ fleet – comprising 15 RJ100s and four RJ85s – are fitted with the Honeywell EGPWS, although a spokesman for the airline says that it “foresees” installation on the rest.
EGPWS was developed to provide greater forewarning to pilots of a possible controlled-flight into terrain (CFIT) risks and eliminate the weaknesses inherent in regular GPWS avionics, which are primarily designed to alert crews to anomalies such as high-speed descent and glideslope deviations;
GPWS would not recognise the danger of a properly-configured landing approach towards high terrain.
The more advanced EGPWS uses a terrain-map database and cross-references the aircraft’s position and altitude against the height of the surrounding land, showing the information on the navigation display and colour-coding the terrain according to risk.
If the system calculates that the aircraft is on a potential collision course with the ground, it issues a visual and aural caution to the pilot 60s before impact, increasing the urgency of the alert when the escape window is down to 30s.
“Only four of our [Avro RJ] fleet are equipped with EGPWS so far,” says the Crossair spokesman. “The aircraft which crashed at Zurich was not one of them.”
As a precautionary measure, Switzerland’s Federal Office for Civil Aviation has suspended landing operations on Zurich’s runway 28 while investigators carry out calibration checks on the VOR/DME used by aircraft during the descent to the strip – although there is no evidence that the navaid was not functioning correctly.
Crossair flight LX3597 from Berlin-Tegel crashed during a night-time VOR approach to Zurich on 24 November. The carrier has now issued a passenger list confirming that 21 of the 28 passengers, plus three of the five crew members, were killed in the accident. Crossair has arranged an immediate initial
compensatory payment of SFr30,000 ($20,000) per passenger.
Four aircraft in Crossair’s remaining Avro RJ fleet – comprising 15 RJ100s and four RJ85s – are fitted with the Honeywell EGPWS, although a spokesman for the airline says that it “foresees” installation on the rest.
EGPWS was developed to provide greater forewarning to pilots of a possible controlled-flight into terrain (CFIT) risks and eliminate the weaknesses inherent in regular GPWS avionics, which are primarily designed to alert crews to anomalies such as high-speed descent and glideslope deviations;
GPWS would not recognise the danger of a properly-configured landing approach towards high terrain.
The more advanced EGPWS uses a terrain-map database and cross-references the aircraft’s position and altitude against the height of the surrounding land, showing the information on the navigation display and colour-coding the terrain according to risk.
If the system calculates that the aircraft is on a potential collision course with the ground, it issues a visual and aural caution to the pilot 60s before impact, increasing the urgency of the alert when the escape window is down to 30s.
“Only four of our [Avro RJ] fleet are equipped with EGPWS so far,” says the Crossair spokesman. “The aircraft which crashed at Zurich was not one of them.”
As a precautionary measure, Switzerland’s Federal Office for Civil Aviation has suspended landing operations on Zurich’s runway 28 while investigators carry out calibration checks on the VOR/DME used by aircraft during the descent to the strip – although there is no evidence that the navaid was not functioning correctly.
Crossair flight LX3597 from Berlin-Tegel crashed during a night-time VOR approach to Zurich on 24 November. The carrier has now issued a passenger list confirming that 21 of the 28 passengers, plus three of the five crew members, were killed in the accident. Crossair has arranged an immediate initial
compensatory payment of SFr30,000 ($20,000) per passenger.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad accident indeed..
For info; the Avro RJ is not steam driven. Although there is no ECAM/EICAM blah blah, it is full EFIS PFD and ND, and Cat IIIb autoland capable. The ND gives a fantastic positional display in map mode, either with the GNS-X or the GNLU nav systems that the RJ comes with.
Also I've found it to be very capable in all wx, including heavy icing. Even with a higher N2 with ice protection on, the airbrake with landing configuration gives immense drag so steep approaches are no problem...
As other pilots familiar with Zurich know, the rwy 28 approach needs lot's of attention to fly it right.
Whatever the reason for the accident I hope it is found soon, and maybe we can learn something that will save an aircraft from future disaster.
For info; the Avro RJ is not steam driven. Although there is no ECAM/EICAM blah blah, it is full EFIS PFD and ND, and Cat IIIb autoland capable. The ND gives a fantastic positional display in map mode, either with the GNS-X or the GNLU nav systems that the RJ comes with.
Also I've found it to be very capable in all wx, including heavy icing. Even with a higher N2 with ice protection on, the airbrake with landing configuration gives immense drag so steep approaches are no problem...
As other pilots familiar with Zurich know, the rwy 28 approach needs lot's of attention to fly it right.
Whatever the reason for the accident I hope it is found soon, and maybe we can learn something that will save an aircraft from future disaster.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea of the cause of this accident
nor would I disagree that an ILS is safer.
However I would say that this is not a particularly difficult non precision approach,it requires care and dilligence as always ; but anyone who finds it overly difficult has no place in a transport aircraft.
I am concerned that the Media "bandwagon" and the noise abatement lobby, not to mention politicians for their own dubious reasons are casting Rwy 28 approaches as unsafe and potentially hazardous..after all any approach can be challenging ;
with weather usually being the most influential factor.
my sincere condolences to all concerned.
nor would I disagree that an ILS is safer.
However I would say that this is not a particularly difficult non precision approach,it requires care and dilligence as always ; but anyone who finds it overly difficult has no place in a transport aircraft.
I am concerned that the Media "bandwagon" and the noise abatement lobby, not to mention politicians for their own dubious reasons are casting Rwy 28 approaches as unsafe and potentially hazardous..after all any approach can be challenging ;
with weather usually being the most influential factor.
my sincere condolences to all concerned.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: southampton
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Cisco Kid, Last week I did an NDB/DME into an airport that I have flowen into hundreds of times. It went to a can of worms at MDA and I got a GPWS sink rate resulting in a missed app and shame faced apology to my fo, lots of extra paper work and a feeling that I was in the wrong job.I look forward to being a good as pilot as you are.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Nick,you have got it all wrong! a go around as you performed is all part of doing the right thing. I hope that you´re not still in the "dark ages" and consider a screwed up landing better than a well executed go around,I ´ve done exactly the same thing myself,a bit embarrassing but nothing to be ashamed of.I hope your company supports this view otherwise it all gets a bit "flying club".
and no I don´t consider myself to be better than anyone else,but I do know my limitations.Seems like you do too.
Can´t we try to stay on topic.
Cheers Cisco.
and no I don´t consider myself to be better than anyone else,but I do know my limitations.Seems like you do too.
Can´t we try to stay on topic.
Cheers Cisco.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody once said that pilots are the worst accident witnesses. We never report what we observe, instead we report what we think happened, why it happened, and who was to blame. Here (PPRUNE) we do the same without even having seen the accident. We base our conclusions (often) largely on the media reports. At any other time we are extremely wary of what they report.
Now, what am i getting at? Pre Milan I did not pay much attention to this practise. Post Milan, I found some premature remarks/accusations/conclusions regarding my deceased colleagues to be very disturbing. Painful. Even when I knew this was not the intention of the person posting.
I do NOT mean to point my finger at anyone in particular. Just be aware that your remark may have a much bigger impact that you actually thought.
My deepest sympathy to all involved, and especially the Crossair crew, who for the next few days will have to do a professional job while carrying this accident in the back of their heads. I know it's hard.
[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: Scando ]
[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: Scando ]
Now, what am i getting at? Pre Milan I did not pay much attention to this practise. Post Milan, I found some premature remarks/accusations/conclusions regarding my deceased colleagues to be very disturbing. Painful. Even when I knew this was not the intention of the person posting.
I do NOT mean to point my finger at anyone in particular. Just be aware that your remark may have a much bigger impact that you actually thought.
My deepest sympathy to all involved, and especially the Crossair crew, who for the next few days will have to do a professional job while carrying this accident in the back of their heads. I know it's hard.
[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: Scando ]
[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: Scando ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: the twilight zone
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Definitely wasn't trying to criticise anything 'steam driven'- as has been pointed out (cheers guys) I found it hard enough to do in an airbus with all the assistance it can give! I have the utmost respect for you chaps.
Cisco Kid -
- a sweeping statement I'm afraid & not a very clever one.
Enough Said.
Nick Heff - those that have & there'll be those that will. I'm not looking forward to the day
You are right though Cisco - needs to be on topic. Sorry.
Wow
(Edited for the usual spelling mistakes)
[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: wow400 ]
Cisco Kid -
anyone who finds it overly difficult has no place in a transport aircraft
Enough Said.
Nick Heff - those that have & there'll be those that will. I'm not looking forward to the day
You are right though Cisco - needs to be on topic. Sorry.
Wow
(Edited for the usual spelling mistakes)
[ 26 November 2001: Message edited by: wow400 ]
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Spain
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For everybody not flying an RJ and/or ZRH airport, Dagger Dirk was giving a good point.
I personally think that during these days we should limit our opinions respecting the people died and the people working there.
Someone here is giving misunderstanding pilot techniques suggestions: investigations will give us the results.
There will be enough time to discuss technically....
My condolences.
Cheers.
I personally think that during these days we should limit our opinions respecting the people died and the people working there.
Someone here is giving misunderstanding pilot techniques suggestions: investigations will give us the results.
There will be enough time to discuss technically....
My condolences.
Cheers.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Merstham, Redhill
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously, condolences to the families of Pax and crew. Bearing in mind Scando's comments I offer this;
My CTC once remarked to me that the RJ is an easy aircraft to fly but a difficult one to operate. In the nearly four years I have been on it I must say that he has hit the nail on the head. I'm not taking anything away from the crew when I say this and neither am I heralding our prowess. It is a fact, no more, no less.
Thus, I was very interested to read the post by Dr Know concerning, in particular, the technical deficiencies of the aircraft in question. Two things struck me:
Firstly, the APU. Ever THE most unreliable piece of kit on the aircraft and the bane of our aviation lives. Some of you may wonder, "No APU, big deal!". Unfortunately, it can be on the RJ. The jokes about the aircraft being equipped with five APU's is not totally without foundation. If you have no APU and you are making an approach in icing conditions (i.e. anything below 11 degrees centigrade!) the mucking about you have to do on short finals is nothing short of dangerous. What is more you have to be conscious of the need to do it all the way down the approach because if you forget and you need to go-around you may not have enough power with bleed air being taken for both eng air and eng ant-ice circuits. Suffice to say that this is a very distracting procedure which has to be done 300' before decision and leaves a lot to be desired in the design stage. However, I must stress that it doesn't actually say that the APU was U/S. In my company, however, a failure to start twice usually means an A.D.D. for anything up to a month.
Secondly, the auto-pressurisation. If this aircraft was built in 1996 I can only assume that it had a non digital type. When this type goes wrong - which in all fairness does not happen very often (twice in my career) the NHP's attention is constantly directed aloft to keep adjusting the cabin ROD. That includes all the way down the approach!
In isolation these two technical difficulties are inconsequential but add them together and they offer a potential for disaster, believe me.
Although I am totally biased because I am a pilot I would go so far as to say that if my suspicions are correct then the blame should be laid firstly on the door of BAE whose MEL is appalling and needs a cumulative points system to stop aircraft flying with certain defects together in certain conditions; and secondly, at the foot of the management of Crossair who, like so many other companies - mine included - who run RJ's - don't fully understand that we NEED our fifth APU! Especially in winter.
Needless to say that the crew will still be blamed because, as was shown to be the case in the Kegworth disaster, even the mere hint of culpability of a multinational is enough to see any Accident Investigation Board suffocating in a sea of legal writs.
I realise that I may be vilified for offering conjecture without the full facts but anyone who has flown or still flies this type will know exactly what I am talking about - even if I don't!.
Regards SS.
My CTC once remarked to me that the RJ is an easy aircraft to fly but a difficult one to operate. In the nearly four years I have been on it I must say that he has hit the nail on the head. I'm not taking anything away from the crew when I say this and neither am I heralding our prowess. It is a fact, no more, no less.
Thus, I was very interested to read the post by Dr Know concerning, in particular, the technical deficiencies of the aircraft in question. Two things struck me:
Firstly, the APU. Ever THE most unreliable piece of kit on the aircraft and the bane of our aviation lives. Some of you may wonder, "No APU, big deal!". Unfortunately, it can be on the RJ. The jokes about the aircraft being equipped with five APU's is not totally without foundation. If you have no APU and you are making an approach in icing conditions (i.e. anything below 11 degrees centigrade!) the mucking about you have to do on short finals is nothing short of dangerous. What is more you have to be conscious of the need to do it all the way down the approach because if you forget and you need to go-around you may not have enough power with bleed air being taken for both eng air and eng ant-ice circuits. Suffice to say that this is a very distracting procedure which has to be done 300' before decision and leaves a lot to be desired in the design stage. However, I must stress that it doesn't actually say that the APU was U/S. In my company, however, a failure to start twice usually means an A.D.D. for anything up to a month.
Secondly, the auto-pressurisation. If this aircraft was built in 1996 I can only assume that it had a non digital type. When this type goes wrong - which in all fairness does not happen very often (twice in my career) the NHP's attention is constantly directed aloft to keep adjusting the cabin ROD. That includes all the way down the approach!
In isolation these two technical difficulties are inconsequential but add them together and they offer a potential for disaster, believe me.
Although I am totally biased because I am a pilot I would go so far as to say that if my suspicions are correct then the blame should be laid firstly on the door of BAE whose MEL is appalling and needs a cumulative points system to stop aircraft flying with certain defects together in certain conditions; and secondly, at the foot of the management of Crossair who, like so many other companies - mine included - who run RJ's - don't fully understand that we NEED our fifth APU! Especially in winter.
Needless to say that the crew will still be blamed because, as was shown to be the case in the Kegworth disaster, even the mere hint of culpability of a multinational is enough to see any Accident Investigation Board suffocating in a sea of legal writs.
I realise that I may be vilified for offering conjecture without the full facts but anyone who has flown or still flies this type will know exactly what I am talking about - even if I don't!.
Regards SS.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Have moved again
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Algy
Sorry for taking so long to answer your question, It has been a while but no it was not equiped with EGPWS, the only RJ's in the LX fleet with EGPWS are HB-IYX, IYW, IYZ, IYY. Recal a number of 4. There might be one more.
SS I like your explanation. There is also the thing about the APU required to keep the outflow vavle open for pressurisation system.
In short No APU NO GO!
[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: Dr Know ]
Sorry for taking so long to answer your question, It has been a while but no it was not equiped with EGPWS, the only RJ's in the LX fleet with EGPWS are HB-IYX, IYW, IYZ, IYY. Recal a number of 4. There might be one more.
SS I like your explanation. There is also the thing about the APU required to keep the outflow vavle open for pressurisation system.
In short No APU NO GO!
[ 27 November 2001: Message edited by: Dr Know ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Currently N of Equator
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr DON'T Know..
You are totally wrong about the APU being a no go item. You obviously don't know the BAe146/RJ system and therefore should not comment.
If the APU is inop, the No. 4 Eng Air is left on to provide power to the outflow valves and keep them open.
You are totally wrong about the APU being a no go item. You obviously don't know the BAe146/RJ system and therefore should not comment.
If the APU is inop, the No. 4 Eng Air is left on to provide power to the outflow valves and keep them open.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Have moved again
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snoopy 2! Don't be such a wise ass!
I do know the system A&& H*le! It was just a comment saying that it should be considered as no go item. I have flown the aircraft many a times without an APU (having worked for LX) In adverse weather it is, as SS has explaind a very helpfull tool. So if you don't get that, please don't comment!
See you next time!
[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: Dr Know ]
I do know the system A&& H*le! It was just a comment saying that it should be considered as no go item. I have flown the aircraft many a times without an APU (having worked for LX) In adverse weather it is, as SS has explaind a very helpfull tool. So if you don't get that, please don't comment!
See you next time!
[ 28 November 2001: Message edited by: Dr Know ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hold at Saffa:
I have no "pro SR/anti LX" agenda, as you suggest.
In fact, Swiss air lines have had three crashes over the last three years. SR at Halifax, LX two at ZRH.
These are - like it or not - facts, my friend.
A more charitable interpretation of these facts is that such a record is fast approaching third world standards.
I have no "pro SR/anti LX" agenda, as you suggest.
In fact, Swiss air lines have had three crashes over the last three years. SR at Halifax, LX two at ZRH.
These are - like it or not - facts, my friend.
A more charitable interpretation of these facts is that such a record is fast approaching third world standards.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Merstham, Redhill
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you got ahead of yourself there snoop. I understood the good doctor. The problem, of course, lies in the switching at such a critical time: In all you have to switch NINE switches: 2 x packs; recirc valve; wing and tail ant-ice; inner wing de-ice; and three eng airs...phew! Oh, and don't forget to leave the pressurisation at land alt +500.
Anyway, pure conjecture as I say and by no means the only factor I dare say. I too second these calls to stop sacrificing safety for the sake of a good night's sleep for the oportunists who buy houses within five miles of extended runway centerlines.
We used to have to do this approach in the simulator but we never did it with problems. I think many of us - me included - would have had a tough time with so many distractions.
Anyway, pure conjecture as I say and by no means the only factor I dare say. I too second these calls to stop sacrificing safety for the sake of a good night's sleep for the oportunists who buy houses within five miles of extended runway centerlines.
We used to have to do this approach in the simulator but we never did it with problems. I think many of us - me included - would have had a tough time with so many distractions.
"The INTRODUCER"
Guv,
seeing as you saw fit to tell the Pprune audience what a lousy product we have here at Air Transport Intelligence (www.rati.com) we'd appreciate it if you would at least also tell them when you are breaking our copyright by republishing our news material. Even better, we'd appreciate it if you didn't do that at all. Tks.
seeing as you saw fit to tell the Pprune audience what a lousy product we have here at Air Transport Intelligence (www.rati.com) we'd appreciate it if you would at least also tell them when you are breaking our copyright by republishing our news material. Even better, we'd appreciate it if you didn't do that at all. Tks.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brazil
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First Of all my condolences to the families and collegues of the victimes. It is a very sad thing to happen.
I had second thoughts about posting something here because a lot of you seem to be very sensitive... the swissair/crossair saga... critisism on the 146/RJ
I too fly the jumbolino and I love it!! I always say: It looks like an eagle but flies like a chicken! AS A JOKE... anyway...
What I remember of my last OPC is the Non-Prec. APP. Since I've never flown other types of airliners I can only speak for the RJ. But in the AVRO, performing a non-pec.app before the descent to MDA you select the G/A altitude, descent with V/S and press the ALT HOLD when reaching the MDA. In Icing conditions it can be easy to forget the last part if you encounter a Icing problem with subsequent Icing cautions that are almost standard on the RJ. But in this case should the GPWS even give the TERRAIN warning! Not?
I hope that we soon get the resluts of the boxes so we all can learn something more!
Happy and Safe landings,
I had second thoughts about posting something here because a lot of you seem to be very sensitive... the swissair/crossair saga... critisism on the 146/RJ
I too fly the jumbolino and I love it!! I always say: It looks like an eagle but flies like a chicken! AS A JOKE... anyway...
What I remember of my last OPC is the Non-Prec. APP. Since I've never flown other types of airliners I can only speak for the RJ. But in the AVRO, performing a non-pec.app before the descent to MDA you select the G/A altitude, descent with V/S and press the ALT HOLD when reaching the MDA. In Icing conditions it can be easy to forget the last part if you encounter a Icing problem with subsequent Icing cautions that are almost standard on the RJ. But in this case should the GPWS even give the TERRAIN warning! Not?
I hope that we soon get the resluts of the boxes so we all can learn something more!
Happy and Safe landings,
Chief PPRuNe Pilot
Sorry but we have passed the 100 replies mark and this thread now has to close. Feel free to continue on a MkII thread.
Ref The Guvnor posting articles without copyright, he has been warned about this several times and will suffer the usual ban unless he complies with the rules. For those of you not familiar with the PPRuNe Home Page there is a link to a news service that shows many different sources of news and is continually updated. Go to the PPRune Home Page and select 'Latest news' from the menu item on the left near the bottom.
Ref The Guvnor posting articles without copyright, he has been warned about this several times and will suffer the usual ban unless he complies with the rules. For those of you not familiar with the PPRuNe Home Page there is a link to a news service that shows many different sources of news and is continually updated. Go to the PPRune Home Page and select 'Latest news' from the menu item on the left near the bottom.
