Eurocypria Airlines LTD Incident EPKT 2009-11-09
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poland does not have a single CAT III runway for 10+ airports with considerable traffic and population approx. 40 million. But at least their weather is s...ty every autumn/winter.
But isn't the incident, we just discuss, the best example, why it is so?
The pilots keep landing below minima (also LOT), delays and diversions
are avoided, so no pressure on the authorities to change the situation...
Let's save the money, f**k the fog, the "good old boys" will land anyway.
It's cheaper.
It always remind me of the saying:
"If you think safety is expensive, try to have an accident."
Last edited by Ptkay; 15th Dec 2009 at 11:51.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Poland
Age: 52
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to LNAV VNAV
I am not sure what RVR was given but I am sure that LOT crew made diversion to EPKK in LO306 (2 hr before incident).
to tcas1
If you are not sure what was done by LOT crew, please do not make assumption and do not blame somebody. (look above)
This particular incident like many others is not simple and I think many factors where involved here. Hope final report will describe all factors and make proper recommendation to prevent in future similar incidents.
Best regards
It would be interesting to find out then what, if any, RVR reading was given by the tower to the LOT aircraft.
to tcas1
the LOT a/c landed below minima
This particular incident like many others is not simple and I think many factors where involved here. Hope final report will describe all factors and make proper recommendation to prevent in future similar incidents.
Best regards
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 60
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to admit that the logical analysis process of some of the posters in this thread leaves a little to be desired, and leaves me a little bit worried that some of you are driving me around Europe in your buses in this current bout of foggy weather........
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why did they divert to EPKK?
probably because the ceiling was 100ft, so at the DA of 200ft
they still couldn't see the runway and executed go around and diversion.
This is what prudent pilots do under such circumstances,
instead on flying blind into the ground and landing on the grass off the runway.
RVR is one thing, DA and ceiling is another.
Just my $0.02 worth...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Sand Pitt
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sooo then, isn't it even remotely posible that the ECA crew were also given 600m RVR, started the approach and saw lights at 200ft but mistook the edge lights for centreline lights (which of course don't exist)??
In other words, shouldn't you wait for the investigation report before jumping into conclusions, judging and condemning pilots, airlines and countries???
In other words, shouldn't you wait for the investigation report before jumping into conclusions, judging and condemning pilots, airlines and countries???
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sooo then, isn't it even remotely possible that the ECA crew were also given 600m RVR, started the approach and saw lights at 200ft but mistook the edge lights for centreline lights (which of course don't exist)??
Nevertheless it is clearly stated in the AIP for EPKT: RCLL none
(no centreline lights.)
They certainly should have seen the Calvert system lights,
but isn't the decision altitude (DA) referring to having "runway in sight"
and not the Calvert HI flashes?
If you are a pilot, would you land if you would see just ONE string of lights,
and having no visual of the other two strings of lights supposed to be
the side lights?
Are there any CAT I runways having just RCLL and no side lights?
I dare to suggest: NO.
In other words, shouldn't you wait for the investigation report before jumping into conclusions, judging and condemning pilots, airlines and countries???
Nevertheless, I hope that bringing public attention to such incidents
will stop the craziness of airlines pushing pilots to land below minima
and stop pilots from risking their lives, and the lives of the passengers
doing so.
I hope also, you have enough imagination, that with little less luck,
with wet and soft grass off the runway, you would end up
with the main gear braking off and eventually,
in a pile of burning scrap metal.
I rest my case now.
EOT
Join Date: May 2000
Location: ATLANTIS
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It shows once more the importance of a proper pre approach briefing when LOVIS prevail. A thorough look at the airport/rwy lights table would have shown that rwy/ctrlts did not exist, If you know that before you start the approach, you will not be surprised when you break out low level.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: here and everywhere
Age: 50
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for your 2p ptkay!
[QUOTE]RVR given by KTW TWR to LOT was 600m ,so
/QUOTE]
The above rather confusing 1st posting from our Polish friend with the emoticon gives the impression of a successful landing at KTW.
Lastly I totally agree with quickturnaround's comment!
[QUOTE]RVR given by KTW TWR to LOT was 600m ,so
/QUOTE]The above rather confusing 1st posting from our Polish friend with the emoticon gives the impression of a successful landing at KTW.
Lastly I totally agree with quickturnaround's comment!
Last edited by levantes; 15th Dec 2009 at 14:40.
Only half a speed-brake
FD
(the un-real)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Planet Wundaful
Age: 44
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Incident...
Ok Guy's here's my two penny's worth,
To keep it as simple as possible. An incident has occurred here. For me as an aviator this is understandable incidents happen in aviation all the time we are always managing risk when we leave the ground to minimise incidents in aviation this is what CRM is all about.
The big issue here is the actions of the crew/crews involved. It would appear that rather than reporting this very serious incident immediately so that in the long term steps could be taken to improve company operating procedures and training to minimise the chances of this type of incident happening again a decision was made to try to cover it up.
If indeed there was a cover up and proven so. It is Eurocypria's responsibility for the sake of the paying public of Cyprus and indeed Europe as well as its own staff to take immediate steps to ensure that this type of attitude does not become company culture.
Pete77
To keep it as simple as possible. An incident has occurred here. For me as an aviator this is understandable incidents happen in aviation all the time we are always managing risk when we leave the ground to minimise incidents in aviation this is what CRM is all about.
The big issue here is the actions of the crew/crews involved. It would appear that rather than reporting this very serious incident immediately so that in the long term steps could be taken to improve company operating procedures and training to minimise the chances of this type of incident happening again a decision was made to try to cover it up.
If indeed there was a cover up and proven so. It is Eurocypria's responsibility for the sake of the paying public of Cyprus and indeed Europe as well as its own staff to take immediate steps to ensure that this type of attitude does not become company culture.
Pete77
Eurocypria pilot breached safety protocols - Cyprus Mail headlines today, P Dewhurst.
"A EUROCYPRIA pilot breached safety procedures by failing to complete pre-flight checks on a plane that was damaged during landing when it partly missed the runway, it emerged yesterday.
No passengers were hurt during the botched landing; however under other conditions such an oversight could have spelled disaster.
The oversight, described as a "serious incident" by an official at the airline, occurred on November 9 at Katowice airport, Poland, when a Boeing 737 carrying around 170 passengers, partly missed the runway and sustained damage to the front landing gear, reflectors and headlamps.
The pilot reported that he had mistaken the leftmost strip of lights for central runway lights. However, the Polish Accident Investigation Board report shows that the plane commenced landing with insufficient visibility. The report states that the minimum "Runway Visual Range" (RVR) for was 550 metres but due to fog, RVR on the day was only 350 metres.
Captain Xanthos Yerolemou, Safety Officer at Eurocypria said yesterday: "Probably one of the reasons he missed was because of low RVR".
After landing, one of the landing crew inspected the left side of the plane that had missed the runway. However he failed to check the rest of the plane which had sustained damage during the landing, the report said.
Had this damage been reported, the plane would not have been allowed to fly, Yerolemou said. "This was the result of human error. If you have reason to believe you have left the runway, then you have to inspect the aircraft. It seems they did not check the right side because they believed it was okay,” he said.
Asked if he thought the inspecting pilot had been negligent, Yerolemou said "Yes. In fact the walk-around must be done before every flight, so they had not completed their tasks."
Alarmingly, the Katowice ground crew had even reported the broken light to the captain of the onward flight. However, said Yerolemou, the captain could not understand the message, because of the language barrier. He therefore sought clarification from the landing crew pilot who had conducted the checks. When asked if he knew of a broken light, he replied that he did not.
Eurocypria has now completed its preliminary report on the incident which has been shown to Cypriot, Polish and European Aviation bodies. The company will decide on disciplinary proceedings soon. "We are looking very seriously into the matter, and dismissal is a possibility."
Lucas Hadjiconstantinou, an electrical engineer with Cyprus Airways, said "Ninety per cent of the time that this type of damage occurs, there will be no incident, and serious accidents are unlikely. However, as Concorde showed, small pieces of debris can cause crashes." In 2000 a Concorde crashed after a 45cm by 3 cm strip of metal tore the plane's tires, which in turn struck and ignited the fuel tanks.
Andreas Georgiades, President of Aircraft Engineers International, said yesterday "The basic issue is that there was an incident and it was not properly reported." Asked about consequences of such damage, Georgiades was clear.
"Any defect, however small, definitely endangers the airplane and crew. You have to report it in a technical log and have certified mechanics sign it off. What people don't understand is that every incident reduces the safety margin, and if this is eroded over time it can end in disaster."
So, could this type of incident happen again? Giorgiades thinks so. "With current EU aviation safety regulations, I would say yes. Pilots are under increasing pressure to operate their planes." He explains that this problem highlights a broader issue of commercial pressures on airlines. Both He and Hadjiconstantinou agree that completely safe procedures are expensive, with lower burdens feeling the pressure more.
While rumours of cover ups and cost-cutting manoeuvres abound on pilots’ web forums, such as www.pprune.org, the facts suggest this incident was much like the “perfect storm”. Poor weather, inadequate infrastructure, lack of communication and a failure to follow rules combined to risk hundreds of lives.
However Yerolemou was keen to stress that this was exceptional, that Eurocypria has an excellent safety record, follows all safety manuals and laws and been successfully audited by the European Aviation Standards Authority"
In the Cyprus Mail 1st January 10 by Patrick Dewhurst.
No passengers were hurt during the botched landing; however under other conditions such an oversight could have spelled disaster.
The oversight, described as a "serious incident" by an official at the airline, occurred on November 9 at Katowice airport, Poland, when a Boeing 737 carrying around 170 passengers, partly missed the runway and sustained damage to the front landing gear, reflectors and headlamps.
The pilot reported that he had mistaken the leftmost strip of lights for central runway lights. However, the Polish Accident Investigation Board report shows that the plane commenced landing with insufficient visibility. The report states that the minimum "Runway Visual Range" (RVR) for was 550 metres but due to fog, RVR on the day was only 350 metres.
Captain Xanthos Yerolemou, Safety Officer at Eurocypria said yesterday: "Probably one of the reasons he missed was because of low RVR".
After landing, one of the landing crew inspected the left side of the plane that had missed the runway. However he failed to check the rest of the plane which had sustained damage during the landing, the report said.
Had this damage been reported, the plane would not have been allowed to fly, Yerolemou said. "This was the result of human error. If you have reason to believe you have left the runway, then you have to inspect the aircraft. It seems they did not check the right side because they believed it was okay,” he said.
Asked if he thought the inspecting pilot had been negligent, Yerolemou said "Yes. In fact the walk-around must be done before every flight, so they had not completed their tasks."
Alarmingly, the Katowice ground crew had even reported the broken light to the captain of the onward flight. However, said Yerolemou, the captain could not understand the message, because of the language barrier. He therefore sought clarification from the landing crew pilot who had conducted the checks. When asked if he knew of a broken light, he replied that he did not.
Eurocypria has now completed its preliminary report on the incident which has been shown to Cypriot, Polish and European Aviation bodies. The company will decide on disciplinary proceedings soon. "We are looking very seriously into the matter, and dismissal is a possibility."
Lucas Hadjiconstantinou, an electrical engineer with Cyprus Airways, said "Ninety per cent of the time that this type of damage occurs, there will be no incident, and serious accidents are unlikely. However, as Concorde showed, small pieces of debris can cause crashes." In 2000 a Concorde crashed after a 45cm by 3 cm strip of metal tore the plane's tires, which in turn struck and ignited the fuel tanks.
Andreas Georgiades, President of Aircraft Engineers International, said yesterday "The basic issue is that there was an incident and it was not properly reported." Asked about consequences of such damage, Georgiades was clear.
"Any defect, however small, definitely endangers the airplane and crew. You have to report it in a technical log and have certified mechanics sign it off. What people don't understand is that every incident reduces the safety margin, and if this is eroded over time it can end in disaster."
So, could this type of incident happen again? Giorgiades thinks so. "With current EU aviation safety regulations, I would say yes. Pilots are under increasing pressure to operate their planes." He explains that this problem highlights a broader issue of commercial pressures on airlines. Both He and Hadjiconstantinou agree that completely safe procedures are expensive, with lower burdens feeling the pressure more.
While rumours of cover ups and cost-cutting manoeuvres abound on pilots’ web forums, such as www.pprune.org, the facts suggest this incident was much like the “perfect storm”. Poor weather, inadequate infrastructure, lack of communication and a failure to follow rules combined to risk hundreds of lives.
However Yerolemou was keen to stress that this was exceptional, that Eurocypria has an excellent safety record, follows all safety manuals and laws and been successfully audited by the European Aviation Standards Authority"
In the Cyprus Mail 1st January 10 by Patrick Dewhurst.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
......the facts suggest this incident was much like the “perfect storm”. Poor weather, inadequate infrastructure, lack of communication and a failure to follow rules combined to risk ....
The final get out should have been at 1000' agl when a go-around would have broken the chain - assuming the RVR was below 550m at that point (probably was judging by METAR's).
The subsequent (in)actions on the ground demand only one solution.
A4
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Not over the Rockies anymore.
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
......the facts suggest this incident was much like the “perfect storm”. Poor weather, inadequate infrastructure, lack of communication and a failure to follow rules combined to risk ....
I disagree. Poor weather and inadequate infrastructure (CAT 1 only) are everyday occurances - nothing exceptional. This whole sequence of events was soley down to the decision of the Commander to commence/continue an approach below the legal minima. This is why we have rules - to protect the travelling public. Rules which can only be broken to prevent imminent harm to the aircraft or its passengers - not to keep the schedule running to time.
The final get out should have been at 1000' agl when a go-around would have broken the chain - assuming the RVR was below 550m at that point (probably was judging by METAR's).
The subsequent (in)actions on the ground demand only one solution.
A4
......the facts suggest this incident was much like the “perfect storm”. Poor weather, inadequate infrastructure, lack of communication and a failure to follow rules combined to risk ....
I disagree. Poor weather and inadequate infrastructure (CAT 1 only) are everyday occurances - nothing exceptional. This whole sequence of events was soley down to the decision of the Commander to commence/continue an approach below the legal minima. This is why we have rules - to protect the travelling public. Rules which can only be broken to prevent imminent harm to the aircraft or its passengers - not to keep the schedule running to time.
The final get out should have been at 1000' agl when a go-around would have broken the chain - assuming the RVR was below 550m at that point (probably was judging by METAR's).
The subsequent (in)actions on the ground demand only one solution.
A4
More so, this has less to do with cover ups and conspiracy, rather ignorance, incompetance, or both.
A4, what do you mean with "the final get out....1000ft.."? I'm not sure I understand?!
Break out, as in breaking out of the bottoms? On a Cat 1 Ils to mins, 1000ft agl sure sounds a bit high..
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: above the clouds
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A4, what do you mean with "the final get out....1000ft.."? I'm not sure I understand?
ACT700 :I guess you have never heared of a approach ban?
time to get back in the books mate, no time for that stuff while you are on an approach......
time to get back in the books mate, no time for that stuff while you are on an approach......
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Not over the Rockies anymore.
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cupoftea, not in those terms!
If you guys are talking about abandoning an approach after not having the required "stuff" at minimums, that's all good stuff.
What I'm not getting is, abandoning an ILS (which is what they were doing) at a 1000ft agl?!
If you guys are talking about abandoning an approach after not having the required "stuff" at minimums, that's all good stuff.
What I'm not getting is, abandoning an ILS (which is what they were doing) at a 1000ft agl?!