Airblue down near Islamabad
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Reg - good spot! I see the 'pseudo-runway' is still there in March. Who knows? I still wonder. Denlop reckons the 'roadwork' has been finished - it would be really good to see a July image. Nothing much else to go on while we wait ?6 months? for the CVR transcript - hmm?
His bona fides considered, Meekal's earlier point about the habits of the authorities there, regarding accident investigations, look to have been close to the mark.
I'd be willing to bet a few francs that the experts in France could get the info out a bit more quickly than that ...
Originally Posted by google news and express tribune summary
Junaid Ameen, the director-general of the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority ... stated that the box would be examined by "foreign experts" in Germany or France as Pakistan does not possess the equipment to decode the flight recorders. He also stated that the process of extracting information may take six months to a year.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf 50:
The raw data can be read very quickly. To compile and render the DFDR data can take a few days if the experts have only that task to do.
The CVR is the really tough one. You have to hopefully get a sharp pilot from the carrier who speaks both the native tongue and French, and you need a second "trusted agent" also fluent in both languages to keep the pilot translator on task, so to speak.
Then, you have the non-trivial task of rendering a correct English translation.
I'd be willing to bet a few francs that the experts in France could get the info out a bit more quickly than that ...
The CVR is the really tough one. You have to hopefully get a sharp pilot from the carrier who speaks both the native tongue and French, and you need a second "trusted agent" also fluent in both languages to keep the pilot translator on task, so to speak.
Then, you have the non-trivial task of rendering a correct English translation.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf 50:
FAA and U.S. air carrier politics. ALPA and others started working for better CTL criteria for TERPs perhaps 15 years ago.
The 767 CTL crash in Korea got the technical folks at the FAA off the dime. When Change 21 to TERPs was issued about a year ago, it contained vastly improved CTL criteria--sort of the fit BOAC would like.
But, a fairly high level FAA manager placed a "stop" on the new CTL criteria even though the signatories and industry had signed off on it and it became "law" (FAR Part 97) so to speak.
In your comparison of either/or, and I think you have a detailed understanding of this, why won't the FAA budge on the 2.3 nm? Why not 3sm or 3nm? There is probably a reason, but I don't know what it is.
The 767 CTL crash in Korea got the technical folks at the FAA off the dime. When Change 21 to TERPs was issued about a year ago, it contained vastly improved CTL criteria--sort of the fit BOAC would like.
But, a fairly high level FAA manager placed a "stop" on the new CTL criteria even though the signatories and industry had signed off on it and it became "law" (FAR Part 97) so to speak.
Thanks for all the replies, sorry to see FAA "in the way" on the CTL issue. 
In re CVR, hopefully the talent necessary will be found to help AB get the info extracted.
In re CVR, hopefully the talent necessary will be found to help AB get the info extracted.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neptunus Rex:
Middle man? Without a translation into French, there would be no France. 
English, yes. Urdu, yes. Why French? There are plenty of 'Les Anglais' working for M'sieu Airbus, so why introduce a middle man?
Meekal, re your … I am sure the runway symbol had disappeared from their ND. and … you could select and display on your ND.
Very few things in life are ‘sure’. Using the ND would be a good idea if the crew could be sure that map position was correct; we don’t know if ‘map-slip’ was a factor in this accident or not, but scant evidence suggest that the aircraft’s navigation system was not to the latest standard (no GPS) which could provide some protection from map-slip.
If the map position was incorrect and the crew used it, then this could have contributed to the accident.
Re Radar – when flying a circling procedure, the captain takes responsibility for terrain clearance, radar need not look for the aircraft; but if they do – well done. However, any safety information given should avoid confusion.
It might help your position when presenting issues to separate items, stick to facts or with supposition, provide supporting evidence or good argument.
Very few things in life are ‘sure’. Using the ND would be a good idea if the crew could be sure that map position was correct; we don’t know if ‘map-slip’ was a factor in this accident or not, but scant evidence suggest that the aircraft’s navigation system was not to the latest standard (no GPS) which could provide some protection from map-slip.
If the map position was incorrect and the crew used it, then this could have contributed to the accident.
Re Radar – when flying a circling procedure, the captain takes responsibility for terrain clearance, radar need not look for the aircraft; but if they do – well done. However, any safety information given should avoid confusion.
It might help your position when presenting issues to separate items, stick to facts or with supposition, provide supporting evidence or good argument.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll summarize the procedure issues one more time:
We don't know whether the back course of the localizer has sufficient fidelity to support an instrument approach procedure. But, let's presume it does. Same for the VOR radials west of the airport.
Let's say both the LOC and VOR are fine for Runway 12.
The terrain would support three instrument approach procedures:
1. VOR/DME lined up quite good with Runway 12 with either a teardrop course reversal or a DME ARC initial approach segment.
2. A LOC Back Course/DME approach to very good minimums with either a teardrop course reversal or DME ARC initial approach segment. Reverse sensing has been a thing of the past for many years with modern even 1960s HSIs.
3. A perfectly aligned RNAV IAP with a Baro VNAV vertical path for a precision-like approach. It would have to be a GPS aircraft for this third option. But, if not, the other two IAPs would be available.
#3 would have worked even had the other two not. If neither the VOR or back course are useable, then a separate front course or LDA type facility should have been installed years ago.
The fact none of these existed makes the country's aviation authority cupable to some extent in this tragic accident in my view.
We don't know whether the back course of the localizer has sufficient fidelity to support an instrument approach procedure. But, let's presume it does. Same for the VOR radials west of the airport.
Let's say both the LOC and VOR are fine for Runway 12.
The terrain would support three instrument approach procedures:
1. VOR/DME lined up quite good with Runway 12 with either a teardrop course reversal or a DME ARC initial approach segment.
2. A LOC Back Course/DME approach to very good minimums with either a teardrop course reversal or DME ARC initial approach segment. Reverse sensing has been a thing of the past for many years with modern even 1960s HSIs.
3. A perfectly aligned RNAV IAP with a Baro VNAV vertical path for a precision-like approach. It would have to be a GPS aircraft for this third option. But, if not, the other two IAPs would be available.
#3 would have worked even had the other two not. If neither the VOR or back course are useable, then a separate front course or LDA type facility should have been installed years ago.
The fact none of these existed makes the country's aviation authority cupable to some extent in this tragic accident in my view.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aterpster
The fact none of these existed makes the country's aviation authority culpable to some extent in this tragic accident in my view.
Can't do it - either don't start it at all or execute the appropriate missed approach from it. Time to stop 'blaming' the P CAA?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Too far from the equator
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was in Islamabad the day before . I have only been there 3 times , but there is NO procedure which takes you to the North of the runway , only after take-off with its left turn out ( a no brainer ) and the G/A from 30 which also invilves a left turn . Any circling approach to 30 is from the South.
The accident scene is due North of the airfield ( maybe 350 degrees ), past the northern suburbs , only the slopes after that . What the hell were they doing there at all , especially in an aircraft with EGPWS and its Data base . Even the 737-200s do not make a habit of flying into high ground , of which there is a lot in North Pakistan.
The accident scene is due North of the airfield ( maybe 350 degrees ), past the northern suburbs , only the slopes after that . What the hell were they doing there at all , especially in an aircraft with EGPWS and its Data base . Even the 737-200s do not make a habit of flying into high ground , of which there is a lot in North Pakistan.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
You would have made a great chief pilot at TWA in my earlier days there.
Mitigation is the duty of the airport owner and national aviation authority.
You've seen plenty of accidents with the probable cause followed by perhaps a dozen contributing factors. That is where the lack of facilities belongs, somewhere down that list of "a dozen."
Also, I did state "...cupable to some extent..."
Can't do it - either don't start it at all or execute the appropriate missed approach from it. Time to stop 'blaming' the P CAA?
Mitigation is the duty of the airport owner and national aviation authority.
You've seen plenty of accidents with the probable cause followed by perhaps a dozen contributing factors. That is where the lack of facilities belongs, somewhere down that list of "a dozen."
Also, I did state "...cupable to some extent..."
Last edited by aterpster; 15th Aug 2010 at 14:49. Reason: added last sentence
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kotakota:
That is your opinion, but it's not supported by the facts. We've been through a fairly good assessment of the circle-to-land protected zone earlier in this thread. Circling to the north side is just as safe and protected as circling to the south side. Captains, when given the choice, would rather have the airport on their side.
If circling to the north did not meet PANS-OPS' generous CTL criteria, the approach chart would not authorize it.
Departures are an entirely different matter. There is really high terrain slightly further to the north than the crash site terrain. That problem doesn't exist to the south for departures.
Departure issues and circle-to-land issues are a whole different set of technical issues.
Any circling approach to 30 is from the South.
If circling to the north did not meet PANS-OPS' generous CTL criteria, the approach chart would not authorize it.
Departures are an entirely different matter. There is really high terrain slightly further to the north than the crash site terrain. That problem doesn't exist to the south for departures.
Departure issues and circle-to-land issues are a whole different set of technical issues.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aterp
Mitigation is the duty of the airport owner and national aviation authority.
If a facility is not there to be used, you make the best of what you have. EG You cannot 'blame' an airport with a CATI ILS if someone crashes trying to fly to CATIII limits.
Incidentally - I'm sure there is a restriction in Islamabad on circuit direction is there not? I seem to recall it was only on R30 (!?) but restricted circuits to the north? Now who on earth thought no-one would do circuits on R12?
As for being CP of TWA - suppose YOU had been, and one of your high-time crew filed an ASR for a g/a in hilly terrain in marginal weather at around DME9 on a visual circle - "don't worry - the airport should have put in an ILS"?
Last edited by BOAC; 16th Aug 2010 at 08:28.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In some Marriott
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't recall whether this data has been posted yet or not; sorry if its a repeat.
From the Jepp 10-9 Airport/Info dated 24 Feb 06: Runway 30 right-hand circuit.
From the Jepp 11-1 ILS DME Rwy 30 dated 23 May 03: No restrictions shown for circling pattern. Straight in mins of 1965' (309')/800m with ALS. Circling mins at 135 kts of 2410' (742')/1600m and 180 kts of 2510' (842')/2400m.
There is the prohibited area due south of the airport, plus a note on the 11-1 to avoid overflight of the city south and west. Certainly casts doubt on the right-hand circuit.
Best,
GC
From the Jepp 10-9 Airport/Info dated 24 Feb 06: Runway 30 right-hand circuit.
From the Jepp 11-1 ILS DME Rwy 30 dated 23 May 03: No restrictions shown for circling pattern. Straight in mins of 1965' (309')/800m with ALS. Circling mins at 135 kts of 2410' (742')/1600m and 180 kts of 2510' (842')/2400m.
There is the prohibited area due south of the airport, plus a note on the 11-1 to avoid overflight of the city south and west. Certainly casts doubt on the right-hand circuit.
Best,
GC
Join Date: May 2005
Location: In some Marriott
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Certainly casts doubt on the right-hand circuit."????
Oops, sorry, seemed perfectly clear in my head
The right-hand circuit statement on the airport diagram conflicts (to me) with the prohibited area to the south of the airport and the request to avoid overflight of the town that is south and west of the airport. Maybe a light aircraft could complete a right-hand circuit without violating the prohibited area and without overflying the town, but I don't see how a turbojet could.
In other words, the 10-9 and the 11-1 contradict themselves for circling purposes...
Hopefully that's better than my first attempt!
Best,
GC
Oops, sorry, seemed perfectly clear in my head
The right-hand circuit statement on the airport diagram conflicts (to me) with the prohibited area to the south of the airport and the request to avoid overflight of the town that is south and west of the airport. Maybe a light aircraft could complete a right-hand circuit without violating the prohibited area and without overflying the town, but I don't see how a turbojet could.
In other words, the 10-9 and the 11-1 contradict themselves for circling purposes...
Hopefully that's better than my first attempt!
Best,
GC