Airblue down near Islamabad
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: grenoble
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Margalla plane crash caused by pilot error: CAA
ISLAMABAD: The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has presented the investigation report of the Margalla plane crash incident to the Ministry of Defense, revealing that the crash was caused by the pilot's mistake.
According to sources, this important information has been extracted from the recording of the black box; the control tower repeatedly told the pilot that he is heading in the wrong direction. The pilot, in reply to the control tower, said that he can see the hills.
The CAA investigation report, based on the recording of black box, further reveals that the co-pilot also repeatedly asked the pilot very loudly to take the plane up, but it was very late before he could had done it.
On July 28, an aeroplane of a private airline, Air Blue, crashed into the hills of Margalla in Islamabad claiming lives of 152 passengers, including crew members.
.:: SAMAA - Margalla plane crash caused by pilot error: CAA
Not exactly amongst the most reliable sources of information but I am posting it here just anyway.Basically, its just repeating what we have been discussing already for quite some time now.
ISLAMABAD: The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has presented the investigation report of the Margalla plane crash incident to the Ministry of Defense, revealing that the crash was caused by the pilot's mistake.
According to sources, this important information has been extracted from the recording of the black box; the control tower repeatedly told the pilot that he is heading in the wrong direction. The pilot, in reply to the control tower, said that he can see the hills.
The CAA investigation report, based on the recording of black box, further reveals that the co-pilot also repeatedly asked the pilot very loudly to take the plane up, but it was very late before he could had done it.
On July 28, an aeroplane of a private airline, Air Blue, crashed into the hills of Margalla in Islamabad claiming lives of 152 passengers, including crew members.
.:: SAMAA - Margalla plane crash caused by pilot error: CAA
Not exactly amongst the most reliable sources of information but I am posting it here just anyway.Basically, its just repeating what we have been discussing already for quite some time now.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot erro caused Airblue down near Islamabad
Besides the very sad loss of 152 lives
, I must say this topic has been very impressive and goes a long way to show that majority of pilots are very knowledgeable of flying, of what might and might not cause an accident, of what to do in case of eventuality. I have followed all different contributions and aruguments to the above topic, which I felt were quite interesting arguments. Ofcourse the technicality of the language is difficult but nevertheless found in the topic of aviation. I salute you all.
, I must say this topic has been very impressive and goes a long way to show that majority of pilots are very knowledgeable of flying, of what might and might not cause an accident, of what to do in case of eventuality. I have followed all different contributions and aruguments to the above topic, which I felt were quite interesting arguments. Ofcourse the technicality of the language is difficult but nevertheless found in the topic of aviation. I salute you all.
flyawaybird;
FWIW, the aviation industry generally deals right up front with the nasty and ugly bits because it keeps people alive. The auto industry began doing this when mentioning safety was no longer "bad advertising". However, the automobile still kills approximately 45,000 people a year in the US alone, or in our terms, about a fully-loaded B747 fatal accident every 3 days. Placed in those terms, the difference in approaches and outcomes is stark.
The health industry fatality rate is, by most accounts, much higher but there are significant human factors issues, (diagnoses, treatments for complex diseases vs ILS approaches and weather...no comparison), which aviation has but to a much lesser degree. Still, medicine is slowly adopting aviation's approach to keeping people alive by modifying CRM - Cockpit/Crew Resource Management techniques of communications which raise awareness of risk or of impending failures of understanding. It is the equivalent of the scrub-nurse speaking directly to the doctor-in-charge about something she has noticed but the head surgeon in the OR hasn't, etc, etc.
There are no public doctor/lawyer/CEO forums such as we have here in which everyone with a keyboard has a say, nor are any of those professions subject to the intense scrutiny through recordings and detailed data collection which can be examined after the fact in which the only goal is to avoid untoward outcomes. The enlightened goal is prevention, not avoidance of blame at all cost; the fatal accident rate over the past 50 years tells us that this has been the correct appoach.
In general, there does not seem the willingness or even the pressure to accomplish this kind of record in other industries. In the face of relatively simple solutions, (talking to one another honestly, for example), it remains a mystery to me why acceptability of fatality rates differs so significantly from industry to industry and why such simple solutions are monumentally difficult to implement.
That said, the entire aviation community is still waiting for something official from Pakistan's investigative body regarding the basic issues and circumstances surrounding this unfortunate CFIT accident.
PJ2
FWIW, the aviation industry generally deals right up front with the nasty and ugly bits because it keeps people alive. The auto industry began doing this when mentioning safety was no longer "bad advertising". However, the automobile still kills approximately 45,000 people a year in the US alone, or in our terms, about a fully-loaded B747 fatal accident every 3 days. Placed in those terms, the difference in approaches and outcomes is stark.
The health industry fatality rate is, by most accounts, much higher but there are significant human factors issues, (diagnoses, treatments for complex diseases vs ILS approaches and weather...no comparison), which aviation has but to a much lesser degree. Still, medicine is slowly adopting aviation's approach to keeping people alive by modifying CRM - Cockpit/Crew Resource Management techniques of communications which raise awareness of risk or of impending failures of understanding. It is the equivalent of the scrub-nurse speaking directly to the doctor-in-charge about something she has noticed but the head surgeon in the OR hasn't, etc, etc.
There are no public doctor/lawyer/CEO forums such as we have here in which everyone with a keyboard has a say, nor are any of those professions subject to the intense scrutiny through recordings and detailed data collection which can be examined after the fact in which the only goal is to avoid untoward outcomes. The enlightened goal is prevention, not avoidance of blame at all cost; the fatal accident rate over the past 50 years tells us that this has been the correct appoach.
In general, there does not seem the willingness or even the pressure to accomplish this kind of record in other industries. In the face of relatively simple solutions, (talking to one another honestly, for example), it remains a mystery to me why acceptability of fatality rates differs so significantly from industry to industry and why such simple solutions are monumentally difficult to implement.
That said, the entire aviation community is still waiting for something official from Pakistan's investigative body regarding the basic issues and circumstances surrounding this unfortunate CFIT accident.
PJ2
Last edited by PJ2; 6th Oct 2010 at 21:35.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flyawaybird
Pilot error caused Airblue down near Islamabad
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: grenoble
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
That said, the entire aviation community is still waiting for something official from Pakistan's investigative body regarding the basic issues and circumstances surrounding this unfortunate CFIT accident.
That said, the entire aviation community is still waiting for something official from Pakistan's investigative body regarding the basic issues and circumstances surrounding this unfortunate CFIT accident.
It's hard to believe the story if all the rumors are correct. Captain was warned that he's going too far, that he's nearing the Margalla hills. Captain says he can see the airport, that he can see the hills, and still crash? rumors of a "third person in the cockpit", etc.
Something's missing the links all the (rumored) events that have been reported so far.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot believe you are surprised? The history of government in Pakistan tells us that truth is a far from common visitor. This and the other forum are unhelpfully littered with misunderstandings by so-called 'experts' of the way circling approaches are flown and aircraft approaches operated in general and the only way the 'mystery' will be solved is with release of a CVR transcript and FDR details - which I doubt we will see. To date we do not know for sure how many 'goes' had been made at this circuit, how the aircraft routed to the crash site, what calls were made by ATC/aircraft/crew or what the final manoeuvre was - it is all supposition and rumour.
Obviously 152 or so families would like to know what happened: whether the rest of the country cares - who knows?
I fear this will go down as 'unknown' and will be put down to mishandling by the PIC and hierarchical problems on the flight deck brought about by Pakistan 'cultural' influences. I cannot see any reason to place any significant blame on ATC or the aircraft for what was a supposed visual manoeuvre.
Luckily we in the west are more pro-active in trying to sort out aviation safety as PJ says.
Obviously 152 or so families would like to know what happened: whether the rest of the country cares - who knows?
I fear this will go down as 'unknown' and will be put down to mishandling by the PIC and hierarchical problems on the flight deck brought about by Pakistan 'cultural' influences. I cannot see any reason to place any significant blame on ATC or the aircraft for what was a supposed visual manoeuvre.
Luckily we in the west are more pro-active in trying to sort out aviation safety as PJ says.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why? Is his age and experience not something we should consider? He flew a fully serviceable aircraft straight into a mountain even after several warnings from ATC and the Effoh. He was familiar with the area and the airport. You think CRM, or lack of, had nothing to do with this accident?
What was happening (or not) between his ears is of vital importance.
What was happening (or not) between his ears is of vital importance.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Pilot erro caused Airblue down near Islamabad" CAA
PJ
Sorry for being misunderstood. I was merely commenting on Fawad's post and forgot to put the above topic in quotes
. I believe you, PJ that the fatality on our roads everywhere in the world, is much more higher than in Aviation. For if we had as so many air crashes as we have auto crashes on our roads, we would indeed have a much decreased population in the world today. Luckily this is not the case
However, I do understand and sympathise with pilots over 60s being laid down just because of the pilot who crashed the Airblue jet was 62. I am one person who believes that "experience is the best teacher", and that comes too with, the age. I am sure if I was cut out a pilot after reading all pilots' comments on this website, I would definitely fly an aircraft.
All said, I do appreciate your comments to my post. Thank you and keep it up!
Sorry for being misunderstood. I was merely commenting on Fawad's post and forgot to put the above topic in quotes
. I believe you, PJ that the fatality on our roads everywhere in the world, is much more higher than in Aviation. For if we had as so many air crashes as we have auto crashes on our roads, we would indeed have a much decreased population in the world today. Luckily this is not the caseHowever, I do understand and sympathise with pilots over 60s being laid down just because of the pilot who crashed the Airblue jet was 62. I am one person who believes that "experience is the best teacher", and that comes too with, the age. I am sure if I was cut out a pilot after reading all pilots' comments
on this website, I would definitely fly an aircraft. All said, I do appreciate your comments to my post.
Thank you and keep it up!
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
I have yet to meet (or read) the singular authority (on this forum or elsewhere) on how circle-to-land maneuvers are to be expertly flown.
This and the other forum are unhelpfully littered with misunderstandings by so-called 'experts' of the way circling approaches are flown and aircraft approaches operated in general...
Originally Posted by aterpster
I have yet to meet (or read) the singular authority (on this forum or elsewhere) on how circle-to-land maneuvers are to be expertly flown.
flyawaybird;
No misunderstanding...just telling it like it is.
Many passengers who's sense of entitlement extends to cheap air fares at all cost never give this kind of stuff a second thought. Most treat getting on an aircraft that takes them from continent to continent in comparative safety with the same attitude as getting on an elevator and pushing a button.
Airlines, rather their marketing departments, have participated in the illusion, wrought principally by "deregulation", that this kind of robust safety and low fatality rate can be taken for granted. It can't. Every once in a while when a chance to say this arises, I take it as an opportunity to educate - that's all.
PJ2
No misunderstanding...just telling it like it is.
Many passengers who's sense of entitlement extends to cheap air fares at all cost never give this kind of stuff a second thought. Most treat getting on an aircraft that takes them from continent to continent in comparative safety with the same attitude as getting on an elevator and pushing a button.
Airlines, rather their marketing departments, have participated in the illusion, wrought principally by "deregulation", that this kind of robust safety and low fatality rate can be taken for granted. It can't. Every once in a while when a chance to say this arises, I take it as an opportunity to educate - that's all.
PJ2
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HundredPercentPlease:
It looks great on paper. And, I have no doubt that is a great pattern for a crew that practices it to proficiency, most likely in the sim.
But, what about minimum visibility (or less) with ragged ceilings (or obscuration) and driving rain (or worse, moderate snow)? How about moderate snow at night?
In the U.S. we have visual approaches, and then we have contact approaches (left over from the 1930s). Most U.S. carriers are not authorized to fly contact approaches these days, although they were for many years. I am not sure which is worse under the weather hypotheticals I stated above, a CTL or a contact approach.
The pattern you show could perhaps become a great low-level IMC RNP procedure, with visual reference not required until after roll-out on final and perhaps at a 300 foot "DA."
I don't believe the ICAO/FAA RNP folks are quite there, but they could get there, but only for advanced aircraft, though.
Indeed - but now may be the moment to show what the current Airbus SOP is for a circling approach. Approach is flown with A/P at Conf 3 - about 140 or so knots. Maybe less.
But, what about minimum visibility (or less) with ragged ceilings (or obscuration) and driving rain (or worse, moderate snow)? How about moderate snow at night?
In the U.S. we have visual approaches, and then we have contact approaches (left over from the 1930s). Most U.S. carriers are not authorized to fly contact approaches these days, although they were for many years. I am not sure which is worse under the weather hypotheticals I stated above, a CTL or a contact approach.
The pattern you show could perhaps become a great low-level IMC RNP procedure, with visual reference not required until after roll-out on final and perhaps at a 300 foot "DA."
I don't believe the ICAO/FAA RNP folks are quite there, but they could get there, but only for advanced aircraft, though.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aterpster
You are forgetting that to be able to circle there are minimums stated and if the airline is anything like mine it also has minimums stated for circling and you take the highest. So your dramatic comments on visibility etc do not apply - you have to have the required minimums.
My A330 / A340 flies the airbus procedure very well, but in this case the Cat D circling minimums on the Jeppessen chart of 2510'(842') and 3600m, at Islamabad, would have been replaced by the company minimums of 2656'(1000') and 4600m. The only headdown part of the procedure is the activation of the secondary which has been already loaded and checked.
You are forgetting that to be able to circle there are minimums stated and if the airline is anything like mine it also has minimums stated for circling and you take the highest. So your dramatic comments on visibility etc do not apply - you have to have the required minimums.
My A330 / A340 flies the airbus procedure very well, but in this case the Cat D circling minimums on the Jeppessen chart of 2510'(842') and 3600m, at Islamabad, would have been replaced by the company minimums of 2656'(1000') and 4600m. The only headdown part of the procedure is the activation of the secondary which has been already loaded and checked.
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
But, what about minimum visibility (or less) with ragged ceilings (or obscuration) and driving rain (or worse, moderate snow)? How about moderate snow at night?
The pattern you show could perhaps become a great low-level IMC RNP procedure, with visual reference not required until after roll-out on final and perhaps at a 300 foot "DA."
I don't believe the ICAO/FAA RNP folks are quite there, but they could get there, but only for advanced aircraft, though.
I don't believe the ICAO/FAA RNP folks are quite there, but they could get there, but only for advanced aircraft, though.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC:
My experience with CTL was primarily reading accident reports. I did a few in light aircraft. TWA prohibited them after American Airlines crashed a 707 during CTL. I wish you and the expert PPLs well.
Once again, you miss my point. The gentleman presented a nice, crisp diagram of CTL, which makes it look like a routine operation (in spite of the accident statistics). Much earlier in this thread I expressed my dismay at the lack of a straight-in approach to Runway 12 at Islamabad.
But, what about minimum visibility (or less) with ragged ceilings (or obscuration) and driving rain (or worse, moderate snow)? How about moderate snow at night?
- indeed, as Iceman points out, a strange question from one with your 'experience' since hopefully even a PPL should have the correct answer.
The pattern you show could perhaps become a great low-level IMC RNP procedure, with visual reference not required until after roll-out on final and perhaps at a 300 foot "DA."
I don't believe the ICAO/FAA RNP folks are quite there, but they could get there, but only for advanced aircraft, though.
BOAC:this has been 'dismissed' before - we have the technology to design a system which will let an aircraft fly safely over any terrain at any height and on any path, so why on earth bother with a 'circling procedure' when 90%+ of the time you can just design a proper approach onto that runway? Of course there will be runways where terrain bars a 'direct' runway approach, but for places like Islamabad and many others there would be no need at all for such a 'circle'.
I don't believe the ICAO/FAA RNP folks are quite there, but they could get there, but only for advanced aircraft, though.
BOAC:this has been 'dismissed' before - we have the technology to design a system which will let an aircraft fly safely over any terrain at any height and on any path, so why on earth bother with a 'circling procedure' when 90%+ of the time you can just design a proper approach onto that runway? Of course there will be runways where terrain bars a 'direct' runway approach, but for places like Islamabad and many others there would be no need at all for such a 'circle'.