Henan Airlines Crash in China
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you flying in China?
If you are flying in China - ask your Employer/Broker/Agent, if you were the CP on this flight, what support would you receive legally from them?
Would they retain a Legal Counsel, provide Bonds, Bail, medical expenses, etc.
At the time ask for an English version of the Liability Insurance that you as a Crew Member are covered under? If you ever get that info, then please REPLY here with details.
The average Death Benefit paid for each person will be RMB 200,000 on this flight.
Compare this to the $2.73 Million on average on US Registered Airlines..
Would they retain a Legal Counsel, provide Bonds, Bail, medical expenses, etc.
At the time ask for an English version of the Liability Insurance that you as a Crew Member are covered under? If you ever get that info, then please REPLY here with details.
The average Death Benefit paid for each person will be RMB 200,000 on this flight.
Compare this to the $2.73 Million on average on US Registered Airlines..
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: China
Age: 52
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too much poetic license in your description of the flight management here in China. Too bad to be true. Air crash could have been a lot more in China in the last six years should your information be real.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update on this - third party info.
Latest news on this.
The CP was in his mid 40's, above average experience on the EMB, no ICAO 4.
He had enough time to be well rested before this sector, was to fly only 2 sectors that evening which started from Harbin (172 nm's away).
This was his very first flight to this airport by the way, which is a CAT A.
Not sure about the FO's, age, experience, etc.
The flight was Tankering from Harbin as no fuel available.
When they departed from Harbin, vis. was reported at Dest. 8000 m's.
Prior to the approach, it was reported 1000 m's.
Approach was a VOR/DME RWY 12.
Seems it was stable air, low level fog generated from forests, wet grounds that surround the A/P.
Now here is a very sad fact - the CC was 3.
The Purser was celebrating her B-day. Her Husband who also worked for the same Co. He changed his flight to be with her.
When the A/C hit the ground, both were on the forward seats.
They survived and managed to start the evac.
Sadly during this process they both died either inside the cabin or at the Exits.
So from the crew of 2/3 the F/O, and the 2 CC lost their lives.
The CP was in his mid 40's, above average experience on the EMB, no ICAO 4.
He had enough time to be well rested before this sector, was to fly only 2 sectors that evening which started from Harbin (172 nm's away).
This was his very first flight to this airport by the way, which is a CAT A.
Not sure about the FO's, age, experience, etc.
The flight was Tankering from Harbin as no fuel available.
When they departed from Harbin, vis. was reported at Dest. 8000 m's.
Prior to the approach, it was reported 1000 m's.
Approach was a VOR/DME RWY 12.
Seems it was stable air, low level fog generated from forests, wet grounds that surround the A/P.
Now here is a very sad fact - the CC was 3.
The Purser was celebrating her B-day. Her Husband who also worked for the same Co. He changed his flight to be with her.
When the A/C hit the ground, both were on the forward seats.
They survived and managed to start the evac.
Sadly during this process they both died either inside the cabin or at the Exits.
So from the crew of 2/3 the F/O, and the 2 CC lost their lives.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Strategic hamlet
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone still remember the old BA "November Oscar Incident" at LHR? The Capt was convicted of criminal negligence and committed suicide, pretty sad story all around.
I'm also wondering whether Mesa Air Group's previous shareholding in the airline had any bearing on this accident. Mesa is quite well known for making their pilots work like hell, and they may well have transferred their practices to China. Remember the Go Hawaii pilots who overshot their destination?
I'm also wondering whether Mesa Air Group's previous shareholding in the airline had any bearing on this accident. Mesa is quite well known for making their pilots work like hell, and they may well have transferred their practices to China. Remember the Go Hawaii pilots who overshot their destination?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's your life worth as a PAX on Chinese aircraft?
The official Xinhua News Agency reported Tuesday that Henan Airlines will give about $140,000 to each victim's family.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ERJ 190 Crash Kills 42 due to CFIT!
Henan Airlines Flight 8387 (VD 8387) which belongs to Schenzen Airlines (has nothing to do with Hainan Airlines (HNA-HU)? was a flight from Harbin Taiping International Airport to the new Yichun Lindu Airport (ZYLD) which is 172 nm's flight, both located in Heilongjiang province, China.
On the night of August 24, 2010, it crashed on approach 1.5 km's prior to the runway with 91 passengers and 5 crew members on board.
43 were found dead at the scene. This included the FO and 2 Cabin Crew.
CAAC Inspector has told the following and this may be the closest we get to the facts;
ZYLD has a FF Cat. of 4.
Airport is CAT C due to terrain and Non-Precision Approach.
Aircraft had no MEL/DDL items and was "tankerng this sector' as no fuel available at ZYLD.
All Crew Members (2 Pilots and 3 CC) were Chinese.
VOR/DME RWY 30 Approach is only available and attempted.
RWY 30/12 - 2101 m's.
RWY 30 elevation 841', RWY 12 elevation 812'
Simplified Approach Lighting installed on RWY 30.
Required Vis. 2,800 m's. for Apch.
The Final Approach Segment has rising terrain extending from the runway.
Reported Vis. by Tower was 1,000 m's.
PIC was PF - 1st flight to this CAT C Airport and no previous JS flight nor sim. training for this airport.
ZYLD was NOT in the FMC Data Base!
Therefore TERR INHIBIT selected prior to the approach!
Company Procedure was Constant Angle Decent Profile (CADP).
FDR revealed the following;
At FAF, PF selected V/S -950 FPM and left there until impact.
Lateral guidance selected by the PF was not mentioned.
The Go Around Altitude was reselected after passing the FAF.
The CVR reveals in Chinese language;
No DME vs. height calls were made.
Approaching Minimum was called out by the PF.
At the MDA the PM called out "5 Lights!". 7 are legally required in China to continue.
The PF called "Landing".
No further calls from either Crew Member were recorded.
The CVR then records in English "50, 40, 30, 20 , 10"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The aircraft broke apart on impact and caught fire.
CVR and FDR data not recorded after this initial impact due to fuselage breach.
Both CP and FO survived the impact.
The CP, was seriously wounded but without hesitation or delay evacuated through the Cockpit Door before the passengers.
The FO semi-conscious and immobilized was seeking help from his seat.
A female passenger prior to evacuating entered the cockpit and could not undo the seatbelt harness and was forced out of the cockpit due to smoke, heat and flames.
The FO died in his CM2 seat due to blunt trama, burns and affixiation.
Both the Purser and forward CC (married to each other) perished in the fire while performing their EVAC duties.
The approach was reconstructed and flown with the same parameters.
The "5 lights" seen were indeed the first 5 of the Approach Light System.
However at the MDA vs. distance to the Threshold the aircraft flew, the VASI indicated FULL REDS (with the required Vis.).
Seems the 2.8 km vis. requirement was for good reason!?
The CAAC has now instructed ALL Chinese Airports that when the required vis. falls below the appropriate minimum required, an APPROACH BAN is issued by the Tower and no Clearances issued for Approach or Landing until improvement at or above mins.
Henan Airlines (with 4 remaining Aircraft) has been grounded since this accident!
According to The Provisions on the Limited Compensation Liabilities of Carriers in Civil Aviation Transport, which was approved by the State Council in 2006, the next of kin in such incidents are eligible for 400,000 yuan ($58,750.95) in compensation, an extra 3,000 yuan ($440.63) for lost belongings and a maximum of 2,000 yuan($293.76) for checked luggage, making a total of 405, 000 yuan ($59,533).
Due to the increase in the cost of living in China, Henan Airlines has increased the basic payment to 592,300 yuan ($87,017.84) and, with other additions including damages for emotional distress, the next of kin in this incident are entitled to 960, 000 yuan ($141,116).
So for those flying in China on Chinese Carriers - you now know what your life is worth!
On the night of August 24, 2010, it crashed on approach 1.5 km's prior to the runway with 91 passengers and 5 crew members on board.
43 were found dead at the scene. This included the FO and 2 Cabin Crew.
CAAC Inspector has told the following and this may be the closest we get to the facts;
ZYLD has a FF Cat. of 4.
Airport is CAT C due to terrain and Non-Precision Approach.
Aircraft had no MEL/DDL items and was "tankerng this sector' as no fuel available at ZYLD.
All Crew Members (2 Pilots and 3 CC) were Chinese.
VOR/DME RWY 30 Approach is only available and attempted.
RWY 30/12 - 2101 m's.
RWY 30 elevation 841', RWY 12 elevation 812'
Simplified Approach Lighting installed on RWY 30.
Required Vis. 2,800 m's. for Apch.
The Final Approach Segment has rising terrain extending from the runway.
Reported Vis. by Tower was 1,000 m's.
PIC was PF - 1st flight to this CAT C Airport and no previous JS flight nor sim. training for this airport.
ZYLD was NOT in the FMC Data Base!
Therefore TERR INHIBIT selected prior to the approach!
Company Procedure was Constant Angle Decent Profile (CADP).
FDR revealed the following;
At FAF, PF selected V/S -950 FPM and left there until impact.
Lateral guidance selected by the PF was not mentioned.
The Go Around Altitude was reselected after passing the FAF.
The CVR reveals in Chinese language;
No DME vs. height calls were made.
Approaching Minimum was called out by the PF.
At the MDA the PM called out "5 Lights!". 7 are legally required in China to continue.
The PF called "Landing".
No further calls from either Crew Member were recorded.
The CVR then records in English "50, 40, 30, 20 , 10"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The aircraft broke apart on impact and caught fire.
CVR and FDR data not recorded after this initial impact due to fuselage breach.
Both CP and FO survived the impact.
The CP, was seriously wounded but without hesitation or delay evacuated through the Cockpit Door before the passengers.
The FO semi-conscious and immobilized was seeking help from his seat.
A female passenger prior to evacuating entered the cockpit and could not undo the seatbelt harness and was forced out of the cockpit due to smoke, heat and flames.
The FO died in his CM2 seat due to blunt trama, burns and affixiation.
Both the Purser and forward CC (married to each other) perished in the fire while performing their EVAC duties.
The approach was reconstructed and flown with the same parameters.
The "5 lights" seen were indeed the first 5 of the Approach Light System.
However at the MDA vs. distance to the Threshold the aircraft flew, the VASI indicated FULL REDS (with the required Vis.).
Seems the 2.8 km vis. requirement was for good reason!?
The CAAC has now instructed ALL Chinese Airports that when the required vis. falls below the appropriate minimum required, an APPROACH BAN is issued by the Tower and no Clearances issued for Approach or Landing until improvement at or above mins.
Henan Airlines (with 4 remaining Aircraft) has been grounded since this accident!
According to The Provisions on the Limited Compensation Liabilities of Carriers in Civil Aviation Transport, which was approved by the State Council in 2006, the next of kin in such incidents are eligible for 400,000 yuan ($58,750.95) in compensation, an extra 3,000 yuan ($440.63) for lost belongings and a maximum of 2,000 yuan($293.76) for checked luggage, making a total of 405, 000 yuan ($59,533).
Due to the increase in the cost of living in China, Henan Airlines has increased the basic payment to 592,300 yuan ($87,017.84) and, with other additions including damages for emotional distress, the next of kin in this incident are entitled to 960, 000 yuan ($141,116).
So for those flying in China on Chinese Carriers - you now know what your life is worth!
Last edited by Brookfield Abused; 30th Sep 2010 at 23:45. Reason: Additions
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do not use the look-ahead terrain alerting and terrain display functions:
-within 15 nm of takeoff, approach or landing at an airport not contained in the GPWS terrain database.
-within 15 nm of takeoff, approach or landing at an airport not contained in the GPWS terrain database.
“… at an airport not in the EGPWS Terrain Database … I presume they had the same limitations, so switching it off would be SOP.”
Operators should notify Honeywell of any omission who should be able to add airports/runways at the next update. Of course, this assumes that operators will update the database regularly.
Operators should notify Honeywell of any omission who should be able to add airports/runways at the next update. Of course, this assumes that operators will update the database regularly.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brookfield ...
In human term alone .. to those that fly the line ... that is simply horrific, my s/o was many times operational on our sectors ... and frequently put down by pax as a flying waitress ... it really bring it home. ouch.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ERJ190 has Honeywell Epic EGPWS, according to the EGPWS database airport search site, ZYLD was available in the last two databases
http://egpws.com/cgi-bin/epic_search...ct&search=zyld
So it looks like the database was probably out of date, and they inhibited the terrain function to prevent (nuisance) terrain warnings on landing.
http://egpws.com/cgi-bin/epic_search...ct&search=zyld
So it looks like the database was probably out of date, and they inhibited the terrain function to prevent (nuisance) terrain warnings on landing.
''The CAAC has now instructed ALL Chinese Airports that when the required vis. falls below the appropriate minimum required, an APPROACH BAN is issued by the Tower and no Clearances issued for Approach or Landing until improvement at or above''.
I've always been amazed at the 'flexible' attitude Chinese operators have to minima. If implemented, this should stop me having to explain to my passengers why some of these clowns are still flying when we are not!
I've always been amazed at the 'flexible' attitude Chinese operators have to minima. If implemented, this should stop me having to explain to my passengers why some of these clowns are still flying when we are not!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: belgrade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they did't have airport in FMC Data Base, it means that they had to construct approach. That is the only way to conduct VOR/DME app. on EMB 190. In circumstances which were present (low visibility, first time on airport for PF,...), there is lot of space for mistake during drawing on FMS.
Greetings
Greetings
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: EGPH
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can flew a raw data VOR approach i.e. track the VOR using HDG. The EMB cannot "capture" a VOR signal. Normally you would do the approach in FMS NAV.
Slightly interesting that they used a VS mode of descent, when the EMB can fly Flight Path Angle.
Slightly interesting that they used a VS mode of descent, when the EMB can fly Flight Path Angle.
Last edited by renard; 30th Sep 2010 at 09:37. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Germany
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- is it also unable to 'capture' a localiser?
The EMB can capture and follow a LOC signal but no VOR signal. There for the must "difficult" approach to fly would be a LOC/DME approach as the flight path angle or ROD has to be manually adjusted by the PF.(VS or FPA both possible).
All other non Precision approaches are flown as Virtual ILS and are armed by selecting the app mode. So if the Airfield was not included in the data base you can not programme the approach.
You could only work around that with flying a raw data approach, but if this is true
At FAF, PF selected V/S -950 FPM and left there until impact.
All this "information" is leading to nothing. At least I can not make nothing of it.
Regards
Micky
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As renard says, you cannot fly a VOR coupled approach in the E170/190. For lateral guidance, one of the recommended methods is to use FMS NAV with PREVIEW selected using the VOR freq. This allows the VOR to be monitored very easily. The reasoning behind this is that the accuracy of a VOR/DME is 1nm and the accuracy of the GPS is 0.3nm, therefore the GPS/FMS NAV is much more precise.
The vertical path is normally controlled using Flight Path Angle (FPA). Just prior to the FAF an FPA is selected. This is, usually, the same angle as indicated on the approach chart. During the descent to the MDH the descent profile can be checked against the DME but ALSO visually - by looking at the lower half of the MFD, the Vertical Profile. It is very easy to compare the actual descent profile (green line) against the FMS profile (magenta line). Any variation from the profile is obvious.
In this instance, however, they appear to have used Vertical Speed. They may have decided to use the 'Dive and Drive' method.
Even using this technique, the vertical display on the MFD is still available to show you where you are (within 0.3nm).
I offer this info to allow readers to understand the system better - not as a criticism of the crew.
The vertical path is normally controlled using Flight Path Angle (FPA). Just prior to the FAF an FPA is selected. This is, usually, the same angle as indicated on the approach chart. During the descent to the MDH the descent profile can be checked against the DME but ALSO visually - by looking at the lower half of the MFD, the Vertical Profile. It is very easy to compare the actual descent profile (green line) against the FMS profile (magenta line). Any variation from the profile is obvious.
In this instance, however, they appear to have used Vertical Speed. They may have decided to use the 'Dive and Drive' method.
Even using this technique, the vertical display on the MFD is still available to show you where you are (within 0.3nm).
I offer this info to allow readers to understand the system better - not as a criticism of the crew.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: belgrade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be precise: it is not possible to change approach in FMS, but is possible to make your approach in both LNAV and VNAV, for some new defined point (which can be runway treshold).
Also, according to Embraer SOPM, VOR app. is only to be flown as LNAV (FMS) in lateral plane.
Regards
Also, according to Embraer SOPM, VOR app. is only to be flown as LNAV (FMS) in lateral plane.
Regards
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Am I missing something here? So the EMB cannot capture and follow a VOR radial. Guess what. Neither can the Airbus. Are people saying they cannot fly a "raw" VOR approach on the EMB because if it's not in the database.......
What I cannot understand is how when the Radalt started calling out...... they just let it fly into the ground.
What I cannot understand is how when the Radalt started calling out...... they just let it fly into the ground.