Crossair Flight 850 accident, 10 July 2002
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: GREAT Britain
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't really get why they piled earth walls up across the runway? They could have just made sure the white crosses were visible and left it at that. Then, they can declare their runway closed but still have it available in an emergency if somebody was in desperate need of it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a feeling the wall was put their to comply with some local planning ordinance, clearly the implications of such were not very well thought out.
PT6A
PT6A
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The walls were put there to prevent illegal car races that were very common and often lead to injuries and deaths. Mostly done during the night by the local youths. The runway in itself is not closed, it is just shortened considerable.
Remember, there are highways close by without any speed restriction, however there is continuous traffic and races are not possible in that way, especially improvised drag or drift races.
However the airport didn't comply with the required notification about those walls, there was no NOTAM or DFS VFR bulletin about it as far as i know and therefore the ATCO wasn't aware of them.
Remember, there are highways close by without any speed restriction, however there is continuous traffic and races are not possible in that way, especially improvised drag or drift races.
However the airport didn't comply with the required notification about those walls, there was no NOTAM or DFS VFR bulletin about it as far as i know and therefore the ATCO wasn't aware of them.
And the runway markings hadn't been changed properly to indicate the displaced threshold. When they were over the numbers they could not see the low wall. However ending up with a fuel emergency like that was the trigger of all the troubles.
Racing by Trespassers
I can imagine that 2500m of paved runway in an out of the way place is a big temptation to bootleg racers. Doubtless the locals would be more annoyed by tires squealing and engines revving up at 2 am. than by a few a/c movements during the day.
Our glider club is attractive to off road racers as well even though all surfaces are grass -- and vulnerable to getting gouged by energetic maneuvers
We are dependent upon our neighbors to keep an eye and ear out and phone the police when needed.
Likely the insurance company will be looking for recovery of the hull loss and I can see the lawyers for the several implicated parties pointing fingers at everybody else
Now if the pilots had had access to the radar picture in the report, I suspect they would have agreed that flying parallel to a CB front in the hope that they would get to an alternate before a CB did is simply a recipe for painting yourself into a corner as your fuel is used up -- and would have looked E or NE for an airport safely well away from the front.
Our glider club is attractive to off road racers as well even though all surfaces are grass -- and vulnerable to getting gouged by energetic maneuvers
We are dependent upon our neighbors to keep an eye and ear out and phone the police when needed.Likely the insurance company will be looking for recovery of the hull loss and I can see the lawyers for the several implicated parties pointing fingers at everybody else
Now if the pilots had had access to the radar picture in the report, I suspect they would have agreed that flying parallel to a CB front in the hope that they would get to an alternate before a CB did is simply a recipe for painting yourself into a corner as your fuel is used up -- and would have looked E or NE for an airport safely well away from the front.
Actually, reading the report, the person in charge of the Airfield told the ATC guys about the wall and advised them to tell the pilot to be careful, but ATC misunderstood or misinterpreted the phone conversation. The words "displaced threshold" never were used (and technically it isn't displaced but the runway shortened) neither did ATC tell the pilots off the wall but just to "use the eastern part of the runway" which did not make much sense to them in the twilight.
There were also pilots on the ground who watched the approach and tried to call the Crossair plane, but as they had never been given the AFIS Frequency, they never heard them. They certainly would have told them.
Anyhow, putting obstacles like that even on a shortened runway is asking for trouble. What if someone had landed on the opposite end and overrun? Same problem, even if he had known about it. To put an obstacle there, for whatever reason, was not a clever thing.
There were also pilots on the ground who watched the approach and tried to call the Crossair plane, but as they had never been given the AFIS Frequency, they never heard them. They certainly would have told them.
Anyhow, putting obstacles like that even on a shortened runway is asking for trouble. What if someone had landed on the opposite end and overrun? Same problem, even if he had known about it. To put an obstacle there, for whatever reason, was not a clever thing.
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hyeres, France
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And it needed 8 ( eight !! ) years for this report ????
Significant as its conclusions may be on the future careers of the crew ( and I wonder whatever happened to these two poor guys ) is it just me who finds it incredible that the BFU took ( I won't say needed ) 8 years.....
Heaven forbid they are required to investigate something like the BA 777 at Heathrow - the crew would have retired to their pensions and all 777's would be either beer cans or gun running in Africa before they'd finished.....
But then again, some Lufty crews I met a few months ago, at the time actually said that the BFU's main purpose in life seems to be to destroy the myth of German efficiency.....
Significant as its conclusions may be on the future careers of the crew ( and I wonder whatever happened to these two poor guys ) is it just me who finds it incredible that the BFU took ( I won't say needed ) 8 years.....
Heaven forbid they are required to investigate something like the BA 777 at Heathrow - the crew would have retired to their pensions and all 777's would be either beer cans or gun running in Africa before they'd finished.....
But then again, some Lufty crews I met a few months ago, at the time actually said that the BFU's main purpose in life seems to be to destroy the myth of German efficiency.....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: MANCHESTER
Age: 62
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well at least everybody's skin was saved........ it just goes to show
that a nice clear weather report handed to the crew prior to lift-off
can lead them into a whole load of trouble......
that a nice clear weather report handed to the crew prior to lift-off
can lead them into a whole load of trouble......
Denti:
Less Hair:
Who is accountable for such omissions? The facility, or the agencies who publish charts and terminal information?
I hope that this incident is encapsulated into training program for pilots world wide. It is an extraordinary example of both the Swiss Cheese model, and the "operations at an unfamiliar field" issue that can rise up to smite one.
I've a contact who still does pilot training for the Navy. I'll send him a link to this report. I think it worthy of inclusion in the pilot training / safety programs, specifically the instrument flight training/flight planning, cross country training modules.
This sort of thing could happen to any pilot, flying any kind of mission, when the weather goes sour and getting into the alternate changes from "planned" to "reality."
However the airport didn't comply with the required notification about those walls, there was no NOTAM or DFS VFR bulletin about it as far as i know and therefore the ATCO wasn't aware of them.
And the runway markings hadn't been changed properly to indicate the displaced threshold. When they were over the numbers they could not see the low wall. However ending up with a fuel emergency like that was the trigger of all the troubles.
I hope that this incident is encapsulated into training program for pilots world wide. It is an extraordinary example of both the Swiss Cheese model, and the "operations at an unfamiliar field" issue that can rise up to smite one.
I've a contact who still does pilot training for the Navy. I'll send him a link to this report. I think it worthy of inclusion in the pilot training / safety programs, specifically the instrument flight training/flight planning, cross country training modules.
This sort of thing could happen to any pilot, flying any kind of mission, when the weather goes sour and getting into the alternate changes from "planned" to "reality."
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Repeating that the runway had not been remarked here won't make it truer: according to the BFÜ report, the old markings had been painted over (presumably black), x-markings on the disused part and new markings on the remaining part had been applied. However, the paint had partially worn off to the point where with rain and the poor remaining daylight, from the approach path, the old markings were more visible than the new ones.
On inspection a few months earlier, the local regulator (state, not federal) did not object to the quality of the markings, which was a mistake. Also, using an earth wall rather than a wooden barrier was also not a very bright idea.
The aerodrome chart reproduced in the report looked pretty clear to me as a non-expert. It may not have been drawn according to standards, but with a bit of common sense applied, it was clear enough that onle the last 2/3 of the runway were actually in use.
On inspection a few months earlier, the local regulator (state, not federal) did not object to the quality of the markings, which was a mistake. Also, using an earth wall rather than a wooden barrier was also not a very bright idea.
The aerodrome chart reproduced in the report looked pretty clear to me as a non-expert. It may not have been drawn according to standards, but with a bit of common sense applied, it was clear enough that onle the last 2/3 of the runway were actually in use.
However the airport didn't comply with the required notification about those walls, there was no NOTAM or DFS VFR bulletin about it as far as i know and therefore the ATCO wasn't aware of them.
The runway with the new threshold was published in the german AIP VFR (not availabel in electronic form). The tower in Tegel had no AIP VFR.
