Crossair Flight 850 accident, 10 July 2002
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 60
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crossair Flight 850 accident, 10 July 2002
Original thread is closed http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...g-germany.html
The BFU released their final report (in German) into the accident on 1 October 2010, over 8 years after the accident.
http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_005/nn_223...Werneuchen.pdf
Crossair Flight 850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The BFU released their final report (in German) into the accident on 1 October 2010, over 8 years after the accident.
http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_005/nn_223...Werneuchen.pdf
Crossair Flight 850 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From reading the BFA report, I got the impression that the pilots were blissfully unaware both of the front as well as what airports were below them.
They were holding over Lübeck (which is serviced by Ryanair), and the whole area to the north and east of Hamburg is littered with aerodromes that can handle a regional airliner, but they decided to go south-west, towards the front. When that failed, it seems the only other major city they could think of was Berlin.
They were holding over Lübeck (which is serviced by Ryanair), and the whole area to the north and east of Hamburg is littered with aerodromes that can handle a regional airliner, but they decided to go south-west, towards the front. When that failed, it seems the only other major city they could think of was Berlin.
Last edited by BRE; 20th Dec 2010 at 14:33.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DCS99 - Preflight we have links to worldwide weather. Sat, IR Sat, radar(if radar coverage), forecast hazardous wx areas, PIREPS, etc, etc.
Enroute - In ACARS coverage we can get current and forecast weather. Selecting 'area weather' for a specific airport gives us the current weather for several nearby airports.
Enroute - Dispatch has an automated system that sends SIGMETS/AIRMETS to aircraft in the same ATC center's airspace and the adjacent center's airspace. Eg. if you're in NYC Center you'll get warnings for Toronto, BOS, and Washington Center.
We have the capability to send text messages to dispatch while in ACARS coverage.
Dispatch will ususally send us updated information about the location of lines of weather or weather at destinations or alternates. Usually, but not guaranteed. Sometimes it takes a direct request for information to generate a response.
Based on the flight diverting, along with holding with significant weather in the area, our dispatch system would have been in contact with a flight in similar circumstances. Typically prior to the divert decision.
It's been my experience, and practice, to have early engagement with dispatch - "in the event we go around our plan is ABC. Do you agree?"(or similar type communication). Once the decision to divert is made the only contact dispatch would need to make is if the preplanned divert is no longer appropriate.
The workload is very high during a divert, especially in congested airspace. Having an agreed upon plan prior to the divert is important. However, sometimes circumstances require last minute, unplanned, diverts - "that's what you get the big bucks for" (US pilot phrase)
Enroute - In ACARS coverage we can get current and forecast weather. Selecting 'area weather' for a specific airport gives us the current weather for several nearby airports.
Enroute - Dispatch has an automated system that sends SIGMETS/AIRMETS to aircraft in the same ATC center's airspace and the adjacent center's airspace. Eg. if you're in NYC Center you'll get warnings for Toronto, BOS, and Washington Center.
We have the capability to send text messages to dispatch while in ACARS coverage.
Dispatch will ususally send us updated information about the location of lines of weather or weather at destinations or alternates. Usually, but not guaranteed. Sometimes it takes a direct request for information to generate a response.
Based on the flight diverting, along with holding with significant weather in the area, our dispatch system would have been in contact with a flight in similar circumstances. Typically prior to the divert decision.
It's been my experience, and practice, to have early engagement with dispatch - "in the event we go around our plan is ABC. Do you agree?"(or similar type communication). Once the decision to divert is made the only contact dispatch would need to make is if the preplanned divert is no longer appropriate.
The workload is very high during a divert, especially in congested airspace. Having an agreed upon plan prior to the divert is important. However, sometimes circumstances require last minute, unplanned, diverts - "that's what you get the big bucks for" (US pilot phrase)
Last edited by misd-agin; 20th Dec 2010 at 15:45. Reason: spelling, addtional text
Tsamaya sentle
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRE,
this is, for me, indeed one of the crucial aspects (or holes in the Swiss cheese):
"After the aborted approach to Hamburg and their entry into the LUB Lübeck holding pattern, the next task was to reach a decision upon how the flight should continue. If there could be no landing at the original declared destination, a diversion to a predetermined alternate airport is a standard operating procedure. Because Bremen was behind the weather front and the crew was not prepared to penetrate the front or fly around the frontal area, the decision to divert to the second alternate Hannover, which by that time was also behind the cold front is not understandable." (BFU, p. 39)
After this initial and maybe flawed decision (and I use "flawed" with extreme caution here as I am not in a position whatsoever to make judgements), and once on their way to Berlin, we have to consider this:
"At this time, their weather radar indicated that the Berlin area seen in their screen was as yet unaffected by the approaching front, and requested an approach to Berlin-Tegel. At this time, no further options were discussed. The controller gave clearance for the flight to Berlin-Tegel.
At 2015 hrs the crew monitored the ATIS broadcast for Berlin Tegel; this supported their decision of two minutes earlier to divert to Berlin Tegel. Information Delta timed at 1950 hrs gave the impression that the prevailing weather at the airport was very good (CAVOK). The NOSIG Trend suggested that the weather conditions were stable. The BFU holds the view that the crews estimate was understandable." (p. 37)
I find that last remark crucial. Once they had made the decision to head for Berlin they were supported in their view that this was the right, and appropriate, choice, rather than look for, quote BRE, littered "aerodromes that can handle a regional airliner". Understandable. (?)
this is, for me, indeed one of the crucial aspects (or holes in the Swiss cheese):
"After the aborted approach to Hamburg and their entry into the LUB Lübeck holding pattern, the next task was to reach a decision upon how the flight should continue. If there could be no landing at the original declared destination, a diversion to a predetermined alternate airport is a standard operating procedure. Because Bremen was behind the weather front and the crew was not prepared to penetrate the front or fly around the frontal area, the decision to divert to the second alternate Hannover, which by that time was also behind the cold front is not understandable." (BFU, p. 39)
After this initial and maybe flawed decision (and I use "flawed" with extreme caution here as I am not in a position whatsoever to make judgements), and once on their way to Berlin, we have to consider this:
"At this time, their weather radar indicated that the Berlin area seen in their screen was as yet unaffected by the approaching front, and requested an approach to Berlin-Tegel. At this time, no further options were discussed. The controller gave clearance for the flight to Berlin-Tegel.
At 2015 hrs the crew monitored the ATIS broadcast for Berlin Tegel; this supported their decision of two minutes earlier to divert to Berlin Tegel. Information Delta timed at 1950 hrs gave the impression that the prevailing weather at the airport was very good (CAVOK). The NOSIG Trend suggested that the weather conditions were stable. The BFU holds the view that the crews estimate was understandable." (p. 37)
I find that last remark crucial. Once they had made the decision to head for Berlin they were supported in their view that this was the right, and appropriate, choice, rather than look for, quote BRE, littered "aerodromes that can handle a regional airliner". Understandable. (?)
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were in a holding pattern over Lübeck, which is quite close to Hamburg. I haven't seen mention of the weather at Lübeck at the time - was an approach and landing there feasible?
If so, why did the controller not suggest a landing at Lübeck?, It's not clear from the report that the crew were aware that they were dealing with a front rather than isolated convection, but the controller should have been, and should have known that both Bremen and Hannover were behind the front.
If so, why did the controller not suggest a landing at Lübeck?, It's not clear from the report that the crew were aware that they were dealing with a front rather than isolated convection, but the controller should have been, and should have known that both Bremen and Hannover were behind the front.
Tsamaya sentle
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron Duck,
the report has this on p. 16:
Lübeck Regional Airport
Until 1950 hrs the cloud cover was 7-7 oktas cumulonimbus without thunder activity, with the base at about 5,000 ft AGL. The front did not reach the airport until between 2010 hrs and 2020 hrs. There was heavy rain with gusts reaching nearly 50 kt.
The METAR reports read:
EDHL 101750Z(19:50 Uhr) 30015KT 9999 SCT019 SCT035C BKN050 19/16 Q1005 ATIS Z=
EDHL 101820Z(20:20 Uhr) 26032G48KT 3000 9999 +TSSHRA BKN009CB 13/12 Q1007 ATIS A=
May we interpret what I highlighted in green as BFU asking the same question as you: Why didn't they land there or why were they not advised to do so?
the report has this on p. 16:
Lübeck Regional Airport
Until 1950 hrs the cloud cover was 7-7 oktas cumulonimbus without thunder activity, with the base at about 5,000 ft AGL. The front did not reach the airport until between 2010 hrs and 2020 hrs. There was heavy rain with gusts reaching nearly 50 kt.
The METAR reports read:
EDHL 101750Z(19:50 Uhr) 30015KT 9999 SCT019 SCT035C BKN050 19/16 Q1005 ATIS Z=
EDHL 101820Z(20:20 Uhr) 26032G48KT 3000 9999 +TSSHRA BKN009CB 13/12 Q1007 ATIS A=
May we interpret what I highlighted in green as BFU asking the same question as you: Why didn't they land there or why were they not advised to do so?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is diverting to an airport on the other side of the front "not understandable"?
It's a great option IF you can get through the front. That's the judgement call - are there gaps or is the line solid?
It's a great option IF you can get through the front. That's the judgement call - are there gaps or is the line solid?
In the English version of the report there is a map of their position with the radar image superimposed. At that point they were almost in the clear behind the front, so I wonder what made them fly East back through the front to be just ahead of it in the Berlin area as it arrived!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doors - perhaps they were trying to get through the front to approach Hamburg from the 'dry' side? (pdf page 17)
The second weather image seems to indicate that Luebeck might have been in the clear. Also based on that weather image I wonder if the weather was better if they had turned north towards Copenhagen?
The second weather image seems to indicate that Luebeck might have been in the clear. Also based on that weather image I wonder if the weather was better if they had turned north towards Copenhagen?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: btw SAMAR and TOSPA
Posts: 566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They wanted to go to a place where ground service facilities endorsed by Crossair were available. That ruled out everything else than Hamburg, Hannover and Berlin. Narrow view.
Tsamaya sentle
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Germany
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doors,
just to clarify: they were not flying back east. The image shows their position when radar vectoring began, initial approach to Hamburg, not after missed approach.
just to clarify: they were not flying back east. The image shows their position when radar vectoring began, initial approach to Hamburg, not after missed approach.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: next to a beautiful lake
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
having read the report and your comments shows that there wasn't an easy way out of the situation they were in.
there are several opinions of all of you who have read the report. I would have done this, I would have done that.
This alone shows that there were different possibilities, Werneuchen maybe not the ideal one. The real problem IMHO lies more in the CRM when they have been informed about the earth wall, the captain on the other hand tells the FO to "land wherever he wants".
To err around in the skies is one issue, to ignore the messages from the controller is another one. The second one could have been disastrous, the first one probably not.
Over to you more experienced guys...
there are several opinions of all of you who have read the report. I would have done this, I would have done that.
This alone shows that there were different possibilities, Werneuchen maybe not the ideal one. The real problem IMHO lies more in the CRM when they have been informed about the earth wall, the captain on the other hand tells the FO to "land wherever he wants".
To err around in the skies is one issue, to ignore the messages from the controller is another one. The second one could have been disastrous, the first one probably not.
Over to you more experienced guys...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Going back to a point made in this thread, in Europe their is no requirement for a dispatcher. It would be interesting to see what the effect would of been of the OCC tracking their flights with almost live weather data. Seeing the bigger picture and providing this to the crew.
ACARS or a company radio network are a great help at times like this.
On a side note Lufthansa are just about to hook up their EFB's to the Internet so they will have live weather information.
All of these things would help, but at the end of the day the PIC had to make a decision - he just needs the right information to do it.
PT6A
ACARS or a company radio network are a great help at times like this.
On a side note Lufthansa are just about to hook up their EFB's to the Internet so they will have live weather information.
All of these things would help, but at the end of the day the PIC had to make a decision - he just needs the right information to do it.
PT6A
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Playing Golf!
Age: 46
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heading, what I took from the report was that neither ATC or the flight crew understood that this earth wall was there. In fact ATC thought the airport owner were talking about the airport having two runways.
I think the first time anyone in the incident knew about the wall other than the airport owner was when the aircraft hit it.
The factors leasing up o the accident aside, that wall being there along with the markings / lack of hazard warnings and the published charts... Is pretty bad IMO.. I'm sup prised it was the first time it was hit... The pictures from the police helicopter show it was hard to pick out.
PT6A
I think the first time anyone in the incident knew about the wall other than the airport owner was when the aircraft hit it.
The factors leasing up o the accident aside, that wall being there along with the markings / lack of hazard warnings and the published charts... Is pretty bad IMO.. I'm sup prised it was the first time it was hit... The pictures from the police helicopter show it was hard to pick out.
PT6A