Crash-Cork Airport
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll try again
- then why talk about Cat II minima when you plainly don't know what they are? What was the given RVR as they passed the FAF/4/1000' point on R35?
- I quite agree. Simply disgraceful. An embarrassment to a professional forum.
Originally Posted by BBF
I don't have a chart for Cork here in Zurich
Originally Posted by M Pilot
The comments I've read on the thread have been hugely embarrassing and completely disrespectful to those who lost their lives yesterday and I hope that most of you are not actually involved at the sharp end of the airline industry.
Guest
Posts: n/a
BOAC
Did I mention CAT II?
Are you posting from the pub?
This was a CAT 1 aircraft, making a CAT 1 approach.
He needed 550m or better.
All the RVRs on the METAR are worse than that.
Further, they made 3 approaches so they'd need 550 or better 3 times during that period.
Thats all.
I see a lot of lower case 'n' attached to the RVR. Thats 'not changing' to save you looking it up.
Did I mention CAT II?
Are you posting from the pub?
This was a CAT 1 aircraft, making a CAT 1 approach.
He needed 550m or better.
All the RVRs on the METAR are worse than that.
Further, they made 3 approaches so they'd need 550 or better 3 times during that period.
Thats all.
I see a lot of lower case 'n' attached to the RVR. Thats 'not changing' to save you looking it up.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport expected to resume operations at 20:00 GMT. Aircraft currently being removed from the Grass verge adjacent to taxiway c. You all need to get a serious grip, its grand to comment online about things you glance over in the news, or if you've seen those horride pictures. I was working yesterday, and all i can say is my collegues at the Airport have never made me feel so proud, it was like a family bereavement this time yesterday and the pain still aches on. We will find out in due course what happened but speculation does nothing only make matters bigger then what they are. Manx2 is great airline and has provided a great service to Cork since it commenced operations to/from here last July 2010, its as hard on the staff there as it is with anyone else.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB (my bold)
METAR EICK 101000Z 09008KT 0400 R17/0600N R35/0450N FG BKN001
05/05 Q1010 NOSIG=
METAR EICK 100930Z 08005KT 050V110 0300 R17/0375N R35/0350N
FG BKN001 04/04 Q1010 NOSIG=
Of course, like most of the stuff on here, that could mean absolutely nothing.
METAR EICK 101000Z 09008KT 0400 R17/0600N R35/0450N FG BKN001
05/05 Q1010 NOSIG=
METAR EICK 100930Z 08005KT 050V110 0300 R17/0375N R35/0350N
FG BKN001 04/04 Q1010 NOSIG=
Of course, like most of the stuff on here, that could mean absolutely nothing.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
speculation
I am a total outsider but I read these forums often. I am a survivor (passenger) of Kegworth. (and fascinated by aviation though I won't fly again)
The human brain will always try to solve connumdrums and it is good to see those professionals amongst you trying to do that - perfectly natural to do that and don't stop
Just try not to be too disrespectful of anyone at this time. The facts will come out in time. Everyone, including the pilots were trying their hardest to get a successful landing - it just did not work out. We are all human - we all fail at times. Sometimes that failure can be due to a chain of events, those events can include commercial pressures, tiredness, bad weather, equipment failure, bad design, etc..
Ok - I am going back to just reading these now
The human brain will always try to solve connumdrums and it is good to see those professionals amongst you trying to do that - perfectly natural to do that and don't stop
Just try not to be too disrespectful of anyone at this time. The facts will come out in time. Everyone, including the pilots were trying their hardest to get a successful landing - it just did not work out. We are all human - we all fail at times. Sometimes that failure can be due to a chain of events, those events can include commercial pressures, tiredness, bad weather, equipment failure, bad design, etc..
Ok - I am going back to just reading these now
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: England
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strange no one has speculated about the possibility of a loss of control due to low airspeed and the possibility of airframe icing, especially after a 20 minute cold soak hold.
The position in which the aircraft ended up, its inversion and the apparent undamaged main legs suggests to me that the aircraft flew into that position or if you like 'fell out of the sky' . An alleged passenger statement seems to confirm a wing tip striking the ground which would then have quite possibly inverted the aircraft which it seems then possibly pitched nose down into the ground severing the fuselage with the nose section possibly impacting the rear fuselage and giving that slight bend to the nosewheel leg before coming to rest .
My guess is a loss of control occurred below decision height, most likely in the go around configuration, possibly due to low airspeed bringing about a stalled wing down condition possibly aggravated by wing icing, engine failure or /and mis-handling.
I can confirm that both airlines I worked for had ops manuals that contained SOPS that said-A third approach may only be made after a SIGNIFICANT weather improvement. (brought about by the G-ANTB accident at Jersey in 1965)
May I respectfully appoint out to the whingers that this forum started life as a PROFESSIONAL pilots RUMOUR forum-my posts are an attempt to meet that criteria!
The position in which the aircraft ended up, its inversion and the apparent undamaged main legs suggests to me that the aircraft flew into that position or if you like 'fell out of the sky' . An alleged passenger statement seems to confirm a wing tip striking the ground which would then have quite possibly inverted the aircraft which it seems then possibly pitched nose down into the ground severing the fuselage with the nose section possibly impacting the rear fuselage and giving that slight bend to the nosewheel leg before coming to rest .
My guess is a loss of control occurred below decision height, most likely in the go around configuration, possibly due to low airspeed bringing about a stalled wing down condition possibly aggravated by wing icing, engine failure or /and mis-handling.
I can confirm that both airlines I worked for had ops manuals that contained SOPS that said-A third approach may only be made after a SIGNIFICANT weather improvement. (brought about by the G-ANTB accident at Jersey in 1965)
May I respectfully appoint out to the whingers that this forum started life as a PROFESSIONAL pilots RUMOUR forum-my posts are an attempt to meet that criteria!
I am a total outsider but I read these forums often. I am a survivor (passenger) of Kegworth. (and fascinated by aviation though I won't fly again)
The human brain will always try to solve connumdrums and it is good to see those professionals amongst you trying to do that - perfectly natural to do that and don't stop
Just try not to be too disrespectful of anyone at this time. The facts will come out in time. Everyone, including the pilots were trying their hardest to get a successful landing - it just did not work out. We are all human - we all fail at times. Sometimes that failure can be due to a chain of events, those events can include commercial pressures, tiredness, bad weather, equipment failure, bad design, etc..
Ok - I am going back to just reading these no
The human brain will always try to solve connumdrums and it is good to see those professionals amongst you trying to do that - perfectly natural to do that and don't stop
Just try not to be too disrespectful of anyone at this time. The facts will come out in time. Everyone, including the pilots were trying their hardest to get a successful landing - it just did not work out. We are all human - we all fail at times. Sometimes that failure can be due to a chain of events, those events can include commercial pressures, tiredness, bad weather, equipment failure, bad design, etc..
Ok - I am going back to just reading these no
Enjoy your reading.
glad rag said:
Wind your neck in glad rag () and read both my posts. The "similarities" I refer to are the final positions of the a/c, i.e., inverted with main gear more-or-less intact. At the time, I had not seen the accident report to the PMI accident. I just happened to remember seeing a Metro wreck which was similar to this wreck. At no time did I infer that the cause could be linked.
Having just googled " that " accident report all I can say is
Thin Ice indeed BRUpax, Thin Ice
Thin Ice indeed BRUpax, Thin Ice
) and read both my posts. The "similarities" I refer to are the final positions of the a/c, i.e., inverted with main gear more-or-less intact. At the time, I had not seen the accident report to the PMI accident. I just happened to remember seeing a Metro wreck which was similar to this wreck. At no time did I infer that the cause could be linked.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BarbiesBoyFriend:
What I find to be inconsiderate, at best, are those who do not bother to progressively read every message in a thread as they come and go from a long one like this one.
In Message # 83 I posted a direct link to the Jeppesen charts for Runway 17.
In Message # 144 you commented about lack of IAP information.
In Message # 148 directed to you, I mentioned the charts to you and referred you to Message # 83.
Makes me think about horses and water.
BOAC.
Wind your (expletive deleted) neck in.
I don't have a chart for Cork here in Zurich but I expect the CAT 1min RVR will be 550 or greater for all runways.
Wind your (expletive deleted) neck in.
I don't have a chart for Cork here in Zurich but I expect the CAT 1min RVR will be 550 or greater for all runways.
In Message # 83 I posted a direct link to the Jeppesen charts for Runway 17.
In Message # 144 you commented about lack of IAP information.
In Message # 148 directed to you, I mentioned the charts to you and referred you to Message # 83.
Makes me think about horses and water.
Makes me think about horses and water.
Who needs the AIB, half a day on PPRuNe and it's all solved, easy peasy.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to your school, Evanel. What makes it worse is that we do not know for sure whether this Metroliner was Cat I or II - some are some are not; nor the crew; nor the R17 ILS that day, and as NoD and others have tried gently to point out, BBF has (I assume) NO IDEA of the actual RVRs passed during the approaches. As for the 'not changing RVR' (thanks, BBF, for that) would that be the METAR RVR that 'changed' from 375 to 600 over the period of the crash? Does BBF use the METAR RVR for his 'approach ban' decision, perhaps?
The sooner these posters recognise that the ATC given RVRs, a/c, crew and ILS states should be a matter of record and stop 'hinting', the better.
The sooner these posters recognise that the ATC given RVRs, a/c, crew and ILS states should be a matter of record and stop 'hinting', the better.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: There's no place like home!
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Moggiee, please let's put the handbags away. It's completely inappropriate and unseemly in the present circumstances.
I never said you were completely wrong, in fact I agree with what you said in your last post. However, there will always be times when what you have pointed out just will not apply due to the conditions on the day. (See my last post #215 on page 11 of this thread. Hypothetically speaking, do you believe that you would be able to complete a CAT I approach with a DH of 200' in daylight in the conditions described. I don't believe any AGL would penetrate the layer of cloud described sufficiently to make descent below 200' possible! Not the same conditions as Cork yesterday morning I know, but it is only a question).
It seems there are some differences in interpretation between our two sides of the fence - maybe there should be more collaborative training than we have had available to us for the last number of years.
All I wanted to point out is that there are times when it would appear that conditions seem suitable to attempt an approach, but turn out not to be, and then there are other times when the opposite is the case. I am open to correction of course, being more accustomed to keeping you guys apart than actually doing the driving. I am speaking from long hard-earned experience however.
I also wanted to make the point that a lot of people appear to be approaching the (alleged) issues at play here, incorrectly, from a UK legislative perspective. There is no Absolute Minima legislation in RoI for CAT I approaches, therefore there is no such thing as an Approach Ban in poor conditions. The met info is simply passed to the pilot and if he elects to make an approach then no attempt is made to dissuade him from that course of action. He is cleared for the approach and given as much info as possible to assist in the completion of that approach. He is still cleared to land at 4 miles (or more). If he reaches DH and can't complete, then GA, it's that simple.
Consequently, speculation (by others) about illegal descent below 1000' in below minima conditions with an approach ban in effect is absolutely ridiculous.
Purely pointing out a difference (from experience) from UK procedures.
To summarise: My position is that speculation about what prevailed at the time of the accident is completely pointless - no completely accurate info will be available until the final report is published.
Therefore let's just wait for the report, and stop making ourselves look like bickering idiots. We are professionals after all
I never said you were completely wrong, in fact I agree with what you said in your last post. However, there will always be times when what you have pointed out just will not apply due to the conditions on the day. (See my last post #215 on page 11 of this thread. Hypothetically speaking, do you believe that you would be able to complete a CAT I approach with a DH of 200' in daylight in the conditions described. I don't believe any AGL would penetrate the layer of cloud described sufficiently to make descent below 200' possible! Not the same conditions as Cork yesterday morning I know, but it is only a question).
It seems there are some differences in interpretation between our two sides of the fence - maybe there should be more collaborative training than we have had available to us for the last number of years.
All I wanted to point out is that there are times when it would appear that conditions seem suitable to attempt an approach, but turn out not to be, and then there are other times when the opposite is the case. I am open to correction of course, being more accustomed to keeping you guys apart than actually doing the driving. I am speaking from long hard-earned experience however.
I also wanted to make the point that a lot of people appear to be approaching the (alleged) issues at play here, incorrectly, from a UK legislative perspective. There is no Absolute Minima legislation in RoI for CAT I approaches, therefore there is no such thing as an Approach Ban in poor conditions. The met info is simply passed to the pilot and if he elects to make an approach then no attempt is made to dissuade him from that course of action. He is cleared for the approach and given as much info as possible to assist in the completion of that approach. He is still cleared to land at 4 miles (or more). If he reaches DH and can't complete, then GA, it's that simple.
Consequently, speculation (by others) about illegal descent below 1000' in below minima conditions with an approach ban in effect is absolutely ridiculous.
Purely pointing out a difference (from experience) from UK procedures.
To summarise: My position is that speculation about what prevailed at the time of the accident is completely pointless - no completely accurate info will be available until the final report is published.
Therefore let's just wait for the report, and stop making ourselves look like bickering idiots. We are professionals after all
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Bishkek (nr Luton)
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU OPS
EC while I appreciate from an ATC point of view that there is no "approach ban" ie you cannot tell an aircraft to not make an approach, the aircraft was in this case a commercial operation, operating to EU-OPS legislation which states:
OPS 1.405
Commencement and continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima (see OPS 1.192).
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility in accordance with Appendix 1 to OPS 1.430, subparagraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make the decision to continue or abandon the approach before descending below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height, for each approach procedure, below which the approach shall not be continued if RVR/visibility is less than applicable minima.
So at the 1000ft point (or outer marker etc) if the RVR is below minimums then a GA must be performed, this I think is what people are referring to as an "approach ban"
OPS 1.405
Commencement and continuation of approach
(a) The commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated may commence an instrument approach regardless of the reported RVR/Visibility but the approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker, or equivalent position, if the reported RVR/visibility is less than the applicable minima (see OPS 1.192).
(b) Where RVR is not available, RVR values may be derived by converting the reported visibility in accordance with Appendix 1 to OPS 1.430, subparagraph (h).
(c) If, after passing the outer marker or equivalent position in accordance with (a) above, the reported RVR/visibility falls below the applicable minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H.
(d) Where no outer marker or equivalent position exists, the commander or the pilot to whom conduct of the flight has been delegated shall make the decision to continue or abandon the approach before descending below 1 000 ft above the aerodrome on the final approach segment. If the MDA/H is at or above 1 000 ft above the aerodrome, the operator shall establish a height, for each approach procedure, below which the approach shall not be continued if RVR/visibility is less than applicable minima.
So at the 1000ft point (or outer marker etc) if the RVR is below minimums then a GA must be performed, this I think is what people are referring to as an "approach ban"
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast
Age: 60
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mrs FF and I are currently enjoying, or were enjoying, a week in Nerja, Costa Del Sol. It was a toss up between this and a short break in the Cork area - Kinsale. If we had settled for Kinsale the flight that crashed was the one we would have taken down from Belfast because we would have gone yesterday morning. Thank God we took the sunshine option over the spa hotel option. We came so close to going to Cork. We only booked last Saturday and it was a question of one or the other. The investigators must find out what happened to those poor people.
There are almost never any "new" accidents. The exact circumstances of the vast majority of accidents have happened before. I think it is highly likely in a year or two when the final accident report is published the cause will be loss of aircraft control after pushing an approach below minimums and either a too low too late go around or after desperate manoevering at very low altitude attempting to line up. I say this not because I know anything different from what any other poster but because history has shown this is by far the most likely cause given the facts of this accident.
I think this accident should be treated as a wake up call to everyone flying the line today.
By the DH: If you are not on speed, stabilized on the ILS and have good contact with the ground environment so that you are able to immediately perceive the attitude of the aircraft and its relative motion with respect to terrain......GO AROUND.
Easy to say but hard to do on those marginal days when the pressure to go that little extra bit further can be
pretty high.......
Finally attempting multiple approaches is a proven killer. As I posted earlier an American study found that a 3 third approach to the same airport in practice has proven to be up to 15 times more likely to result in a fatal accident than the first attempt. Therefore I would suggest if you miss on the first two attempts you should have a very good reason to try a third.
I think this accident should be treated as a wake up call to everyone flying the line today.
By the DH: If you are not on speed, stabilized on the ILS and have good contact with the ground environment so that you are able to immediately perceive the attitude of the aircraft and its relative motion with respect to terrain......GO AROUND.
Easy to say but hard to do on those marginal days when the pressure to go that little extra bit further can be
pretty high.......
Finally attempting multiple approaches is a proven killer. As I posted earlier an American study found that a 3 third approach to the same airport in practice has proven to be up to 15 times more likely to result in a fatal accident than the first attempt. Therefore I would suggest if you miss on the first two attempts you should have a very good reason to try a third.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 11th Feb 2011 at 17:43.
