Crash-Cork Airport

[Torque2]

Sloppyjoe, whilst I agree with you that it will require waiting for the investigators to report I'm sure the speculation about CatII is reasonable due to the published metars at the time being below Cat 1 requirements IIRC.

You say this is a Cat 1 aircraft only, is this fact or your opinion?...(note the lack of exclamation marks)

[aterpster]

SloppyJoe:

This aircraft was CAT I only, stop speculating about CAT II, it is only a CAT I aircraft!!!!!

Has this been established with certainty? I know nothing about Metroliners. But, someone (if I recall correctly he used to fly them) said earlier in the thread some Metros are CAT II equipped, some are not.

Has an official release been made about the accident aircraft's CAT II capability, or lack thereof? That is a pertinent fact for armchair assessments.

Then again, even if the aircraft were CAT II equipped, the crew would have to be CAT II trained and qualified.

[OD100]

Cat I or Cat II. Does it even matter? If this in fact was the captain's first revenue flight, would he not have been subject to 'high mins', or do they not have that regulation over there?

[rabcnesbitt]

ATI Article

The runway visual range was reported as 400m in fog, which is below the Category 1 approach minima that the Metroliner would have required. The crew had not reported any aircraft malfunction.

PICTURE & GRAPHIC: Crashed Metroliner in Cork identified as EC-ITP

So it may be safe to assume that ATI who are the source of the above have got it correct before they published so now we have it CAT I aircraft confirmed unless they are wrong.

[Gillespie Field]

Proper Flight Planing

Not so sure about this being 'local Knowledge' Corsair. Info regarding types of fuel being available is published by Pooleys etc. Flying times would be obvious.
Surely proper flight planing would have had this info in place ready for action if necessary.

[Torque2]

Good answer Rabc, supplementary information..article..By David Learmount.

Is there anyone who knows FOR A FACT that that particular aircraft was Cat II capable or not and if it was were the crew so qualified and certified. That will end the query and speculation.

[hetfield]

The runway visual range was reported as 400m in fog, which is below the Category 1 approach minima that the Metroliner would have required.

If this is/was the case, then it's a real issue.

[widebody69]

Definitely to the right. Pictures show it clearly.

[corsair]

Gillespie field, in the absence of evidence to the contrary we must assume there was proper flight planning. In any case the wx at possible diversion airports are available from ATC.

My point really is that when they departed Belfast there must have been an expectation that the fog would be either lifting or gone by the time they got there. I'd like to see the TAF as it would give an insight. But the fog had not lifted and after two approaches they went into a hold for twenty minutes and made a third approach.

We cannot assume they were running low on fuel and this was a desperate attempt to get in. We have to assume they knew their fuel state and the final approach was either the last attempt before diverting or they believed conditions had improved sufficiently to make the attempt worthwhile.

I don't want to speculate beyond that and in any case the full facts will come out.

[widebody69]

An interesting point is that one survivor was seated directly behind the pilot, while another was over the wing. From the pictures, you would have assumed all survivors would have been in the back. Without being disrespectful, I also noted that Mr. Lopez's family visually identified his remains. It could be that the aircraft gouged a channel in the mud without crushing the airframe as it appears in the photos.

[Lone_Ranger]

"It could be that the aircraft gouged a channel in the mud without crushing the airframe as it appears in the photos."


Informed speculation is one thing but this sort of sillyness.............

[widebody69]

The firefighters mentioned that they had to dig very deep into the mud to realease some of the passengers.

[wiggy]

If this in fact was the captain's first revenue flight, would he not have been subject to 'high mins', or do they not have that regulation over there?

It's not a general EU rule.

[Iolar]

There has been a lot of speculation in the thread concerning the position (feathered or not) of the blades on the port engine and lack of blades on the starboard engine. Could it simply be that in the clockwise roll to the inverted position (having dragged the starboard wing as reported) the starboard prop made contact with hard the runway surface whereas the port prop only contacted the soft grass after inversion?

EC-ITP Metro III

http://http://www.airliners.net/photo/Fairchild-SA-227BC-Metro/1864958/L/&sid=573c5d7d2ba86bb9e1f1e6d26217894f

[Zeffy]

Cat II?

Type Certificate Data Sheets

Initial perusal of the TCDS revealed no evidence of Category II eligibility -- at least as far as the aircraft type certificate is concerned.

[Irish Steve]

Could it simply be that in the clockwise roll to the inverted position (having dragged the starboard wing as reported) the starboard prop made contact with hard the runway surface whereas the port prop only contacted the soft grass after inversion?

That picture helps a lot. The Starboard wing was missing from the flaps outboard, and there's very little evidence on the remains of a side contact of the nose on the ground, so the geometry of the triangle suggests that it's unlikely that the blades made ground contact with the runway, although it's possible that they did so after the roll to inverted was complete. There's no overhead shots of the debris trail in the public domain to give a clearer indication of what started happening when yet.

[Bearcat]

rabcnesbitt ATI Article

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
The runway visual range was reported as 400m in fog, which is below the Category 1 approach minima that the Metroliner would have required. The crew had not reported any aircraft malfunction.

PICTURE & GRAPHIC: Crashed Metroliner in Cork identified as EC-ITP

So it may be safe to assume that ATI who are the source of the above have got it correct before they published so now we have it CAT I aircraft confirmed unless they are wrong

as per my previous post, if this is the case re Cat I expect a damning final report.

[Torque2]

Exactly so Bearcat. For what its worth, directly from the walking survivor towards the rear of the aircraft, he is sure the wheels did not touch the ground, at a 'very low level about dinner table height' the engines were at full power but the right wing dipped and hit the grass and the aircraft rolled over.
He is home and reliving the incident vividly and regularly and a friend.

[matspart3]

Between 0930 and 1000, the RVR improved to more than 550m.

EICK 101030Z 09007KT 1800 R17/P2000 R35/P2000 BR FEW001 SCT002 BKN003 06/06 Q1010 BECMG VIS 5000
EICK 101000Z 09008KT 0400 R17/0600N R35/0450N FG BKN001 05/05 Q1010 NOSIG
EICK 100930Z 08005KT 050V110 0300 R17/0375N R35/0350N FG BKN001 04/04 Q1010 NOSIG

[wiggy]

matspart.. indeed, and to repeat a point made by others earlier in the thread the really critical RVRs (from a legal standpoint/ "damning report" point of view ) will be those that were passed by ATC to the aircraft crew just prior to them reaching the approach ban point.