Crash-Cork Airport
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Little Britain
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The accuracy of the ILS system is probably not open to doubt.
Therefore the next question is possibly how accurate the automatics if used are at holding the LLZ & GP, or if hand flown the same accuracy of the PF.
Given the eye witness account of the steep RH bank the alternatives are a failure which caused this or a control input. It's unlikely that a control input would be made to flay away from the centreline so the theory off being off the centreline must be the greater likelihood if, as stated by the investigators, the aircraft was operating normally.
Therefore the next question is possibly how accurate the automatics if used are at holding the LLZ & GP, or if hand flown the same accuracy of the PF.
Given the eye witness account of the steep RH bank the alternatives are a failure which caused this or a control input. It's unlikely that a control input would be made to flay away from the centreline so the theory off being off the centreline must be the greater likelihood if, as stated by the investigators, the aircraft was operating normally.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 61
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Far too much discussion on the RWY 17 ILS Category. It is published as Cat 2.
What is of vital importance is 1/ was the aircraft Cat 2 equipped/certified and maybe of more importance...
2/were the crew cat 2 qualified?
What is of vital importance is 1/ was the aircraft Cat 2 equipped/certified and maybe of more importance...
2/were the crew cat 2 qualified?
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Fraggle Rock
Age: 60
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am based on the Isle of Man.. and It was always interesting to me, that despite the low vis, and the airlines delaying or cancelling flights, the Manx2 aircraft would still appear...
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THere you have it
I am based on the Isle of Man.. and It was always interesting to me, that despite the low vis, and the airlines delaying or cancelling flights, the Manx2 aircraft would still appear...
If the aircraft is unavailable for service more than two hour past the scheduled departure time of the aircraft, THE LESSOR shall be unless caused by force majeure wholly liable for all and any costs of compensating all passengers booked on the lessees scheduled flights until normal on-time service is resumed. The LESSOR shall also be responsible for such costs of transporting the delayed passengers to their scheduled destinations by whatever reasonable means including the use of alternative scheduled flights or the charter of replacement aircraft.
Perhaps it was all to save money or am I just getting too jaded in my old age?
The real Manx2 is emerging now "Nowt to do with us mate see the other guy"
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: EGKK
Age: 61
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So assuming that Manx 2 have/had more than one crew for the Metro , why has no one posted details of the aircraft and crews LVP capability which, if less than Cat 1 must be stated in the ops manuals and would also give details of training required to operate to minima below Cat 1.
Does the abscence of such information on this forum simply mean , as i fear it does, that the Metro EC-ITP was a Cat 1 aircraft.
In addition , SNN was below Cat 1 as a diversion airport.
The computer generated PLOG and loadsheeet copy left in Belfast would clearly tell which was the nominated alternate and whather the plane had sufficient fuel to return to the departure point.
The R/T transcripts will surely answer a great deal.
Very sad that press-on-itis, if this is to be the case still exists on a commercial operation.
Does the abscence of such information on this forum simply mean , as i fear it does, that the Metro EC-ITP was a Cat 1 aircraft.
In addition , SNN was below Cat 1 as a diversion airport.
The computer generated PLOG and loadsheeet copy left in Belfast would clearly tell which was the nominated alternate and whather the plane had sufficient fuel to return to the departure point.
The R/T transcripts will surely answer a great deal.
Very sad that press-on-itis, if this is to be the case still exists on a commercial operation.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"why has no one posted details of the aircraft and crews LVP capability "
Perhaps they think it is best left to the AAIB to collect and review that, and all the other relevant data, and that posting more on here just encourages speculating vultures.
Perhaps they think it is best left to the AAIB to collect and review that, and all the other relevant data, and that posting more on here just encourages speculating vultures.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think a few posters should have a wake up call about what it is like to fly for a small TP company.
I will show my bum in the middle of T5 if they were CAT II approved. If relativey large TP operators struggle to keep the planes and crew in check a 5-6 plane outfit has no chance.
Coupled to the fact I doud't if there is a JAR approved sim that can do CAt II in the metro. I wouldn't be suprised if the crews did there LPC/OPC's in aircraft which is another bone of contention with alot of us working in this line.
"monitored approaches" depends very much on the CP and the battles the crews have done. The CP's tend to be old hands in the industry with set views that they have operated that way for the last 20 years and its always worked. Yes the youngsters can ask for these new fangled ideas to be available but it will fall on deaf ears (been there done that and got the T shirt), crews are looking for escape so its not worth fighting the good fight.
As for operational pressures regarding diverts and operating at the limits yes we have all been there and it is extremely tough sticking to your guns. After sticking to your guns you are made to feel like a traitor to the company and alot of the time its implied your a crap pilot because you have done the right thing. With sarky comments made by people who don't have a sodding clue what they are talking about. There is usually some South African ex employee pilot who is held up as a god like entity because he never tech'd an aircraft and never canceled a flight due to wx. Experenced pilots will know he was proberly a gash cock ignoring virtually every SOP and rule in the book, but the management loved him becaue "he got the job done"
I am working with pilots that knew the FO, nice lad apparently and was chuffed as hell getting a slot on the Metro. Which is something the CRMI's out there should remember while they are itching to get there hands on the report for a case study, he is quite well known!!!
Personally I am going to wait for the report, but its almost a deja vu with what the poor sods were up against with a few situations I have experenced.
Just because they are saying the aircraft was working normally doesn't give the full picture with these TP's. When the engines refuse to start sometimes its a sigh of relief from the pilots because you just can't go. There are numerous issues with the garretts and there rigging which can significanlty increase the work load to the crew. Tampering with the rigging needs dupe signature so would be unlikely to be dealt with by line maint of one man and a spanner.
The full picture really will ony come out with the report but I suspect there are going to be some bloody huge holes in the swiss cheese that they were up against.
I will show my bum in the middle of T5 if they were CAT II approved. If relativey large TP operators struggle to keep the planes and crew in check a 5-6 plane outfit has no chance.
Coupled to the fact I doud't if there is a JAR approved sim that can do CAt II in the metro. I wouldn't be suprised if the crews did there LPC/OPC's in aircraft which is another bone of contention with alot of us working in this line.
"monitored approaches" depends very much on the CP and the battles the crews have done. The CP's tend to be old hands in the industry with set views that they have operated that way for the last 20 years and its always worked. Yes the youngsters can ask for these new fangled ideas to be available but it will fall on deaf ears (been there done that and got the T shirt), crews are looking for escape so its not worth fighting the good fight.
As for operational pressures regarding diverts and operating at the limits yes we have all been there and it is extremely tough sticking to your guns. After sticking to your guns you are made to feel like a traitor to the company and alot of the time its implied your a crap pilot because you have done the right thing. With sarky comments made by people who don't have a sodding clue what they are talking about. There is usually some South African ex employee pilot who is held up as a god like entity because he never tech'd an aircraft and never canceled a flight due to wx. Experenced pilots will know he was proberly a gash cock ignoring virtually every SOP and rule in the book, but the management loved him becaue "he got the job done"
I am working with pilots that knew the FO, nice lad apparently and was chuffed as hell getting a slot on the Metro. Which is something the CRMI's out there should remember while they are itching to get there hands on the report for a case study, he is quite well known!!!
Personally I am going to wait for the report, but its almost a deja vu with what the poor sods were up against with a few situations I have experenced.
Just because they are saying the aircraft was working normally doesn't give the full picture with these TP's. When the engines refuse to start sometimes its a sigh of relief from the pilots because you just can't go. There are numerous issues with the garretts and there rigging which can significanlty increase the work load to the crew. Tampering with the rigging needs dupe signature so would be unlikely to be dealt with by line maint of one man and a spanner.
The full picture really will ony come out with the report but I suspect there are going to be some bloody huge holes in the swiss cheese that they were up against.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Jock, that is exactly my experience too, but add things like generators, instrumentation, nav and de-icing kit to the list of dodgy gear expected in such ops...Ugh, and those horrible Garrets.
The enormous relief in finding oneself grounded in a clapped out junker is something I'd forgotten until you mentioned it, second only to the even more enormous relief when sacked for questioning the tech state of the fleet.
The CAA hasn't learned a thing, has it?
The enormous relief in finding oneself grounded in a clapped out junker is something I'd forgotten until you mentioned it, second only to the even more enormous relief when sacked for questioning the tech state of the fleet.
The CAA hasn't learned a thing, has it?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a fair summary of life at the grubby coalface of aviation.
One other Q springs to mind, most reputable companies, of which I have serious misgivings we are really concerned with here, adopt higher minima for newly checked Capts, typically 800/900RVR instead of 550/600 for the 1st 50 hrs or so after checkout.
This always struck me as perhaps self defeating, as the stress of having to do diversions and find suitable alternates probably outweighted the fact you didnt have to shoot an approach in minimum RVR.
Wonder if this SHOULD
have been the case here , if the Capt, as claimed, was newly checked out.
One other Q springs to mind, most reputable companies, of which I have serious misgivings we are really concerned with here, adopt higher minima for newly checked Capts, typically 800/900RVR instead of 550/600 for the 1st 50 hrs or so after checkout.
This always struck me as perhaps self defeating, as the stress of having to do diversions and find suitable alternates probably outweighted the fact you didnt have to shoot an approach in minimum RVR.
Wonder if this SHOULD
have been the case here , if the Capt, as claimed, was newly checked out.
I was going to quote parts of Mad Jock's post to confirm that it is an accurate reflection of life at a small operator before I realised that it'd be pointless; every word of it is bob on.
Please, all the Airbus/Boeing jockeys asking about CAT II approaches and "why didn't they just follow SOP?" take note.
Particular resonant with me are the Chief Pilot who thinks that because he's got 40 years experience and squillions of hours flying decrepit pieces of crap around the world of yesterday, he knows it all today too; times, best practice and indeed regulations have changed but he does everything he can to resist change.
Also the bit about undue reverence bestowed on the company 'golden child'; the one who goes the extra mile to 'keep things moving', fabricates loadsheets with alarming irreverance and in all probability couldn't find the MEL in his aircraft if you gave him 20 minutes and a really big clue.
Many (most?) small operators operate CAT I aircraft only and from sad experience the autopilot might be inop most of the time anyway (only not snagged/labelled/MEL'd as such) etc etc.
Granted, perhaps none of this applies to Manx/the aircraft operator/the crew in this incident, but MJ's description of "how it really is" really is how it really is.
Apologies for the thread drift.
Please, all the Airbus/Boeing jockeys asking about CAT II approaches and "why didn't they just follow SOP?" take note.
Particular resonant with me are the Chief Pilot who thinks that because he's got 40 years experience and squillions of hours flying decrepit pieces of crap around the world of yesterday, he knows it all today too; times, best practice and indeed regulations have changed but he does everything he can to resist change.
Also the bit about undue reverence bestowed on the company 'golden child'; the one who goes the extra mile to 'keep things moving', fabricates loadsheets with alarming irreverance and in all probability couldn't find the MEL in his aircraft if you gave him 20 minutes and a really big clue.
Many (most?) small operators operate CAT I aircraft only and from sad experience the autopilot might be inop most of the time anyway (only not snagged/labelled/MEL'd as such) etc etc.
Granted, perhaps none of this applies to Manx/the aircraft operator/the crew in this incident, but MJ's description of "how it really is" really is how it really is.
Apologies for the thread drift.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had to laugh out loud. OUr ex pat south african was actually an ex pat Israelli 747 copilot who left Israel to fly at a crappy metroliner outfit.
yeah.
Our chief pilot though was from South Africa after a stint as the Bagh Wahn Ganeshee's personal pilot. This Bagh Wahn was the guy who conned people into giving him all their money for enlightenment, while he rode around in a Rolls royce. Well, the chief pilot ended up landing on the wrong runway at LAX. It was a freak show, intimidating pilots, lying to feds, I remember one guy, head of training saying:
Oh yeah, our home base was below mins last night...we shot the approach and...damn we had an autopilot runaway, nose down just prior to the missed approach point...but we saw the runway and landed.
Trouble was, that plane didn't have an autopilot.
yup...its tough out there.
I want to say one more thing: Most metro operators fly the approach at half flaps and when ''visual'' with the runway, extend full flaps...IF THE FLAPS are out of alignment (assymetrical)the plane will roll. Its dumb...u should change nothing at DH.
sad.
yeah.
Our chief pilot though was from South Africa after a stint as the Bagh Wahn Ganeshee's personal pilot. This Bagh Wahn was the guy who conned people into giving him all their money for enlightenment, while he rode around in a Rolls royce. Well, the chief pilot ended up landing on the wrong runway at LAX. It was a freak show, intimidating pilots, lying to feds, I remember one guy, head of training saying:
Oh yeah, our home base was below mins last night...we shot the approach and...damn we had an autopilot runaway, nose down just prior to the missed approach point...but we saw the runway and landed.
Trouble was, that plane didn't have an autopilot.
yup...its tough out there.
I want to say one more thing: Most metro operators fly the approach at half flaps and when ''visual'' with the runway, extend full flaps...IF THE FLAPS are out of alignment (assymetrical)the plane will roll. Its dumb...u should change nothing at DH.
sad.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are not all like that and to be honest the UK ones are kept under a short leash. Which is proberly the reason why most off them go out of buisness because they arn't allowed to take the piss to much.
But as they hauled the standard up in the UK our operators go out of buisness because other countries operators can do it cheaper.
But as they hauled the standard up in the UK our operators go out of buisness because other countries operators can do it cheaper.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Ashbourne Co Meath Ireland
Age: 73
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to information already posted either in this thread, or in other places.
Manx2 does not have an AOC, they use the AOC of the operating company, so in this case, the AOC is Spanish.
Manx2 is only a ticketing operation, and as such, they then contract, under quite strong contracts, with the aircraft operator.
The following is RUMOUR.
The fuel on board was possibly trip fuel only, as Jet A1 is apparently cheaper in Cork than in Belfast, and a LOT cheaper that fuel for internal flights.
The captain was a very recent command appointment, so depending on the SOP of the operator, he may not have flown many ILS approaches to landing.
The FO was a recent appointment, and it is unlikely that he had flown many flights on Metro.
The operator faces severe financial penalties from Manx2 in the event of delays or diversions.
At the scheduled time of arrival, the primary alternate was also below limits.
The possible alternates of Kerry and Waterford were probably not available to the operator for lack of handling agreements and agents. That would have left Dublin ( not a Manx2 destination) or Galway, both significant distances from Cork.
For me, that's more than enough Swiss Cheese holes for a lifetime, and the thought of adding any of the many possible additional items mentioned above is beyond scary.
Manx2 does not have an AOC, they use the AOC of the operating company, so in this case, the AOC is Spanish.
Manx2 is only a ticketing operation, and as such, they then contract, under quite strong contracts, with the aircraft operator.
The following is RUMOUR.
The fuel on board was possibly trip fuel only, as Jet A1 is apparently cheaper in Cork than in Belfast, and a LOT cheaper that fuel for internal flights.
The captain was a very recent command appointment, so depending on the SOP of the operator, he may not have flown many ILS approaches to landing.
The FO was a recent appointment, and it is unlikely that he had flown many flights on Metro.
The operator faces severe financial penalties from Manx2 in the event of delays or diversions.
At the scheduled time of arrival, the primary alternate was also below limits.
The possible alternates of Kerry and Waterford were probably not available to the operator for lack of handling agreements and agents. That would have left Dublin ( not a Manx2 destination) or Galway, both significant distances from Cork.
For me, that's more than enough Swiss Cheese holes for a lifetime, and the thought of adding any of the many possible additional items mentioned above is beyond scary.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
l only said that l hoped l wouldn`t post on this topic again.
Sorry Mad Jock - l like your style - but it is possible to carry trip fuel legally.
lt`s very unlikely that the sim guys have come across flight planning in the real world.
An alternate declared as the destination, to extend the range.
This has nothing at all to do with the dead people, and why it happened.
Sadly, the reason is obvious.
CFIT.
Sorry Mad Jock - l like your style - but it is possible to carry trip fuel legally.
lt`s very unlikely that the sim guys have come across flight planning in the real world.
An alternate declared as the destination, to extend the range.
This has nothing at all to do with the dead people, and why it happened.
Sadly, the reason is obvious.
CFIT.