Crash-Cork Airport
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 61
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F**k. It doesn't get much worse than that. 3 illegal approaches, the last one ending in tears. Exactly why an approach ban exists, and what happens if you ignore it.
It does occur that the the UK procedure of ATC informing the crew they were about to breach the approach ban might have prevented this (I assume this did not happen here as no mention in the report).
It does occur that the the UK procedure of ATC informing the crew they were about to breach the approach ban might have prevented this (I assume this did not happen here as no mention in the report).
Last edited by DB6; 16th Mar 2011 at 17:33.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably the initial roll to the left was a wing drop due to a stall or a botched correction to try and regain the centerline. In fact despite all the rubbish on this thread, certain people nailed it early on and there is nothing surprising in this report. The low speed handling characteristics were well described here. It seems it was the final proverbial straw.
But ultimately they were too low and too slow, below the DH without sight of the runway.
But ultimately they were too low and too slow, below the DH without sight of the runway.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Far away.
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC,
The A/C was in "prefect working order" prior to the crash, as the report states.
MayorQuimby , The roll rate was not caused by any mechanical problem, or instrument failures!
Most likely over controlling close to the ground plus the flight from takeoff was hand flown!! = Tired crew!
What I am actually appalled by is in the transcript part of the report the call by GPWS says MINIMUMS. The PF says CONTINUE!!!!
Lessons learned here guys!
The A/C was in "prefect working order" prior to the crash, as the report states.
MayorQuimby , The roll rate was not caused by any mechanical problem, or instrument failures!
Most likely over controlling close to the ground plus the flight from takeoff was hand flown!! = Tired crew!
What I am actually appalled by is in the transcript part of the report the call by GPWS says MINIMUMS. The PF says CONTINUE!!!!
Lessons learned here guys!
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPWS says MINIMUMS. The PF says CONTINUE!!!!
But in our FD the PNF would call in sight/not in sight and then I either continue or abort. I´d guess thats standard?
So the last RVR was 500m, 550m required. Is 50m so much of a difference that one has to crash? Especially with a CAT II lighting availabe? Which is a hell of a difference vs. a CAT I with standard lighting.
Not saying one should go belwo minima, but an aircrew trained to CAT I should be able to survive an approach in these conditions. Which brings us to the experience level of this crew...guess we´ll have to wait til the final rep is out.
A question for the 'Garrettisti' out there: how does the Garrett like being pulled back (9 sec before impact) then the power put back on? (7 sec)
At least one or two of the PT6 airplanes I flew wouldn`t like that too much -> the roll scenario due to uneven power surge close Vmca...
Last edited by His dudeness; 16th Mar 2011 at 20:58.
Perhaps the Manx 2 'operation' should be suspended until it is determined who is accountable for the safety of the operation, and until it is evident to the regulator (not sure which) that safety is being managed in a formal and responsible manner!
It is a scandal that the fare paying public can be subjected to this type of operation!
It is a scandal that the fare paying public can be subjected to this type of operation!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Far away.
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His dudeness I would like to follow up on your comment as you stated
“So the last RVR was 500m, 550m required. Is 50m so much of a difference that one has to crash? Especially with a CAT II lighting available? Which is a hell of a difference vs. a CAT I with standard lighting. “
There is a big difference with CAT I virus Cat II lighting system.
On a typical approach you cross the threshold at 50feet if you’re on the glide slope. The Decision Altitude on a CAT II is 100 feet.
So put yourself at 50 feet over that threshold and just a few nano seconds before that is 100 feet, which is the CAT II DA.
Your CAT 1 minima is 200 feet, about .7 of a NM.
Secondly you mentioned above is 50 meter that much of a difference? Well not really, But that’s not the point here.
The point is it’s a legal Minimum and Minima is not there for pilots to Bust it!!
“So the last RVR was 500m, 550m required. Is 50m so much of a difference that one has to crash? Especially with a CAT II lighting available? Which is a hell of a difference vs. a CAT I with standard lighting. “
There is a big difference with CAT I virus Cat II lighting system.
On a typical approach you cross the threshold at 50feet if you’re on the glide slope. The Decision Altitude on a CAT II is 100 feet.
So put yourself at 50 feet over that threshold and just a few nano seconds before that is 100 feet, which is the CAT II DA.
Your CAT 1 minima is 200 feet, about .7 of a NM.
Secondly you mentioned above is 50 meter that much of a difference? Well not really, But that’s not the point here.
The point is it’s a legal Minimum and Minima is not there for pilots to Bust it!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1st approach commenced/continued with RVR way below legal minima, height recorded at go around below 100ft. Even allowing for sink during the G/A, it seems that the DECISION HEIGHT was not respected.
2nd approach commenced with RVR less than half the required minima, min height achieved during go around 100ft, give or take, comment as above.
No real surprises that the 3rd approach, which only had required RVR from about 11 until 9 miles was the straw that broke the camels back.
Legal to commence, illegal to continue beyond OM or equivalent fix.
It is fine to say , well 500 is nearly 550, but it was illegal, albeit not on the scale of the 2 criminally negligent previous attempts.
In this day and age, in a European environment ,with a European crew, I am genuinely shocked at the total disregard for the rules, and even more so by the total lack of understanding by the 2 crew that it just wasnt likely to work.
I cant find a smiley for shakes head in disbelief, that is the one I want.
Sad, really really sad, for anyone buying a ticket and expecting to be transported in a safe and legal manner. They had every right to expect better than this cowboy outfit have provided.
2nd approach commenced with RVR less than half the required minima, min height achieved during go around 100ft, give or take, comment as above.
No real surprises that the 3rd approach, which only had required RVR from about 11 until 9 miles was the straw that broke the camels back.
Legal to commence, illegal to continue beyond OM or equivalent fix.
It is fine to say , well 500 is nearly 550, but it was illegal, albeit not on the scale of the 2 criminally negligent previous attempts.
In this day and age, in a European environment ,with a European crew, I am genuinely shocked at the total disregard for the rules, and even more so by the total lack of understanding by the 2 crew that it just wasnt likely to work.
I cant find a smiley for shakes head in disbelief, that is the one I want.Sad, really really sad, for anyone buying a ticket and expecting to be transported in a safe and legal manner. They had every right to expect better than this cowboy outfit have provided.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Far away.
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if i am wrong here!
It states the FO was the PF.
At any stage was control of the AC switched to the Capt ?.. If not , and the FO remained PF all the way from belfast, carryed out 2 missed apps, held at Roval still flying manually , from experience i know this would really drain your energy levels.
It states the FO was the PF.
At any stage was control of the AC switched to the Capt ?.. If not , and the FO remained PF all the way from belfast, carryed out 2 missed apps, held at Roval still flying manually , from experience i know this would really drain your energy levels.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the Manx 2 'operation' should be suspended until it is determined who is accountable for the safety of the operation,
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two failed approaches, sat in the hold getting various poor METARs for a rolling list of divs. You can almost understand the impulse to try a third time but I am left wondering how well the weather was checked before departing EGAC.
As for busting minima once, twice & thrice, I think everything has already been said.
As for busting minima once, twice & thrice, I think everything has already been said.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The interesting part for me is the last but one paragraph.
'The investigation is examining, inter alia, the operational aspects of the flight including operational control and regulatory oversight. This will include the examination of the relationships between the AOC holder, the undertaking selling the service (Ticket Seller) and the undertaking which supplied the aircraft and Flight Crew.'
'The investigation is examining, inter alia, the operational aspects of the flight including operational control and regulatory oversight. This will include the examination of the relationships between the AOC holder, the undertaking selling the service (Ticket Seller) and the undertaking which supplied the aircraft and Flight Crew.'
The interesting part for me is the last but one paragraph.
'The investigation is examining, inter alia, the operational aspects of the flight including operational control and regulatory oversight. This will include the examination of the relationships between the AOC holder, the undertaking selling the service (Ticket Seller) and the undertaking which supplied the aircraft and Flight Crew.'
'The investigation is examining, inter alia, the operational aspects of the flight including operational control and regulatory oversight. This will include the examination of the relationships between the AOC holder, the undertaking selling the service (Ticket Seller) and the undertaking which supplied the aircraft and Flight Crew.'
Paragraph 1 is also notable :
"The Ticket Seller held a Tour Operator’s Licence issued by the
Irish Commission for Aviation Regulation."
Doesn't seem the pax were on any form of Tour, in the correct sense of that licence. But if so, it brings the operation under the EC Package Travel Directive 1993, which includes :
"A direct responsibility placed on tour operators for the safety of their customers. Tour operators are legally responsible for the components of the package - coach transfers, hotels etc, if negligence is proved. They cannot avoid responsibility by attributing it to their sub-contractors. UK customers can sue operators in UK courts and no longer have to pursue action against contractors in overseas courts.
Best link I can find on this :
Legal Requirements - Federation of Tour Operators - FTO
Which as those following this story will be aware is not the approach taken by the ticket seller, or their lawyers.
I don't normally write about the operational side, but this struck me in section 3 :
"Commencement of a third approach is
not prohibited by regulation. The Investigation has not yet confirmed if the operator’s Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) address this issue."I wonder how the investigation has still not managed to get this document out of the aircraft operator. What can be hard about "Give me your current SOP manual", "Here it is".
A pumps
BOAC,
The A/C was in "prefect working order" prior to the crash, as the report states.
BOAC,
The A/C was in "prefect working order" prior to the crash, as the report states.
'At this time the investigation has not identified any failures of the airframe, systems or powerplants during the flight'
My guess, like most sensible posters here is that the aircraft was probably serviceable up to the end, and from an UK ATC perspective the report makes sobering reading regarding the approaches in less than required minima.
On my desk is a flip file with the UK ATC 'script' for approaches past minima, I imagine if the Eire TWR/APP ATCO had a similar script they may have used it, and if they hadn't, the initial report would probably have mentioned it.
As a controller you rely on the crew to advise if the aircraft/crew are not capable/qualified/equipped of making an approach. It seems the approach controller had prompted the crew when they asked for confirmation of passed RVR's.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
for technical reasons I can't read the report. oh well.
it is interesting to note that all of you indicate the approaches were conducted below published CAT I mins. Illegal and Unsafe...what more can be said? Unless there is some problem understanding the english language.
I asked early on what position the stab trim select switch was in...this would indicate the pilot flying.
One poster says the copilot was flying...very odd for such low visibility...but many things seem odd.
It is interesting that there was a mechanical voice calling: Minimums and a human voice saying continue....if I had been flying I would have said: Continue, runway lights in sight or something a bit more definitive.
one poster said that CAT II DA//DH was 100'...well, most are, but some are 150', like KDCA.
Even busting mins could lead to a safe landing if everything went well...just follow the GS/LOC till you smack the runway...you might break your teath, or the gear, but u shouldn't be flipping over.
IF a go around was attempted(again I don't have the report) if the engines didn't both come up evenly, it would be a bit dicey...but they usually do come up ok...IF PROPERLY TRIMMED AND MAINTAINED.
Or could there have been a moment of two pilots trying to fly one plane at the same time...one wanting to go up, the other going down? one trying to go left, the other right?
stuff happens...its like threading a needle, at night, using black thread with welders' goggles.
anywhere in the final report, does it say: WE ARE GOING TO FLY BELOW MINS TO GET IN BECAUSE we will lose our jobs otherwise?
it is interesting to note that all of you indicate the approaches were conducted below published CAT I mins. Illegal and Unsafe...what more can be said? Unless there is some problem understanding the english language.
I asked early on what position the stab trim select switch was in...this would indicate the pilot flying.
One poster says the copilot was flying...very odd for such low visibility...but many things seem odd.
It is interesting that there was a mechanical voice calling: Minimums and a human voice saying continue....if I had been flying I would have said: Continue, runway lights in sight or something a bit more definitive.
one poster said that CAT II DA//DH was 100'...well, most are, but some are 150', like KDCA.
Even busting mins could lead to a safe landing if everything went well...just follow the GS/LOC till you smack the runway...you might break your teath, or the gear, but u shouldn't be flipping over.
IF a go around was attempted(again I don't have the report) if the engines didn't both come up evenly, it would be a bit dicey...but they usually do come up ok...IF PROPERLY TRIMMED AND MAINTAINED.
Or could there have been a moment of two pilots trying to fly one plane at the same time...one wanting to go up, the other going down? one trying to go left, the other right?
stuff happens...its like threading a needle, at night, using black thread with welders' goggles.
anywhere in the final report, does it say: WE ARE GOING TO FLY BELOW MINS TO GET IN BECAUSE we will lose our jobs otherwise?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS
why wasn't the altimeter (barometric) being used for DA/DH...radar alt is only for CAT II and above.
Did the poor guy think he was CAT II? All of our planes have a placcard saying: CAT II authorized or CAT IIIA autoland authorized.
why wasn't the altimeter (barometric) being used for DA/DH...radar alt is only for CAT II and above.
Did the poor guy think he was CAT II? All of our planes have a placcard saying: CAT II authorized or CAT IIIA autoland authorized.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to me that the legislation in the Irish Republic is considerably stronger than the UK where companies that are not airlines offering travel by air are exempt from ATOL requirements if using aircraft with less than twenty seats. I don't think that the statement from Applebys acting for Manx2 that they only acted as 'ticket provider or booking office' fits with the facts. Statements from James Healy-Pratt of Stewarts Law acting for the passengers have more veracity.
"The short point is an old one, if something walks, talks and looks like a duck, then it usually is a duck."
"Manx 2 identified the route.
Manx2 leased in an operator and crew to fly the route.
Manx2 started an operations base at Belfast for the route.
Manx2 marketed the route, as a Manx2 route.
Manx2 gave the route a Manx2 flight code (NM).
Manx2 had its name on the nose of the plane.
Manx2 'welcome the passengers on board this Manx2 flight'
Manx2 made profit from the route.
Manx2's ticket terms and conditions are not clear."
"Our view is that in any Court in the US, UK, EU, or Ireland, Manx2 would be held jointly responsible with Flightline BCN."
"Manx 2 identified the route.
Manx2 leased in an operator and crew to fly the route.
Manx2 started an operations base at Belfast for the route.
Manx2 marketed the route, as a Manx2 route.
Manx2 gave the route a Manx2 flight code (NM).
Manx2 had its name on the nose of the plane.
Manx2 'welcome the passengers on board this Manx2 flight'
Manx2 made profit from the route.
Manx2's ticket terms and conditions are not clear."
"Our view is that in any Court in the US, UK, EU, or Ireland, Manx2 would be held jointly responsible with Flightline BCN."
"We are interested to know what due diligence Manx2 did in using Flightline - to what extent did they know about the October 2001 fatal crash with a Metroliner in Spain and the under-insurance problems. We are also interested to know the extent of the Manx2 operation at Belfast with this flight. We understand Manx2 paid for all fuel for the aircraft."
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A pumps, that was more or less a rhetorical question. I do know the difference, having been CAT II qualified myself. I do NOT advocate busting of minima. My fpls all contain RVR/550 in field 18 -> too easy to crosscheck, so 'I keep myself in check' there.
The closest of possible ALTNs was EIKY and that was apparently fine. They just didn´t want to divert IMO.
Two failed approaches, sat in the hold getting various poor METARs for a rolling list of divs. You can almost understand the impulse to try a third time