Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Crash-Cork Airport

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Crash-Cork Airport

Old 16th Mar 2011, 23:33
  #661 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 125
I have always understood that, in order to make Cat2 approach, there must be a serviceable autopilot. The report says that an autopilot was not fitted to the aircraft, so, if I am right, the use of minimums lower than Cat1 were entirely inappropriate at any time.
boris is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 00:17
  #662 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Boris (and it seems, many others).

This was not a CAT II aeroplane. It was not doing a CAT II approach. The crew were not, and had no requirement to be, CAT II trained or qualified.

Sure. Some aircraft and their crew can execute a CAT II app at Cork, but these guys and this a/c were CAT I only.

End of.

This was a case of knowingly busting CAT I minima.

They gambled, and lost.

It's ugly, but there it is.


Edit to add. Now that we know what they did, the next question is why?
And therein lies a can of worms for sure.

Last edited by BarbiesBoyfriend; 17th Mar 2011 at 01:01.
 
Old 17th Mar 2011, 02:18
  #663 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,247
There are temptations to cheating on limits: the pax are happy to get to destination, they book with you again and tell all their friends how good your airline is. The cowboy operator stays in business while the fly by the regs operator goes out of business

There are margins built into approaches. Likely one could determine a hyperbolic curve mapping deviation against increased risk. A 50' cheat might bring the risk up from the 1/1,000,000,000 beloved of regulators to 1/1,000,000. A 150' cheat might raise the risk to 1/1,000 or worse.

Note that the odds remain very much in favor of the cheaters -- as long as they don't hit anything. One of the better examples of skill beating out judgement was an accident at Sioux Lookout where the a/c hit the on airport NDB mast

In this case, it looks like there was a low level loss of control (stall, VMC?) which raises the question of who, if anybody, was minding the airspeed.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 03:52
  #664 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
I agree that it's not possible for ATC to keep track of every plane and pilot and know who is qualified for what. But I am bothered by the fact that after two missed approaches questions weren't asked. Perhaps this is just an omission in the initial report.

The fundamental fact of the matter is that while coming back for a third approach isn't unheard of it is unusual.

WhatAstory to answer your question, atc should not need to ask the crew this, any professional crew when hearing rvr's well below their limits and the limits of their aircraft should not even attempt an approach, they shouldn't need to be asked.
That is cold comfort to the families of the dead. Very cold comfort.
MountainBear is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 04:25
  #665 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
every time we miss an approach, we are usually asked by atc, why?

usually we say: we didn't see anything at DH

or if we JUST BARELY see something at DH and land ok, we report field at minimums and it is passed on to next flight.

I can imagine that the isle of man is a very small, close knit community. it might want to consider starting a publicly funded air service of the highest quality...instead of relying on third rate pseudo airlines.
sevenstrokeroll is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 08:51
  #666 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: the dark side
Posts: 931
ssr
It is just impractical for ATC to do the policing of such things. Mind you I think there could be a better way.
In the UK, ATC Mats Pt1 states
A controller is not responsible for ensuring that pilots observe their aerodrome minima, and is not to query the right of a pilot to attempt a landing or take off.

The accident occurred in Eire so the above may not hold true but theres probably similar intructions to Irish ATC. Doesn't mean a UK ATCO may not think
jumpseater is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 09:22
  #667 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 170
I can imagine that the isle of man is a very small, close knit community. it might want to consider starting a publicly funded air service of the highest quality...

We had an air service of the highest quality, Manx Airlines. Offered to the Government but turned down in favour of an "Openskies policy"
Ransman is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 09:54
  #668 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 53
Posts: 2,346
A controller is not responsible for ensuring that pilots observe their aerodrome minima, and is not to query the right of a pilot to attempt a landing or take off.
And thats quite okay so in my book. Its the authorities job to check these things.
When getting a SAFA check they usually get a hard on when they see the plastic bag of a life vest slightly torn or the like. They should mind other things.

BTW, as of german law, flying privately the approach ban is not in force, it still is look and see. Having flown 17 years solely commercial IFR, I find it surprising these days how often I can actually see the runway in conditions IŽd commercially not dare to try. (eg. 450m RVR reported, got the lights at minimum plus 50 ft, which is way above 550m)
His dudeness is online now  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 09:57
  #669 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: by the seaside
Age: 70
Posts: 884
In a properly regulated industry the ATC controller should have had the powers to inform the IAA who should have immediately seized the CVR and FDR recordings.
One European authority have a mobile aviation police force that can do this.

Unfortunately many of us have participated in illegal acts, many of which are known by the authorities and are ignored.

I flew for 10+ years with a technically invalid license - this was known by the company/authority/union - answer keep your mouth shut.

A friend was chief training captain and had to provide a group of instructors for a foreign carrier. They flew illegally despite his protests until after an IFALPA meeting where he mentioned it to a fellow delegate. Within a week he had a valid license but lost his management job.

I have made three complaints to aviation authorities - only one -the FAA - acted appropriately.

It is about time that the aviation authorities policed the industry properly - and I am not talking about India or China.
blind pew is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 10:11
  #670 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cote d'Azur
Posts: 136
In the UK, ATC Mats Pt1 states
A controller is not responsible for ensuring that pilots observe their aerodrome minima, and is not to query the right of a pilot to attempt a landing or take off.
Rightly so.

Ultimately a clear line has to be drawn between the responsibilities of different participants in the system. No one is better placed to assess landing conditions than the individuals on the flight deck.
justanotherflyer is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 10:12
  #671 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 364
Sorry to reiterate, but this was NOT a service only involving the Isle of Man directly. The aircraft was positioned first thing in the morning from Aldegrove to Belfast City. An internal flight within UK airspace. Then it operated the Belfast City to Cork flight. An international flight between UK and Irish (an Independant Republic) airspace. This was however all with the EU. The regulators involved would therefore be Spain, for the AOC and aircraft operator. Isle of Man for the ticket seller Manx 2, the UK CAA for overseeing flights from UK airports, and Irish CAA as the destination airport authority, and perhaps EASA as a European umbrella. (I imagine that most of these bodies will have levied some sort of fee for their services and authorisations). Each of these bodies have mechanisms for inspecting the operations of airlines within their jurisdictions.
As an aside I was ramp checked in DUB last year by the Irish CAA under their SAFA scheme and found them polite, knowledgeable (about my company, UK carrier, and my aircraft, A320), and thorough over our doumentation, both personal and company. Their inspection included a good examination of the tech logs for CFD's and failures, followed by interrogating ECAM with the RCL button, with my permission, for any current system defects that might not have been written up.
The initial facts of the incident and crash are now known and accepted. The crew accepted clearances and vectors for a series of illegal approaches. The question of why they did it will take a lot longer, and may never be fully resolved. I use the terms "crew" and "they" deliberately as both crew members knew the actual weather conditions and would have had access to the minima required for the approaches. Any professional licence holder should be aware of the legal implications of flouting these. Without an autopilot fitted there would never be any question of the technical status of the aircraft. CatI only.
If this was an isolated case of one individual leading the other, (risky shift group decision making I think the CRM books call it), then the company needs to address this. If this was a company culture the crew inherited, then the regulators need to address it. The comparisons between this and the recent crash in Katowice might perhaps indicate this to be a larger problem than first appears.
I'm fortunate to fly for a responsible large operator with modern jet equipment. Well maintained and CatIIIb qualified at suitable airfields. However I started in GA with small operators, pistons, no autopilot and occaisional pressure from the CP to get in. I've been there in small outfits, and had to resist pressure to do silly things. I'm very glad I'm out of that environment.
A tragic occurence for all the families involved. It should never have happened.
Nubboy is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 10:56
  #672 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Dear Barbies Boyfriend

Your dismissive attitude of correctness grates somewhat. The point I was making should be obvious to most people, i.e. the previous ignorant rants about Cat2 were just that and the fact that the aircraft was not even equipped for Cat2 is made plain in the report. I was attempting to finally bury the Cat2 rubbish.

Kindly do not teach me to suck eggs because I've already done that................

Of much more importance is the fact that UK legislation still permits this kind of operation to continue. Surely it is overdue that the CAA takes steps to ensure that these peripheral operations are wound up as soon as possible.
boris is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 11:57
  #673 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 426
Dear Boris......perhaps you should define your understanding of 'peripheral operators'!

Do you mean operators of smaller aeroplanes...or small operators with only a couple of aeroplanes....or non-UK operators or what?

My personal view is that operators who do not have adequate mechanisms for managing safety OR who fail to comply with their SOPs should be removed. However for this to happen the regulators (whoever they happen to be) must do some regulating. Currently they are obsessed with layers of regulation, bureaucracy, paperwork, tick boxes and seminars whilst Rome is burning! How else could the likes of Manx 2 (whoever they are) have got away with their alleged cowboy practices, known to so many (it would appear) for so long?

As to ATC being required to police weather minima, type of approach etc, I don't think so. The principle of airports and ATC in particular providing information whilst operators (and pilots) fly within their known minima has worked pretty well for many years in most of the world.

However, perhaps there is scope for some kind of immediate whistle blowing or approach ban when a known breach of minima is about to happen? (Similar to the UK scheme whereby CAA approved persons at an airport can prevent a flight from departing). Just a thought......discuss!
Helen49 is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 12:02
  #674 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cranfield UK
Age: 66
Posts: 215
Company Culture

There has been much said about small operations and their attitudes and culture but being small need not of itself mean being unsafe. From writing manuals here in UK to get an AOC issued I am confident that all of those in the process of acquiring such a prize would not jeopardise it by employing reckless pilots. However when an "outfit" comprises all of the right legal elements to allow operations but without the commitment from all of those invloved being focussed on the same ends we probably all agree it can be a recipe for disaster.

The crash may be down to human factors and the culture may have played a large part in persuading pilots to fly illegally for short term gains. We can all see the potential for not only disaster but for passing blame in the event of one. It seems to me that if (let's say) a crew's investment is more concerned with the uprating of a licence to advance a career and not in the proper operation then this is likely to lead to more risky flying.

Perhaps it is time for more psychological assessment of crew members before they operate any new type or on promotion. There are enough officials involved that should feel guilty of allowing this operation if even half of what is said about it in previous posts is near to the truth. Regrettably on a rumour network facts are often scarce.

I have been reading this thread for weeks now and my query is about how to stall so near the ground and still end up inverted though I have read that this is not unlikely in one of these aircraft.

So my final thoughts apart from this being more or less the worst news for the people in the event are "Was this crash truly preventable as most of us suspect and if it was, will we actually learn form this and take sufficient action or will it just be said that we will, as it always is when something bad happens"
SkyCamMK is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 13:09
  #675 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: _
Posts: 350
Captain and copilot doing the work of two men by the looks of things: Laurel and Hardy. I truly despair that I have to share airspace with clowns like these. (Yes I am CAT3B autoland qualified & current before anyone starts thank-you).
dontdoit is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 13:13
  #676 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 610
Stall? The approach was not stabılısed, the report clearly states the a/c was not on the centre lıne, made harsh correctıons ın attemptıng to alıgn and then overcorrected ın the opposıte sense and went through 97 degrees bank before strıkıng the wıng tıp.
Realıty ıs, thıs ıs nothıng to do wıth ATC sımply bad decısıon makıng and human factors leadıng to a mıshandled attempt to go-around from a badly executed approach.
No doubt these poor guys felt under pressure theır dıversıon optıons were lımıted and the decısıon to dıvert early on was not taken.
Flyıng low technology wıth no autopılot or flıght dırectors on commercıal pax routes ıs complete nonsense. There should be a mınımum avıonıcs fıt to get thıs crap out of the sky.
No lessons to be learnt here as thıs ıs happenıng all too often.
Avenger is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 13:35
  #677 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: In the house
Posts: 155
Manx2 is the second virtual airline to have set up on the Isle of Man. The first was the original Euromanx.

There are a lot of international readers of this thread. Does anyone know of this kind of virtual airline scheme operating anywhere else. I'm not talkig about an aircraft leased in to fill a gap in another operator's schedule but a whole 'airline' operating 24/7 on the back of a mix of AOC holders and aircraft/crew providers.

Or is this an Isle of Man thing; allowed thanks to the twerps who have no interest in air services apart from the fact that someone shows up with an aircraft to get the locals on and off the Rock. I'm sure the powers that be here will simply slope shoulders in the direction of the CAA.

"I can imagine that the isle of man is a very small, close knit community. it might want to consider starting a publicly funded air service of the highest quality..."

'We had an air service of the highest quality, Manx Airlines. Offered to the Government but turned down in favour of an "Openskies policy" ' spot on Ransman fella.
Tinwald is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 14:15
  #678 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 95
Call the Police.

I do hope that this matter will now be notified to the Garda (Irish Police) for the purpose of Criminal investigation of the relevant organisations for Manslaughter. The investigation must look deeper than the crew.
OldChinaHand is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 15:16
  #679 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,462
How else could the likes of Manx 2 (whoever they are) have got away with their alleged cowboy practices, known to so many (it would appear) for so long?
Did the many that knew inform the authorities about it?
flydive1 is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 15:17
  #680 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Kiltsville
Posts: 6
Blatant

I join the other cynics in being unsurpprised (hence my earlier post) however, what is shocking is that they went in on appraoch number 1 with the clear intention of busting limits.

This is not an error of judgement under pressure, like the 3rd attampt, low fuel, few options -not that that's acceptable but perhaps more understandable - this was blatant rule busting from the off.

The culture of the whole operation stinks but why? That is what investigators should look at now. In this free market scramble for cash/survival there must be others, and they could be alive and well in the EU.
Cuban9 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.