Crash-Cork Airport
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Limousin, France
Age: 63
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(first post here, so be gentle with me - private pilot only, experience of bigger stuff limited to flight sims)
Forgive me if I'm being naive, but in the weather conditions pertaining at the time of the accident wouldn't things be a lot simpler if there was a dialogue like this:
ATC: we are open for CAT II landing only at present, are you cleared for CAT II?
aircraft: No
[diverts to alternate]
or if they said yes, at least the cowboys would be quickly identified.
Forgive me if I'm being naive, but in the weather conditions pertaining at the time of the accident wouldn't things be a lot simpler if there was a dialogue like this:
ATC: we are open for CAT II landing only at present, are you cleared for CAT II?
aircraft: No
[diverts to alternate]
or if they said yes, at least the cowboys would be quickly identified.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Not where I want to be
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After taking some peoples advice and not commenting on this thread until a report was issued now one has I am completely shocked with what I have read. As a professional pilot I am amazed, 3 completely illegal approaches where the rvr wasn't even close. Descending below minimums 3 consecutive times without sight of the runway. As said earlier even allowing for a sink after go around you do not loose 100ft especially on this type of aircraft. This is rule one of instrument flying the absolute basic! Sorry to say it about two collegues but the term cowboys is becoming more and more appropriate.
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what a story
your question is perfectly reasonable. Air Traffic Control would have a huge book of every conceivable operator of airplanes and they would have to know which particular plane and crew were operating on a particular segment.
At my airline of over 5000 pilots, some may have not completed CAT II or CAT III training. should atc have a book that says, Everyone at Airline "X" can do CAT II except FRED?
It is just impractical for ATC to do the policing of such things. Mind you I think there could be a better way. Some sort of information filed in the flight plan, and presented on the radar display...but they don't.
AND to make things even more difficult, some forms of regulation do not have the OFTEN MENTIONED approach ban. Indeed there are airports out there that might not even have weather information or local ATC service at all.
Good for you for asking.
Wouldn't it be odd if someone in the training department at whatever the airline really is actually told these poor pilots they were CAT II? We will never know.
I remember flying the Metroliner back in 86. We were poorly treated and the dumb girls who ran the ticket counter told us that our little airline could still exist without pilots...because they would just sell tickets on other airlines.
that's the way things are...little airlines are often crap...not always, but there are shortcuts!
your question is perfectly reasonable. Air Traffic Control would have a huge book of every conceivable operator of airplanes and they would have to know which particular plane and crew were operating on a particular segment.
At my airline of over 5000 pilots, some may have not completed CAT II or CAT III training. should atc have a book that says, Everyone at Airline "X" can do CAT II except FRED?
It is just impractical for ATC to do the policing of such things. Mind you I think there could be a better way. Some sort of information filed in the flight plan, and presented on the radar display...but they don't.
AND to make things even more difficult, some forms of regulation do not have the OFTEN MENTIONED approach ban. Indeed there are airports out there that might not even have weather information or local ATC service at all.
Good for you for asking.
Wouldn't it be odd if someone in the training department at whatever the airline really is actually told these poor pilots they were CAT II? We will never know.
I remember flying the Metroliner back in 86. We were poorly treated and the dumb girls who ran the ticket counter told us that our little airline could still exist without pilots...because they would just sell tickets on other airlines.
that's the way things are...little airlines are often crap...not always, but there are shortcuts!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's probably a great deal of info on the CVR that goes some way to answering that and many other questions. I suppose that unless the AAIU release the transcripts we'll never know plus....there are probably going to be a lot of legal actions taken over this tragedy. The AAIU know that and are probably releasing the absolute minimum into the public domain.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't know why everyone is 'surprised' and 'shocked' now the report is out.
1. The METARS posted on page one of this thread showed that it was highly unlikely that conditions were good enough to permit 3 legal CAT 1 apps.
2. Is it really so shocking that corners are being cut- and cut big- in operations at the Manx 2 level?
The report confirms my worst fears, but shocked and surpised, I'm not.
1. The METARS posted on page one of this thread showed that it was highly unlikely that conditions were good enough to permit 3 legal CAT 1 apps.
2. Is it really so shocking that corners are being cut- and cut big- in operations at the Manx 2 level?
The report confirms my worst fears, but shocked and surpised, I'm not.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
That is cold comfort to the families of the dead. Very cold comfort.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
ssr
It is just impractical for ATC to do the policing of such things. Mind you I think there could be a better way.
It is just impractical for ATC to do the policing of such things. Mind you I think there could be a better way.
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
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
We had an air service of the highest quality, Manx Airlines. Offered to the Government but turned down in favour of an "Openskies policy"
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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)
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.
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.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cote d'Azur
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.