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 17th Mar 2011, 21:57
  #701 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 243
Hear hear mate... doesn't detract from the fact that this was a tragic but totally avoidable crash.. (given the evidence on here).... don't want to see another one like this ever again
Smudger is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 22:08
  #702 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 243
No overun.. that's the whole point.. the buck stops at the bloke in the left hand seat.. ME.. it's up to ME to balance the commercial pressure from my company to get the job done against the safety issues required to do that.... it's a no-brainer... if it ain't safe it don't happen.. don't forget my licence is on the line at all times... my licence is my life ... it's obvious
Smudger is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 23:09
  #703 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: home
Posts: 1,435
No one is better placed to assess landing conditions than the individuals on the flight deck.
Or possibly not as in this case.
Right Way Up is online now  
Old 17th Mar 2011, 23:28
  #704 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 247
Smudger matey, do you have a pilot`s licence ?
overun is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 00:04
  #705 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Look guys. These pilots knew what they had to do.

They knew that they had to wait for their 550m.

They knew that they needed to hold until they got it.

They knew that there was an alternate airfield and that it was wide open.

They knew they had the fuel for their alternate.

They knew that starting an approach without their minimums was illegal.

Yet, still they flew NO LESS THAN THREE aproaches.

For fun? I think not.

Commercial pressures are one thing (that we all acknowledge) but a stronger urge drove these pilots.

I hope it is soon revealed.
 
Old 18th Mar 2011, 00:18
  #706 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 325
The only urge that should prevail Is that of the safety of you, your crew and the passengers, anything else is trivial.

Why they carried out an approach and willingly, deliberately and negligently bust minima will remain a mystery. I appreciate why the co-pilot might be persuaded to carry out this course of action due to lack of experience and maybe had a perception that this is the normal way of operating. However the Captain then should have a greater responsibility not to take the FO into such a situation.

Most pilots make mistakes at some stage however the blatent disregarding of safety related rules has no place in aviation.

Poor command decisions led to those deaths and it infuriates me. However I have the luxury of working for an employer who will wholeheartedly support me if I make a safety related decision that costs the company money.

Keep it safe

FPS
Flyit Pointit Sortit is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 00:47
  #707 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Limousin, France
Age: 59
Posts: 3
It seems clear that few, if any, people think it is appropriate for ATC to make a Captain's decisions for him/her. However a system whereby ATC 'note' for future investigation/explanation any gross abuse of the rules such as seems to have occurred here surely ought to be in place?

Suppose this plane had managed to make it in on its 3rd approach, would any action have been taken? Or would these pilots have been left to do the same thing the next time they ran into bad weather?
WhatAStory is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 00:54
  #708 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Somewhere on the ND
Age: 80
Posts: 46
When was the last time you flew raw data in command with pax on board ?
How is the fact he was on raw data have any relevance to the fact he made three illegal approaches and busted minima three times?

the 550m you speak of is that touch down, mid point, or stop end ?
As a professional pilot, you should be well aware what the answer to this one is.

Now, once we've all finished castigating the captain for doing what he did, and he shall rightly take his share of the blame, let us ask as pertinently why a presumably sane crew made such appalling decisions. It doesn't happen in isolation so I hope the investigation fully investigates the companies and commercial pressures involved. I'm not holding my breath though.
Alt Crz Green is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 01:15
  #709 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
overrun.

wtf are you on about?

I've about 10,000 hours on regional ops, including Cork.

You say that you 'feel embarrassed' as a 'professional pilot'.

Maybe it's about time you had a wee lie down.

(As for your q. re raw data, with pax on board, how does 'earlier this evening' sound?)
 
Old 18th Mar 2011, 06:22
  #710 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 426
In response to earlier comments.

There was a time when UK ATC was required to log details of all approaches and departures once the RVR fell below a certain figure....may have been 1100m (?) along with details of the actual RVR during said movements. This data was forwarded on a daily basis to the UK CAA Flt. Ops dept who, I understand, compared movements with permitted company minima. I believe that breaches of minima were detected and dealt with via this system.

I don't think this happens any longer. Probably not permitted under data protection legislation. Perhaps a current ATC person could comment.
Helen49 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 07:11
  #711 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 1,024
Once the final accident report has been published, I wonder whether IOM/UK lawyers will consider whether the concept of a "controlling mind" was at work here?

It is a pity that there is no natural successor, on PPRuNe, to the Flying Lawyer to explore this possibility.
parkfell is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 07:33
  #712 (permalink)  
DB6
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 57
Posts: 1,264
Gapster, smudger, Helen 49 etc. Lots of talk of minimum police etc, and how ATC should not be the arbiters of when to make approaches etc. Now, granted I am only looking here at CAP 413 and not the ANO etc, but Chapter 4, page 44 of the current edition (19) has exactly the scenario in question (sorry about lack of formatting):

In the UK, there is an approach ban which states that a pilot may not continue an
instrument approach beyond the outer marker or equivalent position, if the reported
RVR, or at aerodromes where RVR measurements are not taken or available, the
visibility, is below the minimum specified for that approach. Essentially, this means
that a pilot may not descend below 1,000 feet above the aerodrome when these
conditions exist. This RVR/visibility is known as an 'absolute minimum'.
7.3.9 Should a pilot indicate that he or she intends to commence an instrument approach
when the reported RVR/visibility is less than the notified 'absolute minimum' value,
the controller should inform the pilot using the following RTF phraseology:
7.3.10 If the pilot states that he still intends to continue the approach below 1000 ft above
aerodrome level, the controller shall inform the pilot.
7.3.11 This shall be followed at the appropriate times by the following transmissions.
BIGJET 347, RVR runway 27, 650
600 600 metres
BIGJET 347
BIGJET 347, RVR runway 27,
touchdown not available, mid point
650, stop end 550 metres
BIGJET 347
BIGJET 347, you are advised that the
current RVR/visibility is (number)
metres which is below the absolute
minimum for a (name) approach to
runway (number). What are your
intentions?
BIGJET 347, if you continue the
approach and descend below 1000
feet above aerodrome level, it is
believed that you will be
contravening UK legislation and I
shall be required to report the facts.
Acknowledge
BIGJET 347, there is no known
traffic to affect you making a (name)
approach to runway 30
BIGJET 347, there is no known
traffic to affect you landing, surface
wind 280 degrees 16 knots

I assume this does not apply in Ireland but, as I stated before, it might well have had some bearing on the final outcome i.e. I assume these guys thought they could get away with making wildly illegal approaches; if it was clear that they would not, I think it more likely they would have diverted or not set off in the first place.
DB6 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 08:54
  #713 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1997
Location: 5530N
Posts: 845
and the icing on the cake for this terrible crash was the F/O was flying the aircraft when it crashed. The F/O was brand new and highly inexperienced, flying a low vis approach (which they should not have being doing with the rvrs less than 550m)......flying with no autopilot and no flight director......it just beggars belief of the Capts thought process. Irrespective of commercial pressures the final report will zone in on the LHS.

Barbie has it in one.


BarbiesBoyfriend Look guys. These pilots knew what they had to do.

They knew that they had to wait for their 550m.

They knew that they needed to hold until they got it.

They knew that there was an alternate airfield and that it was wide open.

They knew they had the fuel for their alternate.

They knew that starting an approach without their minimums was illegal.

Yet, still they flew NO LESS THAN THREE aproaches.

For fun? I think not.

Commercial pressures are one thing (that we all acknowledge) but a stronger urge drove these pilots.

I hope it is soon revealed.
Bearcat is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 08:55
  #714 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: home
Posts: 1,435
DB6,

I believe that this change came about because of the night when a fair few aircraft landed at STN below minima. This scenario is easier to administer when (like the STN incident), the minima is dictated by downgraded ground facilities.

I'm not sure if a Cat 1 aircraft's flightplans would show this, but our filed flightplans (Cat3b aircraft) show our minimum RVR of being 75m
Right Way Up is online now  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 09:03
  #715 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,583
Bearcat - your profile gives no clues. Are you aware that it is routine and correct for 'new and highly inexperienced' co-pilots to operate the a/c approach (and g/a) in low vis procedures and would be a sensible way to handle this approach in this a/c if on Cat I LIMITS?

It is the 'descision' that needs to be looked at, not who was 'flying'. Apart from which we do not know that the F/O WAS flying the a/c when it crashed.

I cannot fault BBF's analysis.
BOAC is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 09:07
  #716 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: エリア88
Posts: 1,034
and the icing on the cake for this terrible crash was the F/O was flying the aircraft when it crashed. The F/O was brand new and highly inexperienced, flying a low vis approach
Which is quite normal in many operations.
Mercenary Pilot is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 09:08
  #717 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,277
BarbiesBoyfriend:

They knew that they had to wait for their 550m.

They knew that they needed to hold until they got it.
Those are two profoundly fundamental and critical elements. But, there is a third equally important element: once commencing the approach (presumably with not less than RVR 550) they had to have an absolute discipline to not continue descent below the 200' DA unless one, or more of the required visual references were clearly visible and they were tracking centerline without any significant divergence, and their KIAS was stable and within specified value.

This is made significantly more difficult without a good, responsive flight director. During my past life we were not allowed to go below LOC-only MDA and associated visibility if both our flight directors were inoperative.
aterpster is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 09:17
  #718 (permalink)  
DB6
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Age: 57
Posts: 1,264
Bearcat, normal for an FO to fly the approach in low vis; the captain is then in a better position to monitor the situation.
RWU, very true however the ILS 35 at Cork is only Cat 1 so minimum RVR for any aircraft 750m. Black and white illegal.
N.B. I am not suggesting that ATC should routinely have to intervene, just that the knowledge that it will happen - as in the UK - may deter even the most reckless from trying.
DB6 is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 09:23
  #719 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 13
The Isle of Man Government seems to be wakening up to this disaster. An MHK (member of the House of Keys, the Manx Parliament) is to ask whether or not Manx2 is an airline or a ticket providor at the next session on Tuesday.

MHK seeks clarification over Manx2 status - Energy FM | Isle of Man
drflight is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2011, 09:47
  #720 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 328
I haven't read this whole thread so sorry if it's been answered, but how did the aircraft end up inverted?

I don't see how it matters that they shot the approach when vis was below the minima when the aircraft was flipped over anyway.
Fonz121 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.