Crash-Cork Airport

[Ron Herb]

Is it legal, though? I wonder.

[Sillert,V.I.]

I remember from reading other accident reports that there is frequently a history of similar behaviour but without the accident consequences. Each time someone breaks the rules and gets away with it, the original behaviour is reinforced and eventually it becomes part of the individual's normal practice.

I'm thinking this might not have been the first time this crew had continued an approach below minimums.

So with that thought in mind, just suppose they'd landed normally off the third approach, and the accident had never taken place.

2 questions:

1. What do you think would have happened?

2. What do you think should have happened?

The difference between the two answers might give some insight into shared responsibilities, and what needs to be put into place to reduce the chances of this tragedy occurring again.

[what next]

It's likely that after 2 go-arounds and 20 mins holding, they would no longer have had the fuel to back to Belfast.

The report states that they had 3000lbs of fuel upon departure. When I flew the Metroliner, we calculated 1000lbs for the first hour and 600lbs for every hour thereafter. The flight lasted 1hr35min from takeoff to crash, the remaining fuel should have been sufficient for a minimum of two more flying hours or 500NM range. They could have reached London or Paris if necessary.

[Alt Crz Green]

the remaining fuel should have been sufficient for a minimum of two more flying hours or 500NM range.

This would suggest they need not have hurried to land. It raises more questions:
1) with a choice of alternates, why discount them all?
2) with the RVR's in cork beginning to increase, why not have waited longer before making the approach?

The ball's in the court of the investigators to look at all aspects of this tinpot operation with all due dilligence and effort.

[757_Driver]

I fly for an ACMI operator who flys for a number of different airlines, big and small, long term contracts to one-offs. Operational decisions are taken by the captain, with the backup of OUR operations department, Not the customer airlines. Commercial decisions are liaised with the customer airline.
i.e it will be the captains decision to divert if required. At some point, if time permits our ops would liaise with the customers airline for example to see if there was a commercially prefered diversion destination. Or if there was a tech or weather delay the customer airline would take commercial decisions wether to delay / cancel / reschedule etc. But as the AOC holder operating the aircraft the operational decisions and final say are ours and ours alone. This is regardless wether the customer airline is an AOC holder in their own right or a 'virtual airline'
This is how it should work in this type of operation, but I can't comment on this particular operation. I should imagine that most of our customers and our operation are considerably larger and better resourced than what was available in this accident.

[maxred]

concur

757, I concur with this view. I am slightly concerned as I followed this thread that people were very quick to immediately look for the underlying corporate failures and pressures driving the crew to exceed limits.

We do not know that was the case, however, it was not the AOC holder flying that day, nor the ticket agent, nor anyone other than the flight crew,with a Captain who frankly should have known better.

I was a tragic accident that we all know should not have happened. Legacy carriers have accidents, and sometimes the legacy systems are at fault,and they are rectified. I think it wrong to look immediately for sub standard operations structures, just because it was ACMI, and therefore faulty in some way.

[sevenstrokeroll]

aterpster

its it he lowest published glideslope intercept altitude that is the key to a continuation of the approach.

has anyone considered that the go around began, and then someone caught a glimpse of the runway and ''went for it''. I can think of doing three approaches at KMDW and seeing the runway each time on the missed...but we didn't go for it...we actuall went for KIND (indianapolis).

so, decided to go around, go around and then oops, there's the runway...and you aren't watching your speed.

once the decision to go around is made...it better be a darn good reason not to go around.

[Mercenary Pilot]

has anyone considered that the go around began, and then someone caught a glimpse of the runway and ''went for it''.

IMHO in that scenario, I would have thought someone to have said ether "My controls" or "Land".

Also, if they had seen the runway during a missed approach on the first or second attempt, I'd have expected them to have taken successive approaches to the same runway?

[sevenstrokeroll]

IMHO

well, this crew seems to not have been at the top of the industry in observing conventions like minimums, so why something as advanced as a transfer of controls

[aterpster]

sevenstrokeroll:

aterpster

its it he lowest published glideslope intercept altitude that is the key to a continuation of the approach.

Yes, at least in the U.S. More officially known as the P-FAF (the little lightning bolt on FAA charts), the beginning of the profile feather on Jepp charts.

has anyone considered that the go around began, and then someone caught a glimpse of the runway and ''went for it''. I can think of doing three approaches at KMDW and seeing the runway each time on the missed...but we didn't go for it...we actuall went for KIND (indianapolis).

Seeing as how they went to 100 feet I can see all kinds of further ugly scenerios.

so, decided to go around, go around and then oops, there's the runway...and you aren't watching your speed.

once the decision to go around is made...it better be a darn good reason not to go around.

All of that is sort of moot when descending IMC to 100 feet in a CAT I operation.

As you say, once the decision is made to miss the approach from the legal DA, anything you see after that is not to be acted upon in any circumstances. It might, however, provide useful information about whether to try another approach.

[lambert]

I think Sillert has hit the nail on the head. It was ops normal but if you keep pushing the limits long enough .............

[saint alled]

Unfortunately there is past history of "dirty diving" in this operator, and also others within the Manx2 fold.

I am hoping that the delay in answering the question asked in the IOM parliament yesterday regarding concern about the overall Ticketing agent's stpolicy and strategy does not result in another similar event occurring before the final report reveals the definite truth.

It was disappointing to hear that the IOM's minister responsible said thet his department had no concerns over the operation of Manx2. I am aware of at least one occurrence during Sonw and Ice operations which was referred to the Isle of Man director of Civil aviation

[Tinwald]

'his department had no concerns over the operation of Manx2'

cos his department hadn't the slightest idea about the operation of Manx2.

Is that the Gawne fella who ran farming but wouldn't know a propellor if it hit him in the face.

I said it once and I'll say it again. The manx government concern about aviation extends to a nice little earner in registering private aircraft and, as far as airlines were concerned, as long as they flew in and flew out all is fine under those ever blue 'open skies'.

Just like they were caught with their trousers around their ankle sover Euromanx.

[Ron Herb]

I totally agree. The Manx Authority does not address such things as AOC holders and the general tone of the questions and answers in the house yesterday points to a general lack of aviation nouse.
As to the corner shop delivery van turned airline, local legislators should wake up to the fact that (ab)users of offshore islands, particularly in the aviation field need to be investigated with rather more rigor.

[Sillert,V.I.]

IMHO:

Aircrew have a responsibility not to operate their aircraft in an illegal manner

and

the AOC holder has a responsibility to monitor the aircrew it employs to ensure that they are not habitually operating their aircraft in an illegal manner

and

the regulator has a responsibility to monitor the AOC holder to ensure that their aircrew do not habitually operate their aircraft in an illegal manner.

On what I think is a reasonable assumption that this was not the first time this crew had operated their aircraft in this way, it would appear in this case that none of the above was actually taking place.

There seems little doubt that the aircrew acted in a thoroughly unprofessional way; that their decision to attempt any of their 3 approaches was in clear breach of the law, and that their actions in doing so led directly to this accident.

I do not, however, think that theirs was the only fault. If any of the 3 parties listed above had been doing their job properly, this accident would likely have been avoided.

[lfc84]

in this incident the AOC holder did not employ the crew

i wish people would read the report prior to posting

[Sillert,V.I.]

Sorry, perhaps 'employ' was the wrong word to use - surely though the AOC holder is still responsible for setting SOP's & ensuring compliance, even if they do not directly employ the aircrew - or is this one of the holes in the safety net associated with this business model?

[SloppyJoe]

Does it matter if the AOC holder employed the crew? Should the AOC holder have been aware of how the crew operated? Should the AOC holder have made sure the crew did not operate in the way they did?

I wish people would think before posting

[sevenstrokeroll]

do you want a safer manx airways?

create laws which require the crew to operate within safety norms (like not busting minimums).

AND THEN CREATE A LAW WHICH SAYS: a pilot will not lose his income and other benefits if he refuses to break air regulations. He will also be granted monies to rent airplanes to build flying time while any incident is judged...said incident to be any attempt to fire/discharge from employment for flying safely

[SloppyJoe]

Why would a professional pilot want money to rent an airplane? There are regulations already (like not busting minimums)