Crash-Cork Airport
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so why dont we work on known fact instead of rumor and speculation when trying to learn from this accident.
Fact: more than one approach was made
Fact: 75% of aeroplane accidents are caused by pilot error
Fact: they crashed.
English speaking is not a factor (you don't need to be able to speak English to read flight instruments), therefor either they had extreme bad luck and some sort of failure on approach which caused them to crash, or they messed up the approach and crashed. You also can tell from the flight instruments when you are above, at or below minimums and so even if they were not passed proper weather info, that judgement should have been made in the cockpit.
Therefore I'd suggest that there is a 25% chance that they had a failure which caused this.
The weather was reported as fog with 375 meters vis and the cloud base was 100 ft. Since this was a Cat 1 approach there is no way you can have had the required visual references to land when at the DH. Personally on receipt of a Metar like the above I just head for the alternate, unless there is some weather phenomenon forecast to cause a significant improvement in the weather, which was not the case when this accident occurred. I could maybe see one approach with the hope that you get lucky and see a hole but to fly 3, that is lunacy.
I know we are supposed to not rush to judgement, let all the facts come out etc etc, but I think it is time to call a spade a bloody shovel. These guys obviously kept on going lower and lower on multiple approaches until they hit the ground.
The accident stats are clear. This is just another example, in a long line of tragic examples, of aircraft crashing after multiple approaches. The US statistics are that the third approach is up to 15 times more likely to result in an accident than the first.......
I know we are supposed to not rush to judgement, let all the facts come out etc etc, but I think it is time to call a spade a bloody shovel. These guys obviously kept on going lower and lower on multiple approaches until they hit the ground.
The accident stats are clear. This is just another example, in a long line of tragic examples, of aircraft crashing after multiple approaches. The US statistics are that the third approach is up to 15 times more likely to result in an accident than the first.......
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Different point - I trained 4 chaps who went to Manx 2 to fly the Metroliner. 3 of them left at the first opportunity citing it as "the sort of company that you leave as soon as possible".
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Manchester
Age: 35
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big Pistons Forever & englishal
Seems a bit wrong placing blame and assigning cause without any evidence.
Lets forget spanish or non-british pilots being an issue as stated you dont need english to read numbers on an insturment and also all JAR pilots must have some degree of ability to speak english as this is now tested so not an issue.
but you dont know whats gone on, you dont know if ATC advised the crew of a improvment in weather you dont know if there was a malfunction all the "facts" reported are from the media who lets face it arnt pilots. and also we all know that what a metar states and what is the actual can be very different.
So it seems a little insensitve this soon after a tragic accident where lives were lost that you go finger pointing at crew and poor flying when you have no facts above whats gone on.
I dont want to gloss over whats been a sad event but there needs to be time to asses whats happened before conculsions are made. Not based on stats of other accidents or what we think.
Seems a bit wrong placing blame and assigning cause without any evidence.
Lets forget spanish or non-british pilots being an issue as stated you dont need english to read numbers on an insturment and also all JAR pilots must have some degree of ability to speak english as this is now tested so not an issue.
but you dont know whats gone on, you dont know if ATC advised the crew of a improvment in weather you dont know if there was a malfunction all the "facts" reported are from the media who lets face it arnt pilots. and also we all know that what a metar states and what is the actual can be very different.
So it seems a little insensitve this soon after a tragic accident where lives were lost that you go finger pointing at crew and poor flying when you have no facts above whats gone on.
I dont want to gloss over whats been a sad event but there needs to be time to asses whats happened before conculsions are made. Not based on stats of other accidents or what we think.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by big pistons forever
The weather was reported as fog with 375 meters vis and the cloud base was 100 ft. Since this was a Cat 1 approach there is no way you can have had the required visual references to land when at the DH
Besides - I've been cleared for CAT I approach (this is back in the 90s') only to be given RVR of 300m with the landing clearance
As I say this was a while ago... Otherwise Cork is a great airport to operate to!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not placing blame, only the facts.
It is irrelavent what ATC passed to the crew, if they couldn't see the runway at minimums (whichever applied) then they should have gone missed. They may well have had another situation developing that we don't know about, but fact is that pilots do screw up.
A friend of mine once screwed up on an IAP. Cost his life and 4 others (flew into a mountain when he should have gone missed).
It is irrelavent what ATC passed to the crew, if they couldn't see the runway at minimums (whichever applied) then they should have gone missed. They may well have had another situation developing that we don't know about, but fact is that pilots do screw up.
A friend of mine once screwed up on an IAP. Cost his life and 4 others (flew into a mountain when he should have gone missed).
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact or wild specualtion..?
Therefore I'd suggest that there is a 25% chance that they had a failure which caused this.
I could maybe see one approach with the hope that you get lucky and see a hole but to fly 3, that is lunacy.
Without invoking confirmation bias the thinking that may have been applied by this crew was driven by what they may have thought were their only option i.e. to attempt to get into Cork at all costs. Which then possibly suggests a critical failure of some form....perhaps a fuel issue? There didnt appear to be any signs of fire on impact although clearly this does not suggest a low fuel situation.
Lets consider all options before we start blaming crew and apportioning the title of "cowboy" to operators...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a measured RVR is not available then the "equivalent" RVR is calculated by multiplying the measured met vis by a factor of 1.5. So, 375m VIS becomes a factored met vis of 562m "RVR" (equivalent). But if the measured RVR was 375m then that is a different story.
As for cloudbase, the acceptable minimum on an ILS approach is 0'. Therefore, the only weather criterion that you need consider (legally at least) for an approach ban on an ILS is RVR.
I have personally seen Cork go from CAVOK to below CAT II from TOD to arriving at the LOC... (Off to Shannon we went) Vice versa, I've seen Cork go from NO-GO to CAT I in a couple of minutes. Ergo your comment vis a vis 375m/100' doesn't mean anything at this airport. Cork airport is on top of a cloudy and windy hill.... The weather changes very rapidly!
I have a question for my European brethren. In Canada, regulations prohibit the pilot from proceeding past the FAF on a Class1 ILS, with the weather as reported. If a pilot did continue with the approach the control tower would submit an occurance report and Transport Canada enforcement would start an investigation. So is there no regulations that prohibit the conduct of very low visibility approaches at UK/Ireland airports ?
375m VISIBILITY or 375m RVR? There is a BIG difference.
If a measured RVR is not available then the "equivalent" RVR is calculated by multiplying the measured met vis by a factor of 1.5. So, 375m VIS becomes a factored met vis of 562m "RVR" (equivalent). But if the measured RVR was 375m then that is a different story.
As for cloudbase, the acceptable minimum on an ILS approach is 0'. Therefore, the only weather criterion that you need consider (legally at least) for an approach ban on an ILS is RVR.
If a measured RVR is not available then the "equivalent" RVR is calculated by multiplying the measured met vis by a factor of 1.5. So, 375m VIS becomes a factored met vis of 562m "RVR" (equivalent). But if the measured RVR was 375m then that is a different story.
As for cloudbase, the acceptable minimum on an ILS approach is 0'. Therefore, the only weather criterion that you need consider (legally at least) for an approach ban on an ILS is RVR.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: where I lay my hat
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a pilot did continue with the approach the control tower would submit an occurance report
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: South of the Watford Gap, East of Portland
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargo Heat - Can not can.
My post was clearly prefixed 'off topic' so don't read it.
BFP - as WingoWango says, the rules are exactly the same here in Europe. If you shoot an approach after being told at the OM/4D/1000' that the RVR is now below your limits, then it is deemed an 'illegal' approach and the ATC authority is obliged to report it.
My post was clearly prefixed 'off topic' so don't read it.
BFP - as WingoWango says, the rules are exactly the same here in Europe. If you shoot an approach after being told at the OM/4D/1000' that the RVR is now below your limits, then it is deemed an 'illegal' approach and the ATC authority is obliged to report it.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I remember a Viscount at Manchester many years ago where a practice engine-out go-around went wrong. The result looked very similar to that Metroliner - upside down, wheels in the air, by the side of the runway.
Did something go wrong during a go-around from minimums? Maybe this wasn't just a 'press-on-itis' accident?
Did something go wrong during a go-around from minimums? Maybe this wasn't just a 'press-on-itis' accident?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aerofoil1
Yes you're kinda of right there (without going into the minutiae technicalities!) however in order for that kind of approach to be undertaken the runway needs to be certified for Cat II/III operations as does the aircraft and the crew trained to undertake these kind of approaches. Theres a lot of clues in this thread to suggest what the situation may have been with regards to those parameters. 
Going to an airfield with better conditions/visibility? Yes, that would have been a good option as their legal fuel requirement would have included a divert to a suitable alternate. However, most pilots here are asking why they DIDNT do that...
...one of the options is a CFIT: Controlled Flight Into Terrain - i.e. the crew flew a fully serviceable/working aircraft into land. Or they had a critical failure which neccessitated them making the approach into Cork only and were unable to get the aircraft down safely due to the failure.
Dont mean to teach you how to suck eggs and hope this helps...
Going to an airfield with better conditions/visibility? Yes, that would have been a good option as their legal fuel requirement would have included a divert to a suitable alternate. However, most pilots here are asking why they DIDNT do that...
...one of the options is a CFIT: Controlled Flight Into Terrain - i.e. the crew flew a fully serviceable/working aircraft into land. Or they had a critical failure which neccessitated them making the approach into Cork only and were unable to get the aircraft down safely due to the failure.
Dont mean to teach you how to suck eggs and hope this helps...
Join Date: May 2001
Location: fragglerock
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone tell me if Ireland has "Absolute Minima" below which ATC must inform a crew that if they commence an approach they will be required to take reporting action?
I am aware of this operator having to be reminded twice of this when requesting to make an approach when visibility was below Absolute minima at an airport operating under that requirement.
I am aware of this operator having to be reminded twice of this when requesting to make an approach when visibility was below Absolute minima at an airport operating under that requirement.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cork
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Visibility was terribly all around the valley below the Airport. I can only imagine how poor it was at the airport.
2) However it was improving significently all morning and quite quickly.
3) Reports here are that the pilot only made his third approach after a twenty minute wait - all the posts seem to have assumed the three approaches were in a short time period. At the time of the accident the fog had cleared fully in the city and a significent improvement in the area would have been evident. At the airport though it obviously was not so.
Can somebody clarify if it is possible when looking down through fog from above for visibility to be better than when looking ahead through it?
There has been mention that the aircraft landed on the runway but rather than continuing straight along ran at an angle and catapulated when the wheels hit the rain sodden grass. There has been so much rain in the area recently that I would imagine that it would have just hit mud if it ran off the runway.
2) However it was improving significently all morning and quite quickly.
3) Reports here are that the pilot only made his third approach after a twenty minute wait - all the posts seem to have assumed the three approaches were in a short time period. At the time of the accident the fog had cleared fully in the city and a significent improvement in the area would have been evident. At the airport though it obviously was not so.
Can somebody clarify if it is possible when looking down through fog from above for visibility to be better than when looking ahead through it?
There has been mention that the aircraft landed on the runway but rather than continuing straight along ran at an angle and catapulated when the wheels hit the rain sodden grass. There has been so much rain in the area recently that I would imagine that it would have just hit mud if it ran off the runway.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<Can somebody clarify if it is possible when looking down through fog from above for visibility to be better than when looking ahead through it? >>
Unquestiomably, yes. However, aviation professionals are fully aware of this.
Unquestiomably, yes. However, aviation professionals are fully aware of this.
Several years ago when in Lyenham Ops, one of our Hecs could see the runway and approach lights from over Exeter, but not from minimums. Ended up at Brize. Shallow fog, can see down through it but not horizontally, so yes, there is a significant difference.
Lot of talk about minimums and weather, but to me the key to this sad event is how did the a/c end up inverted. Low visibility CFIT accidents are typically wings level, slight nose down impacts. Hard landing induced inversion happens if one wing separates (the MD 11 patern), does not appear to be case here. One possible scenario a mis-handled engine failure on applying go-around power, the resulting torque imbalance inverting the a/c very rapidly... ?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Classic PPRUNE debate - mostly no facts and people talking 100% out of their arses.
Big pistons - I love the way that you have decided that the weather was not changing, and you do it in such a forceful manner. Pity you're talking rubbish - I departed from ORK about an hour or so before the accident this morning. On both arrival and departure the conditions were rapidly changing. The runway went from completely obscured at about 1000ft to completely visible and back again - all in a matter of seconds. We were given several visibility/RVR reports during the approach, in quick succession - ATC at Cork are very helpful and understand their environment.
The Cat II approach there is known for its idiosyncrasies given the undulating terrain. TBH I was wondering myself how long it would be before there'd be an accident.
Now we know.
Big pistons - I love the way that you have decided that the weather was not changing, and you do it in such a forceful manner. Pity you're talking rubbish - I departed from ORK about an hour or so before the accident this morning. On both arrival and departure the conditions were rapidly changing. The runway went from completely obscured at about 1000ft to completely visible and back again - all in a matter of seconds. We were given several visibility/RVR reports during the approach, in quick succession - ATC at Cork are very helpful and understand their environment.
The Cat II approach there is known for its idiosyncrasies given the undulating terrain. TBH I was wondering myself how long it would be before there'd be an accident.
Now we know.
