Crash-Cork Airport
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BarbiesBoyFriend:
I posted the Jepp CAT I and CAT II charts at Post #83.
Unrestricted CAT II: 300m
Unrestricted CAT I: 550m
Limited CAT I: 750m
It's a long way from 375m up to 550 or whatever the CAT 1 min RVR is at Cork.
Unrestricted CAT II: 300m
Unrestricted CAT I: 550m
Limited CAT I: 750m
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: County Armagh
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YouTube - Jonathan Callanan Cork Airport Night Landing Feat John John
Video of a 17 Approach at Cork during excellent visbility. Looking at the AGL, loads of approach out, edge on right hand side of runway dont look too good, centreline looks iffy too (at date of video could be better or worse at the minute). I am not saying it would have anything to do with todays tragic accident but to me it does not look that good (on date of video). Saying that I really only ever see it at ground level and rarely from the air. At the end of the day AGL is there as visual aid, especially in LVP conditions, and as per CAP168 daily checks and maintenance is essential.
Any pilots have an opinion of the AGL in the video ?
Video of a 17 Approach at Cork during excellent visbility. Looking at the AGL, loads of approach out, edge on right hand side of runway dont look too good, centreline looks iffy too (at date of video could be better or worse at the minute). I am not saying it would have anything to do with todays tragic accident but to me it does not look that good (on date of video). Saying that I really only ever see it at ground level and rarely from the air. At the end of the day AGL is there as visual aid, especially in LVP conditions, and as per CAP168 daily checks and maintenance is essential.
Any pilots have an opinion of the AGL in the video ?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys I live in Cork an train in the flying school..Driving conditions around 9:30 were extremely poor on the way to the airport..Thick soupy fog,very tough flying conditions for anybody,especially a non CATII equpied aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shaggy Sheep Driver
"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?"
"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?"
Next thing we were told that they had changed their minds and we were coming in down wind from the sea. What a fantastic ride in - great skill from the pilot - I guess a tailwind of 20 knots makes for an exciting landing for you guys up front !!!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hate these threads when accidents occur. They'd be great if only we could view what we post, then we could rumour and muse to our hearts content, but unfortunately everyone can see them. See my above post. And that means whatever is theorised by anybody, expert or not can be seen by anybody and taken out of context. I think as a profession when posting on a public forum that is often plundered by the media we should watch our mouths when a tragedy has occurred out of respect of those involved and our fellow Airmen.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Cork
Age: 45
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They approached twice then went into a hold for 20 mins. This would signify they followed the rules. As mentioned above the fog was very patchy. I was at traffic lights in Cork 20 mins before the accident and couldn't see 100m in front of me. Then all of a sudden I could see over 1km, then back down to about 300m. All in the space of a minute or so.
There are eye-witness reports, therefore the tower had to have seen it, unless the eye-witnesses were closer than the tower, unlikely in Cork.
There are eye-witness reports, therefore the tower had to have seen it, unless the eye-witnesses were closer than the tower, unlikely in Cork.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prior to arriving ORK you check your alternate(s). They're good.
You make 2 approaches into ORK and miss twice because between the outer marker and decision, the RVR drops significantly and you don't get the visual reference.
You get into the hold above ORK off the back of your company procedures and check your alternate(s) again to find they've dropped below minimums. There is nothing good in range.
You've done everything by the book so far, but your day just got a lot worse.
No idea what the alternate(s) were and whether there was widespread fog down there this morning...
I've been into ORK many times.
I have Manx2 guys living next door to me.
Terrible day.
You make 2 approaches into ORK and miss twice because between the outer marker and decision, the RVR drops significantly and you don't get the visual reference.
You get into the hold above ORK off the back of your company procedures and check your alternate(s) again to find they've dropped below minimums. There is nothing good in range.
You've done everything by the book so far, but your day just got a lot worse.
No idea what the alternate(s) were and whether there was widespread fog down there this morning...
I've been into ORK many times.
I have Manx2 guys living next door to me.
Terrible day.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deeply sorry for the victims, and all their relatives. as a professional pilot of 30 years, I have just had a discussion with my wife regarding the speculation and reporting surrounding this accident. For those with a personal interest that alone must simply add to the deep distress.
Nobody should take any notice whatsoever of all the ignoramuses bumping their gums together on the basis of utter ignorance of the facts!
Only when the inquiry has taken place will anyone know what happened. IF (and that's a very BIG 'if') human error has been the cause, then those of us remaining in this safety critical industry, have to attempt to learn lessons, to prevent us falling into the same 'trap'.
There is no shame in humans making errors. It's what we are designed to do. It's a constant battle to avoid it. Everybody makes errors, but most have the luxury of simply screwing it up, chucking it in a bin, and starting again on a new sheet. This industry is rather less forgiving.
Nobody should take any notice whatsoever of all the ignoramuses bumping their gums together on the basis of utter ignorance of the facts!
Only when the inquiry has taken place will anyone know what happened. IF (and that's a very BIG 'if') human error has been the cause, then those of us remaining in this safety critical industry, have to attempt to learn lessons, to prevent us falling into the same 'trap'.
There is no shame in humans making errors. It's what we are designed to do. It's a constant battle to avoid it. Everybody makes errors, but most have the luxury of simply screwing it up, chucking it in a bin, and starting again on a new sheet. This industry is rather less forgiving.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 11th Feb 2011 at 06:59.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just possibly, running off the tarmac into a grassy area could have flipped the aircraft. It happened to me in Ireland, years ago, at Kerry. What looked like grass turned out to be a bog.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South East
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No professional pilot would start pointing the finger and judging without knowing the full facts and even then it's unacceptable. All us pilots know how many variable hidden causes and reasons there are in aviation. RIP to all those involved. As far as I'm concerned I lost two colleagues today.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Crawley
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this but if the plane took off at 0812 and crashed at 0952, maybe he was all out of options. Flight time is normally 1 hr and 1hr 40mins into the flight the Reserve fuel may have been well eaten into and it was land no matter what. One of the doctors said none of the 6 survivors had burn injuries and the aircraft didn't have much fire damage suggests to me there wasn't alot of fuel onboard.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadinghedges
Please provide a reference to this if you quote it as a rule applicable to this operator
BarbiesBoyfriend
Oh, so you've listened to the tapes have you with the ATC readouts of the current / instant RVRs? Or you are saying the METAR RVRs bear any resemblance to the ATC RVRs in (as described above) dynamically changing vis 
Southernboy
Might I suggest there is no such universal rule. I operate for a "major" UK airline, and the rule uses a "should", a "normally" about not attempting an "immediate" 3rd approach without significant improvement. As such it is a woolly / advice type rule, and I suspect only a company one anyway. The way I read it, is advice not to make a 3rd approach unless you've got some solid ground to say it has a better chance, and are prepared to justify it.
the three approach rule applies to the instrument runway
BarbiesBoyfriend
Did the RVR get up to CAT 1 minimums or didn't it? Sure don't look like it.
Southernboy
From memory only 2 are permitted under Uk rules unless there's a significant weather improvement
Psychophysiological entity
Big Pistons quotes:
This is an astonishing statistic, and seems to substantiate the 'advice' but I have to say, I always felt some annoyance at being refused an approach when I would be the only one with the required overall information to make such a decision.
Having said that, in 40 years it never came up, but it annoyed me anyway.
The US statistics are that the third approach is up to 15 times more likely to result in an accident than the first.......
This is an astonishing statistic, and seems to substantiate the 'advice' but I have to say, I always felt some annoyance at being refused an approach when I would be the only one with the required overall information to make such a decision.
Having said that, in 40 years it never came up, but it annoyed me anyway.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a nice house
Posts: 981
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am loathe to add to the speculation on here, but something someone said earlier made me look again. The aircraft appears to have made it to the runway. As all of us who've operated in Cat 3b conditions know, it is often difficult to taxi when its really thick pea soup. Perhaps they did land but the runway viz closed in and caused runway excursion at high speed or disorientation just prior to touchdown? I can imagine that suddenly hitting a wall of fog on landing could have caused some issues. And they do appear to be roughly the right distance from the threshold. Will be interesting to read the report.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see nothing that would support a below minimums blotched NP approach accident scenario that seems to be discussed ad nauseam on this thread.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes going into TGU in Honduras if we missed the south approach our company procedure was to land on the opposite runway with lower altitude limits to circle to land on the same runway as from the north sector. We did it a few times with no problems. We could make as many approaches as we wanted but on low ceiling approaches we usually did one each direction then held until we had to divert to an alternate. It was very safe. You could only bust your butt there if you did something stupid. Pilots might get desperate on the third approach but ATC shouldn't be involved in cockpit decisions. Let them do a dozen approaches if they choose to.
TGU was named the most dangerous airport in the world to land at by a commercial airline. Hundreds of landings there convinced me it was just an airport and you have to pay attention.
TGU was named the most dangerous airport in the world to land at by a commercial airline. Hundreds of landings there convinced me it was just an airport and you have to pay attention.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: dublin, ireland
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hhobbit: Quote:
The condition of the u/c indicates the wheels made no contact with the ground, so it seems the a/c contacted in present and final attitude. Therefore this was more than a hard landing from a botched approach, or so it would appear.
Unfortunately this thread has quickly descended into the usual amateur-investigator nonsense.
You have clearly overlooked the fact that undercarriages appear to be in good condition thousands of times every day after 'contact with the ground'. How the hell can you detect that this undercarriage didn't contact the ground from pictures?
How the hell can you conclude that the aircraft 'contacted in present and final attitude'. That is highly improbable amateur speculation.
Who the hell are you to judge that it was a 'botched approach'?
You have provided clear evidence that amateurs should leave it to the professional accident investigators to do their job, rather than spout utter drivel and unfounded nonsense in an attempt to look clever - which, for the record, you don't!
The condition of the u/c indicates the wheels made no contact with the ground, so it seems the a/c contacted in present and final attitude. Therefore this was more than a hard landing from a botched approach, or so it would appear.
Unfortunately this thread has quickly descended into the usual amateur-investigator nonsense.
You have clearly overlooked the fact that undercarriages appear to be in good condition thousands of times every day after 'contact with the ground'. How the hell can you detect that this undercarriage didn't contact the ground from pictures?
How the hell can you conclude that the aircraft 'contacted in present and final attitude'. That is highly improbable amateur speculation.
Who the hell are you to judge that it was a 'botched approach'?
You have provided clear evidence that amateurs should leave it to the professional accident investigators to do their job, rather than spout utter drivel and unfounded nonsense in an attempt to look clever - which, for the record, you don't!
They are written with a confidence level of 50% (carefully re-read the wording) which is appropriate with said tone. The remarks are to be interpreted as ruling out a simple hard landing.