Crash-Cork Airport
Some years ago a Spanish registered Metro crashed on landing in low vis at PMI. The exact details escape me, but I seem to remember that it too flipped over.
Edit: EC-GKR 12-04-2002
Photos: Fairchild SA-227AC Metro III Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Note the similarities.
Edit: EC-GKR 12-04-2002
Photos: Fairchild SA-227AC Metro III Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Note the similarities.
Last edited by BRUpax; 11th Feb 2011 at 09:56.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But from my perspective on the ground, there wouldn't be much point in you commencing an approach if the cloud base was below the DH minimum for the category of approach that you are flying
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ireland
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it appears to me that most people in this thread are indeed talking s***. Nobody has any idea what happened, whether it was the pilots' fault, the airplane's fault, or just an "Act of God" (!!) nobody will know until the accident investigation is carried out.
Everybody citing the whole "two approaches" thing - wth? I have no idea what Manx2's (or indeed, the operating company in this case) limitations are, but our company SOPs state that you can carry out 2 approaches to one runway (ie 17) and one to the reciprocal end (ie 35). Obviously nobody would do this unless they were pretty sure that they would get in off the third approach.
The approach ban question is valid I suppose, but nobody will know the answer to this question until they officially give it. There is no use all this misinformation being bandied around like it is Fact, giving a company a bad name.
I agree with the idea that all these non-professionals on pprune should at least take a step back and realise how wrong/unwanted/unprofessional their views are.
LW
Everybody citing the whole "two approaches" thing - wth? I have no idea what Manx2's (or indeed, the operating company in this case) limitations are, but our company SOPs state that you can carry out 2 approaches to one runway (ie 17) and one to the reciprocal end (ie 35). Obviously nobody would do this unless they were pretty sure that they would get in off the third approach.
The approach ban question is valid I suppose, but nobody will know the answer to this question until they officially give it. There is no use all this misinformation being bandied around like it is Fact, giving a company a bad name.
I agree with the idea that all these non-professionals on pprune should at least take a step back and realise how wrong/unwanted/unprofessional their views are.
LW
NM designator is listed everywhere as belonging to Manx2, not FLM or Flightline (for the record, the accident flight was operated under the NM code).
From a purely legal perspective, whoever is the rightful user of the NM code (the legal entity to whom the code was designated, based on supporting documentation at time of designation) is the contracting party for the issued tickets, irrespective of what entity collected the money. Of course if it turns out that nobody legally owns the NM code, that will raise some very akward questions...
From a purely legal perspective, whoever is the rightful user of the NM code (the legal entity to whom the code was designated, based on supporting documentation at time of designation) is the contracting party for the issued tickets, irrespective of what entity collected the money. Of course if it turns out that nobody legally owns the NM code, that will raise some very akward questions...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is a real wake-up to anyone who thought this was a forum for Professional pilots. It has turned into a feeding-ground for the media to hoover up the most idiotic misinformation to pass on to the public. The signal to noise ratio here is not just dismal, it is almost zero. If the press are printing gobbledegook about this incident they could do no better than get it here, because the preceeding pages are bursting with it.
We have people prating on about an imaginary "three approach rule" and a fabulously inventive "2X improvement" whatever that may be - it is clear even they don't know.
There is clearly a major misunderstanding among some of the basic concept of a "rule", with advice and guidance being assigned this normally unambiguous designation. That is a very worrying trait indeed if the people involved are pilots but one that is, in my experience, becoming more common nowadays since the plethora of rules and rigid SOPs displaced airmanship. There is a widespread concept in some circles that if something is not mandatory it is forbidden - a worrying trend in misunderstanding the simple and fundamental concept of "must" and "should" which hitherto every ten year old knew instinctively. That appears not the case now.
We have constant discussion of Cat II and III minima in an incident involving a Cat I aircraft. Why, why would anyone bring up autoland minima with reference to a Metroliner? It cannnot perform even a Cat II approach so why the discussion? Worse, much worse is the evident misconception among some that Cat I minima include a cloudbase component, an admission that is to my mind simply incredible in a pilot, and inexcusable from someone who is not sufficiently knowlegeable to blab such utter nonsense from a position of ignorance.
"Go and see if it is landable at XXXX" is a euphemism for busting minimas? In your fertile imagination pal, and nowhere else. Do we really have people flying public transport aircraft who read that sort of content into a plain language statement? What's the difficulty with finding it isn't landable and acting accordingly- that's your Professional responsibility isn't it?
Some clearly don't understand the approach ban, something so fundamental that I would not have believed it possible until I read it here.
I shan't even start on RVRs vs Vis or taking METARS as being indicative of vis/RVR passed to an aircraft on its approach, or the ability claimed by some to divine the detailed dynamics of an accident from the position and cleanliness of an undercarrriage leg. Gawdelpus!
Please, this incident is in the spotlight right now, have a care about what you post as "facts", especially if you believe that a 200' cloudbase is part of the approach ban or that autoland minima affect Metroliners...
We have people prating on about an imaginary "three approach rule" and a fabulously inventive "2X improvement" whatever that may be - it is clear even they don't know.
There is clearly a major misunderstanding among some of the basic concept of a "rule", with advice and guidance being assigned this normally unambiguous designation. That is a very worrying trait indeed if the people involved are pilots but one that is, in my experience, becoming more common nowadays since the plethora of rules and rigid SOPs displaced airmanship. There is a widespread concept in some circles that if something is not mandatory it is forbidden - a worrying trend in misunderstanding the simple and fundamental concept of "must" and "should" which hitherto every ten year old knew instinctively. That appears not the case now.
We have constant discussion of Cat II and III minima in an incident involving a Cat I aircraft. Why, why would anyone bring up autoland minima with reference to a Metroliner? It cannnot perform even a Cat II approach so why the discussion? Worse, much worse is the evident misconception among some that Cat I minima include a cloudbase component, an admission that is to my mind simply incredible in a pilot, and inexcusable from someone who is not sufficiently knowlegeable to blab such utter nonsense from a position of ignorance.
"Go and see if it is landable at XXXX" is a euphemism for busting minimas? In your fertile imagination pal, and nowhere else. Do we really have people flying public transport aircraft who read that sort of content into a plain language statement? What's the difficulty with finding it isn't landable and acting accordingly- that's your Professional responsibility isn't it?
Some clearly don't understand the approach ban, something so fundamental that I would not have believed it possible until I read it here.
I shan't even start on RVRs vs Vis or taking METARS as being indicative of vis/RVR passed to an aircraft on its approach, or the ability claimed by some to divine the detailed dynamics of an accident from the position and cleanliness of an undercarrriage leg. Gawdelpus!
Please, this incident is in the spotlight right now, have a care about what you post as "facts", especially if you believe that a 200' cloudbase is part of the approach ban or that autoland minima affect Metroliners...
Originally Posted by EastCoaster
There is nothing to stop the pilot descending below 1000' if RVR values are below minima for the approach, but as mentioned previously, a measure of professional responsibility is expected.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: There's no place like home!
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fireflybob,
We could allow this to descend into symantics, but I think it would be best to allow this particular thread drift to disappear. I appreciate what you're saying, but in response - I have seen CAT I conditions where there is near perfect visibility below a solid, thick cloud layer at 100', with a cloud base below 100'. Likewise, I've seen CAT II conditions with the required RVR minima but vv///. Every approach is different. LVP conditions, by their very nature, are extremely dynamic.
But there again, my 10 years as a Tower and Approach controller probably precludes me from having any clue about what I'm talking about.
Enough of the drift, I've tried to help what I considered to be poorly informed posts, but there are obviously those who aren't interested in listening.
HundredPercentPlease: No such legislation exists in Ireland.
And before anyone suggests it: No this is not a toys out of the pram moment. Rant over.
We could allow this to descend into symantics, but I think it would be best to allow this particular thread drift to disappear. I appreciate what you're saying, but in response - I have seen CAT I conditions where there is near perfect visibility below a solid, thick cloud layer at 100', with a cloud base below 100'. Likewise, I've seen CAT II conditions with the required RVR minima but vv///. Every approach is different. LVP conditions, by their very nature, are extremely dynamic.
But there again, my 10 years as a Tower and Approach controller probably precludes me from having any clue about what I'm talking about.
Enough of the drift, I've tried to help what I considered to be poorly informed posts, but there are obviously those who aren't interested in listening.
HundredPercentPlease: No such legislation exists in Ireland.
And before anyone suggests it: No this is not a toys out of the pram moment. Rant over.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NM designator is listed everywhere as belonging to Manx2, not FLM or Flightline (for the record, the accident flight was operated under the NM code).
From a purely legal perspective, whoever is the rightful user of the NM code (the legal entity to whom the code was designated, based on supporting documentation at time of designation) is the contracting party for the issued tickets, irrespective of what entity collected the money. Of course if it turns out that nobody legally owns the NM code, that will raise some very akward questions...
From a purely legal perspective, whoever is the rightful user of the NM code (the legal entity to whom the code was designated, based on supporting documentation at time of designation) is the contracting party for the issued tickets, irrespective of what entity collected the money. Of course if it turns out that nobody legally owns the NM code, that will raise some very akward questions...
Codes - Airline and Airport Codes Search
NM = FLM Aviation
Suggest you check your sources - many of the non-official decoding websites are inaccurate As Manx2 is not an airline anyway, they cannot hold a IATA code.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The things I'd like to know are;
a) A transcript of RT from the start of the first approach. (esp. was RVR/vis passed at values below minima for an approach to commence/continue & was Wx for diversions passed)
b) TAFs and METARS for relevant stations as available at the time of their departure.
c) Fuel on board at departure.
d) The crew's duty records for the previous week or so.
e) Maintenance standards for that particular fleet, and I mean subjective opinion from company pilots, not fudgeable paper records. (Having experienced appalling standards in similarly sized aircraft in the past that could easily have resulted in an accident such as this)
a) A transcript of RT from the start of the first approach. (esp. was RVR/vis passed at values below minima for an approach to commence/continue & was Wx for diversions passed)
b) TAFs and METARS for relevant stations as available at the time of their departure.
c) Fuel on board at departure.
d) The crew's duty records for the previous week or so.
e) Maintenance standards for that particular fleet, and I mean subjective opinion from company pilots, not fudgeable paper records. (Having experienced appalling standards in similarly sized aircraft in the past that could easily have resulted in an accident such as this)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 624
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a thought, were LVP's and ILS Protection in force? given the crash site it is possible there may have been interference with the ILS signals. Security radios and blocking devices may have been active at the time, given the " content" of the aircraft. Apparently when the PMs convoy passed LHR just before the BA 777 crash, the ILS bent like a banana! Ok we accept it was not a factor there.. but food for thought??
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting question will be if the whole rather intransparent Manx2 set-up now comes under scrutiny, given that flights are sold as "Manx2", scheduled under the designator of a German airline (FLM) and operated under that designator - according to the Manx2 website - by a Spanish airline (Euro Continental) - although the aircraft acutally belonged to another Spanish airline (Flightline BCN) which appears to be linked to yet another Spanish airline (Ibertrans).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether this was a private flight, a public transport flight, where the tickets were sold from, the nationality of the aircraft, crew, or operator, all these things are irrelevant.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: dublin, ireland
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@BCFT
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhobbit
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.
I've seen some amazing posts in my time but this one surely tops the lot. What an incredible piece of drivel.
I am humbled by your insight
. OK speculate for me how those wheels look so pristine given that crashlandings right way up nearly always collapse u/c? (otherwise they would be...good landings
)
Does anyone know if the airplane came to rest pointing in the landing direction or not? I cannot figure how a hard CFIT type of crash could end up with the top of fuselage so badly damaged and at the same time the u/c unscathed. If the nosewheel collapsed and then the plane went over on its back then we would reasonably expect to see a badly damaged nosewheel and maybe also some bending of the main legs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hhobbit
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.
I've seen some amazing posts in my time but this one surely tops the lot. What an incredible piece of drivel.
. OK speculate for me how those wheels look so pristine given that crashlandings right way up nearly always collapse u/c? (otherwise they would be...good landings)Does anyone know if the airplane came to rest pointing in the landing direction or not? I cannot figure how a hard CFIT type of crash could end up with the top of fuselage so badly damaged and at the same time the u/c unscathed. If the nosewheel collapsed and then the plane went over on its back then we would reasonably expect to see a badly damaged nosewheel and maybe also some bending of the main legs.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Go and see if it is landable at XXXX" is a euphemism for busting minimas? In your fertile imagination pal, and nowhere else. Do we really have people flying public transport aircraft who read that sort of content into a plain language statement? What's the difficulty with finding it isn't landable and acting accordingly- that's your Professional responsibility isn't it?
Judging by the weather report and knowing that the forecast was for the fog to lift and baring in mind the aircraft wasn't due out from Cork until late afternoon why didn't the pilot just stay in Belfast and wait? If the weather is cack leave it a while best to arrive late than not at all.
Did the crew have the proper rest period before they reported for duty?
I don't think the crew did their best as that would have been sit tight in Belfast until they know the fogs starting to lift and put some extra fuel in the tanks in case you have to return to Belfast.
Was the third approach we can't divert anywhere now we have to get in and was the reason for the flip that a donkey ran out of fuel and stopped?
The AAIU will get to the bottom of it and hopefully this will not be allowed to happen again and that all companies doing this sort of thing will have to get an AOC.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ireland
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know if the airplane came to rest pointing in the landing direction or not? I cannot figure how a hard CFIT type of crash could end up with the top of fuselage so badly damaged and at the same time the u/c unscathed. If the nosewheel collapsed and then the plane went over on its back then we would reasonably expect to see a badly damaged nosewheel and maybe also some bending of the main legs
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm in no way qualified to comment, but in case it's relevant (and in case someone is capable of reading the Spanish), here's the link to the report from the "similar looking" accident in 2002. I'm not assuming any connection between the two accidents; but as mentioned above, the damage and final position of the plane is quite similar.
http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/D...2002_015_A.pdf
As an occasional Manx2 traveller, let me express my sympathies to those who have suffered from this unfortunate incident.
http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/D...2002_015_A.pdf
As an occasional Manx2 traveller, let me express my sympathies to those who have suffered from this unfortunate incident.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Ireland
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a Foggy Approach to Cork's Runway 17 looks like ?
This is what a foggy approach to Cork Airport runway 17 looks like from the cockpit. However conditions in this video are not bad at all. The fog would have been alot worse for the ill-fated Manx2 crew yesterday.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IATA is a commercial organisation which have nothing to do with operations and flight safety even they presenting themselves in this way too. So there are 2-letter IATA designators assigned to non-airlines, and I recall there are some designators assigned to non-aviation companies.
What is more bizzare there ICAO 3-letter codes issued to organisations which never had AOC.
p.s. came to my mind - a landing which ended wheels up with no engine probelms involved UTair Flight 471 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What is more bizzare there ICAO 3-letter codes issued to organisations which never had AOC.
p.s. came to my mind - a landing which ended wheels up with no engine probelms involved UTair Flight 471 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia