Crash-Cork Airport

[Lonewolf_50]

corsair, from what you presented there, I get the sense of "a major correction in close" as the last maneuver before things went finally wrong. Does that square with your understanding of the witness statement?

Given how the aircraft ended up (thanks to all for the pictures and links), it seems a stroke of good fortune (and a tribute to the EMS folks?) that so many survived ... a thin silver lining to this dark cloud.

[aterpster]

I am posting the direct link for the charts on my site since someone apparently had a problem getting through tinyurl.com:

http://www.terps.com/charts/Cork.pdf

The second chart shows that Runway 17 is approved for unrestricted CAT II operations. The CAT II chart also states, "Special Aircrew & Aircraft Certification Required." I point this out for the benefit of those who aren't familiar with the significant distinction between the first and second Jeppesen charts shown.

[sevenstrokeroll]

IF the witness statement is what actually happened, THEN:

sadly, we may point to potential pilot error.

sadly, the third approach...get there itis, and trying too hard claims another.

I don't have the exact bank angle that the metro wingtip will touch, but as you all should know, there shouldn't be much of any bank while over the runway in this situation. 5 degrees might be ok...but 10, 20, or even more ...forget it.


to prevent things like this in the future...MORE training. Simulated approaches gone bad showing that banking too near the ground is just asking for trouble.


I am sorry to have to say this. many of us mentioned over correcting near the ground as a cause for this tragedy.

while there might be some other cause, the scenario will probably hold true.

[aterpster]

sevenstrokeroll:

I don't have the exact bank angle that the metro wingtip will touch, but as you all should know, there shouldn't be much of any bank while over the runway in this situation. 5 degrees might be ok...but 10, 20, or even more ...forget it.

If this were a CAT I approach, which seems to be the case, then at a 200 DA, the runway must be in sight prior to being over it. The exception in the U.S. (I don't know about Europe) is that descent can be continued to as low as 100 feet if the approach lights are clearly visible at 200 feet and presumably used to correct any misalignment prior to the threshold.

[BOAC]

(I don't know about Europe)

- since this accident HAPPENED in 'Europe', you will find the relevant rules in Appendix 1 (Old) to OPS 1.430 (c)(3) and Appendix 1 (New) to OPS 1.430 (b)(6) in EUOPS.

[aterpster]

BOAC:

- since this accident HAPPENED in 'Europe', you will find the relevant rules in Appendix 1 (Old) to OPS 1.430 (c)(3) and Appendix 1 (New) to OPS 1.430 (b)(6) in EUOPS.

Thanks for the references. I looked them up and see the approach visual segment rules for Europe ('Europe') are essentially the same as those used in the colonies.

[BOAC]

Except in the 'fatherland' we do not have any '100ft' thing.

[SR71]

Way back, Airbus321 mentioned typical flight time for the sector was 1hr, and the aircraft crashed after approx 1hr 40mins in the air?

Lets say his fuel plan looks like (JAR OPS 1.255): A(5 mins?)+B(60 mins)+C(3 mins)+E(30mins) = 1hr 38mins of fuel.

I'd like to know the flight's typical endurance and the METARS/TAFS for the alternates whatever they typically are...

[sevenstrokeroll]

approximate fuel burn for the metro III is about 600 lbs total an hour.

with only ten passengers, I'm pretty sure the pilot could take at least three hours of fuel plus...

of course I don't know the cargo load.

aterpster...yes, alighnment should be done prior to crossing the threshold...I say again SHOULD>

And I've used that 100' thing as BoAC calls it...many times and legally/safely got in when others who hadn' t read the regs diverted

[Irish Steve]

Fuel Prices

There's been discussion of fuel in the last few messages.

Does anyone have accurate prices for Jet A1 at Cork and Belfast Harbour at the moment, I've tried Google searches, and there's nothing of value coming up.

[Borealis]

I heard that this was this captain's first flight. Can anyone comment on that? (Obviously all ppruners can, but I'm talking factwise...)

[stuckgear]

One lesson which needs to be learned very promptly here from the experiences of the US majors and their various contracted commuter carriers, operating with their own AOC (as here), but operating at the behest and with a public image of the main organisation

WHBM,

indeed, the FAA has had a 'bug up its ass' for a couple of years now on 'operational control' following a couple of specific accidents.

[22/04]

Now I almost fear to post this but have a query.

If hypothetically one were to fly a cat I cleared aircraft down an ILS approach keeping it on centreline and glideslope would it be directly over the centrline and at touchdown point on arrival (as at cat III aircraft flying the approach on autopilot would be) or are there inherent/allowable inaccuracies in the equipment on the aeroplane which would mean that you could have the on centreline and glide display and emerge off centreline/glide

I know that there could be gruond based discrepancies due to unprotected approach aids and that the correction required if you get off track will be progressively greater for the distance off track you are as you get closer to the threshold but let's discount these for the moment.

I am trying to put myself in the position of what I believe might be possible approaching at my minima with no fuel reserve.

[corsair]

Here's the link to the interview. Actually he's from Kent.

One News: Cork crash survivor recalls flight's final moments - Video - RTÉ News Player

[BOAC]

Generally speaking a Cat I ILS 'on-centreline/on GP' indication will put you spot over the touchdown point. In reality you could probably autoland on most Cat I installations although the necessary surveys and protections will not have been looked at. Certainly it was in my book of 'what to do if all else failed' to fly down to touchdown on such an ILS. Even the good old 'PAR' in the RAF was flown by my students many times (in good weather!) down to touchdown with remarkable consistency. The 'cone' of error near touchdown is so small as to be negligible. The biggest consideration is the localiser transmitter location, since if it is offset from the runway centreline (as some are) there could be problems as you near the touchdown. We can, of course, use the localiser on take-off as a double check on centre-line tracking too in low vis.

Try watching below 200' AGL on your next approach (assuming. of course, your mate is tracking 'like a god'). I will almost guarantee that the GP will drop off the bottom of the instrument as the a/c goes below 100' since a lot of pilots slacken off the glide far too early and go 'high' but if you were to stay on it, you would touch at (or just after with a flare) the TDZ.

[birdstrike]

22/04

In answer to your query, I flew in the flight checking role in the RAF for years.

The acceptable tolerances were so small that even when an ILS failed it's calibration I don't ever remember feeling that a safe landing could not have been made from decision height, even in the most marginal of conditions.

Certainly, the aircraft would never have been more than a few feet off the centreline and would also be safely in the touchdown zone, even with a 'failed' ILS.

[PBL]

Originally Posted by Borealis

I heard that this was this captain's first flight. Can anyone comment on that?

I doubt it very much, Borealis. Even in these days of pumped-up simulator-based training I don't think it's possible to acquire an ATPL without having flown a real airplane at least once.

[Mr A Tis]

I think the question being asked by Borealis was whether this was his first flight as Captain. The thread has already established that he had flown the route / aircraft before as co-pilot.

[PBL]

Maybe so, Mr A Tis, maybe so, thanks for pointing that out! I must have missed it.

[sevenstrokeroll]

I concur with birdstrike and BOAC and their view of the ils ground system. it is very robust and gets more and more precise the closer to the runway (antennas actually) as you fly.

I don't buy that they were low on fuel.

I do imagine that there are a few guys on the forum who know what it is like the last few feet above touchdown in heavy fog. For the preceeding two minutes or so, your vision is focused some 20 inches ahead of you on the instruments. INSTANTLY you have to refocus outside in a low visibility environment to actually land the plane.

One could write volumes on the subject. But it is this instant of transitioning to visual that can throw you off. A well trained crew has one guy on the gauges while the other is maneuvering in a pseudo visual environment. BUT if both guys were looking out the window, there might not have been someone to call an excessive bank angle near the ground. (and again, google: ''transitioning to visual'' on the avweb site for my article on the subject for more information )