A321 runway excursion Lyon.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Here and there.
Age: 65
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hermes is the greek branch of Air Mediterranee, a french charter airline.
It has been set up because of the "high cost" of European crews (i.e French, British, German...)
The basic salary of a captain is 3200 Euros/month + 11 Euros per diem/duty day.
A FO is paid 1500 Euros/month + 5.5 Euros per diem/duty day.
Now, let's guess what are the funds for maintenance, crew training, and recruitment.
It has been set up because of the "high cost" of European crews (i.e French, British, German...)
The basic salary of a captain is 3200 Euros/month + 11 Euros per diem/duty day.
A FO is paid 1500 Euros/month + 5.5 Euros per diem/duty day.
Now, let's guess what are the funds for maintenance, crew training, and recruitment.
Usual story. Pax book on Airline A (Air Mediterranee in this case), familiar sounding, HQ in France, brochure says Air Med, pictures of Air Med aircraft, etc. On the day plane painted up in their livery with nothing on the outside that implies otherwise (apart from an SX- reg), however it actually belongs to and is operated and crewed by Airline Y from bankrupt non-Francophone country Z. Tickets manage to hide this in minimalist legalese small print at bottom of page nnn, "CarrierReservesRightToOperateAlternateCarriersFlightsOperat edBy HermesYaddaYaddaYadda" (ah, this also being the name of a French luxury goods manufacturer, how convenient).
When the crunch comes, Air Med PR swings into action, suddenly Hermes is the only name they write about, Hermes aircraft, Hermes flight, etc. Media just swallows all this despite what the big letters on the side of the aircraft sitting in the weeds may say.
When the crunch comes, Air Med PR swings into action, suddenly Hermes is the only name they write about, Hermes aircraft, Hermes flight, etc. Media just swallows all this despite what the big letters on the side of the aircraft sitting in the weeds may say.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: athens
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to add that the co pilots are paying to fly( 40.000. € ) for 500 hours. Also the same happens to the captains with no hours on type , the only difference is that the company provides the line training and the first 500 hours without paying the pilots except per diem when they are out of Greece.
Also someone has to go through the duty and rest times...there is always some interesting things to find....
Also someone has to go through the duty and rest times...there is always some interesting things to find....
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a plane
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tubby, the engines are CFM.
Why have some people written here about salaries and per diems as if they are fact when they are wrong?
And deadheading from Athens in the same day they did this flight? Also not true.
Please stop the speculation, it only causes for negativity and judgement.
Why have some people written here about salaries and per diems as if they are fact when they are wrong?
And deadheading from Athens in the same day they did this flight? Also not true.
Please stop the speculation, it only causes for negativity and judgement.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Thick Fog" would seem to qualify as "low visibility"?
"...The airport confirmed the aircraft overran the end of runway B by about 300 meters while landing in thick fog and got stuck in deep mud...".
Sir, I would think that "landing in thick fog" perhaps qualifies as a potential "low visibility landing" event or accident"???
Sir, I would think that "landing in thick fog" perhaps qualifies as a potential "low visibility landing" event or accident"???
Ut Sementem Feeceris
The question arises because the actual (METAR) states visibility of 2km and RVR's of 1700m - that's not "thick fog". It's misty (BR) but not foggy (FG). The cloudbase is more problematic - SCT/BKN at 100'.
If the quote came from an airport spokesperson that may explain it. Alternatively, it may be the journo try to add more drama/"shock horror" to the article.
Tom, you obviously have an agenda/interest on GLS/GBAS - it will come (eventually) but is going to require a huge amount of testing before airlines and crews are prepared to carryout CAT IIIB 75m Autolands. The fact is that ILS,despite it's limitations, has been used for decades and is used 10,000's times EVERY DAY perfectly safely. I would be very surprised if this event at LFLL has anything to do with ground equipment.
A4
If the quote came from an airport spokesperson that may explain it. Alternatively, it may be the journo try to add more drama/"shock horror" to the article.
Tom, you obviously have an agenda/interest on GLS/GBAS - it will come (eventually) but is going to require a huge amount of testing before airlines and crews are prepared to carryout CAT IIIB 75m Autolands. The fact is that ILS,despite it's limitations, has been used for decades and is used 10,000's times EVERY DAY perfectly safely. I would be very surprised if this event at LFLL has anything to do with ground equipment.
A4
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fear the chances of getting anything sensible out of this thread are minimal - French subsidiary, operated by a Greek (presumably loco) company in a 'mishap' at a French airfield in LVPs .....................??
- from your post we must assume you have the correct crew roster info then - care to share? (Plus any other 'real' info?)
Originally Posted by MoonandBack
Please stop the speculation, it only causes for negativity and judgement.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a plane
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fab777 said:
"Crew deadheaded from Athen, flew LYS -> DKR, then DKR -> AGA, then AGA -> DKR."
LYS- DKR is a six hour flight. This cannot be done on an A321 if I am correct (unless the aircraft would be empy), and would need a tech stop in AGA for refuelling each way. This would have brought duty time to over 15 hours - well over the limit. The crew would have started in DKR, stopped at AGA, and flown on to LYS.
"Crew deadheaded from Athen, flew LYS -> DKR, then DKR -> AGA, then AGA -> DKR."
LYS- DKR is a six hour flight. This cannot be done on an A321 if I am correct (unless the aircraft would be empy), and would need a tech stop in AGA for refuelling each way. This would have brought duty time to over 15 hours - well over the limit. The crew would have started in DKR, stopped at AGA, and flown on to LYS.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok.....Try this theory for size.
They carried out a coupled Cat 1 approach in marginal (but do-able) conditions of cloudbase..... the vis was fine. Bear in mind of course that flying Cat 1 approaches to minimums is not something you do regularly when you live in a nice warm Mediterranean country.
The HP sees the required references at DA and immediately punches the AP out without waiting to build his visual SA in the interventing 20s or so before touchdown. Like so many inexperienced pilots I have sat next to.... he handles the instrument/visual transition badly. With the limited visual references he becomes ground-shy and begins to wander above the glide. By the time he notices..... his touchdown point is already beyond the touchdown zone. He becomes even more resolved to put this thing down.... but as the vertical profile has become unstable he burns up even more tarmac trying. Finally he gets the nosewheel down at which point they both witness red & white centreline lights.... and it is all too bloody late.
Driving 300m through mud in a 65 tonne 321 is a pretty fair effort !
Perversely we all (western Europeans anyway) beat ourselves up about stable gates at 1000' / 500' or whatever...... These guys may actually have been perfectly stable at DA and still managed an upwind overrun.
Perhaps all those stable approach criteria are actually a complete waste of time ?
They carried out a coupled Cat 1 approach in marginal (but do-able) conditions of cloudbase..... the vis was fine. Bear in mind of course that flying Cat 1 approaches to minimums is not something you do regularly when you live in a nice warm Mediterranean country.
The HP sees the required references at DA and immediately punches the AP out without waiting to build his visual SA in the interventing 20s or so before touchdown. Like so many inexperienced pilots I have sat next to.... he handles the instrument/visual transition badly. With the limited visual references he becomes ground-shy and begins to wander above the glide. By the time he notices..... his touchdown point is already beyond the touchdown zone. He becomes even more resolved to put this thing down.... but as the vertical profile has become unstable he burns up even more tarmac trying. Finally he gets the nosewheel down at which point they both witness red & white centreline lights.... and it is all too bloody late.
Driving 300m through mud in a 65 tonne 321 is a pretty fair effort !
Perversely we all (western Europeans anyway) beat ourselves up about stable gates at 1000' / 500' or whatever...... These guys may actually have been perfectly stable at DA and still managed an upwind overrun.
Perhaps all those stable approach criteria are actually a complete waste of time ?
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: In a plane
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magplug you seem to make a lot of sense in that post, and I think you're probably very accurate in what happened. However, these guys do all their flying from CDG & Lyon, so your comment about 'flying in Mediterranean countries' is slightly flippant.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 84
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
two holes in the swiss cheese
I think with all the commotion in this thread two questions have not yet been asked and also not answered.
Why did the crew decide to land on the shorter runway ?
Why did the crew accept a landing on rwy 36R with a starting or increasing(Metar) tailwind component seen the reported weather situation?
Why did the crew decide to land on the shorter runway ?
Why did the crew accept a landing on rwy 36R with a starting or increasing(Metar) tailwind component seen the reported weather situation?
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: earth
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Madplug, you are so spot on.
This might be the biggest hole in the Swiss cheese today!
With the ever more limited basic training, all in the sim, and the even more limited exposure to manual training on line, thanks to hand-cuffing sop's, it might only get worse.
The reaction of the industry by implementing some manual handling sim sessions is nothing more than a badly adhering band-aid.
What is needed is a more profound basic training in real aircraft (esp. aerobatics) and more manual handling in the real thing, the sim is just a more sophisticated app.
These guys may actually have been perfectly stable at DA and still managed an upwind overrun ...
... he handles the instrument/visual transition badly. With the limited visual references he becomes ground-shy and begins to wander above the glide ...
... he handles the instrument/visual transition badly. With the limited visual references he becomes ground-shy and begins to wander above the glide ...
With the ever more limited basic training, all in the sim, and the even more limited exposure to manual training on line, thanks to hand-cuffing sop's, it might only get worse.
The reaction of the industry by implementing some manual handling sim sessions is nothing more than a badly adhering band-aid.
What is needed is a more profound basic training in real aircraft (esp. aerobatics) and more manual handling in the real thing, the sim is just a more sophisticated app.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Magplug: i think you're spot on!
And: 36R is the normal ldg rwy in LFLS. 36L for TO. And 2700m is NOT short at all for A321 or widebodies! Shorter runways are used for landing in Paris CDG, Or JFK 22L for instance...
And: 36R is the normal ldg rwy in LFLS. 36L for TO. And 2700m is NOT short at all for A321 or widebodies! Shorter runways are used for landing in Paris CDG, Or JFK 22L for instance...
300m off the end of a 2700m runway realistically means either a) retardation devices (brakes, spoilers, reverse) failed or not deployed or b) very deep and/or fast touchdown.
From passenger reports, it seems the brakes and reversers were in use, so that leaves b). To get 300m on grass/mud, you're looking at leaving the tarmac at 80kts+ groundspeed.
Reminds me a bit of AA331 or even Air India Express 812. Results would have been similar if the overrun at LYS wasn't so benign.
From passenger reports, it seems the brakes and reversers were in use, so that leaves b). To get 300m on grass/mud, you're looking at leaving the tarmac at 80kts+ groundspeed.
Reminds me a bit of AA331 or even Air India Express 812. Results would have been similar if the overrun at LYS wasn't so benign.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: universe
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While the days of ILS may be numbered it is still a far more reliable system that RNP at this point in time. I fly both regularly, including GNSS, RNP-AR and regular RNAV approaches. They all must be monitored very carefully especially during GP intercept. I have had many more problems with these GPS approaches than ILS. The future will definitely be RNP but not until there is a ground based element to allow CAT3 and filter out the built in errors of GPS. At the moment all it takes is the wrong QNH to be set in the FMS and the approach wont work as your crossing heights will be wrong. There are numerous examples of ATC passing the wrong setting! Think I will stick to ILS for a few more years.
