Accident in LIN involving a SAS aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pleiades
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Devil's Advocate,
You've gone down pretty heavy on Italian ATC. I've lived and worked in italy for a number of years and flown throughout Europe. I also happened to be involved in traing ATC in the English language.
Compared to British, Dutch and German controllers, I agree the Italians are way behind but I do find them alot better than the French.
The Italian ATC may not speak perfect English but they do their best, while the French babble on in their native languafe all the time. Having flown in and out of CDG hundreds of times I find their ATC terrible. It's about time they realized that they lost the war!
Going back to the accident at LIN: the secondary runway is 36L and only used for small piston aircraft, it is also difficult to recognize while taxying from the GA apron. The German pilots probably mistook 36R for 36L and crossed.
You've gone down pretty heavy on Italian ATC. I've lived and worked in italy for a number of years and flown throughout Europe. I also happened to be involved in traing ATC in the English language.
Compared to British, Dutch and German controllers, I agree the Italians are way behind but I do find them alot better than the French.
The Italian ATC may not speak perfect English but they do their best, while the French babble on in their native languafe all the time. Having flown in and out of CDG hundreds of times I find their ATC terrible. It's about time they realized that they lost the war!
Going back to the accident at LIN: the secondary runway is 36L and only used for small piston aircraft, it is also difficult to recognize while taxying from the GA apron. The German pilots probably mistook 36R for 36L and crossed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
My deepest condolences to all involved.
Iīll wait and see what the four accident investigation groups find (German,Swedish,Italian, and NTSB of the USA) They are all working hard to get to the bottom of this.
2 weeks ago, we at our company were heartbroken when we signed books of condolences to our colleagues at AA and UA. Now today we are doing it again for our own. This is a first for me, loosing people I know, to an airplane accident. I pray itīs the last.
Joakim,Anders,Lise Lotte,Olaf,Janne,Eiler
it was a priveledge knowing you. RIP
Iīll wait and see what the four accident investigation groups find (German,Swedish,Italian, and NTSB of the USA) They are all working hard to get to the bottom of this.
2 weeks ago, we at our company were heartbroken when we signed books of condolences to our colleagues at AA and UA. Now today we are doing it again for our own. This is a first for me, loosing people I know, to an airplane accident. I pray itīs the last.
Joakim,Anders,Lise Lotte,Olaf,Janne,Eiler
it was a priveledge knowing you. RIP
Pegase Driver
Dear Oh Dear ! Italian monkeys and French loosing wars ...
With this sort of language in the posts we are surely going to make good progress and bridge the gap between pilots and controllers.
Safety investigation is trying to prevent something from happening again. Not to find out who is to blame .
There will be 3 separate investigations in the LIN crash including a judiciary one. And knowing the judges in Italy I would not be so sure that there will be many stones left unturned. The result of the investigations might reveal more than one shortcoming...
This is Italy not Singapore...
Just wait a bit more for the investigations to come up with some good old FACTS....
In the meantime, my sincere condoleances to the families of the crew and pax.
With this sort of language in the posts we are surely going to make good progress and bridge the gap between pilots and controllers.
Safety investigation is trying to prevent something from happening again. Not to find out who is to blame .
There will be 3 separate investigations in the LIN crash including a judiciary one. And knowing the judges in Italy I would not be so sure that there will be many stones left unturned. The result of the investigations might reveal more than one shortcoming...
This is Italy not Singapore...
Just wait a bit more for the investigations to come up with some good old FACTS....
In the meantime, my sincere condoleances to the families of the crew and pax.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Norway
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DeeBee: Nobody really knows exactly how it happened yet, but judging by the the distence the MD80 had covered down the runway, it had passed V1 and was probably about to rotate when it hit the Cessna. (V1 is a speed at which it is too late to discontinue the takeoff and stop the aircraft before the end of the runway.)
The cockpit seems pretty intact from the picturs of the wreckage, so it might seem like the nose wheel was lifted from the ground at impact, but we just don't know yet. Wether the rotation was initiated at the normal rotation speed, or as an evasive manouver by the pilot(s) as they saw the Cessna coming towards them through the fog, just a seecond or two before impact, the Flight Data Recorder will give us an answer to.
The aircraft caught fire the moment it hit the baggage handling building just off the end and a little bit right of the runway, so I don't think the fire department's reaction time would have mattered in this case.
This accident is a result of many tragic factors, and after the accident was a reality, even more tragic factors made this accident as fatal as it did for all on board, and those in the baggage handling building.
I guess the reason why this hasn't been discussed on the forum is that as professional pilots it is more natural to discuss all the factors leading up to an accident. That's what our job is all about. Our job is to prevent these things from happening at all. What happens after the accident is kinda the primary concern of the Cabin Crew and the Fire Department.
Don't get me wrong here: The Captain is responsible for his passengers and the whole Crew is thoroughly drilled and professional when it comes to an "On Ground Emergency." But still, I must at least say personally, I am more concerned with preventing the accident from happening in the first place than what happens after. And I think that is where the focus should be for us.
And I can assure you: Like with all other accidents throughout the history of commercial aviation: Flying will be safer after this accident too.
Nick.
The cockpit seems pretty intact from the picturs of the wreckage, so it might seem like the nose wheel was lifted from the ground at impact, but we just don't know yet. Wether the rotation was initiated at the normal rotation speed, or as an evasive manouver by the pilot(s) as they saw the Cessna coming towards them through the fog, just a seecond or two before impact, the Flight Data Recorder will give us an answer to.
The aircraft caught fire the moment it hit the baggage handling building just off the end and a little bit right of the runway, so I don't think the fire department's reaction time would have mattered in this case.
This accident is a result of many tragic factors, and after the accident was a reality, even more tragic factors made this accident as fatal as it did for all on board, and those in the baggage handling building.
I guess the reason why this hasn't been discussed on the forum is that as professional pilots it is more natural to discuss all the factors leading up to an accident. That's what our job is all about. Our job is to prevent these things from happening at all. What happens after the accident is kinda the primary concern of the Cabin Crew and the Fire Department.
Don't get me wrong here: The Captain is responsible for his passengers and the whole Crew is thoroughly drilled and professional when it comes to an "On Ground Emergency." But still, I must at least say personally, I am more concerned with preventing the accident from happening in the first place than what happens after. And I think that is where the focus should be for us.
And I can assure you: Like with all other accidents throughout the history of commercial aviation: Flying will be safer after this accident too.
Nick.
This topic of taxi-way marking has worried me for a while now. In most places we fly to (major international airports) the taxiway signs, placed on the grass never seem that obvious. Why can we not paint taxiway designators on the taxiways themselves with lead-in lines for cross taxiways. Even on wet days I'm sure paint that stands out could be used, even if it means painting taxiways a different colour. Even on a CAVOK day I have seen people take the wrong turn. The u/s radar is a red herring, the lighting/signs should be good enough to prevent a wrong turn.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nick,
They had indeed rotated. Now, whether it was because they had reached Vr, or it was a last ditch effort to get above the Citation, I donīt know. Iīm sure we will soon, if we just let the investigation teams do their job.
But an ACARS "off" report was received in Copenhagen from the aircraft datalink system.
Itīs a datalink report, automatically sent when the nose strut of the aircraft extends on rotation, and the ground shift mechanism senses that the nose is in the air.
Rgds, Ace
They had indeed rotated. Now, whether it was because they had reached Vr, or it was a last ditch effort to get above the Citation, I donīt know. Iīm sure we will soon, if we just let the investigation teams do their job.
But an ACARS "off" report was received in Copenhagen from the aircraft datalink system.
Itīs a datalink report, automatically sent when the nose strut of the aircraft extends on rotation, and the ground shift mechanism senses that the nose is in the air.
Rgds, Ace
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to see the cover story in the October issue of "Avionics" magazine entitled "Can we say Arrivederci to runway incursions?'
Exerpts...
ENAV SpA, Italy's air traffic services provider, was mindful of the growing problem of surface incursions and knew that the about 245,000 aircraft movements that occurred at Malpensa during its first year as an air transport hub would grow dramatically in number.
ENAV selected Alenia Marconi Systems to upgrade the airport's surface control by installing the manufacturer's Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS). The A-SMGCS incorporates a
surface movement radar (SMR) and digital open architecture capable of fusing information from various sources and presenting a clear overview of ground activity to controllers in the Malpensa tower. (Commissioned on Jan15)
With the A-SMGCS' prodigious processing power, the SMR signals are fused with those of the approach radar by the sensors data handling subsystem(SDHS). Composed of the surface tracking processor and the A-SMGCS
central processor, the SDHS provides controllers with a seamless presentation of the aircraft taking off, landing and moving on the ground. An aircraft's identity or call sign, fed by the secondary radar, remains on the controller's screen even when the aircraft taxis on the ground. Soon that data will be fused with information from a VHF data link that shows the positions of ground vehicles.
Preset parameters in the A-SMGCS at Malpensa give controllers an alert when the separation between taxiing aircraft is less than 3 nm.
Likewise, when an aircraft crosses a taxiway to pose a potential conflict with another aircraft, the call signs representing the two
aircraft begin flashing on the controller's screen and a red line showing the path of possible conflict appears. The system architecture also incorporates the visual aids management subsystem (VAMS), which
controls taxiway centre lights, stop bars and other ground lights. A guidance system directs pilots as they maneuver their aircraft along taxiways at night or in low-visibility conditions. Taxiway routes
programmed by the controllers at their consoles will direct the A-SMGCS to automatically illuminate about 10 lights (each about 130 feet apart on straight sections and 33 to 50 feet apart on curves) in front of a taxiing aircraft. The lamps automatically turn off as the aircraft
passes. If an aircraft makes a wrong turn, the controller is alerted and can redirect the aircraft by contacting the pilot and quickly establishing another taxi route. So far 380 lights have been programmed into the system and they hope to program all of the more that 1,000 lights at Malpensa by the end of the year.
Similar systems are being installed at Bologna's Gugliemo Marconi airport and Fiumicino's Leonardo da Vinci. No mention of plans for Linate.
Exerpts...
ENAV SpA, Italy's air traffic services provider, was mindful of the growing problem of surface incursions and knew that the about 245,000 aircraft movements that occurred at Malpensa during its first year as an air transport hub would grow dramatically in number.
ENAV selected Alenia Marconi Systems to upgrade the airport's surface control by installing the manufacturer's Advanced Surface Movement Guidance and Control System (A-SMGCS). The A-SMGCS incorporates a
surface movement radar (SMR) and digital open architecture capable of fusing information from various sources and presenting a clear overview of ground activity to controllers in the Malpensa tower. (Commissioned on Jan15)
With the A-SMGCS' prodigious processing power, the SMR signals are fused with those of the approach radar by the sensors data handling subsystem(SDHS). Composed of the surface tracking processor and the A-SMGCS
central processor, the SDHS provides controllers with a seamless presentation of the aircraft taking off, landing and moving on the ground. An aircraft's identity or call sign, fed by the secondary radar, remains on the controller's screen even when the aircraft taxis on the ground. Soon that data will be fused with information from a VHF data link that shows the positions of ground vehicles.
Preset parameters in the A-SMGCS at Malpensa give controllers an alert when the separation between taxiing aircraft is less than 3 nm.
Likewise, when an aircraft crosses a taxiway to pose a potential conflict with another aircraft, the call signs representing the two
aircraft begin flashing on the controller's screen and a red line showing the path of possible conflict appears. The system architecture also incorporates the visual aids management subsystem (VAMS), which
controls taxiway centre lights, stop bars and other ground lights. A guidance system directs pilots as they maneuver their aircraft along taxiways at night or in low-visibility conditions. Taxiway routes
programmed by the controllers at their consoles will direct the A-SMGCS to automatically illuminate about 10 lights (each about 130 feet apart on straight sections and 33 to 50 feet apart on curves) in front of a taxiing aircraft. The lamps automatically turn off as the aircraft
passes. If an aircraft makes a wrong turn, the controller is alerted and can redirect the aircraft by contacting the pilot and quickly establishing another taxi route. So far 380 lights have been programmed into the system and they hope to program all of the more that 1,000 lights at Malpensa by the end of the year.
Similar systems are being installed at Bologna's Gugliemo Marconi airport and Fiumicino's Leonardo da Vinci. No mention of plans for Linate.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chandler, Arizona
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Local NOTAM is reporting the following;
(Source - http://www.phd.nl/aviation/wx/)
SURFACE MOVEMENT RADAR UNSERVICEABLE RADAR ASMI OUT OF SER. REF AIP COM 2-20 05 OCT 10:00 UNTIL 31 DEC 23:00 ESTIMATED
(Source - http://www.phd.nl/aviation/wx/)
SURFACE MOVEMENT RADAR UNSERVICEABLE RADAR ASMI OUT OF SER. REF AIP COM 2-20 05 OCT 10:00 UNTIL 31 DEC 23:00 ESTIMATED
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: the past
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At MXP they,more often than not use one RWY for t/o the other for lnds simultanously.This way the trafic has to cross one RWY all the time(either lndng or t/off).It is not ATC's fault,it's the red tape Italy is so 'famous' for.As usual it takes dead people to get something moving.
Very depressing.
57 million people,cca 6500 dead/year on the roads of Italy(pretty constant no).
Very depressing.
57 million people,cca 6500 dead/year on the roads of Italy(pretty constant no).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sweden
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigle, Ace
You are both right off course. But I wonder if the nose wheel was off the ground for long enough for the ACARS MU to transmit the message, it normally takes 10-15 seconds to transmit, and given the speed/distances involved I wonder if it would have taken that long for them to hit the building.
Brgds
Doc
You are both right off course. But I wonder if the nose wheel was off the ground for long enough for the ACARS MU to transmit the message, it normally takes 10-15 seconds to transmit, and given the speed/distances involved I wonder if it would have taken that long for them to hit the building.
Brgds
Doc
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hi DOC,
Good point. Will be interesting to see. I didnīt know, that it takes 10-15 seconds to send that message.
But judging the distance from the point of impact between the two aircraft and the building, it looks Iīm afraid, like there was a rather long distance to be covered before they hit the building. Maybe enough to allow time to send that message... I donīt know. But gutwrenching to imagine what they have felt in the seconds before hitting the building.
We were nevertheless told, that the "off" message was indeed received in CPH (or STO, donīt remember)
Good point. Will be interesting to see. I didnīt know, that it takes 10-15 seconds to send that message.
But judging the distance from the point of impact between the two aircraft and the building, it looks Iīm afraid, like there was a rather long distance to be covered before they hit the building. Maybe enough to allow time to send that message... I donīt know. But gutwrenching to imagine what they have felt in the seconds before hitting the building.
We were nevertheless told, that the "off" message was indeed received in CPH (or STO, donīt remember)
I am a figment of my own imagination
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KADS, then that then makes two of us. I do concur with your point about my remarks regarding taxiing without ground radar, however I would like to say that you in turn took my remark, That's life..very much out of context. It certainly did not refer to the appalling loss of life that had just occurred. It was in reference to comments regarding the absence of the ground radar at Milan Linate, and some of the comments regarding Italian ATC with which I differed with.
I simply did not agree with on or two of the comments on the thread which implied that Italian ATC is as constantly bad as some are trying to make out. Or that the absence of ground radar makes an airport unusable.
I regret that in the brevity of these threads I did not make that clearer. Every single one of us strives daily not to make mistakes particularly when we are contantly aware of the horrendous consequences. Anything that improves those chances is immensly welcome. Constant upgrading, equipment improvement, and education is a goal we all strive for and desire; it makes our jobs easier and safer, so I in turn was annoyed by your origional assumption and comment that I was some sort of aviatory luddit.
The accident was close to home, and yet another unpleasant reminder in a month of such dreadful incidents, that anything, that any of us can do that makes our lives safer is welcome.
I simply did not agree with on or two of the comments on the thread which implied that Italian ATC is as constantly bad as some are trying to make out. Or that the absence of ground radar makes an airport unusable.
I regret that in the brevity of these threads I did not make that clearer. Every single one of us strives daily not to make mistakes particularly when we are contantly aware of the horrendous consequences. Anything that improves those chances is immensly welcome. Constant upgrading, equipment improvement, and education is a goal we all strive for and desire; it makes our jobs easier and safer, so I in turn was annoyed by your origional assumption and comment that I was some sort of aviatory luddit.
The accident was close to home, and yet another unpleasant reminder in a month of such dreadful incidents, that anything, that any of us can do that makes our lives safer is welcome.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: by the river
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First condolenses all round. There but for the grace of god go we all. Especially on the sh*tty days, whether we are PAX, Crew or Baggage handlers.
Doc, Ace,
Just to pick up on transmission times. I just don't know how fast the extended nosewheel strut would trigger the transmission, it could be as little as 1/10th sec. but probably not more than 1 sec. - help somebody here.
I also don't know exactly what the message actually contains - but my IT background tells me the following:
One of the slowest transmissions on the planet today is your handy, mobile phone, phobile moan, GSM, or Nokia/Motorola/Ericsson thingy. Data and things like that (SMS's, etc.) today usually still go at 9600 bps (bits per second). A character is basically 8 bits, but with control overheads lets be generous and call it 9.6 - so you get 100 characters per second.
If we now guesstimate that we need the planes ID or Flight number at 10 digits/characters, a Timestamp with date at another 10-12 characters worst case, or 5-6 best case, and a transaction type indication at another 5-10 characters. - OK lets say 30-50 characters or 1/3 to 1/2 second.
To whatever that turns out to be we now add 60 nanoseconds per 1'000Km of distance and 60 or 80 nanoseconds per switching station (and here we may need to guess a bit more). 2 switching stations is minimum (1 in LIN & 1 in CPH), if land lines are used, be mean and add another 5 that will normally take you anywhere in the world. So worst case use 2000km = 120 ns. + 7 x 80 ns. = 680 ns. That to laymen is around 2/3rds of a sec.
So the whole transmission, even if its at these slow speeds is in the 1-2 sec. range - even if it has heaps of addressing and packing information around it, to get it safely where it needs to go.
Personal gut feel says 2 secs. after liftoff CPH was processing the message.
Now calculate how far the plane travelled from the time the nosewheel strut was load free. I'm going to get this wrong so somebody correct my math - but here goes:
V1 speed ca. 200Knts = 400Kmh = 400'000m.p.h = 111 m.p.sec.
So 2 secs is anywhere between 100-300 meters depending on what is and what isn't on the ground - allowing acceleration or creating extra drag and friction.
Now how long was it from initial impact to building impact. The damage on secondary impact was high so - speed was also. From the shots I've seen that must have been the longest 5-10 secs. that none of us ever want to have to live through.
Captain you are so right - avoid it before it happens - your chances of very much influence once s**t has started is OH so low... How sad, what a waste... RIP
[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: gofer ]
Doc, Ace,
Just to pick up on transmission times. I just don't know how fast the extended nosewheel strut would trigger the transmission, it could be as little as 1/10th sec. but probably not more than 1 sec. - help somebody here.
I also don't know exactly what the message actually contains - but my IT background tells me the following:
One of the slowest transmissions on the planet today is your handy, mobile phone, phobile moan, GSM, or Nokia/Motorola/Ericsson thingy. Data and things like that (SMS's, etc.) today usually still go at 9600 bps (bits per second). A character is basically 8 bits, but with control overheads lets be generous and call it 9.6 - so you get 100 characters per second.
If we now guesstimate that we need the planes ID or Flight number at 10 digits/characters, a Timestamp with date at another 10-12 characters worst case, or 5-6 best case, and a transaction type indication at another 5-10 characters. - OK lets say 30-50 characters or 1/3 to 1/2 second.
To whatever that turns out to be we now add 60 nanoseconds per 1'000Km of distance and 60 or 80 nanoseconds per switching station (and here we may need to guess a bit more). 2 switching stations is minimum (1 in LIN & 1 in CPH), if land lines are used, be mean and add another 5 that will normally take you anywhere in the world. So worst case use 2000km = 120 ns. + 7 x 80 ns. = 680 ns. That to laymen is around 2/3rds of a sec.
So the whole transmission, even if its at these slow speeds is in the 1-2 sec. range - even if it has heaps of addressing and packing information around it, to get it safely where it needs to go.
Personal gut feel says 2 secs. after liftoff CPH was processing the message.
Now calculate how far the plane travelled from the time the nosewheel strut was load free. I'm going to get this wrong so somebody correct my math - but here goes:
V1 speed ca. 200Knts = 400Kmh = 400'000m.p.h = 111 m.p.sec.
So 2 secs is anywhere between 100-300 meters depending on what is and what isn't on the ground - allowing acceleration or creating extra drag and friction.
Now how long was it from initial impact to building impact. The damage on secondary impact was high so - speed was also. From the shots I've seen that must have been the longest 5-10 secs. that none of us ever want to have to live through.
Captain you are so right - avoid it before it happens - your chances of very much influence once s**t has started is OH so low... How sad, what a waste... RIP
[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: gofer ]
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: by the river
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evo,
Ooooooppppssssssss. Sooooo right. Told you I blow it somewhere in all of that - thanks for the sanity check. It should, as Professor Evo correctly indicates, have been ms as in milliseconds - and that is 2/3rd of a sec.
If that's all that is wrong ... its past my bed time - all this altitude make me tired ...
[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: gofer ]
Ooooooppppssssssss. Sooooo right. Told you I blow it somewhere in all of that - thanks for the sanity check. It should, as Professor Evo correctly indicates, have been ms as in milliseconds - and that is 2/3rd of a sec.
If that's all that is wrong ... its past my bed time - all this altitude make me tired ...
[ 11 October 2001: Message edited by: gofer ]