Lufthansa lands on construction site at EPKT
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: North of CDG
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew into KTW on 24th June. The "works in progress" area was depicted on Jeppesen chart EPKT 10-8 which refers to the latest NOTAMs. One reads:
EPWW-E0505/14
A) EPKT KATOWICE
B) 2014 Apr 07 15:00 C) 2014 Aug 31 23:59 EST
E) CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RWY IN A DISTANCE 150M NORTH PARALLEL TO RWY
09/27. DO NOT USE NEW PAVEMENTS FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES.
Hard to miss... The VOR approach is offset by 11°... so what? If properly briefed, then it shouldn't come as a surprise. Late afternoon, ie facing the sun? That should be part of the briefing too.
Cheers
EPWW-E0505/14
A) EPKT KATOWICE
B) 2014 Apr 07 15:00 C) 2014 Aug 31 23:59 EST
E) CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RWY IN A DISTANCE 150M NORTH PARALLEL TO RWY
09/27. DO NOT USE NEW PAVEMENTS FOR OPERATIONAL PURPOSES.
Hard to miss... The VOR approach is offset by 11°... so what? If properly briefed, then it shouldn't come as a surprise. Late afternoon, ie facing the sun? That should be part of the briefing too.
Cheers
Last edited by FougaMagister; 16th Aug 2014 at 11:48.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technically speaking, it was not Lufthansa but Lufthansa CityLine. And the article does not quote a Lufthansa spokesman (why would Lufthansa speak for a separate entity?). The correct translation is along the lines of "At Lufthansa, the word is ...".
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the subsidiary airlines of LH these days get pilots from the same school as mainline? Do they operate to the same SOPs and overall safety philosophy?
An old Spiegel article from more than 30 years ago implied that this was not the case back then.
DER SPIEGEL 10/1993 - Anflug verpatzt
At that time, in an expanding market, LH was bringing in already existing airlines to fly for them, much as the legacy carriers in the US did and still do.
Similarly, in the 90s, Crossair had some incredible lapses that were several notches below Swissair's high standards.
An old Spiegel article from more than 30 years ago implied that this was not the case back then.
DER SPIEGEL 10/1993 - Anflug verpatzt
At that time, in an expanding market, LH was bringing in already existing airlines to fly for them, much as the legacy carriers in the US did and still do.
Similarly, in the 90s, Crossair had some incredible lapses that were several notches below Swissair's high standards.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to aerotelegraph a Lufthansa spokesman said the airport markings were misleading: they claim no crosses were painted on the runway, but the new runway was fully lit. If that was true then the airport was asking for trouble.
How could the runway be "fully lit", when the taxiways are still under construction, side pavements of the runway are still not ready.
There are also no approach lights installed yet.
There was NOTAM, there was ATIS, there was CAVOC.
Instead of blaming others, do apologize and make sure, it will never happen again.
(BTW: Close to the airfield there is a motorway under construction.
Also straight and wide, and no crosses, be careful.)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Near Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,095
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Typical German arrogance. Always other to blame, we are the best.
According to ICAO, a closed runway is supposed to be marked with one or more crosses along the centreline, so this little cross offset to the side that we see in one of the earlier postings might indeed be a bit misleading.
Last edited by what next; 7th Jul 2014 at 09:07. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technically speaking, it was not Lufthansa but Lufthansa CityLine. And the article does not quote a Lufthansa spokesman (why would Lufthansa speak for a separate entity?). The correct translation is along the lines of "At Lufthansa, the word is ...".
Bei der Lufthansa heißt es, dass die Kennzeichnung des Flughafens irreführend gewesen sei. «Nach unserer Information war die Bahn nicht wie im Weltluftverkehr üblich durch Kreuze gekennzeichnet», so ein Sprecher zu aeroTELEGRAPH. Zudem sei sie voll beleuchtet gewesen, sodass die Crew den Eindruck haben musste, die Bahn sei nutzbar.
It was Lufthansa spokesman, quoted here.
"...the crew must have had an impression (Eindruck), the runway were in use."
I would prefer they would fly according to procedures and knowledge, not "impressions".
They shouldn't start blaming others for their own clear cock-up.
Let's wait for the preliminary report of the Polish AAIB (PKBWL) to have all the relevant facts.
Regrading Lufthansa and Lufthansa CityLine, I was flying few weeks ago to MUC with LH, and back with CityLine.
There was clear difference (by the same ticket price) in quality of on board service between the two. It could be assumed there might be the same difference in other aspects of procedures between the two operators.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to ICAO, a closed runway is supposed to be marked with one or more crosses along the centreline, so this little cross offset to the side that we see in one of the earlier postings might indeed be a bit misleading.
Closed runway, per definition, is a runway once in use, present in older maps and approach charts, which shouldn't be used any more, for whatever reason.
The "runway" in question was just a construction site, a straight strip of concrete, changing it's appearance every day, as new layers were put on top of older one.
There were no centre line markings, no threshold markings, no old paint.
The crosses you refer to are usually put on "closed runways" to avoid confusion, when the remains of old markings are still there.
Nevertheless, as seen on the image posted above, there were crosses present. If they are to small or to big, is irrelevant. It was not "closed runway", it was a construction site.
I would be glad to know, that pilots are not inclined to "have an impression" that a 2 miles straight strip of concrete is a runway, when there are no ICAO crosses on it.
In Poland military is still using parts of motorways as emergency runways. When under construction, they look very much like a normal runway, with turning tarmac on each end, and parking tarmac in close vicinity. And there are no crosses. So, be careful, flying next time to Poland.
Typical German arrogance
Instead of blaming others, do apologize and make sure, it will never happen again.
It could be assumed there might be the same difference in other aspects of procedures between the two operators.
Topped up with an ever so slightly contradictory statement:
They shouldn't start blaming others for their own clear cock-up.
Let's wait for the preliminary report of the Polish AAIB (PKBWL) to have all the relevant facts.
Let's wait for the preliminary report of the Polish AAIB (PKBWL) to have all the relevant facts.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Nairn, Highland
Age: 85
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt a single X meets the legal requirements but a series of Xs for the first few hundred metres wouldn't exactly cost a great deal and make the situation more obvious.
And I notice on that photo that the single X is offset from actual centre line. It's 15+ years since I flew professionally so maybe I should shut up. But it does strike me as odd that the symbol isn't on the centre (or extended centre) line precisely where a pilot looks when landing.
And I notice on that photo that the single X is offset from actual centre line. It's 15+ years since I flew professionally so maybe I should shut up. But it does strike me as odd that the symbol isn't on the centre (or extended centre) line precisely where a pilot looks when landing.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topped up with an ever so slightly contradictory statement:
Forgetting the NOTAM, not listening to ATIS and landing off the runway is probably not a clear cock-up.
Maybe there were really clear runway numbers and threshold markings and full lighting on the stripe of tarmac. So:
...let's wait for the preliminary report of the Polish AAIB (PKBWL) to have all the relevant facts.
Last edited by Ptkay; 7th Jul 2014 at 14:14.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt a single X meets the legal requirements but a series of Xs for the first few hundred metres wouldn't exactly cost a great deal and make the situation more obvious.
And I notice on that photo that the single X is offset from actual centre line. It's 15+ years since I flew professionally so maybe I should shut up. But it does strike me as odd that the symbol isn't on the centre (or extended centre) line precisely where a pilot looks when landing.
And I notice on that photo that the single X is offset from actual centre line. It's 15+ years since I flew professionally so maybe I should shut up. But it does strike me as odd that the symbol isn't on the centre (or extended centre) line precisely where a pilot looks when landing.
They did, what they could, taking into consideration, that multiple layers of concrete and asphalt were put on top of each other, and putting crosses all the way down on every layer would be little troublesome.
Also on the image you can see, they are still adding width to the left side of the tarmac, so nobody actually knows, where the central line is...
Last edited by Ptkay; 8th Jul 2014 at 07:53.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DSOTM
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not that complicated. Do your due diligence and you won't land on a construction site. If this had been RYR, EZY or WZZ I'm sure our German colleagues wouldn't have been so understanding as they appear to be in this thread.
Admit the mistake, all of us should learn from it and move on. I mean, KLM also took off from a taxiway in their own home base a while ago. That stuff happens. I don't think they were trying to make the excuse that the runway wasn't marked well enough. Don't blame the Poles for building a better runway instead of that roller coaster they have there now. If you fly in somewhere and you're not familiar, do your homework.
There I go pre-empting the 'relevant facts', yet somehow this situation feels very obvious to me.
Admit the mistake, all of us should learn from it and move on. I mean, KLM also took off from a taxiway in their own home base a while ago. That stuff happens. I don't think they were trying to make the excuse that the runway wasn't marked well enough. Don't blame the Poles for building a better runway instead of that roller coaster they have there now. If you fly in somewhere and you're not familiar, do your homework.
There I go pre-empting the 'relevant facts', yet somehow this situation feels very obvious to me.
@ FE Hoppy...
"No mention of RAAS or EGPWS TCF. City line ejects have it. What about the CRJs?"
IMHO, RAAS or EGPWS would not have helped in this case because their software would not have been updated yet with the new status of that airport.
I was in Calgary (CYYC) last week and they have a fully operational new runway and we did not get the RAAS warning for it.
We also didn't get the normal warnings at a Middle-East airport last year (can't remember which one).
So the manufacturers of the equipment needs the info to load it up in their database.
IMHO, RAAS or EGPWS would not have helped in this case because their software would not have been updated yet with the new status of that airport.
I was in Calgary (CYYC) last week and they have a fully operational new runway and we did not get the RAAS warning for it.
We also didn't get the normal warnings at a Middle-East airport last year (can't remember which one).
So the manufacturers of the equipment needs the info to load it up in their database.
Last edited by Jet Jockey A4; 7th Jul 2014 at 16:15.
@ FE Hoppy...
"I'll be surprised if they didn't get a too low terrain from the EGPWS TCF but you could well be right about RAAS."
Again I believe when it comes to EGWPS it only looks at the airport that's in the data base and it is not runway specific.
So if you have programmed in your FMS that you are landing at XXXX but in fact you are landing at YYYY (or an airport that is non-existent anymore), then yes you would get a warning.
However if the aircraft is fully configured to land at XXXX the EGWPS doesn't know which runway you are landing on thus wouldn't give a warning... Case in point a circling approach which cannot be programmed in the FMS.
Again I believe when it comes to EGWPS it only looks at the airport that's in the data base and it is not runway specific.
So if you have programmed in your FMS that you are landing at XXXX but in fact you are landing at YYYY (or an airport that is non-existent anymore), then yes you would get a warning.
However if the aircraft is fully configured to land at XXXX the EGWPS doesn't know which runway you are landing on thus wouldn't give a warning... Case in point a circling approach which cannot be programmed in the FMS.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Europe
Age: 12
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tut, tut ,PTKAY
A bit harsh on our German cousins , shades of beach towels on the
sun loungers and all that.
Maybe they wanted to be the first Deutsche sponsored aircrew
(who says they were German Nationals?) to land on newly formed
Polish soil...
A bit harsh on our German cousins , shades of beach towels on the
sun loungers and all that.
Maybe they wanted to be the first Deutsche sponsored aircrew
(who says they were German Nationals?) to land on newly formed
Polish soil...
Again I believe when it comes to EGWPS it only looks at the airport that's in the data base and it is not runway specific.
Per an EGPWS database web site:
COUNTRY CITY AIRPORT_NAME AREA ICAO RW_ID
POLAND KATOWICE PYRZOWICE EEU EPKT
POLAND KATOWICE PYRZOWICE EEU EPKT RW09
POLAND KATOWICE PYRZOWICE EEU EPKT RW27
New runway is not there, nor would I expect it.
