Widerĝe w/35 pax in nose dive,recovered at 82 feet, suppressed by airline for 4 years
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Widerĝe w/35 pax in nose dive,recovered at 82 feet, suppressed by airline for 4 years
https://translate.google.com/transla...-text=&act=url
This incredibly serious incident, which could have resulted in the loss of 38 lives has been suppressed for more than four years. The airline reported the accident as a "minor incident", and it is only thanks to the perseverance of the FO that the case now finally is being investigated.
The aircraft was turning to final in heavy winds when it stalled at 300 feet and dropped to 82 feet before the pilots regained control. During the recovery the aircraft was submitted to a force of 2.7 G.
The airline still claims this was a "minor incident". Incredible, and yet another dent in the safety record of one of Europe's most unsafe airlines. One would think that 4 fatal accidents in the space of 11 years would change something, but apparently it hasn't.
UPDATE:
Avherald has posted information from a source confirming the severity of the incident, and more importantly, how the captain, who committed serious pilot error that almost caused the crash has tried to cover up what actually happened. The airline and the Norwegian accident investigation bureau has relied on the captain's (incorrect) report.
http://avherald.com/h?article=487ffab8&opt=0
This incredibly serious incident, which could have resulted in the loss of 38 lives has been suppressed for more than four years. The airline reported the accident as a "minor incident", and it is only thanks to the perseverance of the FO that the case now finally is being investigated.
The aircraft was turning to final in heavy winds when it stalled at 300 feet and dropped to 82 feet before the pilots regained control. During the recovery the aircraft was submitted to a force of 2.7 G.
The airline still claims this was a "minor incident". Incredible, and yet another dent in the safety record of one of Europe's most unsafe airlines. One would think that 4 fatal accidents in the space of 11 years would change something, but apparently it hasn't.
UPDATE:
Avherald has posted information from a source confirming the severity of the incident, and more importantly, how the captain, who committed serious pilot error that almost caused the crash has tried to cover up what actually happened. The airline and the Norwegian accident investigation bureau has relied on the captain's (incorrect) report.
http://avherald.com/h?article=487ffab8&opt=0
Last edited by aerobus123; 8th Jul 2015 at 15:23.
Something does not make sense, they stalled at 100 meters yet were able to recover from the stall and generate enough energy to pull 2.7g's in the recovery? All in 75 meters?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2.7 g would roughly need 1.6 times stall speed.
Given short time and only 220 feet: I doubt the data.
Given short time and only 220 feet: I doubt the data.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: between the lines
Age: 44
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Incident - 2010
F/O report - 2012
Investigation closed - 2013
Then reopened, based on F/O testimony (why now?) and FDR data.
Even granting some FOQA buffering ...
Looks also not good on SHT/AIBN !
F/O report - 2012
Investigation closed - 2013
Then reopened, based on F/O testimony (why now?) and FDR data.
- where were the FDR data all along - can't get pulled 4 years later?
- if they were pulled 2010, why did the seriousness not get noticed?
Even granting some FOQA buffering ...
Looks also not good on SHT/AIBN !
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Age: 70
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://translate.google.com/transla...-text=&act=url
This incredibly serious incident, which could have resulted in the loss of 38 lives has been suppressed for more than four years. The airline reported the accident as a "minor incident", and it is only thanks to the perseverance of the FO that the case now finally is being investigated.
The aircraft was turning to final in heavy winds when it stalled at 300 feet and dropped to 82 feet before the pilots regained control. During the recovery the aircraft was submitted to a force of 2.7 G.
The airline still claims this was a "minor incident". Incredible, and yet another dent in the safety record of one of Europe's most unsafe airlines. One would think that 4 fatal accidents in the space of 11 years would change something, but apparently it hasn't.
This incredibly serious incident, which could have resulted in the loss of 38 lives has been suppressed for more than four years. The airline reported the accident as a "minor incident", and it is only thanks to the perseverance of the FO that the case now finally is being investigated.
The aircraft was turning to final in heavy winds when it stalled at 300 feet and dropped to 82 feet before the pilots regained control. During the recovery the aircraft was submitted to a force of 2.7 G.
The airline still claims this was a "minor incident". Incredible, and yet another dent in the safety record of one of Europe's most unsafe airlines. One would think that 4 fatal accidents in the space of 11 years would change something, but apparently it hasn't.
Widerĝe pilots are well trained and experienced.
I doubt that they were stalled, windshear yes, certainly possible in between high mountains.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly with WF as an FO a couple of years ago. Training was OK in my opinion (don't have any other major airlines to compare with as I quit flying when leaving WF) but some of my former colleagues who now work at SK or DY tell me that the training, maintenance and company is way better than at WF.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: scandinavia
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
really?
Really?
What do they base that on? From what I have heard the 50 or so ex-SAS and a few ex DY folks seem to be pretty happy with WF.......
And why did you quit WF if I may ask?
What do they base that on? From what I have heard the 50 or so ex-SAS and a few ex DY folks seem to be pretty happy with WF.......
And why did you quit WF if I may ask?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For an airline that fly in some of the worlds worst flying conditions I think that WF have at the very lease an acceptable safety record when the mountainous topography, short slippery runways, drasticly changable weather and lack of diversion airfields are taken into account.
I suspect that most of the flack above is from those who spen most of their time flying radar to ILS in the very controled environment of Northern Europe and never operate from slippery runways.
This having been said there is always a need for an open safety culture as covering up incidents never works in the long run and just makes it look like you have something to hide.
I suspect that most of the flack above is from those who spen most of their time flying radar to ILS in the very controled environment of Northern Europe and never operate from slippery runways.
This having been said there is always a need for an open safety culture as covering up incidents never works in the long run and just makes it look like you have something to hide.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I left to to try finding a 737 job, but I realised that I would be left with more time away from my family with lower wages. Pay at WF was not that much better either considering the workload and extremely high number of legs and I found another career in aviation that fits me very well.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2.7 g would roughly need 1.6 times stall speed.
Given short time and only 220 feet: I doubt the data
The airplane was "turning". Don't so quickly dismiss the possibility of an accelerated stall, maybe due to momentary overbank...
Given short time and only 220 feet: I doubt the data
The airplane was "turning". Don't so quickly dismiss the possibility of an accelerated stall, maybe due to momentary overbank...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get that kind of g in a short space looks like the aircraft was caught not so much in windshear as perhaps some kind of orographic turbulence or rotor streaming from the hills. Dropped hard in the downdraft of the rotor then entered updraft just in time to avoid the surface. The updraft and the pulling together led to the high g.
Only possible to check that if there was some kind of anemometer trace from the airport. Highly unlikely now I would think.
Only possible to check that if there was some kind of anemometer trace from the airport. Highly unlikely now I would think.