Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Widerøe w/35 pax in nose dive,recovered at 82 feet, suppressed by airline for 4 years

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Widerøe w/35 pax in nose dive,recovered at 82 feet, suppressed by airline for 4 years

Old 21st Feb 2015, 20:14
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 21
Widerøe 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

Last edited by aerobus123; 8th Jul 2015 at 16:23.
aerobus123 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2015, 21:33
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 61
Posts: 407
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?
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2015, 21:43
  #3 (permalink)  
RHS
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 103
75 meters in 14 seconds, so, around 900fpm ROD, high, but not hugely excessive?
RHS is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2015, 22:21
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EDDS
Age: 49
Posts: 23
2.7 g would roughly need 1.6 times stall speed.
Given short time and only 220 feet: I doubt the data.
AndiKunzi is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2015, 22:30
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,352
I'm guessing you haven't flown much in the North or West of Norway ?
captplaystation is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2015, 01:20
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,019
I'm guessing Newton's Laws apply in North and West Norway in the same way as they do in the rest of the world.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 22nd Feb 2015, 01:34
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,124
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...
Intruder is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2015, 07:40
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,619
. . . And not a pip squeak from any of the 35 passengers?
GlueBall is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2015, 08:10
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 21
Oh yes there were..

https://translate.googleusercontent....zFUsZX0IriOkMQ
aerobus123 is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2015, 10:02
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 66
Posts: 1,219
Isn't that article recent. Think poster meant no outburst from pax at the time. Hard to believe there were no complaints.
Mr Optimistic is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2015, 12:37
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: between the lines
Age: 40
Posts: 11
Incident - 2010
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 !
KKN_ is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2015, 14:02
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Age: 66
Posts: 159
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.
Early in my career i used to fly Twin Otters in Norway.
Widerøe pilots are well trained and experienced.
I doubt that they were stalled, windshear yes, certainly possible in between high mountains.
Capt. Inop is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 17:28
  #13 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 21
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.
aerobus123 is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 16:29
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: scandinavia
Posts: 153
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?
berserker is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2015, 12:07
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,179
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.
A and C is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2015, 15:00
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 21
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.
aerobus123 is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2015, 16:44
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 66
Posts: 1,954
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...
An accelerated stall while in a bank at 300 ft AGL, and a recovery at 82 ft? With enough airspeed to pull 2.7 G in the recovery? I, too, find this dubious. Wind shear, that I could buy. Especially considering the location. A stall, not so much.
KenV is offline  
Old 25th Feb 2015, 18:37
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,327
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.
Ian W is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2015, 09:50
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: sweden
Age: 79
Posts: 12
”incredible serious incident” or ”heavy winds” does not exist within aviation community.
arizona is offline  
Old 26th Feb 2015, 18:07
  #20 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oslo
Posts: 21
The aircraft and its occupants were in grave peril. Why can't that be considered as "incredibly serious"?
aerobus123 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.