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

Turkish A330 incident, Kathmandu

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

Turkish A330 incident, Kathmandu

Old 5th Mar 2015, 13:48
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,342
It is a runway veer off. That's all we know for certain as of now.

the fact that it is Katmandu and that there was low visibility might not be related with it, although of course it can be.

They can have touched down on the runway normally (after Katmandu and lo vis) and only then they veered off. It can be related to the approach or not.

Everyone has a guess and thinks any other theory makes no sense, but I have been wrong about other cases so often, even when they seemed so clear that I can't trust any theories until we know more.

My theory now would be: unstable approach, hard landing, tyre burst, veer off.
Microburst2002 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 13:59
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Some where anywhere
Posts: 71
The aircraft can't veer off a runway if it was never properly on the runway.
Interesting statement by sarge75. So what happened to KLM flight 566, B747 from Nairobi to Amsterdam? Not saying it's what happened here, just replying based on that statement made.
FLYDHC8 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 14:01
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 384
I know it's a hard commercial world but I have to ask ; Any Commanders out there ? Haven't waded through all posts but what was the FORECAST weather at time of departure? Don't care about the actual. I used to work for a fabbo outfit that forbade a departure if the forecast, for the time of arrival was below limits.

Yes we tank as much fuel because of the high cost out of KTM. Gives credibility to departing and taking up the hold but a very weak commercial decision eh ? I pointed out to Commercial that it costs fuel to carry fuel and if we knowingly depart in order to take up a two hour hold, we might, surely be facing tea & bickies with the Fleet Manager (?).............I was politely shown the door !

I checked in, another time, for KTM, faced the same old problem and delayed departure for two hours. We got in at the first attempt as the "fog" cleared rapidly within twenty minutes of arrival. Again, back at Base, ventured up to Commercial to ask why we scheduled arrivals, not only to KTM but all over Northern India into known fog ! Big delays, huge disruption etc. Quick tweak of around two hours and problem solved. Again, I was shown the door.

Commanders out there....................make that Command decision and delay departure. Might save a prang and might save lives.
slowjet is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 15:02
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: here
Posts: 153
TAF VNKT .........TEMPO 0400/0403 500 FG
cucuotto is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 15:10
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 363
In the FAA/FAR world I operate in, 121.613 is your friend in that instance. Many years since I did Air Law exam in CAA world but I imagine there are similar provisions there and under most authorities. No?
flite idol is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 15:12
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: I wish I knew
Posts: 610
SIA 777 attempted go-around before Munich veer-off - 1/31/2012 - Flight Global

Of course it can veer off, the question remains if it was ever "on"
Avenger is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 16:08
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,788
Slowjet....more realistic advice is commanders, exercise that command authority and divert to your alternate if the conditions are unsafe...the only way any carrier will learn to adjust their schedules accordingly, is when it becomes expensive to carry on as usual...our commercial department at a previous employer used to schedule our arrivals there early morning during winter..fog...and afternoon hours during summer...thunderstorms...seems most other airlines did the same, as we always saw all the "usual suspects" either holding at GURAS, or diverting elsewhere when the weather didn't co-operate....
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 16:09
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: australia
Age: 45
Posts: 75
Flydhc8

Was what I was told by engineers when in KTM this morning.

That is not therefore 100% reliable information nut they had no reason to lie to me so I do believe them
sarge75 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 16:14
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Posts: 275
Were the crew local or expat?
Algol is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 16:48
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: FL 391
Posts: 106
Slowjet and Ironbutt, totally agree, you nailed and summarized what should be and/or should have been done:
the commercial doesn't care, my current employer shows it on a daily basis, they don't fly those planes to dodgy destinations, hence diversion is your friend. If company doesn't listen to your concerns and does not back you up , why should you go out of your way to satisfy it's ambitions. Pilot professionalism comprises "safety first" as well ! Tankering, not tankering, expensive diversion, who cares, how expensive is this landing at destination going to be now ? Way more expensive than a diversion ? You bet !!!
Save yourself first !
Soft Altitude is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 17:45
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: I used to know
Posts: 175
Bearcat

Doesn't look 900m RVR which appears to be req mins for the Rnav appr from that face book video. Looks like pea soup.
It doesn't matter what the video shows or apears to show apart from the fact that it is foggy!

What matters for legality is what were the RVRs passed to the crew and when.
One can have above minimum RVR and still not have sufficient visual reference. Equally you can have a deterioration once inside the outer marker and still have enough visual reference.

In this case we do not at the moment have enough information to say whether or not the RVR was too low to make an approach.
PT6Driver is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 17:55
  #72 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,833
Sarge 75 , I have heard similar comments from ATC there. But let's wait a few more days.
I was in KTM for work a couple of years ago, and the bad vis/fog/smog in the morning was a fact of life in this time of year. Delays , diversions and/or cancellations the norm, but this was before RNAV and during the VOR / 9 deg glide slope era.

In view of other incidents in other airports with visual RNAV APP, My question to crews operating there today would be , does the RNP creates a feeling that more is possible with it, and bringing more trust into the system . In other words, would you attempt an APP today in certains conditions with RNP that you would not have done a few years ago ?
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 18:04
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: planet earth
Posts: 214
ATC watcher kind of a stupid question. The criteria to continue or discontinue the approach ( approach ban ) and minima for the approach are both clearly stated in any operator manual A & C. There is no guessing or feeling...Anything outside of that would be a violation of company regulation. Let's wait to see what comes out of the investigation.
bob777 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 18:16
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hong Kong, SAR.
Posts: 9
Take it easy there, bob777. No reason calling anyone stupid.
Oasis is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 18:24
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,788
with the reported vis at published minima 1600m, the VOR approach was a waste of time, never bothered until it rose to 3000m at least...the RNP approach seems to position one better to successfully complete the approach at it's lower published minima, so my answer to ATC watcher would be yes.I would be more inclined to operate the RNP with the reported vis at published minima for that approach, but it was the good old VOR-A in my day.....and yes I have operated both 767 and 320 into KTM on more occasions than I can count...think you missed the point of his question Bob...
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 18:25
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Q5
Posts: 114
@ algol

" Were the crew local or expat? ".

Will your professional opinion depend on the answer to your question.
Boeingrestricted is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 18:48
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Age: 45
Posts: 24
1000 RVR

Avherald states that ATC reported 1000 RVR during 2nd approach. While on final, "airport was suddenly covered with dense fog."

At ~1200 AGL, ATC asked if RWY was in sight but got no response. Next transmission was to inform ATC they were off RWY.
ULMFlyer is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 20:04
  #78 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 70
Posts: 2,833
Bob 777 :

Ironbutt57 : Thank you this does answer my question .

OK465 :
Could you cite some of what you're referring to here
One that comes to mind : also the report of that one ( February 2012, BEA) refers to multiple incidents by same airline at this perticular airport.
The RNAV Visual Approach to runway 26 was proposed to all arriving aircraft indiscriminately. The lack of RNAV Visual Approach training at Air XXX at the time of the occurrence caused the captain fail to anticipate possible problems during the approach briefing, that the first officer might encounter during the unusual approach. In addition, the lack of understanding of how open descent, open climb and autothrottle work with the crew believing the autoflight systems would still ensure maintaining correct airspeed led to lack of monitoring of airspeed. The lack of identification of such risk factors led to the aircraft entering the turn to final in low energy state, given its configuration and the nose up inputs the speed warning and Alpha Floor activated.
IFALPA has also issued a bulletin last month on Visual RNAV APP : http://www.ifalpa.org/downloads/Leve...V%20Visual.pdf

but thanks for your answer, point taken.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2015, 05:18
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Where it is comfortable...
Age: 56
Posts: 730
@slowjet & ironbutt57

I know it's a hard commercial world but...
In a hub & spoke operation of the kind that TK (or the ME3 and many other majors) do, there is no such thing as 'simply shift departure by 2 hours'. Either the flight can be fitted into the connecting banks, in which case it can be operated successfully, otherwise it is commercially not viable. Low-costs are free to shift departure times as they please because they only cater to point-to-point traffic (and to a significant extent this is why they can have a lower cost structure, but in return they also limit their market access).

This being said, in a well-ran outfit scheduling listens to flight-ops and monitors statistics to make sure that the flight can actually be operated in the scheduled timeframe. Many moons ago when I had responsibility for scheduling I had a half-day blocked off each week to take a cockpit ride on one of the problem flights and discuss with crew and experience first hand the issues and possible fixes. In some cases the conclusion was to axe the route after flight ops could not reliably meet commercial requirements.

I visit this forum for the same reason, to listen and to learn. Unfortunately at some outfits (likely including the subject of this thread) this is not in the culture.

Last edited by andrasz; 6th Mar 2015 at 07:39.
andrasz is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2015, 07:32
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: home
Posts: 1,459
Would be interested to see if Turkish were certificated for this sort of approach. We had issues at my company where our aircraft were capable and we were trained but to operate to lowest minima we required Airbus certification for each aircraft to carry out this approach at a cost of circa 100,000 per aircraft.
Right Way Up 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.