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

Air Niugini Aircraft crash, Truk Lagoon

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

Air Niugini Aircraft crash, Truk Lagoon

Old 26th Oct 2018, 22:07
  #261 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Dirty South
Posts: 392

Interesting details in the Preliminary Report regarding the cockpit crew rest prior to duty. 10.3 hours off duty and reported sleep of 5.5 and 6.6 hours. Not ideal and barely legal.

Captain appears to have a respectable amount of time in the aircraft. All in the left seat. F.O. has decent total time, with very little in the 737.
JPJP is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2018, 22:31
  #262 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 343
Interesting that the CVR found its way out of its rack and out of a substantially undamaged fuselage and on to the sea floor. Where is it located in the aircraft? Is it designed to drop out?

“The SSFDR was located on its rack within the aircraft and was recovered by local divers.
The SSCVR was recovered from the seabed by US Navy divers about 440 feet (135 metres) back along the flight path from the 04 threshold, in the area ahead of the first point of water impact.”
Cloudee is offline  
Old 26th Oct 2018, 23:08
  #263 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,142
Originally Posted by Cloudee View Post
Interesting that the CVR found its way out of its rack and out of a substantially undamaged fuselage and on to the sea floor.

Where is it located in the aircraft?
Is it designed to drop out?
No.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 00:02
  #264 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,236
He was too careful in his descriptions, not what I would expect from a traumatic experience.
Having been present at two fatal occurrences and having experienced a number of close calls, certain detailed memories never go away even though you might prefer otherwise.
RatherBeFlying is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 01:37
  #265 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 409
Originally Posted by grizzled View Post
Yes indeed, but remember one was a planned ditching, meaning Sully intended to ditch in the Hudson (albeit he had few viable options). Air Niugini was not intending to hit the water (we hope...). So the configurations (including gear down for Air Niugini, gear up for Sully) and speeds at impact would have been sufficiently different to account for damage and injuries.
Was it ever confirmed that the gear was down? Lots of unanswered questions - really don't know what configuration Air Niugini was in or where the crew thought they were (WestJet at St-Maarten comes to mind). Kind of interestng to read the PPPRuNe thread on Sully's attempts to flare though.

I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been an attempt to raise it yet. JA2 was up in 55 hours (yes this is not SF but really, a month?).
b1lanc is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 06:38
  #266 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EDLB
Posts: 178
Doubt that they lift it at all. Remote location without heavy lift gear nearby. All parts of the plane are a total write off in sea water. I assume that they leave it as dive spot. What relevant additional information do you expect by lifting the plane, which you can not get by a nice clear warm water dive in the tropics?
EDLB is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 06:48
  #267 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Solomon Islands
Posts: 28
Hope they do lift it. It is about 50 tons of alien materials that don't belong in that fragile ecosystem. We have enough trouble with illegal waste dumping around this region. Must be removed.
VolLibre is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 06:51
  #268 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by b1lanc View Post
Was it ever confirmed that the gear was down?.
Going by the below bit in the prelim I'd hazard a guess the gear was down.

The initial examination of video taken by the divers showed that the main landing gear separated from the aircraft during the water impact. The rear fuselage behind the wing had fractured during the impact sequence.
SnowFella is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 09:23
  #269 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,634
Angry

Originally Posted by JPJP View Post

Interesting details in the Preliminary Report regarding the cockpit crew rest prior to duty. 10.3 hours off duty and reported sleep of 5.5 and 6.6 hours. Not ideal and barely legal.

Captain appears to have a respectable amount of time in the aircraft. All in the left seat. F.O. has decent total time, with very little in the 737.
JPJP Both crew members 40+ hours in last 30 days - what's next they were fatigued.....
Mr Angry from Purley is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 18:26
  #270 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 56
Posts: 1,541
Originally Posted by VolLibre View Post
Hope they do lift it. It is about 50 tons of alien materials that don't belong in that fragile ecosystem. We have enough trouble with illegal waste dumping around this region. Must be removed.
True. Heaven forbid that the airplane contaminate the wreckage of the 10 Japanese warships and 30 merchant ships already at the bottom of the lagoon.
A Squared is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 19:30
  #271 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 62
Posts: 410
Not to mention the hundreds of other airplanes.
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 19:36
  #272 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,142
Originally Posted by EDLB View Post
What relevant additional information do you expect by lifting the plane, which you can not get by a nice clear warm water dive in the tropics?
The aircraft sank upright, and is resting on the floor of the lagoon, so the underside of the rear fuselage isn't readily accessible, even to a diver.

If for no other reason, raising it would answer this question:

Originally Posted by Cloudee View Post
Interesting that the CVR found its way out of its rack and out of a substantially undamaged fuselage and on to the sea floor.
That aside, I don't believe for a moment that it will be allowed to remain submerged indefinitely.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 20:08
  #273 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,219
The aircraft sank upright, and is resting on the floor of the lagoon, so the underside of the rear fuselage isn't readily accessible, even to a diver.
from a survivability standpoint, I sure would like to see a DFDR G-load trace against the damage to the underside
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 27th Oct 2018, 21:06
  #274 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 2,202
Originally Posted by Mr Angry from Purley View Post
JPJP Both crew members 40+ hours in last 30 days - what's next they were fatigued.....
You sound like a scheduling officer!

For some people, operating an aircraft after just 5.5 hours sleep can cause suboptimal performance. Which pilots call "fatigue".
HundredPercentPlease is online now  
Old 31st Oct 2018, 04:00
  #275 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Originally Posted by Hotel Tango View Post
Reading the Milburns' comments above all I can say is that if I stopped flying with every airline which has had an accident, I guess I wouldn't be doing much flying today! I appreciate that accidents can be attributed to poor training etc., but many more can be attributed to a multitude of other causes which can happen to any airline. One fatality in 45 years is pretty good going and it would certainly not put me off flying with Air Niugini today.
The amount of fatalities over a certain time do not allow to conclude a certain risk.
It is important to factor in the number of flights done over that time. Big airlines with a thousand or more flights per day would have an accident every month at the same accident rate.

The Space Shuttle program had an accident rate of about 1%, that would mean about 10 crashes per day at the place I work at...
Admiral346 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 04:29
  #276 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 112
Here's the final report

http://www.aic.gov.pg/pdf/FinRpts/20...l%20Report.pdf
Seaeagle109 is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 07:51
  #277 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Hot zone
Posts: 197
Appalling report

I hope these guys never fly again. That is the most appalling report I have ever read. Six Sink Rate, seven Glideslipe warnings and two Pull Up warnings and they ignored them and talked over them. "The crew had experienced these before and considered them nuisance alerts"- astonishing!! At 300 feet they were descending at 1530 fpm. They continued past the missed approach point and entered IMC. Just unbelievable. Same crew, previous day flew below the glide and got 28 Glideslope alerts and ignored them. Speechless.

Last edited by Maisk Rotum; 18th Jul 2019 at 08:30.
Maisk Rotum is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 08:35
  #278 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 784
Originally Posted by Seaeagle109 View Post

Well, we knew it would be disappointing reading.

OM policy presented in the report doesn't appear to include discussion on conditions required to descend below DA/MDA, however the Jepp review part of the OM notes actions for undertaking an MAP. As the same crew had studiously avoided response to a similar number of EGPWS/GPWS alerts on the prior flight into the same airport, that would appear to be an area of reinforcement training worth some effort by the company. Any discussion on criteria to continue an approach below DA(H)/MDA appears to be missing.

The images show that the VNAV and LNAV was properly displayed all the way to the water landing. FPV was not displayed in any PFD, but is available... The comments of P18 state that the pilot disconnected the AP when it commenced a pitch up for the GA... which doesn't gel with the function of the APFD of the displayed VNAV, and the altitude selected in the first cockpit image, however, what happened at that point is important to understand as to why the plane ended up out of sorts. The CVR transcript, and the DFDR would indicate what altitude was set on the MCP, and when it was set/reset to the MAP height. The change to VNAV mode that happened at the point that the AP was disconnected suggests that the aircraft did capture the MDA, and the images are of the MDA reset to the MAP alt. The importance of that is the fact it ensures that the aircraft would be destabilised by an ALT CAP at MDA, which sets up the wild ride thereafter. The "raw" data remains valid, the crew just end up throwing away a "stable" approach at relatively low level, disconnecting AP, losing FD, and going to manual thrust, which appears to have been reduced promptly.

The volume of recommendations looks great, but seems to have weight rather than relevance to recommendations on how to stop crew disregarding EGPWS/GPWS alerts and warnings, or continuing a descent to impact, well below MDA, without having a piece of concrete in front of them. The comments on the PAPI comes up before the visibility went bad due to the rain shower. Thereafter, having to turn on the windscreen wipers to get the seaweed off so that you can see the barnacles and oysters on the submerged rocks would make it unlikely that a PAPI was being followed.

At "100" is there any expectation that there should be a threshold clearly visible and a runway with all of the pretty markings and lights etc, somewhere near the window? If not needed at "100" when the MDA was some 20 seconds earlier, then at what point would the crew get a bit uncomfortable with the waves under their window.

Little in the recommendations appear to work on the underlying problem, continuing an approach below minima without seeing the runway, lights, PAPI etc.

GPWS is not installed just to increase the ZFW.
fdr is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 08:40
  #279 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,921
Maisk Rotum, #277 ‘appalling report’
Alternatively a well considered, thorough report identifying significant issues within our industry.
If the ‘appalling’ interpretation relates to human performance, then why is this misappropriation any different (in principle) to any human performance, including reading, interpreting and commenting on a report.
We have yet another opportunity for learning, but what and how.
safetypee is online now  
Old 18th Jul 2019, 09:14
  #280 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The Hot zone
Posts: 197
Agreed. A factual and honest report. I think you know what the 'appalling' refers to.
Maisk Rotum 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.