Air Niugini Aircraft crash, Truk Lagoon
IMHO and not necessarily related, I always felt dive and drive appropriate for situations where the visibility was good, base above the MDA, and especially when doing non-straight-in approach. Anytime on a straight in approach in limited visibility a CDA approach is preferable.
The pax are paying for the flight to be done in accordance with the procedures. If the procedures end up with diversions, that is what it is supposed to be. Making up rules as you go along is great until the wheels fall off the wagon, and people who are paying for a particular standard get left with the result. Normalisation of deviation hurts the flight crew as much as anyone else. They believe they are doing the right thing, and may accept deviations as they are achieving the outcome that the company wants from a short game commercial perspective. Playing the odds however will prove statistics in the end.
I hope that the data finds there was something else going on here, I really do, but cases of planes missing the airport is pretty untidy. Extenuating circumstances should include the design of the approach in this case, but once you go below MDA/DA, then the rest is up to the integrity of the flight crew complying with the requirements to continue a descent below MMA.
This is not meant as a criticism of the particular flight crew in this event, it is a sad lament on the number of events of this type that keep on keeping on, and which indicate that there is a level of normalisation that we as a collective group appear to not be mitigating fully. It is also not a regional or specific concern, it happens in Europe, in Indonesia, with a Canadian carrier in the Caribbean, and sundry other locations. Years ago, I pax'ed on a U.S. airline from LAX to YVR, a Boeing 3 holer, and we landed there in CAT IIIB conditions. I asked the crew afterwards when was their equipment upgraded to do such procedures, and they said it wasn't. Years later, at an airport that is only CAT I, in weather that was certainly CAT III, the aircraft that we were going to operate out, arrived. It was the only aircraft that did that morning, and they system just shrugged it's shoulders. Non compliance is a universal human trait.
The investigating bodies invariably allocate causation to "Pilot Error", I dispute that is really the basic cause; the pilots do not go out there intending to erroneously break the rules, the rules are being bent by the collective and the normalisation is resulting in the odd wild ride. We have seen one of these recently where the pilot's cognitive ability appears to have been impaired through emotional disruption, but otherwise, healthy crews have driven tubes carrying punters into the brine.
Descending towards water below minima without a runway threshold somewhere in the near future is not a perception error, either there is a runway out there that you are looking at a specific aiming point on, or there is not. Wave tops are poor aiming points.
A carrier if interested in ceasing non compliance could do so within days, but would be fighting the unions to do that, and I suspect that the status quo works out reasonably well for the airlines, their pax more often than not get to destination in these events with little or no awareness of the risks involved.
We can stop these events happening, but only if the profession acknowledges that the problem is us, and gets serious about ceasing the practice. I doubt that we have the will or interest in doing so, we naturally assume that the guys/girls who will get caught out are different to us, we do it better etc....
Last edited by fdr; 30th Sep 2018 at 03:13.
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One wing low might do the trick....
My guess is they were on a 3 degree vertical profile at FASPO and just kept on it when they reached HAMAX and splash down came as a complete surprise....I assume in the B738 there is no ground proximity warning when in a landing configuration on final approach to destination airport, right?
In one of the TV reports it has a company statement that the weather was poor with heavy rain. Of the scenarios put forward I'm going with the long touch down and off the end by the quoted 150 metres, coming to rest pointed in the direction of travel.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its almost a uncontrolled airport have to call approach on decent to get current weather no atis they rarely answer.
All this controller knows is yes runway is clear united landed 15 min ago etc.
Or go into holding as another aircraft will be departing at your arrival time.
Then if you do make it in have to call SF to confirm landing on HF.
Bet the Truk hotel was full that day.
Good so many survived at such a bad situation that they were put into.
Anyone know exactly what the weather conditions where when the aircraft was on the approach?
If the PAPI was U/S as previously reported and if there was rain on the approach path they may have certainly still had the required visibility passing the MDA, with the threshold in sight and lost visual reference in the visual segment due to a moving squall line or rain shower.
If they done a dirty duck dive at the bottom of the approach they more than likely would have been very unstable and the injuries and damage to the aircraft would have been a lot worse IMHO. It certainly appears that the vertical flight path of the aeroplane was under control when they contacted the water.
If the PAPI was U/S as previously reported and if there was rain on the approach path they may have certainly still had the required visibility passing the MDA, with the threshold in sight and lost visual reference in the visual segment due to a moving squall line or rain shower.
If they done a dirty duck dive at the bottom of the approach they more than likely would have been very unstable and the injuries and damage to the aircraft would have been a lot worse IMHO. It certainly appears that the vertical flight path of the aeroplane was under control when they contacted the water.
From ASN:
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20180928-0
The aircraft was approaching runway 04 in rain when it hit the water short of the runway.
Air Niugini stated that the aircraft "landed short of the runway". Other reports suggest the aircraft overshot the runway on landing. The position of the aircraft relative to the runway, suggests the overrun to be a more plausible scenario.
2B2S, my comment is that the collective "WE" presume that when there is a bad outcome, it is because the other party involved is somehow different, as in incompetent, foolhardy, risk taking, or just stupid, We have better "_______ " planes, people, rules, beer etc... fill in the blanks. The truth is collectively, WE appear to be frequently pushed into actions through real or perceived pressure, and sometimes that ends badly. Your post indicates experience of variations on the theme as well, and you are hardly alone with a basketball called Wilson on that score.
My concern goes well beyond say, Hofstede's observations, I really don't think the issue is cultural or a consequence of cultures differences, it is endemic in the industry, a universal issue and we keep on putting bandaids on the matter. I believe that there is merit in the industry taking a hard look at itself, perhaps in the vein of Reason, but probably more in depth, such as Ladkin or preferably Hollnagel, to assess how dysfunctional the industry is behind the polish. For a number of years I was involved in getting airlines (and regulators) through compliance audits. The truth is that you can put lipstick on the pig relatively easily, and pass the audits, particularly when the auditors do not bother to look closely at the evidence of non compliance that usually litters the system.
My concern goes well beyond say, Hofstede's observations, I really don't think the issue is cultural or a consequence of cultures differences, it is endemic in the industry, a universal issue and we keep on putting bandaids on the matter. I believe that there is merit in the industry taking a hard look at itself, perhaps in the vein of Reason, but probably more in depth, such as Ladkin or preferably Hollnagel, to assess how dysfunctional the industry is behind the polish. For a number of years I was involved in getting airlines (and regulators) through compliance audits. The truth is that you can put lipstick on the pig relatively easily, and pass the audits, particularly when the auditors do not bother to look closely at the evidence of non compliance that usually litters the system.
Some more US Navy footage, taken as they were approaching the aircraft:
Note that the forward doors are still well clear of the water at this point, with the emergency exit just starting to be broached.
Also clearly visible is the deformed rear fuselage.
Note that the forward doors are still well clear of the water at this point, with the emergency exit just starting to be broached.
Also clearly visible is the deformed rear fuselage.
Another survivor interview I hadn't seen before:
Guam Daily Post
When his Air Niugini flight crashed into the waters of a lagoon on Weno island in Chuuk state Friday morning, Dr. Victor Wasson said, "The first thing in my mind was, 'Thank God, I'm still alive.'"
His next thought was, "I got to get the hell out of here."
Wasson was seated on the right side of the plane, near the wing when, he believes, the plane struck the end of the runway at Chuuk International Airport.
"We had more than one impact," said Wasson, who described "one big thud" and "then the second one, and then we stopped."
"It's highly likely that the back part of the plane hit the edge of the rocks at the end of the runway," he said.
Seconds before the plane hit the water, Wasson said one of the flight attendants "shouted out, 'Brace for impact!' Before she finished her sentence, we hit the water." He said the plane crashed "about 150 meters from the rocks."
Wasson is a psychiatrist at Pohnpei State Hospital and the national psychiatrist for the government of the Federated States of Micronesia.
Little warning
"I was surprised because there was no mention of like an emergency," he said. "We just suddenly hit the water. We were not informed. ... There was nothing like that."
Wasson said he spoke to the pilot after the crash.
"I asked them, 'Was it an engine problem?'" and he responded, "'No.' He told me it was bad weather."
But Wasson said weather conditions weren't that bad.
"It was a little bit rainy and there was some cloud cover" but "it wasn't like a thunderstorm. ... It was just the usual rain."
"The pilot unfortunately could not see the landing strip," he said. "So he overflew the landing strip and we crashed into the water.
"However, even people who aren't aviation experts would know to circle around if the runway weren't visible, Wasson said.
"Most definitely, human error," he said. "I think the airline needs to make a formal apology."
Panic on board
Passengers were panicking, Wasson said.
"A few of them hit their head, so they were dazed; they were in shock."
Water then began pouring into the plane."Within three minutes it was halfway up my shin, toward my knee," Wasson said, and "it was putting on water quite fast.
"One of the passengers managed to open the emergency exit over the wing; a self-inflating raft deployed, and "all of us just jumped into the raft," he said.
"We had to help the elderly come out," he said. "One needed to be carried out; the guy with the broken pelvis."
Outside the plane, Wasson saw a "big crack" in the fuselage of the plane "right through, just behind the wing ... horizontally, from the top to the bottom of the aircraft."
Local rescue
Dozens of small skiffs manned by local fishermen sped to the scene and helped evacuate passengers as the Boeing 737 slowly sank into 100 feet of water.
A team of U.S. Navy sailors assigned to Underwater Construction Team 2 also happened to be near the crash site and joined the first responders.
"I need to officially thank these people," Wasson said, and suggested that Air Niugini do the same. "The locals here ... actually saved (lives). ... Those without life jackets could have drowned."
Earlier Friday, the Federal Aviation Administration stated the crash had involved Flight 73. The Navy later stated it was Flight 56, the airline's return flight to Chuuk from Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Flight 73 flies from Chuuk to Port Moresby.
His next thought was, "I got to get the hell out of here."
Wasson was seated on the right side of the plane, near the wing when, he believes, the plane struck the end of the runway at Chuuk International Airport.
"We had more than one impact," said Wasson, who described "one big thud" and "then the second one, and then we stopped."
"It's highly likely that the back part of the plane hit the edge of the rocks at the end of the runway," he said.
Seconds before the plane hit the water, Wasson said one of the flight attendants "shouted out, 'Brace for impact!' Before she finished her sentence, we hit the water." He said the plane crashed "about 150 meters from the rocks."
Wasson is a psychiatrist at Pohnpei State Hospital and the national psychiatrist for the government of the Federated States of Micronesia.
Little warning
"I was surprised because there was no mention of like an emergency," he said. "We just suddenly hit the water. We were not informed. ... There was nothing like that."
Wasson said he spoke to the pilot after the crash.
"I asked them, 'Was it an engine problem?'" and he responded, "'No.' He told me it was bad weather."
But Wasson said weather conditions weren't that bad.
"It was a little bit rainy and there was some cloud cover" but "it wasn't like a thunderstorm. ... It was just the usual rain."
"The pilot unfortunately could not see the landing strip," he said. "So he overflew the landing strip and we crashed into the water.
"However, even people who aren't aviation experts would know to circle around if the runway weren't visible, Wasson said.
"Most definitely, human error," he said. "I think the airline needs to make a formal apology."
Panic on board
Passengers were panicking, Wasson said.
"A few of them hit their head, so they were dazed; they were in shock."
Water then began pouring into the plane."Within three minutes it was halfway up my shin, toward my knee," Wasson said, and "it was putting on water quite fast.
"One of the passengers managed to open the emergency exit over the wing; a self-inflating raft deployed, and "all of us just jumped into the raft," he said.
"We had to help the elderly come out," he said. "One needed to be carried out; the guy with the broken pelvis."
Outside the plane, Wasson saw a "big crack" in the fuselage of the plane "right through, just behind the wing ... horizontally, from the top to the bottom of the aircraft."
Local rescue
Dozens of small skiffs manned by local fishermen sped to the scene and helped evacuate passengers as the Boeing 737 slowly sank into 100 feet of water.
A team of U.S. Navy sailors assigned to Underwater Construction Team 2 also happened to be near the crash site and joined the first responders.
"I need to officially thank these people," Wasson said, and suggested that Air Niugini do the same. "The locals here ... actually saved (lives). ... Those without life jackets could have drowned."
Earlier Friday, the Federal Aviation Administration stated the crash had involved Flight 73. The Navy later stated it was Flight 56, the airline's return flight to Chuuk from Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Flight 73 flies from Chuuk to Port Moresby.
Audio from the passenger interview referred to in my previous post:
Guam Daily Post interview
Grateful thanks to an Avherald reader comment for the pointer to the Guam Daily Post, though the comment in question seems now to have disappeared from AH, which continues to lead with the 04 undershoot scenario.
Guam Daily Post interview
Grateful thanks to an Avherald reader comment for the pointer to the Guam Daily Post, though the comment in question seems now to have disappeared from AH, which continues to lead with the 04 undershoot scenario.
So, 3 days later and no one knows (for sure) whether it was an undershoot or an over run. I’m beginning to wonder if the crew even knows.
Well, on the positive side everyone survived. And there is now a new dive site in Truk. Was getting a bit bored of all those underwater photos of divers sitting in the cockpits of sunken Zeroes.
Well, on the positive side everyone survived. And there is now a new dive site in Truk. Was getting a bit bored of all those underwater photos of divers sitting in the cockpits of sunken Zeroes.
But you make a good point. The main reason we're still asking the question is that there have so far been no eyewitnesses coming forward who say that they saw the aircraft as it hit the water.
We have plenty of photographic evidence that the aircraft ended up SW of the airport, on the runway centreline and pointing away from the runway.
That doesn't necessarily preclude an undershoot on 04, but it would require that the aircraft rotated neatly through 180° before anyone had a chance to take a photo of it.
We've had suggestions from posters that it drifted round as a result of winds and/or currents after it had settled in the water, in the few minutes before the US Navy team arrived on the scene with their cameras, or that it spun round due to impact forces when it hit the water. The latter sounds less likely now that we have an interview from a passenger who made no mention of that, only of a double impact.
We have a report from the airport GM who says it came down short of the runway on final approach, but who doesn't claim to have actually seen it happen.
We have a report from a hotel employee who says he heard (but didn't see) the aircraft making what he thought was a normal landing, from a location 350 m from the runway (and 700 m from the aircraft's final position), suggesting that he had heard reverse thrust being deployed, only to be told later that it had gone into the water.
The only thing we can say for sure is that the jury's still out on this one ...
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After having flown the Pacific for a whole career, as well as known the extraordinary terrific capability of RNP and GLS/GBAS, to always provide a safe path to take a jet to the runway TDZ,... always (not even considering supporting LAND2 or LAND3 or DUAL, or AIII), ...and how easy it would have been to implement both RNP and GLS/GBAS at PTKK (just like CAL once tried), it's unthinkable to me why we are still are incurring unnecessary hull losses like this, even if there is an unexpected loss of visual reference, or CB induced windshear.
PS. Thank goodness for the B737. It's one tough bird.
PS. Thank goodness for the B737. It's one tough bird.
Fully agree with the above.
Laughed when I watched the video above with the Navy workers approaching the aircraft. The first rescued was a backpack. Then there did not seem any steady pax flow out the exit. Admittedly I don't know what was happening on the other side but there didn't seem too much urgency. Must be on island time.
Laughed when I watched the video above with the Navy workers approaching the aircraft. The first rescued was a backpack. Then there did not seem any steady pax flow out the exit. Admittedly I don't know what was happening on the other side but there didn't seem too much urgency. Must be on island time.
The USN video shows an engine still attached, so it couldn't have splashed down that hard...I thought somebody above reported the engines are designed to separate on water contact? Makes me suspect again much of the landing energy was dissipated into the runway (i.e. landed long).
Anyway, the latest reporting...high praise to the pilots and crew from the PX Chairman.
https://postcourier.com.pg/passenger...pecial-flight/
Anyway, the latest reporting...high praise to the pilots and crew from the PX Chairman.
https://postcourier.com.pg/passenger...pecial-flight/