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

Pegasus accident in SAW; just reported

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

Pegasus accident in SAW; just reported

Old 7th Feb 2020, 06:06
  #181 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 72
Posts: 2,429
Originally Posted by Pistonprop View Post
PJ2,

Just for info, it's not all that unusual to have 3 crew up front if there's training or a check ride going on.
Thanks Pistonprop, yes, I'm aware of the arrangement, btdt etc. I recall that there were 3 up front on the Turkish 738 into AMS.

Whatever else is behind this accident, for me this has the scent of CRM issues to it.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 07:07
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: It used to be an island...
Posts: 214
Originally Posted by Callsign Kilo View Post
Regardless of aircraft type, there is no excuse for landing any aircraft almost 2/3rds into a 3km runway in wet conditions with a tailwind component that’s well beyond certification limitations (unless you were on fire or had a thimble full of fuel remaining). If that’s what has happened then this is regrettably another case of an avoidable runway excursion that has led to fatalities.
That is the nub of the entire problem here.

Why isn't Ryanair pranging the slippery high-speed beast off the end of the runway on a daily basis? Because they don't fly like this!
nicolai is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 07:24
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: SPAIN
Age: 39
Posts: 399
What was the experience of the pilots? Anybody knows?
samca is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 07:30
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Sudbury, Suffolk
Posts: 161
Originally Posted by nicolai View Post
That is the nub of the entire problem here.

Why isn't Ryanair pranging the slippery high-speed beast off the end of the runway on a daily basis? Because they don't fly like this!
And, interestingly, this gives the lie to the blanket condemnation of "beancounters" as the fons et origo of all ills. Here is a business run with fanatic dedication to cost control and maximisation of revenue and yet with an effective safety culture as measured by results.

There may be learning that other organisations can gain.
Maninthebar is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 07:31
  #185 (permalink)  

de minimus non curat lex
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: sunny troon
Posts: 956
In my youth I worked for British Aerospace. As a junior pilot I recall on a ‘Black Flag’ day sitting in the crew room when an old hand came out with a saying which has stuck with me ever since...

IF YOU THINK TRAINING IS EXPENSIVE WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE AN ACCIDENT

In this particular case, the Swiss Cheese model springs to mind. You do wonder just what CRM training took place, and just how robust the whole process was......

They need to engage with an independent EASA CRM provider(s) who will look at the whole organisation root and branch. National cultures are of course the basic ingredients which need to be moulded into a safe secure organisation.

Even now it is difficult to understand how the crew fell into this trap given previous well publicised worldwide events....I know it is easy to sit in an armchair and pontificate......however comma this is a fundamental gross error given that no evidence has yet to emerge of aircraft unserviceable items.
parkfell is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 07:46
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by giggitygiggity View Post
But a rough calculation wouldn't put any weight on which aircraft is more frequently used in various parts of the globe (west vs east to put it bluntly). This isn't an assumption or a guess - just a hypothetical - but what if the 737 is more popular outside the first world than the Airbus due to its age. How would you weight that factor in your rough eyeballing survey?
Comparing apples and oranges here. Autothrust on the A320 series is pretty good at keeping Vapp, whereas the tendency with manual thrust is to sit just about Vapp and frequently to apply a burst of power just before touch-down. Boeing technique seems to be to set the pitch attitude and gently bleed off power in the flare; in general with the Airbus the thrust levers are closed simultaneously with the flare commencing.
Fursty Ferret is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 11:56
  #187 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: England
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by AuroraAustralis View Post
I'm not going to state any opinion, take these numbers and interpret as you wish:

Runway excursion hull losses in the past 2 years involving the B737NG (6700 built):
PGT8622: Jan 2018
CXA8667: Aug 2018
UTA579: Sep 2018
ANG73: Sep 2018
BSK293: May 2019
PGT2193: Feb 2020

Runway excursion hull losses in the past 2 years involving the A320 family (9200 built):
N/A
My takeaway from those statistics is that Pegasus, with only 24 737NGs have made up 33% of 737NG hull losses due to runway excursion in the last tow years, whereas Ryanair and Southwest with >1000 NGs between them have made up 0%.
tigerinthenight is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 12:03
  #188 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Age: 42
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by CurtainTwitcher View Post
They are disproportionately represented in over-runs, and will be just because the the numerical number of takeoffs and landings they do, compared to almost every aircraft except the A32x.

The more interesting question is the relative rate of A32x vs B737-NG runway excursions. Eyeballing, wikipedia says about 7,900 A32x deliveries vs about 7000 B737-NG, so a very large sample size for both to make valid comparisons.

My understanding is the -800 is also significantly faster across the fence compared to the A32x, and even the 737-classic, so that would provide and extra margin for pilot error in the decision to land/go-around for deep landings and floats on marginal runways.

According to my information the accident airframe had the SFP (short field Performance) option.

But that doesn‘t matter, because the Aircraft is only a minor(if any) contributing factor.

Unstabilized high energy approaches produce overruns!
KRH270/12 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 13:06
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by KRH270/12 View Post
According to my information the accident airframe had the SFP (short field Performance) option.
SFP option is irrelevant for landing perfs. It only affects the slats position at TO settings.
fab777 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 13:37
  #190 (permalink)  
1+F
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by wtsmg View Post
Look at the wx, look at the landing runway selected.

Unless it was on fire, they're clowns.

Pull the bloody AOC.
I think I am going to be judgemental here and agree because this is not an isolated incident for this operator.
This crew pushed on when they were high and long and the wind was 22G37KTS almost all tail on a wet runway.
1+F is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 13:42
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 873
Originally Posted by fab777 View Post
SFP option is irrelevant for landing perfs. It only affects the slats position at TO settings.
That's just not true. It affects the landing performance significantly, particularly when paired with the optional 2-position tail skid.

Flight Controls
FlyingStone is online now  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 15:50
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Up north
Age: 30
Posts: 42
Originally Posted by FlyingStone View Post
That's just not true. It affects the landing performance significantly, particularly when paired with the optional 2-position tail skid.

Flight Controls
Especially on approach, the SFP ones really don't like slowing down even with "normal" tailwind, let alone 30+kts.
Pirrex is online now  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 17:27
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 75
Posts: 358
Some advice for these overrun airlines:

You SHOULD be established , ie configured, on speed, on glide slop and localiser established or visual equivalents. BUT
MUST be established by 500 feet OR its a mandatory go around,
Works!
RetiredBA/BY is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 17:33
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,436
Originally Posted by RetiredBA/BY View Post
MUST be established by 500 feet OR its a mandatory go around,
Works!
Many U.S. airlines require the plane to be stable and fully configured by 1000 feet. However, on some carriers the rule appears to be by 80 knots on rollout.
Airbubba is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 19:57
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Isla Grande
Posts: 902
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Many U.S. airlines require the plane to be stable and fully configured by 1000 feet. However, on some carriers the rule appears to be by 80 knots on rollout.
Good one

ROFL
gearlever is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 20:38
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Orbit
Posts: 35
Seems like another 'broken GA button/mindset' case...
Havingwings4ever is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 21:15
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Europe
Age: 42
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by fab777 View Post
SFP option is irrelevant for landing perfs. It only affects the slats position at TO settings.
That statement is wrong.
KRH270/12 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 22:01
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 15
I heard of two pilots on the deck, the Turkish Captain is fine while Dutch FO was injured and required surgery. I don't think PGS has any South Korean pilots.

That being said, Pegasus is not P2F. At least not for the last 7 years I have been flying airlines in Turkey.
turker339 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 22:42
  #199 (permalink)  
568
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Castletown
Posts: 168
Originally Posted by Airbubba View Post
Many U.S. airlines require the plane to be stable and fully configured by 1000 feet. However, on some carriers the rule appears to be by 80 knots on rollout.
Some operators require:

1000 feet: Stable on instrument approach(s)
500 feet: Stable on visual approach
Land in touchdown zone

Stable criteria:
In general (varies from operator to operator) +10/-5 knots VREF speed and no more than FOM quoted ILS glide slope and LOC deflections, along with VNAV lateral and vertical approach tolerances for example.
Visual approach: No more than the speed variance above and no greater than 1000 FPM descent rate, unless corrections are made to be within limits at the 500 feet gate height.

If you aren't going to be stable or land in the touchdown zone, then a GA will be carried out and either pilot can call "Go around".

Seems straight forward, but I am surprised to see different performances during simulator training and the inability of PM to call "GA". In the real world, situations like this occur to experienced crews for one thing or another but typically fatigue or inexperience is also the issue.
568 is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2020, 23:07
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: France
Age: 43
Posts: 155
I wonder how it is possible to stay on a 3.5• glide slope with such a wind.

Either rate of descent in excess of 1000 ft/min
or above the glide slope



Citation2 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.