bookworm

All this talk of icing , but were the conditions really ripe for more than a trace that day? As far as I can tell from the various reports, it was a calm and stable morning with stratus tops around 4000 ft, surface temp +4 degC, and relatively clear air above. I don't have a chart for Luxembourg that day, but the low level chart indicates a freezing level of about 8000 ft over NW Belgium with no mention of any sub-zero layer.

Although it may have been holding close to the tops of the layer (for how long, BTW?), are these really the sorts of conditions that are likely to result in an icing accident?

ironbutt57

No spin at roselawn, ailerons "snatched" from stop to stop, aircraft entered steep spiral dive..airframe failed on the way down due to excessive airloads...much like the dolomiti atr over the alps several years earlier...

Ellion

I do not intend to be condescending to anybody, but unless your involved with the 'investigation team' none of you know what your talking about, ...... in this instance!!....

.....Or in the aftermath of any future incident. Sitting at a computer that may or may not be in the comfort of your home is no place to be speculating about the cause of an accident/incident.

If you have expertise in the area of accident investigation, please feel free to comment. However those that do, generally stay mum until all the facts have been discovered.

PaperTiger

So what is a good place then ?

Perhaps one other admonition should be added to your little list - don't waste bandwidth unless you have something to contribute to a discussion.

Pompous a**.

lomapaseo

> If you have expertise in the area of accident investigation, please feel free to comment. However those that do, generally stay mum until all the facts have been discovered.<

I don't agree. Much can be learned by speculation with arguments based on some facts.

Even an expert investigator can learn from these arguments

As I have stated before,assignment of blame to any party has no place in these arguments.

Ignition Override

Ironbutt757: Regarding the ATR tragedy at Roselawn, many of us know that the (US) FAA regulatory authorities were well aware of the icing problems on ATR-42s which operated in Europe, long before the Roselawn nightmare, but the FAA assumed that it did not matter, nope, not one bit. Their government service jobs and GS pay grades were safe, no matter what their actions or inactions.


Otherwise, they would have initiated, on their own (a very rare step for our "friends" at the FAA), more operational icing research following those serious control problems in Europe, before a planeload of people died. They were very clever to begin this research after the 'closed casket' funerals (simply say good bye to what is left of your son's, daughter's, Mom's or Dad's remains in the well-sealed coffin) all over the country, which clearly demonstrated their genuine concern for the traveling public (most of whom pay their salaries...).

Oldjet Jockey

Ellion

I understand your post but quite frankly think you are misguided in wanting to inhibit discussion on possible causes of a tragic accident. It has already been stated by the authorities that it is likely to be next September at the earliest before a report is published. Providing no fingers of blame are being pointed, any discussion by professionals of possible, and I emphasise "POSSIBLE" causes can contibute to the official investigators thoughts and may be draw attention to potential system faults or deficiencies that can help alert other crews in avoiding similar disasters while waitng for the results of the enquiry. I'm sure you would not like to hear of other loss of life because we cannot talk among ourselves of possible problems. Lets keep talking in a sensible way about anything that comes to mind from our professional experience while avoiding pointing the finger. I am now retired and still alive. Many years ago after an accident to another aircraft I was alerted to certain possible causes and in similar circumstances I was able to avoid a nasty, so I will forever be grateful to those who are bold enough to voice their professional thoughts after an accident. The only posts to be avoided are from those who, without the facts claim to KNOW the cause or Who if any one was to blame. For the rest let us continue sensible technical discussions!!!!!!!

A4

I totally agree "OJJ" - well said!

A4

ironbutt57

Ellion...have downloaded and read in it's entirety the NTSB report, as well as the book Unheeded Warnings...flew for that airline in the mid 80's as a shed capt...know all the people in the book, as well as the fellow who lost control on approach into DTW and was fortunate to recover...

IG override..yes it was a big coverup...don't know quite why the simmons management took it so personally...especially in light of the atr 42 that suffered the same fate...also little support from alpo when management went after the author of the book mentioned above....guess the whistle-blower laws are a bit toothless aren't they

Stratocaster

Sorry to interrupt, but from what I hear the official announcement made by the LX gov on their website is way off-track from what investigators think (= BS). I don't know whether it was intentional or not, and of course the guys from the French BEA may still change their mind further down this investigation which has just started. At this time, when the mass media is pressing for new information and something smart to say on the air (which doesn't happen very often unfortunately), I guess it's a smarter move for the gov to say it's probably a technical problem and focus everybody's attention on that until the final report goes out (in a year or so).

What leaked is that the right prop is amazingly "intact" compared to the left one, so people start thinking "hey what if, in just a snap, they became single-engine ?". That's all they seem to say regarding the engines: one was turning much faster than the other. The other bit of info is concerning the rate of descent, which apparently reached up to -7,000 fpm. It is assumed that the aircraft bounced once before crashing in the field (I find that a bit hard to believe but I'm not an expert on the subject).

Then comes the pure speculation regarding the crew, which couldn't come from the BEA of course, but obviously I won't repeat it here. Actually I find that totally disgusting, especially when it comes from collegues. Especially when one of them survived. Especially when the investigation has just begun. Especially when all the crew members are in tears (is there a special team to help them go through all this ?). I don't know who started it and who followed him/her, but I wouldn't want to have collegues like that.

lomapaseo

I was enticed by stratocaster's post above, but with so much tongue in cheek I couldn't entirely decipher what he was hinting at.

Can anybody help out here?

What issues need to be checked further?

angel_wings74

A local weekly paper is stirring things up - they are known for articles like this.

Last week they were trying to blame the controllers - they'd been up to the flying clubs and all the PPLs were complaining about the controllers here.

This week, they say that the pilot told the passengers that it would be a difficult landing - yet nothing was said to ELLX Tower who believed everything was normal. From what I can understand in the article they're asking the question "was the plane crashed on purpose?"

Maybe someone with a better command of French could translate this.

Article in French

RatherBeFlying

This is my quickie attempt.

After the crash of the Luxair Fokker, the mystery remains complete.
Need for Serenity

Human reaction -- always under shock. everybody is waiting to know and understand. However we must still remain patient. And avoid hasty conclusions.
Daniel Pol-Soum

Now that the investigators at BEA in Paris are reading the black boxes, serenity has not returned to the souls far from there. Whether at Luxair or the people below or potential customers, questions acculmulate and speculations florish.

Christian Heinzmann, director général of the company, wants the answers as quickly as possible, just for the morale of his troops (see interview). Besides, he has to confront certain criticisms of his décision to allow the other Fokkers to continue flying. However, it must be understood that such a décision is taken in consultation with the manufacturer. Now, Fokker has confirmed to Jeudi that there is no reason to ground the Fokkers.
Certain people underneath are taking advantage of the accident to reassert their demands to modify the approach corridors. A solution totally utopian because of the size of the country and the technical constraints in navigating approaches. For Raymond Weydert, mayor of Niederanven, it would be convenient to calm the polémic for the moment, «if only out of respect for the victims».
Is it, in this context, to calm people that the Parquet ?? has décidéd, since Friday, November 8, to publish a communiqué indicating a first élément of explanation for the accident: the simultanéous halt of the two motors? But this communiqué for the less hâsty, is strongly contrary to Fokker's experts in charge of the investigation.
«Difficult landing»
Besides, according to all the aviation professionals that we have contacted, it is highly improbable that the two motors shut down simultanéously, at least it has nothing to do with a voluntary action. Now, what reason would have led a pilot to carry out such an action?
One has besides affirméd that the position of the propellors démonstrate that the motors were stopped. However the blades of a stopped propellor get put into feather to avoid all résistance to the air. Now, the photos show blades in working position.
According to a source close to BEA, the pilot would have announcéd to the passengers «a difficult landing». But, according to Jean-Claude Wahl, vice-président of the Guild of air contrôllers, working that morning of November 6th, at the last contact with the pilot, 30 seconds just before the crash, he didn't report anything abnormal.
Besides, the contrôllers themselves inquired among themselves. The airplane was alone, its approach was perfect, nothing gave any forewarning of an accident. Moreover, the ILS and the tower are protected with a redundant uninterruptable power and alarms come on, in the cockpit and tower, at the least problèm.
While waiting for the résults of the investigation, the familys have buried their relatives, and the people of Luxembourg and Berlin, have rendered homage to the victims. As for the air contrôllers, in contrast to Luxair personnel and various emergency services, they wait for moral support from their employer...

AMEX

...Meanwhile, investigators have revealed that a sudden power loss in both engines brought down the Luxair Fokker 50 that crashed on final approach to Luxembourg Findel airport on 6 November. The information came from the flight data recorder, and the technical investigators say that the engines appear to have stopped but do not yet know why. They have ruled out fuel exhaustion, however, because fuel was evident at the crash site and contributed to the post-impact fire. Propeller damage indicates that there was no power on at impact. There were 18 passenger and two crew fatalities, but the captain and a passenger survived despite injuries.

This is the Link, look under the Manila bay crash

Nick Figaretto

Any news lately?

minimumclean

AOF's (All Operator Message) have been send to operators, with more information of a POSSIBLE cause.
Its too early now to jump to conclusions, but........

near enuf is good enuf

As hopeful as I am that it's not, this has a strange similarity to Kegworth to me !

spuis

Ground fine pitch?????
Never heard of it on the 50.
Even if the props went into beta range(which normally is not possible in flight), that would still rule out shutdown of the engines.
Nice try, let's stick to the small amounts of facts we do hear on this.

Spuis

LRdriver

bit harsh there spuis, huh?...

settle down beavis

Belgique

Re the Article Below
No sane pilot is going to lift a guard and select power levers to ground-fine whilst airborne (that's a very definite action in any turboprop).
It's far more likely that another selection on the centre console (flap perhaps, but may have been anything?) caused an electrical short and removed the beta stop baulk, allowing the pilot's reduction to low Flt Idle power to "go through" into ground idle. Or maybe the short was there all along and the baulk just wasn't there. I would guess that a box swap-out may have occurred on that centre console during the "technical check the day before".... and that could have set up a short (or the makings of a short). But they'd fall out of the sky really quickly if both had gone into GI.

Really needs a further explanation for why they were so far right of the final approach course for the ILS and heading even further right. So it may have been that the excursion into Ground idle occurred on only one engine (i.e. he didn't bang both against the "disappeared stop" and only one, the RH one, went through). The asymmetrics would have then taken them (and their heading) right of course. I'm not sure whether immediate feathering action is available on an engine with its prop stuck in ground idle. Would it possibly be inhibited? And how feasible is a quick reselection of the Flight Range (assuming that they tumbled to what had happened?)

Can a tripped CB remove that GI baulk?

November 23, 2002 - Luxair Disputes Magazine's Crash Report

BERLIN, Germany- Pilot error could be to blame for the fatal Luxair plane crash near Luxembourg's airport earlier this month, a German magazine reported on Saturday, but the airline called the report speculation.

Der Spiegel weekly said in a report issued before Sunday's publication that flight recorder data showed both propellers of the Fokker 50 were on a setting for taxiing, not for flying. This could have caused the plane to crash as it came in to land, killing 20 of 22 people aboard, it said.

Paul Greis, spokesman for Luxair in Luxembourg, rejected the report.

"I have not seen the article itself, but from the media reports I can say it is pure speculation," he said. "We do not have any information from the investigation team."

Without citing its information source, Der Spiegel said the propellers could not be mistakenly moved from the so-called "flight idle" setting to "ground idle" because the switch to make the change was covered by a protective flap.

Der Spiegel said the plane's manufacturers explicitly warned in their handbook against putting the propellers on to the "ground idle" setting during landing.

The plane smashed into a field in thick fog about five km (three miles) from Luxembourg's international airport when it was on landing approach on November 6. The dead were 15 Germans, four Luxembourgers and one French.

French passenger Jean-Daniel Boye escaped with light injuries, while the Luxembourg pilot, Captain Claude Poeckes, suffered serious but not life-threatening injuries.

Visibility was about 100 metres (300 feet), and five planes had landed safely at the airport before the Fokker 50.

Poeckes had been flying with Luxair for about seven years. The plane had been in service since 1991 and had had a technical check the previous day, according to the airline.

The crash was the first in the 40-year history of Luxair, which is 13 percent owned by the German airline Lufthansa and 36.5 percent by the Luxembourg government. The rest is held by private companies and the Luxair Group.