Luxembourg Crash 6/11 (Threads Merged)
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Mostly Western hemisphere
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The LX gov (the biggest shareholder of the airline if I recall correctly ?) said the F-50 lost power on both engines... I don't believe it. Take a look at the flight path, check out what's left of the engines and the props. And I'm not even talking about the leaks close to the BEA...
'Smells like single-engine trouble.
M. Greis says Luxair doesn't have any information from the investigators... I don't believe it either. I doubt he missed the big "secret" meeting on the subject two days ago in ELLX. And I doubt the chief pilot, father of the surviving captain, is not trying to find out what almost killed his son.
A few people from Luxair know almost everything, but they won't say anything before the report is out. They don't have to, of course. Actually they're paid to act the way they do. And the report will only give the most probable cause. But if they could at least avoid broadcasting BS I would really appreciate it !
'Smells like single-engine trouble.
M. Greis says Luxair doesn't have any information from the investigators... I don't believe it either. I doubt he missed the big "secret" meeting on the subject two days ago in ELLX. And I doubt the chief pilot, father of the surviving captain, is not trying to find out what almost killed his son.
A few people from Luxair know almost everything, but they won't say anything before the report is out. They don't have to, of course. Actually they're paid to act the way they do. And the report will only give the most probable cause. But if they could at least avoid broadcasting BS I would really appreciate it !
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Relevant AD
The CASA 212 has had a number (at least four attributed) crashes due to a similar problem (failure of that flt idle stop)
So either:
a. _the technicians left the CB (for the baulk)_out during the previous day's servicing (and the pilots didn't notice it out_) or
b. the CB had shorted out itself out (or tripped enroute) or
c. There was a short that kept_the baulk in_absentia through-out or
d. There was a shorting-out (that removed the GI baulk)_when a flap handle (or something else was moved - at about 1000ft AGL on finals), or
e. For some unfathomable reason, during an ILS, the pilot intentionally selected ground idle.
The relevant AD is 98-14-15 Fokker Services B.V.
To prevent loss of airplane controllability caused by the power levers being positioned below the flight idle stop while the airplane is in flight, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include the following statements as specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable. This action may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
(1) For Model F27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 series airplanes, insert the following:
Warning: "Ground fine pitch must not be selected in flight. This may lead to loss of control from which recovery may not be possible."
(2) For Model F27 Mark 050 series airplanes, insert the following:
"Warning: Do not attempt to select ground idle in flight. In case of failure of the flight idle stop, this would lead to loss of control from which recovery may not be possible."
So either:
a. _the technicians left the CB (for the baulk)_out during the previous day's servicing (and the pilots didn't notice it out_) or
b. the CB had shorted out itself out (or tripped enroute) or
c. There was a short that kept_the baulk in_absentia through-out or
d. There was a shorting-out (that removed the GI baulk)_when a flap handle (or something else was moved - at about 1000ft AGL on finals), or
e. For some unfathomable reason, during an ILS, the pilot intentionally selected ground idle.
The relevant AD is 98-14-15 Fokker Services B.V.
To prevent loss of airplane controllability caused by the power levers being positioned below the flight idle stop while the airplane is in flight, accomplish the following:
(a) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the Limitations Section of the FAA-approved Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) to include the following statements as specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable. This action may be accomplished by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
(1) For Model F27 Mark 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, and 700 series airplanes, insert the following:
Warning: "Ground fine pitch must not be selected in flight. This may lead to loss of control from which recovery may not be possible."
(2) For Model F27 Mark 050 series airplanes, insert the following:
"Warning: Do not attempt to select ground idle in flight. In case of failure of the flight idle stop, this would lead to loss of control from which recovery may not be possible."
Guest
Posts: n/a
Btw, about this flight idle stop: the one F50 pilot landing with this stop engaged forgot a checklist item, since this mechanical stop is not supposed to be engaged during landing! How else would you select reverse or ground idle after landing! It is designed for the take-off, so that you don't select reverse when rejecting..
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Obvious
Age: 78
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Superpilu, may be as you say but ALSO,
Reference the AD above
If you look closely at the "Warning": at the bottom there would seem to be an anomaly (at least that's the way it appears to me).
The pilots are being warned about selecting GROUND IDLE in flight because "In case of failure of the flight idle stop, this would lead to loss of control from which recovery may not be possible."
What they really meant to say was (perhaps): " Be careful selecting Flight Idle whilst in flight. If the Flight Idle Stop has failed you might inadvertently (drop below Flt Idle and) enter Ground Idle. This would lead to loss of control from which recovery may not be possible."
It's no subtle distinction IMHO. Is not the hazard in bringing the power-levers back to where the flight-idle stop SHOULD BE, not finding it there and then unconsciously continuing to retard the P/L's looking for it - and consequently suddenly hearing the propeller note change and finding yourself dropping out of the sky?
And in fact, isn't that just about what's guaranteed to happen any old time the FLT IDLE STOP disappears (CB pulled or tripped, shorted solenoid - or whatever). It might happen one engine at a time (=> severe asymmetry)_/ maybe BOTH.
I hope you see my point. Of course you'd have to run it past someone who knew the F50 system intimately. There may be a power-lever_lift-ramp that I'm unaware of.
But prima facie, it appears to me to be another single-point CRITICAL FAILURE.
Reference the AD above
If you look closely at the "Warning": at the bottom there would seem to be an anomaly (at least that's the way it appears to me).
The pilots are being warned about selecting GROUND IDLE in flight because "In case of failure of the flight idle stop, this would lead to loss of control from which recovery may not be possible."
What they really meant to say was (perhaps): " Be careful selecting Flight Idle whilst in flight. If the Flight Idle Stop has failed you might inadvertently (drop below Flt Idle and) enter Ground Idle. This would lead to loss of control from which recovery may not be possible."
It's no subtle distinction IMHO. Is not the hazard in bringing the power-levers back to where the flight-idle stop SHOULD BE, not finding it there and then unconsciously continuing to retard the P/L's looking for it - and consequently suddenly hearing the propeller note change and finding yourself dropping out of the sky?
And in fact, isn't that just about what's guaranteed to happen any old time the FLT IDLE STOP disappears (CB pulled or tripped, shorted solenoid - or whatever). It might happen one engine at a time (=> severe asymmetry)_/ maybe BOTH.
I hope you see my point. Of course you'd have to run it past someone who knew the F50 system intimately. There may be a power-lever_lift-ramp that I'm unaware of.
But prima facie, it appears to me to be another single-point CRITICAL FAILURE.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luxair CEO confirms motors at ground idle
Speculation grows over cause of Fokker crash
An article in this week’s German weekly news magazine Stern, published today, has sparked further speculation about the cause of the Luxair Fokker 50 crash that left 20 people dead and two seriously injured three weeks ago. According to Stern, investigators have established that the plane’s motors were actually at “ground idle” status just before the plane crashed. Luxair CEO Christian Heinzmann yesterday confirmed on RTL television that this was the case. However, Heinzmann pointed out that the engines cannot be set at “ground idle” manually – a safety mechanism blocks the switch. The Fokker’s engines have now been shipped to Montreal for detailed analysis. Heinzmann also confirmed that the cockpit voice recorder cut out 15 seconds before the impact, thus making the job of the investigators even more difficult.
From Luxembourg News
Yet on 23rd a Luxair spokesman denied this...
An article in this week’s German weekly news magazine Stern, published today, has sparked further speculation about the cause of the Luxair Fokker 50 crash that left 20 people dead and two seriously injured three weeks ago. According to Stern, investigators have established that the plane’s motors were actually at “ground idle” status just before the plane crashed. Luxair CEO Christian Heinzmann yesterday confirmed on RTL television that this was the case. However, Heinzmann pointed out that the engines cannot be set at “ground idle” manually – a safety mechanism blocks the switch. The Fokker’s engines have now been shipped to Montreal for detailed analysis. Heinzmann also confirmed that the cockpit voice recorder cut out 15 seconds before the impact, thus making the job of the investigators even more difficult.
From Luxembourg News
Yet on 23rd a Luxair spokesman denied this...
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Flight International:
Information from the crashed Luxair Fokker 50's flight data recorder has revealed that, on approach to Luxembourg Findel Airport, the propellers entered the low-speed fine-pitch regime normally only usable on the ground. This would have provided a considerable amount of sudden drag, forcing the aircraft to descend to retain flying speed, and might explain why the engines had suddenly stopped producing power.
According to a European aviation authority, Fokker Services re-issued a notice to operators on 14 November advising them of an anomaly that had occurred previously that could lead to an event such as this. A stop controlled by a solenoid switch normally prevents the power levers being retarded into the ground fine pitch sector while the aircraft is airborne, but during the first 16s after the landing gear has locked down, it had been found that the solenoid could trip out. The notice to operators (No 137) was reissued to remind airlines of this. Although a modification to the anti-skid system which would also correct the anomaly had been developed by Fokker, Flight International has learned that it had not been embodied on the crashed Luxair aircraft. There is also a manual switch that enables the solenoid switch to be tripped to enable the pilots to engage ground fine pitch, but there is no indication at this stage as to whether it had been selected. Until the mishap, however, the instrument landing system approach had been stabilised with no indication of malfunction or crew concern.
Information from the crashed Luxair Fokker 50's flight data recorder has revealed that, on approach to Luxembourg Findel Airport, the propellers entered the low-speed fine-pitch regime normally only usable on the ground. This would have provided a considerable amount of sudden drag, forcing the aircraft to descend to retain flying speed, and might explain why the engines had suddenly stopped producing power.
According to a European aviation authority, Fokker Services re-issued a notice to operators on 14 November advising them of an anomaly that had occurred previously that could lead to an event such as this. A stop controlled by a solenoid switch normally prevents the power levers being retarded into the ground fine pitch sector while the aircraft is airborne, but during the first 16s after the landing gear has locked down, it had been found that the solenoid could trip out. The notice to operators (No 137) was reissued to remind airlines of this. Although a modification to the anti-skid system which would also correct the anomaly had been developed by Fokker, Flight International has learned that it had not been embodied on the crashed Luxair aircraft. There is also a manual switch that enables the solenoid switch to be tripped to enable the pilots to engage ground fine pitch, but there is no indication at this stage as to whether it had been selected. Until the mishap, however, the instrument landing system approach had been stabilised with no indication of malfunction or crew concern.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luxembourg crash
I have seen and understood the technicalities of the "stop" system and solenoid on the TV. This latest suggestion implies that an attempt was made to reduce throttle settings to flight idle and that the stop mechanism was, for some as yet unexplained reason, not functioning correctly.
This brings a couple of questions to mind, and not having flown the F50 I'd be interested in answers from those who have:
It has been said that the aircraft would have been making an "autopilot" approach in CAT2 conditions.
Question: does the auto approach control speed and throttle settings or only glideslope and localiser on this type?
The aircraft crashed about 6Km. from touchdown and so the problem would have commenced at least at 7Km or over 4 miles from touchdown.
Question: Why would any pilot or auto system need to attemt to reduce to flight idle on a CAT2 approach just inside the outer marker, gear down and locked?
Genuine questions from a curious retired pilot
This brings a couple of questions to mind, and not having flown the F50 I'd be interested in answers from those who have:
It has been said that the aircraft would have been making an "autopilot" approach in CAT2 conditions.
Question: does the auto approach control speed and throttle settings or only glideslope and localiser on this type?
The aircraft crashed about 6Km. from touchdown and so the problem would have commenced at least at 7Km or over 4 miles from touchdown.
Question: Why would any pilot or auto system need to attemt to reduce to flight idle on a CAT2 approach just inside the outer marker, gear down and locked?
Genuine questions from a curious retired pilot
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F50. CATII is a coupled approach because of DH being lower than 200' and thrust is manual, thrust normally being controlled by the captain, as he is PF for the CATII approach.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Luxembourg
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luxembourg Crash
Bgosull
Thank you for your very clear answer to my first question. This removes the possibility of a system failure in the coupled ILS approach. It does however still leave my second question unanswered. Since this was said to have been a normal ILS approach until the problem manifested itself it is perhaps reasonable to assume that the aircraft was not well above the glideslope nor was it at an unusually high speed (wheels down presumably below the normal limiting speed).
This indicates the need for an answer to whether it is normal for a pilot to reduce thrust (throttle) settings to anything close to flight idle four miles from touchdown if everything else is normal. If the stop device to prevent selection of ground idle was not functioning correctly it would surely only become a problem if the thrust levers were fully pulled back in the expectation that they would not go beyond flight idle. I ask again, is it usual that during a normal ILS approach, that a pilot would want to reduce thrust to such an extent four miles from touchdown?
Thank you for your very clear answer to my first question. This removes the possibility of a system failure in the coupled ILS approach. It does however still leave my second question unanswered. Since this was said to have been a normal ILS approach until the problem manifested itself it is perhaps reasonable to assume that the aircraft was not well above the glideslope nor was it at an unusually high speed (wheels down presumably below the normal limiting speed).
This indicates the need for an answer to whether it is normal for a pilot to reduce thrust (throttle) settings to anything close to flight idle four miles from touchdown if everything else is normal. If the stop device to prevent selection of ground idle was not functioning correctly it would surely only become a problem if the thrust levers were fully pulled back in the expectation that they would not go beyond flight idle. I ask again, is it usual that during a normal ILS approach, that a pilot would want to reduce thrust to such an extent four miles from touchdown?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The max speed for gear down on the F50 is 170 KIAS. Final approach would probably be somewhere between 90-100 KIAS. It would not be unusual to leave deceleration until this phase of flight, as the aircraft slows very quickly, and it makes it easier to fit in with other traffic when necessary. So, to answer your question, it is plausable that the Thrust Levers were retarded at this stage of flight and it would not be uncommon to do so. However this aircraft may not have been flown in that manner, and It would be dangerous to make assumptions. It would be more normal practice to fly the decelerating approach in better conditions, and fly a stabilised approach in more limiting conditions. By this I mean that the a/c would be stabilised passing the OM, and hence the landing gear & full flap would be selected and the aircraft flown using engine power to fly the target speed. So, its possible what you think may have happenend, then again there are reasons why it might not have been the case.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bgosull,
a CAT 2 or 3 approach is flown by the first officer not the captain.
The approach and go around is flown by the FO with the autopilots engaged (min 2 are required) and, in the case of the F50 will manually controll the speed using the power levers. The captain will monitor to some extent but his primary task as the aircraft reaches minimums is to look out of the front to try and see the lights. If, at descision height he succeeds in acheiving the required visual reference he will disengage the autopilot and carry out a munual landing (for CAT 3 the Autopilot stays in and carries out an autoland , monitored by the captain). Throughout the landing the FO stays heads down and monitors the landing and ground roll, providing additional guidance from the ILS LLZ that the aircraft is on the centreline which is usefull if the aircraft should enter thicker fog and the captain loses visual reference for some reason.
If the lights are not seen at descision, the captain calls 'Go Around' and the FO executes the go around and flies the missed approach.
a CAT 2 or 3 approach is flown by the first officer not the captain.
The approach and go around is flown by the FO with the autopilots engaged (min 2 are required) and, in the case of the F50 will manually controll the speed using the power levers. The captain will monitor to some extent but his primary task as the aircraft reaches minimums is to look out of the front to try and see the lights. If, at descision height he succeeds in acheiving the required visual reference he will disengage the autopilot and carry out a munual landing (for CAT 3 the Autopilot stays in and carries out an autoland , monitored by the captain). Throughout the landing the FO stays heads down and monitors the landing and ground roll, providing additional guidance from the ILS LLZ that the aircraft is on the centreline which is usefull if the aircraft should enter thicker fog and the captain loses visual reference for some reason.
If the lights are not seen at descision, the captain calls 'Go Around' and the FO executes the go around and flies the missed approach.
But not all operators follow the same procedures during low visibility approaches! This is not type or manufacturer sensitive: whilst GearUp CheerUp gives what was, if I remember correctly, ( and it has been a while) the Fokker recommendations for the F27 - 050 there are certainly other operators that reverse those roles and have the Captain as PF with the FO simply monitoring. I cannot see any post dealing with SOPs in the instant case. There is, of course, no reason why any manufacturers recommendations MUST be followed : it is a matter between the operator and their regulatory authority how operations are conducted. It may well be, for example, that for fleet standardisation a certain philosophy is applied which diverges from manufacturer recommended SOP. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in this. As to speed ( and again relying on distant memory) the suggestion was to be fully configured and reduce to Vref + 5 kias at G/S capture. This could make it a fairly lengthy approach and it is not particularly unusual to amend this to have full config and speed at the descent point from procedural altitude. In the instant case this is ( 11-2A,12 Jul 02) 3000feet/D5.5 ILW.ARTE 24 is 1214.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gear Up, Cheer Up, Read Up!!!!!!!!
"A CAT 2 or 3 approach is flown by the first officer not the captain. "
What you are referring to is often called a monitored approach. Some operators utilise this technique, however most manufactures recommend in their operating procedures that the captain is PF. It is possible that some operators utilise this procedure, however Fokker flight techniques requires that for a CATII approach, the captain is flying the approach. If your policy is different, it contravenes the Fokker AOM and operating procedures. A Cat III is not possible because only one autopilot can be engaged, as there is only one, hence the F50 is only CATII capable and certified.
"The approach and go around is flown by the FO with the autopilots engaged (min 2 are required) and, in the case of the F50 will manually control the speed using the power levers. "
That may be the case if it is a monitored approach and go-around, then yes, the co-pilot will fly it. This may be the way the aircraft you fly is operated, which is obviously not a F50 because of the multiple autopilots.
The speed is not controlled by the thrust levers. The thrust levers on the F50 are advanced to the TO detent, the Thrust Lever buttons are pressed which gives go-around FD commands and TOGA power on the ERP( Engine Rating Panel). This is a fixed power setting and speed is controlled by pitch, until you level off and the TL is then taken out of the detent to control speed.
There is only one autopilot on the F50.
"A CAT 2 or 3 approach is flown by the first officer not the captain. "
What you are referring to is often called a monitored approach. Some operators utilise this technique, however most manufactures recommend in their operating procedures that the captain is PF. It is possible that some operators utilise this procedure, however Fokker flight techniques requires that for a CATII approach, the captain is flying the approach. If your policy is different, it contravenes the Fokker AOM and operating procedures. A Cat III is not possible because only one autopilot can be engaged, as there is only one, hence the F50 is only CATII capable and certified.
"The approach and go around is flown by the FO with the autopilots engaged (min 2 are required) and, in the case of the F50 will manually control the speed using the power levers. "
That may be the case if it is a monitored approach and go-around, then yes, the co-pilot will fly it. This may be the way the aircraft you fly is operated, which is obviously not a F50 because of the multiple autopilots.
The speed is not controlled by the thrust levers. The thrust levers on the F50 are advanced to the TO detent, the Thrust Lever buttons are pressed which gives go-around FD commands and TOGA power on the ERP( Engine Rating Panel). This is a fixed power setting and speed is controlled by pitch, until you level off and the TL is then taken out of the detent to control speed.
There is only one autopilot on the F50.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: is a point of view
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As ive gone trough some of the training that is done at luxair, i can report that the accent on a stabalized app. during catII is very much present atleast in theire training.
More tought should go to the Engine Rating Panel in my opinion. Since we don't have the exact procedings .....some where in that phase of flight the ERP is selected from Cruise power to G/A power. For those not so intimate with F50's, its an unique feature for such an aged design. no prop levers or adjusments just buttton selection. This is however a power transition moment and any failure conected to it can give you more than you bargained for. Then again i'm not speculating just supplying the "type" facts and making you (the spectator) broaden your horizon on this factfinding mision.
After all ...who said the pilots initiated the "flat pitch" ?
Pointer
More tought should go to the Engine Rating Panel in my opinion. Since we don't have the exact procedings .....some where in that phase of flight the ERP is selected from Cruise power to G/A power. For those not so intimate with F50's, its an unique feature for such an aged design. no prop levers or adjusments just buttton selection. This is however a power transition moment and any failure conected to it can give you more than you bargained for. Then again i'm not speculating just supplying the "type" facts and making you (the spectator) broaden your horizon on this factfinding mision.
After all ...who said the pilots initiated the "flat pitch" ?
Pointer
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gear Up, Cheer Up,
"A CAT 2 or 3 approach is flown by the first officer not the captain. "
What you are referring to is often called a monitored approach. Some operators utilise this technique, however most manufactures recommend in their operating procedures that the captain is PF. It is possible that some operators utilise this procedure, however Fokker flight techniques requires that for a CATII approach, the captain is flying the approach. Whether Luxair or other operators follow the operating manual is an issue for the regulator and the airline. The AOM says 'requires' and not 'should'. If your policy is different, it contravenes the Fokker AOM and operating procedures. A Cat III is not possible because only one autopilot can be engaged, as there is only one, hence the F50 is only CATII capable and certified.
"The approach and go around is flown by the FO with the autopilots engaged (min 2 are required) and, in the case of the F50 will manually control the speed using the power levers. "
That may be the case if it is a monitored approach and go-around, then yes, the co-pilot will fly it. This may be the way the aircraft you fly is operated, which is obviously not a F50 because of the multiple autopilots. There is only one autopilot on the F50.
The speed is not controlled by the thrust levers. The thrust levers on the F50 are advanced to the TO detent, the Thrust Lever buttons are pressed which gives go-around FD commands and TOGA power on the ERP( Engine Rating Panel). This is a fixed power setting and speed is controlled by pitch, until you level off and the TL is then taken out of the detent to control speed.
I hope this is of help
"A CAT 2 or 3 approach is flown by the first officer not the captain. "
What you are referring to is often called a monitored approach. Some operators utilise this technique, however most manufactures recommend in their operating procedures that the captain is PF. It is possible that some operators utilise this procedure, however Fokker flight techniques requires that for a CATII approach, the captain is flying the approach. Whether Luxair or other operators follow the operating manual is an issue for the regulator and the airline. The AOM says 'requires' and not 'should'. If your policy is different, it contravenes the Fokker AOM and operating procedures. A Cat III is not possible because only one autopilot can be engaged, as there is only one, hence the F50 is only CATII capable and certified.
"The approach and go around is flown by the FO with the autopilots engaged (min 2 are required) and, in the case of the F50 will manually control the speed using the power levers. "
That may be the case if it is a monitored approach and go-around, then yes, the co-pilot will fly it. This may be the way the aircraft you fly is operated, which is obviously not a F50 because of the multiple autopilots. There is only one autopilot on the F50.
The speed is not controlled by the thrust levers. The thrust levers on the F50 are advanced to the TO detent, the Thrust Lever buttons are pressed which gives go-around FD commands and TOGA power on the ERP( Engine Rating Panel). This is a fixed power setting and speed is controlled by pitch, until you level off and the TL is then taken out of the detent to control speed.
I hope this is of help
Last edited by bgosull; 4th Dec 2002 at 21:51.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: is a point of view
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bgosull
sorry mate, gearup cheerup is correct on the info however some company's adopt a common training for catII/III if they have a mixed fleet. So some remarks do not apply for the type your acctualy flying. ( This is the case with luxair) And the remark as for power control is due to the fact that indeed the powerlevers are moved "manualy" by the PF to the detent in case of a GA.
So yes you can read the book alwright.. but did you read the manual? no offence, its not the place for cheap one liners.
pointer
sorry mate, gearup cheerup is correct on the info however some company's adopt a common training for catII/III if they have a mixed fleet. So some remarks do not apply for the type your acctualy flying. ( This is the case with luxair) And the remark as for power control is due to the fact that indeed the powerlevers are moved "manualy" by the PF to the detent in case of a GA.
So yes you can read the book alwright.. but did you read the manual? no offence, its not the place for cheap one liners.
pointer
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bgosull,
Yes Ive never flown the F50 and is they or Luxair do it differently then I stand corected. My comments come from the ATR but having flown that and a jet type the type of approach I described is so logical it is hard to imagine another way of doing it.
The ATR also has a thrust control panel and a notch for the power levers but on the approach the levers have to come out of the notch and be manually controlled as the power management does not have a function for approach which would involve it maintaining a demanded speed. Such a device would be an autothrottle which the ATR does not have and I would suspect that the Fokker does not have it either. Again I could be wrong but I'll shut up now as I feel Im moving away from the original thread.
Yes Ive never flown the F50 and is they or Luxair do it differently then I stand corected. My comments come from the ATR but having flown that and a jet type the type of approach I described is so logical it is hard to imagine another way of doing it.
The ATR also has a thrust control panel and a notch for the power levers but on the approach the levers have to come out of the notch and be manually controlled as the power management does not have a function for approach which would involve it maintaining a demanded speed. Such a device would be an autothrottle which the ATR does not have and I would suspect that the Fokker does not have it either. Again I could be wrong but I'll shut up now as I feel Im moving away from the original thread.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pointer
The points I make are as follows;
Gear Up Cheer Up, referred to the monitored approach.
I have no disagreement with his discription of that.
I only pointed out that Fokker 'requires' the PF to be the captain. It's in the AOM, which is the operating manual by which the aircraft is certified. If an operator deviates from that it is done by production of operating procedures presented to and agreed with the regulating body of the controling state of the airline/operator. I am not aware of any operators utilising the monitored approach on the F50 but I'm sure there are numerous, and for the reason you stated, fleet standardisation. I make no reference to whether Luxair operates a monitored approach or not, because I do not know.
The questions asked were type specific. Gear Up Cheer Up, made numerous non type specific statements about systems/equipment that do not exist on the F50. There is only 1 autopilot, there is no autoland function, and the a/c is not CATIII, in a go around the speed is not controlled manually. The Thrust levers are manually put into the detent, but that is not what I read in the post. That's the only point I make, His/Her post has type specific inaccuracies in it, whilst answering a type specific question, and he/she refers to a monitored approach on the F50 with CATIII and autoland capability that does not exist.
The points I make are as follows;
Gear Up Cheer Up, referred to the monitored approach.
I have no disagreement with his discription of that.
I only pointed out that Fokker 'requires' the PF to be the captain. It's in the AOM, which is the operating manual by which the aircraft is certified. If an operator deviates from that it is done by production of operating procedures presented to and agreed with the regulating body of the controling state of the airline/operator. I am not aware of any operators utilising the monitored approach on the F50 but I'm sure there are numerous, and for the reason you stated, fleet standardisation. I make no reference to whether Luxair operates a monitored approach or not, because I do not know.
The questions asked were type specific. Gear Up Cheer Up, made numerous non type specific statements about systems/equipment that do not exist on the F50. There is only 1 autopilot, there is no autoland function, and the a/c is not CATIII, in a go around the speed is not controlled manually. The Thrust levers are manually put into the detent, but that is not what I read in the post. That's the only point I make, His/Her post has type specific inaccuracies in it, whilst answering a type specific question, and he/she refers to a monitored approach on the F50 with CATIII and autoland capability that does not exist.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also failed to make clear in my post that when I was talking about CAT3 I was making a general point about the CAT 3 operation. I did not mean to imply that the F50 was CAT 3 capable.
Also I wrote about the speed being controlled by the power levers during the approach and go around. I meant to say that the aircraft is flown by the FO and that the power levers control the speed during the appeoach phase. During the go around, max power is applied and the speed is controlled by the pitch as you state.
I think thats the last time Ill make a post about a type Ive never flown, I just thought that all modern turboprops (ATR, F50, Dash8 etc) were all much of a muchness. :o
Also I wrote about the speed being controlled by the power levers during the approach and go around. I meant to say that the aircraft is flown by the FO and that the power levers control the speed during the appeoach phase. During the go around, max power is applied and the speed is controlled by the pitch as you state.
I think thats the last time Ill make a post about a type Ive never flown, I just thought that all modern turboprops (ATR, F50, Dash8 etc) were all much of a muchness. :o