No Joy in Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might not really be the fault of an airport or procedure, if an airplane on a VOR/DME Approach hits the trees 600 ft below MDA and a few miles out of the Threshold after a continuous descend with Autopilot on.
Visibility was reported to be very bad (ca 1 mile) by a preceding jet, which made the landing, the chance that the Pilots of the unlucky Plane had seen any Approach or Runway Lights is zero. I know, that until the report these are still "speculations", but facing the known facts I find it wrong to blame the airport for this accident.
Visibility was reported to be very bad (ca 1 mile) by a preceding jet, which made the landing, the chance that the Pilots of the unlucky Plane had seen any Approach or Runway Lights is zero. I know, that until the report these are still "speculations", but facing the known facts I find it wrong to blame the airport for this accident.
Chris47 et al
It should not be up to us to find fault or allocate blame, particularly after an accident where crew may be unavailable to provide answers or explanation. However it is our duty to ensure that those who have the responsibility for regulating the safety of our industry be made aware of issues that may contribute to an accident.
With respect to the Nov 2001 accident; who were the responsible parties for agreeing the noise ban? Did they assess the safety risks involved in using a non-precision approach at night, if so did they consider making provision for cancelling the noise ban in poor weather? Was this just assumed to be the Captains decision / responsibility ….as are most safety related issues? Should the Airport or ATC, who may have more accurate information and the time for assessing the situation, have been given the authority to use the more appropriate runway? Who approved an approach procedure where the visibility minima were less than the distance from the visual descent point to the threshold? Why did ‘they’ approve a procedure where the vertical approach path originated beyond the threshold, requiring an increased decent rate after visual contact? Were the “normal” ZRH approach operations, high, fast, rush, contributory to the crew performance and their operation of the aircraft? Why didn’t we (mere observers, Crews, Operators, Airport, ATC, Regulators, Governments) intervene where probably the same warning signs as above were present?
An apology in that I only have questions. The answers may reside with all of us; we should take action, starting with reporting instances of less than ideal operations, procedures, etc.
It should not be up to us to find fault or allocate blame, particularly after an accident where crew may be unavailable to provide answers or explanation. However it is our duty to ensure that those who have the responsibility for regulating the safety of our industry be made aware of issues that may contribute to an accident.
With respect to the Nov 2001 accident; who were the responsible parties for agreeing the noise ban? Did they assess the safety risks involved in using a non-precision approach at night, if so did they consider making provision for cancelling the noise ban in poor weather? Was this just assumed to be the Captains decision / responsibility ….as are most safety related issues? Should the Airport or ATC, who may have more accurate information and the time for assessing the situation, have been given the authority to use the more appropriate runway? Who approved an approach procedure where the visibility minima were less than the distance from the visual descent point to the threshold? Why did ‘they’ approve a procedure where the vertical approach path originated beyond the threshold, requiring an increased decent rate after visual contact? Were the “normal” ZRH approach operations, high, fast, rush, contributory to the crew performance and their operation of the aircraft? Why didn’t we (mere observers, Crews, Operators, Airport, ATC, Regulators, Governments) intervene where probably the same warning signs as above were present?
An apology in that I only have questions. The answers may reside with all of us; we should take action, starting with reporting instances of less than ideal operations, procedures, etc.
