|
Air Europa 738 at Katowice?
Saw this thread on A.net; anyone have further information?
"Polish press reported that an Air Europa Boeing 737-800 almost crashed at Katowice, Poland on Saturday night. The plane was chartered to bring Polish soldiers from the Middle East and was on its way from Beirut. During the approach to Katowice in foggy conditions the aircraft descended too low and damaged approach lights to the runway stretching 870 meters before the runway. The approach lights varied in height from less than 1 meter to 10 meters. The aircraft suffered extensive damage to the fuselage, wings and the engine coverings but managed to land safely with 111 passengers and 11 crewmembers. Polish Aviation authority is investigating the accident. The aircraft will remain in Katowice for repairs. The repairs to the approach lights will take a few weeks and will affect landings of some aircraft in bad weather conditions." |
|
Looks they were lucky.
I am not sure, if and how they will be able to do the repairs there. |
Oops...
IMHO....I'd rather hve Pablo M. flying me than those guys.
Cheers, bm:eek: |
Amazing photos. They were lucky to get away with that. The press report states "foggy", I wonder if it was an autoland or handflown?
|
Just in the main news in Polish national TV:
"the pilot didn't report the incident to the TWR, he landed and taxied to position as nothing happened. Only after the ground crew noticed damages rescue was informed. The ground crew smelled alcohol on the pilot when inpecting the plane with him after the incident..." :ugh: The plane was chartered by UN to bring back Polish UN soldiers after their peace mission in Bejrut. Glad everybody alive. To survive Lebanon and die on landing at home... :eek: |
They did breathalyse them at the airport, didn't they?
|
Officials say:
"the incident is under investigation by the Aircraft Accident Investigation Board" I doubt they were on time there to do the breath analyse... :mad: |
bad informer
i think you should be care with your comments about the crew of that aircraft, because nobody of ground crew have said that the pilot smell alcohol. and maybe you should have good information about the airport and the conditions for the landing.
first have true news and then write don´t invent, that is sad |
Look at the pictures,except of emergency,ACFT doesn´t look like this normaly after LDG. And arriving at the stand without noticing such extensive damage is unlikely. The crew has a lot to explain I think. But fortunately they have opportunity...
|
Plane is 8-years old according to, http://aviation-safety.net/database/...?id=20071028-0
|
To survive Lebanon and die on landing at home... Glad to see that a couple of banged up approach lights, and some dents here and there is all it ended at. Could have been worse. |
What facilities does this airport have CATII/III or CATor even only non-precision?
|
bad informer 19:30 Channel One Polish TV... I put in "", to be sure everybody understands it's a quotation, not my information or opinion. := |
I have not been to Katowice for about a year and a half, but at that time it was CAT 1 only.
|
It is CAT 1...
http://www.ais.pata.pl/aip/aip.php?P...289255fb6bb82c Type of aid, CAT of ILS/MLS ILS LLZ KAT 109.900 MHz H24 50°28’27.53”N 019°02’56.43”E CAT I RWY 27. 266°, 0.42 km FM THR 09. ILS GP - 333.800 MHz H24 50°28’32.08”N 019°05’20.93”E GP 3.2°, 0.15 km N FM RCL 0.35 km W FM THR 27 along RCL, RDH = 16.7 m. and maybe you should have good information about the airport and the conditions for the landing. first have true news and then write don´t invent, that is sad EPKT 280300Z VRB02KT 0400 R27/0500 R09/1000 FG SCT002 BKN005 08/08 Q1027 EPKT 280230Z 00000KT 0300 R27/0500 R09/1000 FG BKN001 08/08 Q1027 EPKT 280200Z VRB02KT 0300 R27/0500 R09/0600 FG BKN001 08/08 Q1027 |
They were obviously landing below minimums for this location;
Can you please enlighten us further? |
bad informer
http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/1631532,11,item.html
...on Polish internet portal: "Przedstawiciele lotniska nie chcą dywagować, czy przyczyną wypadku był przede wszystkim błąd pilota. Sprawę bada także prokuratura. Decyzją prokuratora pilotowi pobrano krew, która będzie zbadana na zawartość alkoholu." "The airport representative do not want to speculate, if the pilot error was the main reason of the accident. The public prosecutor's office is investigating the case. By the prosecutors order blood sample of the pilot was taken, which later shall be checked for alcohol content." |
Can you please enlighten us further? The ATC asserts to the same portal, that: "W nocy nad lotniskiem była mgła, ale widoczność pozwalała na lądowanie." "There was fog over the airfield that night, but visibility was sufficient for landing" Would you land CAT I by such METAR ? EPKT 280200Z VRB02KT 0300 R27/0500 R09/0600 FG BKN001 08/08 Q1027 |
Ptkay - you have us all confused! The met you have posted for the night of 27/28 October is certainly ABOVE normal CatI requirements. The link at ASN in post #11 quotes weather for the night of 26/27 October which is even better.
Does anyone know for sure:- a) which night this occurred? b) Air Europa's minima for a CatI in EKPT R27 ILS? |
Would you land CAT I by such METAR ? |
Ptkay:
You said: "They were obviously landing below minimums for this location". ATC said: "Their was fog over the airfield that night, but visibility was sufficient for landing". You have made a very serious accusation. Were you there at the time? I doubt, it but ATC were. You have trotted out the half-hourly METARS as your "evidence". The lowest RVR quoted on the METARS is 700 metres. The normal RVR minima for a CAT1 approach is 550 metres but I seem to remember that Katowice was nearer to 700 metres. In any event, none of this matters unless we know what ACTUAL RVR was passed to the aircraft at the time of the approach before we can even begin to speculate. In this case, ATC state that it was sufficient for a landing so they clearly did not make an approach with the weather below minimuns. The METAR has got absolutely nothing to do with it If you don't really know what you are talking about then keep quiet. Making such serious allegations could get you into serious trouble. |
Sorry to everybody, I checked my information,
and according to it the accident happened in the night 27/28th "shortly after changing the summer to winter time", so shortly after 28th 02 ZULU I corrected the METARS in my earlier posts. Sorry again for the confusion. You have trotted out the half-hourly METARS as your "evidence". The lowest RVR quoted on the METARS is 700 metres. The normal RVR minima for a CAT1 approach is 550 metres but I seem to remember that Katowice was nearer to 700 metres. Let's wait for the official report, maybe in a year or two... ;) EOT |
Just cked the minum for KAT:
RVR 550m with FULL light DA 1194ft Thr 27 elv 994ft so we have a 200ft DH HIRL,HIALS+SFL but no PAPI Ptkay looks like you are well informed,so if you have any friend working at KAT ATC would be very nice to know what ACTUAL RVR was passed to the crew at the time. Anyway I think is quite amazing that in 2 pages of posts I can find drink&fly allegation, landing below minima allegation but I can`t find the date and time of the incident.(probably i missed it correct me if i`m wrong) |
According to the media, it was 28.10.2007 at 0207Z.
|
Post #23: Sorry to everybody, I checked my information, and according to it the accident happened in the night 27/28th "shortly after changing the summer to winter time", so shortly after 28th 02 ZULU ;) |
would be very nice to know what ACTUAL RVR was passed to the crew at the time. EPKT 280200Z VRB02KT 0300 R27/0500 R09/0600 FG BKN001 08/08 Q1027 So general visibility was 300m, RVR on 27 was 500m, so less than 550m mentioned above for CAT I and ceiling was 100ft, so less than 200ft mentioned above for CAT I as well... But I was supposed to shut up... :p |
Ceiling is irrelevant, only the actual RVR passed to the crew is and the time it was passed (before or after the 1000ft point).
|
Ceiling is irrelevant... be below the ceiling (100ft in this case)?? DECISION HEIGHT [ICAO]- A specified height in the precision approach at which a missed approach must be initiated if the required visual reference to continue the approach has not been established. Note: The required visual reference means that section of the visual aids or of the approach area which should have been in view for sufficient time for the pilot to have made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in relation to the desired flight path. |
Husky one,
Thank you for stressing the concept, you are perfectly correct, so 500m... taking into account that in these situations RVR is seldom stable maybe they got a value higer than the minumum at the time. This could be the case because as reported on www.flightglobal.com, the next incoming a/c, a Wizzair A320, had to wait for the runway to be clean from debris and then made an uneventfull landing; probably with ALS out and in this case the RVR goes up to 1000m. But probably they busted the minimum as well.... no |
cough, but surely Jizz air is in the sh#t also, landing with half the approach light system ripped out in fog as the previous mentioned. :D
|
Ptkay: You are speaking about METAR which is issue every 30 min.(normally), we are speaking about instantaneous RVR readings that are
available to the controller every 15 sec., BKN001 doesn`t constitute a limitation for ILS precision app.,Just to give an example: ATIS info A at 0200UTC RVR27 400m BKN 001, once in contact with TWR they tell you RVR now is 600/550/700 what do you do?He will not give you cloud base! METAR and TAF are used for planning pourposes on the ground or inflight replannig! |
Point taken.
;) |
c'mon guys, in Poland there are not so many events of this gravity so it's very nice opportunity for guys like Ptkay to be in the "center of universe" for a short moment with his "expert" theoretical knowledge and sensational speculations... :D
|
Ptkay:
How many times do you need to be told that if you really don't know what you are talking about, then keep quiet. The cloud base is irrelevant and plays no part in the minima for a precision approach as far as commencing and making the approach is concerned. METARS are irrelevant. The only thing that IS relevant is the ACTUAL RVR passed to the crew at the decision point on this precision approach (except in so much that the DH on a CAT 1 approach could well be the limiting factor). Under JARs, it is perfectly legal to commence an approach if the touch down RVR is below minima provided that, AT THE DECISION POINT, the RVR is at or above minima. After the Decision Point (which could be defined as at the OM or 4 DME etc) the RVR can fall below the minima again and the approach can be contined to DH. (If no DME is involved in the approach, then this point becomes defined as 1,000 ft AAL). To summarise, unless you know what RVR was passed to this aircraft AT THE DECISION POINT during this approach then you are talking absolute b*llocks. If you don't really know what you are talking about then it is better to keep quiet rather than open your mouth and confirm the fact! I have a pretty good idea about what might have happened, but even with 50years of experience, I would not dream of suggesting this on this forum. How can you possibly state that the crew obviously landed below their minimums? |
awful accident...
|
JW411:
as mentioned before Point taken. Finally it is a RUMOUR forum. ;) AdamJT: Is this your comment to the incident or to JW411... If to JW411, he might not understand, what you mean. :} |
Ptkay:
"It is a RUMOUR forum". Accusing a professional crew of landing below minimums is not a rumour but an accusation of the most serious kind and you had no reason to make that accusation. I see from your profile that you have a JAR PPL (A). That hardly makes you an expert but I am sure you will learn rapidly as you progress. Adam LT: I see that you are an architectural assistant and that you dream of being an airline pilot. I shall say no more. Perhaps both of you should realise that if you start talking nonsense on a professional pilots website, then you must expect to be attacked by those of us who have been around for more than a while. I wish both of you good luck in your aspirations. In aviation, you NEVER stop learning! |
In aviation, you NEVER stop learning! I am here to learn from professionals like you. I post the information I can get, mostly the second hand, and expect you, the professionals, to comment on it in professional and informative manner. I appreciate your comment, that we don't know what the minima were, but what we know for sure, is that the "professional pilot" cut 870m of approach lights almost killing 114 Polish soldiers returning home... Don't be surprised if I am looking for an answer why? Also to learn something. |
(except in so much that the DH on a CAT 1 approach could well be the limiting factor). is not totally irrelevant in this case. The required visual reference means that section of the visual aids or of the approach area which should have been in view for sufficient time for the pilot to have made an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in relation to the desired flight path. at the Decision Point at Decision Height. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:13. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.