Passenger plane almost crashed into mountain
 

This is the lead story here in Switzerland today. Sorry, I can't find anything in english: 20 Minuten - Passagierflugzeug zerschellte fast an Berg - Tessin

Rough translation:

Passenger plane almost crashed into mountain.

It was pure coincidence that nothing bad happened.

An Austrian aircraft (On behalf of Swiss) with 59 people on board flying from Zurich to Lugano when, during the landing approach, the GPWS sounded. A pilot, who was reported to be a passenger on board, heard the warning signals from the cockpit: "Pull up!" The aircraft had climbed so quick that it reached nearly 1000 meters in ten seconds.

The Collina D'Oro mountain range, on which the Dash-8 almost crashed, was the reason for the neckbreaking maneuver. Radar records, which are available on the Aviation Herald, are intended to show that a collision was really imminent. There is also the question of whether the pilot could have flown the chosen route at all. The Swiss Safety Investigation Unit (SUST) considered the incident serious. An investigation was opened.

Austrian Airlines comments:

Austrian Airlines dismissed the problem as a "Missed Approach" but according to Florian Reitz of SUST "The true extent of the serious incident was not known until months later,"

Furthermore, the pilot, who sat at the controls on 13th October 2015, was temporarily suspended by the airline, but now sitting again in the cockpit. Austrian Airlines does not provide any detailed information; a report on the incident has so far been kept secret.

Here's Simon's Av Herald report of the incident with some discussion of the approach and charts in the comments:

Incident: Austrian DH8D at Lugano on Oct 13th 2015, GPWS warning on short ILS final

A brief STSB report in German:

https://www2.sust.admin.ch/pdfs/AV-berichte//OE-LGL.pdf

The report would suggest to me that the GPWS did its job and the crew did theirs (by immediately initiating the G/A).

My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that, even if the pilots were at fault in the first place, a good and appropriate response to a GPWS warning must be rewarded. The absolute instant the 'Pull Up' command is heard, the pilot must know that him making the correct response will result in praise rather than being fired. Just a few seconds doubt could be enough to bring about disaster. Good responses to bad situations have to produce a positive outcome for the pilots involved, whilst still leaving room for an airline to provide targeted training to prevent further repetitions of the event.

I dunno, 20 minuten is what you use to protect railways seats from errant drops of fondue.
In this case, they cite their source from which they cribbed things: https://kurier.at/chronik/oesterreic...he/247.097.110

Outside of the implied speculation that the crew tried to shoot a circling approach to 19 and turned early and mysteriously way too low, the alleged details (from "insiders") are:
A. The incident was reported three weeks later. It first came to the attention of the authorities because a deadheading pilot for another airline heard the GPWS from the cabin and reported it.
B. The (male) Captain (also PF) was suspended and later returned to duty. The (female) F/O was dismissed. On which AUA says that "Gender and Rank do not play a role in such decisions".

If that's so, an appropriate response to a GPWS warning probably involves making sure that your superiors hear about it from you directly.

I sometimes wonder if a mixed gender crew is statistically less safe than a crew of either two males or two females.
I haven't looked into it but it seems quite common to me to have a mixed gender crew in the accident reports, almost like there is a distraction or communication difference.
Am I imagining it?

This would have been an ATC bust in the US. Was limited radar coverage or Eurocontrol rule difference at play here?

Absolutely. Sharing the knowledge of the crew's point of view might help a future crews avoid the same situation, or one with less desirable results.

More like "Missed Mountain".

framer:
"I sometimes wonder if a mixed gender crew is statistically less safe than a crew of either two males or two females"
I'm waiting to see when will be the first post to denounce you in vile terms for ever suggesting such a thing. More worrying, if it were 'proved' statistically, there would be a reluctance to publish it. Imagine the poor originator being strung up on "social media" for daring to mention it.

I seriously doubt it but very easy to check if you have time to dig into the ICAO archives of accidents/incidents reports . I don't :rolleyes:

In Lugano (LSZA) they don't use approach monitoring, they having procedural approach control. The first part of the approach is done by Milan APP then switched to Lugano TWR which give them the clearance for the type of app requested.

Depending on the weather they can have an IGS on RWY 01 or LOC LIM follow by a circling (Charlie or Foxtrot). All those different approaches are base on aircraft type, pilot qualifications and weather conditions.

I think we have to wait the investigation to understand what went wrong. I strongly believe that something was done in the wrong way initially but then recovered as requested when the GPWS triggered following the missed approach procedure.

So what do we know now?

- A crew got a bit closer to the mountains than intended on a rather demanding, definitely nonstandard approach into a small airfield encircled by the Alps.

- The GPWS worked as advertised, warned them of the threat and was correctly reacted to by applying the procedure the OM-B requires. The aircraft was landed safely at the diversion airfield, which was Milan-Malpensa (about 20 NM south of Lugano).

- This incident has been reported to SUST, be it immediately or a bit later, and is under investigation.

So far, so good. First and most importantly of all, no person was harmed and no metal was bent. The crew managed to get out of the situation. So why was there a need for punishment? If by analogy, one manages to screw up an ILS approach and correctly calls a go around to get out of this situation, this will not be second-guessed in nearly every company and definitely not be grounds for dismissal or other reprimands.

The alleged delay in reporting it to the authorities, if true, needs not be the fault of the crew either. Normally, crews are required to report such incidents (a list of reportable circumstances is published in the OM-A) to the company, where a competent person will read the text and then decide on whether or not this is to be reported to the authority. He, not the crew involved, will then forward the text as needed.

So why the crew was hanged for this is beyond me.

Let's not become too blase' about a GPWS event. We don't fly around thinking that the GPWS will save us. This sounds like an accident. It didn't become one only because a last ditch 'Get Out of Jail Free' card was available.
The event should be widely published to maintain awareness.

I don't recall such a backlash when a certain red tailed jet also had a GPWS warning during a benign visual approach to MEL. Lessons were learned. We moved on. This incident should be no different. Following an internal investigation it appears that the case was answered to and we moved on. This nonsense of 'one strike and you're out' is not a boost to safety whatsoever.

Hardly compares with the immediate and rapid climb described above.. it would suggest a lack of visual awareness of the terrain. Altogether different.

Will someone please clarify the facts.

Much discussion on GPWS, but was this aircraft fitted with EGPWS (TAWS). If so then there should have been advanced alerting - Terrain Ahead - and possibly a map display; which if not seen / heeded could imply a much more serious event.
Knowledge of the differences between the two systems (E-GPWS), and the operational attitudes in their use, could be vital in operations with challenging terrain.

Was the aircraft actually flying an ILS, vs IGS (which is not authorised?). Given the obstacle clearance requirements for an instrument approach, then any alert is very serious.
How is ILS differentiated from an IGS; instrument display, annunciation, Flight Director / autopilot, ...

EGPWS is an error detection system; yours, someone else, an un-alerted technical malfunction, or a combination of these or unforeseen factors.

Not saying the crew should be hanged, but............

When gpws warns the crew with a "terrain" or "pull up" warning, it is a last resort safety card. Something seriously has gone wrong before that. The crew is responsible for getting in that situation in the first place. So, investigate why they got there and then decide wether it is a slap on the wrist or worse.

Gpws is a lifesaver, but activation should not be downplayed to a normal occurence if pilots react appropriately. They came very close to crashing.

The story is relatively old and for some reason was now brought back again by the media. It is well known that LUG is not an easy airport to fly. The airport requires special training and with adverse weather conditions the route is very often cancelled or flights diverted to MXP.

I've flown this route many times as a PAX and it definitely has some special character to it, apart from the spectacular views that you can get.

I am certainly not looking to open the gender can of worms but was wondering why the FO got dismissed and captain retrained . Not saying he should have been treated more harshly or she less so but what can the FO do short of deliberate negligence if as indicated they were PM.

The answer to that is... We don't know.

Could be anything, probation, fixed term contract, training, voluntary...
The report Will be interesting.
Someone mentioned circling, but that seems very odd in relation to just 2 knot tw.