Bgosull...about the wording in the Fokker AOM. There were some rather heated arguments about this at the time the F27 - 050 came into service. The AOM was largely written on input from the flight test department, few of whom had an airline operational background. The few of us who had argued that it was simply not the remit of the manufacturer to REQUIRE how the aircraft should be flown. Our view did not prevail in the general corporate culture that <it is the Fokker way and is therefore correct> of the time.

Oldjet Jockey,

How about "too high - too fast" for your last question ? It's unfortunately a classic.


--
(Don't forget your seatbelt before landing, gentlemen)

Stratocaster

My thoughts exactly!!!

Theseare the only real reasons I can think of, but this leaves a rather unlikely situation. The pilots had been advised that they were number two on the approach so would most likely have left the hold at a normal rather than too fast speed. The vis. was also reported at below their minimum and they had said they would need more, so there was a very good chance of a G.A., I would suggest that these factors would not normally give rise to a too high, too fast approach. I'm sure the recorders will prove what the situation was just before the problem so we will have to wait and see.

As a naive outsider, I still wonder about ground idle prop pitch while in the air. Go to this site, click on 1956, and then on Capital Airlines, for a 1956 accident at MDW caused by failed switches and resulting removal of idle stops.

http://specialcollections.tasc.dot.g...ot_aircraftacc

Hi Folks,


First of all let's get ride of a small but common mix-up:

Superpilot: qoute:
"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.."

You are referring to the ground idle stop, not the flight idle stop.
You described the ground idle stop correct, but named it the flight idle stop. (it was designed for a rejected take-off since a RTO without reverse was more efficient then one with reverse. had to do with pitch change system)

Then the flight idle stop:

It consists of two separate systems:
The first being mechanical on the power levers, the pilot has to lift the levers to be able to select power below flight idle.

The second being on the engine itself:
a solenoid being springloaded in the lock position, which can be removed electronically. Thus failure of the system will result in the inabilty to select ground idle after landing, but not the other way around.

Apparently there were some problems in the skid control box providing certain data to the flight idle solenoid, that during certain special conditions a false signal was being sent to the solenoid to retract (for instance both main gear locking down at the same time) therefore a non mandatory redesign of the antiskid box was made to correct the problem.
But then still ground idle has to be selected at the flight deck.

Spuis


BTW my company flies cat II app. on the F50 (and the rest of the fleet) with capt. PF and F/O PNF

Some safty concerns
 

There are lots of speculations coming together all around this mysterious catastrophe more likely to happen at Bermuda Triangle. – I had been involved in piston aircraft maintenance business in Luxembourg for number of years. Let me tell you about my experience.

One question first: I am reading official communiqués and articles in the press pretending that this had been the first accident for Luxair within their 40 years of operation. - Everybody agrees. – Was it? – Let’s just stay within the past 15 years: Luxair Embraer looses #2 prop, gearbox and cowling over WLU NDB on a right turn inbound ELLX. The crew manages to land the aircraft at ELLX. Nobody is injured on board, nobody injured by down falling debris (in an open meadow). – Further Luxair Swearingen Metro Liner: a cabin window bursts in flight. A passenger’s arm is pulled outside by the resulting cabin decompression, his hand injured by the close prop, looses his hearing on the exposed ear. – Further a Luxair Metro Liner looses one engine short after takeoff at ELLX. Turning back immediately to ELLX the other engine looses power too. Flight conditions are IMC. Loosing altitude the crew manages to land the aircraft on a visual short approach turn in. Engine quits on the runway. – Further Luxair Executive Cessna Conquest II makes gear-up landing at ELLX: Fog. In the right seat a private pilot with recent PPL-IFR. No multiengine ratings. - Upon my experience all above are to be considered accidents in accordance to ICAO definition. Are Luxembourg DAC definitions different from ICAO standards?

Now let’s talk Luxembourg DAC (the Civil Aviation Authority): For any national civil aviation authority, the total volume of responsibilities to meet as an ICAO member state is a constant and will barely change with the number of registered air vehicles. The emission of an Airworthiness certificate by a national CAA certifies compliance with ICAO standards and minimum requirements for this air vehicle. The air vehicle may now operate within the international airspace of other ICAO member states. - How does the Luxembourg DAC handle the responsibilities taken with the state’s ICAO membership? Do you know?

Let me show you some of my experience:

Example 1.
Certification of Airworthiness: (please look up: ICAO standards for certifying staff as a reference)

Who does the certification of air vehicles for the Luxembourg DAC in accordance to the state’s obligation towards ICAO? (German equivalent = Pruefer Klasse 1 acting for the LBA or FAA equivalent = DAR)
Isn’t Bureau Veritas a French private organization with a small Luxembourg branch contracted by the Luxembourg DAC. - Does the professional formation and certification of the Bureau Veritas inspectors satisfy the ICAO requirements? Please investigate and find out yourself. Please compare the requirements for becoming a FAA DAR or a German Pruefer Klasse1 and the requirements to maintaining those privileges with the practices common in Luxembourg. Any doubt in any of these questions could represent one safety device of an internationally installed safety system switched out or bypassed (=a violation of ICAO standards). Catastrophes are generally nothing more than the result of a fatal combination of different minor discrepancies or human failures, coming together the wrong time at the wrong place- aren’t they? Your airline maintenance organization might be the best and in a perfect standing with the JAA directions. Who ever may exclude human failure? ICAO standards require the national civil aviation authorities to supervise airworthiness, same as they require dual primary flight instruments in your aircraft. Would you take off with one single set?

Another question: FAA Designated Airworthiness Representatives as well as German Pruefer Klaase 1 have specified qualifications defining their scope of competency. I.e. Airframe-Structural, Avionics, Power plant. The German LBA requires further type ratings that are initially obtained by written and practical type exams and are renewed on a two year cycle. Please ask them for their opinion: Bureau Veritas Inspectors have never passed any required exam or test. No minimum formation is required and generally after a very short introduction period they will individually certify for and in behalf of the Luxembourg DAC all air vehicles in all classes, from parachutes, balloons, gliders, light piston aircraft up to the 747! In-all-classes(!): Airframe, power plant and avionics! All-one-single-person!

Example 2:

Please take any Luxembourg DAC aircraft registration certificate and the airworthiness certificate and all other mandatory aircraft documents. Will you find somewhere any evidence of the TCDS (technical certification data sheet) this air vehicle is compliant with? – You won’t. Luxembourg DAC is not able to own its own national TCDS neither to maintain them. TCDS is unknown to the Luxembourg DAC and you will encounter i.e. aircraft initially certified in accordance to a French TCDS, altered following multiple STC’s (supplementary type certificate) from different national authorities and being maintained following a FAA TCDS and FAA airworthiness directives! Please ask your local FAA DAR, he may tell you what this really means.

Example 3:

Equipment: Luxembourg DAC has no existing regulation, requiring periodic tests for pitot-static and altimeter systems. Not for transponders, not for VOR/ILS or any other navigation or communication equipment. Many private aircraft are operated under IFR without having these tests ever carried out.

Example 4:

ICAO annex 10 FM immunity requirements: Did Luxembourg DAC ever notify ICAO about the fact that there are Luxembourg aircraft operating under IFR that are not compliant? They do operate still today.

Example 5:

B-RNAV Airspace: Luxembourg DAC requires no qualification for pilots operating under IFR in B-RNAV airspace with GPS. Many Luxembourg light aircraft are still operated in this airspace without B-RNAV certified equipment on board. Flight plans show out B-RNAV!

This list can go on but I guess you might be frightened enough. I wish you good luck on a parallel approach during IMC together with a small LX piston aircraft. It might be compliant with FM immunity requirements just without any official certification or there might be no powerful commercial radio boosters in the area around. Luxembourg DAC does not worry, why should you?

Not willing to work any longer under the risks of this situation, I decided to give up my maintenance business. Short before taking this decision I informed Mr. G., Minister of Transport about his problems resulting in the Luxembourg situation. There was no evidence in his reaction of any intention to change. Considering my report as a personal attack against his person I guess, his reaction was quite violent: “… upon what I understand, Mr Duke101057, if somewhere in two years from here I have a Luxair lying down there in the meadows of Niederanven, you will come ahead pretending that it is the Minister of Transport who is to blame for.” (I just tried to translate his words as they were spoken. This was somewhere around January 2000.)

I thought that this forum was to talk about intelligent stuff where everybody may be interested in and not to treat personnal affairs!

The french have a nice expression for doing what you do: "Laver son linge sale en famille".

Putting rumers or accusations anonymously on an Internet forum, why not.
But sending them personnaly by email to the LBA in Germany is much less intelligent, because it becomes official and you risk to be charged for it at court by DAC Luxembourg! ---> And thats what will happen to you

For the other PPrune members: Sorry guys, I had to awnser Duke.

Dear Scarabet,

I cannot really follow your arguments.

I do believe that safety issues must not be considered as personal affairs. – But yes, I have been fighting for long years in order to improve the Luxembourg situation of airworthiness certification.

Now, I was asking just a few questions related to my different point of view in safety issues and definitions.

Please investigate, please prove what’s wrong! Uncomfortable? – I was…

My job had always been preventing accidents, not hiding possible hazards and reasons that can lead to those. I see it as my civil obligation to notify authorities if I have strong reasons to believe that there are violations of international airsafety rules.

Why DAC charging me? For what? Do you mean Luxembourg will drift now towards a totalitarian regime where any criticism of the authorities will be a criminal offense? – Let’s come down to earth, when a man is ill, he needs help. If this cannot be done from inside, international community must help. Isn’t that the ICAO? I have just been asking to audit in order to make sure …

Sorry, Scarabet, but two really bad aircraft accidents in the year 2002 should be enough for a while in a small place like Luxembourg. But thanks for your post. It might help illustrate the spirit in which technical problems are sometimes “resolved” back there.

According to a local newspaper an official report shall be

released this afternoon

The report is now available under

http://www.tageblatt.lu/images/journ...ier-luxair.pdf

in French. An English translation will be issued at a later date

Part 2 of the report: annexes

http://www.tageblatt.lu/images/journ...ir-rapport.pdf

For those of us not well versed in French, can anybody provide a brief summary?

Thanks for any assistance

TA

:)

My view of the report
 

There's quite a bit of dense tech talk en francais, especially about the beta pitch control stops at the power levers and the ground regime solenoids that keep the props out of beta until either the gear struts are compressed or both wheels are turning faster than 17 kt. and perhaps an interaction with the antiskid system as antiskid maintenance and post-accident service bulletins are also discussed:confused:

Wreckage shows left props in feather; right in beta.

Final bit of CVR - so far everything seems normal

05 min 19 s 40 Noise -- P1-"What's that?"
05 min 21 s 20 Noise similar to movement of flaps lever
05 min 21 s 60 Noise similar to change of prop speed
05 min 22 s 80 P1 - Ha
05 min 22 s 90 P1 - Oh merde Oh sh**
05 min 23 s 40 Noise similar to electric [switch?]
05 min 23 s 70 Single Chime
05 min 26 s 20 Noise similar to reduction of prop speed
05 min 27 s 00 Noise
05 min 27 s 70 Beginning of GPWS "Terrain" alert
05 min 28 s 00 Break in recording (1/3 s)
05 min 28 s 30 P1 - Bo dàt war awer eng lenk Yikes! What a bitch!
Various breaks and losses of timestamps

05 min 29 s 10 Timestamp Invalid P1-Oh merde P2-Sound of breathing

English translation of report now available at http://www.government.lu/salle_press...air/index.html