Another visual approach mishap
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: europe
Age: 67
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another visual approach mishap
Please delete if old news, but..
On 24 May 2010 the crew of a Regional Embraer 145 operating for Air France continued an unstable visual approach at Ljubljana despite breaching mandatory go-around SOPs and ignoring a continuous EGPWS ‘PULL UP’ Warning. The subsequent touchdown was bounced and involved ground contact estimated to have been at 1300fpm with a resultant vertical acceleration of 4g. Substantial damage was caused to the landing gear and adjacent fuselage. It was concluded that the type-experienced crew had mis-judged a visual approach and then continued an unstabilised approach to a touchdown with the aircraft not properly under control.
On 24 May 2010 the crew of a Regional Embraer 145 operating for Air France continued an unstable visual approach at Ljubljana despite breaching mandatory go-around SOPs and ignoring a continuous EGPWS ‘PULL UP’ Warning. The subsequent touchdown was bounced and involved ground contact estimated to have been at 1300fpm with a resultant vertical acceleration of 4g. Substantial damage was caused to the landing gear and adjacent fuselage. It was concluded that the type-experienced crew had mis-judged a visual approach and then continued an unstabilised approach to a touchdown with the aircraft not properly under control.
Among other things, the co-pilot was PF and couldn't see the runway when turning onto final from left base ...
The report points to 'an authority gradient in the cockpit' – over-confident PIC and passive co-pilot – suggesting that this can still be a problem elsewhere than in the Far East (see comments on Asiana 214).
The report points to 'an authority gradient in the cockpit' – over-confident PIC and passive co-pilot – suggesting that this can still be a problem elsewhere than in the Far East (see comments on Asiana 214).
Four years to complete then publish a hard landing report
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: somewhere
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed.. edited 2012 june 23 rd..
Blabla..
And pretty bad CRM from the Captain. Leading his collegue to only observe his pergormance..
Blabla..
And pretty bad CRM from the Captain. Leading his collegue to only observe his pergormance..
Last edited by VNAV PATH; 14th Jul 2014 at 13:38.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report is a bit vague when it mentions vertical accelerations of 4G.
Was this a spike of 4G lasting just a few micro-seconds, or a continuous 4G for over 5-10 seconds? There is quite a difference...
Was this a spike of 4G lasting just a few micro-seconds, or a continuous 4G for over 5-10 seconds? There is quite a difference...
Long time since I've landed at Ljubljana but this approach was well known for visual illusion (due to, if I recall correctly, the relative close proximity of high ground "upwind") and indeed our brief highlighted this point.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a continuous 4G for over 5-10 seconds?
the hard landing which occurred at an estimated 1300 fpm with a load factor in excess of 4g followed by a bounce to a second and final ground contact with a load factor of 2.26g.
Ut Sementem Feeceris
Firefly,
I'm familiar with LJU and the point they turned base, along with their altitude was never going to work. There's no illusion here - it's a breakdown of SA, poor decision making and stupid bravado to continue with the GPWS going off.
The ages of the crew involved would seem to indicate a high experience level and I simply cannot see how they (the FO for turning in on the Commanders suggestion and the Capt for thinking it "looked right") thought this was ever going to work. Presumably they would have had the ILS 31 DME displayed as they were initially going for the ILS - 1,710ft AGL at 2.8D would not have looked right
What sanction against the crew? It may have been a mistake to turn in early but to continue was negligent/reckless.
A4
I'm familiar with LJU and the point they turned base, along with their altitude was never going to work. There's no illusion here - it's a breakdown of SA, poor decision making and stupid bravado to continue with the GPWS going off.
The ages of the crew involved would seem to indicate a high experience level and I simply cannot see how they (the FO for turning in on the Commanders suggestion and the Capt for thinking it "looked right") thought this was ever going to work. Presumably they would have had the ILS 31 DME displayed as they were initially going for the ILS - 1,710ft AGL at 2.8D would not have looked right
What sanction against the crew? It may have been a mistake to turn in early but to continue was negligent/reckless.
A4
I'm familiar with LJU and the point they turned base, along with their altitude was never going to work. There's no illusion here - it's a breakdown of SA, poor decision making and stupid bravado to continue with the GPWS going off.
The ages of the crew involved would seem to indicate a high experience level
Flight Deck and Cabin Crew Information AF447
