Air Accident / Incident thread

smurfjed · 19-04-2016 6:46pm

http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/files/report-attachments/Final%20Report%20N1310H.pdf

I find it interesting that someone would level at 2,000 feet when the published MSA is up to 4,500 feet.

19-04-2016 7:00pm

smurfjed wrote: »

I find it interesting that someone would level at 2,000 feet when the published MSA is up to 4,500 feet.

That really stood out for me too, I wonder was there more going on in the cockpit than we were told.

I find it strange that two pilots used to speaking in English and using twenty and two hundred get confused by a Flight Level of Two Hundred.

EchoIndia · 19-04-2016 11:12pm

The after-the-fact report completed by the PIC is very limited in content and purports to speak for both crew members, which is a bit strange in itself. Also, the AAIU report does not say how long after the event this was provided.

JCX BXC · 20-04-2016 8:30am

And it made the usual tacky newspaper headlines.

"Shannon ATC save a Jet MINUTES from crashing into a mountain"

ned14 · 20-04-2016 11:32am

Carnacalla wrote: »

And it made the usual tacky newspaper headlines.

"Shannon ATC save a Jet MINUTES from crashing into a mountain"

What an inaccurate headline... It was only 1min 20 seconds away from the mountain. Typical tabloid...

But on a serious note, if you look at the last page of the report. It shows an image with the timestamp and altitude of the aircraft at various points. They were indeed very close to a CFIT situation.

de biz · 20-04-2016 12:14pm

Surprised no met data is referenced in the report....

JCX BXC · 20-04-2016 2:05pm

ned14 wrote: »

What an inaccurate headline... It was only 1min 20 seconds away from the mountain. Typical tabloid...

You know Tabloids, nothing they say is technically incorrect but they make it out to be world war III.

Of course this is a concerning incident, but at least lessons will be learned from it.

Sterling Archer · 20-04-2016 2:14pm

Co-pilot breaks leg
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/a-co-pilot-broke-his-leg-during-a-flight-and-the-plane-had-to-be-diverted-730417.html

Bsal · 20-04-2016 3:50pm

EchoIndia wrote: »

The after-the-fact report completed by the PIC is very limited in content and purports to speak for both crew members, which is a bit strange in itself. Also, the AAIU report does not say how long after the event this was provided.

I read in the report that crew=2 pax=3, is there any chance it was being operated as single pilot and the other 'crew' member was infact a flight attendant? Just something that came to mind after reading it.

JCX BXC · 20-04-2016 3:52pm

Flight attendants aren't required for aircraft with less than 15 (ish) (edit: 19 as confirmed by "Growler!!!" below) passengers, hence why the Manx2 crash at Cork involved only 2 crew.

Growler!!! · 20-04-2016 3:54pm

19 pax or less. No attendant required.

pepe the prawn · 20-04-2016 4:43pm

There may only have been one flying crew member. As far as I know, N registered aircraft can operate under a agreement known as Part 91 and another known as Part 135, whereby an aircraft normally designated for a two pilot crew can be flown under certain conditions with just one pilot under one of the Part agreements. Differences range from aircraft certification to crew certification.

Hence the reason for the wide array of N registered aircraft around Europe, operators need only pay one pilot instead of two.

Stovepipe · 20-04-2016 5:36pm

Insurers are very reluctant to tolerate single crew operation and a lot of 135 operation is cargo at night and even then, most companies will operate two crew. The consequences for a company if an aircraft falls into a built-up area, because the single pilot dies at the wheel are too scary to think about.... The reason for a lot of N regs in Europe is that the FAA system is easier and cheaper to use than the EASA system and there are tax implications involved as well. The notion that it is possible to operate single-crew in EASA land, to save the cost of a pilot, is not credible, unless they sanction it. Remember the fuss about single-engine turboprop operations? Despite overwhelming evidence that single engine turboprop ops are safe, EASA nailed it stone dead, even to the point of pilots being arrested and aircraft seized (UK). Also, it suits American global companies to stay N-reg'd, employ US pilots and keep the aircraft under FAA oversight, which is much more global than EASA. Apart from that, European business jet operators frequently register their aircraft in the Caymans or the new register in the Isle of Man, precisely to avoid EASA-land. EASA is such a cluster **** that they even admitted that Part M was a disaster and have promised to rebuild it from the ground up.

EchoIndia · 20-04-2016 7:22pm

pepe the prawn wrote: »

There may only have been one flying crew member. As far as I know, N registered aircraft can operate under a agreement known as Part 91 and another known as Part 135, whereby an aircraft normally designated for a two pilot crew can be flown under certain conditions with just one pilot under one of the Part agreements. Differences range from aircraft certification to crew certification.

Hence the reason for the wide array of N registered aircraft around Europe, operators need only pay one pilot instead of two.

If you read the report, all of the references suggest two crew, e.g. where they say they have a mike problem "on the left side". According to the discussion here, no Hawker business jet is certified for single-pilot operation. http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/391808-tehnically-speaking-single-pilot-certification.html

pepe the prawn · 20-04-2016 7:50pm

EchoIndia wrote: »

If you read the report, all of the references suggest two crew, e.g. where they say they have a mike problem "on the left side". According to the discussion here, no Hawker business jet is certified for single-pilot operation. http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/391808-tehnically-speaking-single-pilot-certification.html

Two crew doesn't necessarily mean two flying pilots and this report didn't clarify either side of the argument. If there had been two flying crew I would have expected to see the phrases "pilot flying" and "pilot monitoring" mentioned somewhere in the report. The report never addressed how the uncertainty arose in the cockpit with regard to the cleared level or if there was a conversation between two pilots about who heard what. We don't know who wrote down the departure clearance or the oceanic clearance, only that it was read back by the captain, who also happened to be doing all of the radiotelephony on this flight. Also, the IAA received a written statement of events from the captain but no mention of a written report from the FO, which i would have thought would be of extreme importance in a close shave such as this. Hence my reason for suspecting a single pilot operation. I may be wrong, I only briefly read the report so maybe I missed something.

As for pprune, maybe whats said in that 6 year old thread is true and based on facts, I don't know, but I would place pprune on the same level as The Irish Sun so I take most of what I see on that site with a grain of salt. Amongst a few knowledgable posts here and there, its infested with armchair pilots and subject matter experts who know an awful lot about nothing.

Just my opinion, I've been wrong once before back in 1997 :pac:....

EchoIndia · 20-04-2016 8:30pm

pepe the prawn wrote: »

Two crew doesn't necessarily mean two flying pilots and this report didn't clarify either side of the argument. If there had been two flying crew I would have expected to see the phrases "pilot flying" and "pilot monitoring" mentioned somewhere in the report. The report never addressed how the uncertainty arose in the cockpit with regard to the cleared level or if there was a conversation between two pilots about who heard what. We don't know who wrote down the departure clearance or the oceanic clearance, only that it was read back by the captain, who also happened to be doing all of the radiotelephony on this flight. Also, the IAA received a written statement of events from the captain but no mention of a written report from the FO, which i would have thought would be of extreme importance in a close shave such as this. Hence my reason for suspecting a single pilot operation. I may be wrong, I only briefly read the report so maybe I missed something.

Actually the report repeatedly uses the expression "the Flight Crew", which does not distinguish between the crew members, and the PIC's report used "we". A look at the FAA website shows that all HS125/Hawker family executive jets (dating back to the original series 1 of the 1960s) are certified on the basis of a minimum crew of two pilots. If you are suggesting that this aircraft may not have been operated in accordance with that requirement, that would be a different issue altogether. The report, despite its the limitations you have pointed out, contains no such suggestion in that regard.

pepe the prawn · 20-04-2016 9:01pm

EchoIndia wrote: »

Actually the report repeatedly uses the expression "the Flight Crew", which does not distinguish between the crew members, and the PIC's report used "we". A look at the FAA website shows that all HS125/Hawker family executive jets (dating back to the original series 1 of the 1960s) are certified on the basis of a minimum crew of two pilots. If you are suggesting that this aircraft may not have been operated in accordance with that requirement, that would be a different issue altogether. The report, despite its the limitations you have pointed out, contains no such suggestion in that regard.

I'm not suggesting anything, Im making a statement based on my understanding of the report after reading it. the use of the words flight crew means nothing, any accident report is normally written to include words, sentences, statements or actions made or taken by both pilots but in this case it only addresses one pilot and only sought the written report from one pilot, which i find quite unusual. The PIC's use of "we" holds no water, we is used as a collective term by truck loads of pilots even when flying solo, "we" as in me and the aircraft and whoever else is on it.. Its a term of speech, not a statement of the number of souls on board or the number of flight crew.

Long story short, maybe the individual who was meant to be the second pilot was asleep/otherwise engaged/present but useless/mounting one of the pax, I dont know. The person or people at the pointy end made a balls of their departure and from reading the report it seems to read (from my point of view) that it all fell in the lap of one pilot. Regulations state it needs two crew yes, was there two crew actually acting as crew and flying it at that time? It doesnt seem like it.

EchoIndia · 20-04-2016 10:07pm

Originally you suggested that the aircraft may have been operating single-pilot under certain FAA rules. Now the thesis has shifted to being that the legally required second crew member was possibly "asleep/otherwise engaged/present but useless/mounting one of the pax, I don't know."

We are at least agreed that the report does not address such matters at all so anything else is speculation, which of course anyone is free to indulge in.

Bsal · 21-04-2016 12:34am

In every accident/incident report from the authorities I have read they always give the details of both the commander and first officer, I find it strange that only the commanders details are included and also no report or interview from the first officer either in this report. Anyone else got any thoughts on that?

Stovepipe · 21-04-2016 2:12pm

if you look at two recent additions to the AAIU website, two UK originated reports have Commander's details only. All countries that operate in EASA land are supposed to write their accident investigation reports in the exact same format but it does differ.

vicwatson · 21-04-2016 3:17pm

Did I just catch the end of an article about an incident with an A380 near Charles De Gaulle on the 3 o clock rte radio 1 news? Cant find anything online ?

ElNino · 21-04-2016 3:26pm

vicwatson wrote: »

Did I just catch the end of an article about an incident with an A380 near Charles De Gaulle on the 3 o clock rte radio 1 news? Cant find anything online ?

Drone reportedly flew close to Aer Lingus plane in Paris

Negative_G · 21-04-2016 6:54pm

Some more information regarding the FlyDubai incident.

http://avherald.com/h?article=495997e2%2F0030&opt=0

Looks to be pointing toward pilot error rather than mechanical issues from my reading of it.

300+ kts and 50 degree descent angle. Awful.

Bussywussy · 21-04-2016 8:34pm

ElNino wrote: »

Drone reportedly flew close to Aer Lingus plane in Paris

Saw another newspaper article on this and to quote "The pilot reported the incident to Air Traffic Police" ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚ðŸ˜‚

smurfjed · 21-04-2016 9:46pm

The Hawker is a two crew aircraft, it isn't certified for single pilot operations, however due to the number of seats in the aircraft it doesn't need a flight attendant so the duties of the FA may be done by the First Officer, this may be a reason why the Captain was doing all the pre-departure radio work.

kub · 21-04-2016 9:49pm

ElNino wrote: »

Drone reportedly flew close to Aer Lingus plane in Paris

Drones operate on a certain frequency, therefore it must be possible that the particular frequency is blocked in and around airports and especially runway headings.

Irish Steve · 21-04-2016 11:44pm

kub wrote: »

Drones operate on a certain frequency, therefore it must be possible that the particular frequency is blocked in and around airports and especially runway headings.

Unfortunately, that's not the case, there are specific bands that are allocated to model control, but they are shared by all radio control model users, there are no specific "drone" frequencies.

Also, it is all too easy for malicious users to use frequencies and channels that are not as such allocated for model flying, it is going to be incredibly hard to have a radio system that blocks drones in the vicinity of an airport.

Such a radio blocking system will have very negative effects on things like mobile phone networks, other legitimate radio devices, including WiFi systems, and other legitimate uses.

The other issue is that in some cases, a drone once launched can operate autonomously, without any radio link exercising control over the device, the only signal it needs to carry out the pre loaded plan is a valid GPS signal, and blocking GPS in the vicinity of an airport will be very bad news indeed, as GPS is increasingly part of aviation navigation systems.

This is going to be a very complex issue to resolve, and require a lot of actions by a number of agencies to provide even a partial solution to the problem, and I'm not expecting to see any real answers for some time to come.

Buffman · 10-05-2016 4:14pm

The CAAC certainly don't mess around, the incident only happend on 1st May and both Captains banned for life already. It'll be interesting to see what influence hypoxia had when the final report is released. The incident occured at Kangding Airport, third highest airport in the world at 14,000 feet.

From AV hearld:

A China Eastern Airbus A319-100, registration B-6430 performing flight MU-5443 from Chengdu to Kangding (China), was on final approach to Kangding's runway 15 when the aircraft struck approach lights causing parts of the approach lights to penetrate the aircraft's right hand horizontal stabilizer resulting in an additional hydraulic leak from the green hydraulic system. The aircraft went around and returned to Chengdu for a landing on runway 02R without further incident.

Due to the high elevation it was procedural requirement, that this approach into Kangding (as well as subsequent departure from Kangding) had to be flown by two captains. The flight was therefore crewed with two captains and one first officer. However, the first captain in charge of the flight permitted the second captain to remain in the cabin, after the second captain reported fatigued and therefore did not enter the cockpit. The first officer had not been trained for high altitude airport operations and was not qualified for the operation. While descending towards Kangding tower informed the crew that the clouds at Kangding were below minima, the aircraft entered a hold to wait for weather improvement. Cloud conditions changed rapidly, the aircraft therefore commenced an approach, however, at minimum descent height (MDH) the first officer, pilot monitoring, called that the runway was not in sight, the captain, pilot flying, however continued the descent assuming they would see the runway any time. The aircraft touched down outside the airport perimeter as result and broke through 4 rows of approach lights before going around. A horizontal stabilizer was pierced, the hydraulic fluid of one system was completely lost and tyres damaged, however, the crew did not inform about the occurrence and did not seek assistance. It was further stated in the meeting, that the crew permitted the cabin altitude to climb to above 14,000 feet MSL while in the hold waiting for weather improvement, this misconfiguration probably contributed to the accident sequence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rozKcqCfkT4

Bsal · 16-08-2016 1:02am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urpr59HpEuY

pepe the prawn · 10-09-2016 9:19pm

Stobart ATR leaves the runway on landing in Donegal last Wednesday evening

http://donegalnews.com/2016/09/investigation-underway-as-plane-leaves-donegal-runway/

Air Accident / Incident thread

Comments