Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Air Accident / Incident thread

18911131419

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭homerjay2005


    i was on 2 flights yesterday and there it was very noticeable how clear they were making it that in event of an emergency, that you were to leave all hand luggage behind.

    obviously a memo has gone out following events in Russia.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,775 ✭✭✭Bsal


    2-RORO SR22 has crashed in Wales today, I was just watching it the other day inbound to Kerry. 3 people injured but not seriously

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-48243610

    https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/2-roro#207b7792


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭goingnowhere


    i was on 2 flights yesterday and there it was very noticeable how clear they were making it that in event of an emergency, that you were to leave all hand luggage behind.

    obviously a memo has gone out following events in Russia.

    Aer Lingus have been doing this for years, its been on the script since I think the BA 777 Las Vegas incident


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    DUBAI: Four people were killed when a small plane crashed near Dubai International Airport, temporarily halting some flights in and out of the busy regional hub.

    The crash killed three Britons and a South African on board the four-seater Diamond DA62, the Dubai Civil Aviation Authority said. The UK registered plane was on a mission to calibrate terrestrial navigation systems at the airport when it crashed about 5 kilometers south of the airport.

    I'm not too sure if this is the same company that uses the callsign FlightCheck and did the checks at Irish airports, but its a sad event, may they RIP.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,505 ✭✭✭ElNino


    This must have been a bit embarrassing for the pilot involved

    Pilot diverted plane to Shannon after spilling coffee


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,460 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Dropping something could've been worse :eek:

    https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19370209-0

    Edit: this spillage caused fatalities

    https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19850815-0

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,729 ✭✭✭martinsvi


    ElNino wrote: »
    This must have been a bit embarrassing for the pilot involved

    Pilot diverted plane to Shannon after spilling coffee

    I'm a wee bit concerned a spilled drink on the ACP didn't trip a circuit breaker allowing burning/melting to develop. I hope investigators will/have looked into this


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


    martinsvi wrote: »
    I'm a wee bit concerned a spilled drink on the ACP didn't trip a circuit breaker allowing burning/melting to develop. I hope investigators will/have looked into this

    Interesting one. Trade off of precise tripping value against thermal conditions a breaker is in and getting a good supply of spares in the field...

    Maybe an ELCB would be more appropriate for this problem?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,460 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Resistance to earth at 30,000 feet could be an issue :pac:

    Scrap the cap!



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    Well worth reading:- (although you'll need to create a free NYT account)

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/magazine/boeing-737-max-crashes.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,460 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Or just disable javascript and cookies

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,109 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    A Belgian F-16 just crashed in France. Both pilots ejected. One of them has ended up dangling from a high voltage transmission line by his parachute. Did a black cat cross his path this morning?

    66b06f27-aff8-4ccc-a033-470ab4b7e6aa.jpg

    https://www.letelegramme.fr/fait-divers/pluvigner-un-avion-de-chasse-de-l-armee-belge-s-ecrase-19-09-2019-12386877.php


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,460 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    According to BBC both crew are safe and well.

    If that'd been a pylon with another set of lines below, he'd probably have been fried!

    Scrap the cap!



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,505 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil




  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,505 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,460 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    http://avherald.com/h?article=4ce28013&opt=0

    Unfortunately a passenger died, presumably as a result of the propeller blade(s) which penetrated the cabin.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    https://twitter.com/cshalby/status/1217191455418011648?s=21

    Rare case of a fuel dump making news on the ground.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,984 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    If the LA authorities went on a random sampling exercise at LAX, they'd find samples of Jet A1 on probably every ramp worker, especially anyone who works close to aircraft, as well as samples of hydraulic fluid, water, dirt, coffee and possibly even blue toilet juice! If it's in the atmosphere, it will be on their clothes. You'd probably find more diesel particulate on the schoolkids from the schoolbus, as well as gallons of hairspray,perfume, food,etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,086 ✭✭✭Nijmegen


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    If the LA authorities went on a random sampling exercise at LAX, they'd find samples of Jet A1 on probably every ramp worker, especially anyone who works close to aircraft, as well as samples of hydraulic fluid, water, dirt, coffee and possibly even blue toilet juice! If it's in the atmosphere, it will be on their clothes. You'd probably find more diesel particulate on the schoolkids from the schoolbus, as well as gallons of hairspray,perfume, food,etc.

    In fairness I think from reading the stories, the fuel came down like rain rather than a very very dispersed aerosol as you'd expect to be collecting around people working in the airport. Concentration does matter.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    If the LA authorities went on a random sampling exercise at LAX, they'd find samples of Jet A1 on probably every ramp worker, especially anyone who works close to aircraft, as well as samples of hydraulic fluid, water, dirt, coffee and possibly even blue toilet juice! If it's in the atmosphere, it will be on their clothes. You'd probably find more diesel particulate on the schoolkids from the schoolbus, as well as gallons of hairspray,perfume, food,etc.

    That’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. People who work in the airport, who are aware of the place they’ll be working vs children playing at school.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,984 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    A good shower will wash kerosene off anyone, with no long term effects for such a small exposure and a decent washing machine will take care of the clothes. It's kerosene, not battery acid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23 irishkopite93


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    A good shower will wash kerosene off anyone, with no long term effects for such a small exposure and a decent washing machine will take care of the clothes. It's kerosene, not battery acid.

    Even after a good shower you can smell Jet A1 off your skin. Generally takes a day or two and a couple of showers at least!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,612 ✭✭✭Dardania


    Even after a good shower you can smell Jet A1 off your skin. Generally takes a day or two and a couple of showers at least!

    Not to mention, it's a solvent right? Cant be good to breathe that in (although obviously it's worse to breathe I'm the result of com busting kerosene)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,351 ✭✭✭Cloudio9


    Is it clear if it was necessary to dump it over a built up area at low altitude?

    Should’ve been very easy to dump it over the Pacific unless there was something particularly complex about the incident.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,342 ✭✭✭markpb


    Cloudio9 wrote: »
    Is it clear if it was necessary to dump it over a built up area at low altitude?

    Should’ve been very easy to dump it over the Pacific unless there was something particularly complex about the incident.

    It's odd that the crew told ATC that the incident was under control, they had no need to dump fuel and they didn't seem to be pushed about having EMT on the runway waiting for them. As someone said earlier, this seems more like an accident than the correct response to an emergency.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23 irishkopite93


    Dardania wrote: »
    Not to mention, it's a solvent right? Cant be good to breathe that in (although obviously it's worse to breathe I'm the result of com busting kerosene)

    It's nasty stuff altogether, certainly wouldn't be nice if it got into your eyes and if any of the kids had existing skin conditions I'd imagine they didn't react well to it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 911 ✭✭✭Mebuntu


    I've been checking through the outstanding investigation reports at AAIU and there is still no report (preliminary or final) issued on the serious incident involving a Stobart ATR (operating an Aer Lingus Regional flight) that descended below minima on approach to EIDW runway 28 more than four years ago on 2nd Sept. 2016.

    Extract from Aviation Herald:
    The Irish AAIU notified the aircraft descended through its assigned altitude of 2000 feet and was still descending through 1100 feet MSL when the controller received a minimum safe altitude warning and queried the crew. Flaps and gear were still up at that point, during the go-around however it appeared the flaps had been extended. The conditions were VMC with few clouds at 2200 feet. The occurrence has been rated a serious incident and is being investigated by the AAIU.

    Some may remember that two years ago this incident (and another Stobart one that occurred around the same time) dropped off the list but were reinstated following an enquiry from the Aviation Herald who were informed that reports were "about to conclude".

    With little or no flights/incidents in 2020 I'd have thought that clearing up the backlog could have been achieved.

    Anyone know if it would it be normal policy for the CVR to have been commandeered by the AAIU on landing after such an incident?

    Coincidentally, no report of any kind has been issued in respect of a Flybe Dash 8 that, according to AAIU website, descended below the glideslope at EIDW almost two and a half years ago on 13th April 2018.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,984 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Look on the AAIU website and count how many people they have and divide the workload by that amount.


  • Registered Users Posts: 911 ✭✭✭Mebuntu


    Stovepipe wrote: »
    Look on the AAIU website and count how many people they have and divide the workload by that amount.

    OK, you did mention this previously but another two years have elapsed. In the ensuing period there have been many reports (I didn't count them) issued in respect of small private various types in various incidents around small airfields that have all occurred since then. It's only my opinion, of course, but I would normally expect a serious incident with a commercial aircraft to be a huge priority over the latter.

    In the ATR case in question an aircraft was not only below minima but down to 1100ft and still descending until ATC fortunately intervened. I just don't understand how such an investigation is proving so difficult to complete. Even AF447 took only three years. There can't be too many possibilities especially as this happened on a clear day. You could probably do this one yourself :)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,984 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    Quite simply,I dont know. At a guess, they are waiting for feedback from interested parties.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43 Austrian Simon


    Mebuntu wrote: »
    I've been checking through the outstanding investigation reports at AAIU and there is still no report (preliminary or final) issued on the serious incident involving a Stobart ATR (operating an Aer Lingus Regional flight) that descended below minima on approach to EIDW runway 28 more than four years ago on 2nd Sept. 2016.

    Extract from Aviation Herald:
    The Irish AAIU notified the aircraft descended through its assigned altitude of 2000 feet and was still descending through 1100 feet MSL when the controller received a minimum safe altitude warning and queried the crew. Flaps and gear were still up at that point, during the go-around however it appeared the flaps had been extended. The conditions were VMC with few clouds at 2200 feet. The occurrence has been rated a serious incident and is being investigated by the AAIU.

    Some may remember that two years ago this incident (and another Stobart one that occurred around the same time) dropped off the list but were reinstated following an enquiry from the Aviation Herald who were informed that reports were "about to conclude".

    With little or no flights/incidents in 2020 I'd have thought that clearing up the backlog could have been achieved.

    Anyone know if it would it be normal policy for the CVR to have been commandeered by the AAIU on landing after such an incident?

    Coincidentally, no report of any kind has been issued in respect of a Flybe Dash 8 that, according to AAIU website, descended below the glideslope at EIDW almost two and a half years ago on 13th April 2018.

    Both investigations are still listed pending and in progress. Yup, I know, what they told me in October 2018, and we now have October 2020.

    I won't touch base with them this time. I prefer them to do the investigations thoroughly and not just point fingers at the humans in seat row 0, but to actually find out what really happened and, if there was a human error, how did that human error come together and could something be done to avoid it in the future. This takes time, sometimes significant time. So I'll let them complete their investigations in peace (though I won't let them rest in peace <eg>).

    Just for info: the record investigation time I have seen so far was 12 years! Well, not quite ... Actually, the record investigation concerns an incident in Addis Ababa on Mar 31st 2003, in which a VOR that had become wet nearly caused two CFITS including one British Mediterranean A320. The Ethiopian report is still pending and has not surfaced 17 years later even though the ECAA and accident investigation now have their own Website. However, the British AAIB decided to make their own report in 2008 ... See http://avherald.com/h?article=42cba6a2

    I don't think the Pandemic helps the AAIU operations, but their operations are crippled too over the needs for distancing, unavailability of contacts, funding, etc. I don't think, it would be easy to conduct such investigations from the home office. So, I don't think the reduced number of current incidents helps them complete other open investigations instead.

    Servus, Simon
    (P.S.: as someone asked in 2018 - post #389 - in response to my other post concerning this Stobart occurrence, yup, the one from the Aviation Herald)
    P.P.S: Looks like I really missed that Dash 8 on April 13th 2018 - so it'll be covered once an AAIU report is out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 911 ✭✭✭Mebuntu


    Many thanks for your input, Simon.

    Always great to hear from you :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Gaoth Laidir


    Mebuntu wrote: »
    OK, you did mention this previously but another two years have elapsed. In the ensuing period there have been many reports (I didn't count them) issued in respect of small private various types in various incidents around small airfields that have all occurred since then. It's only my opinion, of course, but I would normally expect a serious incident with a commercial aircraft to be a huge priority over the latter.

    In the ATR case in question an aircraft was not only below minima but down to 1100ft and still descending until ATC fortunately intervened. I just don't understand how such an investigation is proving so difficult to complete. Even AF447 took only three years. There can't be too many possibilities especially as this happened on a clear day. You could probably do this one yourself :)

    If it was a case of flight crew error then politics will again kick in and the rest of the aviation world will have to wait, lest blame is indirectly apportioned to said flight crew. That's the way it seems to work in this country. The feelings of flight crew or their families take precedence over the timely release of final reports that could save further crews from repeating the incident.

    So yes, we just have to wait.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,984 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    The thing is, accidents and incidents that don't involve death or injury or the total loss of an aircraft are , relatively speaking, easier to deal with and they can be processed fairly quickly. If a person is killed or injured or it becomes apparent that a structural/system/electrical/engine failure has caused the crash, then the stakes are higher. If an accident has a public/political aspect to it, such as R116's crash, then it's even worse, as national attention is focused on the event and people start demanding instantaneous answers to what is a long, drawn out process.


  • Registered Users Posts: 911 ✭✭✭Mebuntu


    Mebuntu wrote: »
    I've been checking through the outstanding investigation reports at AAIU and there is still no report (preliminary or final) issued on the serious incident involving a Stobart ATR (operating an Aer Lingus Regional flight) that descended below minima on approach to EIDW runway 28 more than four years ago on 2nd Sept. 2016.
    The report is finally out!

    http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/files/report-attachments/Report%202021-001_0.pdf


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,775 ✭✭✭Bsal




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,460 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Hmmm what's the dividing line between "hard landing" and "crash" :eek:

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    The report from the USAF GLOBAL that crashed in Afghanistan is out, pilot error.
    Air Combat Command released an accident investigation board report today regarding the E-11A crash that occurred January 27, 2020, during which two pilots were fatally injured. The E-11A crashed in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, following a catastrophic engine failure.

    Both pilots, Lt. Col. Paul K. Voss, 46, and Capt. Ryan S. Phaneuf, 30, were assigned to the 430th Expeditionary Electronic Combat Squadron, Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, and were conducting a combat sortie in support of Operation FREEDOM’S SENTINEL.

    Their mission, and the mission of the E-11A, was to serve as a Battlefield Airborne Communications Node, which allows different communication systems to share and relay voice, video, imagery and data between warfighters in the air and on the ground. BACN is often referred to as “Wi-Fi in the sky” and enables connectivity across multiple battlespace communication platforms.

    Evidence indicates that one hour and 45 minutes into flight, a fan blade broke free from the left engine, causing the left engine to shut down. Approximately 24 seconds after the initial incident, the crew shut down the right, and only operable, engine resulting in a dual engine out emergency.

    The aircraft was approximately 230 nautical miles from Kandahar Airfield when the dual engine out occurred, and neither engine airstarted to provide any usable thrust. The crew initiated a mayday call to air traffic control stating they had an engine failure on both motors and intended to proceed to Kandahar.

    The aircraft was outside of the gliding distance to reach Kandahar Airfield, and also flew outside of gliding distance to other available landing locations, including Bagram Airfield, Kabul International Airport, and Forward Operating Base Shank.

    The crew tried maneuvering the aircraft towards Forward Operating Base Sharana, but did not have the altitude and airspeed to glide the remaining distance. The crew unsuccessfully attempted landing in a field approximately 21 nautical miles short of Sharana. Both pilots were fatally injured and the aircraft was destroyed.

    “This tragic accident and the loss of these two Airmen will not be forgotten,” said Gen. Mark Kelly, commander of Air Combat Command. “These Airmen gave the ultimate sacrifice in service to the nation while deployed supporting an overseas combat mission. They should be recognized and remembered for their dedication and bravery.”

    The AIB determined the cause of the mishap was the crew’s error in analyzing which engine had catastrophically failed. This error resulted in the decision to shut down the working engine, creating a dual engine out emergency. Additionally, the AIB president found that the crew’s failure to airstart the right engine and their decision to recover the aircraft to Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan, substantially contributed to the mishap.

    Due to aircraft vibrations and the dual engine out emergency, both the cockpit voice recorder and the digital flight data recorder stopped recording for the majority of the mishap sequence, which denied the direct evidence of certain events. Therefore, the exact experience of the crew cannot be fully determined.

    The cost of damages to government property was $120 million.

    https://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2478327/e-11a-accident-investigation-board-report-released/


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    Hmmm what's the dividing line between "hard landing" and "crash" :eek:

    Can you use it again :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,984 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    If it can't taxy to the gate, then tow it to the hangar or scrap it right there....after you carry the crew to the hospital.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,460 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    smurfjed wrote: »
    Can you use it again :)

    Don't think they can this time!
    Dohvolle wrote: »
    Hard landing = Undercarriage was used to some effect.
    Crash: No undercarriage involved.

    Plenty e.g. Asiana in SFO went down with u/c down and even on a runway, kinda, but would still be a crash.

    This one involves a touchdown actually on a runway with undercarriage down, is described as a hard landing, but I think we can call it a crash! (McDonnell Douglas test flight, I dunno if they were trying to demonstrate how many G's the airframe could withstand or what :D )



    The bend on the fuselage when the nose gear touches down is something else. You don't see that the first few times as the tail dropping off draws the attention :) pretty hard to stop the nose gear slamming down when you've just lost a big chunk of mass off the rear of the aircraft, I suppose... even if they'd had any pitch control left!


    Sooo.... reckon tea and biscuits will be provided by the West Atlantic chief pilot...?

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,460 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    There was also this one on AVH recently (happened in 2011)

    http://avherald.com/h?article=4438e8ff&opt=0

    I mean, w the actual f where they at?!? :eek: passenger flight, too.

    Scrap the cap!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    Some time in the past Venezuela's DGPIAAE released their final report in Spanish only (Editorial note: to serve the purpose of global prevention of the repeat of causes leading to an occurrence an additional timely release of all occurrence reports in the only world spanning aviation language English would be necessary, a Spanish only release does not achieve this purpose as set by ICAO annex 13 and just forces many aviators to waste much more time and effort each in trying to understand the circumstances leading to the occurrence. Aviators operating internationally are required to read/speak English besides their local language, investigators need to be able to read/write/speak English to communicate with their counterparts all around the globe).

    Wow, interesting rant, I assume that Avherald does know that Spanish is a recognized UN language and all their documents are published in Spanish. Does the Spanish version of ICAO annex 13 mandate that all reports must be in English?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,292 ✭✭✭0lddog


    +1
    Spanish second after Mandarin when it comes to the number of people who speak it as a first language ...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 43 Austrian Simon


    smurfjed wrote: »
    Wow, interesting rant, I assume that Avherald does know that Spanish is a recognized UN language and all their documents are published in Spanish. Does the Spanish version of ICAO annex 13 mandate that all reports must be in English?

    Yes, I know there are 9 ICAO languages. How many people/pilots/etc. speak/read/understand all these 9 languages?

    Why does ICAO mandate that all ATC communications are done either in the local language or English, but does not include all 9 ICAO languages as alternative?

    Exactly, because we can reasonably expect that any human involved in aviation nowadays is capable of talking in his local language and in English. Therefore it makes sense to also require all final reports, which are designed to prevent accidents around the planet, to be understood by any aviator around the planet without first needing to involve expensive translators etc. And the investigators know English anyway, so it's easy for them and almost no effort to produce the report in English (and it's one time effort only, not a million users' effort who all would need to translate the report otherwise).

    Most of the time, because of involvement of multiple investigation boards according to ICAO Annex 13 they need to produce the English report anyway, so why not release it and require it to be released?

    That's why I am advocating the requirement of English final reports.

    Servus, Simon


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,265 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    Dont forget that reports are written for local consumption by politicians and media, so its makes sense that they are in a local language.


  • Registered Users Posts: 43 Austrian Simon


    smurfjed wrote: »
    Dont forget that reports are written for local consumption by politicians and media, so its makes sense that they are in a local language.

    I am not advocating against the local language report (regardless of whether it is an ICAO language or not), that's fine with me (and in many cases required by national law).

    However, I advocate that the English version of that report needs to be released, too, preferably at the same time (in no case I am aware of national laws prohibiting such an additional language version).

    However, ICAO doesn't mandate such an English version, as a matter of fact not even a release in one of the ICAO languages is yet mandated.

    And although ICAO runs a central database for accident reports, they do not even mandate submissions of such reports to their ECCAIRS 5 database.

    So there's really a lot to be desired and a lot of room for improvement to enable global learning and global prevention of re-occurring causes of accidents).

    Servus, Simon


  • Registered Users Posts: 481 ✭✭mr.anonymous


    The comment says English would be necessary to achieve the aim of Annex 13 by making the reports more accessible to the wider industry. It's not required.

    Imo, many of the accidents in the developing world where reports aren't published in English are so avoidable they'd be unlikely to happen in EU, North America etc that the report wouldn't add much insight to an already safe system.

    Does AvHerald's owner really have a boards.ie account?!


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,927 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    ......
    Does AvHerald's owner really have a boards.ie account?!

    Yes. Joined us a few years back and was very helpful during the aftermath of an incident.



    Just shows what a World renowned aviation forum we are....... :)


  • Advertisement
Advertisement