Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Niugini plane misses runway, lands in sea off Micronesia island

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    Do you remember the circumstances around the copy-paste accident that we had maybe a couple of years ago where the plane (another 737 in some island in the Pacific, IIRC) splashed down short of the runway and came to rest inches from the seawall? I don't remember the circumstances or any useful detail (airline, where it was, etc..) to look it up.
    Lion Air Flight 904. Went sniffing down to 20' and called for go-around but couldn't arrest the descent in time. Yes, it happens.

    At that point they were entirely focused on visual contact, and heavy rain over water seems to destroy your visual spacial orientation.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
      Just for discussion, that does not have a "big" effect on radar altitude and GPWS.
      Although landing configuration tends to have a big effect on GPWS.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        Although landing configuration tends to have a big effect on GWPS.
        Remember- ALL words matter...like altitude.

        As does monitoring the fundamental basics...like altitude.

        Zero is not a good number...(nor is 20).
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #19
          Now it became a fatal accident.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #20
            Things happen quick after ap disconnect
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCKMFjvAV0o
            moving quickly in air

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
              Things happen quick after ap disconnect
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCKMFjvAV0o

              Esp. if you're looking for the inop PAPI

              Comment


              • #22
                they saw 3 whites before entering clouds didn't they?
                moving quickly in air

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by vaztr View Post
                  Esp. if you're looking for the inop PAPI
                  The PAPI was operational. The PIC calls out "one red... three whites". During the investigation they both insisted it had been three reds, one white.

                  This one is still a real head-scratcher. For one thing, they had precision guidance, which was clearly showing a rapid drop drop below glideslope. For another the EGWPS is calling out SINK RATE repeatedly. The final report lists 'loss of situational awareness' and states that the crew did not respond to EGWPS warnings, but I don't see that. The PIC (pilot flying, 20K hours), DOES respond to the EGWPS warnings, saying "I just want to get on profile" [???] and "That's alright, I'll just go a little more." It seems to me that the PIC flew it intentionally down low. My guess is low-visibility with full attention directed out the windows and an intent to dive and drive, with a disregard for monitoring instruments (the PIC instructs the FO to monitor the airspeed for him, and the FO says "got it", but never warns him after that).

                  The cause of this crash was the failure to go around when the approach was unstable at minimums. Everything after that is academic. But is it acceptable for the pilot-flying to hand off primary instrument-monitoring entirely to the pilot monitoring?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
                    they saw 3 whites before entering clouds didn't they?
                    At that point they were 1/2 dot above the glide slope so 1 red 3 whites is a reasonable picture.

                    Of course, with 1500 fpm down, that 1/2 dot didn't last much.

                    This looks like continued VFR into IMC. More or less as Evan said, but with a caveat:

                    There is a known visual illusion when the visibility is poor. The visible horizon is much closer than the real horizon and hence it looks like that the nose is pointing higher than it is and that you are higher tan you are. So not necessarily an intentional dive and drive as Evan suggested.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                      There is a known visual illusion when the visibility is poor. The visible horizon is much closer than the real horizon and hence it looks like that the nose is pointing higher than it is and that you are higher tan you are.
                      Hence the instruments. I see your point that it might not have been intentional dive and drive, but I just can't imagine being an airline pilot and simply placing all your faith out the window at that point (or not going around for that matter, so I guess the point is moot).

                      But can you answer my question: is it ever acceptable for a pilot flying in IMC to not monitor the instruments AT ALL, i.e. to hand that off to the pilot monitoring? This is the first CVR I've ever heard where the PF tells the PNF to watch the speed.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        But is it acceptable for the pilot-flying to hand off primary instrument-monitoring entirely to the pilot monitoring?
                        Assuming they were flying a monitored approach, then from my understanding, no it isn't. Heads down pilot should be monitoring instruments.

                        https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Monitored_Approach

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Can someone comment if this is right? The report says they had a ...rapid glideslope deviation from half-dot low to 2-dots high... shouldn't that be from half-dot high to 2-dots low? Thanks!
                          moving quickly in air

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by orangehuggy View Post
                            Can someone comment if this is right? The report says they had a ...rapid glideslope deviation from half-dot low to 2-dots high... shouldn't that be from half-dot high to 2-dots low? Thanks!
                            The guidance diamonds show the location of the glideslope and localizer relative to your current trajectory, so when you are below glideslope the diamond will be displayed 'high' on the scale.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              cool, so when the pm says "you're half a dot low" on finals he means you are high and need to descend faster? weird
                              moving quickly in air

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                But can you answer my question: is it ever acceptable for a pilot flying in IMC to not monitor the instruments AT ALL, i.e. to hand that off to the pilot monitoring? This is the first CVR I've ever heard where the PF tells the PNF to watch the speed.
                                It is never acceptable for the PIC not to monitor the instruments at all, no matter if VMC or IMC. The Primary Flight Display is called Primary Flight for a reason, the pilot FLYING should use the PRIMARY FLIGHT display. And you know what that little dot is.

                                That said... the pilot MONITORING should MONITOR the instruments. The PF asked the PM to monitor the airspeed. I see that you are making the interpolation here between that fact and the fact that they grossly deviated from the glide slope to make it that the PF did "not monitor the instruments AT ALL". That extrapolation might be true or might not.

                                However, say that the PF was 100% looking out of the window and did not look at the instruments at all.... there would still be dark zones in the tale. Was he visual with the runway? Why didn't he follow the PAPI then? Wasn't he visual with the runway? Why didn't he go around then? (losing visual contact with the runway environment when below the MDA or DH is a big call to go around).Why did they (both) ignore the many GPWS warnings of glide slope and sink rate? (the video shows even a "pull up" one but I could not hear it in the sound).

                                Another thing that I wondered, from a different angle, is what happened with the altitude call outs. I feel pretty confident that the "two hundred, one hundred, fifty, forty thirty..." would have been a huge wake up call.

                                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X