BREAKING NEWS: Ethiopian Airlines 737 disappeared off Beirut

[MCM]

I wouldn't think I'd hear myself saying this today TeeVee - but you are right.

Short answer - if the storms are affecting the airport, or you cannot make a departure clear of the thunderstorms - then you should be sitting on the tarmac enjoying another cup of coffee.

There is an incredible pressure these days from airlines to try and keep to schedules despite weather, and it is upto the Captain to say "no" when necessary. This comes, a lot, back to the old argument about training and experience - you need to have experience, knowledge and training to have the balls to say "no". A lot also comes down to the safety culture of the airline involved. Fortunately I work for an airline that if there was a delay because of this, they would message the captain and say "what is the cause of the delay", he would say "Weather", and no more would be asked. Some airlines are not so pilot (and safety) friendly, and place significant pressure on the crew to be on time.

That said - if there are storms in the area, but you can see you will be able to safely navigate around them, then there is not necessarily any reason not to depart - but it comes down to where they are, and if they will affect your flightpath.

The aircraft weather radar is usually far better at detecting storms than the airport radar, and so if ATC were directing them away from weather it would be simply that it is in a certain vicinity and they are making the crew's life easy, certainly not the "having to keep them safe" kind of vectoring.

None of this is in relation to the accident in question.

Evan,

Its hard to comment without knowing exactly which departure they were assigned, but there may be many reasons for sending them that way. If there was weather upto the north, and the aircraft on approach for the southerly runway needed to deviate off track to avoid it, then that could be a cause for conflict and a need to turn. Likewise, there might have been something up north and ATC were helping them out with a turn away from it, which would have later been followed up with a vector to a point further up track. Hard to say without knowing the details.

I can't imagine them turning back towards 03 if there was a problem given the terrain - they would have probably turned toward 16.

It is certainly sounding like something happened during the initial turn to either have them lose control, or lose awareness.

[Evan]

I wouldn't think I'd hear myself saying this today TeeVee - but you are right.

Short answer - if the storms are affecting the airport, or you cannot make a departure clear of the thunderstorms - then you should be sitting on the tarmac enjoying another cup of coffee.

ATC should hold them there if the weather is threatening. The METAR looked fairly benign though: some scattered thunderstorm activity with fair visibility and light wind. Witness reports are quite contradictory to that however; the ones I've heard claim that the weather was atrocious. I assume ATC is using their old fashioned glass window technology as well.

There is an incredible pressure these days from airlines to try and keep to schedules despite weather, and it is upto the Captain to say "no" when necessary. This comes, a lot, back to the old argument about training and experience - you need to have experience, knowledge and training to have the balls to say "no". A lot also comes down to the safety culture of the airline involved.

I question how much pressure an early morning departure ferrying third-world passengers is experiencing. I doubt pax complaints and business competition are larger issues for Ethiopian than keeping their precious assets out of harm's way. I don't know how hard it is to get a gate at Addis Ababa for a late arrival, but it can't be like JFK.

Evan,

Its hard to comment without knowing exactly which departure they were assigned, but there may be many reasons for sending them that way. If there was weather upto the north, and the aircraft on approach for the southerly runway needed to deviate off track to avoid it, then that could be a cause for conflict and a need to turn. Likewise, there might have been something up north and ATC were helping them out with a turn away from it, which would have later been followed up with a vector to a point further up track. Hard to say without knowing the details.

I can't imagine them turning back towards 03 if there was a problem given the terrain - they would have probably turned toward 16.

It is certainly sounding like something happened during the initial turn to either have them lose control, or lose awareness.

I am only going by the standard Jeppeson plates that I have (which may be out of date), which tell me that the original flight plan would have them climbing out of 5000 for 13000 when overflying the RWY 16 final approach. That should give them plenty of vertical separation. The only tight spot I see is lateral separation with arrival traffic at 5000 on initial approach to RWY 16 via the 086 radial from SILKO, and that could indeed mandate a quick reroute to 270, and possibly set off the TCAS (I can't judge the distance here), but I think ATC would have pre-considered that before clearing them for takeoff. The next issue would be for traffic at 5000 arriving on the 302 radial after overflying the field (KALDE), but that should still allow for 2000-3000ft of vertical separation.

But, yes, then there's weather to navigate, so I see how these standard tracks become relative. And, there are still conflicting reports as to what premeditated the sudden course alteration for ET409, some say traffic, some say CBs. I admit I know very little about ATC.

These is the only arrival plate I have for RWY16:

[Thurian]

Careful : the China, Ryanair and American incidents were not fatal.

AND! As far as I remember, it was a multiple bird strike which caused the Ryanair incident, A/C type has NO bearing on this kind of incident.
People are putting 2+2 together and getting 22!

[SAMRPICS]

You are completely correct in saying a bird strike caused the Ryanair crash. It also was the cause of the U.S. Airways A320 ditch into the hudson. As you say these incidents can cause many problems for all aircraft. Other things such as large hailstones can also potentially cause the downing of an aircraft but i suspect this will not be the cause of this crash because of the region. Cant see Lebanon being a place that gets a lot of hailstones especially not large ones. Anways facts are we wont know much until the data recorders are recovered and speculation at this time is little use to anyone. Still its interesting to hear the views of others on this.

[Peter Kesternich]

ATC should hold them there if the weather is threatening.

Well - the final decision about what to do should rest with the captain - so unless the airport is closed, ATC should give him all the information they have and provide the services they are supposed to provide. Then if he decides to take off and there's a clear runway ahead, I don't see, why ATC shouldn't clear an aircraft for takeoff. The ultimate responsibility for a flight must be in the cockpit - after all, the pilots' lives are at stake as well.

[dr_cfii]

Unless I'm mistaken, those intermittent flashes on the video are strobes from the aircraft. The "final" flash could be from lightning. The video does seem to show, however, that the visibility was pretty good for eyewitnesses.

I agree -- looks like regular strobe light flashes (periodic), then it looks like it popped into the clouds...

[Evan]

Well - the final decision about what to do should rest with the captain - so unless the airport is closed, ATC should give him all the information they have and provide the services they are supposed to provide. Then if he decides to take off and there's a clear runway ahead, I don't see, why ATC shouldn't clear an aircraft for takeoff. The ultimate responsibility for a flight must be in the cockpit - after all, the pilots' lives are at stake as well.

I have been on flights delayed for takeoff due to an ATC 'ground hold', due to weather issues at or near the arrival airport. I've always assumed ATC would not clear a flight for take-off if threatening weather was in departure path as well. Not so?

I was once on a NWA DC9 awaiting weather for takeoff from Louisville, KT. I was in the biz class just behind the cockpit, and this was back when they left the cockpit door open on the ground. The pilot announced that we had to shut down the engines and that it might be an hour delay. It was a hot day with no aircon. A few minutes later I clearly could hear his (youthful) voice bragging about how, basically, this wasn't anything, he'd flown through much worse and that the ATC were a bunch of pussies. A few moments later, the engines came back up, we were told to prepare for departure, we taxied at about 30mph, I swear to you the tires squealed on the final turn to centerline and then the engines just went to TOGA and we were suddenly aloft in the most disturbing and turbulent ride of my life. There were a number of bright lightning flashes (I have no idea if any hit the aircraft). The irony is that I had flown in for a meeting that day through the same storm system, in a turboprop, with similar violence on descent. When we arrived at MSP, I felt doubly lucky to be alive.

I always wondered if that pilot had been cleared to takeoff. He definitely shouldn't have been.

[Evan]

I realized my scale was way off for the final position. This is a bit more accurate I think... Just trying to reconcile how a left turn to 270 from a standard departure can leave the flight heading 140 and then coming down at the position indicated in the reports.

Pure speculation of course, based on sketchy reports and unofficial plates (and not necessarily to scale), but here is my attempt to make sense of the ATC info thus far (this is based on an ATC command to turn LEFT to 270):

[MCM]

I have been on flights delayed for takeoff due to an ATC 'ground hold', due to weather issues at or near the arrival airport. I've always assumed ATC would not clear a flight for take-off if threatening weather was in departure path as well. Not so?

Not so. "Ground Hold" is caused by the weather at an airport affecting arrival or departure rates. For example, if the weather is foggy at your destination, the airspace (and others around it) will be saturated with aircraft holding and diverting. The airspace cannot accept more traffic, and it will take a long time to deal with the existing traffic, so they will make you wait on the ground.

In terms of departures, if there is weather in the area the delays are often caused by slowed departure rates. This is due to aircraft needing to be able to deviate of track to avoid weather. Its all good and well firing people off on multiple (non conflicting) SID's, but if they're then all needing weather deviation, it is far more sensible to launch them one or two at a time. Again, its airspace saturation.

I always wondered if that pilot had been cleared to takeoff. He definitely shouldn't have been.

ATC have no right to deny a clearance because THEY perceive a weather threat. Their job is to pass that threat onto the crew, who make the assesment if they should go flying. It is always the Pilot in Command's decision, which he will make based on what he can see, what he knows of the weather, and his weather radar. That is supplimented by information by ATC.

I question how much pressure an early morning departure ferrying third-world passengers is experiencing. I doubt pax complaints and business competition are larger issues for Ethiopian than keeping their precious assets out of harm's way.

I was talking generally about airlines that pressure crew excessively into schedule performance. As you'll see I said that I wasn't talking about this accident in particular, just in general. I have no idea about Ethiopians attitude towards ontime performance.

Out of interest, looking at your nice colourful diagram, you've left off part of the 16 arrival - the one that comes down from Chekka (CHEKA2F). I can see one other spot for potential conflict - aircraft inbound from Chekka cross the CEK VOR at or above 13,000, as do the outbounds, and they cross paths. They are going to have to cross altitudes at some point. Now, if there is little traffic, that is not going to be a problem as the climbing aircraft will likely be high enough - but if there are significant weather deviations going on, it might not be possible to clear them to a higher level, when ATC's only option will be to send them out to the west.

I wouldn't read too much into the turn to 270 yet, as it is not that unusual to be picked off the SID and given a vector for some reason - probably happens one out of every 10 departures for us.

Also, note that the "5000" written under the line for the route (like you mentioned for the SILKO arrival) is a lowest safe altitude... it is not the altitude that the crew would be flying, and I almost guarantee they would not be that low coming across there.

Another question about the pretty diagram (I'm full of questions today!), how do you know that they commenced the turn onto 270 so early on into the northerly track? I'm not saying they were, just curious as to the source of info. As in, could they have been a lot further north before being instructed to turn left? If so, and they were already north of the airport, it would make sense as to how a heading of 140 could arrive back where it did. Of course, if they were having control difficulties, they could have ended up anywhere.

[sjwk]

A search team located the recorders from the Ethiopian Airlines flight just over 1.3km (0.8 miles) underwater, 10km west of the capital, Beirut.
The search team is now trying to retrieve them, Lebanese security officials said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8484215.stm

[Evan]

ATC have no right to deny a clearance because THEY perceive a weather threat. Their job is to pass that threat onto the crew, who make the assesment if they should go flying. It is always the Pilot in Command's decision, which he will make based on what he can see, what he knows of the weather, and his weather radar. That is supplimented by information by ATC.

I hope you can see from that story why this policy makes me uncomfortable. I would rather my life was in the hands of a control tower than a gung-ho rookie capt on a regional flight. But this is how it is.

Also, note that the "5000" written under the line for the route (like you mentioned for the SILKO arrival) is a lowest safe altitude... it is not the altitude that the crew would be flying, and I almost guarantee they would not be that low coming across there.

That explains a bit. I have to learn more about how to read these things.

Another question about the pretty diagram (I'm full of questions today!), how do you know that they commenced the turn onto 270 so early on into the northerly track? I'm not saying they were, just curious as to the source of info. As in, could they have been a lot further north before being instructed to turn left? If so, and they were already north of the airport, it would make sense as to how a heading of 140 could arrive back where it did. Of course, if they were having control difficulties, they could have ended up anywhere.

Or course I don't know, this was just one scenario, but the thing that puzzles me is, why a left turn to 270? If it was a right turn it could have been before the turn to 30 even began. As a left it has to happen with at least a northerly heading, because as you round out that turn to 30, a redirect to 270 seems extreme to me, as it requires another 120° turn to the right shortly after executing a 170° turn to the left (!) That just doesn't seem plausible to me. That's just too Top Gun. Therefore I placed the turn to 270 where I thought it seemed most logical, where it actually makes sense.

But please understand: I'm not even trying to speculate on the cause yet and I completely realize that in bad weather these SID tracks are not rails to ride on and therefore I admit the possibility that the turn was initiated further north as you have suggested. I'm just trying to figure out how you make that turn to 140 and end up where they ended up, and so close to the airport after five minutes of flight time.

[EconomyClass]

Wasn't that the crux of the issue in that horrendous crash in the Canary Islands? The Dutch plane wasn't clearred but attempted to take off anyway with the position of the other plane unknown? Sure comes as a surprise to me that the pilot can go whenever he feels the time is right.

[MCM]

I hope you can see from that story why this policy makes me uncomfortable. I would rather my life was in the hands of a control tower than a gung-ho rookie capt on a regional flight. But this is how it is.

I would rather that the life was in the hands of a well trained crewmember . I can see your concern, but I think it would be better directed at getting the gung-ho rookie captain out of the left hand seat to begin with . ATC are not in the position to make a decision regarding the disposition of the aircraft. They are an "information provider"... although yes, one that has a very high level of standing. More than just the legal standing, they quite simply do not have sufficient information to make appropriate decisions about the aircraft.

Unfortunately, you have a valid concern that many airlines are hiring the most inexperienced (read cheap) person they can, and will continue to do so unless there is a backlash from the travelling public. Some Cruise companies proudly advertise themselves based on the fact they have experienced crews from Scandanavia. Maybe we'll go down that path (the experience, not the Scandanavian bit ). For a start, I'd lobby to get rid of the rediculous pay for your own endorsement situation that we have now.

As to the turn - it depends how the air traffic controller was sorting out the problem. I agree that once inbound on the 030 it is quite a turn, but it isn't unheard of. Certainly not "Top Gun" material. I've been going into Hong Kong on a STAR and been given a 170 degree vector to point back to almost where we came from. And the time these odd vectors come out is during bad weather or another flight with an emergency. I'm not saying that this was all "kosher" so to speak, but I'd say there are enough plausible reasons for the vector to at least take the preliminary view that all was in order without evidence to the contrary.

[TeeVee]

I wouldn't think I'd hear myself saying this today TeeVee - but you are right.

Short answer - if the storms are affecting the airport, or you cannot make a departure clear of the thunderstorms - then you should be sitting on the tarmac enjoying another cup of coffee.

There is an incredible pressure these days from airlines to try and keep to schedules despite weather, and it is upto the Captain to say "no" when necessary. This comes, a lot, back to the old argument about training and experience - you need to have experience, knowledge and training to have the balls to say "no". A lot also comes down to the safety culture of the airline involved. Fortunately I work for an airline that if there was a delay because of this, they would message the captain and say "what is the cause of the delay", he would say "Weather", and no more would be asked. Some airlines are not so pilot (and safety) friendly, and place significant pressure on the crew to be on time.

That said - if there are storms in the area, but you can see you will be able to safely navigate around them, then there is not necessarily any reason not to depart - but it comes down to where they are, and if they will affect your flightpath.

The aircraft weather radar is usually far better at detecting storms than the airport radar, and so if ATC were directing them away from weather it would be simply that it is in a certain vicinity and they are making the crew's life easy, certainly not the "having to keep them safe" kind of vectoring.

None of this is in relation to the accident in question.

Evan,

Its hard to comment without knowing exactly which departure they were assigned, but there may be many reasons for sending them that way. If there was weather upto the north, and the aircraft on approach for the southerly runway needed to deviate off track to avoid it, then that could be a cause for conflict and a need to turn. Likewise, there might have been something up north and ATC were helping them out with a turn away from it, which would have later been followed up with a vector to a point further up track. Hard to say without knowing the details.

I can't imagine them turning back towards 03 if there was a problem given the terrain - they would have probably turned toward 16.

It is certainly sounding like something happened during the initial turn to either have them lose control, or lose awareness.

a day to live in infamy!!!!

[MCM]

Sure comes as a surprise to me that the pilot can go whenever he feels the time is right.

EC, I think you're misreading the intention here.

Unless it is an emergency, a pilot must comply with his air traffic control clearance. The point we are discussing is that weather in the area is not an approved reason for an air traffic controller to withhold a clearance.

G'day TeeVee ,

I agree with you on a lot of things, but having just responded to one of your other posts I just had the impression it was going to be a disagreeing sort of a day .

One thing I will always agree with you on is that we need pilots who have training, experience... and most importantly the balls to say NO. After all, we need someone to protect us from the ever expanding domination of accounting people and their lack of logic Besides, I reckon I'm worth more than the dollar figure they put on my head