Plane crash at Cork Airport - Flight from Belfast. 6 confirmed dead

[Tony Baloney]

Sunday Times article on the crash said that interviews with survivors have indicated that the starboard wing clipped the ground causing the plane to flip.

[muppet]

Sunday Times article on the crash said that interviews with survivors have indicated that the starboard wing clipped the ground causing the plane to flip.

That would seem to be backed up with the green glass near the start of the runway.

That doesn't explain why the wing would make contact first though. There are any number of possibilities for that but no hard evidence yet (publicly available) to narrow the options.

[Tony Baloney]

Sunday Times article on the crash said that interviews with survivors have indicated that the starboard wing clipped the ground causing the plane to flip.

That would seem to be backed up with the green glass near the start of the runway.

That doesn't explain why the wing would make contact first though. There are any number of possibilities for that but no hard evidence yet (publicly available) to narrow the options.

Some aviation expert was postulating on something called "the leans" brought on my circling in a hold and due to flying in poor visibility which caused him to overcompensate when levelling off on landing. All theory though and with both flight crew dead it may remain theory.

[muppet]

Sunday Times article on the crash said that interviews with survivors have indicated that the starboard wing clipped the ground causing the plane to flip.

That would seem to be backed up with the green glass near the start of the runway.

That doesn't explain why the wing would make contact first though. There are any number of possibilities for that but no hard evidence yet (publicly available) to narrow the options.

Some aviation expert was postulating on something called "the leans" brought on my circling in a hold and due to flying in poor visibility which caused him to overcompensate when levelling off on landing. All theory though and with both flight crew dead it may remain theory.

I would think that an illusion due to circling in the holding pattern is seriously stretching the bounds of possibility. The holding pattern would have proceeded the 'approach' which would have been pretty much level wings for at least a few minutes. In addition aircraft hold all the time in cloud, every day, all over the world, without crashing on the landing that usually follows. Any balance issues caused by turning in the hold would have passed by the time they got to the ground.

It is possible this aircraft wasn't equipped for the low visibility reported at the time. The Captain was reported in the media to be a brand new Captain and the Co-pilot was reported to have 340 hours flying time. I don't know for sure if that is true or not. The Investigation will be able to confirm those issues almost immediately. It will also be able to confirm how much fuel was on board at the time and thus whether they were under severe  pressure to land off that 3rd fatal approach. Most companies have a rule prohibiting a 3rd approach unless the visibility improves significantly. The investigation should also be able to tell whether the aircraft was in the correct position (both horizontally and vertically as well as speed and configuration - gear, flaps, etc) all the way to the runway. Any deviations found in the above could point them to the probable cause. If all of the above were fine then it gets much more difficult.

As you said about the illusion theory I think it would be impossible to prove definitively, but if the data recorder indicates a sudden unusual manoeuvre just before impact, with no system problem, they can probably suspect  a visual illusion played some role.

[Tony Baloney]

Sunday Times article on the crash said that interviews with survivors have indicated that the starboard wing clipped the ground causing the plane to flip.

That would seem to be backed up with the green glass near the start of the runway.

That doesn't explain why the wing would make contact first though. There are any number of possibilities for that but no hard evidence yet (publicly available) to narrow the options.

Some aviation expert was postulating on something called "the leans" brought on my circling in a hold and due to flying in poor visibility which caused him to overcompensate when levelling off on landing. All theory though and with both flight crew dead it may remain theory.

I would think that an illusion due to circling in the holding pattern is seriously stretching the bounds of possibility. The holding pattern would have proceeded the 'approach' which would have been pretty much level wings for at least a few minutes. In addition aircraft hold all the time in cloud, every day, all over the world, without crashing on the landing that usually follows. Any balance issues caused by turning in the hold would have passed by the time they got to the ground.

It is possible this aircraft wasn't equipped for the low visibility reported at the time. The Captain was reported in the media to be a brand new Captain and the Co-pilot was reported to have 340 hours flying time. I don't know for sure if that is true or not. The Investigation will be able to confirm those issues almost immediately. It will also be able to confirm how much fuel was on board at the time and thus whether they were under severe  pressure to land off that 3rd fatal approach. Most companies have a rule prohibiting a 3rd approach unless the visibility improves significantly. The investigation should also be able to tell whether the aircraft was in the correct position (both horizontally and vertically as well as speed and configuration - gear, flaps, etc) all the way to the runway. Any deviations found in the above could point them to the probable cause. If all of the above were fine then it gets much more difficult.

As you said about the illusion theory I think it would be impossible to prove definitively, but if the data recorder indicates a sudden unusual manoeuvre just before impact, with no system problem, they can probably suspect  a visual illusion played some role.

The head of the airline says they put in an additional 1 hours worth of fuel as standard so even after the second go around Waterford and Kerry would still have been within range so this is why some people are speculating that the pilot saw a gap in the fog but ballsed it up due to this "leans" effect. To me though it seems he missed the runway which would suggest zero visibility at or near ground level. Anyways they are to release a brief report in the next couple of weeks with the caveat that full findings may take 2 years.

[muppet]

Sunday Times article on the crash said that interviews with survivors have indicated that the starboard wing clipped the ground causing the plane to flip.

That would seem to be backed up with the green glass near the start of the runway.

That doesn't explain why the wing would make contact first though. There are any number of possibilities for that but no hard evidence yet (publicly available) to narrow the options.

Some aviation expert was postulating on something called "the leans" brought on my circling in a hold and due to flying in poor visibility which caused him to overcompensate when levelling off on landing. All theory though and with both flight crew dead it may remain theory.

I would think that an illusion due to circling in the holding pattern is seriously stretching the bounds of possibility. The holding pattern would have proceeded the 'approach' which would have been pretty much level wings for at least a few minutes. In addition aircraft hold all the time in cloud, every day, all over the world, without crashing on the landing that usually follows. Any balance issues caused by turning in the hold would have passed by the time they got to the ground.

It is possible this aircraft wasn't equipped for the low visibility reported at the time. The Captain was reported in the media to be a brand new Captain and the Co-pilot was reported to have 340 hours flying time. I don't know for sure if that is true or not. The Investigation will be able to confirm those issues almost immediately. It will also be able to confirm how much fuel was on board at the time and thus whether they were under severe  pressure to land off that 3rd fatal approach. Most companies have a rule prohibiting a 3rd approach unless the visibility improves significantly. The investigation should also be able to tell whether the aircraft was in the correct position (both horizontally and vertically as well as speed and configuration - gear, flaps, etc) all the way to the runway. Any deviations found in the above could point them to the probable cause. If all of the above were fine then it gets much more difficult.

As you said about the illusion theory I think it would be impossible to prove definitively, but if the data recorder indicates a sudden unusual manoeuvre just before impact, with no system problem, they can probably suspect  a visual illusion played some role.

The head of the airline says they put in an additional 1 hours worth of fuel as standard so even after the second go around Waterford and Kerry would still have been within range so this is why some people are speculating that the pilot saw a gap in the fog but ballsed it up due to this "leans" effect. To me though it seems he missed the runway which would suggest zero visibility at or near ground level. Anyways they are to release a brief report in the next couple of weeks with the caveat that full findings may take 2 years.

If it was reported to be zero visibility or even less than 550m (depending on his equipment) he shouldn't have made the approach as it would have been below his 'minimums'. However we don't know what his minimums were or what the tower told him the visibility was yet.

As for the one hour extra, that would be made up of (roughly) 30 minutes to fly to Waterford/Shannon/Farranfore plus 30 minutes extra. That is the legal minimum. (note - he can take more than the minimum fuel but not if restricted by any number of factors such as range, performance at the departure field, commercial pressures etc.) 

We know he arrived at Cork, flew an approach to the south, then went around and flew and approach to the north (it may have been the other way round I'm not certain), then went off to a holding pattern and held for 20 minutes. That is easily 30 minutes of his 1 hour extra fuel used. He may (emphasising the may here) by then have had less than the 30 needed to fly to another airport.

[Aerlik]

The leans, while serious at any time, is most serious at night.  It can often be accompanied by somatographic illusion.  Yours truly almost didn't make it one night when the lad I was conducting a night checkflight out of Newman, WA, incurred this and began accelerating as he pushed the yoke forward.  He did not concentrate on his 'scan' of all the vital instruments instead fixating on one and missed vital clues.  I picked up on it and took over, scary shit.
Re, the co-pilot having such low hours, well that is the reality of flying in Europe as training is so expensive.  Such low time wouldn't even get you a job flying scenic flights in Oz in single-engined piston machines, never mind twin turbo-props.

[muppet]

Preliminary report out: http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/13067-PRELIMINARY_REPORT_2011_005-0.PDF

[Tony Baloney]

Preliminary report out: http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/13067-PRELIMINARY_REPORT_2011_005-0.PDF

You're the expert (and there is a lot of technical guff in there), but my reading of it is that it appears they came in off centre and the place appears to have rolled to the left and the pilot over-compensated whilst pulling it back and in doing so clattered the right wing into the runway.

[Milltown Row2]

Preliminary report out: http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/13067-PRELIMINARY_REPORT_2011_005-0.PDF

Harrowing report, some technical guff but frightening all the same

[muppet]

Preliminary report out: http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/13067-PRELIMINARY_REPORT_2011_005-0.PDF

You're the expert (and there is a lot of technical guff in there), but my reading of it is that it appears they came in off centre and the place appears to have rolled to the left and the pilot over-compensated whilst pulling it back and in doing so clattered the right wing into the runway.

That looks like how it ended alright.

Only read it once but it appears that for all 3 approaches the reported RVRs (Runway Visual Range - visability reported in metres for the touchdown/midpoint/rollout sections of the runway) were below the minimum required for a Cat 1 aircraft which they were flying. That is not good for the pilots.

Secondly it says that while they were told (by Cork ATC) the weather at each of Waterford, Shannon and Dublin airports' was marginal, the weather at Kerry was good. It makes no mention of how much was on board at the time or how much flying time that translates into.

[Milltown Row2]

Preliminary report out: http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/13067-PRELIMINARY_REPORT_2011_005-0.PDF

You're the expert (and there is a lot of technical guff in there), but my reading of it is that it appears they came in off centre and the place appears to have rolled to the left and the pilot over-compensated whilst pulling it back and in doing so clattered the right wing into the runway.

That looks like how it ended alright.

Only read it once but it appears that for all 3 approaches the reported RVRs (Runway Visual Range - visability reported in metres for the touchdown/midpoint/rollout sections of the runway) were below the minimum required for a Cat 1 aircraft which they were flying. That is not good for the pilots.

Secondly it says that while they were told (by Cork ATC) the weather at each of Waterford, Shannon and Dublin airports' was marginal, the weather at Kerry was good. It makes no mention of how much was on board at the time or how much flying time that translates into.

Picked up on this also, seems they did have enough fuel to get to Waterford or Kerry even back to Dublin!! Wont see my boss (who was on the flight) tomorrow but an email came in today with this report attached. I never read it of course but I'm sure he will feel annoyed after reading it.

Will the findings ensure that when matters like this arise again the plane must land at an Airport which has more visibility that's near by and not take that dreaded third approach?? Or will it be down to pilots choice as it seems to be the case?

[muppet]

Preliminary report out: http://www.aaiu.ie/upload/general/13067-PRELIMINARY_REPORT_2011_005-0.PDF

You're the expert (and there is a lot of technical guff in there), but my reading of it is that it appears they came in off centre and the place appears to have rolled to the left and the pilot over-compensated whilst pulling it back and in doing so clattered the right wing into the runway.

That looks like how it ended alright.

Only read it once but it appears that for all 3 approaches the reported RVRs (Runway Visual Range - visability reported in metres for the touchdown/midpoint/rollout sections of the runway) were below the minimum required for a Cat 1 aircraft which they were flying. That is not good for the pilots.

Secondly it says that while they were told (by Cork ATC) the weather at each of Waterford, Shannon and Dublin airports' was marginal, the weather at Kerry was good. It makes no mention of how much was on board at the time or how much flying time that translates into.

Picked up on this also, seems they did have enough fuel to get to Waterford or Kerry even back to Dublin!! Wont see my boss (who was on the flight) tomorrow but an email came in today with this report attached. I never read it of course but I'm sure he will feel annoyed after reading it.

Will the findings ensure that when matters like this arise again the plane must land at an Airport which has more visibility that's near by and not take that dreaded third approach?? Or will it be down to pilots choice as it seems to be the case?

The report said the 3rd approach ban wasn't a regulation. What I think he means is that it is not a universal regulation. Each airline must submit their own rules and procedures for approval by the authorities and that report hasn't ascertained whether that company had a 3rd approach rule. Most airlines as far as I know only allow a 3rd approach in certain circumstances, therefore for pilots at those particular airlines it is a regulation.

However they had already made two approaches to visibility that was less than the minimum required so regulations don't appear to have been a priority with this crew anyway.

I suspect the investigation will now focus on establishing:
a) what were the official company procedures for low visibility and inflight fuel management/diversion;
b) why the pilots ignored the visibility limits;

[muppet]

Just saw this, very sad. they guy who usually did the route had just left 2 days before the crash. He committed suicide on friday apparently due to the guilt.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/suicide-pilot-felt-guilty-over-cork-plane-crash-2632830.html

[Blowitupref]

Yeah read that a few days ago, very sad end to life.