Manx2 Crash in Cork

[flying_kiwi]

A Manx2 flight from Belfast City to Cork has crashed while attempting to land at Cork at approx 1000LT.
There are fatalities, however it is not yet clear how many..

Yorden

[cHabu]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0210/cork.html

[Stratofreighter]

It apparently concerns a Metroliner.

[Nlspot2003]

Aircraft in question is EC-ITP.

from: european spotters mailinglist.

[Krazy]

Picture found on http://twitpic.com/3y9r4u

[Stratofreighter]

More: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/bre ... ing19.html

http://avherald.com/h?article=4379bc53&opt=0

http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=90000

Official: http://www.iaa.ie/index.jsp?p=93&n=96&a=1007

[Benjamin]

That looks terrible, all the best to the survivors, hope they make it.

Rip!

[cHabu]

IAA Statement/1015hrs 10 February 2011:

Aircraft Crashes at Cork

Flight Avia No FLT400C a metroliner SW4 with ten passengers and two crew has
crashed at Cork Airport. No details of injuries or fatalities are available.
The aircraft made an approach to Runway 17 in low vis conditions (Category
2) and went around and did not land and attempted a second landing on Runway
35. The aircraft then went around a second time and came back for an
approach to Runway 17. On the second approach to Runway 17 the aircraft
crashed adjacent to Taxiway C. Rescue and Fire crew are in attendance. There
is a fire and debris has been scattered onto the runway and over a wide
area. The accident will be investigated by the Air Accident Unit of the
Dept. of Transport. This correct at this time and may be amended as more
detail becomes available.

[Propwash]

METAR EICK 100930Z 08005KT 050V110 0300 R17/0375N R35/0350N FG BKN001 04/04 Q1010 NOSIG=
METAR EICK 101000Z 09008KT 0400 R17/0600N R35/0450N FG BKN001 05/05 Q1010 NOSIG=

Flying Cowboys?

[Aviation Ireland]

Aviation Ireland report and Cork crash.

http://aviationireland2010.blogspot.com ... ed-by.html


Thanks

[fan31]

Aircraft in question is EC-ITP.

from: european spotters mailinglist.

was topfly make him at ace...

ivo

[SPL]

METAR EICK 100930Z 08005KT 050V110 0300 R17/0375N R35/0350N FG BKN001 04/04 Q1010 NOSIG=
METAR EICK 101000Z 09008KT 0400 R17/0600N R35/0450N FG BKN001 05/05 Q1010 NOSIG=

Flying Cowboys?

Why flying cowboys? Due to the bad wheather? I don't understand the above meteo... From your reaction it was not a wise decision to land?


Groeten Martijn

[Propwash]

METAR EICK 100930Z 08005KT 050V110 0300 R17/0375N R35/0350N FG BKN001 04/04 Q1010 NOSIG=
METAR EICK 101000Z 09008KT 0400 R17/0600N R35/0450N FG BKN001 05/05 Q1010 NOSIG=

Flying Cowboys?

Why flying cowboys? Due to the bad wheather? I don't understand the above meteo... From your reaction it was not a wise decision to land?


Groeten Martijn

Buenos dias,

The Flying Cucumber (Metroliner) was CAT I Only.

Category I (CAT I) – A precision instrument approach and landing with a decision height not lower than 200 feet (61 m) above touchdown zone elevation and with either a visibility not less than 800 meters (2,625 ft) or a runway visual range not less than 550 meters (1,804 ft).

When the reported visibility is below 'your' minimums (which it was, because the reported 'RVR' visibility was less than 550 meters), you may NOT continue (approach ban) your approach after the (Outer Marker).

In other words, the Crew wasn't legal to continue (approach ban) their approach after inbound.

BTW if you missed 'already' two (2) times, you divert to your alternate (JAR-OPS).

As far as I know, Manx2 is a ticket broker (AirKiosk) only and doesn't have an Air Operator Certificate (AOC).
The only one who is responsable and/or liable, is the 'Flying Cowboy' Air Operator Certificate (AOC) holder and NOT Manx2.

Topic Off

The Spanish ..... offering self sponsored Fairchild Swearingen SA-227 Metro III Type Ratings (TRs) and hour building programs.
I hope not, this accident is in one way or another related to the self sponsored hour building program (arrogant Captain in combination with a low time F/O etc.).

Topic On

Finally (aftercast), in my opinion this tragic accident could 'simply' been avoided, by respecting the elementary 'Approach' rules!

Note: Approach decision and land decision are 'two' different things

[flying_kiwi]

When the reported visibility is below 'your' minimums (which it was, because the reported 'RVR' visibility was less than 550 meters), you may NOT continue (approach ban) your approach after the Outer Marker.

In other words, the Crew wasn't legal to continue (approach ban) their approach after Outer Marker inbound.

I call shenanigans!!

How do you know that the crew wasn't legal?? You are correct regarding requirements for commencing an approach (JAR-OPS 1.405), but how do you know that the RVR was below minimums?
Sure the 0930Z METAR has the RVR values for both 17 and 35 as being below minima, but by 1000Z (approximately the time of the accident), the RVR for 17 was above the CAT I approach minima. Unless you were following the RT communications, you have know way of knowing the RVR values in between those two times. It could easily be that when the crew commenced each approach, the RVR values reported to them by the tower at that moment, were sufficient for them to continue the approach to the MDA/DH (minimum decent altitude/decision height).

BTW if you missed 'already' two (2) times, you divert to your alternate (JAR-OPS).

Really? Could you point out the part in JAR-OPS 1 that states this, as unless it's only just been introducted, I know of no such requirement!

Do you seriously think that the crew were willing to risk not only the lives of their passengers, but their own lives in an attempt to land??

Sure, at the moment it does look as if human factors will have played a large role in this accident, but the investigation is only just beginning, and it will take a while before the Irish authorities have determined which holes lined up in this particular Swiss Cheese model.

Yorden

[Thermal]

BTW if you missed 'already' two (2) times, you divert to your alternate (JAR-OPS).

Think Yorden is right, never saw such a rule. And yes the RVR could have been within limits during the approach. Technically I don't think they did anything illegal.

But Yorden, during my ATPL studies our instructors learned us something called "common sense"It's in no book or JAR OPS. Yet strangly most pilots know how to use it. Apparently these two (atleast the captain) did not.

It could easily be that when the crew commenced each approach, the RVR values reported to them by the tower at that moment, were sufficient for them to continue the approach to the MDA/DH (minimum decent altitude/decision height).

You are talking about a 50m margin here. With a RVR of 600m @ touch down point and 450m @ the stop end, it seems very unlikely the RVR will go up substantially all of a sudden.

And it's not only RVR. I noticed that Cork has an OCH (Obstacle Clearance Height, lowest height above threshold) of 160 for CAT B (please correct me if a metroliner is not CAT B??) in CAT 1 ops. But according to the METAR the ceiling was broken at 100? So yes theoritically he should have been able to see the runway @ 160 feet AGL through some gaps, so again; he did nothing illegal. But this is pushing it in 2 dimensions; the vertical ánd horizontal.

Must have been the captain who was PF because I can't hardly believe any sane captain would let an FO go ahead with this approach in these conditions.

Like one of my instructors always said: "Always better to stand before the boss ,instead of St. Peter."