ATC confused crashed Sukhoi Superjet for a Su-30 Flanker...

ImageForum for news and discussions on civil aviation matters.

Moderator: gatso76

Forum rules
Image
Post Reply
User avatar
Stratofreighter
Scramble Master
Scramble Master
Posts: 22122
Joined: 25 Jan 2006, 08:02
Location: Netherlands

ATC confused crashed Sukhoi Superjet for a Su-30 Flanker...

Post by Stratofreighter »

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... rs-380349/

Crashed Superjet was coded as fighter: investigators

5 hours ago

Indonesian air traffic control was unaware that the crashed Sukhoi Superjet 100 was an airliner because it had been coded as a Sukhoi Su-30 fighter.

Flight-data personnel at Jakarta, having received a flight plan for the Superjet's demonstration, coded the aircraft as an Su-30 because the database being used did not include the twinjet.

Investigators probing the fatal Superjet crash on 9 May indicate that this misleading entry influenced a crucial decision to permit the airliner to descend to low altitude in a mountainous region, shortly before it struck terrain.

The inquiry also reveals that the aircraft was inadvertently set on its fatal collision course by the pilots who, distracted, failed to keep the aircraft turning during an orbit.

When Jakarta approach accepted responsibility for the Superjet during its flight, the controller checked the aircraft type through his radar display.

Owing to the coding, the data indicated that the aircraft was an Su-30.

The controller believed the aircraft was a military fighter flying to the Bogor region for a test flight. Bogor is the location of the Atang Sanjaya military training area.

As the aircraft headed south from Jakarta the Superjet pilot requested a descent to 6,000ft and an orbit.

Indonesia's National Transportation Safety Committee says this request was based on the pilot's preparation for a runway 06 approach when the aircraft returned to Jakarta Halim airport.

This approach differed from an earlier demonstration flight that day, which had used the opposite-direction runway 24.

Cockpit-voice recordings show that the captain explained to another individual on board that the descent and orbit were intended to bleed altitude in order to avoid being too high for the 06 approach.

The NTSC says the Jakarta approach controller was "not concerned" about the boundaries of the training area, which had an upper airspace limit of 6,000ft.

"The [controller] assumed that a military aircraft was eligible to fly in this area," it adds. "As a result [he] approved the aircraft to descend to 6,000ft."

While the earlier demonstration flight had turned left, northeast of Mount Salak, and headed back to Jakarta, the second flight instead performed a right-hand orbit which took its flightpath directly north of the peak.

Ironically, as the aircraft turned, the captain demonstrated the terrain-awareness function to a customer representative in the cockpit.

Because the aircraft, at this point, was pointing northeast the terrain ahead was relatively flat, and the captain said there was "no problem with terrain at this moment".

To perform the orbit the pilot sequentially adjusted the heading selector - setting it to 333°, then 033°, 103°, 150° and 174°.

Investigators believe the crew became distracted by discussions about fuel consumption with the customer representative,
and did not notice when the Superjet dutifully rolled out onto its selected heading, 174°, which took it south towards Mount Salak.

By the time the pilots adjusted the heading selector again, to 325°, nearly a minute had gone by since the aircraft exited its orbit.

The new heading turned the aircraft into the mountain peak, generating terrain-avoidance warnings which the pilots disregarded as being false.

None of the 45 occupants survived the impact.

The NTSC says Jakarta approach had been busy handling several other flights and did not notice that radar contact had been lost with the Superjet for more than 20min.

Only after the controller contacted Halim tower, the NTSC adds, did he realised the missing aircraft was a civil airliner. :(
Also see
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... em-380320/ .
Indonesian investigators have determined that the captain of a Sukhoi Superjet 100 inhibited the terrain-collision system, believing its alerts to be erroneous.

The terrain-awareness system initially sounded 38 seconds before the aircraft struck the slope of Mount Salak on 9 May this year, killing all 45 occupants who were participating in a demonstration flight.
October 2024 update at FokkerNews.nl....
aviodromefriend
Scramble Master
Scramble Master
Posts: 3523
Joined: 03 Dec 2006, 22:10
Type of spotter: zo snel afgekeurd, ik kreeg geen kans S5 te worden
Location: Airshows, EHKD, Where HAT eh took me

Re: ATC confused crashed Sukhoi Superjet for a Su-30 Flanker

Post by aviodromefriend »

Didn't they know the POB at the tower? They might have realized it was a bit high for a Flanker.
De Zamboni heeft kramp in zijn achterwiel
Jan Maarten Smeets, Heerenveen 31 oktober 2009
User avatar
Key
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11242
Joined: 06 Dec 2002, 09:21
Type of spotter: F2
Subscriber Scramble: U bet
Location: ex EHAM

Re: ATC confused crashed Sukhoi Superjet for a Su-30 Flanker

Post by Key »

ATC is not necessarily the Tower (in this case it says it was Approach), and POB is not something every controller needs to know. There are usually other procedures to make that info available if needed.

Erik
What four words, Jimmy!?!
grewt
Posts: 10
Joined: 22 Dec 2012, 17:01
Subscriber Scramble: No

Re: ATC confused crashed Sukhoi Superjet for a Su-30 Flanker

Post by grewt »

It is quite incredible that a civilan aircraft was scheduled as military
Post Reply

Return to “Civil Aviation News”