Pakistan air crash.

Hopefully will shed some more light.

Black box located today.

http://maxinews.co.uk/world/black-box-from-pakistan-plane-crash-found/

Good points Schorsch.
I’ve heard several recordings where there seems to have been no action taken when warning messages sound then the recording ends abruptly.

Still, we’re not absotuley sure what happened here. For all we know the pilots somehow stalled the plane and pancaked into the mountain. Anything is possible at this early stage.

EGPWS is mandatory these days.
Problem is that the system is a little bit more coward than some procedures. It calls “Terrain” in more than a few approaches. Many crews are already trained to ignore it.
Ignoring EGPWS messages is OK if you have full situational awareness. If not you better get away.

In the last couple of CFIT-crashes, you could always listen to the plentiful warning messages. I guess this time will be the same.

@Rookh:
Full position awareness (including height) plus a terrain and obstacle databank are actually better. But technically it would be no problem to use the radar of aircraft for ground mapping. At least to some sketchy extent.

Kev. There are unfortunately some airlines that value their bottom line more than an extra safety gadget. Not all aircraft at every airline has this enhanced GPWS. I’m not saying Air One are one of these corner cutters. But so long as some of them can get away with it, they will not upgrade.

Agreed, see above however.

That is just simple business, and not just a peculiarity of the aviation industry.

I believe EGPWS & TAWS are standard fit on aircraft these days.

Why is it slow? The systems are just not available? Or is it that the will isn’t there to fork out X amount of dollars to add a little bit more safety to the experience of flying?

Or, to put it another way, is it cheaper to insure against the occasional loss than to fit enhanced systems?

Regards,

kev35

Kev. There are unfortunately some airlines that value their bottom line more than an extra safety gadget. Not all aircraft at every airline has this enhanced GPWS. I’m not saying Air One are one of these corner cutters. But so long as some of them can get away with it, they will not upgrade.

Not so slow at all. it is a requirement per EU OPS 1 Subpart K (1.665) and
JAA TGL12.

Agreed, see above however.

More and more aircraft are being fitted with Enhanced GPWS, which combines the benefits of GPWS with a terrain database – amongst other things.

Couple of interesting links:
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/Terrain_Clearance_Floor.pdf
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/Peaks-Terrain-Display.pdf
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/Mode_2_-_Excessive_Terrain_Closure_Rate.avi
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/Terrain_Display.avi

Thanks for these details, but from what I can understand, these systems seem to use radio transmissions and pre-configured terrain data.

I guess what I’m trying to get at, is the possibility to install some form of multi-mode radar in the nose sections of airliners, which can provide both air-to-air and air-to-ground data, similar to the multi-mode radar in fighters.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not for one minute advocating the installation of military spec radars in the noses of airliners, that would be overkill. But at least have some form of radar which can provide live data to avoid both mid-air and ground collisions. It doesn’t have to be long range such as BVR capable radars in fighters, and obviously it will require some form of international standardization on frequencies and codes to avoid being identified as a military signature. Given the unit cost of airliners, I don’t think it would add a significant cost over and above the price of current airliners.

Beat me to it.

Sadly, it’s a slow process in getting the civil fleet up to spec.

Not so slow at all. it is a requirement per EU OPS 1 Subpart K (1.665) and
JAA TGL12.

Why is it slow? The systems are just not available? Or is it that the will isn’t there to fork out X amount of dollars to add a little bit more safety to the experience of flying?

Or, to put it another way, is it cheaper to insure against the occasional loss than to fit enhanced systems?

Regards,

kev35

Beat me to it.

Sadly, it’s a slow process in getting the civil fleet up to spec.

More and more aircraft are being fitted with Enhanced GPWS, which combines the benefits of GPWS with a terrain database – amongst other things.

Couple of interesting links:
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/Terrain_Clearance_Floor.pdf
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/Peaks-Terrain-Display.pdf
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/Mode_2_-_Excessive_Terrain_Closure_Rate.avi
http://www51.honeywell.com/aero/common/documents/Terrain_Display.avi

Most do, although it is strictly speaking an optional extra, but most airlines opt for it. It’s called Ground Proximity Warning System, GPWS for short.
Problem is, sometimes the mountain is too high and airspeed too low to avoid collision by the time the GPWS calls out its “Terrain Terrain, Pull up” warning.

Thanks for the info. Could these not be improved by extending their range and perhaps bringing them close to the standard of military terrain scanning radar capabilities?

Would it be possible to have collision avoiding radar to be installed on airliners?

Most do, although it is strictly speaking an optional extra, but most airlines opt for it. It’s called Ground Proximity Warning System, GPWS for short.
Problem is, sometimes the mountain is too high and airspeed too low to avoid collision by the time the GPWS calls out its “Terrain Terrain, Pull up” warning.

Very sad news indeed, my condolences and thoughts with the families who passed away, may they rest in peace 🙁

I don’t know too much regarding civil airline procedures, so please forgive my ignorance. Would it be possible to have collision avoiding radar to be installed on airliners? I think most of the large airliners have weather radar in their nose? Could this not be updated to also include some form of forward terrain scanning radar as well?

We know it crashed into a mountain in heavy rain.
Seeing as how a mountain is pretty damn obvious even to the most casual observer.
This crew did not see this particular mountain. Hence, the hypothetical discussions on loss of visibility.

We don’t know the facts

The screens tell you where you are! BUT, and it is a big BUT, you must also know where you are. That situational awearness, knowing where you are without the screen in front of you, is fast fading in todays computerized world. I´m not old, but I´m of the old school! A lot of people continue what is clearly a missed approach, based on what the screen is telling them. A human factor issue? Ofcourse it is! And who is to blame? The tools or the user?

Good post, very insightful.

I would consider this as a challenging procedure, however many crews seem to master it. All tools are present. The biggset issue is in my eyes (and apparently also in yours) the fact that an VFR procedure is executed without adequate vision.
The captain should have recognised he is lost, hit the throttles and get the hell out of there.

An interesting insight there Galdri. 🙂

A sad accident.
I do wonder how long it will take, and how many people will have to die, before for the authorities completely BAN one of the biggest killers in commercial air transport these days, the damned Circling Approach.

Why is the Circling Approach such a killer? Well, there are multible reasons for it, but most of the recent Circling Approach crashes have tended to highlight the fact that they are human factor disasters, a black hole that many a good man has been sucked into! And, mind you, you only hear of the ones that end in a crash! You never hear of the ones that had all the ingrediens for a bad ending, but were salvaged. The sadest thing about them is, that in the accident reports, the pilots are usually blamed with something like “the pilots failed to maintain visual contact with the ground/runway” or words to that effect. While true, stricktly speaking, it does not address the underlying REASON for these crashes, namely their human factor element and the regulatory/design differences that are involved around the world.

I hope I´m excused to expend some ammunition here, as Circling Approches are my pet hate, and something that I do a lot in the sim, just to make a point.
The human factor disaster
When doing a Circling Approach, you fly down to a minima given on the approach plates as the Circling Minima. It might be given as low as 700 feet and 5000 meters visibility. At the Circling minima, or slightly above, you see the runway and decide to continue. To continue at the minima involves a lot of things. First of all, you must turn to the left/right (as stated on the plate) by 45°. When the turn is finished (wings level) you must start the crono and time (depending on aircraft type) 30 sec. and then turn again to fly parallel to the runway. The this manuver SHOULD place you at around 1 – 1.5 NM from the runway centerline depending on the speed you are doing. At this point you should be able to see the runway, and abeam the landing threshold you start the crono again and time 21 sec. (3 sec. per 100 feet altitude) and start your inbound turn for the runway. Once on the PAPI/WASI you start your descent for a safe landing. Does not sound very dramatic does it? I have to admit, I does not. BUT there are variables in this kind of approach that are VERY hard to correct for.
First of all wind. During the approach down to Circling Minima, you SHOULD note the wind at altitude which can, and WILL, be different from what is reported on the ground. Particulary the strength. In the ideal world, we, the pilots should be monitoring this on our EFIS. In the real world, I´ve found that all the energy and mental capacity is used to configure the aircraft and fly the approach (maybe there is a superman out there somewhere, but I´ve not met him yet!). The thought of an approach to minima (in this case circling minima) concentrates the mind somewhat, and what is to happen later does not register. Now you arrive at minima, and you can see the runway. You are perfectly in your legal rights to say CONTINUE, meaning you will continue the approach for landing according to the briefed approach.
With the accident we are talking about in this thread, I´d not be surprised if the tailwind on the approach was 30 kts. or more.
OPRN 280500Z 09018KT 3500 RA SCT010 SCT030 OVC100 FEW030 25/24 Q1006.9
OPRN 280400Z 05016KT 3500 SCT010 SCT030 BKN100 FEW030TCU 29/24 1006.7
So, you arrive at minima, with a 30 kts tailwind. On the autopilot you have to select altitude hold, go to heading mode and select 45° off heading and start the turn. All this takes a few seconds, all the while the tailwind is blowing you closer to the runway. FAST. The drift during the turn to 45° off, the drift during that leg, and the turn downwind again will have used up about 2NM! Discounting any time used to set up the autopilot for the turn, and any time delay in operating switches for the turns. Basically, that means, when you are wings level downwind you are abeam the landing end of the runway you intend to use! I can tell you that this is a very disorienting thing to do! And now you have to immidietly start timing for the outbound leg from the threashold! Remember, you might be travelling about 4.5 miles a minute at this time, so any time delay will be significant in terms of distance travelled.
And now comes the crunch! The weather reported at the airport, does not tell you anything about the weather ON THE OTHER SIDE! The weather was reported above minima AT the airport, and you could see what was required when you made the continue decsion, but the weather on the otherside might be crap. You do not know! So you are heading for bad weather at a great rate of knots, having set your clock a bit late on the downwind leg! You loose sight of the airport very quickly, but hey! “I´ve got this wonderful moving map to help me! It shows me where the airport is and if I´m really good at computers, it can even show me the extended centerline of the runway I intend to use I can not go much wrong can I? Just not overshoot the centerline!”
Then comes the call from the tower: “You are 10 NM from the airport according to radar. Execute a missed approach now!” And you start the missed approach. The problems with those, in a circling approach, is that they are not published anywhere on the plates if you are past the missed approach point of the instrument approach you were using to get ground contact! From the comfort of my chair I know that if you are on a down wind to the landing runway, I can tell you that you are supposed to execute the missed approach proceedure for the instrument approach in use at the time. Once on base leg, or final, you have to turn in the direction of runway in use, and then, once above the runway in use (how do you tell once in clouds?) make a 180 turn to follow the missed approach proceedure for the instrument approach in use! Try this in clear skys and see how difficult it is! Then add bad weather and two brains, that are lost, working beyond capacity (serious degration of performance) during bad weather and it can only end in desaster! Sadly!
In the above example, I only talked about tailwind. If we go talking about crosswinds as well, a whole new dimension opens, where aircraft are blown off the downwind leg in the direction of the runway, or, away from it. Resaulting in them hitting hard things that were not supposed to be there according the situational awearness of the pilots!
So what is the human factors disaster, what black hole, is there in the above?
Well, the first black hole is the sight of the runway/airport at minima during the instrument approach. That, alone, will make you, as a pilot, go minded. I´ve seen the runway at 700 feet up! It does not, however, tell you anything about the weather on the OTHER SIDE of the airport! Not only that but you have all those beautiful screens in front of you that SUPPOSEDLY tell you exactly were you are, and have EGWS to screem at you about to hit terrain (small problem here! Normal EGWS is inhibited when in landing configuration). Wake up call! The screens tell you where you are! BUT, and it is a big BUT, you must also know where you are. That situational awearness, knowing where you are without the screen in front of you, is fast fading in todays computerized world. I´m not old, but I´m of the old school! A lot of people continue what is clearly a missed approach, based on what the screen is telling them. A human factor issue? Ofcourse it is! And who is to blame? The tools or the user?

Regulatory/design differences
This is one of my favourits! Is there a difference between countries regarding the “safety zone” built into the approach? In the normal world, we should answer NO! But in reality there is!
When you are flying a Circling Approach, you´ll find that the safety zone (safe altitude above terrain for the given approach) differs widely among countries, depending on which school of thought they are following! ICAO and JAA/EASA classify you as “safe” above terrain, at the decision altitude of the IFR approach in use, for 4 NM from the end of each runway end. So they draw a 4 NM circle around each runway end, figure out what is the highest obsticle within that circle and add 700 feet (or what ever!) and use that as the Minimum Descent Altitude for the approach. The FAA on the other hand use different measuement. The FAA insist on allowing only 1.7 NM as guaranteed safty zone from each runway end!! So, at 700 feet 4 NM from the runway, you have to ask yourself, to which criteria was this approach designed? In your heart, you know it must have been to ICAO recommendations!!! But look closely! No it was FAA criteria!! I´m doomed! There has been more than one crash during a Circling Approach where the pilots were within the ICAO/JAA/EASA safety zone but still went CFIT! That was because the approach was designed to meet FAA standards!
To all my flying buddies, if you are ever to do a circling approach look at the Jeppesen plate!!! In the lower left corner, below the main text there are these very small letters: “Designed to ICAO/JAA/EASA standars” and you know what you have. Anything else, and it was to FAA standards, what ever name the chose to give it on the day!

My rant has been exessive. Mabe this is a post that should be deleted, but I´ll leave that up to the moderators. Thing is, IF these guys crashed during a Circle to Land, I´ll know what was going on all the time! Even if my english is not quite up to the task of decripeing it! I´ve been there, done that!

Apparently, the plane made an ILS approach to runway 30, so it can then go on a racecourse track to come in and land from the other direction (runway 12) which had no ILS. But after the first 90° turn it went straight into the mountains.

CAA is leading the investigation and i hear a team of BAE is also coming tomorrow.

That is extremely concerning (disaster after a 90 degree turn) and I hope they find both CVR and FDR intact as in theory the reported plan seemed logical (approach on ILS on 30 – then go racecourse track round to 12 to land).
Also the airfield radar plots and ATC recordings will be invaluable in the investigation.