Combination of errors cited for Fokker crash

[Saeed]

NTSB documentaries of various other crashes that has happened in past ie: Gulf Air's B767 crash over Atlantic or Alasken Air's MD83's crash....

it was Egypt Air B767.

[ConnieMan]

NTSB documentaries of various other crashes that has happened in past ie: Gulf Air's B767 crash over Atlantic or Alasken Air's MD83's crash....

it was Egypt Air B767.

Ok fine but you got the point!!....

[Abbas Ali]

Findings of Multan Fokker crash probe questioned

By Baqir Sajjad Syed

ISLAMABAD, Feb 25: The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is reported to have emerged unscathed in the Fokker crash inquiry report.

CAA Director-General Farooq Rehmatullah told Dawn that there was nothing relating to the authority in the report, which is yet to be made public by the government.

The Lahore-bound PIA Fokker F-27 flight PK-688 had crashed on July 10, 2006, minutes after taking off from Multan airport. All 45 on board were killed.

The report has concluded that a fatal combination of pilot and on-ground errors caused the incident. The on-ground factors concern engineering lapses.

Aviation experts pointed to Section 8 of the CAA’s Accident Investigation Manual, which relates to navigation and landing aids (visual and non-visual).

Different provisions of the section call for looking into aids available at the station of departure and their utilisations and effectiveness.

All air crash inquiries are conducted according to the checklist contained in the manual but certain of its clauses were said to have been skipped in the probe.

The sources said none of the radars in the country was calibrated at the time of the crash. The radars were last calibrated in September/October 2001. Subsequently, calibration was done a fortnight after the crash.

The National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Defence in its meeting on July 25 last year had asked the CAA to submit the radar calibration record but the information was not provided.

CAA’s own regulations call for checking the equipment on a regular basis for “safe operation of all traffic, which depends on the availability of radio navigational facilities”. The CAA has been claiming that the crash was not connected to calibration and that it was maintaining all navigational, communication, route and approach instruments and visual aids at all airports at an optimum level.

But aviation experts claim that the Fokker had sought radar guidance back to Multan airport when its engine caught fire and visibility was very bad. They say the faulty radar was unable to guide the aircraft properly.

Moreover, they contend, high-powered lights for guiding aircraft in bad visibility installed at Multan airport were not fit.

Pakistan Airlines Pilots Association (PALPA) chief Capt Khalid Hamza, in his comments on the reported pilot error, had questioned the competence of the inquiry team and the procedures adopted for the probe.

The sources alleged that the inquiry team ignored certain essential aspects of the investigation.

Pointing out that procedures laid down in the accident investigation manual were overlooked, the sources referred to the crash of a small aircraft at Walton airport on Sept 29 last year in which the two people on board were burnt to death because of dysfunctional fire-fighting equipment at the airport.

The Accident Investigation Manual’s Section 13 asks the investigators to inquire about the fire-fighting equipment used and its effectiveness.

Both the pilot and the other man in the aircraft were reportedly alive after the crash and trapped in the burning aircraft on ground they were screaming for help. CAA fire trucks took 12 minutes to reach the crash site on the airport premises and then it was discovered that there was no foam in the trucks.

The Safety Investigation Board did not find enough evidence to hold the CAA responsible.

In another incident in Sharjah on Nov 26, 2006, when a calibration aircraft of the CAA crashed, the SIB reportedly skipped the clause of the accident manual dealing with the qualification of pilots.

Source: DAWN

CAA clarifies report

ISLAMABAD, Feb 26: The Civil Aviation Authority has claimed that the Fokker crash inquiry was conducted in accordance with international standards.

Clarifying a news item published in Dawn on Monday, ‘Findings of Multan Fokker Crash Probe Questioned’, CAA spokesman said foreign agencies and experts were involved in the investigation.

He said the allegation that certain clauses of the accident investigation manual had been skipped was baseless.

The CAA reiterated its stance that all navigational, communication, route approach and visual aids were at optimum level.

Our reporter adds: The Dawn report was based on statements of a senior CAA official, the accident investigation manual and some CAA documents.

The CAA clarification did not address issues raised in the report, like overdue calibration, the Walton airport crash and the crash of a CAA aircraft in Sharjah.

It may be mentioned that the overdue calibration issue was raised by the National Assembly Defence Committee, but the required information was not provided to the legislators.

Source: DAWN

[AP-BGJ]

typical of PAKISTANI politics.... MAN we are great at playing the blame games.....nobody in the ministry of defence, caa is bothered about the precious lives lost in the accident instead they all care about that their names and the department's name does not come on the nagative side of the inquiry.

it is evident that some of the major facts are being ommited intentionally. the best secret weapon these geesers have is put the blame on the pilots and cabin crew.

literaly my heart goes out to the families of victims. insted of tellin them the truth they are being victimised further by these silly politics....

WELL DONE the ministry of defence and caa keep it up!!!

(my apologies if i might have hurt someones feelings...but i still endorse these views)

[TAILWIND]

Charliedelta 11 wrote (viewtopic.php?t=8161)

Now..normal procedures during engine failure are as follows..
The Pilot Not Flying (PNF) informs the Pilot Flying (PF) about an engine failure..the PF checks the engine instrumentation ............after this the First officer is to carry out all necessary checks in the cockpit while the captain assumes the role of PF..

Well you missed out a very important point. i.e PNF is monitoring the airspeed on the ASI. If the aircraft has passed the V1, which is called out by PNF, then the PF continues the take off roll and gets airborne on single engine, and if the V1 call has not been made i.e airspeed below V1, the PF brings back the throttle of Good engine and stops the aircraft on the remaining runway length available.

In our case...while the engine failed...the PNF failed to protect the functioning engine and the PF brought the throttle of the functioning engine back to idle , which is zero power(dont know what the right aviation term for minimum throttle is..sorry for that)..this mistake resulted in a loss of electrical power in the aircraft which is why the wheels failed to retract...and well...the rest is history..

NO THAT did not happen, the airctraft did get airborne on the remaining good engine, gained some altitude....gradually descended in a gradual to steep angle and impacted the ground in a shallow right turn.

The question is whether the descent was pilot initaited to land ahead in open area (a fatal choice if it was) or the aircraft could not sustain flight due to .....1) being over loaded for given temperature and field elevation or 2) slection of ZERO flaps.....thats the million dollar quesion...

[Abbas Ali]

DAWN - Feb 17, 2007

President of the Pakistan Airline Pilots’ Association, Capt Khalid Hamza, conceded that the crash occurred due to the pilot’s error. But he added that all possible reasons behind the crash should be explored in great detail.

PALPA Press Release

February 20, 2007

Pakistan Airline Pilots’ Association (PALPA) refutes the remarks attributed to the President PALPA on the subject of crash near Multan as reported in Daily ‘DAWN’ of 17th February 2007.

The Association does not have any information on the Inquiry Report submitted by the CAA Pakistan to the Ministry of Defence. The Association as a professional body, reserves the right to comment on the Inquiry Report only after it is made public by the relevant Government Authorities.

Source: PALPA Press Release (PDF)

[Adnaan786]

Now..normal procedures during engine failure are as follows..
The Pilot Not Flying (PNF) informs the Pilot Flying (PF) about an engine failure..the PF checks the engine instrumentation ............after this the First officer is to carry out all necessary checks in the cockpit while the captain assumes the role of PF..

In our case...while the engine failed...the PNF failed to protect the functioning engine and the PF brought the throttle of the functioning engine back to idle , which is zero power(dont know what the right aviation term for minimum throttle is..sorry for that)..this mistake resulted in a loss of electrical power in the aircraft which is why the wheels failed to retract...and well...the rest is history..

I want to add a few things to what you've said. Assuming here the engine failure occured after V1 (take-off decision speed) all the PNF will say is engine failure and then cancel the warning whilst the PF aknowledges something has happened but carries on flying the aircraft as normal. Since take-off is such a busy time, the PF's sole responsibility is to fly the plane and as yet he will not have checked to see which engine has failed. However by keeping the aircraft on path he will have a good idea which engine has failed (ie if he's applying right rudder then the right engine has failed).

Then once they get to a safe altitude or when time allows them they will deal with the emergency. They will concur and say ok we have an engine failure. They must both agree to the assumptions and actions they make before carrying anything out. One pilot will say I think it's the right engine and then the other will confirm if that's what he also thinks, and then they will both double check the instruments to confirm they are both correct Then they will carry out the emergency checklist. Each pilot monitors the other whilst they carry out their actions. Fore example, one pilot will put his hand to a particular switch/button/lever and say for example "confirm right fuel pump off" the other will say "affirm right fuel pump off" then the first will say "right fuel pump off" and action it. This continues through all the crucial parts of the checklist including bringing the throttle back of the dead engine. So they were both equally responsible for making sure it was the correct throttle.

[ConnieMan]

Where are the fight data recorders or Black boxes??, recordings from them will clear up so many guesses and assumption going on currently, i hope those actual recoding still exist with out being altered already!!!, which i wouldn't doubt if they have already been.....

Adnan just a correction: On twin engine aircraft if one engine fail then opposite rudder is applied immediately to counter the yaw and to keep the aircraft flying in same direction(Flying straight), if same direction rudder is applied then its BIG NO NO!!, as aircraft will instantly go into spiral dive including uncontrollable flat spin and ultimately lost control and crash....

[Adnaan786]

You're right.

[FMC]

The Defence Secretary has categorically stated that the EU debacle has taken place due to the incompetency of the two oil men. The brief sent to the PM has recommended their immediate removal.
The Multan tragedy is the outcome of the 'guthh jor' of PIA and CAA.
None other to blame.