AirBlue jet down in Islamabad

[divine]

Yes Oxon plz share the source.

[Salman Haider]

[TAILWIND]

Felt like laughing,,,,,, cant believe some journailist can be so naive or stupid to think and believe such a crap. And then attribute this to mussadiqa zarai

[Abbas Ali]

I don't understand why some writers with such articles try to fool general public.

Seconds before crash, a number of ground witnesses saw fully intact AirBlue Airbus A321 with lowered landing gear flying at low altitude heading in the direction of cloud/mist covered Margalla Hills and some of ground witnesses also heard sudden increase in sound of engines indicating last seconds attempt by crew to avoid collision with Margalla Hills.

Btw, 1992 PIA Airbus A300B4-203 (AP-BCP) accident near Kathmandu Airport was investigated by team of international air crash investigators. The AP-BCP accident report findings were released by Nepal Government and its summary was published in 'Flight International' magazine. AP-BCP crashed into hill mainly because cockpit crew did not follow published approach procedure, complexity of the approach and the associated approach chart were blamed as contributory causal factors. Kathmandu ATC was also partly blamed for showing reluctance to intervene in piloting matters such as terrain separation.

Summary of AP-BCP crash findings can also be found in Volume 3 of the book titled 'Air Disaster'.

Abbas

[Shehryar]

‘Airblue cockpit had a third person’
By Imran Ali Teepu
Saturday, 28 Aug, 2010


The source said that investigators were trying to determine why the aircraft drifted five nautical miles away from its original route. – Reuters Photo
PROVINCES
Pakistan orders evacuation of southern town
ISLAMABAD: A team investigating the crash of the ill-fated Airblue jetliner on July 28 in Islamabad has detected the possible presence of a third person in the cockpit. Under normal circumstances, a cockpit is not supposed to have anyone other than the pilot and the co-pilot.

“The investigators have reportedly heard the voice of a third person in the cockpit of the Airblue jetliner,” a source close to the investigation told Dawn on condition of anonymity.

The voice has been extracted from the Cockpit Voice Recorder, according to the source, and the investigators were looking into various possibilities and aspects.

The CVR, which is part of the ‘Black Box’, is a flight recorder used to document the audio environment in the cockpit of an aircraft. In order to record and document the audio environment, microphones are installed in the pilots’ headsets and in the roof of the cockpit.

The source said that the data of communication between the control tower and the pilot were available with the investigators. Dawn has also learnt that the pilot and control tower communicated with each other for two minutes and 25 seconds.

Two teams are currently investigating the air crash in which 152 people were killed. One of them is headed by Air Commodore Khawaja Abdul Majeed, president of the Civil Aviation Authority’s Safety Investigation Board. It is focussing on human factors, possibility of technical fault and weather conditions.

The second team, headed by Federal Investigation Agency Director General Zafarullah Khan, has been assigned the task of investigating the possibility of ‘sabotage’.

The source said that investigators were trying to determine why the aircraft drifted five nautical miles away from its original route. “The late pilot was very experienced and professional with thousands of flying hours under his belt; hence the fact that the plane strayed five nautical miles from the original route is also a cause for concern for investigators,” he said. The source said that six investigators were yet to hold a joint meeting.

When asked if there was a third voice in the audio recording of the cockpit, CAA director general Air Commodore (retd) Junaid Amin told Dawn: “I am not aware of the presence of a third person in the cockpit… you cannot judge from the audio whether there was a third person….”

No fault in Airblue aircraft

An analysis of the Black Box of the ill-fated Airblue aircraft which crashed on July 28 has revealed that it had no technical fault at the time of the accident.

In intimation to A-320 operators across the world, Airbus said there was no need to update the procedures or make fresh recommendations after the ED 202 crash because all flight systems were working normally before the aircraft slammed into the fog-covered mountains.

All 152 passengers on board were killed.

The advisory was based on a preliminary analysis of flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder by Bureau d’Enquetes et d’Analyses.

A final outcome of the investigation may take months, but preliminary investigations have set the direction for the probe.

According to aviation experts, the Airbus communication implies that technical malfunctioning has been effectively ruled out as the cause of the incident and it is up to the investigation team constituted by the Civil Aviation Authority to determine if the crash occurred because of pilot error, bad weather, control tower fault or any other factor.

The cockpit voice recording readouts have also revealed that the pilots belatedly realised that they were flying into terrain. The first officer of the flight was heard screaming “Sir, pull up, pull up” moments before the crash.

This revelation has been supported by the findings of local investigators which show that before hitting the mountains the aircraft had climbed from 2,600 feet to 3,100 feet. The aircraft was circling for Runway 12, where it was to attempt visual landing.

Sources privy to the investigations believe the pilot got panicked after realising that he was flying into the terrain and had turned the autopilot ‘heading bug’ to the left at more than 180 degrees.

The aircraft, experts say, takes the shortest possible route in such situation and instead of turning left moved towards right.

Why did the aircraft go so close to the hills? Several explanations are being dished out, but the most commonly heard of in the aviation circles say that the pilot while circling for Runway 12 was on Flight Management Computer, but instead of following the prescribed route he had probably created a ‘visual circuit using place bearing distance waypoints’ that put him in the wrong place.

Insertion of place bearing distance waypoints is strictly prohibited by aircraft manufacturers because the Airbus FMC does not have a ‘fix page’ capability, wherein a defined distance can be superimposed on the existing route.

The standard instructions are that any route that is not supported by a ground navigational aid should not be used.

If you want to follow news on your mobile, click on http://dawn.com/mobile/ and download Pakistan's first mobile news application.

[Abbas Ali]

The advisory was based on a preliminary analysis of flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder by Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses.

Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) - www.bea.aero - is aviation accident investigation agency of France.

Abbas

[meekal ahmed]

Thanks for this interesting post.

I did read the book mentioned above in which one chapter was devoted to the PIA A300 crash on approach to Khatmandu airport. It is true the government of Nepal did put out a report but it is not available as far as I know. My point was the Pakistan CAA should have published a report too.

As for the Airblue accident, it is strange that the co-pilot should be shouting "pull-up, pull-up". Someone could have mistaken his voice for the EGPWS.

There is no place bearing distance procedure in the Airbus FMGS. There is in the Boeing-style FMS which has a dedicated FIX page on the FMC CDU. Anyway, since the teardrop to land on 12 is visual, they should not have been fiddling with the FMGS and looking down. If you loose visual contact, just get out of there.

I don't understand the part about rolling the Heading Selector bug to the left and the aircraft turning right. However, if you roll the heading bug onto the reciprocal heading, or beyond it, the AP will get confused and can turn the wrong way.

It is good that we are getting some information but only from journalists. We need to hear from the professionals investigating the accident. I hope that will happen.

[iqbal]

There is no place bearing distance procedure in the Airbus FMGS

By this do you mean the Airbus FMGS cannot be programmed to fly say 5 miles from a waypoint (say a VOR) on desired heading? Because it can...

To fly heading 120 from say RN VOR for 5 miles you would enter:
- On a boeing: RN120/5
- On an airbus: RN/120/5

[R.F.]

Correct Iqbal, the FMGS has all the capability to create PBD's, when it can shoot managed RNAV (GNSS) or WAAS approaches creating PBD's are simple and a non issue. Unlike the Boeing models the Progress page on the FMGS has the same provision as the FIX page, rather the avionics in some ways have an edge over the Boeing especially whilst creating ETOPS points with the FMGC providing more features.

What I fail to understand is that why is it so incomprehensible to fathom a human factors issue in this accident, instead of presenting rubbish conspiracy theories.

[meekal ahmed]

RF and Iqbal,

You are both absolutely correct. The FMGC is just as capable if not more so than the FMC on the Boeing. You can do just about anything on both.

I only hope they weren't doing all this fiddling around and looking down in the teardrop. Even thought it was/is a visual circuit, it is good to have all this stuff inserted and showing up clearly on the ND. That is what "situational awareness" is all about.

Was this a last-minute change of runways? If not they should have known which runway was in-use even before departure from Karachi. If yes, they were obviously being rushed with the set-up at a time when cockpit work-load is very high anyway.

I hope we find out.

[mages]

What I fail to understand is that why is it so incomprehensible to fathom a human factors issue in this accident, instead of presenting rubbish conspiracy theories.

I guess there is a difference between "Human Factors" and "Pilot Error". I think most people would agree that there "Human Factors" involved which extends to ATC and Radar controllers etc, and not just imply that the all the errors were on the Pilots' part. In most cases everyone is using the term "Pilot Error" which is what people are having having trouble fathoming.

What I am still confused on is that path the plane took from when it entered ISB airspace. Is it being stated as fact that after the plane essentially took a straight line from the airport (from it's initial approach to runway 30) to the hills where it crashed?

[meekal ahmed]

I may have said this before (so I apologize in advance) that ATC bears a significant responsibility for this accident as a "contributory" factor. The aircraft was under radar surveillance and should have been vectored away from the hills well before it got near to them.

[R.F.]

Just a technical misnomer that needs clarification here, the aircraft was NOT under radar surveillance technically at the time of the accident as the transmissions were between the tower and the pilot which means they had been handed over from the approach radar controller.
Whenever declared by the Pilot that he/she has the ' runway/field in sight or VISUAL' with the ground enviournment where the ground features can be easily distinguishable and assist in visually identifying the runway or its elements and/or surroundings, then he/she becomes responsible for their own separation with other traffic and/or obstacle clearance in which case the approach radar may promptly hand over the traffic to the tower.
The tower does not have the means to provide radar coverage and may only be capable of providing if equipped, with ground maneuvering coverage during the taxi phase either prior to take-off or after landing. Further it can provide traffic advisory and based on either visual sighting or the pilot transmissions of position reports upon which extending landing clearance or any other advisory such as close proximity of high ground etc. in essence its jurisdiction is within the airport traffic area boundary only.

Apart from that all ground maneuvering radar coverage if the airport is so equipped is provided by the 'Ground Frequency' controller, therefore there are clearly demarcated boundaries and co-ordinated task distribution between the ATC for expeditious,smooth, efficient and safe management of traffic, otherwise there'd be chaos same as what is witnessed so widely on our roads.

[stylo4444]

Well these conspiracy theories regarding a 3rd person in the cockpit sure are interesting. Not to mention highly unbelievable. I guess every accident that has to take place must be a conspiracy correct? Sigh.

Sometimes reading stories generated by the Pakistani media is so incredibly lame. Sorry, just my opinion based on logic.

[mages]

Agreed that there just too many conspiracy theories floating about. But it should also be noted that there are almost on fact at hand regarding this accident. The only true fact is that this accident took place. Aside from anything in the news or even on this forum has been for the most part hearsay, rumours, conjecture, 2nd/3rd hand information with no collaboration from the actual sources. Saying that something was in such and such news paper or such and such news station does not make it fact as we have seen our News media has no credibility what so ever.

If I am wrong in the above statement then perhaps someone would like to outline the facts with actual sources (names of officials) attached to them.