Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pilots Blamed For Armenia Air Crash  
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

Quote:

Investigators examining what caused an Armenian airliner to crash with the loss of all 113 people on board have blamed pilot error.
...
"The human factor in bad weather played a role," Russian Transport Minister Igor Levitin said.
...
Tatyana Anodina, head of the inter-governmental committee that took part in the enquiry, said that during the descent the captain "did not ensure control of the plane as far as angle and altitude were concerned," according to Russia's Itar-Tass news agency.

Ms Anodina said that the co-pilot also failed to "ensure necessary control".
...
The investigators said that there had been no engine failure or fuel shortage.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5216210.stm

Pretty much what the discussion on here surmised then.

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMorvious From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 707 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5506 times:

Thats life..

Human errors will always be one problem at the aviation industry, but its so sad it happends also during critical stages..



have a good day, Stefan van Hierden
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7809 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5485 times:

What percent is poor weather?.

User currently offlineLeigh pilgrim From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5377 times:

I believe that many pilots have glued to their heads, 'Time is money', any delay is costly for any airline, so unless it is absolutly necessary, my own view is that sometimes safety actions may be sometimes ignored unless absolutly critical.

Never mess with the weather


User currently offlineFalcon flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5288 times:

Quoting Leigh pilgrim (Reply 3):
I believe that many pilots have glued to their heads, 'Time is money'

That's about as unfair a statement I've ever heard. I've been a corporate pilot for several years with a Fortune 500 company and I can assure you that corporate crews probably understand more than anyone the pressures of timely schedules for CEOs. Never once has the boss questioned my decision to delay a trip, cancel a trip or divert for weather if enroute. Be it corporate or airline it's ludicrous to suggest that a flight crew would make that kind of a decision or bow to that kind of pressure. That type of call is made strictly with safety in mind first, then financial consequences or inconvenience second.



My definition of cool ? Not trying so hard to be cool.
User currently offlineYYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5209 times:

Quoting Falcon flyer (Reply 4):
That's about as unfair a statement I've ever heard. I've been a corporate pilot for several years with a Fortune 500 company and I can assure you that corporate crews probably understand more than anyone the pressures of timely schedules for CEOs. Never once has the boss questioned my decision to delay a trip, cancel a trip or divert for weather if enroute. Be it corporate or airline it's ludicrous to suggest that a flight crew would make that kind of a decision or bow to that kind of pressure. That type of call is made strictly with safety in mind first, then financial consequences or inconvenience second.

Now, as I post this I expect that I may be flamed...

I am sure that most pilots would agree with you, and most would not take such chances.

But unfortunately this is not always the case. Below are three well known fatal crashes where operational pressure to fly / land, despite adverse weather, has been at least a contributing factor (as found by the official investigations, and not merely speculation). I am aure there are others, but I can't look for them no.w


Singapore 006, Taipei:
"The moderate time pressure to take off before the inbound typhoon closed in around CKS Airport, and the condition of taking off in a strong crosswind, low visibility, and slippery runway subtly influenced the flight crew's decision?making ability and the ability to maintain situational awareness. ..."

cite:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20001031-0&lang=en


AA 1460, Little Rock:
"The flight crew's failure to discontinue the approach when severe thunderstorms and their associated hazards to flight operations had moved into the airport area and the flight crew's failure to ensure that the spoilers had extended after touchdown. Contributing to the accident were the flight crew's (1) impaired performance resulting from fatigue and the situational stress associated with the intent to land under the circumstances, (2) continuation of the approach to a landing when the company's maximum crosswind component was exceeded, ..."

cite:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19990601-0&lang=en


AA 965, Cali:
"Contributing to the cause of the accident were:
1. The flight crew's ongoing efforts to expedite their approach and landing in order to avoid potential delays; ..."

cite:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19951220-1&lang=en


User currently offlineLeigh pilgrim From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2000, 392 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5169 times:

Quoting Falcon flyer (Reply 4):
Quoting Leigh pilgrim (Reply 3):
I believe that many pilots have glued to their heads, 'Time is money'

That's about as unfair a statement I've ever heard. I've been a corporate pilot for several years with a Fortune 500 company and I can assure you that corporate crews probably understand more than anyone the pressures of timely schedules for CEOs. Never once has the boss questioned my decision to delay a trip, cancel a trip or divert for weather if enroute. Be it corporate or airline it's ludicrous to suggest that a flight crew would make that kind of a decision or bow to that kind of pressure. That type of call is made strictly with safety in mind first, then financial consequences or inconvenience second.

I only wish you wereright and I was wrong, however Im glad to see that you do take safety as number 1 (seriously, glad to hear that)

Also, look at the Air France A340 crash in Toronto, they could have diverted but chose to land in the most dangerous of conditions, again a heavy thunderstorm and look what happened.............


User currently offlineFalcon flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4953 times:

Although I refuse to second guess a flight crew, particularly after an event, the examples listed are interesting.
With regard to Little Rock, the investigation and subsequent analysis could in fact suggest pressure to complete the flight when diverting or even returning to DFW would have had a far different outcome. I'll agree with that.
As far as Cali goes, one of the issues suggested unoffically by people in the training department at AA was the problem of "heads being down" (FMS) as opposed to "flying the plane".
As far as Toronto goes, it would appear that pilot technique came into play more than anything. The A340 was not the only aircraft to land within a relatively short time frame prior to the accident, though. IIRC, weather at the time of landing may have been gusty with storm activity in close proximity but was within the limitations of the aircraft and did not involve a microburst or something along those lines right at touchdown. Although operations often occur during inclement weather, the crew obviously had no reason to suspect that a normal landing would not occur.



My definition of cool ? Not trying so hard to be cool.
User currently offlineJamesbuk From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 3968 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4932 times:

Quoting Leigh pilgrim (Reply 3):
I believe that many pilots have glued to their heads, 'Time is money', any delay is costly for any airline, so unless it is absolutly necessary,

All through my flight training ive had it drilled into my head that "YOU are the captain of the aircraft, If YOUR not happy with whats happening dont go ahead with it"
IF you follow this you should in theory have a life at the end of it.

Rgds --James--



You cant have your cake and eat it... What the hells the point in having it then!!!
User currently offlineYYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 4 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4932 times:

Quoting Leigh pilgrim (Reply 6):
Also, look at the Air France A340 crash in Toronto, they could have diverted but chose to land in the most dangerous of conditions, again a heavy thunderstorm and look what happened.............



Quoting Falcon flyer (Reply 7):
As far as Toronto goes, it would appear that pilot technique came into play more than anything.

When I considered my earlier post, I deliberately did not add Toronto even though I thought of it immeidately (I drive past the revaine where the 340 stopped frequently) - no cause or contributing factors have been found yet, and I did not want to speculate. Time and the TSB will tell.

As for the issue of operational pressure, I recall a discussion here several months ago about a Belgian pilot who was fired for refusing a direct order from his employer to fly an aircraft that he considered to be unsafe... the concensus here was that it took real guts to do that. I wonder what ever happened to him?


User currently offlineClo1973 From Colombia, joined Apr 2006, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4766 times:

I just flew from Cartagena to Cali (Colombia) in a MD83 about two weeks ago. Since taking off and for 35 minutes (and despite an altitude of 33000 ft) we flew right across a storm (dense clouds surrounding the plane and lighting). Turbulence was not that bad, but I have to confess I was a little tense waiting for moderate or severe turbulence.

Since I`m not a pilot, I was asking to myself what is the criteria that a crew follows in order to decide to fly in such weather conditions. I know the weather radar is of great help.....but....

I read this thread and I notice some pilots posted comments....maybe one of you can give me a clue on this subject.

Regards


User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4739 times:

Some main airports in 3rd world countries still use non-precision approaches, so when there is really bad weather and are inexperienced pilots things like this will happen. As far as the time and money issue, it is a valid problem. Southwest airlines completely changed the way pilots are trained and operate flights after the Burbank crash because they found that their old operation style of encouraging pilots to take short-cuts showed saftey concerns.

User currently offlineComorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4739 times:

I didn't know that you could put a highly automated airliner like the A320 at risk for altitude, attitude and bearing - isn't it all pushbutton? Does this mean that the pilots hand flew the plane? Isn't it better to trust the avionics, especially in bad weather?

Grateful for any insight by pilots - thanks.


User currently offlinePolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4685 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Thread starter):
Tatyana Anodina, head of the inter-governmental committee that took part in the enquiry, said that during the descent the captain "did not ensure control of the plane as far as angle and altitude were concerned," according to Russia's Itar-Tass news agency.

I thought A320 has flight envelope/law to prevent this kind of dangerous maneuver from happening. I am confused. I though this is a big thing for A320.

Cheers,
PP



One day there will be 100% polymer plane
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4665 times:

Quoting PolymerPlane (Reply 13):
I thought A320 has flight envelope/law to prevent this kind of dangerous maneuver from happening. I am confused. I though this is a big thing for A320.



Quoting Comorin (Reply 12):
or altitude, attitude and bearing - isn't it all pushbutton?

You guys think planes fly by themselves or something? They're called pilots and they can crash the plane!

[Edited 2006-07-28 02:57:56]

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4621 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 11):
Southwest airlines completely changed the way pilots are trained and operate flights after the Burbank crash because they found that their old operation style of encouraging pilots to take short-cuts showed saftey concerns.

Do you have evidence that Southwest Airlines has ever encouraged pilots to "take short-cuts"? Produce it or stop making shortsighted accusations.

Your comments are complete and utter BS. WN did not "completely change the way pilots are trained" as a result of the Burbank overrun. Fact.




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineAirWillie6475 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 2448 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4553 times:

RE: Southwest's 300/500's Flight Decks (by SlamClick Nov 23 2005 in Tech Ops)#ID135313

READ NUMBER 14 WISE A$$! At the bottom, read what a SOUTHWEST CAPTAIN SAYS, and it's in response to this question about the BUR crash:

"Quoting SlamClick (Reply 13):
caused by a corporate culture of hot and high approaches and rush-rush operations."


User currently offlineComorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4547 times:

Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 14):
You guys think planes fly by themselves or something? They're called pilots and they can crash the plane!

Isn't that why they have the dog in the cockpit?  Wink


User currently offlineAfay1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1293 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4504 times:

I think the point, regardless of the comments about it, is valid. Aren't the onboard protection and navigation systems of the A320 supposed to obviate this sort of accident? Clearly, pilot error can occur with any aircraft, but it does seem like the main plusses always bandied about in relation to the A320 did not protect it in this case, although the specifics aren't really known. Does the GPWS work over turbulent water and/or can certain systems be fooled in a heavy storm situation?

User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8956 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4493 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR




Quoting AirWillie6475 (Reply 16):
READ NUMBER 14 WISE A$$!

Doesn't quite jive with the recap of procedural changes that were explained in the WN ground school I attended, but if you feel better thinking otherwise, more power to you.




2H4





Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlineYYZYYT From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4324 times:

Quoting Comorin (Reply 12):
I didn't know that you could put a highly automated airliner like the A320 at risk for altitude, attitude and bearing - isn't it all pushbutton? Does this mean that the pilots hand flew the plane? Isn't it better to trust the avionics, especially in bad weather?

Grateful for any insight by pilots - thanks.



Quoting Afay1 (Reply 18):
I think the point, regardless of the comments about it, is valid. Aren't the onboard protection and navigation systems of the A320 supposed to obviate this sort of accident? Clearly, pilot error can occur with any aircraft, but it does seem like the main plusses always bandied about in relation to the A320 did not protect it in this case, although the specifics aren't really known. Does the GPWS work over turbulent water and/or can certain systems be fooled in a heavy storm situation?

Not a pilot, but I'll provide my 2 cents worth:

AFIK all modern airliners have GPWS, but it often does not provide enough warning. In many of these cases, by the time that the warning activates it is far too late - especially where the aircraft is flying toward terrain that rises quickly like Cali or Guam.

And as for the A320, it has had three other CFIT incidents:

Gulf Air 72:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20000823-0&lang=en

Air Inter 148:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19920120-0&lang=en

Air India 605:
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19900214-2&lang=en

consider the CFIT crashes I noted above. The aircraft were MD80, 757 and 747-400: in other words as modern as an A320.
Also, consider the airlines involved: these are airlines with properly equipped aircraft and properly trained pilots, not 3rd world operators.

So the short answer is no, modern aircraft systems don't prevent this kind of thing.


User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 21, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4265 times:

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 20):
AFIK all modern airliners have GPWS, but it often does not provide enough warning. In many of these cases, by the time that the warning activates it is far too late - especially where the aircraft is flying toward terrain that rises quickly like Cali or Guam.

EGPWS provides a 60 second master caution, and 30 second master warning if the terrain clearance floor becomes unsafe for Cali or Guam scenarios.

GPWS will not prevent spatial disorientation, nor should it prevent pilot from maneuvering aircraft close to the ground like we routinely do in say a circling approach.

Flying an aircraft still requires "skill", many on here believe pilot just push buttons and technology can prevent accidents, this obviously is totally flawed.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineJavibi From Spain, joined Oct 2004, 1371 posts, RR: 41
Reply 22, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4253 times:

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 9):
I recall a discussion here several months ago about a Belgian pilot who was fired for refusing a direct order from his employer to fly an aircraft that he considered to be unsafe...

Exact same thing happened some months ago here in my country  Sad

Quoting YYZYYT (Reply 5):
I am sure that most pilots would agree with you, and most would not take such chances.

But unfortunately this is not always the case.

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark   Sad

j



"Be prepared to engage in constructive debate". Are YOU prepared?
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4224 times:

The airline is contesting the pilot error conclusion.
http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeni...3F-0037-431A-8EF2-D76CDED25649.ASP



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9229 posts, RR: 76
Reply 24, posted (8 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4212 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 23):
The airline is contesting the pilot error conclusion.
http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeni...9.ASP



Quote:
"We do not deny that the crew made some mistakes during that flight," said Arshak Nalbandian, head of the private carrier's flight safety department. "Yes, it did. But was it those mistakes that led to the plane's collision with the sea? That has yet to be proven."

Swiss cheese. The airline agrees that the pilots made errors, however the airline is asking if the errors were made in isolation, or other safety nets fail to prevent the accident.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Pilot Error Blamed For Flight 587 Crash posted Tue Oct 26 2004 17:06:14 by NIKV69
Russian Familys Sue US Companys For Mid Air Crash posted Sat Jul 3 2004 11:24:44 by 777ER
The Once And For All UP Date For Alaska Air Crash! posted Tue Feb 1 2000 07:55:13 by Timobear
Wind Blamed For Crash That Killed Yankees Pitcher posted Sun Nov 5 2006 01:24:58 by Rsmith6621a
CO, Design Fault Blamed For Concorde Crash posted Tue Dec 14 2004 18:17:33 by Philhyde
Airbus Blamed For Air Lib's Grounding posted Fri Feb 7 2003 01:48:49 by Crosswind
Software Blamed For Air Transat Dead Stick Landing posted Tue Jan 29 2002 03:41:59 by Matt_milligan
SQ And Air NZ To Be Blamed For Ansett's Problems posted Thu Sep 13 2001 13:34:22 by Anzett
Mobile Phone Blamed For Crossair Crash posted Sat Jan 13 2001 21:09:44 by Teahan
Ex-United B747-400s Destined For Mahan Air? posted Sat Nov 18 2006 16:09:42 by PlaneHunter