Wright From South Africa, joined Jan 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0 Posted (12 years 10 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 960 times:
Does anybody have some real facts about what happened to the aircraft last week ? The media here are telling different stories, most of which are technically impossible, so I'd like to make my own story out of some facts, but I do not yet have a source for detailed and relieble data. Thanks in advance !
Flying_steph From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (12 years 10 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 800 times:
What I've read on AirDisaster.com is this:
"After takeoff from Chania, Greece, the crew found that the landing gear would not retract. The decision was made to continue the flight to Hanover, Germany. Midway through the flight, however, the crew chose to divert to Vienna, Austria. While descending through 10,000 feet on approach, the aircraft ran out of fuel, causing both engines to fail. The aircraft touched down short of runway 34, skidded through a 120° turn, and came to rest with its main landing gear collapsed, and the left wing and engine severely damanged. Cause: fuel exhaustion."
If it turns out to be true, I think the two guys up-front will have some serious CRM homework to do.
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2131 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (12 years 10 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 790 times:
I've seen the same thing happen, however they did just make to an alternate airport. It seems nobody realized the huge increase in fuel burn with gear down.
Wright From South Africa, joined Jan 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (12 years 10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 780 times:
That's the story I've heard. But in school I learned that the aircraft is not allowed to fly any faster than 200kts with the gear down,
because higher speeds may cause the gear to break off. So that would mean that the flight should have arrived in Vienna far later than it
actually did, so I don't really believe that they flew there with a non-retracted gear. Also, the fuel consumption should have increased
dramatically, so they would not have made it to VIE. Still they should have known about the fact that they'd not make it to Munich,
because the computers in the 310 will warn the pilots if the estimated fuel needed for the rest of the trip is higher than 90% of the
amount left in the fuel tanks.
Another problem is : Why did they carry the fuel to Chania from Dusseldorf in the morning instead of refueling on the island, like they
usually do ?
Still, even without the engines they could have landed on the runway instead of taking the grass aside of it. They came in high enough not to damage any buildings or instruments on the glide. So what did they think ?
Does anyone have any answer on that question or can anyone prove me wrong in some point ? Please do so, I really wanna know what
really happened.
Wright From South Africa, joined Jan 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (12 years 10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 774 times:
I'm not sure whether they were really that stupid. Aside from that the computer must have known, unless they did not burn too much fuel but lost some somehow.
Landgreen From Canada, joined Jun 1999, 36 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 774 times:
Its called lack of operational control. Typical for Europe/Asia where only the pilot makes descisions on the operation of the flight. If it were in North America it wouldn't have happened because there is an operational control system between the dispatcher and the crew, in which they share co-authority over the operation of the flight. The dispatcher would have advised the crew accordingly.
Wright From South Africa, joined Jan 2011, 0 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (12 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 754 times:
Sure, but this system also has its advantages. Pilots can never be under such pressure to fly even with insufficiently maintained equipment as in the US (remember ValuJet ?)
And anyway that does not really give a hint why they made the mistakes or even who made them.
Oecmr From Austria, joined Jul 2000, 31 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (12 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 750 times:
Actually the Investigation Board revialed the results of the investigation yesterday! The Problem was that the Crew calculated the fuel burn with the FMS wich is inaccurate (and this fact IS stated in the manual) if the gear remains down!
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (12 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 749 times:
Wright wrote:
-------------------------------
Sure, but this system also has its advantages. Pilots can never be under such pressure to fly even with insufficiently maintained equipment as in the US (remember ValuJet ?).
_______________________________
More often, it works the *other* way... You'd be surprised how often it's the *crew* that wants to go (no matter what) and the dispatcher the one that has to say "nyet" or otherwise rain on the parade.
Of course, where airlines don't use dispatchers and an operational control system (like most Part 129 foreign airlines flying into the USA), or don't give their dispatchers the same type of joint-responsibility system that is used here in the USA, the captain is essentially a deity, and there's no redundancy in decision-making. Take a look at the NTSB report on the 1990 Avianca 707 crash (another fuel starvation) near JFK as an example.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (12 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 753 times:
...with a Tomahawk cruise missle! (When you care enough to send the *very* best)
Another distinction of the typical Part 121 domestic/flag rules here in the USA is that had a similar gear problem occurred, and the crew advised they were going to continue to a destination beyond their fuel range withthe gear extended, the dispatchers here have the ability to independently delcare an emergency on/for the flight.
I don't know if Hapag Lloyd has dispatchers, or if they have Part 121 domestic/flag-style regs, but one has to wonder what went on in the cockpit after takeoff when the gear wouldn't retract. If this aircraft had a 2-hour CVR, there could be some interesting stuff on it...
C172sb From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (12 years 10 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 741 times:
"Sure, but this system also has its advantages. Pilots can never be under such pressure to fly even with insufficiently maintained equipment as in the US (remember ValuJet ?) "
Get it straight, the ValuJet crash was not caused by mechanical problems with the aircraft. The crash was caused by unproperly stowed oxygen canisters in the cargo hold. How many times do I have to correct people on this.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (12 years 10 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 737 times:
I'd be really interested to see that report you mentioned. Anyway you could provide a link to it (if possible) or info on where the report can be obtained? Thanks...
Pilot error led to crash landing: Kerosene consumption falsely calculated No technical defect.
According to commission of inquiry a pilot error led on Wednesday one week ago to the crash landing of an airbus at the airport Schwechat.
SCHWECHAT (apa). The warning signal sounded at 7770 meters flight altitude. The airbus 310-304 of the German airline Hapag Lloyd was over Zagreb. Still 218 kilometers to Schwechat. Still a last contingency reserve was in the kerosintanks.
Wednesday last week at 13 o'clock. Suddenly no more Engine Power! The plane stalls. Crash landing. total loss fortunately only lighthurt 26.
On Friday the commission of inquiry presented its interim report: The crash landing was probably caused due to a pilot error. Commission conductor Guenther Raicher: " the investigation could determine no technical defect so far, that one forced landing would have required. "
After the takeoff on Crete the gear could not be retracted. In the cockpit the fuel consumption was calculated again. Instead of going to Hanover as planned the airport Schwechat was approached. But the crew made a fatal error. According to the interim report of the flight investigation board the crew executed the fuel calculations - as usual - exclusively on the basis the " Flight management system " (FMS). The not brought in gear did not represent an problem for flight safety, it doubled however fuel consumption.
Also the airline acknowledged on Friday that obviously a incorrect behavior of the pilots was present. Despite the clear indications the Chief investigator Raicher said: " the pilot was sure that he can reach Vienna easily. " The final report will be present end of the year.
Rumors that the crew was requested during the flight by the Greek air traffic control to land, were not confirmed. Raicher: " both pilots stated that never anyone tried, it in any way to tell them to perform a landing. "
Besides the tank display showed " one the reality appropriate information ". Thus the Investigators found remaining fuel in the fuel system after the forced landing still aprox. 130 kilogram. This corresponds however to the " not useable fuel".
Sponsor Message: 
From South Africa, joined Jan 2011, 0 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2131 posts, 
From Austria, joined Jul 2000, 31 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
