A new chapter has opened in Airbus’ 43 year history as the first A350 XWB, the world’s most efficient large twin-engined commercial aircraft, powered aloft this morning for its maiden flight at Blagnac in Toulouse, France at 10.00 hours local time. An international crew of six is on board, comprising two Flight Test Pilots, one Test Flight Engineer and three Flight Test Engineers. At the controls of the A350 XWB’s first flight are Peter Chandler, Airbus’ Chief Test Pilot, and Guy Magrin, Project Pilot for the A350 XWB.

Here’s the flight path it flew:

For those of us who couldn’t be in France, Airbus posted photographs and updates throughout the day on the Airbus Facebook page although I have to admit, I watched it on Twitter:

What an exciting day it has been. To finish it off, of course, I had to play around with the 360 cockpit view.

Still not had enough? The aircraft is safely on the ground now but you can still watch the recording from the live-stream of the event:

I’ve got to admit: I really like living in the future.

Anyway, the AAIB have released a special bulletin regarding the Airbus A319 that had an engine fire departing from Heathrow on the 24th of May. The fan cowl doors from both engines detached on take-off, which punctured a fuel pipe on the right engine and damaged the aircraft.

AAIB Bulletin S3/2013

Following the event, photographs of the aircraft, taken prior to pushback, were provided to the AAIB. These photographs show the fan cowl doors unlatched on both engines.

The aircraft had undergone scheduled maintenance overnight. This required opening the fan cowl doors on both engines to check the Integrated Drive Generator (IDG) oil level.

Oops.

And speaking of oops…

Finnair forced to repaint A330 livery after embarrassing copyright violation ~ The Aviation Writer

Finnair has been promoting a brand new Airbus A330 livery, designed by European clothing and home furnishing retailer Marimekko… only to find out the design was copied from Ukrainian folk art.

The plagiarism was initially reported by Helsingin Sanomat newspaper, which noticed the similarities between Marimekko’s pattern and a 1963 painting by the late Ukrainian folk artist Maria Primachenko.

Some very red faces in Helsinki at the moment.

This video is old but shows some incredible low-level helicopter flying:

One of the commenters says:

Some facts for you that can be verified: a) the type of flying shown here is military type of flying, trained in the german HEERESFLIEGER since 1960s. b) The Pilot was at least 50 years old, when this was recorded. c) he still lives d) No (ZERO) casualties in the German Heeresflieger while doing low level flying in 50 years of training. e) Numerous world championships in helicopter acrobatics for these guys

It’s hard to believe that no one was hurt in this emergency landing straight into a house:

Small plane crashes into Herndon apartment as family sleeps – The Washington Post

Ventura said he sprang from his bed to find a surreal scene: A small plane had crash-landed in his living room with its nose resting on the floor next to the fireplace. A battery sat on a sectional couch, and a yawning hole in the ceiling opened to the night sky.

As Ventura stood in shock, he said the pilot and a passenger clambered out of the cockpit of the single-engine Cessna 177, and an awkward moment ensued.

“The pilot asked if we were okay,” Ventura said. “I told him that we were all good.”

I was entranced by this feature in io9 on aviation graveyards, featuring amazing photographs from all over the world:

The World’s Most Bizarre Aircraft Graveyards

Also, loving this video as a plane taxis past the abandoned aircraft at Pinal Airpark, Arizona:

I would love to get the chance to fly over these places for a better look…

And because looking at dead planes can be sad-making, here’s a video of the first A350 XWB, freshly painted in Airbus livery.

Finally, I saw today that Why Planes Crash is #9 on Amazon in the top rated books in aviation. Thank you so much for supporting my project, it’s incredibly motivating. I can’t wait to show you all the next one!

I know, these are just too good to be true! I did try to find the original source but I failed miserably. Someone is always named as “real reports from” US Air Force, RAF, Qantas, you name it…but nothing actually ever traces back. So really, there’s no reason to believe any of these are real. Nevertheless, I laughed. Lots.

Enjoy:

Maintenance complaints submitted by pilots and the replies from the maintenance crews.

Problem: “Left inside main tire almost needs replacement.”
Solution: “Almost replaced left inside main tire.”

Problem: “Test flight OK, except autoland very rough.”
Solution: “Autoland not installed on this aircraft.”

Problem: “Something loose in cockpit.”
Solution: “Something tightened in cockpit.”

Problem: “Evidence of hydraulic leak on right main landing gear.”
Solution: “Evidence removed.”

Problem: “Number three engine missing.”
Solution: “Engine found on right wing after brief search.”

Problem:Turn and slip indicator ball stuck in center during turns.
Solution: Congratulations. You just made your first coordinated turn!

Problem: “DME volume unbelievably loud.”
Solution: “Volume set to more believable level.”

Problem: Dead bugs on windshield.
Solution: Live bugs on order.

Problem #1: “#2 Propeller seeping prop fluid.”
Solution #1: “#2 Propeller seepage normal.”
Problem #2: “#1, #3, and #4 propellers lack normal seepage.”

Problem: Autopilot in altitude hold mode produces a 200 fpm descent.
Solution: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.

Problem: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick.
Solution: That’s what they’re there for.

Problem: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer.
Solution: Took hammer away from midget

Problem: Aircraft handles funny.
Solution: Aircraft warned to: straighten up, fly right, and be serious.

Problem: Whining sound heard on engine shutdown.
Solution: Pilot removed from aircraft.

10. Bangkok

The easy place to start is the towering tower at Suvarnabhumi International Airport. This is the tallest free-standing control tower in the world at 135 metres (445 feet). But if the lift breaks, wow, that’s a whole lot of stairs to climb.

9. Lossiemouth

The caravan you can see on the right of this photograph is a “mobile air traffic control tower”. At RAF Lossimouth air base, the far western end is not in sight of the air traffic control tower, so they use this mobile tower to keep an eye on the western runway.

8. Dubai

This beautiful tower at Al Maktoum International Airport isn’t as tall as Bangkok’s, but it is the tallest freestanding tower in the Middle East. It isn’t officially open for passenger flights until October of this year but it’s planned to be the world’s largest passenger and cargo hub.

7. Aberporth

I admit it, I seem to have a thing for Air Traffic Control Towers that look nothing like Air Traffic Control towers. This one is in West Wales, at Aberporth airport, which is focused on drone research. The caption says that the tower is the home of John, the friendliest controller in the UK.

6. Anywhere

Need an Air Traffic Control Tower in a hurry? These Rapid Deployable ATC Towers look really useful! These self-contained units are transported by C-130 and C-17s and can be set up within an hour.

5. Antwerp

This beautiful twisting air traffic control doesn’t actually exist yet. In fact, it’s not an air traffic control tower at all. It was designed for the port of Antwerp by UN Studio. I don’t know that ships actually need such a high control tower, but once it is in place, I bet it’ll attract planes.

4. Milan

OK, this isn’t beautiful by any stretch of the imagination but I love it anyway. It looks like a giant robot. Also, this video of the window cleaners made me think that would be the funnest job ever.

3. Mumbai

This gorgeous red and white checked tower was designed to be visible from a distance. They sure have achieved that – it’s stunning! It’s also the highest tower in India at 83 metres / 272 feet.

2. Vancouver

The actual tallest-in-the-world control tower (not freestanding) is this one at Vancouver Harbour in Canada. It’s actually a relatively small tower …placed on top of the 142 metre / 466 foot skyscraper. Very clever!

1. Prestwick

I love this tower at RAF Prestwick more than any other tower in the world. Sadly it is gone: it was in use from 1943 to 1962 and then torn down when Prestwick Airport expanded.

Wingleigh

And finally, in the “seen better days” department, we have Wingleigh. This ATC tower in North Devon doesn’t seem like it would be very useful for plane spotting. The aerodrome closed in 1945. Apparently the tower is now being used as a sheep pen.

Here’s a summary what we know so far. All timestamps are in UTC: Java’s timezone is UTC+7 and Bali’s timezone is UTC+8.

05:45 Lion Air flight LNI 904 departs Husein Sastranegara International Airport, a scheduled passenger service from Bandung on Java to Bali.

On board the Boeing 737-800 were two flight crew, five flight attendants, ninety-five adult passengers, five children and an infant.

The Pilot in Command, the Captain, had 15,000 hours flying experience with 7,000 on type. His second-in-command had 1,200 hours, 923 on type.

The second-in-command was Pilot Flying and the Captain was Pilot Monitoring.

This was their last flight of the day: the final leg of a schedule that had them flying Palu-Balikpapan-Banjarmasin-Bandung-Bali. The flight was uneventful until the approach into Bali.

06:48 The flight crew contact Bali Approach and begin their descent.

06:59 The aircraft is vectored for a VOR/DME approach to runway 09 and cleared to continue the descent.

For a VOR/DME approach, you follow a specific route and descend based on your distance from the runway until you reach the minimum descent altitude (MDA) for that approach. As you approach the airfield, you should have the runway (and surrounding terrain) in sight.

Once you reach the minimum descent altitude, you must stop your descent unless you have the runway in sight and can continue the landing visually.

For a straight-in approach on Runway 09 at Ngurah Rai International, the minimum descent altitude is 470 feet.

If you do not have the runway in sight at the minimum descent altitude, you must stop your descent. You can continue your approach at that altitude until the missed approach point (MAP) which is a specific distance by DME from the runway. If you reach the missed approach point and still can’t see the runway, you must break off the approach and climb away.

07:04 The flight crew contact Ngurah Tower (Bali Control Tower).

It was raining and visibility was bad.

07:08 The aircraft is 1,600 feet above ground level. The controller at Ngurah Tower sees the aircraft on final approach and tells them they are clear to land.

07:08:56 At 900 feet above ground level, the Pilot Flying states that he does not have the runway in sight.

07:09:33 The Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System sounds an alert: MINIMUM, MINIMUM. The Boeing is now about 550 feet above ground level.

The Pilot Flying disengaged the autopilot and the auto throttle and continued his descent. They continued to their minimum descent altitude of 470 feet.

The pilot of an aircraft five nautical miles behind the Lion Air flight stated later that the crew could not see the runway at the minimum descent altitude and decided to go around. On their second approach, they made a safe landing.

07:09:53 The Boeing is approximately 150 feet above the ground. The Captain takes control of the aircraft as the Pilot Flying says again that he can’t see the runway.

07:10:01 The EGPWS sounds “TWENTY”. The Captain commands a go-around – that is, to break off the approach.

He took the right decision but he made it much too late. He should have stopped the descent at the minimum descent altitude of 470 feet. He should have commanded a go-around when his first officer stated he still couldn’t see the runway. He should have done something before the situation became critical.

One second later, it was all over.

07:10:02 The aircraft impacts the water.

The Boeing 737-800 came to a stop 20 metres from the shore, approximately 300 metres southwest of the runway threshold.

The pilot of an aircraft holding short on runway 09 contacted Ngurah Tower to say the Lion Air flight had crashed into the sea. The Tower Controller looked over and saw the Boeing tail section through the airport fence.

07:11 The Tower controller presses the crash bell and contacts the Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting team.

07:15 The Rescue team arrives on the scene

The Boeing 737-800 was submerged in 2-5 metres of shallow water with all the doors open. The right engine and the main landing gear were ripped off.

07:55 All occupants are evacuated from the submerged Boeing 737-800. Four passengers suffered serious injury and were taken to hospital.

All of the observed damage was consistent with post-accident contact with the sea floor, coral reef and sea wall.

Now an interesting point here is that when the investigators examined the wreckage, they found the flap handle in the flaps 15 position. The approach configuration was flap 40 and the flaps appeared to still be in the flap 40 position. This means that twenty feet above the ground, the Captain called for a go-around and one of them raised the flaps. I can’t help thinking that such a manoeuvre would cause twenty feet of sink right there, although I guess they impacted before the flaps actually moved. To be fair, at 20 feet at flaps 40, getting back up into the air was always going to be a challenge.

This is only a preliminary report but immediate safety recommendations have been made.

You won’t be surprised to hear that they are all focused on the training, policy and procedures for pilots at Lion Air.

4 SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of the factual information and initial findings, the National Transportation
Safety Committee issued immediate safety recommendations to address safety issues
identified in this report.

4.1 PT. Lion Mentari Airlines

• To emphasise to pilots the importance of complying with the descent minima of the published instrument approach procedure when the visual reference cannot be obtained at the minimum altitude.
• To review the policy and procedures regarding the risk associated with
  changeover of control at critical altitudes or critical time.
• To ensure the pilots are properly trained during the initial and recurrent training program with regard to changeover of control at critical altitudes and or critical time.

You can read the original report as a PDF document here: http://www.dephub.go.id/knkt/ntsc_aviation/baru/pre/Preliminary_Report_PK-LKS_Lion_Air.pdf

Southwest Flight 812 was climbing through 34,000 feet when there was the sound of an explosion and the oxygen masks dropped. The pilots, recognising a rapid decompression, immediately began a descent. A 5-foot by 1-foot (152cm by 30cm) tear in the fuselage skin opened the aircraft right up and the flight crew had no idea what was happening in the back. As they descended, they declared an emergency with the chilling words, “We’ve lost the cabin.”

The flight crew informed ATC that they were descending to ten thousand feet immediately and the controller correctly contacted the next sector on their behalf to pass on the situation.

5:58:35 R60: Yeah this is Sector uh sixty. Southwest eight twelve is a emergency decompression descent he’d like ten thousand feet. Can you approve that?
15:58:43 D31: Uh…
15:58:45 R60: He’s doin’ it anyway.
15:58:47 D31: Yes. Yes, approved.

I should bloody well hope so.

The final report has yet to be released but you can read my post written at the time here: We’ve Lost the Cabin: Southwest Flight 812. The preliminary report is here: Accident Investigations – NTSB – Rapid Decompression Due to Fuselage Rupture

5. Where’s that guy going?

To be fair, Dublin is a pretty confusing airport and it isn’t hard to get lost. The Monarch Airbus was running late and took a wrong turn. It might have been forgiven, if the flight crew hadn’t become completely disoriented and managed to blunder into the active runway. A Ryanair 737 had just commenced its take-off run when the Monarch flight began to cross on the far end.

The recording on the Ryanair CVR is of everyone talking at once:

Captain/First Officer: Where’s that Monarch/Where’s that guy going
First Officer: He’s taxiing out in front of us
Captain/First Officer: Stop/Abandon!

The Ryanair Captain initiated a high speed rejected take-off at 124 knots. By the time the Air Traffic Controller realised what was happening and shouted at the Ryanair to stop, the First Officer responded, we’re stopped.

The Ryanair flight returned to the stand to have its brakes inspected. Meanwhile, the Monarch flight continued on its way, taking off three minutes later. That’s probably the first time ever I’ve felt sorry for a Ryanair flight for being late.

You can read the full analysis of the incident here: Runway Incursion at Dublin

4. Remember that crazy guy…?

The Gulfstream III was cleared for a visual approach into Aspen but it was getting late and the weather wasn’t all it could be. The Captain said they’d try one approach and if they didn’t nail it, they would divert. But the aircraft was a private hire and the client was not impressed that they might not make the destination. Under pressure, the Captain and First Officer said they’d do their best, even while they watched the aircraft in front call missed approaches because they couldn’t see the runway.

“Remember that crazy guy,” says the First Officer, “in that Lear[jet] when we were … on the ground in Aspen last time and he [stated that he could] see the airport but he couldn’t see it?”

We’ll never know if the Captain remembered that crazy guy or not but the Captain proceeded to do exactly the same thing, heading away from the airport, which he thought was on his right. 12 minutes later, less than 500 feet over the ground, the aircraft did a sudden steep left turn, the first sign that he’d actually seen the runway. It was too late. The aircraft hit the ground at a 40° bank and the engines on full power and crushed up like an accordion.

This accident is covered in detail in my book, Why Planes Crash: 2001.

3. We’re still at 2,000 feet, right?

In 1972, Eastern Air Lines Flight 401 crashed into the Florida Everglades on approach to Miami. When they lowered the landing gear, the indicator didn’t come on for the nose wheel. The flight crew investigated the problem as the jet circled west over the Everglades at 2,000 feet. The Captain, First Officer, and Second Officer all focused on the problem, and a maintenance engineer on the flight joined them – and not a single one was watching the flight instruments. The Captain accidentally leaned against the yoke and the aircraft entered a slow descent.

There was nothing wrong with the nose gear. A $12 lightbulb in the control panel had burnt out. The First Officer’s final words were, “We’re still at 2,000 feet, right?” as the left wing hit the ground.

You can read the details of the accident here: Eastern Air Lines Flight 401

2. [*sound of laughing*] This is &$%!ing great!

A ferry flight and the crew were bored. So for a laugh, the pilots decided to find out how high the CRJ-200 could go.

They had to force it to keep climbing and pulled back hard at full power, stressing the engines. The aircraft slowly lumbered up into the thin air to FL410 (41,000 feet).

After the pilots overrode the anti-stall devices for the fourth time to keep the aircraft up there, both engines flamed out and the aircraft stalled. They tried to jumpstart the engines as they called ATC, declaring initially a single engine failure. Eventually they realised they weren’t going to get the engines running and admitted both engines were out. The crew tried to glide it into Jefferson City airport but the CRJ-200, at that moment with the aerodynamics of a brick, crashed 2 1/2 miles short of the runway.

The full report is here: Accident Investigations – NTSB – Crash of Pinnacle Airlines Flight 3701 and I’ll be covering this incident in the fourth book of the Why Planes Crash series.

1. Have You Ever Done a Barrel Roll in the Dark?

The ferry pilots of a Cessna Citation private jet were also probably just bored. It was a routine ferry flight from the Czech Republic to Sweden. Eleven minutes into the night flight, the aircraft disappeared from radar. It was a mystery — until the investigators listened to the Cockpit Voice Recorder. The two pilots started talking about barrel rolls – turning the plane into a horizontal corkscrew – and discussed whether either had ever tried one at night. The last clear decision was to try it and see. What’s the worst that could happen? They lost control and the aircraft plunged 20,000 feet into the forest before either of them had the chance to say “That was a really stupid idea.”

There’s a full blog post about the accident and German preliminary report here: Can a Citation Do Belly Rolls in the Dark?

Top tip for pilots: When you are having a laugh in the cockpit, think about how it is going to sound in the accident report.

If you found this post interesting, you’ll probably like Why Planes Crash, available now for just $3.99

• Amazon US: http://amzn.to/15vt87o
• Amazon UK: http://amzn.to/12cNpJt
• Nook: http://bit.ly/17JUVil
• Kobo: http://bit.ly/12cNsVn

If you don’t have an e-book reader and would prefer the book in PDF format, just email me at sylvia@fearoflanding.com and we’ll work something out.

Why Planes Crash focuses on 21st century aviation investigations and breaks them down into key factors. The first book of the series covers eleven accidents and incidents in 2001, including the disastrous runway incursion at Linate, the near-miss over Tokyo, the Avjet Aspent Crash, Twin Towers and American Airlines Flight 587 disintegrating over Queens.

Why Planes Crash: 2001 is available for you to buy at these fine online shops:

Amazon US: http://amzn.to/15vt87o
Amazon UK: http://amzn.to/12cNpJt
Nook: http://bit.ly/17JUVil
Kobo: http://bit.ly/12cNsVn

I’ve been waiting ages to be able to share the book with you. I hope you enjoy it!

Here’s the details as I understand them.

Crash: National Air Cargo B744 at Bagram on Apr 29th 2013, lost height shortly after takeoff

A National Air Cargo Boeing 747-400 freighter on behalf of US Mobility Command, registration N949CA performing cargo flight N8-102 from Bagram (Afghanistan) to Dubai Al Maktoum (United Arab Emirates) with 7 crew and cargo consisting of 5 military vehicles, has crashed shortly after takeoff from Bagram Air Base’s runway 03 at 15:30L (11:00Z) and erupted into flames near the end of the runway within the perimeter of the Air Base. All 7 crew are reported perished in the crash.

National Air Cargo confirmed their aircraft N949CA with 7 crew, 4 pilots, 2 mechanics and a load master – initial information had been 8 crew -crashed at Bagram. The airline later added, that the aircraft had been loaded with all cargo in Camp Bastion (Afghanistan, about 300nm southwest of Bagram), the cargo had been inspected at Camp Bastion, the aircraft subsequently positioned to Bagram for a refuelling stop with no difficulty, no cargo was added or removed, however, the cargo was again inspected before the aircraft departed for the leg to Dubai Al Maktoum.

The NTSB reported the Boeing 747-400 was operated by National Air Cargo and destined for Dubai Al Maktoum when it crashed just after takeoff from Bagram and came to rest within the boundaries of the Air Base. All 7 occupants, all American citizens, were killed.

It’s been said that the aircraft was carrying four or five MRAPs (an armoured fighting vehicle) and that one of the flight crew reported “load shift” on the radio directly before the crash, but I’ve not been able to verify either of these statements.

The aircraft was a Boeing 747 registration N949CA. Here’s a video of it landing at Amsterdam from earlier in the year:

National Airlines Cargo Boeing 747-400F [N949CA] *SMOOTH* landing @ Amsterdam Airport Schiphol – YouTube

Afghanistan 747 crash additional angles (original footage + CGI) – YouTube

Two reconstructed angles of the National Air Cargo 747 that crashed in Afghanistan on April 29, 2013. Created by object-tracking the original footage to create a flightpath (Audio simulated).

Statement from National Air Cargo

National Air Cargo will not speculate as to the cause of the accident involving National Flight NCR102. With our full cooperation, an investigation by appropriate authorities is under way, and we encourage everyone to join us in respecting that process and allowing it to take its appropriate course.

Here are some facts regarding the aircraft and its movements prior to the accident:

• National Flight NCR102 was en route to Dubai from Camp Bastian and had stopped to refuel at Bagram Air Base.
• The cargo contained within the aircraft was properly loaded and secured, and had passed all necessary inspections prior to departing Camp Bastian.
• The aircraft landed safely and uneventfully in Bagram.
• No additional cargo or personnel was added during the stop in Bagram, and the aircraft’s cargo was again inspected prior to departure.

Please visit www.nationalaircargo.com for updates regarding this tragic accident. Media inquiries can be directed to publicrelations@nationalairlines.aero.

About National Airlines:
National Airlines is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Air Cargo Holdings. National Airlines, based in Orlando, FL operates scheduled and on-demand cargo service globally and charter passenger service in the Middle East.

It’s not quite clear to me why an aircraft travelling from Camp Bastion to Dubai would go to Bagram for refueling:

National Air Flight 102: A Preliminary Report from NYC Aviation

The fact that the gear was down indicates that the crew was experiencing problems immediately after takeoff that focused their attention elsewhere. From the video, you can see the aircraft’s speed was deteriorating. There is a transient smoke stream from the engines just before the stall, which is an indication of an acceleration of the engine core’s RPM – the crew were likely firewalling the throttles. There was a light dip of the left wing at the beginning of the stall. The pilot likely countered with right rudder, a correct but excessive input that caused the aircraft to enter a spin to the right. At this point, airspeed appears to be nearly undetectable but probably around 100 knots.

Swept wing aircraft, especially ones with high angles of sweep like the 747, pitch up at the last moment of a stall before the nose drops and airspeed is recovered. In the video, the nose does not drop until the aircraft is on its side and rapidly losing altitude. Once the aircraft is on a knife-edge, the airflow will cause the vertical stabilizer to weather vane. This brings the nose down. During this time, the right rotation also stops. If there had been an engine failure, the rotation would have continued in the direction of the failed engine. As the wings are brought level, the nose down attitude remains stable through impact. At this point, there are vapor trails from the horizontal stabilizers and wing. This indicates a high pressure differential which is clearly from the high angles of attack on the surfaces.

The crew had a controllability problem that was present from rotation. Pilot training and instinct is to lower the nose if the aircraft is pitching up. This wasn’t possible. To put this aircraft in the position it was would have required excessive nose up elevator or excessive rear Center of Gravity (CG). Since this was a routine flight and the aircraft had not likely had major maintenance causing a critical failure of the flight controls, a rear CG is the likely problem.

This is also indicated on the final moments prior to impact. Had the CG been in the proper location, the nose down pitch would have continued as the CG forward of the wing’s lift would have accelerated towards the earth from gravity while the wing resisted this acceleration due to airflow (drag) on the wing, even with a major failure of the trim or elevator. Just prior to impact, the pitch remains mostly stable, indicating the CG was between the wing and tail, and the weight on each was proportional to the lift being generated. The proportion of the surface area of the wing to tail surface would be equal and inversely proportion of the CG between them. IE: if the surface area was 70% wing and 30% tail, the CG would be 30% back from the wing, or 70% forward of the tail.

There are many other possibilities, example pilot error. Though this is unlikely, these must be considered until conclusively found otherwise.

The Ministry of Transportation and Commercial Aviation in Afghanistan is investigating, joined by the American NTSB.

A devastating accident and heartbreaking video. I wish there were some result that could make it less tragic.

The Court Reporter has written up the case, including the claim that, “At one point, Marriott’s poorly-equipped Piper Super Cub was said to have been just 1,215 feet from a Ryanair Boeing 737.” I would have thought that if there was a real risk of collision, the pilot would have been charged with a lot more than “entering controlled airspace”. But the infringement did manage to cause a bit of havoc, to be sure.

On the 30th of September, the pilot flew the Piper Super Cub to the adorably named Cuckoo Tye Farm in Suffolk to visit a friend.

He said that he was returning to Tisted using the same route but the wind was strong and, although he was a confident navigator, he became lost.

The aircraft did not have GPS nor a mode-C transponder. He entered Stansted controlled airspace at 13:20.

You are required to have a transponder if you are flying in controlled airspace but, to be fair, he didn’t intend to fly into controlled airspace, he just got lost. He told the court that he recognised Stansted but misjudged the distance. He stated that he deliberately flew low level so that he would remain below commercial traffic.

However, that wasn’t very reassuring for the Air Traffic Controllers. They could see an unknown aircraft in their area but had no idea what height it was at – information which would have been passed on by the transponder. All departing flights were suspended while the Piper Super Cub “drifted” through Stansted and Luton airspace.

Infringements into control zones aren’t uncommon, especially in the southeast of England, where airspace is tight. I had an autopilot failure flying over White Waltham and I deviated slightly east while I tried to work out the problem – putting me just inside of Heathrow’s control zone. The friendly controller from Farnham, who was watching me on his radar, contacted me to ask if everything was OK (yes, sort of) before informing me what I’d done (Oh no!) and kindly offering me a heading to get the hell out before I caused chaos (Thank you, kind soul, whoever you are).

The key point though, is that the pilot needs to be talking to someone. I was lucky that the controller I was in contact with took the lead before I’d even realised I had gone astray. If he hadn’t, then the moment that I realised, it would have been my responsibility to tell someone.

I don’t have to know where I am to do this. A pan pan call can be used to declare any urgent problem. A pan pan call follows the same format as a Mayday call but tells the controller immediately that you are not in distress: that is there is no immediate danger to people or the aircraft. So a pilot would use a pan pan call for a fuel shortage, a navigational system failure or simply to let someone know as soon as possible that he is lost. In my case, I was already speaking to a controller who could see me on radar. Otherwise, I would have contacted the UK Distress and Diversion cell (D&D) on 121.5 (Civil Emergencies frequency).

A Piper Super Cub (not the aircraft involved in the incident) photographed by Geoff Collins and displayed under Creative Commons

So, the problem with this infringement into Stansted airspace is not that the pilot got lost. It’s that the pilot did not contact anyone in order to tell them that 1) he was lost, 2) he was flying at low level and 3) he would be happy with help to get back on track. The Magistrates chairman made this clear:

“You knew the airspace in this part of England is very congested and therefore the burden’s on you to be spot-on in your navigation.” He added that Marriott had recognised he was lost but repeatedly failed to contact air traffic control.

“While you knew what altitude you were at no-one else did, or what your intentions were. You felt safe but that’s not the point.”

The pilot, who pleaded guilty, argued that he was concentrating on his flying and navigation as per the golden rule of aviation: Aviate first, navigate second and communicate third. Clearly, his priority has to be to fly the plane: it would be ludicrous to try to speak to someone if the aircraft is not under control. But, by his own account, he was flying straight and level and at low altitude to avoid possible commercial traffic, so he was fine. Having screwed up on navigation, he needs to communicate that failure, rather than continue to bumble through, hoping that he will get it sorted.

After yesterday’s hearing, [the pilot] said he still had his licence and had not flown since although the ordeal had not put him off. “It was a frightening experience,” he said. “That’s why I deliberately didn’t contact anyone. I was still trying to work out where I was and where I was going.”

For eleven minutes, he caused a serious disruption across two major international airports who had no means of speaking to him. It was his job to communicate to someone what was happening, even if that is the uncomfortable admission that he had screwed up. He appears not to have grasped that although he felt safe, no one else knew that he was under the commercial traffic and out of the way.

He said he thought the CAA decision to prosecute was “incredibly harsh” over something he described as “one navigation error”.

Except that the problem was, it wasn’t just a navigation error. It was a continuing, eleven minute long, navigation error in which he entered Stansted and Luton’s airspace and did not contact anyone at that time to help them work around his error. In the end, he was fined £3,400 but kept his licence. To be honest, I think he was lucky that it wasn’t the other way around.

Meanwhile, because it is always a bit of a rush, some aspects of the blog have become neglected and my task today has been to clean that up.

First of all, I’ve completely restarted the mailing list, which has apparently been somewhat sporadic lately. I’ve created a sexy new mailing list with Mailchimp which will deliver a blog post to your inbox every Friday. The list is run by me, personally, and will not be used for anything other than blog updates.

So, here’s the fun bit:

The first book in the Why Planes Crash series is coming out next month, and I’ll be sending a free copy to one lucky person on the mailing list.

If you signed up for Feedburner previously, you’ll hopefully have found this email in your inbox already. If not, you can sign up right here:

Next Friday, I’ll randomly select a winner and contact you via email. So if you’d like a copy of the ebook, sign up!

I’ve also included a link in the right sidebar for subscribing. One of the things I like about Mailchimp is that it’s fast and easy to use with straight-forward options to sign-up and unsubscribe and that they make a real attempt to protect the readers (that’s you) from spam and unreasonable behaviour.

What I don’t like is that they insist on a physical address for the location of the blog. Needless to say, the address on the mailing list is not where the blog really lives. It lives in the cockpit of a Learjet currently cruising at 35,000 feet. Honest.

I’ve also updated the sidebars. On the left I’ve improved the background information a bit (although I’ve still left my plan to fly to all the islands – I’ve not given up yet!) and on the right I’ve made sure there’s a link to the email list, the RSS Feed and the Fear of Landing Facebook page.

I should mention: if you are on Facebook or Twitter, I’d love to link up. I update both with aviation links that I find interesting during the week and I am always happy to chat.

And just for fun: this video was posted today to /r/aviation and it really made me smile.

Have you ever wondered what airplanes do in the hangar after we leave?

Please let me know if you have any problems with the sign up and I’ll see you next week with more aviation news and a winner!