06 February 2015

TransAsia Flight 235 Inexplicably with No Engines

TransAsia Airways Flight 235 was a scheduled Taiwanese domestic flight from Taipei Songhan Airport to the Kinmen Islands.

The aircraft, registration B-228516, was a twin-engine turboprop made for regional airliners, the ATR 72. It can seat up to 74 passengers and is operated by a two-pilot crew. B-22816 had two Pratt & Whitney Canada PW127M engines and was less than a year old. There were five crew and 53 passengers on board. The flight crew consisted of three extremely experienced pilots. The Captain (Pilot Flying) had 4,914 flight hours and the First Officer had 6,922 flight hours. A flight instructor who was in the jumpseat had over 16,000 flight hours.

The aircraft took off from Taipei and climbed through 1,000 feet. Two minutes after take-off, the flight crew declared an emergency.

Control Tower [inaudible] … wind 100 degrees, 9.9 knots. Clear to take off.
TransAsia GE235 Clear to take off, runway 10, TransAsia 235
TransAsia GE235 Mayday! Mayday! Engine flameout
Control tower TransAsia 235, please try again. Contact Taipei Approach on 119.7
Control tower TransAsia 235. Control tower. … TransAsia 235, Control tower.

Contact was lost at 10:53 GMT, just two minutes after departure.

Flight 235 passed over the Huangong Viaduct, where multiple cars with dashcams inadvertently recorded the disaster.

TransAsia Airways Flight 235 – Wikipedia

The aircraft, flying level, first cleared an apartment building. Then it rolled sharply, at nearly a 90-degree bank angle, left wing down. As the aircraft flew low over the elevated viaduct, its left wingtip struck the front of a taxi travelling west on the viaduct, and the outboard section of the wing was torn off when it struck the concrete guardrail at the edge of the viaduct. Two people in the taxi were injured.

The following shows the aircraft in its last moments before it crashed into the Keelung River and the wreckage after (caution, may be disturbing).

As of today (6 Feb 2015), 15 people have been rescued. 35 occupants of the aircraft were killed in the crash and eight are missing. Two were injured on the ground when the aircraft hit a taxi on the road but suffered only minor injuries.

The Taiwanese Aviation Council has released some preliminary data from their investigation, specifically the engine plots from the flight-data recorder. All times are given in GMT.

The blue dotted line is the right-hand engine, engine #2, which is the one that had the original fault. The green line is the left-hand engine, engine #1.

10:51:XX TransAsia Flight 235 received take-off clearance
10:52:33 TransAsia Flight 235 handed off to departure
10:52:38 The aircraft had been airborne for 37 seconds and was at 1,200 feet above mean sea level when a master warning showed that the right-hand engine (engine #2) had failed.
10:52:43 The left-hand engine (engine #1) was throttled back
10:53:06 The right-hand engine (engine #2) auto-feathered.

The director of the Aviation Safety Council said in a press event that there was no flame-out. The right-hand engine shifted into idle mode but the oil pressure never changed. It’s unclear what triggered this.

10:53:12 Stall warning activated
10:53:18 Stall warning ceased

According to the Aviation Herald, at 10:53:19 the crew discussed that engine #1 had already feathered, the fuel supply had already been cut to the engine and they decided to attempt a restart of engine #1. However, I’ve not seen a copy of the cockpit voice recorder data or a news report that it is released, so I’m not sure where this information has come from.

However, there’s no doubt that at this point, the left-hand engine, that is the working engine, was shut down manually. Now the aircraft has no power.

10:53:21 Stall warning activated
10:53:34 Mayday call while multiple attempts were made to restart the engine
10:54:34 A second master warning activated

Half a second later, all devices on the aircraft stopped recording.

The actions of the pilots don’t make sense. They clearly believed that an engine had flamed out but even taking this into account, there’s no reason to shut down the other one. The ATR 72 can fly on just one engine so losing the right-hand engine would not have necessarily been an issue.

Right now, it looks suspiciously like this tragedy could have been averted if the pilots had done nothing at all. But this is surprising considering how experienced all of the pilots were and I’m still hoping there will be some other explanation.

The Taiwanese Aviation Safety Council is leading the investigation, with the French BEA representing the country of manufacture and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada representing the country of engine manufacture. They expect to release a preliminary report in 30 days.

30 January 2015

Cirrus SR22 ditching into Pacific captured on video

The U.S. Coast Guard has released video footage of a Cirrus SR22 ditching into the Pacific on the 25th of Jan.

The SR22 was being flown by a commercial pilot on a repositioning flight from Tracy, California to Maui. It’s a long flight and well out of range for a normal Cirrus SR22.

The aircraft was fitted with ferry tanks – extra fuel tanks meant for large water crossings. The flight was uneventful for the first 14 hours or so… until the aircraft was about 900 miles from Hawaii, when pilot realised he was unable to transfer fuel from his aft auxiliary fuel tank. The fuel transfer system had malfunctioned: although the aircraft had plenty of fuel for the remainder of the flight, the pilot was unable to get it to the engine.

The pilot contacted the Hawaiian National Coast Guard and told them that he had only three hours of fuel remaining, not enough to make it to land.

He said he would ditch the aircraft around 320 miles north east of Maui by deploying the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS).

The Coast Guard informed him of the cruise ship Veendam which was within his range and asked him to divert towards it. A Coast Guard HC-130 Hercules was deployed from Coast Guard Air Station Barbers Point on Oahu to assist and maintain communications. It must have been from there that the video footage was shot.

Once the pilot was near the cruise ship, around 250 miles northeast of Maui, he activated the CAPS and the parachute deployed.

The aircraft seemed to be almost floating as it descended until the impact with the water. If you watch the rocking of the aircraft as the pilot climbs out, you can see just how turbulent the sea was. At the time of the rescue, weather conditions were seas of nine to twelve feet and winds of 21-24 knots (40-45 kilometres or 25-28 miles per hour).

The aircraft sank very quickly after the pilot came free, possibly dragged under by the parachute.

The pilot inflated an emergency life raft and was rescued (“extracted”) about 30 minutes later by the crew of the cruise ship Veendam. He was unharmed.

There’s also a video taken within the cockpit at the same time. See the comments below for the link to the pilot’s video of the event taken on his mobile phone.

The NTSB reports that the investigation is in progress and the final report will be published on the NTSB website: WPR15LA089.

There is no intention to attempt to recover the aircraft. Poor plane…

23 January 2015

Actual Search Terms for Fear of Landing

One of the odd and amusing things about running Fear of Landing is discovering how visitors found the website. My favourite report is the search engine terms. If someone searches on key words or a phrase and then my website comes up in the list of relevant sites, they can click straight through to Fear of Landing and I get a record of what they were searching for when they found me.

A lot of these are exactly what you’d expect for a website like mine: searches on specific crashes or questions to do with aviation. Sometimes, though, it gets a little bit odd. Here’s the highlights of search terms that lead to Fear of Landing in 2014.

Most common searches

  • Boston John
  • Red Arrows
  • Vesna Vulovic
  • George Aird

Someone who couldn’t quite remember the name of my blog

  • scared of landing visit to blackpool airport atc

Multiple searches which led searchers to the wrong site (is this a thing?)

  • sexy nude skydiving stewardess

Search that I should know the answer to but don’t

  • what is the largest plane that can land at swansea airport

A searching question

  • flying into an area unknown to you, the approach procedure goes below the required visual and weather minimums – the captain elects to continue saying he has flown the procedure ‘numerous times’ – what would you do

Searches that will probably never be answered on Fear of Landing

  • what are best ever sex stories with air hostess in hindi
  • shark tail how it prevents dipping of its snout (mechanics)

Least useful keywords for a perfectly valid search

  • at what time (local) did the ups flight depart dubai international airport on its fateful last flight on

Search most likely to end up as an exam question

  • an airplane is flying at 450km/hr at a constant altitude of 5km. It is approaching a camera mounted on the ground

Search from pilot who is seriously planning ahead

  • which aircraft have more ability to land on a flooded runway between boeing 737-800 and airbus 319 320

Search most in need of more details

  • why didn’t pilot try to make it to ho chi ming for emergency landing

Quiz night search

  • do planes land with or against traffic on emergency landings in the street

Most unexpected search

  • women wearing masks breathing hard flickr

Search pilot should have made BEFORE the flight

  • what will happen if I infringed controlled airspace

Bragging search (My boyfriend has done this too)

  • i slept with a pilot

Important search that I just can’t help with

  • con man? a man with a british accent from california claims he is a ww2 pilot

And finally…

Search most likely to inspire me to write a new article

  • are the birds of prey at prestwick airport trained not to fly away

To be fair, the report results actually show that most of you are sane and interested aviation enthusiasts. But now and then, I have to admit, I have to wonder…

16 January 2015

50/50 Blame for Pilot and Skydiver in Mid-Air Collision

The final report ERA14LA146 was released last month for the incredible collision between an aircraft and a parachutist with only minor injuries (and a totalled Cessna) as a result.

The accident happened at South Lakeland Airport in Florida on the 8th of March 2014. It was a clear day, blue skies and a light 3-5 knot wind. South Lakeland Airport is an uncontrolled grass strip at the edge of Lakeland’s Class D airspace.

The pilot was an 87-year-old WWII veteran who has been flying all his life. He was flying in the circuit and had done three touch-and-go landings on runway 32: touching down on the runway to immediately take off and go again. He was aware that skydiving operations were in progress.

While he was flying, another aircraft with a group of parachutists had departed South Lakeland Airport and climbed to jump altitude. The skydiver in question was the 4th skydiver to jump. He deployed his parachute and manoeuvred to be parallel to the runway. He was watching another skydiver at about the same altitude and then initiated a left-turn so that he would land into the wind. His approach path crossed the approach end of runway 32.

Meanwhile, the pilot called out that his next approach would be for a full-stop landing; he was finished practising for the day.

Robert Goyer of FLYING knows the airfield and wrote about it a few days after the accident.

Insight: Parachute-Cessna 170 Midair Collision | Flying Magazine

The airport is pretty small, and there’s a two-lane highway immediately to the east lined by power lines, which you can see in the photographs. There are tall trees at the departure end of the runway, but with more than 3,000 feet of available runway, the power lines are the greater hazard until after you’ve climbed out initially. On approach to Runway 32, there are high tension lines. It feels as though you’re descending into a funnel with only one place to go. On approach to Runway 32, where the Cessna was doing touch and goes, you can go missed in a emergency by executing a right turn over the airport grounds. Otherwise, once you’re as low as the Cessna was and already rotating for a touch and go, the options are even more limited.

What’s clear is that neither of them had seen the other and both were on their final approaches without any awareness of a conflict.

The Cessna 170 was on short final coming in to land as the skydiver glided across the runway. They were 75 feet above the ground when the pilot saw the skydiver.

“A parachutist dropped down in front of me and was going to land in the center of the approach end of the runway.”

Tim Telford was taking photographs of the skydiver as he was about to touch down and he couldn’t believe what he saw.

The pilot immediately climbed in a desperate attempt to avoid the man who had effectively dropped into his view. However, he wasn’t able to climb over the parachute and his right wing caught the parachute’s suspension lines.

The Cessna pitched up and then down. The skydiver was pulled up into the air like a marionette and then dropped to the ground as the nose of the plane sliced through the strings of his parachute. The aircraft crashed nose-first into the runway.

Unbelievably, both the pilot and the skydiver suffered only minor injuries. They were taken to hospital immediately but suffered only bruises, no broken bones.

The Cessna 170, on the other hand, was a write-off.

The NTSB report categorised the accident as a “collision with terrain/object (non-CFIT)” and “Uncontrolled descent” which I suppose is the closest they have for a mid-air collision of man and plane.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The failure of the pilot and the parachutist to see and avoid each other, which resulted in the airplane’s wing colliding with the parachute’s suspension lines.

The point is that both the pilot and the skydiver were responsibile to “see and avoid” the other traffic in the circuit. The fact that neither of them had a clue that the other one was there means that they were both at fault for the resulting collision.

I’m lucky enough to have never flown into an airfield at the same time as parachutists were dropping. I’ve been a passenger, though, and it’s a case of constant looking out and making sure that you know where the jumpers are and that there’s no chance of getting close to them.

Insight: Parachute-Cessna 170 Midair Collision | Flying Magazine

Even if the high wing of the 170 hadn’t blocked the vision of the pilot — and who looks for parachute traffic on rotation? — there was probably not enough time to get stopped without there being a collision. The pilot, likewise, was surely busy on the arrival over trees and power lines before setting up for the touch and go.

The parachutist likely had few options as well. New chutes are fairly maneuverable compared to old fashioned models, but there’s only so much a chutist could do under the circumstances, especially since he’d just cleared power lines behind him.

It does seem a bit unfair to the pilot, as the skydiver was out of his drop zone and should not have been landing on the active runway. I just think that on short final, you can’t really expect to see someone coming dropping down onto you from above. Your attention is ahead of you, gauging the touchdown point and ensuring that the runway is free of obstructions; I don’t think it would occur to me to be looking up!

The good news is that both pilot and skydiver were fine and said they planned to continue their hobbies despite the scare.

And Tim Telford got the photographs of his life!

09 January 2015

A Drone and the Man who Loves It

I have posted a few times about the dangers of drones but this video shows what can be done with a remote controlled model aircraft. It has everything: suspense, intrigue and action. It’s the touching story between a drone at the edge of its life and the Dutchman who loves it.

Zwier Spanjer got a DJI Phantom 2 for Christmas and spent the day flying it around the local park in the Netherlands. He was having so much fun, he forgot to watch the power.

Just watch:

When the DJI gets low on power, it goes into auto-land mode which is why it is slowly descending. You can see the owner and his friends watching from the street.

Of course, someone has already done a Whitney Houston homage:

I know I complain about reckless usage of these now that they’ve become affordable and popular but I do love the camera footage that comes from them!

02 January 2015

Five Aircraft That Did Not Crash In Thunderstorms

OK, that title is a bit misleading because there are thousands and thousands of aircraft that haven’t crashed in thunderstorms. Even counting only commercial airliners then, according to How many planes and passenger are there in the world? (Livecounter), there are 19,025 of them around the world right now. All of these have not crashed flying through a thunderstorm.

However, there’s a number of aircraft which have flown through thunderstorms and ended up in trouble. Some of them did crash. Others got away with a hard landing. What they have in common is that it wasn’t just the weather. The thunderstorm alone didn’t result in an immediate crash scenario.

Thunderstorms aren’t safe. Aircraft will make great detours in order to avoid flying through one. But in a commercial jet, flying through a thunderstorm doesn’t mean certain death or that the aircraft is going to fall to pieces. A pilot avoids flying through a thunderstorm for three reasons: it’s uncomfortable, it’s unpredictable and it’s a hostile environment for aviation. Aircraft in a thunderstorm are subjected to updrafts, downdrafts, icing, heavy precipitation and lightning, all of which have a level of risk associated with them.

The truth is, flying through a thunderstorm makes the aircraft a hell of a lot more vulnerable. When combined with general risks, such as aircraft structural integrity and human factors, the likelihood of an incident is increased.

Thunderstorm and icing shouldn’t have caused this aircraft to crash

We have to start with the obvious example: Air France flight 447. This has come up a lot when discussing AirAsia flight QZ8501 because there are some core similarities. Both aircraft were flying in thunderstorm conditions. Neither aircraft made a mayday call and in both instances the aircraft simply disappeared from radar. In the case of Air France flight 447, it took a week to find the initial wreckage in the South Atlantic ocean, quite a bit longer than the three days of searching for QZ8501. Finding the black box itself took almost two years but in the shallow waters of the Java Sea, it should be possible to locate the AirAsia black box very quickly: weeks, not years.

Air France flight 447 flew directly through a large system of thunderstorms and the pitot tubes became obstructed by ice crystals. The pitot tubes work as speed sensors and, without this data, the autopilot could not keep control of the aircraft. The aircraft was straight and level: if the flight crew had done nothing at all, the issue would have almost certainly resolved itself in a few minutes. But instead the Pilot Flying pulled the stick back, causing the aircraft to go into a climb and lose speed. The flight crew did not follow the correct procedure for loss of displayed airspeed information and appeared to be very confused by the situation. The confusion in the cockpit lasted until the aircraft crashed. In the most alarming human factors crash of the decade, the Pilot Flying effectively flew the Airbus A330 into the ocean.

Flying too high

Pulkovo Aviation Enterprise Flight 612 was a Tulopev 154 passenger airline which crashed north of Dontesk in 2006. The area was beset by heavy thunderstorms. The flight crew made a mayday call to report that they were experiencing severe turbulence as they approached the storm area. Two minutes later, the aircraft disappeared from radar. However, it was not the turbulence that brought the aircraft down. The flight crew initially tried to outclimb the thunderstorm, hoping to fly over the top, which may have been the same plan as the AirAsia flight had.

That day, it was an impossible task. The thunderstorm front was extremely high, with the clouds peaking out between 40,000 and 50,000 feet. Nevertheless, the flight crew climbed from their cruising altitude of 35,000 feet to their maximum altitude of 39,500 feet. Untrained in flying at high altitudes, they did not appear to have any idea of the risk

The maximum altitude of an aircraft is the highest altitude at which the aircraft can sustain level flight. As they flew through the thunderstorm, they were subjected to a severe updraft which lifted the aircraft to 42,000 feet in a matter of seconds. The angle of attacked increased and the airspeed dropped to zero. The air density was so low that the aircraft was no longer capable of flight. It fell into an unrecoverable spin. This flat spin is where a plane spins on its belly and gains no airspeed. Witnesses on the ground watched the aircraft spin into the ground at low speed but there was not a thing that the pilots could do.

In-flight break up near a storm

There was one incident in Florida where the wings broke off of a single engine aircraft flying in thunderstorm weather in Florida. The Pilatus PC-12 was flying at 26,000 feet when ATC cleared him to deviate right to avoid adverse weather ahead. As the pilot was turning to the right into cloud, the autopilot disengaged.

However, instead of taking control, the pilot ran through a test of the autopilot to see if it was working normally. Meanwhile, the aircraft continued in an uncontrolled turn. While he was testing, the aircraft dropped into a spin.

At 15,000 feet and travelling at about 338 knots, 175 knots above the maximum operating speed of the aircraft, the pilot appears to have finally realised that the aircraft, and not the autopilot, needed his full attention. He pulled back hard on the yoke, trying to yank the aircraft back up to straight and level. He effectively tore his wings off.

Struck by Lightning

In 2003 in Norway, a turboprop was struck by lightning. Generally speaking, lightning has no effect on modern aircraft, however in some instances the aircraft can lose functionality. In this instance, the flight crew were flying to Bodø in a Dornier 228 when they were confronted with a “wall of clouds”. The storm cells were reported as containing heavy precipitation and intense lightning activity.

Another aircraft reported a lightning strike as it was approaching Bodø airport. The Dornier 228 elected to approach from the opposite direction and communicated with Air Traffic Control about the weather and how to avoid the worst of the storms. The aircraft was at 6,000 feet when it entered heavy turbulence and the flight crew commented that the weather radar didn’t seem to be giving correct information. Thirty seconds later, a bolt of lightning hit the baggage door on the nose.

The crew were blinded for about half a minute. When they recovered, they discovered that their elevator, which controls pitch, wasn’t working correctly. By the time that the Captain took control, the aircraft speed had decayed to a stall. The aircraft stopped climbing at 7,800 feet. The flight crew used engine power to increase the airspeed and the aircraft continued its climb to 9,000 feet. The flight crew regained some control of the pitch using the elevator trim and were able to fly the aircraft to Bodø Airport, where they were given clearance to do whatever was needed to get the aircraft onto the ground. On the second attempt, they were able to get the turboprop onto the runway. They landed hard, snapping off the wheels, but there were no injuries.

The investigation found that there was considerable corrosion of the wires in the bonding and that some 30% of the wires may have been damaged previous to the lightning strike. As a result, the aircraft’s bondings couldn’t conduct the electric energy from the lightning and the transfer rod, which connected the elevator to the cockpit, was broken.

Into the Heart of the Storm

In 2002, an aircraft ditched into the river in Indonesia after flying through a severe thunderstorm. Garuda flight 421 was a Boeing 737 on a domestic flight when thunderstorms closed in, leaving the flight crew with nowhere to turn. They encountered severe turbulence and rain and hail clattered against the aircraft. The cockpit voice recording includes the sound of rain hitting the fuselage. The rain and hail is so torrential, it is almost impossible to hear the conversation in the cockpit. The recording was entered into the sound database of the UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch who found that the rain was the heaviest ever recorded on a cockpit recorder. Based on tests, investigators believe that the aircraft encountered hail/water content as high as 18 grams of hail per cubic metre of air. This is the equivalent of flying through 10,000 ice cubes per second.

The hail ingested by the engines was well above the certified levels. The engines both flamed out. The flight crew attempted to relight the engines but as they were still flying through the heavy precipitation, the first attempts didn’t work.

As if the situation wasn’t horrific enough, during the flight crew’s second attempt to relight the engine, the aircraft lost all power. The flight crew couldn’t know it at the time but investigators discovered that there was a fault in the newest cell of the battery: the level of electrolyte in that cells was much lower than the others. This denied the crew any chance of restarting the engines.

In a somewhat miraculous ending to a horrific situation, the captain managed to glide the Boeing 737 onto the Bengawan Solo River, where it came to a halt facing upstream with the nose up and pointing slightly to the right. There was only one fatality on impact, a cabin crew member. The rest of the crew and all of the passengers were rescued with only minor injuries by local villagers.


The point of this is not to strike fear into the hearts of nervous passengers but to try to explain how thunderstorms are dangerous and why pilots and air traffic control will work together to avoid them. Stormy weather rarely ends in disaster for commercial jets. In those instances where it is a contributing factor, we almost always see some other issue: bad training, human error or maintenance issues which are the actual cause of the crash.

So when you hear about thunderstorms ahead, don’t panic. Flying through a thunderstorm doesn’t make an aircraft spontaneously wreck like hitting an iceberg at sea.

26 December 2014

Most Popular Aviation Pieces in 2014

Long dark nights are slowly receding as we pass the winter solstice and head back towards Spring. I can tell you, I’m seriously looking forward to 2015: I have great expectation of fun projects and lots of writing and hopefully even a bit of flying.

This year’s most popular posts are an interesting mix as quite a few of them were not posted this year. They gained belated attention through posts on aviation message boards, Reddit and searches for information, which means some unexpected posts like those in the history category did especially well.

I made one change: I didn’t count posts to do with MH370 and MH17. I feel these were high at the time as we all tried to make sense of the mystery of the disappearing aircraft but they have not been updated since the initial posts and may now hold information that has since been corrected. None of them appears in the top posts of the last few months, that is, there was a spike of interest which has now receded.

(Obligatory pitch: if you are interested in reading more about MH370, then take a look at my book, The Mystery of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370. It does not cover the last few months of search news but the details of the flight and the list of theories regarding the aircraft’s disappearance are completely up-to-date.)

So, here are the posts which were the most popular in 2014!

Number One: The Story Behind an Unbelievable Photograph

I wrote this November 2013 because I loved the photograph and wanted to know how it happened. Clearly, a lot of people have the same question: it has turned out to be my most popular post ever.


Number Two: Boston John

Air Traffic Controller John Melecio, also known as “Boston John,” is one of the most famous ATC controllers today. When he was controlling from Boston Tower, he was always lively and humorous, gathering a following all over the world. Listeners on LiveATC.net posted to the forums whenever he was on air so fans could tune in and hear him live.

When I wrote about John Melecio, I didn’t realise he was quite that famous but two years later, this post is one of the most often linked to from avation groups talking about ATC.


Number Three: FAA Approved?

I found this on an aviation forum and I just can’t stop staring at the photographs.

This is the sixth year in a row that this series of photographs is in my top five posts. I have to admit, I never get tired of looking at his repairs.


Number Four: Overloaded, Overspeed and Out of Fuel

The situation started quietly: a Boeing 757 inbound to Newcastle International Airport (NCL) was asked to do a go around: break off the approach and try again.

The Thomas Cook aircraft was a Boeing 757-237 registration G-TCBC. There were seven crew on board and 235 passengers. The crew was scheduled for an early morning flight from Newcastle to the Canary Islands, landing at Fuerteventura and returning to Newcastle that afternoon. They could expect to be home for suppertime.

At less than a month old, I’m surprised to see this accident report in the top ten, but it is a hard-to-believe incident in which a relatively standard sequence of events almost turned into disaster.


Number Five: Six Exclamations You Never Want to Hear in the Cockpit

“Have You Ever Done a Barrel Roll in the Dark?”

This was a selection of six accidents with wince-worthy cockpit conversations shortly before things went pear-shaped. Most of these are accidents I covered on the site and I thought I’d try a different way of doing a round-up of interesting accidents. It seems to have worked.


Number Six: B-1B with its Nose to the Ground

On the 5th of October in 1989, a B-1B Lancer departed Dyess Air Force Base with four crew on a routine training flight. Three hours later, the flight crew discovered that the aircraft had a hydraulics fault. As they came in to land at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, the front landing gear failed to lower. They circled the airfield for four hours, twice being refuelled by an airborne tanker, as they struggled to lower the nose wheel. Supporting the crew on the ground were military personal and mechanics for the aircraft manufacturer; however they were unable to resolve the issue.

The video of this landing was released last year and clearly you all found it as fascinating as I did.


Number Seven: A Fun Set of Videos for the Weekend

These are all good-hearted aviation videos which are being passed around that I thought you might enjoy. Surely you can’t have already seen them all!

All I can say is you all must have been seriously bored that weekend…


Number Eight: Pilot Suicides: Fact vs Fiction

One of the claims by Ewan Wilson which is making headlines is that he “found” five flights which he believes were also caused by suicidal pilots.

To clarify, to “find” these cases, you just need to go to the Aviation Safety Network, where there is a list of aircraft accidents caused by pilot suicide. ASN lists nine cases there but Wilson is clearly talking about commercial pilots carrying passengers. That leaves us with five cases, all totally documented.

Each of these five commercial pilots flying a scheduled passenger service is believed (by some investigating bodies, although not all) to have committed suicide, taking their aircraft and their passengers with them: an especially horrifying type of mass murder.

A straight-forward look at five possible pilot suicides in commercial aircraft, in the context of what might have happened to Malaysia Airlines flight 370. The hardest part of writing this piece was keeping it short; I could have written so much more detail on any one of the five flights.


Number Nine: Captain Fired After Nose-Wheel Landing

Another relevant point is that the Captain had been watching the approach on the Heads Up Display. The Jeppesen approach plate (11-1) for ILS Runway 4, states that the VGSI [PAPI] and ILS glidepath are not coincident. This means that even coming down perfectly on the PAPI, the aircraft could show as high on the ILS glideslope. The NTSB have so far makes no comment as to whether this may have led the Captain to overreact as the approach appeared higher than it was.

This is an unusual case where the Captain took control of the aircraft at the very last moment and caused the aircraft to land hard on the nose wheel. I wrote this up based on the preliminary reports and am interested to see if the final report offers any further information.


Number Ten: Near Miss at Barcelona

Last week, a plane spotter named Miguel Angel was filming flights coming into Barcelona airport when he captured this video. Five days later, that video has had over 20 million views.

The final report on this incident is still not out, which is a shame. I’d love to know how it happened.


And that’s the top ten posts that you all enjoyed en masse in 2014. If you have a personal favourite post, please tell me in the comments!

Meanwhile, Anna’s busy putting together a set of her favourite aviation pieces from 2014 on Facebook. Keep an eye out for that here: Fear of Landing on Facebook

I hope we have a lot more interesting aviation news and analysis for you in 2015!

19 December 2014

Near Miss with Drone at Heathrow

Last week, an Airprox Report was released regarding an incident in Heathrow airspace. An airprox is the term for a situation where the pilot or air traffic controllers believe that the distance between aircraft (taking into account relative positions and speed) are such that the safety of the aircraft involved may have been compromised.

FAQ Details | UK Airprox Board

If a pilot or controller is of the opinion that the distance between aircraft as well as their relative positions and speed was such that the safety of the aircraft involved was or may have been compromised then he or she may report an Airprox. In Airprox 016/2002 for example, the separation recorded on radar between the two aircraft was 400ft vertically and 3 miles horizontally: this is hardly a ‘near miss’ in the way people generally use these words. In the judgement of the air traffic controllers who reported the event it was an Airprox and was therefore fully investigated and assessed by the Airprox Board.

This particular airprox report is interesting because it involves a British Airways passenger plane and an a unmanned aircraft.

On the 22nd of July 2014, an Airbus 320 was on short final to land at Runway 09 Left at Heathrow. The weather was clear and the visibility was good. The pilot saw a small black object as the aircraft descended past 700 feet. He described it as a small radio-controlled helicopter and said that it passed about 20 feet over his left wing.

The model helicopter did not strike the aircraft and there was no further issue, however as the report notes, it was a serious distraction at a critical level of flight. The pilot reported it immediately to Heathrow Tower who warned inbound aircraft of the unidentified object but no further sightings were made.

At 700 feet, it seems likely that the “helicopter” was a multi-rotor aircraft using GPS, which can easily be bought in any enthusiast shop.

The Airprox Board worked with the local model-flying-club but were not able to identify the unmanned aircraft nor trace the operator.

AIRPROX REPORT No 2014117

The Board members were satisfied that the A320 crew had seen a model helicopter and were of the unanimous opinion that the operator of the model had chosen to fly it in an entirely inappropriate location. That the dangers associated with flying such a model in close proximity to a Commercial Air Transport aircraft in the final stages of landing were not self-evident was a cause for considerable concern.

A spokesman for the CAA told the BBC that the CAA had to depend on people using their common sense when they operated drones.

It seems odd to even have to point that out, but a similar event at Stockholm resulted in the operator of a drone blissfully unaware that he’d just shut down the airport.

That was just last week, when Stockholm-Bromma Airport had reports of a drone in the local area. The Swedish CAA closed the Bromma CTR for all traffic below 2000 feet which stopped all flights going into and out of the airport.

An hour later they found the man operating the drone. He was documenting the construction of a motorway and had no idea about airspace or that there were any restrictions on where he could fly his drone.

A powerful drone bought on the high street will weigh 7-10 kilograms; large enough to cause real danger to commercial aircraft. The U.S. Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) has stated that reports of drones flying dangerously close to passenger aircraft is becoming a daily occurrence. The fact that they are flown at low altitudes mean that they are often interfering with aircraft on final approach, as in the Heathrow incident.

In the UK, an unmanned aircraft must remain within the line of sight of the person operating it and must not be flown within 150 metres (492 feet) of a congested area or large group of people. In the US, they may not be flown above 400 feet. Both countries have an exclusion zone around commercial airports where no unmanned aircraft can be flown without ATC permission.

Having seen the issue with lasers over the past few years, however, I suspect the issues with hobbyist drones at airports has only just begun.

12 December 2014

Plane vs Truck

This photograph is so remarkably perfectly timed, I thought it must be a still from an action movie or television series, done with special effects.

It turns out it’s absolutely a case of impeccable photography by Mr Robert W Madden, who was at the right place at the right time and managed to frame the shot perfectly.

It was taken in Guatemala in the aftermath of a magnitude 7.5 earthquake which struck Guatemala City on the 4th of February 1976.

Earthquake rocks Guatemala City — History.com This Day in History — 2/4/1976

It was 3:04 a.m. when the first large tremor, centered six miles under the Earth’s surface 120 miles northwest of Guatemala City, struck. The quake was the result of a clash between the Caribbean and North American plates on the Motagua Fault. In a matter of minutes, about one third of the city was destroyed. All over the city, sleeping residents were crushed and killed when their weak adobe homes collapsed on top of them.

Immediately, efforts began to rescue the thousands of people buried beneath the rubble. Many people could not be saved, as it was extremely difficult to get help to the city. The roads and bridges leading to Guatemala City had been extensively damaged. Thousands of those people lucky enough to be pulled out alive suffered broken backs and pelvises. It is estimated that more than 70,000 people suffered serious injuries. The U.S. Air Force assisted by airlifting food and medicine into the area. With all the available hospitals filled beyond capacity, the United States also set up a field hospital in Chimaltenango. The number of deceased overwhelmed the authorities, so communal grave sites had to be established. To make matters worse, strong aftershocks followed for an entire week, terrorizing the survivors, who were staying in improvised shelters.

Bob Madden worked for National Geographic magazine and was in Guatemala covering the rescue and recovery operations. He had apparently just disembarked from another aircraft and was standing on the highway near Sanarate.

The rescue plane was bringing food and medicine to the quake victims. It was trying to land on the highway when it got caught in strong crosswinds.

Amazingly, no one was seriously injured. The two men on the left of the photograph leapt from the pick-up truck just before the crash, adding an undeniable personal aspect to this unbelieveable photograph of the aircraft impacting the truck.

The spectacular photograph was featured in the June 1976 issue of National Geographic which was dedicated to the earthquake. This year Natijonal Geographic editors featured it as one of their 50 Greatest Pictures in a special in National Geographic magazine. It also won second prize in the “Spot News” category for 1976, which makes one wonder what the first prize photograph could possibly have shown.

Bob Madden has a great photography blog with tips and tricks as well as the opportunity to join him on a photo safari or photography workshop. In a post about patience, he has a published a number of his best photographs where he cites the amount of time it took him to get the photograph. Most of them are quite long: 15 days, five months, four hours. Underneath the photograph of the plane crash, however, it simply says Two seconds!.

It’s a brilliant example of how skill and instinct can make all the difference when you are in the right place at the right time.

I wasn’t able to find anything out about the plane or the pilot, although I did discover that you can buy a greeting card of the photograph. I have to admit, I’m not sure what the appropriate occasion might be.

05 December 2014

A Fun Set of Videos for the Weekend

These are all good-hearted aviation videos which are being passed around that I thought you might enjoy. Surely you can’t have already seen them all!

Note: if you are reading this in your inbox, you’ll need to click through to the post in order to see all the embedded videos.

If you aren’t reading this in your inbox, why not sign up now! You’ll get the posts emailed to you each Friday (and nothing else, no spam).

This viral video shows real community spirit, when an aircraft full of passengers got out into weather of -50C to push their aircraft onto position on the runway:

One of the passengers puts it simply: “We all want to get home.”


This is closer to power lines than I ever want to be in a flying machine:

They are fixing damaged wires and cables on live high voltage power lines. I was holding my breath while I watched.


I have seriously always wanted a jetpack:

In my imagination they would be a bit more portable and less like a strapped on car, though.


This video is a bit older but still quite frightening to watch from the 6 minute mark onwards:

Spoiler: the Cap-21 at College Park Airshow was able to land safely despite the lack of a propellor.


I found this documentary about the Hawker Hunter is fascinating:

The Hawker Hunter is a subsonic British jet aircraft developed in the 1950s. The single-seat Hunter entered service as a manoeuvrable fighter aircraft, and later operated in fighter-bomber and reconnaissance roles in numerous conflicts.


An amazing video of atmospheric affects around aircraft:

Fantastic and surreal footage taken when the dew point and the air temperature line up to show trailing vortices and wing condensation.


I’m still amazed by the A350 formation flight in September. Airbus have now released a “making of” video about how they did it.

The attention to detail is very telling and it’s just wonderful to see those five aircraft flying together again. Full credit to Airbus for making this excellent display and allowing us a view behind the scenes.


And finally, this documentary follows the final flight of a Qantas Boeing 767-300ER as it goes to Victorville* airplane graveyard, “where planes go to die.”

I have to admit, I felt a bit teary eyed for the poor little Boeing.


I hope you enjoyed those. See you next week!

* Little known fact: when I was 16, an earnest young gentleman asked me to run away to Victorville with him to get married and live happily ever after. If I’d known about the airplane graveyard back then, I might have been tempted!