| | | |

Nigerian Goats Invade Runway

Similar Posts

  • | | | |

    Nigerian Aviation Under Scrutiny

    The numbers for the Dana Air crash may be as high as 222: 153 passengers and crew and a possible 69 ground casualties. The Voice of America puts the Nigerian death toll from 110 recorded crashes since 1943 with a total of 1500 fatalities. AllAfrica puts that number at 162 fatalities and 16 crashes.

    Can we say there has been improvement when there were three crashes in 2005-2006 that killed a whopping 320 people? Regardless of the exact recorded figures, the list of Nigerian plane crashes makes a long, sad story. Carriers have a history of financing problems or corruption.

    Prior to Dana Air, the last big crash was Oct. 29, 2006, when an Aviation Development Co. flight from Abuja to Sokoto crashed, killing 96 people after two minutes in the air. There was also the Bellview Airlines Crash in 2005, and Sosoliso Airlines–a plane full of children.

    On Wednesday Nigeria’s Federal Executive Council established a nine-man Technical and Administrative Review Panel headed by Group Captain John Obakpolor to “determine the remote and immediate causes of the crash.” But here’s the problem–studies have already been made, and findings found. But where is the implementation of concrete reform?

    Is Nigerian aviation industry in a tailspin? We can only hope that progress is being made in this country where governmental corruption has rendered airline regulation ineffective. We have seen time and again in aviation safety, when corners are cut, lives are lost.

    After looking at the November 2006 ICAO audit here, we can only hope that Nigeria will redouble its efforts at aviation safety reform.

    NTSB Investigation Arrives in Lagos
    Questions follow Dana Air
    Dana Air Semantic Wars
    Husband Files Dana Air Flight 992 Lawsuit
    Dana Air’s license Suspended
    Witnesses of the Dana Air Crash Recount What they Saw
    First Report of Dana Air Crash in Lagos

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | | |

    AeroPeru Crashes in Pacific


    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact photographer JetPix

    What: Aeroperú Boeing 757-23A en route from Lima, Peru to Santiago Chile.
    Where: 73 km (45.6 mls) NW off Lima, Peru in the Pacific Ocean
    When: October 2, 1996
    Who: 9 crew members, 61 passengers died
    Why: On October 2, 1996, Aeroperú Boeing 757 en route from Jorge Chávez International Airport in Lima, Peru (LIM), to Comodoro Arturo Merino Benítez International Airport in Santiago, Chile, crashed on October 2, 1996. Shortly after takeoff the crew discovered that their instrumentation was behaving erratically. They were receiving contradictory serial emergency messages from the onboard computer, such as rudder ratio, mach speed trim, overspeed, underspeed and flying too low. The crew declared an emergency and requested an immediate return to the airport. they experienced multiple stalls resulting in rapid loss of altitude with no corresponding altimeter changes. While the altimeter indicated an altitude of approximately 9,700 feet, but the aircraft’s true altitude was much closer to the water.

    The air traffic controller sent a Boeing 707 to help guide the 757 to land, but before the 707 reached them, the 757’s wingtip struck the water approximately twenty-five minutes after emergency declaration. The pilots realized the true altitude of the airliner, struggled and was briefly airborne again for twenty seconds, but then crashed inverted into the water. All nine crew members and sixty-one passengers died.

    In Peru, Eleuterio Chacaliaza was sentenced to negligent homicide for a piece of masking tape accidentally left over the static ports (on the bottom side of the fuselage) after cleaning the aircraft.
    Those aboard:
    1.- José Luis Bovadilla Fernández (México)
    2.- Jaime Brito Guzmán (Chile)
    3.- Abraham Broidman (México)
    4.- Mario Cayetano Bramont (Perú)
    5.- Eugenio Campos (México)
    6.- María Carrasco Flórez Aráoz (Chile)
    7.- Guillermo Serveto (Gran Bretaña)
    8.- Manuel Chang Ching (Perú)
    9.- Fabio Chaparro Beltrán (Colombia)
    10.- Víctor Choe Gallardo (Perú)
    11.- Javier Cuéllar Cantú (Perú)
    12.- Barbara Delano (Chile)
    13.- James Degeren (Chile)
    14.- Miguel Degeren (Chile)
    15.- Juan Huerdo (México)
    16.- Galen Canusev (Estados Unidos)
    17.- Nis Linden (Estados Unidos).
    18.- Dani Manzur (Chile)
    19.- Patricio Marambio (Chile)
    20.- Luis Morán Morante (Perú)
    21.- Raúl Peña Rojas (Chile)
    22.- Guillermo Quiroz (Perú)
    23.- Juan Alvarado Allende (Chile), deportado a su país por poseer documentación falsa bajo el nombre de Gerardo Sánchez, de Venezuela
    24.- Eduardo Smith Inope (Perú)
    25.- Denis Trial (Estados Unidos)
    26.- Kelen Vaisman (Estados Unidos)
    27.- Janet Vallejos Robinson (Perú)
    28.- Luis Vergara Bernales (Perú)
    29.- Pedro Villena Hidalgo (Perú)
    30.- Genaro Mar (México). Personas que se embarcaron en Quito:
    1.- Renato Cisotto (Italia)
    2.- Hernán Barriga Guzmán (Chile)
    3.- Isidro Huarache (Perú)
    4.- Juan Hurache (Perú)
    5.- Mario Jiménez Borja (Ecuador)
    6.- Arístides Noboa (Ecuador)
    7.- Mark Bram (Gran Bretaña)
    8.- Lan Lock (Nueva Zelandia)
    9.- Rodrigo Fernández Ruiz (España)
    10.- Tiziana Tamaro (Italia).
    Personas en tránsito de Miami a Santiago (todos chilenos)
    1.- Juan Awad
    2.- Mario Awad
    3.- Carolina Acevedo
    4.- Carmen Arancibia
    5.- Daniel Boleli
    6.- Sara Díaz
    7.- Jaime Duque del Río
    8.- Emir Agana
    9.- Ricardo Alex
    10.- Martín Sadued
    11.- María Eterpuer
    12.- Luis Medina
    13.- Eduardo Román
    14.- Elena Saavedra
    15.- María Saavedra
    16.- Carlos Serán
    17.- Alfonso Uldurraga
    18.- Carmen Concha
    19.- Ana Concha
    20.- Jimena Paya
    21.- Martha Contreras.
    Tripulación:
    1.- Capitán Erick Shereiber, piloto.
    2.- David Fernández, copiloto.
    3.- María Angela Casabo
    4.- Carolina López
    5.- Roxana Mino
    6.- Ana Contreras
    7.- Gema Brussone
    8.- Silvia Barreto
    9.- Nancy Fernández.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | |

    Delta Connection flight 4951


    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact photographer Hartsfield Photography

    In an interview, Captain Jack Conroyd, the pilot who landed Delta Connection flight 4951 when the landing gear failed, called the training provided by Atlantic Southeast Airlines instrumental in the success of the emergency landing. He also praised the crew, and the calm demeanor of the passengers.
    Click to see video of Conroy

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | | | | |

    Clear and Present Danger

    I don’t know if we should blame George Jetson and his hover car commute to work, or Bruce Willis’s talkative flying taxi in The Fifth Element, but the fiction world (or at least the world according to movie directors) predicts a day when flying cars will endure a traffic filled commute identical to gridlock traffic that occurs on rush hour highways. It’s a completely irrational view, given the state of contemporary air traffic control. I don’t see it happening. At least, not until planes or flying cars can defy gravity and manage to hover motionless on demand, the flying car commute to work can’t happen. Not with our current protections. And that’s a good thing. The extra safety measures we have today are essential, because because gravity works. We can only hope our safety measures are adequate, or better than adequate. Just to keep from falling, physics requires that planes have to hurtle through the air at high speed to stay aloft, and require a multitude of safety measures to keep from colliding at all angles. Planes rely on pilots, of course, but also air traffic control, which is supposed to monitor plane trajectory and make certain that planes are miles apart. Commercial planes also have the TCAS (traffic collision avoidance) system which relies on on board transponders that monitor airspace around a plane, in order to avoid airborne collisions.

    I have ranted before about the misnomer of the near miss. If two planes nearly collide, they nearly hit. If they almost miss (i.e. near miss), then it must have actually hit. So I dislike the term, because it doesn’t mean what it sounds like it means. I’d be happy to play around with the semantics, though, if it meant we could avoid the actual situation of planes colliding or nearly colliding. It’s a crucial thing to consider, especially since there were two near air collisions plus a collision a couple of weeks ago.

    One (nearly) happened when a United Airlines San Francisco-Newark flight (155 passengers and six crew), and a Newark-Memphis ExpressJet (47 passengers and three crew) flew within 200 feet laterally and 400 feet vertically. The Expressjet was taking off; and the United pilot was ordered to abort their landing, and circle the airport but instead chose to land the plane.

    The preliminary report for the United flight says that “on Thursday, April 24, 2014, about 1503 eastern daylight time, a near midair collision occurred at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Newark, New Jersey, when an Embraer ERJ145, departing EWR runway 4R for Memphis, Tennessee, passed in close proximity to a Boeing 737-800 arriving from San Francisco, California, intending to land on runway 29. Both aircraft were on regularly scheduled 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 passenger flights and under control of EWR airport traffic control tower (ATCT) at the time of the incident. There was no damage reported to either aircraft, or any injuries to passengers or crew.

    The B737 contacted the EWR tower on the Bridge Visual approach to runway 29. The local controller instructed the pilot to follow a B717 ahead, and cleared the pilot to land on runway 29. When the B717 was on short final, the local controller instructed the ERJ145 pilot to line up and wait on runway 4R. After the B717 crossed runway 4R, the local controller cleared the ERJ145 for takeoff. At that time, the B737 was about three miles from the runway 29 threshold. The ERJ145 did not actually begin its takeoff roll until the B737 was about 1 mile from the runway 29 threshold. The local controller recognized that the spacing was insufficient and instructed the B737 to go around. He provided traffic advisories to both the B737 and the ERJ145 pilots and instructed the ERJ145 pilot to maintain visual separation from the B737. The ERJ145 pilot responded that he was going to keep the aircraft’s nose down. The B737 overflew the ERJ145 at the intersection of runways 29/4R.

    According to recorded Federal Aviation Administration radar data, the closest lateral and vertical proximity was approximately 0.03 miles and 400 feet.

    The preliminary report for the ExpressJet flight says that “On Thursday, April 24, 2014, about 1503 eastern daylight time, a near midair collision occurred at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), Newark, New Jersey, when an Embraer ERJ145, departing EWR runway 4R for Memphis, Tennessee, passed in close proximity to a Boeing 737-800 arriving from San Francisco, California, intending to land on runway 29. Both aircraft were on regularly scheduled 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 passenger flights and under control of EWR airport traffic control tower (ATCT) at the time of the incident. There was no damage reported to either aircraft, or any injuries to passengers or crew.

    The B737 contacted the EWR tower on the Bridge Visual approach to runway 29. The local controller instructed the pilot to follow a B717 ahead, and cleared the pilot to land on runway 29. When the B717 was on short final, the local controller instructed the ERJ145 pilot to line up and wait on runway 4R. After the B717 crossed runway 4R, the local controller cleared the ERJ145 for takeoff. At that time, the B737 was about three miles from the runway 29 threshold. The ERJ145 did not actually begin its takeoff roll until the B737 was about 1 mile from the runway 29 threshold. The local controller recognized that the spacing was insufficient and instructed the B737 to go around. He provided traffic advisories to both the B737 and the ERJ145 pilots and instructed the ERJ145 pilot to maintain visual separation from the B737. The ERJ145 pilot responded that he was going to keep the aircraft’s nose down. The B737 overflew the ERJ145 at the intersection of runways 29/4R.

    According to recorded Federal Aviation Administration radar data, the closest lateral and vertical proximity was approximately 0.03 miles and 400 feet.

    A second close call occurred outside of Hawaii; but the preliminary reports have not been posted yet. Proximity between United Airlines Kona-Los Angeles Flight 1205 and a westbound US Airways Jet initiated a TCAS alert on the United flight. The Los Angeles-bound United pilot took evasive action and made a steep dive to avoid a collision. TCAS (and the alert pilot) saved the day, after what appears to have been an air traffic control error on the ground in Honolulu.

    All four of the planes were better off than the two planes that collided on April 27, in Port Richmond, resulting in one fatality and two injuries. A Cessna and a Hawker collided in midair over San Pablo Bay north of Brother Island off Richmond, California. The Sea Fury landed at Ione, California, and the Cessna impacted the waters of San Pablo Bay. Two occupants aboard the Sea Fury were uninjured.

    The preliminary report for the Cessna indicates that a couple of days after that near accident, a collision occurred. On April 27, 2014, about 1606 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 210E, N4962U, and a Hawker Sea Fury, N20SF, collided in flight near Port Richmond, California. Sanders Aircraft, Inc., was operating both airplanes under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. The private pilot in the Cessna sustained fatal injuries; the commercial pilot and one passenger in the Sea Fury were not injured. The Cessna was destroyed during the accident sequence, and the Sea Fury sustained substantial damage to the empennage. Both cross-country personal flights departed Half Moon Bay, California; the Sea Fury departed about 1530 and the Cessna departed at an unknown time. Both airplanes were en route to Eagle’s Nest Airport, Ione, California. Visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed, and no flight plans had been filed.

    The National Transportation Safety Board investigator-in-charge (IIC) interviewed the Sea Fury pilot. The Sea Fury pilot stated the he and the Cessna pilot had flown their airplanes to Half Moon Bay to display them at an open house for the airport.

    The pilot reported that after departure, he flew over the airport, and rendezvoused with a Beechcraft A36 Bonanza for a photo shoot over the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California. They flew several 360-degree patterns over the bridge, completed their photo work, and he set his course for the return to Ione.

    While en route the Sea Fury pilot broadcast on a common frequency, and the Cessna pilot responded with his position. The Sea Fury pilot made visual contact with the Cessna, which was ahead and to his left. He broadcast to the Cessna pilot that he would pass low and to the left. The Cessna pilot responded that it would be a good picture. The Sea Fury pilot replied that probably not due to the speed differential; the Sea Fury airspeed was about 200 miles per hour. The Sea Fury pilot proceeded on a path that he thought would allow adequate separation; however, as he was passing the Cessna, he felt and heard a thump and he realized that the two airplanes had collided. He pulled up and looked over his shoulder and he observed the Cessna inverted and going down.

    The Sea Fury pilot stated that he concentrated on flying his airplane, and initiated a climb, and conducted a controllability check to determine that he could control the airplane in the current configuration. He wanted to avoid populated areas, so he continued toward his home airport. While en route he contacted company personnel, who decided to fly another company airplane to meet and examine the Sea Fury’s condition. The Sea Fury pilot lowered the landing gear, and did a controllability check to include turns. He lowered the flaps, and repeated the testing. He reduced airspeed to a landing compatible speed of 130 mph, and checked controllability again. Determining that he had adequate control to land, he made a full stop landing at his home airport.

    The Sea Fury is silver in color and the Cessna has blue wingtips with blue paint on the leading edge of both wings, on top of the cowling, and along the sides of the fuselage.

    During the postaccident examination of the Sea Fury it was noted that the top remaining portion of the vertical stabilizer was crushed aft and down with blue paint transfer marks on the aft portion of the remaining metal. The operator reported that the missing vertical stabilizer section was about 12 inches long. The rudder had crush damage. The right elevator separated outboard of the middle hinge and about 3 feet of the elevator was missing. About 3 feet of the outboard section of the right horizontal stabilizer was missing. The outboard fracture surface was jagged and angular, and the upper surface had crushed inboard in an accordion fashion. Blue paint transfer marks and scratches were observed on the upper surface and within the folds of the metal.

    The Cessna descended into San Pablo Bay, and the wreckage was retrieved on April 30. The recovered wreckage consisted of the fuselage and the engine. The left wing was not located. The propeller separated from the crankshaft, and was not located.

    A similar report for the Hawker has also been published.

    Flight has become commonplace, but we can not take it for granted.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | |

    Arkefly Tailstrike; Emergency Landing in Finland


    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact photographer Daniel Nicholson

    What: Arkefly Boeing 737-800 en route from Kittilä to Amsterdam
    Where: Rovaniemi Finland
    When: Jan 3rd 2010
    Who: 181 passengers, 7 crew
    Why: After takeoff, the crew assumed there was a tail strike (no indication if this was witnessed or indicated by a resultant problem). The crew diverted to Rovaniemi where a maintenance crew was flown in to assess the plane.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | |

    Canada: Cathay Pacific Airbus Bomb Hoax, Fighter Escort


    Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
    Contact photographer Gary Claridge-king

    What: Cathay Pacific Airbus A340-300 en route from Hong Kong (China) to Vancouver,BC
    Where: Canada
    When: May 15th 2010
    Who: 280 passengers
    Why: While the flight was en route, the airline received a phone call that there was a bomb aboard. Over Canada, two Canadian CF-18 Hornet fighter jets escorted the flight to Vancouver where it landed safely and was taxied to a remote location.

    On examination, no bombs were found.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.