A Cathay Pacific Airbus A330-300 in Hong Kong China with 262 aboard was scheduled to fly from Hong Kong to Nagoya.
After all the passengers had boarded, the rear boarding bridge collapsed, ripping the door off the A330. Passengers were able to exit via the first class bridge.
Passengers had to take another flight.
All rear bridges used at the airport are suspended pending inspection. The incident is under investigation.
One technician was injured.
If you’re one of those drivers who ignores that oil light on your car’s dashboard when it goes off, then be glad you’re not a pilot. Pilots have the same light, and it can’t be ignored.
It’s a good thing you’re not a pilot, then.
258 passengers aboard a 10:30 a.m. Hawaiian Airlines A330 to Los Angeles were relieved to be back on the ground after the plane they were on developed engine problems and had to return to Honolulu.
Fifteen minutes into the flight, the oil light went on. Pilots shut down the affected engine.
Passengers caught the alternative flight at 11:15 a.m.
Air France 447 went down over the Atlantic in 2009.
The fly-by-wire A330 incorporates technology that prevents the airplane from entering a stall, but during a complete loss of airspeed information, however, the system reverted to manual control.
The final report said said the pilots were “completely surprised” by technical problems experienced at high altitude and engaged in increasingly de-structured actions until suffering “the total loss of cognitive control of the situation.”
CEO of the Flight Safety Foundation has been recorded said pilots generally manually manipulating the controls for only three minutes:one minute and 30 seconds each for take-off and landing.
“We are moving towards automated operations where the pilot isn’t even permitted to fly. That means the first time in your career you will ever feel what an aircraft feels like at 35,000 feet is when it’s handed to you broken.”
On March 29, 3013, an Air Mediterranée Airbus A321-111 en route from Agadir-Al Massira International Airport to Lyon Saint-Exupéry Airport ran off the runway on landing at Lyon Saint-Exupéry Airport.
The flight from Dakar had a stopover in Agadir.
The plane was mired in soft ground. Firefighters assisted the passengers out one by one on waterlogged ground. Passengers were ported to the terminal by bus.
According to witnesses, the crew was Greek, and had little English and little French.
Machine translation of the incident from the beginning:
“The stop in Agadir was not provided. We said we had to refuel because of the weather. Upon landing, there were warning signs: the plane was a little unusual zig-zag before stopping. We left about 20 minutes later. In Lyon, the aircraft flew over the track for a long time, very close to the ground, without asking. Then we felt the brakes, we went left, then right, straight into a field, probably over a hundred meters. We then felt burnt and we were afraid that it caught fire.”
182 people were aboard. No injuries were reported.
Pending solutions for the incidents involving the aircraft’s lithium-ion battery produced by Tokyo- based GS Yuasa Corp, while waiting for Boeing 787’s to come out of hibernation, from April 12 to the end of May Lot Airlines is leasing an Airbus SAS from Portugal’s Hi Fly. The A330 flies 18 in business and 288 in coach.
Lot purchased 8 eight 787s, and has received two, one of which is Warsaw, and the other stranded in Chicago.
If Dreamliner operations remain suspended beyond that date, the lease can be extended
While a Germanwings Airbus A319-112 was en route from Moscow to Stuttgart, the plane issued warnings. Pilots diverted to Prague-Vaclav Havel (Ruzyne) Airport in the Czech Republic.
Airport fire and rescue services responded to the scene according to the airport air crash consultant spokesperson
THere were 144 passengers and five crew aboard the Airbus A320. There were no injuries reported on landing.
A replacement plane was sent from Cologne.
On March 17, 2013:
When the Hamburg Airways flight’s landing gear failed to retract after taking off from St. Petersburg, the pilots had to circle for two hours before being able to return to the St. Petersburg airport.
The Swiss Europa league team was aboard, returning from the quarterfinals in St. Petersburg. Instead, they returned to St. Petersburg for their plane to be examined.
The flight to the competition also had problems. While en route from Basel to Russia, pilots diverted to Berlin. On the recommendation of team physician Marti, the pilot make an an emergency stop so that forward Mohamed Elneny could receive medical treatment for a dizzy spell. His medical diagnosis was caused by hypoglycemia and dehydration.
On March 11, 2013, an Air France Airbus A330 en route from Mumbai to Paris developed an engine problem. The pilot shut down the engine and returned to Mumbai.
There were almost two hundred passengers aboard the flight. None of them reported injury.
Passengers disembarked, and were provided accommodations as an alternative flight was provided.
On March 9, 2013 at 13:05 an IndiGo Airbus A320-232 with 40 aboard was landing from Chandigarh to Mumbai when the plane veered off the runway and destroyed runway lights. The plane was struck by a gust of wind which knocked it off course. No passengers were injured.
The Directorate General of Civil Aviation is investigating.
It took a couple hours to clean up the runway after the incident.
Let us hope that this is not one if the incidents in which Air Traffic Controllers forgot or otherwise neglected to inform pilots of dangerous landing conditions. Of course, we are very pleased that no injuries were reported.
At 6:15 near terminal floor an Air India Boeing had landed at Kennedy Airport and was en route to the gate when it struck a Jet blue Airbus with 140 passengers aboard. The plane was damaged in the tail but no passengers were injured. They were transferred to another flight.
There were no injuries on the Boeing either.
At 2 pm on March 7, 2013, Delta Airlines Airbus A320-211 #N314US Flight 130 was just underway from Charlotte Douglas International Airport to Detroit when it suffered a bird strike and left a trail of parts on the runway. None of the 130 passengers reported injury.
The flight was towed to the gate.
The flight was cancelled and takeoff aborted.
Passengers disembarked and were provided an alternative flight with a four hour delay.
Emergency services were on the scene, but there was no fire.
Serial number 160
Type 320-211
First flight date 14/01/1991
Test registration F-WWDZ
Plane age 22.1 years
Engines 2 x CFMI CFM56-5A1
If you’re wondering about the Airblue 202 case, it has run into the politics of Pakistan. The situation has been piled high with difficulty. Even though I am an optimist and see opportunity in every difficulty, even though I have a great team of attorneys in Pakistan, and a great team here in the states coordinating on this case, there comes a time when we must realize where we stand. Despite our efforts, with the present laws and political situation, helping the families is like patching shattered glass with paste. It has been a very difficult to make things stick. Or to change metaphors, it has been an uphill climb.
The Flight: 28 July 2010, Airbus A321, Air Blue Fight 202, en route from Karachi to Islamabad
146 passengers and 6 crew members flew into a mountain near the airport. Witnesses wondered why it seemed as if “the plane had lost balance, and then we saw it going down.”
Why it was flying so low? Why did it strike the mountain? Audio and a report were released that seemed to answer those question—lack of coordination in the flight crew.
Our study of the audio indicates the pilots are served tea early on, then…
When the audio was released and studied, it became clear there was no teamwork between the pilot Perve Iqbal Chaudhary and the first officer Muntajib Ahmed.
The pilot had 35 years and more than 25,000 hours of flying experience but made inexplicable mistakes and demeaned the co-pilot. The first officer was aware of the danger and tried to amend the situation but he had been so disheartened beforehand by sharp questions putting the first officer “in his place.”
He was unaccountably meek for a former F-16 Pakistan Air Force fighter pilot. The pilot did not properly respond to Air Traffic Control directives and automated cabin warning systems and flew the plane into a mountain. Air Traffic Control responses were less than professional. The first officer appeared helpless and ineffective.
On January 17,2013, two and a half years after the accident, the Peshawar High Court closed proceedings for the Airblue compensation case.
Counsel was directed to withdraw the client’s petition from the Islamabad High Court or the the Peshawar High Court. The client refused to do so on the basis that the cases were different. The court closed the case because the heirs of the victims had had filed an independent lawsuit at Islamabad High Court.
We believed the Airblue compensation case had merit. The pilot committed the error. The first officer was ineffective. They were Airblue employees.
Yes, there was pilot error, but the airline is doubly responsible, because the flight crew did not have adequate CRM training. (COCKPIT Resource Management/Crew Resource Management) Absolutely what happened in the case was the result of the airline failing to establish a working protocol.
It’s like children at school practicing a fire drill so they know what to do when a crisis occurs. Fire drills save lives. They prevent missteps in the face of danger. They give the people in trouble a set of directions to follow that will get them out of the jam they are in. A drill answers questions ahead of time, so precious time is not wasted figuring out what to do. Without the drill, what happens when disaster strikes? Chaos. Loss of life.
I feel bad for the people. First they lose their families. Then they don’t get all the compensation available to them.
Take a look at the safety recommendations from the report (pasted below).
See how 3.1-3.5 and 3.7 all duplicate the same working environment issue? Investigators recognize the troubled working environment. Today’s flight crews are taught CRM which means they have safe practices in place in case the captain is incapacitated and starts to fly into mountains like the captain of Air Blue 202.
But realistically, will recommendations change AirBlue? Will Air Blue be able to implement non-traditional interpersonal relations on the job? And if they can not, how will they ever fly safely with a first officer culturally unable to do his job?
The first officer was ineffective in securing the plane; and sadly, the court appears to be equally as ineffective in getting justice for some of the heirs of the victims.
Re: Investigation Report -AB-202 CHAPTER – 13 :
SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS
13.1 All aircrew be re-briefed on CFIT avoidance and Circling Approach procedures
and a strict implementation of this procedure be ensured through an intensive
monitoring system.
13.2 Aircrew scheduling and pairing being a critical subject be preferably handled /
supervised by Flight Operations.
13.3 The implementation of an effective CRM program be ensured and the syllabus of
CRM training be reviewed in line with international standards.
13.4 Existing aircrew training methodology be catered for standardization and
harmonization of procedures.
13.5 Human factor / personality profiling program for aircrew be introduced to predict
their behaviour under crises.
13.6 Instrument landing procedure for RWY-12 be established, if possible.
13.7 Safety Management System be implemented in ATS as per the spirit of the ICAO
document (doc. 4444).
13.8 New Islamabad International Airport (NIIA) be completed and made functional on
priority
13.9 Visual augment system (Approach Radar Scope) be installed in control tower to
monitor the positions and progress of aircraft flying in the circuit.
13.10 Review of the existing Regulations for the compensation and their expeditious
award to the legal heirs of the victims be ensured.
13.11 Adequacy of SIB resources comprising qualified human resource and equipment
be reviewed.
13.12 Information to public on the progress of the investigation process through the
media by trained / qualified investigators of SIB be ensured on regular intervals.
13.13 NDMA be tasked to acquire in-country airlift capability for removal of wreckage
from difficult terrain like Margalla etc. As an interim arrangement, some foreign
sources be earmarked for making such an arrangements on as and when
required basis.
13.14 Civil Police Department be tasked to work out and ensure effective cordoning and
onsite security arrangements of crashed aircraft wreckage at all the places
specially remote / difficult hilly locations.
13.15 Environment Control Department be directed to recover the ill effects of
deterioration / damages caused to Marghalla hill due to the crash.
If you’re wondering about the Airblue 202 case, it has run into the politics of Pakistan. The situation has been piled high with difficulty. Even though I am an optimist and see opportunity in every difficulty, even though I have a great team of attorneys in Pakistan, and a great team here in the states coordinating on this case, there comes a time when we must realize where we stand. Despite our efforts, with the present laws and political situation, helping the families is like patching shattered glass with paste. It has been a very difficult to make things stick. Or to change metaphors, it has been an uphill climb.
The Flight: 28 July 2010, Airbus A321, Air Blue Fight 202, en route from Karachi to Islamabad
146 passengers and 6 crew members flew into a mountain near the airport. Witnesses wondered why it seemed as if “the plane had lost balance, and then we saw it going down.”
Why it was flying so low? Why did it strike the mountain? Audio and a report were released that seemed to answer those question—lack of coordination in the flight crew.
Our study of the audio indicates the pilots are served tea early on, then…
When the audio was released and studied, it became clear there was no teamwork between the pilot Perve Iqbal Chaudhary and the first officer Muntajib Ahmed.
The pilot had 35 years and more than 25,000 hours of flying experience but made inexplicable mistakes and demeaned the co-pilot. The first officer was aware of the danger and tried to amend the situation but he had been so disheartened beforehand by sharp questions putting the first officer “in his place.”
He was unaccountably meek for a former F-16 Pakistan Air Force fighter pilot. The pilot did not properly respond to Air Traffic Control directives and automated cabin warning systems and flew the plane into a mountain. Air Traffic Control responses were less than professional. The first officer appeared helpless and ineffective.
On January 17,2013, two and a half years after the accident, the Peshawar High Court closed proceedings for the Airblue compensation case.
Counsel was directed to withdraw the client’s petition from the Islamabad High Court or the the Peshawar High Court. The client refused to do so on the basis that the cases were different. The court closed the case because the heirs of the victims had had filed an independent lawsuit at Islamabad High Court.
We believed the Airblue compensation case had merit. The pilot committed the error. The first officer was ineffective. They were Airblue employees.
Yes, there was pilot error, but the airline is doubly responsible, because the flight crew did not have adequate CRM training. (COCKPIT Resource Management/Crew Resource Management) Absolutely what happened in the case was the result of the airline failing to establish a working protocol.
It’s like children at school practicing a fire drill so they know what to do when a crisis occurs. Fire drills save lives. They prevent missteps in the face of danger. They give the people in trouble a set of directions to follow that will get them out of the jam they are in. A drill answers questions ahead of time, so precious time is not wasted figuring out what to do. Without the drill, what happens when disaster strikes? Chaos. Loss of life.
I feel bad for the people. First they lose their families. Then they don’t get all the compensation available to them.
Take a look at the safety recommendations from the report (pasted below).
See how 3.1-3.5 and 3.7 all duplicate the same working environment issue? Investigators recognize the troubled working environment. Today’s flight crews are taught CRM which means they have safe practices in place in case the captain is incapacitated and starts to fly into mountains like the captain of Air Blue 202.
But realistically, will recommendations change AirBlue? Will Air Blue be able to implement non-traditional interpersonal relations on the job? And if they can not, how will they ever fly safely with a first officer culturally unable to do his job?
The first officer was ineffective in securing the plane; and sadly, the court appears to be equally as ineffective in getting justice for some of the heirs of the victims.
Re: Investigation Report -AB-202 CHAPTER – 13 :
SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS
13.1 All aircrew be re-briefed on CFIT avoidance and Circling Approach procedures
and a strict implementation of this procedure be ensured through an intensive
monitoring system.
13.2 Aircrew scheduling and pairing being a critical subject be preferably handled /
supervised by Flight Operations.
13.3 The implementation of an effective CRM program be ensured and the syllabus of
CRM training be reviewed in line with international standards.
13.4 Existing aircrew training methodology be catered for standardization and
harmonization of procedures.
13.5 Human factor / personality profiling program for aircrew be introduced to predict
their behaviour under crises.
13.6 Instrument landing procedure for RWY-12 be established, if possible.
13.7 Safety Management System be implemented in ATS as per the spirit of the ICAO
document (doc. 4444).
13.8 New Islamabad International Airport (NIIA) be completed and made functional on
priority
13.9 Visual augment system (Approach Radar Scope) be installed in control tower to
monitor the positions and progress of aircraft flying in the circuit.
13.10 Review of the existing Regulations for the compensation and their expeditious
award to the legal heirs of the victims be ensured.
13.11 Adequacy of SIB resources comprising qualified human resource and equipment
be reviewed.
13.12 Information to public on the progress of the investigation process through the
media by trained / qualified investigators of SIB be ensured on regular intervals.
13.13 NDMA be tasked to acquire in-country airlift capability for removal of wreckage
from difficult terrain like Margalla etc. As an interim arrangement, some foreign
sources be earmarked for making such an arrangements on as and when
required basis.
13.14 Civil Police Department be tasked to work out and ensure effective cordoning and
onsite security arrangements of crashed aircraft wreckage at all the places
specially remote / difficult hilly locations.
13.15 Environment Control Department be directed to recover the ill effects of
deterioration / damages caused to Marghalla hill due to the crash.
On Feb 21, 2013, a TAM Linhas Aéreas Airbus A319 en route from São Luis-Marechal Cunha Machado Airport to Brasilia suffered a bird strike.
Pilots returned to São Luis Airport where they made a safe landing.
The plane was taken out of service for repairs and maintenance.
Passengers reported they were terrified when they heard a huge bang from one of the engines.
The incident is under investigation by Centro de Investigação e Prevenção de Acidentes Aeronáuticos (Cenipa).
On Feb 20, a Qatar Airways Airbus A321-231 was en route from Doha to Zagreb with 158 passengers aboard when the plane developed a technical problem.
The pilots diverted to Tehran where they made a safe landing. Emergency services were on standby.
They arrived at around 10 a.m. local time
An alternative flight was provided for the passengers.
On Feb 8, 2013, a ULS Airlines Cargo Airbus A300B4-2C made a safe landing at Tallinn Airport in Estonia, and then got mired in soft ground while navigating the tarmac.
The plane was carrying 40 tons of cargo and had to be unloaded to be dragged onto the hard pavement.
Air traffic was suspended till 2:35 pm. Weather conditions were reported as not being behind the cause of the incident.
Air France Airbus A319-100 was en route from Paris to Hamburg with 93 passengers and 5 crew when an engine failed.
The engine was shut down. Pilots landed safely in Hamburg.
Passenger booked on the return flight were provided an alternative flight.
On Jan 25, 2013, a Scandinavian Airlines SAS Airbus A320-232 with 150 aboard was at Gardermoen airport Norway loaded with passengers to Copenhagen when the SAS plane rolled backwards while it still was parked at gate 44. The door to the plane was ripped from its hinges.
Both the street and the plane were damaged.
Passengers were provided alternative flights. The crew and airport hope, optimistically, that the damaged can be handled expeditiously.
An investigation of how this could happen is underway.
On January 25, 2013, a Turkish Airlines Airbus A321-231 with 114 aboard en route from Istanbul-Atatürk was on approach to Izmir Turkey when the plane is reported to have suffered an engine fire in the right engine.
A report is circulating that the plane was struck by lightning.
Many of the passengers were reported to be in a panic, saying the plane was vibrating the whole flight, describe the loud noise of the strike, and also the smell of burning
The pilot made a safe landing on one engine.
Video below
Not sure what to think of the music added to the video below, which makes it most un-news-like. There’s no actual video of the plane landing, just a light making a line in the sky.
On Jan 25, 2013, a Ural Airlines Airbus A321-211 with 220 aboard was en route from Sharm el-Sheikh to Kazan Russia.
On approach to Kazan in poor visibility at 3:40 am local time, the first landing approach was aborted, and the rear fuselage of the plane struck an antenna. There is also a mention of an on board system failure.
Pilots made a safe landing on the next approach in spite of damage the rear fuselage contact area and brake line. We have heard of no reported injuries.
The investigation is underway.
The official report is below. Please pardon the translation.
Information on the incident at the international airport “Kazan”
As reported in “Ural Airlines”, January 25, 2013 in “Ural Airlines” incident occurred. Performing flight U6-3045, Sharm el-Sheikh on the Kazan aircraft A321, during the approach to landing in bad weather in the automatic mode (the height of the clouds 30 meters visibility – 800 meters) at the exit from the clouds of the crew determined neposadochnoe position of the aircraft. The pilots decided to execute a missed approach. When a missed approach was touching the fuselage antenna localizer radio beacon. Re-entry is made without comment, the crew and passengers were not injured.
To investigate the causes of the incident, a commission. For the flight U6-3046 Kazan-Sharm El-Sheikh directed backup aircraft.
According to the press service of the airport “Kazan”, in connection with an event, delayed departure flight U6-3046 airline “Ural Airlines” Kazan-Sharm El-Sheikh. Passengers (203) have been registered and are in the sterile area of ??departure. They provided food and refreshments. Reserve board arrived in Yekaterinburg at 09:24 Moscow time. After preparing the aircraft for flight, aircraft will fly to destination, estimated it will happen at 10:15 MSK 25.01.2013.
Airport “Kazan” is working normally.
Six minutes after takeoff from Malta, an EasyJet Airbus A320 with a 150 passengers had an engine failure, shut down the affected engine, and returned to Malta. One source said there was only a technical problem and the shut down was just a precaution. No injuries were reported. Passengers described noises like retracting landing gear thumping louder and louder.
Passengers were held in the departures lounge.
The plane made a safe landing with emergency services on standby.
Passengers disembarked after the engine was checked. They were sent a replacement flight to take them to London with a five hour delay.
On January 17, 2012, at Miami International Airport at 5:45 pm, an Aerolineas Argentinas Airbus with 240 passengers aboard was taxiing when it struck an Air France 777-300 with 350 passengers at the gate. Impact occurred between Concourses J and H.
A passenger aboard the Air France plane said the impact felt like an earthquake.
The Aerolineas Argentinas flight hand just arrived from Argentina Passengers disembarked at the gate.
The Air France passengers disembarked, collected their luggage and had to reschedule.
The planes’ damage was limited to a wingtip of one (Airbus) and the tail of the Boeing. (Which is which has not been verified, but assuming it was the Airbus that was taxiing, i.e. moving, it is more likely to be the wingtip of the moving plane that struck the stationary Boeing at the gate.)
Damage to the planes was minimal. Damage to the patience of the Air France Passengers having to reschedule? Not so much.
On January 12, 2013, a Jetblue Airbus A320 was en route from New York to the Dominican Republic when they suffered a bird strike.
The pilots returned to the airport where they made a safe landing with emergency services on standby. No injuries were reported among the 139 passengers.
On January 12, 2013, an S7 Airlines Airbus A319 en route from Moscow to Rostov-on-Don made a fast landing at Rostov-on-Don Airport, sliding 40 meters past the end of the runway. Reports are of poor traction on wet concrete.
The fifty passengers aboard the flight disembarked safely. No injuries were reported although the plane suffered some damage.
Weather conditions may be to blame for the accident.
THe runway was shut down after the accident, resulting in a number of flights having to divert to other airports.
