24 July 2019, 00:09:05 *

Login with username, password and session length
Welcome to War and Tactics!    War and Tactics Forum is currently undergoing some modifications that might disable features you are used to. This is unabvoidable as we have to update the forum engine to a new structure that is incompatible with many of the features we had used so far. The good news: WaT will be more secure and stable, and most of the features we uninstalled will be a natural part of the new structure anyway. For the rest we will be looking for solutions. (APR 23, 2018)
   
  Home   Forum   Help ! Forum Rules ! Search Calendar Donations Login Register Chat  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on Del.icio.usShare this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on MySpaceShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on TechnoratiShare this topic on TwitterShare this topic on Yahoo
Author Topic: Martinair Flight 495  (Read 6473 times)
stoffel
WaT supporter
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Netherlands

Location: Eemnes The Netherlands
Posts: 1874


View Profile WWW
« on: 14 February 2011, 10:47:16 »
ReplyReply

Today it was announced that the Dutch Martinair plane which crashed at Faro in 1982, crashed because of pilot errors.
The official report claimed winds together with a steep descent was the couse of the accident.

28 years later the true story came to light when relatives of victims asked for a new investigation by private firms instead of the official Portugese report.
After  a thorough investigation new facts were dug up.
The pilots approached the runway from an angle instead of in a straight line therefore it was to instabile to land properly.
The pilots also were informed that the landingstrip was soaked with water, this fact was neglected by them to.
From the recordings it was made clear the pilot didnt steer well enough to avoid the winds he also used the brake on his right wheel which therefore broke off.
The investigators lead by an airforce Lt colonel said all this information was left out of the report so the pilots could not be blamed, hence Martinair had no blame to the accident.
The relatives of the victims are going to sue the pilots and the company.

Official dutch news: http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2446262/vliegramp-faro-fouten-piloten.html
I did a search but couldnt find anything in English Bedroefd
Logged

My topics are about my personal opinion, my thoughts and what I think. They do not reflect the official opinion of the ministry of defense of the Netherlands.
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 14 February 2011, 11:11:28 »
ReplyReply

And to add more fuel to the fire...
Today it was announced that the Dutch Martinair plane which crashed at Faro in 1982, crashed because of pilot errors.
The official report claimed winds together with a steep descent was the couse of the accident.

28 years later the true story came to light when relatives of victims asked for a new investigation by private firms instead of the official Portugese report.
After  a thorough investigation new facts were dug up.
The pilots approached the runway from an angle instead of in a straight line therefore it was to instabile to land properly.
The pilots also were informed that the landingstrip was soaked with water, this fact was neglected by them to.
From the recordings it was made clear the pilot didnt steer well enough to avoid the winds he also used the brake on his right wheel which therefore broke off.
The investigators lead by an airforce Lt colonel said all this information was left out of the report so the pilots could not be blamed, hence Martinair had no blame to the accident.
The relatives of the victims are going to sue the pilots and the company.

Official dutch news: http://www.nu.nl/buitenland/2446262/vliegramp-faro-fouten-piloten.html
I did a search but couldnt find anything in English Bedroefd

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinair_Flight_495
http://aviation-safety.net/investigation/cvr/transcripts/cvr_mp495.php
http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ma495/photo.shtml
Logged
stoffel
WaT supporter
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Netherlands

Location: Eemnes The Netherlands
Posts: 1874


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: 14 February 2011, 17:21:36 »
ReplyReply

All those news items contain the official report and statements Koen.
Which are false, thats why I did not add them.
I havent found anything in English about the report from this morning which reveals new evidence of a cover up.
Logged

My topics are about my personal opinion, my thoughts and what I think. They do not reflect the official opinion of the ministry of defense of the Netherlands.
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #3 on: 14 February 2011, 18:53:31 »
ReplyReply

All those news items contain the official report and statements Koen.
Which are false, thats why I did not add them.
I havent found anything in English about the report from this morning which reveals new evidence of a cover up.


wiki: The cause of the accident were the bad weather conditions, in combination with crew errors
aviation safety: for those unfamiliar with the event, better a bit info then no info at all
airdisaster: see above

it is indeed hard to find anything on the cover-up....


Logged
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: 14 February 2011, 18:58:36 »
ReplyReply

re: reports:

A cvr transcript cannot be false, Stoffel. Also, you cannot apply brakes to just one wheel. Havent read the stuff yet, but at airdisaster info or aviation.net you should find something. The official report surely is out there also.

Rattler
Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
stoffel
WaT supporter
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Netherlands

Location: Eemnes The Netherlands
Posts: 1874


View Profile WWW
« Reply #5 on: 14 February 2011, 19:04:57 »
ReplyReply

I had to translate it into English, I have added a link to the dutch report.
I am sure you can read it.
I may have made errors in translating.
But there is a cover up, thats for sure.
Logged

My topics are about my personal opinion, my thoughts and what I think. They do not reflect the official opinion of the ministry of defense of the Netherlands.
Koen
Poster

****

Offline Offline

Belgium

Location: Belgium
Posts: 4247




View Profile
« Reply #6 on: 14 February 2011, 19:16:03 »
ReplyReply

re: reports:

A cvr transcript cannot be false, Stoffel. Also, you cannot apply brakes to just one wheel. Havent read the stuff yet, but at airdisaster info or aviation.net you should find something. The official report surely is out there also.

Rattler


could it be that he applied brakes with only 1 side of the wheels hitting the ground? meaning that both sides were applied but only one was slowed down?
Logged
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: 14 February 2011, 19:18:30 »
ReplyReply

OK, I have it in my database and now I recall the accident.

Here is the official report as published by the DGAC and adapted by the Dutch Aviation Saftey Board (2 different versions, .pdf and .doc).

Interesting read, a mix of all factors contributing to the accident including crew errors:

http://www.vliegrampfaro.nl/bijlagen/09001_ondezoeksrapport-Engels.pdf

Final Report On The Accident Occurring at Faro Airport - Portugal on 21 December 1992

Findings: Page 147 f. (you really need to read the majority of the pages before to understand why they came to those conclusions and study their methods to see if there is fraud involved, dont just say "Its rubbish" if you havent read them)

Recommmendations (Lessons Learned: page 148 ff.

If you read the report in whole you can see that they went into grat length to establish the cause of the accident, nothing faintly smells of a cover-up.

FWIW (still think this should go into a different thread as Henk hijacked the original one)

Rattler
Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #8 on: 14 February 2011, 19:20:11 »
ReplyReply

Yes, due to sidewind exceeding a/c limits the landing took place on the RMG which after the steep descent and late applied thrust broke because structural limits were exceeded (see report above).

Quote
The right main gear contacted the runway with a 900 feet/min descent rate at 126 knots, +8.79deg. pitch up, +5.62deg roll and 1,9533G

Also NOTE this was NOT an ILS approach, but ADB/VOR.
Rattler

re: reports:

A cvr transcript cannot be false, Stoffel. Also, you cannot apply brakes to just one wheel. Havent read the stuff yet, but at airdisaster info or aviation.net you should find something. The official report surely is out there also.

Rattler


could it be that he applied brakes with only 1 side of the wheels hitting the ground? meaning that both sides were applied but only one was slowed down?

« Last Edit: 14 February 2011, 19:25:42 by Rattler » Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
stoffel
WaT supporter
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Netherlands

Location: Eemnes The Netherlands
Posts: 1874


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: 14 February 2011, 19:59:52 »
ReplyReply

Reports here today spoke of different findings, and the team investigating was lead by a high ranking officer from the airforce.
Without good evidence to claim their story they wouldnt have sued the company and the pilots.
Logged

My topics are about my personal opinion, my thoughts and what I think. They do not reflect the official opinion of the ministry of defense of the Netherlands.
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #10 on: 14 February 2011, 21:13:02 »
ReplyReply

Reports here today spoke of different findings, and the team investigating was lead by a high ranking officer from the airforce.
Without good evidence to claim their story they wouldnt have sued the company and the pilots.

I have read the same news, and it is like this:

The (indeed officer in the Air Force) private investigator DID NOT doubt any of the factual findings of the (above published) report, he just EVALUATES (interprets) them differently (there is talk on the pilots wire about two different reports published, but I ingore that as it would simply be too blunt and easily discovered: Classic conspiration theory).

From what I read from the report indeed the (not contested by Lt. Horlins - JFTR, if that is "high ranking" what would I as a Captain be? Chief of Staff?) sink rate was excessive, the Auto Pilot was switched too early to the manual steering mode, the throttles were opened too late. These are the facts. But there is also the "wrong" (erroneous) METEO information the crew had received (which later could not be retrieved verbally and is only doumented from hear-say from the replies in the CVR, see recommendations of the report: METEO infos should in the future - and are by now - stored in the tower for accident investigation) which made not expect them cross winds.

Take a look at the approach, with strong cross winds (exeeding a/c limits, this is the important part!) you are bound to end up on the side of the runway and not in the middle, I see the fact that all the impact went onto the RMG as an attempt of the PiC to compensate for this (left from centerline) runway alignment.

In this vid you have the same bird with just a 28 mph cross wind (within limits, and close to you: Schipol!), now add Faroe, 15 kts cross more and the steep descent necessary to the mix and then make up your bets... :

Extreme Crosswind Landing - Video


Nothing wrong with sueing, but I bet they will fall on deaf ears, these things happen, aviation is not 100% safe.

Rattler
« Last Edit: 14 February 2011, 21:20:46 by Rattler » Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
stoffel
WaT supporter
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Netherlands

Location: Eemnes The Netherlands
Posts: 1874


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: 14 February 2011, 21:16:55 »
ReplyReply

Actually its a lt-col Knipoog

I dont have much knowledge about those issues, just tried to translate the report Smiley
I think what they tried to do with the official report is take the blame away from the pilots.
Not to not damage the pilots careers but to avoid that Martinair had to pay money to the relatives and the victims, and that is shamefull Bedroefd
Logged

My topics are about my personal opinion, my thoughts and what I think. They do not reflect the official opinion of the ministry of defense of the Netherlands.
Rattler
WaT Supporter

*

Offline Offline

Germany

Location: Med Island
Posts: 2268




View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: 14 February 2011, 21:23:39 »
ReplyReply

Actually its a lt-col Knipoog

Sorry, my fault (actually Google translators´), I can see it now in the dutch version. Lt.Col. allright.

I dont have much knowledge about those issues, just tried to translate the report Smiley
I think what they tried to do with the official report is take the blame away from the pilots.
Not to not damage the pilots careers but to avoid that Martinair had to pay money to the relatives and the victims, and that is shamefull Bedroefd

Stoffel, it notes that you dont have much knowledge of such things:

The first (and easiest, leaving you free from paying out) idea of every airline/government/aircraft producer is to blame *every* issue *ON* the pilots.

The easy (and cheap) way out. I simply cannot see any reason why they should try and spare the pilots in this one, especially if they are dead (always easy to put the blame on a dead pilot, he cannot defend). If they dount this time, there must be a reason, and my hunch is: They did not find a way to blame it on crew only...  hdbng

Seriously, I sont see why they should deviate from this common practice in this case.

Rattler

EDIT (for afterthought): Check out the Mulhousen disaster vid:
Code:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cv2ud1339E


I have been there, we went with a photographers team from Basle to Kassel in our lab van and went into France to buy cheap cigarettes, and as an airman I always go to airshows, so we diverted: Then it happened. (Actually, the most famous photo of the incident is by me, but I sold it with copyright - still on-site with the laboratory van running - for a good bunch of money (and cannot show it here for just this reason, but google: "Airbus Habsheim Crash" and scroll down to where you see a guy - the captain  with a bandaged head).

I)n this case, the computer of the Airbus did react wrongly, it was well documented from the FDR, but then, sudddenly, the FDR changed (actually, it was without doubt, proven by photos, substituted for a fake one):

http://www.aeroforo.com/forum/showthread.php?11490-Airbus-falsifico-pruebas-en-el-accidente-del-A320-de-Air-France-en-Alsace&p=266864

Quote
In the first crash of a new 'Fly-By-Wire' aircraft, the Airbus A320-100 impacted trees while performing a fly-by at an airshow and burst into flames. The crew, and Air France maintenance officials, have all been sentenced to probation for manslaughter; the Captain has been imprisoned. Evidence, including photographs, has now been exposed that an Airbus official at the scene switched the Digital Flight Data Recorder before the court hearing.

Since May 1998, it is proven that the Flight Data Recorder was switched after the accident. The Lausanne Institute of Police Forensic Evidence and Criminology (IPSC) comes to the conclusion that the recorder presented to the Court is NOT the one taken from the aircraft after the accident. Details: See below


http://www.airdisaster.com/investigations/af296/af296.shtml

What was the result ot the investigation? PILOT ERROR !!!!  hihi hahahihi No problem whatsoever for Airbus, the guys were sent to preison and had to pay hundres of thousands of Euros for indemnization, and that despite they said (and I heard it on site when I took my famous pic of the captain): "It did not react!"

So, thats the normal procedure: Blame it ON the pilots. Not at reverse.

FWIW,

Rattler
« Last Edit: 14 February 2011, 21:52:28 by Rattler » Logged

"War does not determine who is right, war determines who is left...": The Rattler Way Of Life (thanks! to Solideo)... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9v3Vyr5o2Q
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Unique Hits: 25680428 | Sitemap
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!


Google visited last this page 24 June 2019, 00:07:09