Air Niugini Flight 73 Crash Animation • Papua New Guinea AIC
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июл 2019
- Click to subscribe! bit.ly/subAIRBOYD
Cockpit Jump Seat Video Excerpt • Air Niugini Flight 73 ...
The Papua New Guinea Accident Investigation Commission (AIC) was informed by Air Niugini Limited on 28 September 2018, of an accident involving a Boeing 737-8BK aircraft, registered P2-PXE, operated by Air Niugini Limited. The aircraft was on a scheduled passenger flight, number PX073, from Pohnpei to Chuuk, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM).
At 23:24:19 UTC1 (09:24 local time) the aircraft impacted the water of the Chuuk Lagoon about 1,500 ft (460 m) short of the runway 04 threshold, during its final approach to land on runway 04 at Chuuk International Airport.
The AIC immediately contacted the Division of Civil Aviation, FSM and appointed an Accredited Representative and Adviser from the PNG Accident Investigation Commission in accordance with Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. The AIC team arrived at Chuuk at 08:00 local time on 29 September, and immediately commenced interviewing surviving passengers and the crew under delegation of the FSM investigator in charge. The AIC played a pivotal role in the investigation and conducted the download, replay and analysis of Flight Data and Cockpit Voice recorder data and information in the AIC’s Flight Recorder Laboratory in Port Moresby, PNG. The US National Transportation Safety Board also appointed an Accredited Representative and Advisers from the US Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing. The NTSB team assisted with the download of data from the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System. The readout of the damaged AFIRS system was conducted by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.
On 14 February 2019, the FSM Government delegated the whole of the investigation to the PNG AIC in accordance with Para 5.1 of ICAO Annex 13, which obligates the State accepting the delegation to conduct the investigation including the issuance of the Final Report and the Accident and Serious Incident Reporting (ADREP) data.
This Final Aircraft Accident Investigation Report was produced by the AIC, PO Box 1709, Boroko 111, NCD, Papua New Guinea. It is publicly released by the Commission in accordance with Para 6.5 of ICAO Annex 13. The report is published on the AIC website: www.aic.gov.pg.
The report is based on the investigation carried out by the AIC in accordance with Papua New Guinea Civil Aviation Act 2000 (as amended), Chapter 31 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, and the PNG AIC Investigation Policy and Procedures Manual. It contains factual information, analysis of that information, findings and contributing (causal) factors, other factors, safety actions, and safety recommendations.
The sole objective of the investigation and the Final Report is the prevention of accidents and incidents, and thereby promote aviation safety. (Reference: ICAO Annex 13, Chapter 3, paragraph 3.1.). Readers are advised that in accordance with Section 219 of the Civil Aviation Act 2000 (as amended) and Annex 13, it is not the purpose of the Commission’s aircraft accident investigation to apportion blame or liability. Fact based statements in the report should not be interpreted as apportioning blame.
Consequently, AIC reports are confined to matters of safety significance and may be misleading if used for any other purpose. When the AIC makes recommendations as a result of its investigations or research, safety is its primary consideration.
© PNG Accident Investigation Commission
Final Report
www.aic.gov.pg/pdf/FinRpts/201...
AIRBOYD -
#AIRBOYD #AvGeek #AirNiugini #P2PXE 
Авто/Мото
One person died. "The Pathologist reported that the deceased passenger succumbed to injuries within 3 minutes of the
accident and there was no evidence of drowning. He also reported that the lack of bodily trauma around the waist and hips indicated that the deceased
was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of impact which allowed his body to become a projectile resulting massive head trauma injuries."
I would recommend fastening your seatbelt for takeoff and landing.
@Andyadventures #11 the problem is that they fly into other people in the aircraft/vehicle. I don't care if you don't want to wear your seatbelt, I don't want you hitting me if we get in a wreck. And no you can't leave your purse in my car just cuz you don't think it'll get stolen. I don't want to have to buy a window when they break my window to get your stuff.
The whole flight is better
@@othername1000 You know this is usually not a problem outside of the US. There are other problems, including crimes, but at least not this one. (talking about a purse in a car)
@@makarpronin2008 guy I knew had $1000+ worth of CDs taken out of the car in London.
I believe the technical term is "idiots."
not sure about calling them idiots when it looks like there was super low visibility
@@ripnob ...yes, encountered as a direct result of poor decision making
Whers the go around call?
You are the idiot, never call pilots idiots, so never take the plane ahead, this is an ILS approach in very low visibility. Fortunately, he was damaged at sea and not on the runway ! it would have been catastrophic.
@@ripnob thats why they follow their instruments which was showing that they were way too low at the last part.. You don’t need to be able to see outside to know that you are too low. Thats what your instruments are for.. And they ignored all the warnings they got.. hard to believe
pilots eyes where looking out the window searching for runway and not on the instruments despite being in instrument conditions.
They should have initiated missed approach when minimums.
Before that!
I'm sure they know what they should have done, but you're not an airline pilot are you.
Tourists: Let's go diving in Micronesia for the weekend.
Pilot: OK, follow me.
🤭
Full glideslope deviation = IMMEDIATE missed approach!!
At most airlines, even partial deviation can warrant immediate go-around. Where I work a full dot below when inside the FAF is enough for a go-around. There's no excuse for the incredible lack of discipline demonstrated by these pilots. What they did was criminal negligence and it cost someone their life. It is thanks to excellent engineering and safety improvements that more people didn't die.
During the approach, when at or below the Landing gate ( 1000ft for IMC, 500ft for VMC )
-A significant deviation from target airspeed ( below Vref or above Vref+20)
- A Significant deviation from the correct flight path ( More than one dot localizer and/or glide slope)
- Excessive rate of descend ( more than 1000 fpm )
- The aeroplane is not in landing configuration
If any of these above occurs, immediately conduct missed approach !
"Glide slope"
Pilot = meh
System = im done with this clown
How on earth did the FO not call a missed approach and the captain not recognise how far below slope they were. These guys have no business flying a Cessna let alone a 737. Utterly tragic.
Saw this video somewhere before coming here. This is scary to look at since before minimums, the plane was on glide slope and suddenly descended below it quite fast
despite the certain fatal flaws all around in this particularly tragic incident as recorded and displayed, one can at least be thankful and hopeful that there were in fact survivors. Deepest respects
IIRC all but one survived
@@COD04MW no doubt it's one robust aircraft. Pretty miraculous indeed .
@@donkoh5738 Yes, thank the engineers on this one.
Stabilized criteria it's well defined on Boeing and Company Manuals, 1/2 dot deviation Callout, 1 dot Go Around, except for those Visual Operation Briefed Before.
As soon as the AP was disconnected the aircraft became unstable in ROD and glide path deviation. So many opportunities from then til the crash to give it away.
Shocker
Wow, It's like they never even looked at their altitude. Like they forgot it was important. The plane dropped the last 300 feet fast too
isn't the plane supposed to call out the altitude when it's that low?
@@BeReady726it did, radio altimeter callout, sink rate warning and gpws too low are going off repeatedly
The captain of this flight had over 19,000 flight hrs including over 2200 on a B737. The copilot had close to 5000 total flight hrs. It doesn’t matter what plane you’re flying, when you’re on VF/IFR and you deviate from your glide slope, you know you have to call for a missed approach immediately way before your minimums are reached and then come around and try again. How these pilots didn’t know or why they didn’t do it, is beyond me.
They even ignored a "PULL UP" GPWS warning.
When I saw the cockpit video, I thought they went into a microburst. Now, if I understood correctly (I´m not a specialist), they just went down in a higher rate that they should?
Exactly my thoughts, at the 1000ft mark they were still pretty much ok but they hit a microburst soon after, that sucks big time when you're on short finals, they didn't evaluate the weather and approach prior, so got themselves caught by it, add to this an unexperienced co-pilot and you have a freeze situation where nobody hit the toga.
Who gave these guys their IR? Or their MCC for that matter
is there a monitor that shows the aircraft "and the glide slope" in a cockpit?
Well you have the 2 diamonds on the pfd
I'm no pilot but uh... 'erm... wouldn't they be glued to the altimeter for the duration of that approach? Like when you get to 100ft... maybe uh... with all the warnings going off maybe pull up a bit? Specially in zero visibility? Wouldn't that become an instruments only approach?
They ignored the sink rate and glide slope warnings and the pilot stated 'I'm just going to take it a little more' when they reached minimums, and he flew it into the ground (water). Pilot error.
Wouldn't be glued to the altimeter, you should be monitoring GS indicator and LOC CDI. And with FD active, you should be glued to the FD and checking airspeed.
Tubasoarus. You state you are not a pilot! So why comment!! Ask a question but why give a guess based on no knowledge!
I am a pilot and instruct on this aircraft. When we get to decision altitude we make a binary decision. LAND or GO AROUND. If you do not have the required visual references you cannot land, full stop. There is no pulling up a bit or having a look. There is a decision followed by an action. They will fully chose to not on,y break that fundamental rule they also then ignored numerous warnings from the eGPWS each of which in its own should have meant a go around.
Nothing short of criminal negligence. Sadly happens too often and in this case they did not get away with it. I hope they pay the price.
Mandatory go around at minimums or glideslope warning.l
idk why but i always thought it was saying fly it slow not glideslope
He should’ve just let the autopilot land the plane why did he disconnect the autopilot?? It looked like has never flown this aircraft before the way he aggressively moved the yoke left and right.
The autopilot cant land the plane everywhere, you need something called ILS.
@Hk416 I'm very well aware of that, you can clearly see on the PFD that by the time he turned off the autopilot at 3:45 both the glideslope indicator and the localizer where alive which means that the plane was absolutely capable of landing itself.
@@iamgp3313 no, capturing the glide slope and the localizer alone doesn't make the plane ready to land by itself, for that you also need to arm the second autopilot. But autolands are very rare as they are meant to be used with poor visibility , and not for when you feel tired.... Therefore, the vast majority of landings are manual.
To get back to the video, the plane here wasnt doing an ils approach. There is no ILS at this airport. It was a non precision approach , with IAN, an optional feature that allows you to benefit from magenta diamonds guidance , which is provided by the FMC, and/or navigational radios.
if you like that part of the world there is the case of korean airline that crashed on Guam; night flying;Ils troubles etc
So they saw the runway environment and still crashed?
They saw it, lost it, continued, and crashed
They executed similar behavior on the previous flight, where they ignored 28 EGPWS warnings on final. They were a ticking time bomb crew just waiting for instrument approach conditions to bring out a catastrophic failure.
Even The plane knew that their were flying to low " PULL UP"
Straight after the crash the computer repeated: "RETARD, RETARD, RETARD"
Please, did the 2 fools "land" on water BEFORE or AFTER the runway? BEFORE ?
I would assume before, as they are low on the glideslope
@@nafisuling thanks! I guess so because I have looked at another crash simulation (planes "missing" fuel at Heathrow airport, landing right before the runway) and we would have seen some blurry land because the plane was 30m high seconds before crashing
@@RomanoPRODUCTION BA38?
Ignored Pull-Up warnings...
They violate the minimums. If they cant see just GO AROUND!
unexpected water landing lol
The worse part of this is that as unexpected as it was, it was still far more successful than most attempted water landings lol
Wait, wtf?!
YYZ , Mohawk-Planker .
Did they really use X-Plane to recreate this accident...?
Controlled flight into terrain.
I’m not a pilot yet but in my opinion these guys messed up badly!
Ur an genious
@@gustafpeyron Lol I don’t even know what I was thinking making this comment it’s obvious hahahah.
@Phillip Banes Learn how to read sarcasm
@Phillip Banes Ah yea, that’s my bad. You’re right, I don’t know basic spelling and grammar.
@Phillip Banes You’re still not picking up on the sarcasm. I have a feeling your brain is still very much developing, so I’ll leave you be.
Air Niugini wouldn't last very long as an airline in the United States as they would be banned from US Airspace based on the number of accidents they have already had. WTF? Im surprised Australia is still allowing them to operate in AU airspace.
Air Nuigini in the last 46 years of operation had only two accidents. This one is the second with the only death in both incidents. Both incidents were caused by pilot errors with aussie pilots in control.
@@jobguerekull1267 The captain and pilot in command was a 52-year-old Papua New Guinean male
@@kirkc9643 well technically part of the same continent but definitely not an aussie PIC.
@@devintariel3769 I'm not sure how that is relevant to my post or the one I was responding to.
I would’ve tried to land it on one of those islands even if it doesent have a runway still dry to land in a field on one of those islands he passed bu
The decent rate😒
So there is no ILS system?
They were flying the ILS, ignored all the warnings and had full scale deflection.
@@trubeats Any suvivors? As I recall this was shallow water?
WALTERBROADDUS yeah only 1 of the 47 on board perished.
@@trubeats They were not flying an ILS, this was a non-precision approach.
This runway does not have ILS.
What the fuck? So convinced of themselves, ignoring all callouts?
It’s funny I am a A320 captain at Jetstar, Air Niugini has the IOTA code as PX on all these flights our nickname for them in the industry is pixie lol
Benji James Captain for Jetstar? Ooh, flown with them multiple times. Which flights have you flown.
When 10 year olds in Microsoft Flight Simulator can fly better than you, it's time to quit.
non of them is a pilot
Вообще-то, рулил only captain. The first officier ни в чём не виноват. Как смог, сказал...
Prison time for these boys.
Yes, give them the electric chair.
Cowboys
Should have shown their pretty faces too
This is why automated landings and take off is the best... with auto pilot you can eliminate the pilot error factor....
No, following the rules and reacting to the warnings is the best.
Autoland exist, has for a while, and there are reasons why it's not executed every time when both aircraft and runway allow it.
@@Morrov following rules is the best. But humans are well, human. You cant force them to be perfect. Automation can be perfect.
There has to be both present. Sensor and program errors can occur, and any competent pilot can manually land an aircraft safely. But automation does help reduce the stress of pilots. Totally eliminating either during any stage on flight isn't necessarily better. Stack the odds in your favor.
@@hawxpilot Boeing is working on FAA certification to eliminate the copilot. Only 1 pilot for commercial flights is dawning. Automated avionics are advancing at an unstoppable rate. With reliability unmatched by any human. In the end, no job will be performed by a human that is better suited for a machine.
Why is automation somehow the answer to this blatant display of poor airmanship? A Boeing 707 with competent crew could do this 10 000 times over in complete safety, hand flown the entire time using raw data. This isn't an 'automate it!' problem, this is lack of professionalism in aircrew problem. 'Don't push minima' is a day 1, lesson 1 IFR training lesson.....
Kudos to the crew! 😂🤣😆😂😆
Er, accidental water landing.
Spammer weasel