France’s Bureau of Enquiry and Analysis for Civil Aviation Safety (BEA) has just released its preliminary report about an incident that happened in late May, and it’s kind of terrifying. As noted by @AirlineFlyer, a plane with 172 passengers onboard was within six feet of crashing.
Continue reading: Yikes: Airbus A320 Was Six Feet From Crashing
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Wow - surprised that being 10 feet off on runway altitude would mean reaching 0 above ground level a whole mile away from the runway
They were 280 feet too low, not 10 feet. The altimeter setting appears to have been 10 millibars off.
wonder why the audio “too low terrain” warnings which I assume were blurting out in the cockpit were being ignored, unless of course the pilots hit the master alarm silence switch as part of a RNP approach?
“Meanwhile in another interaction, the controller gave Air France pilots the correct value, but that was in French and not English.”
It’s pretty difficult to give numbers correctly in French, but wrong numbers in English. Like, “zero” is “zero” in both languages with minor pronunciation differences..
Usually on an approach the GPWS is automatically off since the aircraft recognizes it’s about to land on a given runway. From my understanding, an RNP approach gives a calculated approach path based off the flight computer’s information about an aircraft’s path, which feeding an incorrect altimeter setting would throw that off and cause the aircraft to think it’s fine when it’s truly not.
While I don’t want to play armchair quarterback on what happened, I think it‘s hard to fault the pilots for what happened. If ATC gives a different altimeter setting than what’s on the ATIS/METAR, pilots usually believe ATC has updated information, especially if the ATIS was somewhat older, and will plug it in. ATC has screens available with current weather info at fields they are controlling, and so when they advise of an altimeter setting, pilots will think it’s being read straight from the current weather report and is the most up to date source of information.
This is where pilot experience and strong backup procedures keep some situations from getting back at larger airlines. Since this flight involved a second or third tier airline operating the flight, the chances are that the pilots were not near as experienced to know what was wrong not just the first time but even on the secnd approach
With the pilot shortage and rapid hires at even the big legacy / flag carriers let's hope that experience is somehow replicated via training in place though wondering how training can replace the experience of senior pilots.
It's not 2010 with only the most senior pilots flying around for the big US carriers post the great recession layoffs.
Would also add are we better off having some somewhat older pilots by extending retirement age to maintain that seasoning at least while new crews ramp
Agree that I mostly blame ATC on this. The one thing I'd think the pilots could've done is double-check the METAR. 1011 and 1001 is a big difference so they would've noticed that and could've asked for clarification.
I wonder how they pronounced 1001 and 1011. In other words, did they say "one-thousand-and-one" or "one-zero-zero-one" or "ten-oh-one" or any other variation. This might account for the differences between languages.
The issue is, that they Mix Up French with English, and their english competence is low. Remember the dialog in JFK with the ITA issue? A friend, ATC Controller in Germany answered on my question, which Airline he consider as unsafe: Turkish and Air France... I don't travel with AF and try to stay away fein CDG!
But unless the Radio Altimeter was on deferral how do you fly at 6' AGL? On top of that, how do you do an RNP approach where the weather still has you "in the clouds" at 6' AGL. That seems to be well below minimums for an RNP approach. Then they are visual on the second approach? Something isn't adding up or my brain just isn't function tonight.
In Diagram they are clear to 5000 feet , but are at 500 feet ( Radio-altimeter ) Way off Glide-slope , location on radar, GPS altitude , Airplane ground proximity warning systems etc. There are lots of questions here not related to wrong altimeter setting on airplane.
This doesn't make any sense. Below 2000ft, the radio altimeter is used and the baro setting has no influence whatsoever on the RA readings. Also baro setting has no influence on the ILS.
Roger one-fourteen, this is Dulles Tower. We have radar contact and show you on ILS. You're in the glide path and looking good.
When they are cleared to 5000 feet they are in the go-around following the Missed Approach Procedure. Thus, they are cleared to climb to 5000 feet to initiate their next approach.
Can we remove the "human" from this yet?
Humans are very bad at doing repetitive tasks.
The EasyJet incorrect read back is another huge overlooked problem. Those pilots should be grounded too.
Pilot should listen to ATIS n any big diff loke this must be recomfirm n advise the controller of the big different. Futhermore when low cloud is present, it must be low pressure condition not a condition of pressure close to ISA std. Also when close to ground (below 2500 ft) check the Radio Altimeter height with the baro Altimeter- elevation.
Giving reason that “not in company Manual’ to check n follow ATIS is such a lame excuse and that is not the way to think as a Proffesional Aviator. This is PPL standard of thinking. Please accept your mistake and learn. Its your life n passenger NOT the controller life !!.
Norweigion Airline shd be more vigilant in when awarding wet lease to any company.
Pilot should listen to ATIS n any big diff like this must be reconfirm n advise the controller of the big difference. Futhermore when low cloud is present, it must be low pressure condition not a condition of pressure close to ISA std. Also when close to ground (below 2500 ft) check the Radio Altimeter height with the baro Altimeter- elevation.
Giving reason that “not in company Manual’ to check n follow ATIS is such a lame excuse and that is not the way to think as a Professional Aviator. This is PPL standard of thinking. Please accept your mistake and learn. Its your life n the passengers NOT the controller’s life !!.
Norwegian Airline shd be more vigilant in when awarding wet lease to any company.
The altimeter setting is almost always read character by character - so in this case one zero one one. Exceptions might be numbers like 1000
The radio altimeter would have have issued verbal indications that the aircraft was lower than thought. Those callouts might be just mildly confusing at 1000 and 500, but when the rapid annunciation of 50-40-30-20-retard began, within nothing in sight, a missed approach would have been in order. Not sure why this cue did not prompt a go around much sooner than 6’ agl.
So you are volunteering to occupy the first pilotless passenger aircraft? Excellent! Comments such as yours demonstrate the need to further Darwin’s concept of “Natural Selection!”