NEPALESE ATR-500 CRASH APPEARS TO BE LEFT ENGINE FAILURE

The tragic loss of life in this crash is appalling and appears to be due to a loss of power on the left engine.

The airplane was approaching the airport slowly and as it slowed further it appears that it rolled into the left engine and went down knife edge into a ravine.

The video is a typical engine failure scenario where if one engine fails and power is applied with the remaining engine the aircraft will want to roll into the dead engine.

For that to happen the aircraft has to be slower than VMCA, the minimum control airspeed with engine failure and the good engine at takeoff (not landing) power.

What happens is that when surprised by engine failure or loss of power the crew may swimming in glue in the cockpit unable to address the airplane’s abnormal flying characteristics quickly enough to prevent it from going out of control.

Other potential causes are propeller failure which adds drag on the left side or just a stall (aerodynamic not engine) from getting too slow on the approach. One would hope with all the built in safeguards an inadvertent stall is the lowest likelihood on the list.

Lastly, every airliner today takes off overloaded. The weights of the typical passenger are much higher than the weights that are computed when the airplane is certified for both men and women (just look around you)and baggage is much heavier as well. This makes an engine failure even worse and stall speeds even higher than published.

The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorders will be important as well as the experience and training of the crew. It would be important to see what speed the airplane was flying on this approach as it appears slow and that may well be a factor as control was lost.

May the memories of all aboard be a blessing to their families.

Arthur Alan Wolk

January 15, 2023

Contact The Wolk Law Firm
p: (215) 545-4220
c: (610) 733-4220
f: (215) 545-5252

For more commentaries, click here.

2

Arthur Wolk presented with the Wilbur and Orville Wright Master Pilot Award

The Federal Aviation Administration presented the founder of The Wolk Law Firm, Arthur Alan Wolk, with the coveted Master Pilot Award.

It is reserved for those pilots who have dedicated themselves to aviation safety for fifty years.

The Wolk Law Firm is unique in that its founder holds multiple Type Ratings in jet aircraft, is airshow qualified for aerobatics down to 400 feet AGL and is airshow formation qualified.

He is also an Airline Transport Pilot for both single-engine and multi-engine land and sea airplanes.

The Wolk Law Firm is proud to acknowledge this achievement, demonstrating compelling reasons for it to be considered the standard against which all other aviation law firms are measured.

 

November 16, 2022

Contact The Wolk Law Firm
p: (215) 545-4220
c: (610) 733-4220
f: (215) 545-5252

For more commentaries, click here.

2

AIRLINE WANTS TO REDUCE REQUIRED CO-PILOT FLIGHT TIME TO 700 HOURS FROM 1500.

AIRLINE SAFETY DOOMSDAY AHEAD.

An airline that maintains its own flight school wants the FAA to reduce the required flight time for its first officers from 1500 to only 700.

It claims that in 700 hours its student pilots have enough experience to serve in a support capacity to a Captain who has more than the required flight time and will not compromise safety.

The 1500-hour requirement for first officers followed a tragic crash of a Colgan Airways turboprop crash in icing conditions on approach to Buffalo N.Y. While the NTSB’s probable cause unfairly blamed the pilots, the new higher flight experience requirement for first officers was designed to bring more skill into the cockpit.

Here’s the problem with the airline’s logic which the FAA will likely go along with. Flight time is not an indicator of experience, it is a number of hours of flight time. Experience is time in the air, time in the type aircraft and years of experiencing all types of weather, lots of emergencies and abnormal conditions in airplanes. That’s why big airlines always had an apprentice program that required a pilot to get years in the cockpit before he became qualified to be a captain or even a first officer.

If the FAA allows this reduction in flight time to be the rule, I predict an airline safety disaster. I had friends who claimed to know it all after just 600 hours. They didn’t but are a risk to themselves and others. The FAA statistics show that most accidents occur when the pilot has between 500 and 1000 hours pilot time. That’s the “I know it all.” period and before a pilot starts to learn that he doesn’t know it all after all.

This proposed reduction of required flight time is a mistake and will make us all less safe.

Arthur Alan Wolk

May 12, 2022

For more commentaries click here.

1

The FAA’s misinformation about airframe icing is like getting a gift of ice in the wintertime. For years we pilots have been taught that airframe icing can be expected when the outside air temperature is within 10 degrees F. of freezing and we are flying in visible moisture.

The same information is made applicable to jets but in most instances airliners have no anti-ice or deice over their tail surfaces, just heated leading edges of their wings and engine inlets.

Now there is a dearth of information out there of just what a manufacturer has to show the FAA to get Known Icing Certification and for good reason. If you knew, you would ground your airplane in icing conditions.

I was flying my Eclipse Jet out of Pueblo Co. yesterday and into the clouds that I had just vacated on my arrival. Even though the layers on approach were one layer at FL 200 (twenty thousand feet) and another at 12,000 feet there was no ice accumulated.

As I climbed toward the front range of the Rockies on my departure Westbound and looked at those nasty looking clouds over the mountains I remembered the words Orographic Cooling from my distant past and several cases I handled where jets were quickly overcome with ice in the mountains.

Orographic Cooling occurs when the winds are thrust up the windward side of the mountains and as they travel ever faster into the higher elevations the droplets of water that are clouds become supercooled.

If you have the misfortune to fly through some of it, even though there is no warm front overriding a cool surface, and no SLD (supercooled liquid droplets associated with warm rain dropping into cold air below and forming water that forms ice on contact) , you will accumulate ice, usually rime ice, at temperatures and at flight levels you never dreamed of.

So, as a precaution I turned on the engine inlet heat and waited. Well it didn’t take long for the airframe ice to start accumulating. Milky white rime ice on the leading edges of the wings began as the outside air temperature exceeded minus 12 degrees C! The ice continued to accumulate, though the deicing boots shed it quickly and effectively, through FL 240 and OAT of minus 20 degrees C. For those who speak only F, the ice started at 10 degrees F. and ended at about minus ten degrees F., well below any temperature the FAA has told us to expect airframe icing.

Lessons learned?

  1. Everything we have been told about airframe icing is useless when flying in, over or near mountains.
  2. Airframe icing can occur at temperatures well below the “within ten degrees of 32 degrees F”.
  3. Airframe icing can continue all the way up into the flight levels.

Now many will read this and say that all it means is that flying in the mountains is different than non-mountain flying. That might be true but only two of the jet icing  accidents I have handled occurred in the mountains and all of the turboprop icing accidents I have handled were in the flatlands.

Arthur Alan Wolk

January 22, 2020

0

The  myth about wake turbulence at flight levels debunked. The FAA says that its ok for heavy airplanes to overfly small airplanes while at flight levels and they need not worry about severe turbulence from the wake upsetting the smaller aircraft..

That of course is how the United States adopted RVSM airspace which reduces the altitude clearance between aircraft operating in different directions above 27,000 feet to 1000 feet instead of the old 2000.

So under these new rules an airplane weighing a million pounds can overfly an aircraft weighing just 6000 pounds and according to the FAA no sweat.

Now that was until a Challenger business jet, weighing in at about 60,000 pounds encountered the wake from an Airbus 380 in the Middle East, rolled upside and lots of other ways before the crew could regain control. They landed safely but the airplane was trashed.

So the FAA addressed the problem and now Controllers give pilots a wake turbulence caution as they permit the same passage of million pound aircraft 1000 feet above a 6000 pound airplane. That caution of course is meaningless because what’s the pilot of the little airplane to do start writing his will?

Case in point.

Today I flew my Eclipse Jet for the more than 150th time across our great country. It weights 6000 pounds soaking wet. As I sat there over Missouri at Flight Level 370 contemplating the New Year’s Eve coming, the shadow of a very large aircraft loomed above me. It was a Quantas Boeing 787 that had overtaken me at Flight Level 390. Now I would say the Boeing 787 weighed in at about 600,000 pounds but what’s a few hundred thousand pounds more or less?

When I saw it and did the numbers quickly I asked the controller for a vector to avoid wake turbulence. He graciously gave me a ten degree right turn. That looked good to me.

After my TCAD showed the Aussie about 15 miles ahead of me, I requested a climb to Flight Level 390 in the hope that at that altitude it would be less likely for that to happen again.

As I approached Flight Level 380 and about simultaneous with a “Caution Wake Turbulence “warning from the controller, my airplane began to shake violently like some invisible hand was playing “Jingle Bells” with it as it rolled violently from side to side at least 30 degrees.

I looked at TCAD again in disbelief as the 787 was more than 15 miles away and regained control of my airplane and myself. The Controller and I discussed it as he was also in disbelief exclaiming that the Quantas airplane was 200 knots faster than I was in my climb and 20 miles away when the encounter occurred.

Lessons learned. RVSM safety is a fiction. Wake turbulence is not confined to the FAA’s long standing safe distance behind rules like 7 miles maximum even behind a landing Boeing 757. Dangerous wake turbulence is not confined to landing aircraft with their flaps down.

Dangerous wake turbulence can be experienced even 20 miles behind and 1000 feet below heavy aircraft. Even a vector away can be insufficient as after 15 miles the wake often spreads wide enough to encompass a large area not just the wingspan of the generating aircraft.

Add this one from actual experience. Some weather and wind conditions allow the wake from the larger aircraft to remain at the same altitude for many miles and there may be no safety to fly behind a larger aircraft at the same altitude.

Take my words for this one, today’s real life lesson is one that is important.

Keep an eye on your TCAD or ADS-B to see what kind of aircraft will overtake or fly over you with only a 1000 feet between you. If its big, take a vector and put 20 miles between you and the larger aircraft.

If you decide to climb to the altitude of the airplane that overtook you, wait until it’s at least 25 miles ahead and still fly the vector for the climb. If it’s a super heavy airplane like an Airbus 350, Boeing 787, Boeing 747 or Triple 7 or an Airbus 380, good luck!

I’m happy to be able to write this article tonight because if the 787 had overflown me at 1000 feet I’d likely not be so lucky!

Arthur Alan Wolk

New Year’s Eve 2019

0

Runway incursions still happening. FAA’s Latest Solution More Lights   The problem of runway incursions has been around for as long as there are runways.

But at big airports, especially at night, the problem has been more frequent and more dangerous.

Big airports have radar to tell the tower where airplanes are on the surface and many pilots now have GPS that tells them where they are, but runway incursions still happen.

The FAA’s preferred solution is to throw money at the problem in the hope that it disappears. So the FAA has spent billions changing colors, adding colors, adding lights, changing lights but the problem persists.

Let’s see why.

All taxiways have yellow lines drawn down the centerline. Put your nose wheel on it and your good…well not really.

Some taxiways have green lights imbedded on top of the yellow lines. Follow the green and you are good…well not exactly.

Of course the taxiways are marked on each side by blue lights so stay between the blue lights and you are okay…well no.

 

Then there are the big painted circles that are invisible at night with the runway number painted on them on the taxiway.

 

And there are the flashing red/yellow lights at the end of the taxiway and entrance to the runway.

 

Does that mean stop, caution, both or just another cool set of lights.

Of course the lights for the taxiways are yellow with black letters and for the taxiway you are taxiing on the background is sort of yellow and black with black letters.

 

Now the FAA has been adamant that all pilots be taught to follow ATC instructions. So adamant has the FAA been that instead of using English terms as required by International agreements, they have chosen to alter the language to throw in a little linguistic confusion. Traditionally, that means forever, the FAA said that “Position and Hold” meant enter the runway and stay put until “Cleared for Takeoff.”

Every pilot on the planet knew this term.

But, so everyone could be confused and eons of training and experience thrown to the wind, the FAA had the bright idea of changing the well-worn phrase to “Line Up and Wait.”

Now, if there is no line this phrase makes no sense and there could be no line because only one aircraft is allowed on the runway at a time. But, we pilots have come to learn it and abide by it, senselessness or not.  Which brings me to the latest goofy FAA expenditure called “Runway Status Lighting Systems.”

The FAA had the bright idea, bright red in fact, to add a new set of lights to the confusing array of lighting and painting color symbiology.

On the taxiways adjacent to the active runway are red lights imbedded into the tarmac. If you are cleared onto the runway and the lights are red, you are to disregard your ATC clearance stay put and ask what’s up.

Once you are cleared to Line Up and Wait, assuming the red lights are off or you have been instructed by ATC to disregard them, after you line up or are cleared for takeoff there are another set of imbedded lights on each side of the Runway Centerline. If they are lit you are not to takeoff, but to ask ATC whether it really means cleared for takeoff or something else. Meanwhile, other aircraft that may be landing on the same runway will no doubt be going around until this is all sorted out. If you are making an intersection takeoff, you will never see either set of status lights so you are doomed.

 

Well done once again FAA. You have spent tens of millions of dollars to add more confusion to the process, guaranteed more runway incursions, and worse now told pilots to disregard ATC instructions when these lights are lit, which they may or may not see.

Over and Lights Out!

Arthur Alan Wolk

5/30/19

0

This is a letter that Arthur Alan Wolk sent today to Daniel Goren, Esq. Division of Aviation – Philadelphia International Airport and Bill Banks, Manager, FAA Airports District Office – Flight Standards District Offices

Re: Northeast Philadelphia Airport (KPNE)

Gentlemen,

I am a tenant at The North Philadelphia Jet Center. I operate an Eclipse Jet. Other aircraft that regularly use the airport include all types of Gulfstream, Global Express and BBJ jets. These aircraft are heavier, land and takeoff faster and are bigger than many smaller air transport aircraft at KPHL including all models of the CRJ, Embraer Regional Jets and Embraer 175 aircraft, not to mention the Boeing 737 and MD-80s.

I understand that KPNE is designated as a reliever airport for KPHL. Whether the latter is true, in an emergency, its 7000 by 150 foot runway is a perfect alternate landing site for any large aircraft in trouble or where the runways at Philadelphia are fouled. The approaches are clear, the ILS and GPS approaches perfect, the landing distance is adequate and the width is safe for virtually any emergency which might include a locked up brake, blown tire, ice on the runway or just a bad landing or takeoff.

The condition of the runway was virtually perfect, and except for a slightly non-standard safety area off of Runway 24, it was within FAA runway specifications. I now understand that the entire length of Runway 24 is being dug up so its sub-structure can be brought up to current FAA specifications, but it is also to be narrowed by 50 feet because the FAA “won’t pay for restructuring the full existing width due to the aircraft that typically operate from there.” You’re kidding, right? April 9, 2019 Page 2

The FAA will pay to rip up a 7000 foot runway to the dirt, put it out of service for nearly a year, to increase the strength of the sub-structure, which is only needed for heavy aircraft like 150,000 lbs. or more, but will narrow the very same runway to a dangerous width because airplanes of that weight don’t typically use the airport. If that doesn’t make sense to you, it doesn’t make sense to me either.

I have spent my life litigating aircraft accidents because of the FAA’s inexplicable absent oversight. The FAA airports division’s failure to get runways at public airports to meet specification, including runway safety areas designated since 1975 as 500 by 1000 feet is legendary, but narrowing an existing runway is beyond incompetent and just dangerous!

You will reap what you have sewn. A jet aircraft will go off the side of this narrow runway when it is icy or wet and the weather is down, at night likely when an approach might be flown at a higher landing speed with limited visibility.

If a large aircraft is waiting for takeoff at the end of Runway 24, it will bend the localizer and the next aircraft will be 50 feet off centerline. If the GPS signal is being tested or altered due to Defense Department needs, the loss of accuracy will put an aircraft on that approach off centerline by fifty feet or more.

As a taxpayer, I am angry that you would spend our money in such a frivolous fashion, and as a pilot I am appalled that you would compromise our safety in this reckless manner. I am asking my Senators and Congressmen to look into this, but if nothing is done I will file for an injunction with the federal court. The action taken is without factual support, is arbitrary, capricious and against the FAA’s own safety standards.

Incredibly poor judgment by the City and the FAA both of which should know better. You already have small aircraft that make it off the side of the existing runway, how many lives will be lost when a large aircraft with a bunch of people cartwheels off the side because there is no longer adequate pavement. Then your thoughts and prayers will be too late!

This decision must be reversed!

Very truly yours,

ARTHUR ALAN WOLK

0

Boeing has announced and the FAA has agreed to software changes to the MCAS system, the anti-stall system suspected in causing 300 deaths in the last 4 months on the Boeing 737 Max 8.

The Boeing announcement says the enhancements include updates to “the MCAS flight control law, pilot displays, operation manuals and crew training. The enhanced flight control law incorporates angle of attack (AOA) inputs, limits stabilizer trim commands in response to an erroneous angle of attack reading and provides a limit to the stabilizer command in order to retain elevator authority.”

Yet just yesterday the FAA issued a certification of continued airworthiness for the 737 Max 8 claiming to the world that in spite of the two recent accidents, the airplane is just fine. That’s funny, an Airworthiness Directive addresses safety of flight issues and one is already issued on an emergency basis and the software enhancements are included in the second to be issued in April. Other changes are likely to be mandated as well.

So the B-737 Max 8 is so safe that over 300 people are dead and it needs to be changed to keep flying yet the FAA hasn’t grounded it until the “enhancements” are introduced.

Other U.S. carriers who operate the Max refuse to take it out of service. What will the FAA say when another one goes down, this time in the U.S., “Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims’ families.”?

This is politics as usual and the FAA is covering up its embarrassment for having certified an airplane with an emergency system that causes its own emergency. The 737 Max 8 will one day be fixed just like the 737 rudder was after six accidents years ago, but right now until it’s fixed it should remain on the ground.

The FAA is useless!

Arthur Alan Wolk

3/12/19

0