Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 23, 2014, 11:07:10 AM
Home Help Login Register      
News: LiveATC.net Flyers Released!  Please click here to download & print a copy and be sure to post at an airport near you!


+  LiveATC Discussion Forums
|-+  Air Traffic Monitoring
| |-+  Aviation Audio Clips (Moderators: dave, RonR)
| | |-+  CRASH AEROPERU WITH CVR_603, FLIGHT DATA RECORDER
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: CRASH AEROPERU WITH CVR_603, FLIGHT DATA RECORDER  (Read 18722 times)
kikelopez007
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1



« on: March 24, 2009, 03:52:52 PM »

On 2 October 1996, shortly after takeoff just past midnight, the Boeing 757 airliner crew discovered that their basic flight instruments were behaving erratically and reported receiving contradictory serial emergency messages from the onboard computer, such as rudder ratio, overspeed, underspeed and flying too low. The crew declared an emergency and requested an immediate return to the airport. Faced with the lack of reliable basic flight instruments, constantly receiving contradictory warnings from the aircraft's flight computer (some of which were valid and some of which were not), and continuously believing that they were at a safe altitude, pilot Eric Schreiber and copilot David Fernández decided to cautiously begin the descent for the approach to the airport. Since the flight was at night over water, no visual references could be made to convey to the pilots their true altitude or aid the pilots in the descent. Also, as a consequence of the pilot's inability to precisely monitor the aircraft's airspeed or vertical speed they experienced multiple stalls resulting in rapid loss of altitude with no corresponding change on the altimeter. While the altimeter indicated an altitude of approximately 9,700 feet, the aircraft's true altitude was in fact much lower. It struck the water approximately twenty-five minutes after emergency declaration, making the pilots realize the true altitude of the airliner; for twenty seconds the pilots tried to make the airliner climb. The airliner then crashed into the water.[1] All nine crew members and sixty-one passengers died.

After the crash recovery crews found nine bodies floating; the rest of the bodies sank with the airliner.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 09:07:24 PM by kikelopez007 » Logged
Аэрофлот Jr.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 270



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2009, 06:55:55 PM »

Thanks for this post. i wanted this.

Chilly clip.

I'm posting the English translation document.

I included both 97-2003 Word version doc. and newer version doc.
Logged

sincerely, Rae
bsmith19
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2009, 07:44:37 PM »

This was a interesting case that resulted in some policy changes.  Problem was they used grey tape to cover the static port so they could spray the plane down.  Then when the pilots preflighted the aircraft, which was at night, they did not notice the grey tape since it blended in.  Now procedure is to use bright reflective tape so it can't be missed.
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2009, 08:04:24 PM »

This was a interesting case that resulted in some policy changes.  Problem was they used grey tape to cover the static port so they could spray the plane down.  Then when the pilots preflighted the aircraft, which was at night, they did not notice the grey tape since it blended in.  Now procedure is to use bright reflective tape so it can't be missed.

Here is a pic of the static ports covered with the grey tape:

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/ap603/13.shtml
« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 08:06:05 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2009, 08:30:58 PM »

Here is a link to youtube. They have a several part National Geographic show on this crash. It's called "Aeroperu 603; Flying Blind". Five parts total. You may have to search for the other parts, but they are there.

« Last Edit: March 25, 2009, 09:15:06 PM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2009, 09:32:44 PM »

This was a interesting case that resulted in some policy changes.  Problem was they used grey tape to cover the static port so they could spray the plane down.  Then when the pilots preflighted the aircraft, which was at night, they did not notice the grey tape since it blended in.  Now procedure is to use bright reflective tape so it can't be missed.

Actually, it was another B757 crash a few months earlier that implemented the changes. In very eerily similar conditions, Birgenair 301,  a Rolls Royce RB-211-535E4 powered B757-225, reg # TC-GEN, crashed into the ocean off the cost of Puerto Plata, Domincan Republic on Feb 6, 1996, killing all 189 on board. There are reports that the static ports were covered with tape, causing erroneous readings in the cockpit.

From Wikipedia:
"After takeoff at 11:42 p.m the captain found that his air speed indicator (ASI) was not working properly, although the co-pilot's ASI was functional. While the plane was climbing to 4,700 feet (1,400 m), the captain's ASI indicated 350 knots, which triggered an autopilot reaction, increasing the pitch-up attitude and reducing power to lower the plane's airspeed. Investigations showed that the plane was actually travelling at 220 knots at the time. Both pilots became confused when the co-pilot's ASI read 200 knots (decreasing) while getting rudder ratio and Mach airspeed advisory warnings and a stick-shaker warning. The pilots concluded that both ASIs were malfunctioning. The autopilot, which received the captain's faulty ASI readings, was disconnected by the pilots and they gave full thrust. At 11:47 p.m., the Ground Proximity Warning System gave an audio warning, and eight seconds later the plane crashed into the Caribbean Sea. All 9 crew members and 180 passengers died."

The aircraft rolled over, and crashed, inverted, into the ocean. Findings from this crash had not reached Aeroperu yet, and the MX crew went about there business as usual, continuing to use the grey tape. Recommendations after the Birgenair crash included the use of bright, reflective, tape on static ports and pitot tubes when covering them is necessary. 

So, yes, you are correct, but incorrect at the same time. This crash did help change practices world wide as far as covering static ports, but it took the Birgenair crash before it, and the Aeroperu crash...and the loss of 259 lives, and two B757s, to get it done.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2009, 06:48:14 AM by joeyb747 » Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
AviatorJud
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



« Reply #6 on: April 02, 2009, 12:03:53 AM »

After listening to the entire recording I have some serious issues with several things these "experienced" pilots did(and didn't do), but I'm not gonna armchair QB. 

The thing that kept driving me crazy was that ATC and the co-pilot speaking to ATC weren't speaking english?!  Seeing as how english is the international aviation language, I thought it was always required that ATC uses it. 
Logged

Private Pilot & A&P Mechanic
Himerzi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2009, 01:51:27 PM »

After listening to the entire recording I have some serious issues with several things these "experienced" pilots did(and didn't do), but I'm not gonna armchair QB. 

The thing that kept driving me crazy was that ATC and the co-pilot speaking to ATC weren't speaking english?!  Seeing as how english is the international aviation language, I thought it was always required that ATC uses it. 

Nope, the language part was not a mistake, or violation.
http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/question-about-(non-english)-language-use-in-atc/

Dave, Forum Staff : Perhaps it would be useful to add an FAQ section about actual  ATC, including why English is not always necessarily used.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2009, 01:53:24 PM by Himerzi » Logged
Himerzi
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2009, 01:54:27 PM »

After listening to the entire recording I have some serious issues with several things these "experienced" pilots did(and didn't do), but I'm not gonna armchair QB. 

The thing that kept driving me crazy was that ATC and the co-pilot speaking to ATC weren't speaking english?!  Seeing as how english is the international aviation language, I thought it was always required that ATC uses it. 

Nope, the language part was not a mistake, or violation.
http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/question-about-(non-english)-language-use-in-atc/

Dave, Forum Staff : Perhaps it would be useful to add an FAQ section about actual  ATC, including why English is not always necessarily used. These seems to be a recurring misconception/misunderstanding.
Logged
AviatorJud
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14



« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2009, 09:12:24 PM »

After listening to the entire recording I have some serious issues with several things these "experienced" pilots did(and didn't do), but I'm not gonna armchair QB. 

The thing that kept driving me crazy was that ATC and the co-pilot speaking to ATC weren't speaking english?!  Seeing as how english is the international aviation language, I thought it was always required that ATC uses it. 

Nope, the language part was not a mistake, or violation.
http://www.liveatc.net/forums/listener-forum/question-about-(non-english)-language-use-in-atc/

Dave, Forum Staff : Perhaps it would be useful to add an FAQ section about actual  ATC, including why English is not always necessarily used.


That's interesting because when I was in school 5 years ago, I know we were taught that English was the ICAO standard for ATC comm around the world...and that every transport pilot and controller, everywhere, had to be able to speak English.  It may not technically be a violation, but that's the way it's supposed to be...and for good reason - so that everyone on the frequency knows what's going on around them, possibly aiding the situation if need be.

It would seem that the last post in that thread you linked to would agree with me.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2009, 09:14:37 PM by AviatorJud » Logged

Private Pilot & A&P Mechanic
Joss
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2009, 08:56:17 PM »

They forgot to apply basic IFR skills.

Predetermined Pitch + Predetermined Power = Known Performance

For instance, you know that if you pitch nose up and apply climb power any airplane will normally climb.

Now, if you plan to descend and reduce power but you do not pitch the nose down you'll eventually run out of speed and stall.
Logged
joeyb747
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1583


Nothing Like A 747!


« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2009, 09:47:34 PM »

They forgot to apply basic IFR skills.

Predetermined Pitch + Predetermined Power = Known Performance

For instance, you know that if you pitch nose up and apply climb power any airplane will normally climb.

Now, if you plan to descend and reduce power but you do not pitch the nose down you'll eventually run out of speed and stall.

Yes...but you forgot one major factor...both these flights were lost at night with no moon, over water. They had NOTHING to gauge there position on. To make matters worse, ATC told the Aeroperu that they were holding steady altitude when they were actually descending. I understand your point totally. But when you can't tell the difference between sky and water, and vertigo sets in...well, you know what happens next. If this had been during the daytime, at least they could have gone VFR.
Logged

Aircraft Mechanic
otto_pilot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64



« Reply #12 on: May 27, 2009, 11:06:51 PM »

Atc did not help but......lets be real he right the 1st things u tend to learn ifr is how the plane handles in certain situations. You do it partial panel and you learn to fly......almost blind. someone with an ATP and a type in a 57 should no what power will make it climb. Also i believe the auto pilot was a terrible idea on the captain's part. The instruments from which the auto pilot gets its info from were not working so how could the auto pilot work. this was not the flight crews fault but it could have ended better. So i know my knowledge base is small but it just seems that way...... the NTSB prolly would have said pilot error as they do w/ everything else that happens
Logged

tower: right delta ground point niner
pilot: Uh tower did you mean to say ground point 8 or do you want us to try them on point 9.
tower: Oh yea point 8 would work better, wouldnt it
DaytonaAirport
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #13 on: June 17, 2009, 02:51:11 AM »

This was a interesting case that resulted in some policy changes.  Problem was they used grey tape to cover the static port so they could spray the plane down.  Then when the pilots preflighted the aircraft, which was at night, they did not notice the grey tape since it blended in.  Now procedure is to use bright reflective tape so it can't be missed.


Actually, it was another B757 crash a few months earlier that implemented the changes. In very eerily similar conditions, Birgenair 301,  a Rolls Royce RB-211-535E4 powered B757-225, reg # TC-GEN, crashed into the ocean off the cost of Puerto Plata, Domincan Republic on Feb 6, 1996, killing all 189 on board. There are reports that the static ports were covered with tape, causing erroneous readings in the cockpit.

From Wikipedia:
"After takeoff at 11:42 p.m the captain found that his air speed indicator (ASI) was not working properly, although the co-pilot's ASI was functional. While the plane was climbing to 4,700 feet (1,400 m), the captain's ASI indicated 350 knots, which triggered an autopilot reaction, increasing the pitch-up attitude and reducing power to lower the plane's airspeed. Investigations showed that the plane was actually travelling at 220 knots at the time. Both pilots became confused when the co-pilot's ASI read 200 knots (decreasing) while getting rudder ratio and Mach airspeed advisory warnings and a stick-shaker warning. The pilots concluded that both ASIs were malfunctioning. The autopilot, which received the captain's faulty ASI readings, was disconnected by the pilots and they gave full thrust. At 11:47 p.m., the Ground Proximity Warning System gave an audio warning, and eight seconds later the plane crashed into the Caribbean Sea. All 9 crew members and 180 passengers died."

The aircraft rolled over, and crashed, inverted, into the ocean. Findings from this crash had not reached Aeroperu yet, and the MX crew went about there business as usual, continuing to use the grey tape. Recommendations after the Birgenair crash included the use of bright, reflective, tape on static ports and pitot tubes when covering them is necessary. 

So, yes, you are correct, but incorrect at the same time. This crash did help change practices world wide as far as covering static ports, but it took the Birgenair crash before it, and the Aeroperu crash...and the loss of 259 lives, and two B757s, to get it done.
The cause of the accidents were different, TC-GEN's (the Birgenair jet) pitot tubes was clogged with a wasp's nest, while the Aeroperu crash had its static ports blocked. But yes, you are correct, these two are similar accidents, as they consitute instrument failure.
Logged
DaytonaAirport
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2009, 03:33:20 AM »

They forgot to apply basic IFR skills.

Predetermined Pitch + Predetermined Power = Known Performance

For instance, you know that if you pitch nose up and apply climb power any airplane will normally climb.

Now, if you plan to descend and reduce power but you do not pitch the nose down you'll eventually run out of speed and stall.

Yes...but you forgot one major factor...both these flights were lost at night with no moon, over water. They had NOTHING to gauge there position on. To make matters worse, ATC told the Aeroperu that they were holding steady altitude when they were actually descending. I understand your point totally. But when you can't tell the difference between sky and water, and vertigo sets in...well, you know what happens next. If this had been during the daytime, at least they could have gone VFR.
They weren't trained for this kind of situation, and three years after the crash poor Aeroperu was closed cry
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!