Mumbai: There are three possible scenarios on what could have caused the Ghatkopar air crash, say experts. One is bad weather and a resultant downdraft or windshear that could have caused a sudden loss of altitude after which the aircraft hit an obstacle and crashed. Mechanical failure may have caused the aircraft to suddenly dip lower than it should have or third, pilot misjudgment prompted by poor visibility which forced him to descend lower to spot the Juhu runway.
What is known so far is that the turboprop was 26 years old, it hadn’t flown for close to nine years, it had undergone major repairs in the past 18 months and it took off for its first test flight on a day of rain, lowslung cloud cover and visibility of only about 1500m.
Who decided to carry out the test flight, which lasted 50 minutes, on such a day?
The investigation will probe the roles played by aircraft owner Vile Parle-based U Y Aviation, Indamer Aviation, the company that carried out repairs, and the pilots and aviation authorities on ground.
Unlike the affluent Mumbai airport, poor neighbour Juhu’s runway is not equipped with navigation aids like Instrument Landing System (ILS). When visibility dips below 5,000m, the Juhu air traffic control consults with the Mumbai air traffic control to decide whether a take-off from Juhu can be allowed.
For close to 45 minutes after the plane took off at 12.20pm, nothing went wrong because the pilots did not report any aircraft problem when they spoke to the Mumbai air traffic controller last, said a senior air traffic controller.
After travelling as far north as Daman and Surat, the returning King Air C-90 was carrying out a “side-step approach” to land in Juhu. It locks on to the main Mumbai runway’s ILS navigation signals to descend and at one point, pilots spot the Juhu runway, turn right and land.
The Mumbai radar shows the aircraft tracked the correct descent rate and angle. The pilots had to report to Mumbai control when they turned right for Juhu. “The radar showed that the aircraft had turned right. It’s last recorded altitude on the Mumbai radar was 400 feet, though at that point, it should have been 500 feet,” said the controller. It crashed soon after.
30/06/18 Manju V/Times of India
To Read the News in full at Source, Click the Headline
What is known so far is that the turboprop was 26 years old, it hadn’t flown for close to nine years, it had undergone major repairs in the past 18 months and it took off for its first test flight on a day of rain, lowslung cloud cover and visibility of only about 1500m.
Who decided to carry out the test flight, which lasted 50 minutes, on such a day?
The investigation will probe the roles played by aircraft owner Vile Parle-based U Y Aviation, Indamer Aviation, the company that carried out repairs, and the pilots and aviation authorities on ground.
Unlike the affluent Mumbai airport, poor neighbour Juhu’s runway is not equipped with navigation aids like Instrument Landing System (ILS). When visibility dips below 5,000m, the Juhu air traffic control consults with the Mumbai air traffic control to decide whether a take-off from Juhu can be allowed.
For close to 45 minutes after the plane took off at 12.20pm, nothing went wrong because the pilots did not report any aircraft problem when they spoke to the Mumbai air traffic controller last, said a senior air traffic controller.
After travelling as far north as Daman and Surat, the returning King Air C-90 was carrying out a “side-step approach” to land in Juhu. It locks on to the main Mumbai runway’s ILS navigation signals to descend and at one point, pilots spot the Juhu runway, turn right and land.
The Mumbai radar shows the aircraft tracked the correct descent rate and angle. The pilots had to report to Mumbai control when they turned right for Juhu. “The radar showed that the aircraft had turned right. It’s last recorded altitude on the Mumbai radar was 400 feet, though at that point, it should have been 500 feet,” said the controller. It crashed soon after.
30/06/18 Manju V/Times of India
0 comments:
Post a Comment