Progress report: TSB Canada classifies Resolute Bay Boeing 737 accident as CFIT

January 5, 2012

In a progress report of their investigation into a fatal Boeing 737 accident at Resolute Bay, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada currently classified the accident as a Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) occurence.

On 20 August 2011, a First Air Boeing 737-210C aircraft (registration C-GNWN) was being flown as a charter flight from Yellowknife, North West Territories, to Resolute Bay, Nunavut.  At 11:42, during the approach to Runway 35T, First Air Flight 6560 impacted a hill at 396 feet above sea level (asl) and about 1 nautical mile east of the midpoint of the Resolute Bay Airport runway which, itself, is at 215 feet asl. The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and an ensuing post-crash fire. Eight passengers and the four crew members suffered fatal injuries. Three passengers suffered serious injuries.

The investigators have complete the field phase of the  investigation. With regards to the weather, it was reported that in the hours before the accident, the weather in Resolute Bay was variable with fluctuations in visibility and cloud ceiling. Forty minutes before the accident, the visibility was 10 miles in light drizzle with an overcast ceiling at 700 feet above ground level (agl). A weather observation taken shortly after the accident, reported visibility of 5 miles in light drizzle and mist with an overcast ceiling of 300 feet agl.

The weather conditions required the crew to conduct an instrument approach using the aircraft flight and navigation instruments. The crew planned to conduct an instrument landing system (ILS) approach to Runway 35T. This instrument approach provides guidance down to weather minimums of 12 mile visibility and a ceiling of 200 feet agl.

The crew initiated a go-around 2 seconds before impact. At this time, the flaps were set to position 40, the landing gear was down and locked, the speed was 157 knots and the final landing checklist was complete.

Another aircraft successfully completed an ILS approach to Runway 35T approximately 20 minutes after the accident. NAV CANADA conducted a flight check of the ground based ILS equipment on 22 August 2011; it was reported as serviceable.

The technical examination of the aircraft at the accident site revealed no pre-impactproblems. Analysis of the flight data recorder information and examination of the engines at the site indicate the engines were operating and developing considerable power at the time of the accident. Analysis of the aircraft flight and navigational instruments is ongoing.

More information:


Preliminary report issued on Maldives DHC-6 training flight accident

October 16, 2011

The Maldives Accident Investigation Coordinating Committe published a preliminary investigation report regarding the July 11, 2011 accident involving a DHC-6 Twin Otter.

The float-equipped de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter sustained substantial damage in a heavy landing in Biyaadhoo Training Lagoon, Maldives. The two pilots on board were not injured. The airplane was used for an annual re-current training flight. Departure time at Malé (MLE) was 08:20 and the flight had to be back before 09:30 because both crew members were scheduled to do a commercial flight at that time.
During the training five landings and take-offs were made simulating different conditions of flight. All these landings and take-offs were made inside the lagoon except the last landing where the crew decided to land on open water outside the lagoon. The crew were simulating a tail wind/single engine landing.
As per the crew, the aircraft initial touch down was smooth. However, they stroke a wave which made the aircraft bounce foe about 20 feet. With the low power aircraft hit the water again with great impact, resulting multiple float attachments to break. Both front and main spreader bars broke and floats rose up, twisted and hitting the bottom engine cowlings. Propeller cuts were found on front of both floats. Also, the flaps as well as the flap selectors were found on the zero position.

More information:


Report: Unstabilized approach preceded Colombian ERJ-145 runway excursion

September 26, 2011

The Colombian aircraft accident investigation committee concluded that the an ERJ-145 runway excursion at Mitú, Colombia occurred because the flight crew continued to land following an unstabilzed approach.

On May 5, 2010. an Embraer ERJ145, registered HK-4536, sustained substantial damage in a runway excursion accident at Mitú-Fabio Alberto León Bentley Airport (MVP), Colombia. There were no fatalities and there was no fire.
SATENA flight NSE-9634 had departed Villavicencio-La Vanguardia Airport (VVC) on a domestic flight to Mitú. The airplane could not be stopped on the runway when it landed on runway 20. It overran into a down sloping field, causing the undercarriage to collapse. The airplane came to rest 167 metres past the runway threshold and 4 metres below runway elevation.

The Board of Inquiry found that the probable cause of the accident was the execution of a landing on runway 20 at Mitu, following a destabilized approach especially with respect to deviations of height and speed when crossing the runway threshold, and the EGPWS alarm sound, which caused the aircraft to exceed the available runway. Additionally, the crew used  faulty techniques for landing on short and wet runways. Contributing to the accident was the lack of planning to carry out and complete the published instrument approach procedure for runway 20 and the deviation from standard operating procedures of the company.

More info:


Russian Tu-134 accident caused by poor decision making in below-minima weather conditions

September 19, 2011

The Tu-134 broke up. (photo: Ministry of Emergency Situations)

The Russian Interstate Aviation Committee (IAC) published the final report of their investigation into the fatal accident involving a Tupolev 134 jetliner at Petrozavodsk, Russia, blaming poor decision making in below-minima weather conditions.

On June 20, 2011 a Tu-134 operated by RusAir on behalf of RusLine, crashed on final approach to Petrozavodsk Airport (PES). The Tupolev struck trees and crash-landed on a highway while on final approach to runway 01. Forty-seven occupants died in the accident; five survived.

The investigators concluded that the airplane flew an approach in conditions worse than weather minimums for the airfield and that the crew failed decide to go-around. Instead the airplane descended below the minimum safe altitude in the absence of visual contact with approaching lighting and landmarks, which led to contact with trees and the ground in controlled flight.
Contributing factors were:

  • Poor interaction of the crew and poor crew resource management (CRM) from the commander of the flight during the approach. The pilot subordinated himself to the navigator causing the co-pilot to be effectively excluded from decisions;
  • The use during the flight of a navigator in a light level of alcoholic intoxication;
  • Incorrect weather forecast with regards to height of the cloud base, visibility and severe weather – fog;
  • The use of navigation equipment that used satellite navigation to determine the aircrafts position, which was in violation of the Flight Manual Supplement for the Tu-134.

 

More info:

 


Report: CIAIAC publishes final report on fatal MD-82 takeoff accident Madrid, Spain

August 3, 2011

After almost three years the Spanish investigators of the Comisión de Investigación de Accidentes e Incidentes de Aviación Civil (CIAIAC) have published the final report of their investigation into the cause of the fatal accident involving a Spanair MD-82 at Madrid, Spain. 

The MD-82 passenger plane, registered EC-HFP, was destroyed when it crashed on takeoff at Madrid-Barajas Airport (MAD), Spain on August 20, 2008. Of the aircraft’s occupants, 154 were killed, including all six crew members, and 18 were seriously injured. The MD-82 aircraft operated Spanair flight JKK5022 from Madrid-Barajas (MAD) to Gran Canaria (LPA).

The CIAIAC has determined that the accident occurred because *):

The crew lost control of the aircraft as a result of a stall immediately after takeoff, when the plane was not configured correctly, with the flaps / slats not being deployed, following a series of failures and omissions, with the absence of a warning of the incorrect takeoff setting.
The crew did not identify the lack of warnings nor correct the situation after takeoff –momentarily retarding engine power levers, increasing the pitch angle and failure to correct the roll– deteriorating the flight conditions.
The crew did not detect the configuration error by not properly using the checklists containing items to select and check the position of flaps / slats in the work of flight preparation, namely:

  • Failure to conduct the action of selecting flaps / slats (in the “After Start Checklist”);
  • No cross-checking was made of the position of the lever and the status indicator lights for flaps and slats during the “After Start” checklist;
  • Omission to check the flaps and slats under “Take Off Briefing” in the taxi checklist;
  • The visual inspection of the position of the flaps and slats at the point “Final Items” of the “Take Off Imminent” checks was not made, as shown by the instruments of the cockpit.

As contributory factors CIAIAC determined:

  • The absence of a notice of the incorrect takeoff configuration because the TOWS did not work and therefore did not alert the crew that the takeoff configuration of the aircraft was inappropriate. It was not possible to determine conclusively the cause why the TOWS system did not work.
  • Inadequate crew resource management (CRM), which did not prevent the diversion of procedures in the preparation of the flight.

*) The final report is currently available in Spanish. An English translation is being prepared by CIAIAC. In case of conflicting text, the Spanish text is valid.

More information:


Report: Islander ditching following engine failure caused by overloading

May 20, 2011

The Dutch Safety Board published the results of their investigation into an accident involving a BN-2 Islander aircraft of Divi Divi Air in October 2009. 

The airplane suffered a right hand engine failure shortly after takeoff from Curacao on an inter-island flight to Bonaire. The pilot elected to continue to Bonaire on the remaining engine. Altitide could not be maintain and the airplane ditched off Bonaire. The pilot was killed in this accident.  The nine passengers escaped the airplane relatively unharmed and were picked up by boats nearby the crash site.

The investigation showed that the airplane was unable to maintain horizontal flight after one of the engines had failed, due to overloading. The airplane was overloaded by 9%. With the continuation of the flight under these circumstances the pilot took a completely unacceptable risk. Furthermore the Board has established  that Divi Divi Air used standard passengers weight that were too low.  A random audit revealed that the maximum takeoff ‐ and landing weights, were systematically exceeded.

The investigation also revealed that the Divi Divi Air management insufficiently supervised the safety of the flight operations of their airplanes. Also safety oversight conducted by the Netherlands Antilles Directorate of Aviation was limited. In this light, the Safety Board referred to the ICAO audit that was conducted in 2008. This audit revealed many deviations of the ICAO standards and regulations. The Board is concerned about safety oversight on civil aviation at Curacao.

The results of the investigation have resulted in recommendation of the Board to Divi Divi Air and the Minister of Traffic, Transportation and Spatial Planning of Curacao and the Governor of Bonaire.

More information:


NTSB cites crew actions in ATR-42 cargo flight crash in Texas

April 27, 2011

The accident airplane (photo: FAA)

The crash of an ATR-42  cargo airplane while on approach to landing at Lubbock, Texas, was caused by the flight crew’s failure to maintain a safe airspeed, which put the plane into an aerodynamic stall at an altitude too low from which to recover, the NTSB determined.

Poor crew resource management, flawed decision-making and human fatigue were cited as contributing factors to the crash that left the captain seriously injured and the first officer with minor injuries.

On January 27, 2009, at 4:37 a.m. CST, an ATR 42-320 (N902FX) operating as Empire Airlines flight 8284 between Ft. Worth and Lubbock, was on an instrument approach when it crashed short of the runway. The airplane, which was registered to Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) and operated by Empire Airlines, Inc., was substantially damaged.

The aircraft, which had departed Ft. Worth about 84 minutes before the accident occurred, encountered icing conditions while en route to Lubbock. And although the airplane accumulated some ice during the flight that degraded its performance, the NTSB determined that the aircraft could have landed safely had the airspeed been maintained.

During the approach into Lubbock, at about 1400 feet above the ground and about 90 seconds from the runway, the captain indicated a flight control problem saying, “We have no flaps.” Although the crewmembers had been trained to perform a go-around and refer to a checklist if a flap problem occurred during an approach, the captain chose to continue the approach as he attempted to troubleshoot the flap anomaly while the first officer flew the plane. Neither flight crewmember adequately monitored the airspeed, which decayed to the extent that the stick shaker activated, which warned of an impending aerodynamic stall.

The captain continued the unstabilized approach even though he received additional stick shaker activations and an aural “pull up” warning from the terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS). At that point, the plane was descending at a rate of over 2,000 ft per minute.

Although procedures for responding to either the stick shaker or the TAWS warning require the immediate application of maximum engine power, the captain did not apply maximum power until 17 seconds after the TAWS warning. Seconds after maximum power was applied, the airplane entered an aerodynamic stall and crashed.

The NTSB also uncovered significant issues related to icing. Empire Airlines had dispatched the airplane into icing conditions that were outside the airplane’s certification envelope. Although this practice was not prohibited by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the NTSB has longstanding concerns about operations in freezing drizzle/freezing rain and as a result of this investigation made a safety recommendation to address the issue.

Among the nine safety recommendations that the NTSB made to the FAA were:

  • improve crew resource management training to encourage first officers to more assertively voice their concerns and teach captains to develop a leadership style that supports first officer assertiveness;
  • prohibit operators of pneumatic boot-equipped airplanes from dispatching them into icing conditions that are outside of those that the airplane was certified for;
  • educate pilots and dispatch personnel on the dangers of flight in freezing precipitation;
  • develop a method to quickly communicate flight information regarding the number of persons aboard and the presence of hazardous materials to emergency responders;
  • provide guidance on monitoring and ensuring the operability of emergency response and mutual aid gates during winter operations;
  • require all operators of ATR 42 and ATR 72 series airplanes to be equipped with an aircraft performance monitoring system;
  • improve flight simulator fidelity to more accurately model aerodynamic degradations resulting from airframe ice accumulation and ensure that flight crews are trained on them;
  • and require all ATR 42 aircraft to be equipped with a flap asymmetry annunciator light.
More information:

Report: hard landing and pitch-up after touchdown factors in A321 tailstrike accident

April 22, 2011

The Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB) released the final report of their investigation into a tailstrike accident involving an Airbus A321 at Osaka-Kansai International Airport (KIX/RJBB), Japan. An improper flare, hard landing and pitch-up after touchdown  were factors.

On October 28, 2009, an Airbus A321-200, registered HL7763, operated by Asiana Airlines, took off from Seoul-Gimpo International Airport (SEL), the Republic of Korea, as a non-scheduled flight OZ1125.

The first officer was pilot flying during the approach to runway 06L of Kansai International Airport. The descent rate of 544 ft/min at the time of touchdown was high and the aircraft contacted the runway hard with a vertical acceleration of 1.91G. The nose-up stick input  was continued after touchdown, while the extension of the spoilers further produced a nose-up effect. As a result the aircraft’s pitch angle of 4.6 degrees at the time of touchdown increased to 10.2 degrees. This angle was in excess of the maximum allowable pitch attitude of 9.7 degrees.

The first officer decided to make a go-around and moved the thrust lever in the TOGA position about four seconds after touchdown. The airplane circled and landed safely eleven minutes later. There were 147 persons on board, consisting of the Captain, 8 other crewmembers, and 138 passengers. No one was injured. The aircraft sustained substantial damage, but there was no outbreak of fire.

JTSB concluded:

In this accident, it is considered highly probable that, during the landing on Kansai International Airport, the Aircraft sustained damage in the aft part of the fuselage which contacted the runway, since the pitch angle became excessively large after the touchdown on the runway.
It is considered highly probable that the Aircraft’s pitch angle became excessive because the First Officer continued inputting pitch-up signals even after touchdown.
The flare by the First Officer was inappropriate and as a result, the sink rate of the Aircraft did not fully decrease, causing the Aircraft to land with a strong impact on the ground. It is considered probable that, that the First Officer became upset by the impact contributed to his continuous input for pitch-up after touchdown.


TSB critices Transport Canada on slow implementation of safety recommendation

April 11, 2011

A TSB investiation into a cabin smoke and passenger evacuation incident revealed that Transport Canada had not yet implemented an actual regulatory change after accepting a safety recommendation dated December 2007. The recommendation called for passenger safety briefings to include clear direction to leave all carry-on baggage behind during an evacuation.

On March 23, 2010 an Air Canada Airbus A320-211 (registration C-FTJO), operating as flight AC433, departed Montréal/Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport, Québec, for Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Ontario, with 98 passengers and 6 crew members on board.
In cruise, 1 of the 3 hydraulic systems failed. The flight continued toward destination where the flight made an uneventful landing. While stopped on the runway awaiting a tow, smoke entered the cabin and an evacuation was ordered. Two crew members and 2 passengers received minor injuries during the evacuation.

The TSB concluded that:

  1. A leak from the number 1 yaw damper caused fluid to be ingested into the auxiliary power unit and sent through the air conditioning system, resulting in smoke entering the cabin.
  2. When the crew ordered the evacuation as a result of the smoke, several persons received minor injuries while exiting the aircraft via the emergency slides.

It appeared that many passengers deplaned with their carry-on luggage. It could not be determined whether this was due to the fact that they were not aware of the instructions given by the flight attendants and included in the safety card, or if they were aware, but chose to disregard them. Passengers would have been more aware of this restriction if information was included during the pre-takeoff and pre-landing passenger briefings, as per TSB recommendation A07-07.

The few injuries that did occur may have been aggravated by the fact that the slides were wet from the rain, and the resultant speed of the exiting persons was higher than normal. While the baggage did cause some minor injuries and delays at the bottom of the slides, it did not appreciably increase the evacuation time. Were this a higher level of threat or emergency, however, even a slight delay could have resulted in more serious consequences.

Transport Canada agreed with the Board’s recommendation (A07-07) that called for passenger safety briefings to include clear direction to leave all carry-on baggage behind during an evacuation. However, to date, no regulatory change has been implemented. Due to the extensive delay between TC’s acceptance of this recommendation and the implementation of actual regulatory change, identified safety dificiencies continue to persist.

More information:

 


Report on UPS B747F in-flight fire accident: captain likely incapacitated

April 5, 2011

track data drived from the digital flight data recorder (DFDR) (image: GCAA)

The UAE General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) published a Preliminary Report of their investigation into the September 2010 fatal accident involving a UPS Boeing 747-400F. The report amongst others indicates that the captain had to leave his seat in search for portable oxygen in the smoke-filled flight deck. After which there was no further CVR information that indicated any further interaction from the Captain for the remainder of the flight.

Also, the report stated that there were no declared shipments of hazardous materials onboard the airplane. However, at least three of the shipments contained lithium ion battery packs that met the Class 9 hazardous material criteria.

A Boeing 747-44AF (SCD) cargo plane, registered N571UP, was destroyed in an accident shortly after takeoff from Dubai Airport (DXB), UAE. Both crew members were killed in the crash.
On September 3rd 2010, Flight UPS6 arrived from Hong Kong on a scheduled cargo service flight into Dubai (DXB) carrying among other items consignments of cargo that included lithium batteries.
There were no declared shipments of hazardous materials onboard the airplane. However, at least three of the shipments contained lithium ion battery packs that met the Class 9 hazardous material criteria, according to the report.
The aircraft was parked at the loading position at 15:35 local time. Several Unit Load Devices (ULD) were offloaded and new ULDs were loaded onto the plane. The flight then took from Dubai at 18:51. The First Officer was the Pilot Flying, the Captain was the Pilot Non Flying (PNF) for the sector to Köln/Bonn-Konrad Adenauer Airport (CGN), Germany.
The take off and climb out from Dubai was uneventful with the exception of a PACK 1 fault which was reset by the PNF at 18:55.
The flight transited from UAE airspace into Bahrain Airspace where, at 19:12, the fire bell alarm sounded on the flight deck. The airplane was approaching top of climb (FL320) at the time.
Following the fire bell annunciation, the Captain assumed control of the aircraft as PF, and the First Officer reverted to PNF while managing the fire warnings and cockpit checklists. The Captain advised Bahrain Air Traffic Control (BAH-C) that there was a fire indication on the main deck of the aircraft. The crew informed BAH-C that they needed to land as soon as possible. BAH-C advised the crew that Doha International Airport (DOH) was at the aircraft’s 10 o’clock position at 100 NM DME. DOH was the nearest airport at the time the emergency was declared, Dubai (DXB) was approximately 148 NM DME. The Captain elected to return to DXB, and following the request to land as soon as possible to BAH-C, the crew declared an emergency. BAH-C acknowledged the request, cleared the aircraft for a series of right hand heading changes back to DXB onto a heading of 106°.
At approximately 19:14, the Auto Pilot (AP) disconnected, followed at 19:15 by a second audible alarm similar to the fire bell. At about this time the flight crew put on the oxygen masks and goggles. The crew experienced difficulties communicating via the intercom with the masks on, which interfered with the Cockpit Resource Management (CRM).
Following the initiation of the turn back to DXB, having been cleared to 27,000 ft, the crew requested an expedited, immediate descent to 10,000 feet. Following ATC clearance, the flight crew initiated a rapid descent to 10,000 ft. BAH-C advised the crew that the aircraft was on a direct heading to DXB and cleared for landing on DXB runway 12 left at their discretion.
The Fire Main Deck checklist was activated. According to the system logic, the cabin began to depressurise, PACKS 2 and 3 shut down automatically, and PACK 2 and 3 positions were then manually selected to OFF on the overhead panel in accordance with the checklist instructions.
At 19:15, PACK 1 shut down, with no corresponding discussion recorded on the CVR. A short interval after the AP was disengaged, the Captain informed the F/O that there was limited pitch control of the aircraft in the manual flying mode, the Captain then requested the F/O to determine the cause of the pitch control anomaly.
During the turn back to DXB, the AP was re-engaged, and the aircraft descent was stabilised at 19:17. The Captain told the F/O to pull the smoke evacuation handle. This was not part of the Fire Main Deck Non-Normal checklist.
The Captain informed BAH-C that the cockpit was ‘full of smoke’ and commented to the F/O about the inability to see the instruments. The Captain instructed the F/O to input DXB into the Flight Management System (FMS). The F/O acknowledged the request and commented about the increasing flight deck temperature. It was not clear from the CVR if the FMS was programmed for DXB, although the DFDR indicated that the ILS/VOR frequency was changed to 110.1 MHz which was the frequency for DXB RW12L. Based on the information available to date, it is likely that less than 5 minutes after the fire indication on the main deck, smoke had entered the flight deck and intermittently degraded the visibility to the extent that the flight instruments could not effectively be monitored by the crew.
At approximately 19:19, during the emergency descent, at approximately 20,000 ft cabin altitude, the CAPT, as PF, declared a lack of oxygen supply. Following a brief exchange between the Captain and F/O regarding the need for oxygen, the Captain transferred control of the aircraft to the F/O as PF. Portable oxygen is located on the flight deck and in the supernumerary area, aft of the flight crew’s positions when seated. At this point the recorded CVR is consistent with the Captain leaving his seat, after which there is no further CVR information that indicates any further interaction from the Captain for the remainder of the flight.
The normal procedural requirement of transiting into the Emirates FIR, inbound for DXB was a radio frequency change from BAH-C to UAE-C. At 19:20, BAH-C advised the crew to contact UAE-C. At approximately the same time, the PF transmitted ‘mayday, mayday, mayday can you hear me?’.
The PF advised BAH-C that due to the smoke in the flight deck, the ability to view the cockpit instruments, the Flight Management System (FMS), Audio Control Panel (ACP) and radio frequency selection displays had been compromised. At 19:21, the PF advised BAH-C that they would stay on the BAH-C frequency as it was not possible to see the radios. The PF elected to remain on the BAH-C radio frequency for the duration of the flight. At approximately 19:22 the aircraft entered the Emirates FIR heading east, tracking direct to the DXB RW12L intermediate approach fix. The aircraft was now out of effective VHF radio range with BAH-C. In order for the crew to communicate with BAH-C, Bahrain advised transiting aircraft that they would act as a communication relay between BAH-C and the emergency aircraft.
At 19:22, the F/O informed the relay aircraft that he was ‘looking for some oxygen’.
Following the rapid descent to 10,000 ft the aircraft leveled off at the assigned altitude approximately 84NM from DXB. At approximately 19:26, the PF requested immediate vectors to the nearest airport and advised he would need radar guidance due to difficulty viewing the instruments.
At around 19:33, approximately 26 NM from DXB, the aircraft descended to 9000 ft, followed by a further gradual descent as the aircraft approached DXB, inbound for RW12L. The speed of the aircraft was approximately 340 kts.
19:38, approximately 10NM from RW12L, BAH-C, through the relay aircraft, advised the crew the aircraft was too high and too fast and requested the PF to perform a 360° turn if able. The PF responded ‘Negative’. At this time the DFDR data indicated the gear lever was selected down, the speed brake lever moved toward extend and at approximately the same time there was a sound consistent with the flap handle movement; shortly afterward the PF indicated that the landing gear was not functioning.
The aircraft over flew the DXB northern airport boundary on a heading of 117°, the aircraft speed and altitude, was 340 kts at an altitude of 4500 ft and descending. Following the over flight of DXB, on passing the south eastern end of RW12L, the aircraft was cleared direct to Sharjah Airport (SHJ) as an immediate alternate – SHJ was to the aircraft’s left and the SHJ runway was a parallel vector.
The relay pilot asked the PF if it was possible to perform a left hand turn. The PF responded requesting the heading to SHJ.
The PF was advised that SHJ was at 095° from the current position at 10 NM and that this left hand turn would position the aircraft on final approach for SHJ (RW30). The PF acknowledged the heading change for SHJ. The PF selected 195° degrees on the Mode Control Panel (MCP).
The AP disconnected at 19:40, the aircraft then entered a descending right hand turn at an altitude of 4000 ft as the speed gradually reduced to 240 kts until the impact.
Several Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) caution messages were audible on the CVR indicating: Sink Rate, Too Low Terrain and Bank Angle warnings. Radar contact was lost at approximately 19:41. The aircraft crashed 9nm south of DXB onto a military installation near Minhad Air Force Base.

The investigation is on-going.

More information:


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 43 other followers

%d bloggers like this: