Bishkek-Manas

The cause of the Boeing 747-412F TC-MCL aircraft accident was the missing control of the crew over the aircraft position in relation to the glideslope during the automatic approach, conducted at night in the weather conditions, suitable for ICAO CAT II landing, and as a result, the measures to perform a go-around, not taken in due time with the aircraft, having a significant deviation from the established approach chart, which led to the controlled flight impact with terrain (CFIT) at the distance of ≈930 m beyond the end of the active RWY.
The contributing factors were, most probably, the following:
- the insufficient pre-flight briefing of the flight crew members for the flight to Manas aerodrome (Bishkek), regarding the approach charts, as well as the non-optimal decisions taken by the crew when choosing the aircraft descent parameters, which led to the arrival at the established approach chart reference point at a considerably higher flight altitude;
- the lack of the crew's effective measures to decrease the aircraft vertical position and its arrival at the established approach chart reference point while the crew members were aware of the actual aircraft position being higher than required by the established chart;
- the lack of the requirements in the Tower controllers' job instructions to monitor for considerable aircraft position deviations from the established charts while the pertinent technical equipment for such monitoring was available;
- the excessive psycho-emotional stress of the crew members caused by the complicated approach conditions (night time, CAT II landing, long-lasting working hours) and their failure to eliminate the flight altitude deviations during a long time period. Additionally, the stress level could have been increased due to the crew's (especially the PIC's) highly emotional discussion of the ATC controllers' instructions and actions. Moreover, the ATC controllers' instructions and actions were in compliance with the established operational procedures and charts;
- the lack of the crew members' monitoring for crossing the established navigational reference points (the glideslope capture point, the LOM and LIM reporting points);
- the crew's failure to conduct the standard operational procedure which calls for altitude verification at the FAF/FAP, which is stated in the FCOM and the airline's OM. On the other hand, the Jeppesen Route Manual, used by the crew, contains no FAF/FAP in the RWY 26 approach chart;
- the onboard systems' "capture" of the false glideslope beam with the angle of ≈9°;
- the design features of the Boeing 747-400 aircraft type regarding the continuation of the aircraft approach descent in the automatic mode with the constant descent angle of 3° (the inertial path) with the maintained green indication of the armed automatic landing mode (regardless of the actual aircraft position in relation to the RWY) while the aircraft systems detected that the glideslope signal was missing (after the glideslope signal "capture"). With that, the crew received the designed annunciation, including the aural and visual caution alerts;
- the absence of the red warning alert for the flight crew in case of a "false" glideslope capture and the transition to the inertial mode trajectory, which would require immediate control actions from the part of the crew;
- the lack of monitoring from the part of the crew over the aircraft position in regard to the approach chart, including the monitoring by means of the Navigation Display (ND), engaged in the MAP mode;
- the crew's failure to conduct the Airline's Standard Operational Procedures (SOPs), regarding the performance of the go-around procedure in case the "AUTOPILOT" (the AP switching to the inertial mode) and "GLIDESLOPE" (the EGPWS annunciation of the significant glideslope deviation) alerts during the automatic CAT II landing at true heights below 1000 ft (with no visual reference established with either the runway environment or with the lighting system);
- the delayed actions for initiating the go-around procedure with no visual reference established with the runway environment at the decision height (DH). In fact, the actions were initiated at the true height of 58 ft with the established minimum of 99 ft.

The board president found, by clear and convincing evidence, the cause of the mishap was the MA’s tail section separating due to structural overstress as a result of the MC’s failure to turn off either the SYD (Series Yaw Damper) or the rudder power and oscillating dutch roll-induced acceleration forces translating through the MP’s feet as the MP used rudder during the unrecognized dutch roll condition. Additionally, the board president found, by a preponderance of evidence, that the dutch roll was instigated by the MA’s malfunctioning Flight Control Augmentation System that caused directional instability or rudder hunting which substantially contributed to this mishap. Other substantially contributing factors include insufficient organizational training programs, crew composition, and cumbersome procedural guidance.

On Apr 22nd 2013 a letter of Kyrgyzstan's Transport Prosecutor to Kyrgyzstan's Parliament of April 2012 became known indicating that the airport had been approved to operate in Category I weather minima without being properly equipped and should never have been approved to operate in these conditions, as a result of the investigation the aerodrome has been limited to operate according to visual flight rules only. The aircraft was not properly equipped to conduct the flight lacking a GPWS as well as passenger oxygen, the crew was not qualified to conduct the flight and the oversight by the airline's dispatch and chief pilot was insufficient, the Transport Prosecutor mentioned that the responsibles to oversee flight operation could not answer even the most basic questions. Kyrgyzstan's Civil Aviation Authority failed to oversee the operation of the airline as well. While on approach to Osh the crew was informed about weather conditions permitting an approach, the data transmitted however were incorrect and the actual weather did not even permit an approach. Instead of being established on the approach 10.5km/5.6nm before touchdown the aircraft was established on the extended centerline only about 4.02km/2.17nm before touchdown, however was above the glidepath. A steep dive to reach the runway resulted in a touch down at a high rate of descent and vertical forces beyond the design limit of the aircraft (more than 2.5G), as result of the high impact forces the aircraft did not even bounce but just started to disintegrate, reaching 58 degrees of right roll 270 meters past the runway threshold, between 270 and 550 meters past the threshold the tail fin separated, the aircraft was completely upside down 600 meters past the threshold and came to a stop about 1000 meters past the threshold of the runway. The main door was jammed, the occupants escaped through other doors and the overwing exits. No serious injury occurred, 6 people needed hospital treatment with minor injuries.

The crew did not properly operate the thrust levers so that the engines did not reach take off thrust. The aircraft had not reached Vr at the end of the runway and could not get airborne. According to the design criteria of the MD11 the crew needs to push at least two thrust levers to beyond 60 degrees, which will trigger autothrust to leave "CLAMP" mode and adjust the thrust to reach the target setting for takeoff, the servo motors would push the thrust levers forward in that case. During the accident departure the pilot in the left seat did not advance the thrust levers to more than 60 degrees, hence the server motors did not work although autothrust was engaged but remained in CLAMP mode and thus did not adjust the thrust to reach takeoff settings. The crew members perceived something was wrong. Audibly the engine sound was weak, visibibly the speed of the aircraft was low, tactically the pressure on the back of the seat was weaker than normal. Somebody within the crew, possibly on the observer seats, suggested the aircraft may be a bit heavy. The T/O THRUST page never appeared (it appears if autothrust is engaged and changes from CLAMP to Thrust Limit setting. Under normal circumstances with autothrust being engaged a click sound will occur as soon as the thrust levers reach the takeoff thrust position. A hand held on the thrust levers will feel the lever moving forward, however, the crew entirely lost situational awareness. None of the anomalies described in this paragraph prompted the crews members' attention. When the aircraft approached the end of the runway several options were available: reject takeoff and close the throttles, continue takeoff and push the throttle to the forward mechanical stop, continue takeoff and immediately rotate. The observer called "rotate", the captain rotated the aircraft. This shows the crew recognized the abnormal situation but did not identify the error (thrust levers not in takeoff position) in a hurry but reacted instinctively only. As the aircraft had not yet reached Vr, the aircraft could not get airborne when rotated. As verified in simulator verification the decision to rotate was the wrong decision. The simulator verification showed, that had the crew pushed the thrust levers into maximum thrust when they recognized the abnormal situation, they would have safely taken the aircraft airborne 670 meters before the end of the runway. The verification also proved, that had the crew rejected takeoff at that point, the aircraft would have stopped before the end of the runway. The crew did not follow standard operating procedures for managing thrust on takeoff. The crew operations manual stipulates that the left seat pilot advances the thrust levers to EPR 1.1 or 70% N1 (depending on engine type), informs the right seat pilot to connect autothrust. The pilot flying subsequently pushes the thrust levers forward and verifies they are moving forward on servos, the pilot monitoring verifies autothrust is working as expected and reaches takeoff thrust settings. In this case the left seat pilot not only did not continue to push the thrust levers forward, but also called out "thrust set" without reason as he did not verify the takeoff thrust setting had been achieved. It is not possible to subdivide the various violations of procedures and regulations. The crew had worked 16 hours during the previous sector. In addition, one crew member needed to travel for 11 hours from Europe to reach the point of departure of the previous sector (Nairobi Kenya), two crew members need to travel for 19 hours from America to the point of departure of the previous sector. These factors caused fatigue to all crew members. The co-pilot was 61 years of age, pathological examination showed he was suffering from hypertension and cardiovascular atherosclerosis. His physical strength and basic health may have affected the tolerance towards fatigue. All crew members underwent changes across multiple time zones in three days. Although being in the period of awakeness in their biological rhythm cycle, the cycle was already in a trough period causing increased fatigue. The captain had flown the Airbus A340 for 300 hours in the last 6 months, which has an entirely different autothrust handling, e.g. the thrust levers do not move with power changes in automatic thrust, which may have caused the captain to ignore the MD-11 thrust levers. The co-pilot in the right hand seat had been MD-11 captain for about 7 years but had not flown the MD-11 for a year. Both were operating their first flight for the occurrence company. The two pilots on the observer seats had both 0 flight hours in the last 6 months. The co-pilot (right hand seat) was pilot flying for the accident sector. The captain thus was responsible for the thrust management and thrust lever movement according to company manual. A surviving observer told the investigation in post accident interviews that the captain was filling out forms and failed to monitor the aircraft and first officer's actions during this critical phase of flight. There are significant design weaknesses in the MD-11 throttle, the self checks for errors as well as degree of automation is not high.
Source: Aviation Herald/Simon Hradecky

The cause of the Itek Air B737-200 ЕХ-009 accident during the air-turn back due to the cabin not pressurizing (probably caused by the jamming of the left forward door seal) was that the crew allowed the aircraft to descend at night to a lower than the minimum descent altitude for visual approach which resulted in the crash with damage to the aircraft followed by the fire and fatalities. The combination of the following factors contributed to the accident:
- Deviations from the Boeing 737-200 SOP and PF/PM task sharing principles;
- Non-adherence to visual approach rules, as the crew did not keep visual contact with the runway and/or ground references and did not follow the prescribed procedures after they lost visual contact;
- Loss of altitude control during the missed approach (which was performed because the PIC incorrectly evaluated the aircraft position in comparison with the required descent flight path when he decided to perform visual straight-in approach);
- Non-adherence to the prescribed procedures after the TAWS warning was triggered.

The collision between the TU-154 and KC-135R aircraft was clearly an accident and not the result of any intentional conduct. The Accident Investigation Board, convened by AMC, determined that the accident was caused by the Kyrgyzaeronavigation air traffic controller who cleared a civilian airliner for takeoff without verifying that the KC-135R was clear of the runway. In addition to the air traffic controller, the AIB found evidence of several contributing factors involving the KC-135R aircrew, conflicting published airport notices, and a tower liaison employed by the U.S. Government to facilitate communication between the tower and U.S. aircrews. Although the AIB found the air traffic controller primarily at fault, the U.S. KC-135R crew and tower liaison shared responsibility for ensuring the KC-135R cleared the runway to a safe location following landing. The accident might have been avoided had any of them exercised better awareness of their situation.
In conclusion, the AIB determined the principal cause of the mishap was the Kyrgyzaeronavigation controller clearing the TU-154 for takeoff without verifying that KC-135R was clear of the runway, there was evidence the following factors also contributed to the mishap:
- The Kyrgyz air traffic controller's instruction to vacate at taxiway Golf after dark conflicted with a published Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) that limited that taxiway's use to daylight hours. The contractor safety liaison (LNO) employed by the U.S. Air Force to facilitate communication between its aircrews and Kyrgyz controllers did not clarify the apparent discrepancy.
- After questioning the Kyrgyz controller's instruction to vacate the runway at taxiway Golf, the LNO instructed the KC-135R crew to hold short of Alpha. The mishap KC-135R crew misperceived the LNO's instructions and responded "holding short of Golf." The LNO failed to catch the read-back error.
- The Kyrgyz controller failed to maintain awareness of the KC-135R's location.
- The LNO failed to maintain situational awareness and intervene when the controller's actions endangered the KC-135R and aircrew.
The KC-135R is assigned to the 92nd Air Refueling Wing, Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash. While deployed at Manas AB, the KC-135R and its aircrew were assigned to U.S. Central Command's 376th Air Expeditionary Wing, flying missions supporting coalition aircraft over Afghanistan.

The accident was the consequence of a controlled flight into terrain due to the combination of the following factors:
- Loss of situational awareness on part of the flying crew,
- The crew failed to comply with the Standard Operational Procedures published by the operator,
- The crew failed to follow the published approach charts,
- Implementation of a non-precision approach,
- Incorrect use of the automated flight systems,
- Inadequate training (LOFT),
- The crew descended below the MDA in limited visibility.

Wrong approach configuration on part of the flying crew, which caused the airplane to land too far down the runway. The following contributing factors were identified:
- Poor crew coordination,
- The pilot-in-command who was also the General Manager of the company, did not had sufficient training and qualifications to act in such position,
- Poor crew resources management,
- Poor flight and approach planning.