trial of Luxair F50 crash begins

[capslock]

http://www.wort.lu/wort/web/letzebuerg/ ... rozess.php

[3WE]

No spreken ze Deutsch. Care to give a brief summary?

[ZeroAltitude]

No spreken ze Deutsch. Care to give a brief summary?

In short: Luxembourg is too small to hold all the press people.

[schmusimausi73]

No spreken ze Deutsch. Care to give a brief summary?

In short: Luxembourg is too small to hold all the press people.

The say it's partly the pilot's error and partly technical negligence on the part of the airline.

[schmusimausi73]

LuxAir Trial Day Two

Crash flight attendants did not follow procedure

Expert statements given at the Luxair trial hearing on Wednesday suggest that the flight's crew did not follow the rules.

Two expert witnesses analysed the technical details regarding the condition of the aircraft before and after it crashed.

The court also heard about Luxair's procedures which, it is suggested, were not followed on the fateful day in November 2002.

According to the airline's Aircraft Operating Manual regarding monitored approaches in poor visibility, a co-pilot is expected to take over from the captain by monitoring all instruments and keeping in contact with the control tower.

During the accident on November 6, 2002, however, it emerged in court that the pilot was in charge during the entire landing approach, an act which in the words of presiding judge Prosper Klein was a “violation of Luxair's rules.”

At the same time, the court heard how both men seem to have been distracted by their own discussions. Based on evidence relayed to the court from the Cockpit voice recorder, the two pilots sounded unhappy when they were asked to circle the airport and were diverted to Saarbrucken because of poor visibility.

The prosecution argued that both men were “probably impatient to land because they were free for the rest of the day.”

The court heard that visibility was so poor on the day in question because of thick fog that the pilot was forced to abort one landing attempt before the accident.

As visibility improved, the pilot “more or less spontaneously” tried again.
One expert described this decision as “going against all rules of reason because the plane at this time was going too fast and was too high.”

At the same time passengers were not informed that they were about to land, constituting a further violation of the rules, according to Judge Klein.

As a result of the aircraft's height and speed, the primary stops on the thrust levers did not have enough time to be levered into position. Seconds later, the plane crashed. The trial continues.

[sully]

From ARA city radio website , this weeks news stories one after the other :

LUXAIR

The Luxair trial resumed yesterday with expert witnesses continuing with their testimony. The pilot and 6 other senior Luxair executives stand accused of causing the death by negligence of 20 people about one of their planes which crashed near Roodt sur Syr in 2002. The experts said their investigations showed the crew had not followed the correct procedures for landing in limited visibility, which was the case that day. They also missed one the key distance and altitude checkpoints on their approach to Findel. At one point the pilot, less than 5 miles from the runway, started to abort the landing, only to change his mind again and decided to continue. This is against all basic flying procedure. The plane was now travelling too fast to adopt its landing configuration, although this was implemented, possibly in a bid to cut speed drastically. The trial continues today.

------------------------------------------------------------------

LUXAIR

The Luxair trial continued yesterday with criminal investigators giving the court their assessment of the accident in 2002 which claimed the lives of 20 people. The investigators said they felt the technical division of Luxair bore the brunt of the responsibility for carrying out upgrades to the Fokker 50 which might have prevented the accident. The senior management at Luxair could not be blamed for this. Judge Prosper Klein agreed, saying some of the Luxair directors in the dock had neither pilot’s licenses nor up-to-date technical qualifications. Their work for the company could not be described as being responsible for plane maintenance.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

LUXAIR TRIAL

The Luxair trial yesterday continued with testimony from the pilot of the Fokker 50 which crashed in 2002. He was one of only two survivors of the accident. He told the court Luxair’s operations manual contained different procedures to those outlines by air safety experts. Earlier in the trial, experts criticised the way the pilot and his co-pilot set the plane up for landing in poor visibility. The trial continues today.

[sully]

Also from ARA ;

LUXAIR TRIAL

The Luxair trial has entered its third week, with 7 employees accused of causing death by negligence after a crash in 2002 which claimed the lives of 20 passengers and crew. Yesterday saw aviation experts back in the witness box testifying as to what they believed caused the crash. Once again they pointed at a failure in the Fokker 50’s anti-skid control system as the principal cause. But the crash investigator from France also confirmed that the crew had taken the wrong action when confronted with the problem and that there was nothing wrong with the other aircraft controls. Judge Prosper Klein however returned to his theme of how safety upgrades were carried out at the time. Experts told him that the safety culture at the time saw manufacturers updates not marked top priority as optional, and despite Fokker flagging the problem with the anti-skid unit for several years, most airlines wouldn’t have bothered to upgrade it.

[sully]

Wed 26th from ARA ;

LUXAIR TRIAL

The Luxair trial entered its 10th day yesterday with Judge Prosper Klein issuing a stern warning to some of the witnesses. He reprimanded them for giving subjective evidence which was tantamount to advocacy for some of the accused. The court is struggling to reconcile the black and white rules of the Napoleonic legal code with the more interpretative nature of aircraft safety procedures, which are in a state of constant development. This has resulted in a number of witnesses disagreeing about what is the correct procedure for pilots in certain situations.