Verified CCTV footage has captured the moment a wet-leased Marathon Airlines Embraer E195 aircraft operating on behalf of Air Serbia on Sunday February 18 struck the Instrument Landing System (ILS) array on departure and sustained significant damage to the fuselage, wing box and stabilizer in what is being treated as a serious incident. The aircraft, which was bound for Dusseldorf, managed to land safely just under an hour after becoming airborne. Although there have been no official public statements surrounding the incident, bar from a note by Air Serbia that passengers were at no point at risk, Air Traffic Control (ATC) recordings show the aircraft entered the runway from the D5 intersecting taxiway, rather than D6 as assigned by the tower. As a result, it began its departure roll more than halfway down the runway, despite being cautioned several times by ATC.
— Peđa Vučetić (@Pedjijatar) February 19, 2024
In the recording of the communication between the plane and tower, ATC asks the pilot if he is familiar that he entered the runway via the D5 intersection to which the pilot responds that he is. He is told how much runway he has available and asked to calculate if he can depart while being offered the opportunity to backtrack, after which the pilot confirms that he is able to depart. After take-off, the captain says, “We have to go back, we touched something on the ground”. Based on the flight data chart, the aircraft was just twenty feet above the highway located near the airport after taking off. The exchange between the pilot and ATC can be heard here.
Passengers on board the flight reported they heard a loud bang upon departure. One of the passengers noted, “After take-off there was a bang on the left-hand side where I was sitting, and I could feel how strong the impact was. The plane started vibrating. It was a stressful experience. Some fifteen minutes later the crew informed passengers we would be returning to Belgrade. Some forty minutes later the captain informed us that we would pass over the airport to determine if we can land and afterwards, we thankfully touched down. All the announcements were made in English”. The flight to Dusseldorf was cancelled following the diversion with 93 out of the 106 passengers booked on the flight opting to continue their journey with the airline the following day.
Air Serbia has been wet-leasing the E195 from Greece’s Marathon Airlines, meaning the latter provides the aircraft, complete crew, maintenance, and insurance for the plane. According to media reports, the Marathon Airlines pilot from Italy was experienced and an instructor on the Embraer aircraft, while the Polish first officer is believed to be younger and less experienced, although this has not been independently verified. An investigation is now underway to determine the exact causes of the incident. In a new development, Air Serbia is ending all cooperation with Marathon Airlines as of tomorrow.
Absolutely crazy
ReplyDeleteI know, right. And also: "despite being cautioned several times by ATC". Remember that guy who was spilling manure over the ATC yesterday? I think an apology would be in order.
DeleteIf the ATC was not so confident they should have told them to exit the runway and go where they initially told them. Why was the ATC control not more strict with them? They saw something was wrong and they did nothing.
DeleteThe ATC does not know how to fly a plane. That's why you don't need a college degree to be an ATC. You do need one if you want to be a pilot. The ATC cannot fly a plane, that's what pilots are taught. There are numerous recordings online where the pilots do not let the ATC fly the plane for them. That's why the ATC backed off. The captain needs to be able to calculate his take-off distance. That's his job.
DeleteATC didn't use all the ressources it had. It could call JU operations center and they have the final say in these matters.
DeleteThat's not how it works. Are you a controller or a pilot? How can speak with so much confidence?
DeleteYou do not need a college degree to be neither a commercial nor an airline pilot.
DeletePeople here has 0 knowledge about this and it shows . Pilot is always in control when that door is closed . ATC has asked and confirmed with the pilot that he has enough runway to take off and that was their duty and obligation.
DeleteNo need for college degree??? Call JU operations to demand?? This isn't the local vašar and you're running late to see Vendi so you call your friend who is the organiser to delay it for you...
DeleteCalling the operations control for this matter? You don't have the slightest clue about commercial aviation.
Deleteone of the ATCOS who "was pouring manure" yesterday. Well, not exactly, I just said TWR ATCOs should prevent that departure from D5, regardless of what you people think ATC does and doesn't do. If you are passive controller and you don't give a flying flamingo what is going on, then yes, E190 can depart fully loaded from 1/3 of the runway. They should exercise their licencia poetica (sort of) to CONTROL the traffic instead just blindly executing their lines "RWY30L, line up and cleared for take-off". In order to issue such a clearance, one must be positive that this is safe. Regardless of the fact, that crew clearly stated they can depart safely from there, they SHOULD have sent them to at least A6 if not even to the start of the runway. Please, non ATC people, don't tell me what my duty is and what it is not. TORA of 1300 m for E195 clearly is not safe, even if the crew would solemnly swears that it is enough. We are not just cold blooded executors and facilitators for airspace users. Remember that! Now that crew in LYBE TWR has to face their own cowardice not to listen to commons sense and their experience and not taking things into their hands when they should. This was not something out of the sudden, they were not pressed against the wall with unchangeable fact, there was time, means and need to change that take-off position. Let me remind you again to the story with Citation crashing into hills during night visual approach in Cagiari in 2005. Two controllers were sentenced to jail for not doing everything they could to prevent the crash. But they did everything by the book and procedures in force at the time. Can you understand, that aviation is tightly knit system, where there are several systems in place to PREVENT accidents from happening, and that one of components is ATC?
DeleteFrom my understanding ATC asked them twice if TORA was enough, even gave them numbers and asked them to stop and recalculate. Crew insisted distance was sufficient. It is not ATC's responsibility to know the A/C TOW or performance and if there were no specific restrictions on taking off from D5 then ATC is blame-free here.
DeleteAnd your experience being ATCO is?
DeletenotLufthansa, as an active airline captain, I appreciate controllers such as yourself. But at the end of the day, I am paid to fly the aircraft. Sure, you can apportion a part of the blame on ATC, but the sad reality is, the guys in the pointy end of the aircraft screwed up royally. I guess they just had their second birthday since they managed to walk away from an accident (which is actually what happened). I guess the captain is done with flying, maybe the FO will be able to keep his license?
Delete@notLufhtansa14:30: As my nick may suggest, I'm not ATCO but on the opposite end of the radio. Used to fly daily at Stockholm City airport where they until recently had regular A-319 flights on 1680m runway. Are you saying it is the responsibility of the tower to ascertain these flights are not overweight on takeoff for the TORA? How about the KLM CityHopper E-195 at Brandenburg back in 2021, a very similar incident to this -- can the tower be blamed for the crew punching in incorrect takeoff data and using the wrong intersection? Of course not. ATC's job is to control, not command. Btw, "blindly executing their lines" is exactly opposite of what happened here.
Deletehi Flightinstructor and anon cpt at 3:10 - I didn't say ATCOs are to blame fully, all I'm saying they should bare some of the consequences, as there are some situations we ATCOS can order you to do something. You will probably agree that if an ATCO orders you to move to another departure position in order to enhance the safety (after you mistakenly lined up on wrong one), you would comply and not trying to save your face in light of the mistake and put yourself, the rest of the crew, passengers and aircraft in unsafe, let alone dangerous position. Right? It's not that I (or anybody else) would ask you to do something totally out of line. And again, I've been contested many times on this site who am I and how I know certain take-off position is unsafe (or even dangerous), that no ATCO knows real data coming from FMS. True. There have even been questions if I rely on gut feeling for that, again, yes and experience and self-preservation and drive to enable as safe conditions as possible. Its that against data coming from FMS. While you are on ground, TWR can order you to move where ever they feel to, your only objections should be strictly obeyed if you request particular runway or entry to the runway for safety reasons. Not operational reasons (cutting corners is too often mistaken for operational reasons). If I may be a bit vulgar - in certain situations your ass belongs to us :)
DeleteNow, with that in sight, would you still consider that TWR in BEG did everything they could to prevent this accident? My 30 years of ATC and flying experience strongly say no. Should they take their part of blame? Yes, because they succumbed to obviously unsafe operation. Why is then RWY in BEG 3500 m long if 95% of aircraft can depart on 2500 or even less? Your comparison to Stockholm City doesn't apply here I'm afraid. You know very well that for each airport, specially for those deemed more complex in terms of runway length, arrival etc.., extra training and different operational requirements are in place. BEG is not such a place. It is an airport, with 3500 meter long runway, but with apparently long history of cutting corners in order to save airliners some time and a bit of fuel. If you ask me, CAA should prohibit departures of anything larger than AT72 from D5 on RWY30L. And even that is just asking for trouble. Your comment "blindly executing their lines" is exactly what happened. They went against their experience, their professional sense of safety (note also there was no wind!) and accepted and gave the clearance. When ATC issues clearance, its by definition that they should be confident, it can be executed in safely manner.
This should be banned.
ReplyDeleteWhat?
DeleteIt is obvious this is pilot error but in the end it thanks to the pilot that they also landed. It was a very tough situation and it seems the pilot held it togeather.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteYes, listening to the ATC recording, he seemed very calm throughout, even though the tone of his voice changed after departure.
DeleteI do not think he was very calm as he had to be reminded about Avala! He was lost!
DeleteHe wasn't lost but he probably had a million things happening in the cockpit at the moment. The ATC is there to remind him about that in such situations.
DeleteOuch, ouch!
DeleteIn Serbia, it is considered ATC`s bussiness to help the crew with navigation (including avoiding hills, mountains, highrise buildings), but that ended in tragedy in 1981. at Corsica, when Yugoslav crew flew to a French airport - forgetting that the French ATC does not care about navigation, and that it is solely upon crew to take care of not hitting the mountain on approach. Well, they hit it and some 160 people died.
So, no, it is crew`s job to watch for Avala.
"In Serbia, it is considered ATC`s bussiness..."
DeleteWhat sort of a statement is this? I wrote the comment at 9:18. Am I a representative of Serbia or represent any state body. No? So what is with the generalization. If you don't agree with me that is fine. You can work on toning down the passive aggressive racism.
Well, I am from Serbia, too, and that is the praxis in the former Yugoslavia: the ATC takes care of guarding the traffic of high object. In France, however, it was not, at least in 1981, and that discrepancy - of the crew flying from Ljubljana to Ajjacio, whose airport was not even equipped with a radar, as it was flzing to Ljubljana, where the ATC could actually determine the exact position of theeir DC9 super 80 - led to the deadliest disaster in the Ex Yu aviation.
DeleteSo, it is clearly crew`s job to watch for Avala mountain. There can be no excuse for not doing so.
Now, I am so sorry, but if you can see any sort of racism there...
I don’t understand this really passionate and aggressive way of defending ATC. This was an emergency and it also means that the pilots should get as much help they can from ATC, which they did.
DeleteOf course they should get as much help as possible. But the fact that they descended so close to the terrain is very disturbing. As if the first incident was not enough.
DeleteAnon 10.03, you are obviously an idiot without clue about how ATC works, and you don’t have a faintest idea why accident in Ajjacio happend. So spare us with your idiotic comments.
DeleteWhy an aircraft leaking and heavily damaged was sent to deplane its passengers on a stand with a jet bridge, right next to the terminal and other aircraft with pax in them?
ReplyDeleteWhy not send it to a remote stand?
Who determined that no fuel tanks were damaged, no fuel was leaking and so it was safe?
I would be interested to know SMATSA's answers for that!
DeleteAbsolutely horrifying incident which could cause the loss of a lot of lifes.
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad everyone survived!
Good article. Thanks for the ATC link.
ReplyDelete+1 good coverage overall
DeleteWow that is scary vision. Absolute miracle the plane didn't explode in a fireball.
ReplyDeleteWe should really take a minute to appreciate the Embraer which could even keep flying for over an hour after this. And on top of that, it seems there was no instrument failure whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteTrue dat!
DeleteThe damage that the aircraft sustained but kept climbing, fly for an hour and then land safely is very bog.
They do build some strong aircraft. Bravo to them!
That is a really interesting point to consider. Embraer should use it as a selling point. "The plane can survive when your pilot can mess up"
Delete+1
DeleteIndeed! Kudos to the Embraer.
DeleteJust one idiot can write such add.
Delete^ That add idea is obviously a joke by Slav man. But yeah speaking seriously, I've always thought that they are great planes and I hope that JU has their own ERJ fleet one day.
DeleteIn the recording, does the pilot in the end say that he can't retract flaps? Or I misheard
ReplyDeleteYes, that is why they were faster than they sould have been upon landing.
DeleteWell according to some reports it is the copilot's responsibility to calculate if they have enough runway.
ReplyDeleteThey are both responsible for the safe operations of the aircraft. In the end the captain is the captain and has most of the say and responsibility but the co-piolt is also trained to speak up when he thinks the aircraft is being operated in an unsafe way. This is what the CRM certified pilot means and you have to pass this to be an airline pilot in Europe.
DeleteTo me, the captain seemed way too confident when deciding to take-off from that position, so I think he has probably done similar to this before but this time he didn't get away with it.
Will be interested to see what the "SOPs" (standard operating procedure) for both airlines says about takeoff procedure so again, they probably (pilots) ignored airline policy.
They both have to do their take off performances and they have to match of course.
DeleteEven companies that operate much smaller jets normally have rules that only full take-off run should be used for every take-off and no intersection take-offs are allowed. The captain can always deviate from this but then a report is needed with a good reason. If the reasoning for this is not sufficient, a coffee (without cookies) with the chief pilot and NPFO is to be expected.
DeleteHorrific. Hopefully the airline learns something from this.
ReplyDeleteGod thanks nothing happened to the passengers.
ReplyDeleteWell, we will be seeing this on National Geographic show Air Crash Investigation soon, and it's good that the outcome was positive
ReplyDeletePure luck
ReplyDeletePilot is clearly at fault here, but that doesn't mean he did a great job returning the aircraft to the ground. You can sense panic in his voice afterwards as he knows he's made a mistake. Tough time for everyone involved - they are all lucky to be alive
ReplyDeleteI think the voice in the ATC recording afterwards, was all from FO though
DeleteKind of notable is JU PR in deep sleep. I would be in big damage control.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you expect them to do? This has to settle first before they go on some PR campaign.
DeleteAfter JU PR department announcement that "The safety of passengers was not compromised at any time" they better keep quiet.
Delete“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”
― Mark Twain
The airline should never have written that safety was not compromised. Their statement should have been something like this: "We are aware of an incident on board flight JUXXX and we are investigating the matter. The aircraft made a safe landing. The safety of passengers and crew is our utmost priority".
Delete@s09:42
DeleteExactly right.
Firstly not everyone is American and western, who first reaction is to be aggressive and attack and sue someone.
Delete2nd issue for JU is that marathon is important part of their plans for the next year or 2. So probably they don't want to destroy a relationship that's otherwise been good for them.
Lastly the sad reality is that JU doesn't have the people with the skills to have such great media handling skills. Serbia doesn't and even all of Eastern europe doesn't have that many people who are able to manage such stories and spin them to what they want.
It is possible Air Serbia made that statement before knowing full extent of the damage. By now they should have issued an update. Lack of response informs us of Marek's inability to lead the airline in a time of crisis. So long, Marek.
Delete@ Slav.Man / 10:30
Delete"Not everyone is American and western, who first reaction is to be aggressive"? You obviously missed yesterday's posts where our calm and collected, patiently waiting-for-the-facts Balkan brothers called for the imprisonment and the execution(!) of the pilots and the ATC.
And you are calling Americans aggressive. *facepalm* Wake up and smell the region!
What PR? JU has one person left in the marketing department. There is no one (literally) to handle this matter.
DeleteRight agency handles their PR.
DeleteFor certain things. 90% is done by in-house JU team.
Delete@10:30 Every airline needs to have an Emergency Response Plan as dictated by EASA and even much smaller companies with one or two jets have statements prepared in there for all sorts of accidents, including this one. What the person at 09:42 wrote is essentialy a copy paste of such a statement.
DeleteJust for clarification. There is no ILS for RWY 30L. Precision app. designed as RNP APCH (LPV) and conventional, VOR (DME) approach. So, there is no LOC antenna after RWY end.
ReplyDeleteIt is RWY 30R's ILS.
DeleteThe aircraft struck the antenna in the opposite direction i.e. 12R
DeleteWell, there definitely isn't one now.
DeleteI am wondering is Air Serbia management still think that this was a minor incident?
ReplyDeleteThey never said that, and they should make no intense statements as investigation is still going in and they should wait until it is completed. What they said is totally OK. Aircraft was fine to fly and burn some fuel as well to land with no technical issues.
DeleteThis video exactly confirms speculation from one of yesterdays comments
ReplyDelete1. The plane almost experienced a disaster immediately after takeoff, because it barely avoided a huge billboard located on the approach road of the airport, almost perfectly aligned with the inserted runway. ILS antennas are light structures, but if the plane had hit the billboard, it would have disintegrated on the spot, and probably crashed in the middle of the highway, killing who knows how many people. On FR24, it can be seen that immediately upon take-off, the plane turned very slightly to the left, thereby saving itself. At the location below, see the streetview for a view of the billboards
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Rvb2P6vAtYFgtsuK8
2. The statements of AvHerald and other media that the plane started flying only 500m after the end of the runway are correct for two reasons. 12R does not have extended approach lights as 12L has, so the plane did not hit them as some write, also, after the end of runway 30L there is a downhill that descends a few meters towards the approach road of the airport from the highway. The plane did not take off from the runway at all, it careened off of it, collided with the ILS antennas, the ground "droped out from under the plane" while it was flying more or less horizontally, and then it accelerated and began to climb slowly. This can be seen in detail: AIP SMATSA Precision Approach Terrain Chart RWY 12L/R
https://smatsa.rs/wp-content/uploads/aip/trenutna_publikacija/2024-01-25/25-Jan-2024-A/2024-01-25-AIRAC/graphics/eAIP/6018973_LY_AD_2_LYBE_3-4-3_en.pdf
https://smatsa.rs/wp-content/uploads/aip/trenutna_publikacija/2024-01-25/25-Jan-2024-A/2024-01-25-AIRAC/graphics/eAIP/6018974_LY_AD_2_LYBE_3-4-1_en.pdf
It is still unclear, and incredibly short sighted that a plane leaking fuel was still told to taxi over to a gate, instead of just being stopped on the runway.
+1000
Delete+10000
DeleteDidnt the plane also had a tailstrike? On the video posted on this blog here, it looks like that.
Deleteif you take xml file from FR24 and put it into Google Earth, you can clearly see that they descended for 20 ft after runway, thus positively confirming what anon 9:26 is saying. On top of that, they barely cleared that banner, also clearly visible in Google Earth. They barely climbed and kept their profile very low all the time. There was also tailstrike, clearly visible on that security camera footage.
Delete"the aircraft was just twenty feet above the highway located near the airport after taking off. The"
ReplyDeletechilling
Must have been a nice view from bellow.
Delete✈️
DeleteLooking at that video, I'm amazed they managed to take off
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see how they recover from this in a marketing sense.
ReplyDeleteEasy no one outside aviation geeks line us doesnt care, an accident where no one was injured doesnt give out an echo besides like 0.1% in serbia knows how close it actually was for a major cathastrope, even lower in the wider region knows what hapened like 0.01%. So they will be just fine
DeleteYeah, they will mostly likely still have another record month.
DeleteTaking off from wrong position is first mistake but they continued to fly with badly damaged, fuel leaking aircraft for almost 1 hour then proceeded to vacate the runway, taxied to the gates and connecting jet bridge while fuel is leaking. Absolutely mental decision making. Like they never been on any sort of training.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the crew was not aware there was any fuel leakage. Although it hasn't really been confirmed that it is fuel leakage. Keep in mind the plane was doused by liquid by firefighters when it landed. It could have been leakage from that.
DeleteThe plane was in the air for one hour because they needed to dump fuel. There is s maxiumum landing weight for every aircraft with which pilots must comply.
DeleteEmbraers can't dump fuel
DeleteYou can land above maximum landing weight but then a hard landing inspection needs to be performed. Considering that the pilots knew they had structural damage, it was of course better to reduce the weight before attempting to land. The video shows minimal fuel leakage and that would most likely not be noticed by the pilots while in the air, especially since their concern was to burn fuel, not to conserve it.
Delete@13:24, if a plane is damaged then isn't flying it also highly risky? How would one know if it is better to land over weight or continue flying a damaged plane? Not arguing with you just don't know how one decides in a moment like this.
Delete@17:25 I think that even Embraer cannot give you an answer to that. Every captain will have a different view on it. My opinion would be, the aircraft is capable of flying and can be controlled so continue flying. The next big critical event for the whole airframe will be during landing, possibly with damaged landing gear, so it is better to be on the lighter side, rather than on the heavy side when attempting to land. Not to mention less fuel, means less of a potential fire ball, if things do go horribly wrong during landing.
DeleteIs this the most serious JU incident since the Jat Airways B737 overran the runway in Istanbul?
ReplyDeleteWhen was this in IST?
Delete2009
Deletehttps://www.exyuaviation.com/2009/10/slip-up.html
Thanks completely forgot about that.
DeleteYes, I would say so
DeleteWhat is even worse, he was told on TORA but it is clear from the recording that the pilot itself understood and stated the TORA, but regardless of that, he made a mad decision to continue with the t/o from the position. In addition, from the recording it seems that he also went closely to Avala with an altitude below minimum safety, and he was warned by the controller. The pilots were confused and acting unreasonably, this is probably for jail.
ReplyDeleteIt seems likely that the flight crew (presumably FO) accidentally selected intersection D5 on heading 12R (which is 2266 m) rather than D5 on heading 30L (which is 1273 m). They do not know the airport very well and it seemed reasonable. Apparently similar incident happened two years ago with Embraer at EDDB and Dutch Safety Board concluded that touchscreen interface and drip down menu are not that easy to mis-select a wrong choice and then all other performance data
ReplyDeleteBut they were told by the ATC the exact length of the available runway if taking D5, so ...
DeleteThat's a very plausible theory. Could easily be confirmation bias. If they consciously took off knowing that there was only 1300 meters left it would be a suicide attempt. Especially from an instructor captain.
DeleteOne curious question. Nowadays, cars, buses, ships, rockets, you name it... They all have installed cameras around. Why planes doesn't have such cameras? Video footage right from those would be helpful.
ReplyDeleteAnd where will you put them?
DeleteAnd add additional weight and wiring through the aircraft, going through expensive certification just so that you can watch a video? 🤦♀️
C'mon.
Actually some planes have cameras on their tail. I saw it on B777 on Turkish A. we had an option to look during t/o and landing.
DeleteA350 on Air France had cameras on tail and the belly by landing gear, there might have been a third one as well
DeleteAlso, all EK A380s have 3 cameras (you can watch live pics through IFE)
DeleteInteresting audio. ATC seemed to have done their work, but still think it is a pilot error. We will need to wait and see the official report. Also during the communication in the middle there seemed to be a light tension. Those investigations are very complex. Would not blame pilots or ATC, maybe pilots were not familiar with the new runway, maybe Marathon not common with BEG airports, maybe pilots were tired because they are human beings like us. Also the fuel dumping is quite curious. At the end of the day, it is a true miracle and thankfully everyone survived. Air Serbia is really obliged to put an official and honest message on their official website just like an apology. in black or something. I know in the Balkan things are not perfect, but this is important.
ReplyDeleteI am not an expert, but strongly think this incident is a pilot error, why this happened is yet to be investigated. Marathon is also not an airline with so much history similar to those Romanian low costs, Aeroitalia and such. You are free to say whatever about Ryanair for instance, but their safety is impeccable. Yes, their marketing is different but a reliable and very safe airline just like Qantas for example.
Potpisujem.
DeleteATC should've insisted on returning to D6 though. I've never seen on radar some commercial aircraft using D5 to the runway 30.
DeleteYet again, it is not ATC job to tell the trained professional flight crew where they can depart from or not - they have no idea about the performance calculations and weights of the aircraft, hence it is not their call to make. Flight crew does calculations about stop margin, V1/Vr/V2 pending their takeoff weight, weather conditions including wind, surface (runway) contamination - if any, and the computer tells them if the suitable length is appropriate for departure or not. Simple as that. ATC indeed advised few times about available runway length out of D5, crew decided to depart still.
DeleteThey can not insist, it is a pilot decision. They do not know the loads or plane specification to make that decision. They warned the pilot who knows all the specification and load of the aircraft. It is clear that it is solely a pilot's error.
DeleteIf the ATC sees a potential risk hazard its their obligation to make sure chaos is avoided. If they insisted yesterday the pilot would have complied. Worst case scenario Air Serbia Operations could have gotten involved and they can overrule the pilot any day or night.
DeleteATC here didn't care enough to bother. They did their job with minimal effort and they should also share the blame especially since they ordered the E95 to fly over densely inhabited areas. What if they crashed in downtown Smederevo or Pozarevac? How many people would they kill? Or if they crashed into the cars at Bubanj Potok or on IKEA?
All because ATC gave them the green light despite there being so many red flags. Why did we the taxpayers pay for that fancy tower if they are not going to do their job?!
Are we seriously pretending that controllers are kindergarten teachers who have to take care of 3 year old children? Pilots are expected to have the same level of competence if not higher. The controller did exactly what they had to do by recognizing a potential issue and making sure the pilots are aware of their exact position. It is not their obligation to know the performance of each individual aircraft. It's easy to be an armchair expert, to be an ATC not so much.
Deleteanon at 10:05, as active ACTO I disagree. What they should have done was to take them away from there and via D6 or even better D7. There is absolutely no sound reason for intersection departure of heavy passenger jets. No! Saving 4 minutes of taxi time? Yes, now you see what that means.
DeleteAm I seeing poorly, or did the plane actually roll on the grass before taking off? 😯
ReplyDeleteYes...
DeleteA chain of pure luck:
Delete1. Terrain depression after rhe rw end
2. Avoid of bilboard
3. Avoid of highway (just)
4. Avoid of Avala
5. Landig gear OK
6. Avionics mostly OK
Wuld be interesting to hear the cockpit voice recorder. Can't wait for NG Air crash investigation.
This is nowhere near big enough to be covered by NG investigation.
DeleteAgree, it isn't, But it will likely be covered by this pilot youtuber, I even enjoy his video more than AC investigation
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/@MentourPilot
Anon 10:45, I would add to your list:
Delete7. hydraulics OK
8. no veering on the terrain outside RWY
9. just enough speed on the RWY (184 kts) which they kept all the way to rotation point. Had they reached less than that, they would end up on the highway.
Did CINS, Serbian version of NTSB, make any statements so far about the investigation?
ReplyDeleteThank God this happened on inserted runway, imagine if this happened on 30L under construction with so many reflectors and antennas hundreds of meters ahead
ReplyDelete@Admin:
ReplyDeleteThe title should be changed to accident instead of incident. As per ICAO Annex 13:
Aircraft accidents are defined by Annex 13 as occurrences where “a) someone is fatally or seriously injured, b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure, c) the aircraft is missing or is completely inaccessible.”
The Center for Investigation of Accidents in Transport of the Republic of Serbia, in charge of the investigation, is currently categorising it as a "serious incident". When it completes its initial observations in the coming day or two, it will announce if it will be upgraded to an accident.
DeleteThank you for the update. Investigation probably started on the night of the accident, taking samples from pilots for toxicology report etc.
DeletePerfect opportunity for Eurowings to strike back and resume DUS-BEG early. I doubt many will feel comfortable flying JU, especially if Marathon is involved.
ReplyDelete93/106 pax already rebooked to the next JU flight on that same evening, I don't think it will have any impact on the route's performance to be honest.
DeleteSeems like Marathon is taking back its E75 after the incident. It left this morning at 07.00 to WAW.
ReplyDeleteDon't jump to conclusions and theories. It could be going to WAW for maintenance or even painting into JU livery (that's whre they did both for the last plane)
DeleteIt's literally flying back to BEG today.
DeleteI'll believe it when I see it.
DeleteCould it be bringing embraer engineers from WAW to take a look at OY-GDC?
DeleteJa ne razumem da Er Srbija u zimskom periodu nema dovoljno svojih aviona i posada za redovan saobracaj.
ReplyDeleteIma, ali ima ugovorne obaveze sa wet lease partnerima da mora da obave odredjeni broj rotacija inace se placaju paneli. Uostalom na letu je bilo 106 putnika. Avion od 118 sedista je idealan.
Deletei am enthusiast about aviation and I have basic knowledge about it. But isn't there rule that plane should start it take off from the beginning of runway ma how big/small aeroplane is? Because that is my experience...
ReplyDeleteNot at all
DeleteBoth airlines would have something similar to this as part of their approved standard operperating procedure (sops) which is part of their AOC so part of their licensing. The investigation will be asking why this was not followed and both pilots will need to explain why they breached such a major part of the airlines safety operating procedure.
DeleteI used to listen daily as a hobby to BEG ATC some 30-20 years ago and I must day that I am astonished as to the drop in conversation quality comparing today vs the old times. If you listen to this lady from ATC, she is eating up the call signs, has very poor pronunciation. Her male colleague is somewhat better but he too made some unclear announcements and his voice after incident declared becomes tense and he seems a bit lost at moments. The Italian pilot/captain of damaged E195 is almost unclear with his poor English. Overall not professional communication and easy to lead to accident situations as we had.
ReplyDeleteTake off Field for E195 is 1432m for filght up to 500 nautical miles (short flight less fuel weight) or 1992m for MTOW. BEG-DUS is little under 700 nautical miles. So aprox 1600m runway is needed for safe take off.
ReplyDeleteTORA 1273m is not eunough even for very short flight.
Investigation will show if this is pilot mistake or maybe computer error on the calculations.
ATC did the right thing warning the pilots that they are on D5 and only have 1273 meters available. Pilot in comand and pilot monitoring has the final say where they yake off or no, not the ATC. The atc needs to make sure area is clear of other traffic.
Bye, bye Marathon...
ReplyDeleteAll eyes are now on investigation. Do we know if Greek and Danish investigators will join Serbian team or will the have separate investigation?
ReplyDeleteWhy Danish? what do they have to do with this accident? Serbian soil, Serbian airline, Greek plane, multi cultural cockpit (Italian and Polish) so I don't see anything Danish here?
DeleteDanish registration
Deletehttps://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/1avio4m/the_moment_air_serbias_plane_hit_the_ils_antennas/
ReplyDelete