Jump to content

Phenom 300 cai na Inglaterra


Pessoa 1985

Recommended Posts

A private jet crashed into a car auction near Blackbushe Airport, U.K., and burst into flames.

Flightradar24 records show an Embraer Phenom 300 circling the airport for landing around the time of the accident. This aircraft was arriving from Milan-Malpensa Airport, Italy.
* Aviation sources from Blackbushe suggest the airplane involved was HZ-IBN, but this is unconfirmed at the time.

 

 

 

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20150731-0

 

 

Parece ser esse da foto, triste fim..

 

15825402380_7b7d86b64e_b.jpg

 

 

Link da foto: https://www.flickr.com/photos/39860650@N02/15825402380

Link to comment
Share on other sites

logo-belfast-b.png

 

Four dead as private jet crashes at Blackbushe Airport

 

31/07/2015 | 17:02

 

Four people have died after a private jet crash-landed in a car auction site and burst into flames as it approached the runway, police said.

 

The Phenom 300 jet crashed shortly after 3pm at Blackbushe Airport in Hampshire.

  • SHARE
  • GO TActing chief inspector Olga Venner, of Hampshire Poli there were four people on board, including the pilot.

Acting chief inspector Olga Venner, of Hampshire Police, speaking from the scene, said: "We can confirm that there were four people on board, including the pilot.

"Sadly, there were no survivors. No-one on the ground has been injured and we would urge anyone with any information, including pictures or videos, to contact 101."

She said police have launched a joint investigation with the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB).

The airfield has been closed, police confirmed.

In a statement, an airport spokesman said: "Blackbushe Airport confirmed that a Phenom 300 jet with four persons on board crashed near the end of the runway around 3.09pm while attempting to make a landing.

"The scene was attended by Blackbushe Fire and Rescue within minutes, followed by Hampshire fire, police and ambulance units. Emergency services are currently controlling the scene."

Sources told the Press Association the jet had flown from Milan in Italy and was attempting to land.

Footage from above the crash site, broadcast on Sky News, showed the immediate aftermath of the incident.

A dark plume of black smoke could be seen twisting into the sky, while an orange-red ball of fire raged below.

The fire appeared to be in the middle of a car park, with vehicles lined up for inspection at the auction site based at the airport.

Debris from the jet could be seen strewn among the dozens of severely damaged cars.

Robert Belcher, a local aviation enthusiast, said he was driving home when he saw a plume of black smoke coming from the site.

He said: "I was passing the airport on my way home and there was a big column of smoke in the air.

"The fire service had closed the road behind me.

"I could see the plume of smoke waving from about five miles away and was hoping it was just a car fire rather than an aircraft accident."

Mr Belcher said he was "shocked" when he discovered that a jet had crashed.

He added: "Apparently the aircraft was landing and just didn't stop.

"At the end of the runway there is a car park because the airport is used for car auctions and it's gone into there.

"I assumed it was cars on fire in the auction yard.

"Local people have said that it was this aircraft which is registered in Saudi Arabia.

"It's been a regular visitor to the airport for a few months.

"The aircraft would hold six people, it's a small jet."

Andrew Thomas, who was paying for a car at the time of impact, said the plane "exploded".

"I saw it when it had just happened, and could see the plane and cars in flames," he told BBC Surrey.

"The plane nosedived into the cars and exploded on impact.

"I have heard from staff here that four people were on the plane."

Local resident Daphne Knowles, 70, told GetSurrey: "I was in a field with the cattle and I heard an aircraft coming very very fast from behind me. The engines were screaming far too much and the aircraft was trying to land - I'm a glider pilot and I thought it's far too low to the ground.

"Two people said they thought it had to swerve to miss another aircraft as it went in, but I didn't see that myself and can't confirm, then there was a huge black cloud of smoke which went up."

A spokeswoman for Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service said: "We can confirm we are in attendance.

"We were called at 3.10pm today. We have got four pumps and three other vehicles.

"At this stage we do not know anything other than that."

Hampshire Police have asked motorists to avoid the area. The crash site backs on to the A30 and is a short distance from the M3.

In a message to motorists, they said: "We're dealing with an air emergency incident at Blackbushe Airport.

"Please avoid the area if you can. We'll update you when we can."

Jenny Cole posted on Facebook: "This is just behind our house - sky is black with smoke. I really hope everyone involved is ok."

Arran Bushnell posted on Twitter: "This looks bad. Praying for anyone involved."

Police and fire investigators are at the scene surveying the wreckage of the plane.

A group of people, believed to be the family of the victims, were escorted to the site by police officers.

The scorched remains of the jet could be seen lying beside charred hulks of cars in the middle of the auction storage area.

A local resident, who did not want to be named, said he saw the plane come down while he was repairing his chimney.

"I was on the roof and I heard the jet and thought I would watch it land," he said.

"I saw it going past, then it was about 20 feet off the ground and I thought it's not got enough runway to land here.

"It was too high as it was coming in to land and didn't touch the runway.

"The next thing I heard was the crash sirens and a big plume of smoke going up.

"It was a really big plume of smoke and I could hear cars exploding over at the market."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/four-dead-as-private-jet-crashes-at-blackbushe-airport-31418645.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madrasta, meio-irmã, e esposo.

 

Parentesco distante, apenas a meio-irmã, e mesmo assim compartilhando apenas 25% dos genes. O jornal The Guardian não diz, mas leva a pensar em teoria da conspiração. Bobagem, imagino, pelo menos no que diz respeito aos laços com o terrorista. Já outros interesses no Oriente Médio, a julgar pela imediata nota de pesar emitida pela Arábia Saudita, isso não podemos dizer.

 

Quanto ao Phenom, a imprensa está noticiando como uma aeronave "state-of-the-art", e com menções a "high-tech safety features". Apesar de uma lamentável tragédia, como sempre, não tem faltado elogios à Embraer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by A345_Leadership, August 2, 2015 - mané
Hidden by A345_Leadership, August 2, 2015 - mané

Tem chance de acontecer o mesmo com a presidanta?

Link to comment

Madrasta, meio-irmã, e esposo.

 

Parentesco distante, apenas a meio-irmã, e mesmo assim compartilhando apenas 25% dos genes. O jornal The Guardian não diz, mas leva a pensar em teoria da conspiração. Bobagem, imagino, pelo menos no que diz respeito aos laços com o terrorista. Já outros interesses no Oriente Médio, a julgar pela imediata nota de pesar emitida pela Arábia Saudita, isso não podemos dizer.

 

Quanto ao Phenom, a imprensa está noticiando como uma aeronave "state-of-the-art", e com menções a "high-tech safety features". Apesar de uma lamentável tragédia, como sempre, não tem faltado elogios à Embraer.

 

Bom, são 54 filhos com 22 "esposas".. o que mais tem é meio irmão na história... inclusive há deles que moram nos EUA até hoje... pra quem não lembra, o governo americano autorizou que eles saíssem dos EUA pós-11 de Setembro pra evitar represálias, mesmo com os aeroportos fechados.

 

Também é natural a nota de pesar da Arábia Saudita: a família Laden é a 2ª mais rica de lá (só perdendo para a família real), graças ao setor de construção e apoio à indústria de petróleo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meus prezados

Embraer apoia investigação de acidente que matou família de Bin Laden

SÃO PAULO - A Embraer enviou uma equipe de técnicos da empresa para Hampshire, na Inglaterra, para dar apoio à investigação sobre a queda de uma aeronave da empresa que transportava familiares de Osama Bin Laden, ex-líder terrorista da Al-Qaeda.

Em nota oficial, a empresa brasileira prestou solidariedade aos familiares das vítimas do acidente com o jato Embraer Phenom 300 no aeroporto de Blakbushe, em Hampshire, e informou que está à disposição da autoridade aeronáutica local (Air Investigation Branch, ou AAIB) para apoiar tecnicamente a investigação.

Segundo o protocolo internacional relativo a acidentes aéreos, as questões sobre a investigação devem ser direcionadas à autoridade aeronáutica.
O acidente matou a meia-irmã, o cunhado e a madrasta de Bin Laden, segundo a TV saudita al-Arabiya. O jato levava os três familiares do ex-terrorista e um piloto jordaniano de Malpensa, em Milão (Itália), para o aeroporto de Blackbushe, no sul da Inglaterra. A aeronave caiu em um pátio de um estabelecimento de leilão de carros.

Fonte: Folhapress via CECOMSAER 3 AGO 2015

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relatório parcial e oficial da agência inglesa (AAIB - Air Accidents Ivestigation Branch) sobre o acidente:

 

Fonte: https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/55c367e0ed915d5346000010/S2-2015_HZ-IBN.pdf

 

Está em PDF, não consegui copiar.

 

Pontos:

 

1. conflito de tráfego na perna oposta com um ultraleve - alerta do TCAS

2. velocidade recomendada pelo fabricante para a final naquela configuração / peso da aeronave: 108 KIAS (knots indicated air speed)

3. velocidade naquele momento: 150 KIAS

4. seis avisos de "pull up" gerados

5. pista de 1.059m

6. avião tocou depois dos 710m, restando portanto 349m metros de pista

7. no momento do toque a velocidade era de 134kt e 135KIAS. Nesta velocidade, o mínimo de pista requerido pelo fabricante é de 616m.

 

No momento em que o avião deixa a parte pavimentada da pista vira aproximadamente 3 metros para esquerda em relação ao eixo da mesma, bate em uma elevação no solo de aproximadamente um metro de altura causando danos na parte inferior do trem de pouso dianteiro e arrancando as portas do mesmo. O avião volta ao ar por alguns instantes antes que colida com os carros no estacionamento, que estão distantes aproximadamente 70 metros da elevação do solo a qual o avião havia se chocado antes.

A asa do avião é arrancada da fuselagem da aeronave causando o incêndio que consumiu o que dela restou.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aprox. desestabilizada / fora padrões ?

 

Como estava o metar na hora ? será que teve influência ?

 

Bonotto (xará), no artigo em PDF fala em vento calmo e visibilidade ilimitada.

 

Havia o tráfego do ultraleve, mas também havia outro avião acima do avião acidentado, o que pode ter confundido o piloto.

O avião sobe e passa acima e à frente do ultraleve.

 

O TCAS diz para descer, manter a velocidade vertical e depois para ajustar a velocidade vertical, muito provavelmente se referenciado à outra aeronave que estava acima do avião acidentado. Nesse momento o avião está descendo a uma velocidade de 3.000 pés/minuto .

 

Sou leigo, talvez os amigos pilotos aqui do FCR possam nos ajudar ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bonotto (xará), no artigo em PDF fala em vento calmo e visibilidade ilimitada.

 

Havia o tráfego do ultraleve, mas também havia outro avião acima do avião acidentado, o que pode ter confundido o piloto.

O avião sobe e passa acima e à frente do ultraleve.

 

O TCAS diz para descer, manter a velocidade vertical e depois para ajustar a velocidade vertical, muito provavelmente se referenciado à outra aeronave que estava acima do avião acidentado. Nesse momento o avião está descendo a uma velocidade de 3.000 pés/minuto .

 

Sou leigo, talvez os amigos pilotos aqui do FCR possam nos ajudar ...

 

Nada é simples não Ricardo !?! que situação inglória estiveram eles....

 

Vamos aguardar os relatórios finais.

 

Abraços,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Nada é simples não Ricardo !?! que situação inglória estiveram eles....

 

Vamos aguardar os relatórios finais.

 

Abraços,

 

Xará, Murphy, bruxa, azar ...

 

Quem conhece a fundo a aeronave afirma que, apesar do toque tardio, haveria como arremeter.

 

Tráfego abaixo, tráfego acima, toque tardio, aeródromo pequeno não controlado, piloto que provavelmente não avaliou os fatores e talvez pressa de quem queria chegar.

 

Junte todos os ingredientes no caldeirão e temos a fórmula da tragédia ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Xará, Murphy, bruxa, azar ...

 

Quem conhece a fundo a aeronave afirma que, apesar do toque tardio, haveria como arremeter.

 

Tráfego abaixo, tráfego acima, toque tardio, aeródromo pequeno não controlado, piloto que provavelmente não avaliou os fatores e talvez pressa de quem queria chegar.

 

Junte todos os ingredientes no caldeirão e temos a fórmula da tragédia ...

A título de especulação, daria pra acrescentar aí os ingredientes fadiga, e o pavor que passageiros têm de uma arremetida.

Quando o passageiro está no acento logo atrás de você, paga o seu salário, e é bastante autoritário, é preciso muito profissionalismo para não deixar a pressão te impedir de arremeter quando for o caso.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E ainda perguntam porque eu acho voar jato com apenas um piloto uma péssima idéia.

 

Haviam dois e depois um terceiro na cabine do AF447.

E, mesmo assim, não houve como evitar o acidente.

 

Provavelmente deve ter faltado no caso do Phenom o mesmo o que faltou no AF447: "situational awareness".

 

"Situational Awareness is the ability to identify, process, and comprehend the critical elements of information about what is happening to the team with regards to the mission. More simply, it's knowing what is going on around you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fonte: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/highly-unstable-approach-preceded-fatal-phenom-crash-415521/

 

Highly-unstable approach preceded fatal Phenom crash

 

Investigators have determined that an Embraer Phenom 300 landed long and overran the runway atBlackbushe after an unstable high-speed approach which had involved a conflict with a microlight.

The Saudi-registered jet was already two-thirds of the way down the 1,059m (3,474ft) runway 25 before it touched down, still travelling at 134kt.

UK Air Accidents Investigation Branch analysis indicates that the aircraft would have needed at least 616m to stop, but had landed with just 438m of paved surface remaining – of which only 349m was part of the declared available landing distance.

The aircraft overran and struck an earth bank, which sheared off the nose-gear, before the jet briefly became airborne and collided with several parked cars about 70m beyond the runway end.

None of the four occupants – a pilot and three passengers – survived the impact and subsequent fire.

Investigators have released only preliminary information about the 31 July accident, but the data indicates that the aircraft continued with a fast and unstable approach, at a high rate of descent, despite a series of ground-proximity warnings.

The initial inquiry found that Phenom had encountered a microlight as it flew the downwind leg of the approach at about 1,000ft.

It climbed slightly to overtake the microlight, and the crew received a collision-avoidance advisory ordering the Phenom to descend. The jet then descended at a rate of up to 3,000ft/min towards the threshold of runway 25.

Investigators have determined that the aircraft was still at 1,200ft while just 1.1nm from the threshold, far above a typical 3° glideslope. Its rapid descent meant it crossed the threshold at 50ft but still travelling at 150kt – over 40kt above the calculated target airspeed of 108kt.

Six ground-proximity warnings, ordering the pilot to “pull up”, had been generated during the approach. But the pilot did not execute a missed approach.

 

Investigators are continuing their analysis of the accident and have yet to reach any conclusions. The approach had been conducted in daylight and good weather.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Haviam dois e depois um terceiro na cabine do AF447.

E, mesmo assim, não houve como evitar o acidente.

 

Provavelmente deve ter faltado no caso do Phenom o mesmo o que faltou no AF447: "situational awareness".

 

"Situational Awareness is the ability to identify, process, and comprehend the critical elements of information about what is happening to the team with regards to the mission. More simply, it's knowing what is going on around you."

 

Numa situação você tem um voo noturno sobre o oceano em meio a uma tempestade, discrepâncias nos indicadores de velocidade que levaram oa desligamento do P.A. e altereção das proteções de voo (pelo que me lembro do relatório eles foram até o final sem saber que estavam sem elas), deixando os pilotos sem confiança nas leituras e sem nenhuma referencia visual com o mar ou qualquer outra coisa para dar alguma pista da gravidade do problema.

Em outra você tem uma aeronave realizando uma aproximação visual em um dia de boa visibilidade, mas em função de alertas de proximidade de outras aeronaves o piloto foi levado a uma aproximação desestabilizada..

Circunstancias diferentes, sem comparações.

Se a presença de outro piloto na cabine evitaria o acidente, não sei. Porém vejo neste caso uma sobrecarga enorme sobre o Cmte. que o levou a um erro.

Pelo menos é o que se tira das informações que você postou.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Numa situação você tem um voo noturno sobre o oceano em meio a uma tempestade, discrepâncias nos indicadores de velocidade que levaram oa desligamento do P.A. e altereção das proteções de voo (pelo que me lembro do relatório eles foram até o final sem saber que estavam sem elas), deixando os pilotos sem confiança nas leituras e sem nenhuma referencia visual com o mar ou qualquer outra coisa para dar alguma pista da gravidade do problema.

Em outra você tem uma aeronave realizando uma aproximação visual em um dia de boa visibilidade, mas em função de alertas de proximidade de outras aeronaves o piloto foi levado a uma aproximação desestabilizada..

Circunstancias diferentes, sem comparações.

Se a presença de outro piloto na cabine evitaria o acidente, não sei. Porém vejo neste caso uma sobrecarga enorme sobre o Cmte. que o levou a um erro.

Pelo menos é o que se tira das informações que você postou.

 

Sei que as situações são diferentes.

 

O que eu quis dizer é que me parece ser em comum a ambos os acidentes, independentemente do número de tripulantes na cabine, é que não houve a tal da "situational awareness".

 

Fonte: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

 

"The BEA's final report, released at a news conference on 5 July 2012, concluded that the aircraft crashed after temporary inconsistencies between the airspeedmeasurements – likely due to the aircraft's pitot tubes being obstructed by ice crystals – caused the autopilot to disconnect, after which the crew reacted incorrectly and ultimately led the aircraft to an aerodynamic stall from which they did not recover."

 

"In the minutes before its disappearance, the aircraft's onboard systems had sent a number of messages, via the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS), indicating disagreement in the indicated airspeed (IAS) readings. A spokesperson for the BEA claimed that "the airspeed of the aircraft was unclear" to the pilots[and, on 4 June 2009, Airbus issued an Accident Information Telex to operators of all its aircraft reminding pilots of the recommended Abnormal and Emergency Procedures to be taken in the case of unreliable airspeed indication. French Transport Minister Dominique Bussereau said, "Obviously the pilots [of Flight 447] did not have the [correct] speed showing, which can lead to two bad consequences for the life of the aircraft: under-speed, which can lead to a stall, and over-speed, which can lead to the aircraft breaking up because it is approaching the speed of sound and the structure of the plane is not made for enduring such speeds"."

 

"Final report

On 5 July 2012, the BEA released its final report on the accident. This confirmed the findings of the preliminary reports and provided additional details and recommendations to improve safety. According to the final report, the accident resulted from the following succession of major events:

  • temporary inconsistency between the measured speeds, likely as a result of the obstruction of the pitot tubes by ice crystals, causing autopilot disconnection and reconfiguration to alternate law;
  • the crew made inappropriate control inputs that destabilized the flight path;
  • the crew failed to follow appropriate procedure for loss of displayed airspeed information;
  • the crew were late in identifying and correcting the deviation from the flight path;
  • the crew lacked understanding of the approach to stall;
  • the crew failed to recognize that the aircraft had stalled and consequently did not make inputs that would have made it possible to recover from the stall.

These events resulted from the following major factors in combination:

 

  • feedback mechanisms on the part of those involved made it impossible to identify and remedy the repeated non-application of the procedure for inconsistent airspeed, and to ensure that crews were trained in icing of the Pitot probes and its consequences;
  • the crew lacked practical training in manually handling the aircraft both at high altitude and in the event of anomalies of speed indication;
  • the two co-pilots' task sharing was weakened both by incomprehension of the situation at the time of autopilot disconnection, and by poor management of the "startle effect", leaving them in an emotionally charged situation;
  • the cockpit lacked a clear display of the inconsistencies in airspeed readings identified by the flight computers;
  • the crew did not respond to the stall warning, whether due to a failure to identify the aural warning, to the brevity of the stall warnings that could have been considered spurious, to the absence of any visual information that could confirm that the aircraft was approaching stall after losing the characteristic speeds, to confusing stall-related buffet for overspeed-related buffet, to the indications by the Flight Director that might have confirmed the crew's mistaken view of their actions, or to difficulty in identifying and understanding the implications of the switch to alternate law, which does not protect the angle of attack."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aqui vai uma curiosidade:

 

No FBW do Airbus, os "inputs" dados no "sidestick" pela tripulação (piloto e co-piloto) podem divergir entre si.

Amigos pilotos aqui do FCR e que voam Airbus podem me dizer se isso gera conflito na atitude da aeronave.

 

Em recente visita à Embraer, pude fazer um "voo" no simulador dos Legacy 450 / 500.

 

Aqui temos uma diferença no FBW desenvolvido pela Embraer: se dois "inputs" divergentes forem dados nos "sidesticks" simultaneamente, ambos "sidesticks" vibram e impedem que os inputs conflitantes sejam gerados e, consequentemente impedindo o FBW de enviar mensagem ao atuador elétrico do comando em questão.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Saiba os termos, regras e políticas de privacidade