9.4 Controlled Flight into Terrain

Exercise 9.4.1 Read and translate the text.

In spite of concerted action throughout the industry, Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) remains a major accident cause.

According to the IATA Safety Report for 2003 there were eight fatal Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) accidents world-wide during 2003, which accounted for 136 fatalities.

Sadly, it would appear that three of these accidents involved European operators and took place within the European geographical area - two in Turkey and one in France.

It will be some time before the full details of the accident investigations are available and it is possible that the initial classification as CFIT proves to be inappropriate.

CFIT occurs when an airworthy aircraft under the control of the flight crew is flown unintentionally into terrain, obstacles or water, usually with no prior awareness by the crew.

Pilots and controllers are involved equally in the ATC system, and their responsibilities overlap in many areas and backup.

The pilot-controller confirmation/correction process is a loop that ensures effective communication.

Whenever adverse factors are likely to affect communication, adherence to the confirmation/correction process is alone of defence against communication errors.

Controllers and pilots must work together, but there is a gap in their understanding of each other’s challenges. The pilot is focused on a very complex aeroplane in the demanding environment of approach and landing. The controller is focused on traffic flow. Both are balancing safety and efficiency.

Airline operators something push flight crews with schedule pressures, shortening turn-around times and demanding greater productivity of aircraft and flight crews. They also push the ATC system to increase capacity of landing/takeoff runways, reduce landing intervals, reduce radar separation minimums, and use complex multiple-runway combinations. In this demanding environment, flight safety depends on spoken communication.

Although pilots and controllers work together, sometimes they don’t understand each other’s problems.

A programme on pilot-controller communication should involve pilots and controllers in joint meeting and in joint flight ATC simulator sessions to promote a mutual understanding of each other’s working environment.

Discussions, for example, could include problems caused by late clearances and last-minute runway changes. In the end, these are problems for pilots and controllers.

An example of a successful programme that provided real-world experience and proved the value of mutual understanding between pilots and controllers was that between KLM and Amsterdam ATC.

Controllers participated in Flight Simulator sessions, acting as co-pilot and reading the check-list; on the command of the pilot they operated the flaps, landing gear and other systems; they conducted communications with ATC; and they contributed to decision making in emergency and non-standard situations.

The results of these sessions were very encouraging and resulting in positive advances in mutual understanding being reported by pilots and controllers.

During the 1990s, international collaboration led by the Flight Safety Foundation (FSF) resulted in the development of the FSF Approach and Landing Accident Reduction 9ALAR) Toolkit.

Date: 8 January 2003

Location: Diyarbakir, Turkey

Operator: THY Turkish Airlines

Aircraft Type: Avro RJ100 Regional Jet

Fatalities: Passengers 0 70 / Crew – 5

The aircraft undershot during the final stage of a VOR/DME approach to RWY 34 at Diyarbakir, impacting the ground slightly to the side of the extended centreline of the runway, about 500m short of the runway threshold and 100ft below the airfield elevation. The aircraft broke up during the crash sequence and was destroyed by fire after eventually coming to rest. It is understood that, at the MDA, the pilots did not have visual contact with the runway.

The accident happened in darkness (2020L) and in poor weather. The reported weather at 1950L was: wind, calm, visibility 3.5km, RW 34 RVR 3,500m and falling, and scattered cloud at 4,000ft. However, at the accident location there is a small stream and it is reported that the fog was considerably thicker in this region.

The Turkish authorities recently ruled that the probable cause of this accident was pilot error. More specially, they stated that “the crew was insistent on landing despite the fact that neither the approach lights nor the runway was visible”.

Date: 26 May 2003

Location: near Maska, Turkey

Operator: UM Air 9Ukraine)

Aircraft Type: Yakovlev YAK-42

Fatalities: Passengers 62 / Crew 13

The aircraft was destroyed when it flew into a steep hillside near Maska during its second approach to RW 29 at Trabzon. The accident happened shortly after the crew advised ATC that they were “inbound” towards the Trabzon VOR.

The point of impact was at the 4,300ft level some 25km south of the Trabzon VOR, which is located on Trabzon Airport.

The accident happened in darkness (o413L). The reported weather was: wind 270º/11kt variable between 230º and 300º , visibility better than 10km in light rain showers, and scattered cloud at 1,200 ft. However, it is thought likely that the mountains where the accident happened would have been shrouded in cloud.

Date: 22 June 2003

Location: Brest, France

Operator: Brit Air

Aircraft Type: Canadian Regional Jet CRJ-100

Fatalities: Passengers nil / Crew 1

The aircraft undershot during the final stage of an ILS approach to RW 26L at Brest, touching down about 2,300m before the threshold of the runway and about 450m. To the left of the extended centreline. After coming to rest the aircraft caught fire and was destroyed.

The accident happened in darkness (3251L) and in poor weather: wind 320º/9kts variable between 280º and 360º , visibility 800m in fog, RWY 26 RVR variable between 1,400m and 1,500m, and cloud broken at 200ft and scattered at 2,000ft. The aircraft was operating a flight (AF5672) from Nantes.

The aircraft was cleared to descend to 2,000ft and reached that altitude by about 7DME, continuing at 2,000ft until reaching the Outer Marker (4DME).

A further descent was then made to intercept the Glide Slope. However, this descent was continued, through the Glide Slope, which was crossed at a height of above 1,000ft, and seems to have continued at more or less the same rate until shortly before impact. The warning system “Glide Slope” had commenced, as the aircraft descended below it, 23 seconds before impact. The “Glide Slope” and “Sink Rate” warning continued for the rest of the approach. Meanwhile, the aircraft had been slightly left of the localizer and continued to diverge, steadily, further to the left during most of the rest of the approach.

The either part of the approach had appeared normal but it is reported that the captain, who was handling the aircraft, apparently failed to respond to the warnings or noticeably react as the aircraft descended through the Glide Slope and continued below it. The co-pilot is reported as saying that, following the first “Glide Slope” warning, he had looked at the captain who appeared to be sitting in a normal position, looking towards his instruments, with both hands on the control column. The co-pilot appears not to have commented on the aircraft’s continued deviation below the Glide Slope but, reportedly, he put his hand on the TOGA button. The captain apparently still did not respond. The co-pilot then reportedly increased power and attempted to pull back on the control column, which “felt as if it was blocked”. A few seconds later, the aircraft impacted the ground.

Exercise 9.4.2 Answer the questions.

1. How many fatal accidents happened during a year?

2. Where did these accidents take place?

3. When did these fatal accidents occur?

4. What is a gap in controllers’ and pilots’ understanding?

5. What is the pilot focused on?

6. What is the controller focused on?

7. Why do airline operators push the ATC system?

8. What should a programme on pilot – controller communication involve?

9. Why did controllers participate in Flight Simulator Sessions?

10. How did the accident (8 January 2003) happen?

11. What was the reported weather?

12. Why was the aircraft destroyed?

13. How did the accident happen? (22 June 2003)

14. What were the reasons?

Exercise 9.4.4 Write T if the sentence is true and F if the sentence is false.

1. Eight fatal accidents accounted for 136 fatalities.

2. Three of these accidents involved European flight attendants.

3. The pilot - controller confirmation is a loop that guarantees effective communication.

4. Controllers and pilots must work independently.

5. The controller is focused on traffic circuit.

6. Airline operators increase landing delays.

7. Flight safety depends on spoken communication.

8. Pilots and controllers understand each other troubles.

9. Co-pilots and captains established communications with ATC.

10. They contributed to decision making in emergency and non-standard situations.

11. The aircraft overtook during the final stage of a VOR/DME approach to RW 34.

12. The aircraft was cleared to climb to 4.000 ft and reached that altitude.

13. The co-pilot decreased power.

14. A few seconds later the aircraft impacted the ground.

Exercise 9.4.5 Give the English equivalents for the following.

Географическая зона; расследование происшествий; известные факты; совместное заседание; темнота; плохая погода; торец ВПП; разрушаться; как сообщается; очевидно; тем временем; непреднамеренно; сотрудничество; взглянуть на; последний этап захода на посадку.

Exercise 9.4.6 Find in the text synonyms for the following words and word combinations.

Accidentally; region/ district; negative; influence; meeting; take part; improvement; promote; cooperation; brook; abrupt; meantime; evidently; remarkably

Exercise 9.4.7 State what part of speech the following words belong to.

1. accident

a) noun b) adjective c) adverb d) preposition

2. investigation

a) verb b) noun c) preposition d) adjective

3. usually

a) preposition b) noun c) adverb d) adjective

4. account

a) preposition b) adjective c) noun d) verb

5. terrain

a) noun b) adverb c) adjective d) preposition

6. loop

a) adjective b) noun c) preposition d) adverb

7. promote

a) preposition b) adjective c) verb d) noun

8. contribute

a) verb b) noun c) adverb d) adjective

9. steep

a) noun b) adjective c) preposition d) adverb

10. shrouded

a) preposition b) adverb c) verb d) adjective

11. by

a) preposition b) noun c) adjective d) adverb

12. darkness

a) adverb b) preposition c) noun d) adjective

13. below

a) adjective b) preposition c) adverb d) noun

14. still

a) adverb b) noun c) adjective d) preposition

15. before

a) adjective b) adverb c) preposition d) noun

Exercise 9.4.8 Match the words and word combinations in column A with those in column B.

A	B
1. geographical area	a. уменьшать интервалы при посадке
2. accidents investigations	b. пример успешной программы
3. initial classification	c. нестандартные ситуации
4. pilot configuration	d. в темноте
5. communication error	e. точка удара
6. safety and efficiency	f. дальнейшее снижение
7. to demand greater productivity	g. уменьшить минимум радиолокационного эшелонирования
8. аn example of successful programme	h. требовать более высокую продуктивность
9. to reduce radar separation minimum	i. ошибка связи
10. to promote a mutual under-standing	j. безопасность и эффективность
11. to reduce landing intervals	k. способствовать взаимопониманию
12. non-standard situations	l. подтверждение пилота
13. in darkness	m. первоначальная классификация
14. the point of impact	n. расследование катастроф
15. a further descent	o. географическая доска

Exercise 9.4.9 Fill in the gaps with the words from the text choosing from the ones given in brackets.

1. The ______ facts of the three European accidents are summarized briefly (important, latest, known).

2. Controllers and pilots must _____ together. (speak, communicate, work).

3. They also push the ATC system _____ capacity of landing (to reduce, to increase, to improve).

4. Discussions could include problems caused by _____ clearances (late, immediate, quick).

5. They _____ communications with ATC (worked, conducted, established).

6. The aircraft broke up _____ the crash sequence (while, during, for).

7. The _____ cause of this accident was pilot error (probable, may be, possible).

8. The accident happened in _____ (the morning, the mist, the darkness).

9. The aircraft was ______ to descend to 2000ft (allowed, cleared, prohibited).

10. The _____ apparently still did not respond (flight engineer, captain, co-pilot).

Exercise 9.4.10 Fill in the gaps with the related words.

1. The full details of the accident _____ (investigate) are available.

2. Pilots and controllers are involved _____ (equal) in the ATC system.

3. Their _____ (responsible) overlap in many areas.

4. The controller is _____ (focus) on traffic flow.

5. Both are balancing _____ (safe) and efficiency.

6. They also reduce radar _____ (separate) minimum.

7. A _____ (success) programme provided real-world experience.

8. The ______ (report) weather was: wind calm, visibility 3,5 km.

9. The crew was _____ (insist) on landing.

10. After ____ (come) to rest the aircraft caught fire and was destroyed.

Exercise 9.4.11 Fill in the prepositions if necessary.

1. Accidents took place ______ the European geographical area.

2. The aircraft is flown unintentionally ______ terrain.

3. There is a gap _____ their understanding of each other’s changes.

4. The pilot is focused _____ a very complex aeroplane.

5. Flight safety depends _____ spoken communication.

6. _____ the end, these are problems ___ pilots and controllers.

7. They conducted communications ____ ATC.

8. The results _____ these sessions were very encouraging.

9. The aircraft undershot ____ the final stage of a VOR /DME approach to RW34.

10. The aircraft broke up _____ _______ the crash sequence.

11. The accident happened _____ darkness and _____ poor weather.

12. The aircraft was operating a flight _____ Nantes.

Exercise 9.4.12 Make up sentences using the given words.

1. resulted /advances /results /were /the /in /mutual /in /these /understanding /sessions /of /very

2. on /in /this /spoken /demanding /safety /depends /environment /spoken /flight

3. should /a /an /meetings /programme /pilots /joint /involve /controllers /and

4. situations /they /non-standard /contributed /and /to /emergency /decision /making

5. runway /the /the /pilots /with /did /contact /not /visual /have

6. stream /however /at /small /the /a /accident /is /location /there

7. error /the /pilot /probable /accident /cause /was /this /of

8. visible /the /was /crew /was /runway /insistent /the /on /nor /landing /lights/ despite /approach /the /that /the /neither /fact

9. rest /the /to /aircraft /coming /broke /eventually /up /after /during /by /the/ destroyed /the /was /crash /and /sequence

10. region /the /this /fog /considerably /was /in /thicker

Exercise 9.4.13 Translate the following sentences into English.

1. Восемь фатальных катастроф за 2003 насчитывали 136 погибших.

2. Ответственность пилотов и диспетчеров частично совмещалась (перекрывалась) во многих зонах.

3. Пилоты и диспетчеры должны работать вместе, но, к сожалению, существует пробел в понимании задач друг друга.

4. Диспетчер фокусирует свое внимание на потоке воздушного движения.

5. Безопасность полетов зависит от языкового общения.

6. Хотя пилоты и диспетчеры работают вместе, они не понимают проблем друг друга.

7. Катастрофа произошла в темноте при плохой видимости.

8. Сообщалось о тумане, который был значительно гуще, чем в другом регионе.

9. Турецкие власти пришли к выводу, что возможной причиной катастрофы была ошибка пилота.

10. Причиной катастрофы был пожар.

11. Несколько минут спустя, самолет ударился о землю.

12. Точка удара была на высоте 4.300 футов, которая расположена в аэропорту Трабзон.

Exercise 9.4.16 Retell the text.