Featured Post

BREAKING: Air India Boeing 787 Crashes Near Ahmedabad – 246 Feared Dead

on
Ahmedabad, India – Thursday, June 12, 2025 | 13:40 LT Tragedy struck in Ahmedabad today when Air India flight AI171, a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner, crashed shortly after takeoff from Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport (AMD). The flight was En route to London-Gatwick Airport (LGW). According to early reports, 241 of the 242 people onboard are feared dead, with one survivor critically injured. The crash also claimed the lives of at least five people on the ground, bringing the total fatality count to 246. The aircraft, registered VT-ANB, took off from runway 23 and remained airborne for approximately 30 seconds. Eyewitnesses and videos reveal that after climbing for about 12 seconds, the aircraft began losing altitude. The landing gear was still extended during descent. The main landing gear struck the top floor of a doctor’s hostel, reportedly housing a restaurant. The tail section separated upon impact, and the fuselage continued forward before bursting into flames and crashing...
0

Cargo Plane Crash in Vilnius Claims One Life: Preliminary Analysis and Potential Causes

on

Vilnius, Lithuania – November 25, 2024

A tragic aviation accident occurred early this morning near Vilnius International Airport (VNO/EYVI), claiming the life of one pilot and leaving three other occupants injured. A SwiftAir opf DHL operated Boeing 737-476 (SF), registration EC-MFE, crashed approximately 1.3 kilometers north of the airport during its final approach to runway 19.

The aircraft, designated Flight QY5960 (Postman 18D), had departed Leipzig Airport (LEJ/EDDP) on a scheduled cargo route to Vilnius. The aircraft was completely destroyed in the impact, and a nearby residential building was set ablaze. Fortunately, no casualties were reported on the ground.

Accident Details

Preliminary information reveals that the flight crew was cleared for an ILS Z approach to runway 19 by Vilnius Approach and instructed to descend to 2,700 feet. As the aircraft neared the Final Approach Point (FAP), communication issues arose. The Vilnius Tower frequency was misheard and read back as "118.05" instead of the correct "118.205." Subsequent attempts to re-establish contact were unsuccessful.

ADS-B data suggests the aircraft overshot the runway centerline during a right-hand turn to align with the ILS. This misalignment left the aircraft positioned approximately 5.4 nautical miles short of the runway threshold and 0.8 nautical miles off the intended glide path. It ultimately collided with terrain short of runway 19.

The crash occurred under challenging weather conditions, including overcast skies with a cloud base between 500 and 700 feet above ground level (AGL), light freezing temperatures, and winds from 180° at 17 knots.


Weather Report at Time of Incident

The METAR observations recorded shortly before the crash included:

  • Wind: 180° at 17 knots
  • Visibility: 10 kilometers or greater
  • Overcast cloud layer: 500–700 feet AGL
  • Temperature: 1°C, Dew Point: -1°C
  • Pressure: QNH 1020 hPa

Preliminary Analysis and Potential Causes

1. Human Factors

  • Miscommunication: The readback of "118.05" instead of "118.205" might have resulted in a critical delay in receiving further instructions, compounding the situation as the aircraft approached the runway.

  • Situational Awareness: The aircraft's overshoot of the centerline and misalignment with the ILS glide path could indicate spatial disorientation or confusion in the cockpit during the critical approach phase.

  • Crew Fatigue: Early morning flights often place additional strain on pilots, which could impair judgment or reaction times.

2. Technical Issues

  • Navigation Systems: A malfunction in the aircraft’s autopilot or navigation equipment may have led to the deviation from the ILS approach path. Investigators will likely examine the functionality of the ILS receiver and Flight Management System (FMS).

  • Aircraft Condition: With the aircraft manufactured in 1993, structural or mechanical issues related to its age, such as degraded control surfaces or engine performance anomalies, will be reviewed.

3. Weather and Environmental Factors

  • Low Cloud Cover: The overcast conditions at 500–700 feet AGL may have obscured visual references, making precise alignment challenging.

  • Icing Potential: With temperatures near freezing, ice accumulation on critical control surfaces or sensors, such as the pitot-static system, could have affected the aircraft’s performance or readings.

4. Procedural or Operational Considerations

  • Approach Management: The late handoff to Tower and the crew’s lack of response to subsequent calls suggest procedural gaps that may have prevented timely corrective actions.
The handoff to Vilnius Tower should ideally occur earlier in the approach phase to ensure uninterrupted communication and sufficient time for corrective action if needed. Specifically:

  1. Timeliness of Handoff: A smooth transition from Approach to Tower typically happens well before the aircraft reaches 4 nautical miles from the runway. This gives both the air traffic controllers and the crew ample time to manage final alignment and address any deviations.
  2. Frequency Clarity: The handoff instruction should have been unambiguous, ensuring the crew received and read back the correct frequency. Controllers could emphasize clarity, particularly when dealing with frequencies with close similarities like "118.05" and "118.205."
  3. Ensuring Contact: After providing the handoff, Approach should confirm that the crew has established contact with Tower. This step would allow for swift corrective actions if miscommunication arises, preventing lapses in guidance.
  4. Proactive Oversight: Given the challenging weather and approach complexity, Approach controllers could have maintained contact a bit longer to confirm that the aircraft was properly aligned and stabilized before switching frequencies.

A late or unclear handoff risks leaving the crew without critical final-approach guidance during a phase where precision and timing are paramount.

  • ATC Coordination: The investigation will examine whether air traffic controllers provided adequate guidance during the final approach phase.

Investigation and Next Steps

The Lithuanian Transport Accident and Incident Investigation Division (TAIID) is leading the investigation with assistance from Boeing, DHL, and the Spanish aviation authority (as the aircraft was registered in Spain). The focus will be on recovering the cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and flight data recorder (FDR) to analyze the sequence of events and determine contributing factors.

This accident underscores the critical importance of communication clarity, procedural adherence, and the challenges posed by adverse weather conditions during approach and landing. A full report is expected in the coming months.

Our thoughts are with the victims and their families during this difficult time.

Gallery









Social Media

Confidence Rating

The information provided is based on news reports and social media sources, which may not always be fully verified. This analysis is a self-effort and does not reflect official statements or conclusions. As such, the confidence rating for this data is considered unofficial and subject to further investigation.

Keep in touch

Stay connected for real-time updates and exclusive content. Follow us on X.com, LinkedIn, and Telegram to get the latest accident news and industry insights. Join the conversation and stay informed with AirSpaceNews.com.

Location: Vilnius International Airport (VNO), Rodūnios kl. 10A, 02189 Vilnius, Lithuania

Comments

Post a Comment