The Center for Investigation of Accidents in Transport of the Republic of Serbia (CINS) has said analysis of the flight recorder of the Marathon Airlines Embraer E195 aircraft operating on behalf of Air Serbia on February 18, when it overran the runway upon take-off in Belgrade hitting airport equipment and severely damaging the jet, will help piece together what happened that day. Often referred to as a blackbox, the flight recorded includes both the flight data recorder, which records instructions sent to any electronic systems on an aircraft, as well as the cockpit voice recorder, which records sounds in the cockpit including conversation of the pilots. Both could prove to be key in the investigation as pilot error is widely considered as a potential cause of the accident.
Embraer engineers from Brazil, as well as a team from Greece, recently arrived in Belgrade to help dismount the blackbox, which will be sent for analysis to the United States. “We will pair the data with the information we already have, obtained through interviews with the flight crew, cabin crew, and air traffic control, to give us a complete picture of what happened”, the Head of CINS, Nebojša Petrović, said. He added, “What the center does is investigates such events, in order to determine the causes that led to an accident, and the report that emerges as a result of our work has the task of reducing the possibility of such accidents being repeated in the future”.
The Marathon Airlines aircraft in question, registered OY-GDC, will most likely be written off due to the damage it sustained. There were no injuries among the 106 passengers on board the aircraft operated on behalf of Air Serbia that day to Dusseldorf. The plane took-off leaving behind a cloud of dust and climbing slowly. It damaged the approach lights of Belgrade Airport’s runway 12R, while the monitoring antenna of the ILS system hit the left wing. The crew of flight JU324 departed from the wrong runway intersection despite several warnings from Air Traffic Control. In their communication with the tower, the flightdeck crew said that upon calculation they would be able to depart with sufficient runway length, however, this turned out to be incorrect. Air Serbia has since terminated its wet-lease agreement with Marathon Airlines.
Do they ever reveal the recording from the cockpit or no?
ReplyDeleteNo
DeleteVery unlikely.
DeleteNTSB in the US really tries not to blame individuals but practices and procedures that lead to accidents.
Seems to be similar in this case too
Delete“What the center does is investigates such events, in order to determine the causes that led to an accident, and the report that emerges as a result of our work has the task of reducing the possibility of such accidents being repeated in the future”.
But the final report is public right?
DeleteYes, I the reports are usually public.
Deletewhy is there involvment of USA? its an airline from the european union, registered aircraft in denmark or greece, incident in Serbia with Brazilian aircraft.
DeleteBecause there is no equipment in Serbia to listen over these black box recordings.
DeleteI understood that that there isnt in serbia but not anywhere else in europe? France, Germany or Italy?
DeleteMaybe they have some cooperation or agreement with them.
DeleteNTSB is the most experienced organization for accident investigation.
DeleteSeems the investigation is moving relatively quickly. Hopefully those responsible will be held responsible.
ReplyDeleteThey said it should take around 3 months.
Delete3 months at least, sometimes it can last for 12 months.
DeleteResponsible will be responsible and responsible... the word you are looking for is accountable.
DeleteNo surprise that the plane will be written off.
ReplyDeleteAbsolute miracle there wasn't even so much of an injury on this flight.
Delete^ Amen
DeleteIs it getting written off cause the damage is irreparable or the cost of repair is so high that it's economically not justifiable?
DeleteLikely because it is not economically justified. Keep in mind people the plane is 15 or 16 years old.
DeleteBecause it might not be economically viable. Greatly simplified, the price of the working airplane minus the price of the repairs that need to be done needs to be more than the value of the current airplane sold for parts. There are many other factors, like how much money the lessor expects to get from leasing the plane, etc.
DeleteAs for irreparable - they have lifted a WWII airplane from the bottom of the sea and rebuilt it so that it can fly again, so repairing this would not be a technical problem. Pretty much everything can be repaired if you have enough money.
Why is it being sent to the US?
ReplyDeleteBecause they have staff and equipment which to analyze the blackbox.
DeleteThey should jail the pilots.
ReplyDeleteWhy not life sentence without trial, why going for mid solution?
DeleteThe pilots will never go to jail nor they will pay any fine.
DeleteThat is not the global practice.
They will probably never fly again though.
DeleteThe most they can get is 1-5y and license suspeneded for reckless endangerment, everything else is overreaction.
Delete@9:42 if someone decides to sue the pilots directly, othervise everything is liability of a company i.e Marathon and de facto Air Serbia
DeleteSomething has happened in the cockpit to cause such huge mistake, taking off from D5. I feel we should take into account that the crew managed to bring crippled plane back to Belgrade as well. Damage ended up being only financial.
DeleteJail and prison are not synonyms.
DeletePilots are giving those statements under the assumption that it will not be used against them. That's the only way to have them speak freely. And in aviation that matters.
DeleteI would recommend reading a book, it's called Black box. It's a pilots take on the mistakes being made in real life and how he sees circumstances around his wife's death could have been prevented by applying some of the practices in aviation to medicine.
To be honest, I'm a bit surprised about how slow JU has been to respond to this whole mess. Obviously I understand it caught them off guard but in my opinion it would be paramount to launch some marketing campaign, try to build trust with passengers.
ReplyDeleteBecause it probably had no impact on their bookings. 98% of the passengers on the very flight that was in the accident took the flight to Dusseldorf with the same airline the next day.
DeleteOr they are just incompetent, judging by the initial statement on the accident they gave that "passengers safety was never at risk".
Delete@Anon 09:24 be so kind to tell me which company in the world would come out after a situation like this and say something on the lines of "you all could've died but you didn't so everything is fine"? Thank you!
DeleteLooks like Marathon lost another customer. The E175 that was destined for Cronos has returned back to Athens.
ReplyDeletei think they will declare bankruptcy. Let's wait and see.
DeleteIf they do, can't JU get those Embraers?
DeleteWhat are they going to do with the Embraers? Who is going to fly them? They need to find and then train crew for them which takes time.
DeleteCouldn't they take over the Marathon crew?
DeleteWell aren't the Marathon crew the issue here considering what happened?
DeleteWell yes it takes time and you dont have this kind of accidents, or you can make agreement with uknown carrier and let them ruin your reputation. Not even a single long term plan or strategy of Air Serbia, no potential orders for new aircraft which take years to be delivered. Just doing what they can in the moment, left and right.
DeleteAir Serbia has said when they will order new planes. They have outlined numerous times what their long term plans are in regard to fleet and network.
DeleteOne wrong move and you are going from one of the fastest growing companies to the one fighting for survival. What a tricky industry aviation is, and rightly so - they are in charge of hundreds of lives
DeleteAre you saying Air Serbia is "fighting for survival"?
DeleteSo Marathon now has the whole commercial fleet grounded. WOW, quite a few good planes will be available; and both Air Montenegro and AirSerbia will be fighting for the dry lease of those birds
DeleteAnn 9:42, no Marathon is
DeleteYes I think this could be the end for them.
DeleteAir Serbia strted searching its own crew last year when deal with Marathon was concluded. Those planes should finish dry leased at the end
Delete@Anon 09:38: Exactly.
DeleteThis is why there's a saying in aviation: "If you think safety is expendive, try having an accident."
Won’t be surprised if leases of 2 E195 are transfer to Air Serbia and than re-hire and train new crew.
DeleteIt would be very interesting to hear the cockpit voice recorded. I know it's not going to happen but it would be interesting to see what on earth was going on.
ReplyDeleteFlight data recorded could also show what they input in the system regarding the runway and departure.
DeleteI hope from the bottom of my heart that one of the outcomes of this investigation will be SMATSA ban of mid-intersection take-offs for all jets and minimum D6 departure for turboprops. By ban I mean internal ATC ban in shape of internal procedure, that such inherently dangerous practice will be put to stop. No passenger jet should ever be allowed to take-off from any other position than from the beginning of the runway.
ReplyDeleteLet them depart from D6. It's perfectly safe.
DeleteIntersection departures are not dangerous, and are done every day at nearly every airport without incident.
DeleteYou could have a similar incident when departing from a full length as well due to loadsheet or performance calculation error.
Runway behind your tail can't be used for take-off run. Intersection departures are inherently unsafe, not dangerous, my mistake in original post. Why on earth would you not use whole runway? To this day I have not heard a single reasoning for choosing less runway for departure. And we are not talking about half an hour taxiing here. Reasoning that this is used world-wide on daily basis, well, think again if there is any logic in that. I'm talking about such practice being unsafe, not where it is used.
Delete@notLufthansa: In principle it sounds like a good idea but for commercial aviation V1 is king. Doesn't matter how much remaining runway you have, at V1 you're committed to taking off no matter what intersection you started rolling from. Btw some E-195 pilots ran the accident flight takeoff parameters in Embraer E-PERF software. Turns out runway length from intersection D5 is sufficient for close to MTOW, one engine out. So there was no way for ATC to know.
DeleteInteresting, is their any publication of this?
Delete@Flightinstructor: I'm not talking about knowing the numbers calculated, needed and accepted by the crew, I'm talking about principle. ATC should enforce max safety standard possible at the moment. Max standard for departing jet is to use the whole runway. I don't care if crew calculates 200 m is enough, on my watch they are not going to depart from mid section or last third of the runway. We are talking about 4-5 minutes extra taxiing which can save lives if something goes wrong. It can happen (and usually it does) that in 9999 cases everything goes smooth (I would add with some factor of luck involved), but on 10000 one...shit can hit the fan.
DeletePlease find here another example when ATC should and must take over and do it's job, regardless of how confident the crew is - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haBxjK70yt0
@11:47: "Why on earth would you not use whole runway?"
DeleteSame reason why airliners also don't take full tanks of fuel on every flight, and don't use full thrust for takeoff on a vast majority of flights. Because there is no need for it, and you can still perform the flight safely.
The entire aviation industry is based on managing the balance between risk vs. benefit, and decision making should be rational and based on facts, rather than emotional or made up ideas.
@Anon 15:57 +100
Deleteanon 15:57, so you are trying to tell me, that there is significant fuel saving if taxiing is 3 minutes shorter, but take off run shorter? How this translates into fuel-saving take off thrust setting? "The entire aviation industry is based on managing the balance between risk vs. benefit, and decision making should be rational and based on facts, rather than emotional or made up ideas." This is, I'm sorry to say, idiotic statement. Because I've seen fair share of situations where balance has been shifted into side of risk. I'm really fed up with armchair experts who claim such brilliant ideas. What emotional and made up ideas? That full take-off run is safer than take off run from half of the runway? Have you ever been to an airport? How many half runway take-offs have you seen in your life? Full tank of fuel and using whole runway is not the same. Take off and landing are the most critical phases of the flight, so you would like to introduce another layer of risk? Do you even know how many fuel related emergencies Ryanair had for instance? You don't, because you are ignorant and have no clue what is going on in the air.
DeleteOn an A320, the aircraft burns around 600kg/h during taxi, so 3 minutes is around 30kg of fuel. Let’s say you have an airline that operates 2000 flights a day. 2000 flights times 30 kgs is 60 tonnes of fuel a day. Multiply by 365 and you get 21,900t of fuel (and correspondent COx/NOx emissions) saved. Spot fuel price at the moment is $880/t, so we’re talking about savings of around $19m per year.
DeleteI’m not talking about take-off from D5 in BEG, but rather intersection departures in general, which are completely safe, when performed correctly.
“ Do you even know how many fuel related emergencies Ryanair had for instance?”
I know that on that famous day there was an airline that even had an engine failure due to fuel starvation, but they weren’t a low cost carrier, so it wasn’t so attractive for media to report it.
“This is, I'm sorry to say, idiotic statement”
If that’s how you feel, fair. Try working in a safety department of any aviation entity, and you will quickly learn that safety in aviation is always a balance between risk and benefit. Why don’t we have 5km runways everywhere, surely that will increase safety? Why do some airports in Europe still not have radar coverage for ATC? Surely that will increase safety? Why do we only have 2 pilots and not 3? Why do we only have 3 hydraulic systems on aircraft and not 5?
Can you see how everything in aviation is a balance between risk and benefit now?
I did some real risk assessments at my work (aviation), I know what risk means and how it is managed i.e. mitigated. Some risks are not worth taking, like shortening take-off distance. The risk - single or even dual (or more) engine failure, wrong power settings, wrong flap settings, wrong runway may look low on paper, but as we saw in this case (and it is not singular), runway which is behind you doesn't care about your risk assessments if the one in front of airplane is not sufficient. Ryanair has long history of fuel starvation incidents due to the company practice of punishing captains who burn "too much" fuel. Maybe they came to their senses...and it was not alone in this endeavor. Your fuel burn estimate on ground lives in perfect world...there are many factors influencing this.
DeleteAnd to conclude this...can you please point to some airports (other than BEG), where mid runway take-offs for jet airliners is common practice?
"Both could prove to be key in the investigation as pilot error is widely considered as a potential cause of the accident." I am not an expert but heard previous ATC conversation with the pilots and the tower and would not blame in communication either. They should perfectly know what the aircraft is, what type, load, etc The runway is also new. JU has many many rotations for a smaller airine. It is important to listen how pilos spoke to each other and why hover over Belgrade for such a long peiod and calling it a "minor incident". Still strongly think that the pilots MUST be examined. Remember the Tenerife most disastorous aviation incident? It was a pilot error and miscommunication with ATC, etc.
ReplyDeleteMarathon is also a very young airline with probably not so much experience. The problem is clearly commuication between ATC and maybe tired pilots, but we will need to wait and see the final investigation. The control towe have an obligation of strictly knowing and advising the pilots at alll times. I hear a lot of live ATC conversations as a hobby and can assure you the job is not easy.
Here in the Balkans we we also have avoid zones because of this stupid war and many times seen on the radar that BEG-SOF to IST for example does not follow the normal path but takes longer. It is important to know why plots took this strange decision being advised by ATC and also ATC allowing them to take off. Idk, this reminds me a bit of the super famous Tenerife accident and like I said I am an NOT an expert but this incident is like all a series of causes. Who knows, maybe for very luck the Embraer had issues. We are all speculating at the moment and let the specialists do their job. Some investigations take years.
Which stupid war is affecting BEG/SOF-IST?
DeleteIf you hear LIVE ATC, which is free in SOF airport an combine it with FlightRadar24. I do it as a hobby for years will quite often listen how ATC is telling Serbian pilots to avoid some "military" zones. Then when you look at the radar see US planes nearby. You will also "secretly" see how Polish planes come to "save Ukraine". People and politicians think we are all stupid in the Balkans. We create so much history like nobody elese in the continent. Why do you think the big ones envy us for crazy and cool natural culture and most importantly for finally being safe and chill countries. Of course, it is very easy to spark a tension because our history is turbulent. I am a very pro Balkan person and whenever an Air Serbia and Bulgarian ATC speak to each other in "bratko" it warms my heart. There is just a natural communication. I am aware for historical reasons that there will always be a tension but the bigger ones are trying to divide and invade us. JU is strangely doing quite well in SOF and VAR and BEG was one of the very first and old oldest aviation route, I think in the 30s.
DeleteI am not part of ex-Yu simply pro Balkan and proud of our peaceful and ridiculous culture.
What really saddened me, even as a non ex-Yu is the JU incident. Yes, Greece is also Balkan like us but feel it is not that much. Romanians feel Balkans but want to feel more Latin, this is also why their aviation is a disaster even though they are are a huge country. I would like someone to convince me with facts that Romania does not have problems in aviation. By problems I mean failed airlines, weak performance, heck even struggled with Brasov, which is a more "aristcatic" and isolated place even with a considerably developed ski resort failed very miserably with Dan Air and yes, the airport is cool and modern.
My point here is that Serbia, being a much smaller country is active written by a non-Serb. Serbia is cool, chill, relaxed similar to Bulgaria and the rest of the Balkans. I recommend listening to live ATC and Flightradar at the same time while you are working or cooking for example or some stuff and you will see how cool it is. In SOF we have a huge traffic from Turkey and almost always accostumed to emergencies, crazy Indian travellers and forced to deal with it. SOF similar to BEG has a very large runway but when I hear live ATC conversations hear them telling them about wind conditions, bird strikes, we always have fogs as well and understand that quite well that our geography, mountains are complex. This is why I strongly consider the JU incident as very bad luck. Let the investigators do their job, they are under super big pressure probably. Let them also investigate this strange communication with ATC. Maybe ATC was also overexhausted after all, the traffic in BEG has increased a lot and they are probably not a lot of personnel like in the rest of the Balkans for obvious reasons. This is an aviation forum and not political.
I advise you take a chill pill
DeleteI think it’s a mistake to send it to USA. We have so many experts here on exyuaviation who would solve the mystery easily
ReplyDelete😂
DeleteWhere are the Embraers that operated for Air Serbia now?
ReplyDeleteGrounded in Athens
DeleteAll of Marathon Embraers are parked in Athens, apart from GDC (which will be scrapped) and GDA which is still in Belgrade
DeleteThanks. Odd GDA is still in BEG.
DeleteWhy is it still in BEG?
DeleteThat's what you get for partnering with a crap airline.
ReplyDeleteThey had very few issues with Marathon until this accident.
DeleteI guess you are saying EU airlines are crap and risky, since there is no difference between Marathon and Lufthansa or Ryanair, as far as EASA is concerned?
DeleteAs far as EASA is concerned, it is the airline's responsibility to do due diligence and to control the operations under its name. EASA doesn't monitor each pilots' behavior on the runway.
DeleteMarathon is a great airline. Accidents happened even to plenty other huge airlines so I don't see one accident being an indicator of 'crap' airline
DeleteOne accident with small fleet and just few years of operation. That's a pretty good indicator.
DeleteGood to see investigation proceeding in organized and meticulous way. Unlike embarrasing conclusions of some amateur analysts that Air Serbia is to blame for the incident, official investigation with international experts seem far superior in approach.
ReplyDeleteIf a TV channel organizes a segment about Space Station, would they invite flatearther conspiracy theorist? Of course not. This self proclaimed analyst is flatearther of aviation, so the question is why are some media and events inviting him to talk?
DeleteCause there is no other willing to talk to media. I guess they have some kind of fear, can't explain why we don't see other people...
DeleteHow can you talk to the media when there is an investigation ongoing? When the investigation is completed and results published you can comment on it. Head of girl dance group is not qualified to give comments about this.
DeleteIf the media waited for investigations to end, they wouldn't report on anything. It doesn't go like that. Sure, commenting on an investigation while it lasts wouldn't be smart but commenting on other things related to incident is fine.
DeleteCommenting on something you know nothing about is pretty stupid. But he made a career out of it.
DeleteDon't think he made career on his own but, as a rule, the first sentence is on point.
DeleteCause there is no other willing to talk to media? Not true, number of respectable experts with proven, balanced track record voiced their opinon. Head of official investigation body CINS also gave interviews.
DeleteThere is no need to wait for investigation to end, for example MH370 disappearance caused media around the world to immediately seek expert opinion.
When international and domestic professionals including pilots and ATC form expert consensus on most likely contributing factor, there is absolutely no grounds for anyone to give spotlight to this extremely biased and incorrect opinion:
https://i.postimg.cc/RFVhYrws/dalabu.png
JU is to blame for the accident, at least from passengers' perspective. They will sue JU, not Marathon, obviously. Who contracted Marathon? JU. Who will have to pay? JU. Who did passengers lose trust in? JU.
DeleteNo one lost trust in JU, you wish. If people lost trust in anyone, it is you. No one trusts your "analysis" any more. Lawyers already know Boeing, not Ethiopian/Lion paid victim's families as will likely be the case with plug door on Alaska. Read about Flagship Airlines case at 19:12.
Delete"while the monitoring antenna of the ILS system hit the left wing" - Yeah, I wouldn't say the ILS monitoring antenna hit the wing, rather that the wing hit the ILS monitoring antenna.
ReplyDelete...If Marathon is to blame for the pilots i wonder what the consequences should have been for Germanwings part of Lufthansa on the Alps incident in 2015 i think that was...
ReplyDeleteGermanwings is (was) owned by Lufthansa, Marathon is NOT owned by Air Serbia.
DeleteFurther reading for you: Flight operated by Flagship Airlines (Flight 3379) under the American Eagle branding. According to NTSB report, crash was blamed on Captain Hillis incorrectly assuming that an engine had failed. Hillis also failed to follow approved procedures for engine failure single-engine approach, go-around, and stall recovery. Flagship Airlines management was blamed for failing to identify, document, monitor, and remedy deficiencies in pilot performance and training.
Note that Flagship Airlines operator was blamed, not American Eagle. Also on ACI/Mayday S22E9.
Were the pilots hired by marathon inexperienced? Pilot made a desicion did copilot had different opinion? Im not an expert just some questions...
ReplyDeleteThey were experienced
Delete@10:22. The best comment for .." desk experts..." !!😄
ReplyDelete