The preliminary report on the accident involving a Marathon Airlines Embraer E195 aircraft operating on behalf of Air Serbia on flight JU324 on Sunday February 18 has concluded that “one of the most probable causes of the accident was the inadequate assessment of the take-off parameters during the preflight preparation of the crew and after the decision to take-off with a shorter runway length compared to the initially planned one”, following interviews with the key parties involved. A full investigation, which will likely take up to three months, but can last up to twelve months, is now under way. The preliminary report compiled by the Center for Investigation of Accidents in Transport of the Republic of Serbia (CINS) also found there were no technical issues with the aircraft or engines.
The preliminary report also includes the full correspondence between Air Traffic Control (ATC) and the pilots, which is not fully audible in the recordings which have been published online. It further shows the crew on the flightdeck of JU324 were warned numerous times they were departing from the wrong intersection which was not assigned to them. During pre-flight preparations, the crew planned to take-off from the position on the runway at intersection D6, for which, the pilots stated, they performed a "double check of the calculation of the take-off parameters". They received clearance from ATC to taxi to intersection D6, which they confirmed. The crew then reported to ATC they were approaching the D6 intersection, to which they received a response to prepare for take-off from D6, exit and line up on the runway. Then came the message from a second air traffic controller if the crew was aware they exited the D5 intersection instead of D6. The preliminary report states the controller then told the crew the take-off run available (TORA) was 1.273 meters. The crew asked ATC for a minute to make checks. According to the statement of the crew, they then calculated the parameters for take-off using a hand-held flight computer in the form of a hand-held tablet of the co-pilot. During this time, the controller informs the crew to perform the calculations and also report if they want to backtrack down the runway to position D6. Thirty seconds later, the crew announced they were able to take off from D5 . ATC then asked again whether they were able to take-off, to which the crew immediately confirmed, after which they received final approval to take-off.
The preliminary report states 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.
According to the statements given, the crew estimated the plane had normal acceleration upon take-off. The flight crew made changes in the thrust of the engine in order to get as high a speed as possible. At eighty knots, the crew stated that everything was fine, while at 100 knots, they noticed there was inadequate runway length. Considering the available length of the runway, and the speed at which the plane was accelerating, the crew decided it was safer to continue taking off because they estimated the plane would become airborne. According to the crew, the plane then started to shake and they felt the impact of an unknown object. After the E195 took off, the crew then heard an unknown noise from the left side and noted the lights on the left wing had stopped working. The crew then began to receive information about problems with a number of systems, the most significant of which were the flaps and non-functioning of the engine's Bleed Air Systems. They then proceeded to go through the appropriate emergency checklists .
The crew eventually performed a low pass over the runway for ground staff to determine if the landing gear was extended. During that time, they reported increased vibrations and problems with the flaps. They decided to land at a higher speed due to problems with the flaps, however, as they noted, within the prescribed limits. Apart from the occurrence of vibrations, they did not have any other problems during landing.
After touching down, ATC instructed them to park at gate C2 after they were informed by the crew they had no issues with the aircraft. After pulling into the gate, ground staff noticed that fuel was leaking from the left wing of the Embraer and told the crew to quickly shut down the engine and all other systems. The full investigation will determine as to why the crew was instructed to proceed to the gate at Terminal 2 with an aircraft in such a state.
The pilot of the aircraft was a 58-year-old Italian national who had type-ratings on the A320 and Embraer 170 family while the co-pilot was Polish with E170 type-rating. The crew had previously operated a return flight to Vienna, after which they were to operate the Dusseldorf service.
The full preliminary report (in Serbian only) can be found here [pdf document].
This paints an even scarier picture of what was going on
ReplyDelete"The crew then began to receive information about problems with a number of systems, the most significant of which were the flaps and non-functioning of the engine's Bleed Air Systems."
If they kept flying for another half hour it probably would have become a fatal accident.
DeleteI'm wondering how this works. If the final report finds pilot error, could criminal charges be filed against the pilots?
ReplyDeleteYes, why wouldn't they? It's a blatant case of negligence
DeleteThe prosecutor's office and the police have said they have opened an investigation
DeleteGenerally, the following applies (ICAO Annex 13):
Delete"The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the prevention of accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability."
That being said, there is nothing stopping from states from launching an indepentent criminal investigation into the event, but that is (in the western world) usually reserved for situation where somebody died - not the case here.
There is no criminal justice without consequences suffered; in this case, the amount of material damage justifies the criminal proceedings (luckily, there were no deaths or injuries).
DeleteIs the prosecutor's office and the police obligated to dollow ICAO practices on this matter.
DeleteIf the rest of the world wants to only investigate why something went wrong with an incident let them do it in their own countries and airlines.
We can do proper prosecution of dangerous behavior that could have cost dozens of lives.
Civil aviation and criminal investigations should be separate.
Delete"the amount of material damage justifies the criminal proceedings"
Couple of airport lights and potentially some minor damage due to leaked fuel?
@ anon 10:11
DeleteThere is non-material damadge also due to Cat reduction for a period of time, lost profit for Airport and other legal issues.
True. And that equipment is very expensive
DeleteLast anon, do you realize that plane will never fly again? And do you realize how much that plane cost? The damage is huge.
DeleteI'm no lawyer, but that would still be a civil court case, initiated by whoever owns the equipment (SMATSA/airport), not a criminal one.
Delete@anon 10:29: The airplane isn't owned or operated by a Serbian entity, so damage to the airplane has nothing to do with Serbian law.
DeleteI was not commenting on the legal issues here, but rather to this "Couple of airport lights and potentially some minor damage due to leaked fuel?".
DeleteI wanted to point out that the damage is huge, and not minor as this person claimed.
"I'm no lawyer, but that would still be a civil court case, initiated by whoever owns the equipment (SMATSA/airport), not a criminal one."
DeleteWell, if you cause a car accident in Serbia, and the damage exceeds a couple of hundreds of thousands of dinars (some 20 years, it was 200.000) you will be charged criminally, and if your guilt is proved, you are likely to receive a suspended sentence - "uslovna kazna" (if someone dies, then you go to jail).
In this case, we are talking about the damage measured in millions, so... one year imprisonment, suspended, for PiC might be appropriate.
ICAO regulations have nothing to do with this.
@Anon 10:11 “minor damage?” Are you crazy? The airframe is literally being written off
DeleteInsurance will pay, the pilot moves onto another company,
DeleteSome 10 years ago, also italian guy sunk whole cruiser Costa Concordia off the coast, without reasonable couse. Thinking what may the problem with those people??
Deletenot everyone with the nationality is actually from that nation. especially in the south. they are actaully decendents from the neighbouring nation of Serbia, montenegro and Greece.
DeleteMinor damage to the airport, not the airplane.
Delete@Anon 10:50: That's really backwards. Damage to the aircraft should be something between the operator of the aircraft, owner and the insurance company.
Well, You cannot cause unlimited amount of damage to anyone, it is clear why the law addresses that. What about burning someone`s house?
DeleteWould they've ended up on the highway if they aborted the takeoff at 100knots?
ReplyDeleteYes and it would have been fatal in that case. Even if the managed to take off on time from D5, it would still be iresponsible in my opinion as anything can happen during take off and they wont be able to stop safely on the runway.
DeleteIt will be interesting to see what the court proceedings will be between Air Serbia and Marathon and if Marathon can survive this.
ReplyDeleteFeel sorry for the other crew including cabin crew who will be out of a job because of the action of these two idiots.
DeleteThey will find alternatives quickly. Pilots and crew are in high demand.
DeleteAnd probably in an airline where they dont have to work four sectors, i am talking for the pilots.
Delete@10:54 (or anyone) is a sector the same thing as a rotation, i.e. one flight, or is a sector a return flight.
DeleteIt's one flight
DeleteIt's good the investigation will also look into why the plane was directed to gate C2 after it landed.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteWhat was going through the pilots head???
ReplyDeletepasta?
DeleteReading all of this, it's a miracle they made it.
ReplyDeleteA thank you note to the Embraer engineers is in order.
DeleteI understand that the pilots made a mistake and that it is their fault for taking off from the wrong runway, but how come air traffic control didn't ensure where they are, where they're taking off from, and prevent them from doing so?
ReplyDeleteIf you bothered to read the report, you will see that they told them numerous times where they were. The pilot said that he calculated and that they had enough room to take off. The ATC cannot do calculations if an aircraft can depart because these calculations are based on loads, fuel, aircraft weight etc, none of the information ATC has.
DeleteWouldn’t ATC be aware where most E195s take off from? Also since they gave so many warnings to the crew they must have been convinced that departing from that position was unsafe. Why did they give clearance? I understand it’s the pilot’s task to calculate this but doesn’t safety come first? Maybe due to these things some protocols should change, also with ATC. My feeling is that every responsibility is taken off of ATC for some reason. If you see someone most certainly is going to their death, shouldn’t you then do everything to stop them?
DeleteAgain, ATC can not calculate the weight of the plane. They have no clue how many passengers are on board, how much fuel was taken etc. If you tell the pilot to do the calculation on the spot and the pilot says 30 seconds later that he has done it AGAIN and that he can take off, what are you supposed to. His decision is final.
DeleteAlso I don't see the report taking responsibility off ATC at all. Read the preliminary report. Use google translate if you don't understand before making such conclusions.
Thank you for the tip, but I am capable of understanding. I am not talking about the report itself but mostly about the comments here and also the media coverage.
DeleteMedia coverage is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the report. Btw CINS has incited Greek and Brazilian authorities to take part in the investigation.
DeleteYet, the report reads itself as CINS does everything to not be blamed ATC wise. No doubt, departing from the wrong intersection and obviously doing wrong t/o perf calculations here, but the question here is why the crew did it - what brought them to believe TORA is enough from D5 or were they still not aware? Reading the ATC transcription, it at least leaves this question open.
DeleteATC was at least sloppy with initially clearing them from D6 even they were at D5. When is the ground radar becoming finally active in BEG?
^ I notice many are seeking to blane the Serbian side (and I can only guess why) but you yourself write yes pilots departied from the wrong intersection and obviously doing wrong t/o perf calculations here but it's not their fault LOL. On top of being told 3 times if they were sure and to redo calculation
DeleteAlso it would be wise to understand that this is a preliminary report and full investigation will take 3 months.
@09:23 I completly agree with you. I would have canceled the take off clearance if i was the controller, no metter if they though its enough TORA for them or not, at the end of the day pilots listen to ATC and ATC is here to controll the planes not to give suggestions. Yes the controller didnt know the weight of the plane, but they knew it was flying to DUS not to SJJ so it was quite heavy.
DeleteATC are individuals with high school diplomas who aren’t trained to determine takeoff lengths, nor is that their responsibility. Pilots are university-level engineers who are instructed not to allow ATC to control the aircraft for them during their education. The ATC had to relent once the pilots reassured them that the takeoff run was sufficient.
DeleteNobody needs a university to understand the fact that taking off from D5 is not enough TORA for a plane going to DUS. Its not just teoritcal part of who knows what, here comes the previous experience of the atc controller and his common-sense, we know he was afraid about that take off and thats why he asked the pilots a number of times if they are aware where they are, so he could go ahead and just cancel the take off clearance.
DeleteYou are write. The Marathon pilots are the heroes in this story. They bear no responsibility. The evil Serbs wanted them to crash.
DeleteI didnt say that the pilots are not responsible for anything. In fact, if they were responsible towards their job then they would have taxied to D6. Its obviously their fold for this but the atc could have prevented it, not to mention the fact they the atc instructed them to park at C2.
DeleteYou are right again. I don't even know why CINS is conducting an investigation. What was the point of interviewing the pilots at all? They should have just called you to tell them what happened.
DeleteYes, it’s hard to accept that EU regulations and EU staff may make mistake, with minimal damage this time. It’s always easier to blame wild Serbia instead of spotless EU
DeleteI find it weird and unprofessional, how this situation is being reacted to in general: instead of waiting out the accident report, blame is bieng disseminated and consequences drawn. As unlikely as it might seem, but has it occured to anyone, that there might have been an issue with the software/device used by the pilots to do take off-calcuations? For the benefit of a doubt, but still possible as a source of mistake and technical failure.
DeleteYet, warned by ATC, they decided to trust those calculations instead of "safety first" and going for D6. Can it be pilots operate under so much commercial pressure these days, that "saving time" was choosen over "risking lives" and equipment?
If you read the report they originally planned to go to D6 in preflight check. So it is their mistake, regardless of what the software subsequently told them. Second of all, the preliminary report states there were no issues with the aircraft, and that would mean software too.
DeleteIf they were supposed to take of from D6 why did they end up in D5 in the first place?
Deleteand how did the pilot confirm to ATC that they were approaching D6 then end up at D5? who's to blame that they ended up at the wrong location?
Seems very strange.
Because they mistook D5 for D6
DeleteI think you nailed it. They probably didn't want to admit their error and decided to "re-run" the numbers and take off from incorrect D5 position. I even have a problem with the original attempt to take off from D6. Empty runway behind you is useless. Give yourself the greatest cushion for emergencies and take off from the beginning of the runway.
DeletePilots at Pink Air would never have done something like this. It is time for JU to make a contract with them for flights from KVO, Vrsac and Bor to BEG.
Deleteunless the tickets can be 3500 rsd/30 euro or under, people will not be flying from Bor to BEG. also the aircraft will need to be a 30 seat maximum but preferably 20 seater in order to keep high load factor.
DeleteAir pink will have to meet those conditions for the flights to work. if they will make a profit and will it work financially only AirPink can know that.
As for the demand there is a lot. Huge Chinese demand especially.
Bor is the second largest unserved route frog BEG, directly after YYZ
DeleteI have flown BA on an E195 from London City to Barcelona. That runway is 1500 m and it did not use all of the length of the runway. What they tried to do was very possible but not executed well here as they probably should have had higher engine power and held onto the breaks longer. Based on the fact this aircraft survived, the Ejet is now my favourite aircraft type from a safety perspective. Well done Embraer. Viva Brasil!
DeleteTORA was 1273 meters. They overcome runway for 600 meters and Gor airborne from grass field. So they needed in total 1873 meters to take off
DeleteWould not exclude ATC error as well. There was a rather strange communication with the pilots. ATC ar supposed to PERFECTLY know the runway and plane. Also who are those pilots, do they well know Belgrade as an airport being non-Serbs? Why chose a cheap and unexperienced Greek airline and now suddenly a Baltic 737....this investigation will need some time and indeed very strange one,,,,
ReplyDeleteI will repeat to you the same as I said above
DeleteIf you bothered to read the report, you will see that they told them numerous times where they were. The pilot said that he calculated and that they had enough room to take off. The ATC cannot do calculations if an aircraft can depart because these calculations are based on loads, fuel, aircraft weight etc, none of the information ATC has.
As for the rest of your bizarre conclusions, pilots are not required to live in a city to be able to depart from its airport. During preflight checks pilots familiarize themselves with the airport. I stopped reading your rant after you wrote "did they know the airport as non-Serbs". You are right, only Serbs can land and depart from Belgrade Airport. Bravo.
"You are right, only Serbs can land and depart from Belgrade Airport."
DeleteOf course, and by that logic we should limit Serbian pilots to only fly within Serbia, it's dangerous if you don't know every square milimeter of the airport you fly into :)
The stuff some people post here, really...
And I will repeat what I’ve wrote numerous times already: ATC should have ordered them to taxi to at least D6. They clearly were very, very worried and sceptical about safety of D5 departure (as they asked several times if the crew was sure about D5 departure). But not once they did anything. For me, as theit brother in arms, by that they became complices in the case. I know, its fine line when one should remain worried and when to intervene, but this case was absolutely not duch. For the last time: there was absolutely no need for departure from D5, it was windless night (taking additional meters needed to reach Vr). You can defend ATC as much as you want, but their passivness most definetly contributed to the accident. They could easily told the to backtrack till D6 and then there would be no case, no accident, just a tight tske-off for my taste. I know I would never have allowed such shortened tske-off run, and I didn’t. Also- never got a single complaint from the crew because of that. They know perfectly that it is far safer to taxi for additional few minutes and use full runway, than risking RWY excursion.
DeleteSorry fir typos. Phone keyboard..
Delete@10.08 his response was obviously sarcasm to what @9.24 wrote.
DeleteI know, I was just referring to how silly the @9.24 comment was.
DeleteHis comment is not silly. We all know that they told them a number of times if they are aware that they are D5, we are not stupid. But here is a fact, if they took off from D6 then this wouldnt have happend, am i correct or not? I am sure there are many cases like this were the ATC controller didnt give clearance to an aircraft to take off from wrong position thats why we dont see this kind of accidents every week. The ATC controller can end up being resposible for “not doing” i.e. not preventing the situation that happend.
DeleteVery stubborn and arrogant people gather here. How’s hard to accept that from that position, some airplanes take off without a problem? It’s pilots duty to take care about the plane. It’s ATC duty to provide time and space for planes, not to pilot them. ATC error was few months ago in Japan, when two aircraft crashed at the runway. Here are only pathetic tries of accusing Serbians by some pathetic persons
Delete9:24 This is beyond stupidity! Are you aware that pilots land and take off around three times a day from different airports whole career?? Do you really thing that they should know every airport before piloting the plane?? OMG…
DeleteWow this guy does not understand that ATC does not operate tge aircraft and they do not know weight and balance of each aircraft departing that day . So embarrassing to see how people here have no knowledge but they are quick to comment on something they do not understand.
DeleteIt is obvious that "notLufthansa" user hates ATC for some reason, probably personal. It's really funny to read his comments full of utter lack of basic knowledge of ATC procedures. Please don't take his comments as relevant.
DeleteYou are insane. I’m active ATCO gor three decades, worked on all positions, among other was TWR INS. I can scan my licence and send it to exyu admin if you don’t believe me. It is probably people like you with only experience in flying from the passenger seat. And yes, I’m ex mil pilot as well.
Delete* for three decades
DeleteAnd let me clarify one more thing for you armchair experts: have you ever been faced with situation where pilots were turning left instead right, but not on ground, but airborne and with turn taking them into CFIT within 30 seconds? Have you ever been in situation where passenger aircraft reported almost total instrument failure in IMC and with thunderstorms raging all around the airport? Or in situation where IFR flight starts downward spiral in IMC in high terrain all around, breaking through minimal levels and not responding for two minutes? Or when military helicopter got lost in such thick fog, they could not see anything within 50 m? Or when
DeleteLearjet commences emergency descent passing through levels of five, six other aircraft? Have you ever been in position when pilot on ILS reports his engine is quitting and that he is unsure if he can make it to the airport (only to be found dead in the wreckage together with his dog an hour later), have you ever been part of SAR operation for VFR pilot who was smart enough to try to break through the squall line even though you tried to persuade him to land and try next day, after cold front passes... only to be found dead and with his co-pilot seriously damaged? I could go on and on... some of the events I wrote happened to me, others to my colleagues, but they are all true and there are many of such stories. So don't you dare question my integrity, my knowledge and my experience and stop telling me ATC in BEG did stellar job in this case, because they DIDN'T! And if some of you are so stupid or just stubborn, that you can't comprehend that taking off from last third of the runway 3500 m long is INHERENTLY UNSAFE for passenger jet. It's not my problem if you are unable to grasp the difference between dangerous and unsafe. And this is what I'm trying to explain all along: if ATCO in any moment comes across a situation, where safety may be compromised for whatever reason, it is her/his DUTY to do everything in her/his power to ENHANCE safety or/and prevent breaching it. And what on earth are we talking about here? About f*****g 1000 m backtrack! Are you people aware, had the crew placed E195 only few meters further down the runway, catastrophe would take place that night with great certainty! It's not about ATC calculating take off run for each and every aircraft, it's about recognising potentially unsafe situation developing (and by god, plenty of proof for that can be heard in the conversation between TWR and crew) and taking measures. This is the point BEG ATCOS failed. I'm not blaming them, it is easier to judge after the event, but at least in my case, something like that couldn't happen to me, as I would never ever allow any aircraft of that size and configuration to take off anywhere else but from the start of the runway. Some may call that cowardice, I call it safe operation.
I agree with notLufthansa, there were several mistakes being done at the same time leading up to this incident, not only by the pilots of the aircraft in connection to the take-off. Will be interesting if in the full investigation they will review prior events for the pilots (workload etc), one thing I have learnt from actually talking to pilots flying at BEG is that they all seem to think the airside layout is complicated, while it shouldn't be, it's a simple airport. This is one thing being brought up as for the 2 pilots in question believing they were actually on D6 and not D5.
DeletePilots assumption of being at D6 has been corrected by tower telling them they are at D5 instead. From that point on, pilot have no excuse believing they were actually on D6. Recording has been posted online.
DeleteAnon 20:15, yes I heard the recording etc, but there is still something that doesn't add up. In preflight they planned D6, ended up at D5, was asked several times D5/D6 - the difference is huge (1.000m) and still they contemplated that everything is OK. An experienced pilot (instructor) plus the co-pilot ...just as they didn't recognise the difference between D5/D6.
DeleteJU has nothing to do with it right? Yeah right!
ReplyDeleteIt would be wise if you read the PRELIMINARY report. Your hatred towards Air Serbia and Serbia is so strong that you are able to annul pilot responsibility just to feel good.
Delete@09:32
DeleteThank you Mr "Analitičar".
It's a fact that Ju have to take the blame. Blaming Marathon as a whole though does not work either, it's always a mix of errors, mistakes and those can happen to any airline. JU, LH, AA - you call it. At the end it matters that everyone takes a learning from it.
DeleteIf these were JU pilots, no one would be bending over backwards like some here to defend them.
DeleteIf they were JU pilots this wouldnt have happend.
Delete@11:15
Delete+1000
9:30 Exactly! Not responsible at all!
Delete^11:15
DeleteIm sure about it lol.
Blaming Marathon and not taking any responsibility is so immature of AirSerbia...
DeleteWhat sort of responsibility falls onto JU to take then? You're all speaking so broadly but no one actually points to concrete responsibility of JU in this other than assisting the investigation and reevaluating the partnership that lead to this happening. JU taking reputational damage as picture of a plane in their livery and operating their flight circulates the web is the result of that
DeleteAnon 10:38 Blaming Marathon as a whole though does not work either
DeleteIf you read and understood the preliminary report, no one is "blaming Marathon as a whole".
Already see many incoming comments based on the title of the article because I can guarantee you 98% of readers will not read what is written in the article. Too long for them. From what I've noticed from previous comments, I have seen majority don't even read the articles. They ask questions that were already answered in the article, rant, bitch and spit about everything.
ReplyDelete+1
DeleteExactly, 9:34. And the level of discourse is already approaching the poor levels of critical thinking and due diligence so often observed during conversations across the Balkans. Not to mention the concerning levels of grandiosity and (micro?)aggression.
DeleteBottom line, pilots wrongly calculated TORA and said they can depart.
ReplyDeleteExactly
DeleteYou are just repeating some fancy abreviations you picked up somewhere. TORA is not something you calculate, it is a distance availible, at certain point on runway, cold fact so to soeak.
DeleteBravo "notLufthansa"! You got one thing right!
DeleteWell if they need planes and crew, Lynx Air from Canada has just gone bust.
ReplyDeleteI highly doubt JU can afford the wages of Canadian pilots.
DeleteJU doesn't need to offer them Canadian wages, because the alternative to those pilots at the moment would be JU wages or no wages.
DeleteYes, there's no other jobs available in the world. It's only JU and nothing else.
DeleteDo you realize you are talking about pilots type rated on 737 MAX planes?
DeleteWHAT exactly would JU do with them.
Setting aside the fact that they would be absorbed by the North American market long before they would consider moving to Eastern Europe...
and to Air Serbia more specificly.
DeleteSeems that Captain of E195 gave over FO to do calculations of TORA and didnt check that
ReplyDeleteIt's not TORA but TORR
DeleteIt is TORA
DeleteTakeoff Run Available (TORA) – the runway length declared available and suitable for satisfying takeoff run requirements.
Check before you post.
TORA is a fixed value and NOT something you calculate before take-off. In this case it’s 1.273 meters which is the distance from mid-point RWY to RWY END from D5.
DeleteThe captain had 18,000 hours and had flown from Belgrade numerous times before. It's baffling how this mistake was made. They were told by ATC more than once that taking off from the D5 intersection left only 1200 metres of runway available. Anyone type-rated on the Embraer 195 should know this is insufficient, even without doing the calculation.
ReplyDeleteExactly, it is really an enigma what exactly happened and how come BOTH pilots made a mistake like this.
DeleteIt is obviously a pilot error that is employed by Marathon, but when it comes to the responsibility towards the passengers, that is all on Air Serbia. They purchased tickets with JU and 99% of the passengers probably have no clue who or what Marathon is. In my opinion, if some criminal proceedings are started, they should be towards JU, and based on the contract JU has with Marathon, they should seek full compensation
ReplyDeleteHatred is blind..
DeleteIn your dreams only… wonder what you would say if JU plane was wet leased by Aegian and this happened in Athens?
DeleteOnly in your dreams would Aegean fly with Marathon equipment
DeleteI am not a JU hater, I fly with JU all the time and I want them to do well and expand, but here I am stating the facts. Tickets and invoices were issued by JU and with that passengers enter into a contract with you. What happens with the passengers is JU’s responsibility. If they died, JU would be sued first. I am just stating facts, its commin knowledge
DeleteAlaska Airlines sold tickets for a flight where plug door blew out. Ask lawyers if passengers should sue them or Boeing.
DeleteEveryone is an expert here in the comments and everyone knows better then investigators and actual recordings and actual evidence, and actual statements made by pilots.
ReplyDeleteThat’s how it is today on the internet…
DeleteIt is really funny reading all those comments. I am an Embraer pilot for 20yrs now. I worked in the past with some of the Marathon pilots. Those pilots are highly trained as any other pilot in the EASA environment. Most of them were flying for Big companies on Embraers or other types, like SAS, LOT, KLM, Alitalia, Sky Express, even some people from Emirates and Qatar.
ReplyDeleteThe reason they decided to work for Marathon was the 20/10 or 15/15 roster that you cant find on a scheduled airline and in general the higher salaries.
No training issues, no knowledge issues, no skill issues. Most of them are in a much higher level than the Air Serbia pilots, I can assure you about that.
Of course, the pilot of this flight did something really stupid and destroyed everything. This is the ugly truth, it is 100% their fault.
But dont blame all of the company's pilots. I was about to enter Marathon Airlines this year, and believe me, I already have teached hundreds of pilots on A320 and EMB for the last 15yrs, and they now fly in the best airlines all around the globe. I am so lucky that I dont work for Marathon so a lousy sofa-pilot can call me unprofessional
+1
Deletebelive that everyone is already fully aware of that ugly truth but would like to hear what stupid move the highly skilled pilot of that flight most likely could have done.
Deleteit is known that pilots contractors have much higher salaries than those who are employed so its obvious why companies offering that are tempting for pilots.
I bet they unintentionally selected D5 12R departure instead of 30L
DeleteDid not comment on this anywhere since accident happened, as with accidents there is almost never just one reason. Yes, there is a main reason but usually a lot of other things could have been done better.
DeleteReading the initial report it mentions that FO re calculated on his tablet. Were they using ePerf? A person told me that in ePref D5 is not an available intersection for 30L rather only for 12R. Could this be how they miscalculated? Have they done crosscheck?
It will take time to get all the facts that led to this.
I think so and it's very likely they didn't properly crosscheck
DeleteAnd yet, the captain instructor allowed this to happen. Yeah, Marathon is amazing, just like all other similar airlines where all the rejects from well established airlines seek pilot positions. Same for cabin crew, people were disgusted how they handled things.
DeleteWhat is the time needed for pilot to be certified for Embraer aircrafts?
DeletePlease correct me if I'm wrong . The current wet leased airplanes from Air Serbia are : 2 a320 LY-WIL , LY-MAL from Getjet and 3 boeing 737-800 LY-LOC, LY-MGM, LY-BBN from Klasjet ? Thanks in advance .
ReplyDeleteYes
DeletePilots and ATC from around the world posted their views based on recordings and available info. Almosts all of them praise BGD TWR response.
ReplyDeleteUnlike those professionals, some commentators closer to home are looking to find some ways to throw shade at locals, primarily ATC. Would not be surprised to see M.B and the likes publish "personal opinion" articles based on that premise.
As always
DeleteNo blame policy. But in this case atcs should not give permision to take of from the wrong position. In the end they give the final verict.
Is it know if the FO is ex-LOT? To be Polish and flying not so far away, it makes me wonder if he’s at least LOT trained.
ReplyDeleteYes, he was at LOT and all initial training was with the polish
DeleteThanks. Even though he’s ex-LOT they will take it pretty hard that it’s one of their ex-crew.
DeleteYep, they can't even fall asleep
DeleteUsing common sense, it is very clear that the crew made a mistake, but in the end everyone was unharmed. Congratulations to Embraer for manufacturing excellent planes.
ReplyDelete"The pilot of the aircraft was a 58-year-old Italian national who had type-ratings on the A320 and Embraer 170 family while the co-pilot was Polish with E170 type-rating. "
ReplyDeleteThey are used to a smaller plane, different engine.
https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/aviation-law/53905-embraer-e170-190-type-ratings.html