Expert report on the Pegasus accident in Sabiha Gökçen completed



[ad_1]

In the expert report prepared for the plane crash that caused 3 deaths and 180 injuries, the ‘original’ pilot captain Mahmut Aslan and the ‘secondary’ co-pilot Ferdinant Pondaag were found guilty.

The accident investigation, which left the Sabiha Gökçen airport runway on February 5, killed 3 people and injured 180 people.

The report prepared by a panel of experts of 6 people in the field of the investigation was also included in the investigation file.

In the report, while pilot captain Mahmut Aslan, who participated as suspects in the investigation and second pilot Ferdinant Pondaag, were at fault, two people who were not suspects in the investigation and who worked in the towers of Sabiha Gökçen and Yeşilköy they were found guilty.

“THE PILOT DOES NOT TAKE CARE OF THE WET GROUND”

HEAŞ was also found to be at fault for the fact that tire cleaning was not carried out on a portion of the track. The report indicated that pilot Captain Mahmut Aslan approached the runway without meeting the stable approach criteria, proceeded without braking for 6 seconds after landing, and did not take into account the strong wind and wet runway.

THE WARNING TOWER OFFICER IS PERFECT

In the report, tower officer Ela Akar, who warned Sabiha Gökçen tower controller Serhat Kara that the plane could roll off the runway, turned out flawless.

The report requested from the 6-person delegation by the Istanbul Anatolian Prosecutor General’s Office, which is conducting the investigation of the accident that occurred at Sabiha Gökçen airport, has been included in the investigation file.

Expert report of the Pegasus accident in Sabiha Gökçen completed # 1

EXPERTS HELPED 4 PEOPLE AND AN ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CREATION OF THE ACCIDENT

The expert, in addition to the suspects in the file, the pilot captain Mahmut Aslan and the co-pilot Ferdinant Pondaag, both Sabiha Gökçen and the officers of the Yeşilköy tower were found guilty of not having given the necessary warnings and not having stopped the air traffic. Furthermore, HEAŞ (Airport Management and Aviation Industry Inc.) was found to be at fault as an institution.

The plane is off the runway at Sabiha Gökçen VIDEO-ARCHIVE

“THE PILOT CAPTAIN MUST BE STRESSED BY THE LIGHTNING”

In the expert report, Pilot Captain Mahmut Aslan was found to be primarily at fault for the unanimous decision of the 6-person delegation, including the member who expressed a dissenting opinion in the expert report.

The report stated that Aslan must take into account the tail wind speed on the day of the incident and the possibility of the plane leaving the runway, taking into account the humidity on the runway. “It has been determined that he was unable to do this because he focused on safely landing the aircraft as soon as possible to prevent passengers from being adversely affected by current weather conditions with the stress of a lightning strike striking the aircraft around Yalova.” . It was said.

REALIZATION OF THE BOILER

In the report, in which it is argued that Pilot Captain Aslan approached the runway without meeting the speed on the stable approach criteria, “For this reason, he received the Sink Rate warning, and after landing the plane, thinking it was dropping to a level that he could stop on the runway, he turned off Autobrake (Automatic Brake) and Speedbrak. How the maximum braking was applied. The plane, whose speed began to decrease, could not brake due to the strong tailwind on the ground and the accident occurred. ” It was said.

In the report, “It was concluded that the pilot Captain Mahmut Aslan, who focused too much on the landing due to the lightning strikes they were exposed to during the approach and continued the landing, was at fault for the accident that occurred.” It was said.

Expert report of the Pegasus accident in Sabiha Gökçen completed # 2

“YOU MUST TAKE CONTROL AND PASS THE PLANE”

The report indicated that the second pilot, Ferdinant Pondaag, has been on Pegasus for less than a year. “As I had little 400 hour experience, I would not do these when the captain had to support the pilot with warnings during the approach when he was overspeed during the approach and when he was moving up / down the descent line. If no correction was made by the pilot captain he had to take the audible warning, if there was still no reaction he had to take the controls and pass the plane. Due to his low experience in both the company and the type of aircraft, it was determined that he did not fully fulfill these functions. For these reasons, it was concluded that the co-pilot Ferdinant Pondaag was a minor fault in the accident ”. It was said.

THE TOWER OFFICERS WERE DEFECTIVE

Sabiha Gökçen Airport Air Traffic Controller Serhat Kara, who is not a suspect on file, was also found defective in the report. In the report, arguing that Kara allowed the plane to land despite the belief that the landing could be risky, “It did not give any warning or advice about the missed approach, and did not take the necessary steps to ensure traffic safety, thinking that approaching traffic will be diverted anyway in these weather conditions.” defended.

The moment of the plane crash in Sabiha Gökçen VIDEO-ARCHIVE

THE TOWER OFFICER WARNS THAT THE CHIEF OF THE AIRCRAFT WILL LEAVE THE RUNWAY

In the report, it was claimed that Ela Kara, a tower officer at Sabiha Gökçen Airport, warned Serhat Kara, the crew chief, that the plane could leave the runway, and that Kara contacted the approach controller Yeşilköy , but the plane landed due to incomplete coordination. In the report, “Serhat Kara was found to be at fault for the accident that occurred.” It was said.

WARNING TO THE CHIEF, THE OFFICIAL OF THE TOWER IS FOUND

In the report, it was claimed that Ela Akar, who warned her boss Serhat Kara that the plane could run off the runway, was not at fault. Atatürk airport air traffic controller Nesrin Bala was also found to be at fault. In the report, it was said that Serhat Kara asked Nesrin Bala to stop all arrivals, but Nesrin Bala did not.

DO NOT FOLLOW THE RISK ANALYSIS REPORT

In the report, it was stated that since the Sabiha Gökçen airport was built before 2016, there was no security area at the end of the runway, and the airport management did a risk analysis carried out by a Dutch company.

In the expert report, which indicated that runway 06 where the accident occurred was risky due to wind, it was indicated that the risk analysis firm indicated that runway 06 should be used in the case of 5 knots on a dry runway and 0 knots on a runway wet.

The report stated that it advised reducing landings in tailwinds above this, but it was noted that this recommendation was not followed and operation continued in stronger winds.

A TRACK WITH FINAL SECURITY IS USED 35 PERCENT; IF A TRACK IS USED WITHOUT FINAL SAFETY 65 PERCENT.

In the expert report it was recorded that the recommendations of the risk analysis report issued by the Dutch company were not followed, “However, this recommendation was not followed and the airport authority did not comply with the higher backwind limits set by the airport on the day of the accident. In this case, it was too late to change runway with high tailwind and continued to steer the aircraft to runway 06 with strong wind.

While there is a RESA (runway end safety area) at the end of runway 24, which is used by 35 percent as traffic density, there is no RESA at the end of runway 06 used by 65 percent. hundred. It was said.

Expert report of the Pegasus accident in Sabiha Gökçen completed # 3

DHMİ HAS REGULATED A REPORT THAT EMERGENCY RESPONSE ROUTES WERE NOT APPROPRIATE

In the expert report, which indicated that the State Airport Authority (DHMİ) had reports indicating that the forms of emergency response in this region were not adequate in 2017-2018-2019, In this accident, the inconvenience caused the rescuers to arrive on the plane 24 minutes after the accident that occurred at 18:19 ”. It was said.

CELEBRATED

HEAŞ (Airport Operation and Aviation Industry Inc.) was found to be essentially defective due to lack of tire tracing on a portion of the runway, inadequate emergency response route, and inadequate emergency response routes.

DECISIONS MADE BY MULTIPLE VOTES

Necmi Demir, who was serving as a lawyer on the expert committee, argued that this report should be written after the Crimea report of the accident was prepared.

Demir objected to some of the decisions in this report, prepared based on available information and documents. Demir voiced his opinion that co-pilot Ferdinant Pondaag should also have inherent flaws, Nesrin Bala should be flawless, and Ela Akar should be a minor flaw.

Acting with the majority in other decisions, Demir argued that DHMİ was a minor offense as it did not fulfill the necessary inspection duty.
.

[ad_2]