> fumes on board causing nausea and difficulties in coordination to the flight attendants

There is no more information yet, but I thought this might interest people here as I'm personally quite curious what caused that accident. Hopefully nobody was injured.

An Aerovias DAP de Havilland Dash 8-400, registration CC-DHT performing flight V5-420 from Punta Arenas to Puerto Williams (Chile), landed on Puerto Williams' runway 26 at 11:07L (14:07z) but struck its tail onto the runway surface. The aircraft rolled out without further incident. No injuries are being reported, the aircraft however sustained substantial damage.

https://avherald.com/h?article=51d7d44e&opt=0

!

I've seen a lot of positive coverage in the recent days regarding this tentative agreement, but that coverage was rather shallow. This article goes deeper, adds many details, and confirms that the story is not that simple.

This is not the final report yet, but it confirms that there was an issue with the icing conditions, and it was acknowledged by the crew. It also suggests a potential issue with the de-icing system? But maybe I just read it wrongly:

> 15:15:42 - a single chime was heard in the cockpit. Subsequently, the crew commented on the occurrence of an AIRFRAME DE-ICING Fault;

Some other excerpts from the sequence of events:

> 16:19:28 - at a speed of 184 kt., the DEGRADED PERFORMANCE alert was triggered, together with a single chime. The alert was triggered concomitantly with the exchange of messages between APP-SP and the crew;

> 16:20:00 - the Second in Command (SIC) commented, “a lot of icing”;

> 16:20:57 – during the turn, at a speed of 169 kt., the INCREASE SPEED alert was triggered, in conjunction with a single chime. Immediately afterwards, vibration noise was heard in the aircraft, simultaneously with the activation of the stall alert;

> 16:21:09 - control of the aircraft was lost, and it entered an abnormal flight attitude until colliding with the ground. The aircraft rolled to the left to a bank-angle of 52 degrees, and then rolled to the right to a bank-angle of 94 degrees, performing a 180-degree turn in a clockwise direction. Subsequently, the turn was reversed to an anticlockwise direction, with the aircraft completing five full rotations in a flat spin before crashing into the ground.

About those alerts:

> If the aircraft’s drag increased due to ice accumulation and performance was degraded, resulting in loss of cruise speed, alerts in three levels were triggered and presented to the pilots on both alert panels of the APM, as follows:

> 1st Level - CRUISE SPEED LOW.

> The blue-colored message would indicate performance degradation of around 10%, with reduction of the Indicated Air Speed (IAS) during the cruise phase by at least 10 kt. below the speed computed by the APM. This alert would be triggered only during the cruise phase.

> 2nd Level - DEGRADED PERFORMANCE.

> The amber-colored message would be followed by a single chime and a master caution alert, indicating a significant performance degradation in the range between 22% and 28%, induced by a significant increase in aerodynamic drag, causing a drop in cruise IAS of around 15 to 20 knots below the speed computed by the APM. This alert could be triggered during climb, cruise, or descent.

> 3rd Level - INCREASE SPEED.

> The amber-colored message would appear flashing, followed by a single chime and a master caution alert, indicating that the degraded performance condition had worsened , reaching an IAS value below the ICING BUG + 10 kt. This alert could be triggered during climb, cruise, or descent.

> A problem unfolded several minutes after take-off on flight CX383 from Hong Kong to Zurich on Monday, according to flight tracking service FlightRadar24. The five-year-old A350-1000 plane performed two wide circles and dumped fuel over the sea before returning to Hong Kong where it landed safely about 75 minutes after its departure. Cathay Pacific said it identified an engine component failure after the aircraft returned to Hong Kong.

> Cathay Pacific has not specified which engine component failed, but the carrier said it was the "first of its type to suffer such failure on any A350 aircraft worldwide".

> The airline said it had "identified a number of the same engine components that need to be replaced" but did not say on which model aircraft.

Hello, I hope this is the right community to ask this. I have a flight in December from Valencia (Spain) to Tokyo with Air France. I have a layover in Paris CDG.

The flight from Valencia to Paris arrives at CDG at 08:20 in terminal 2G. And the flight from Paris to Tokyo departs at 9:30 in terminal 2E.

I have been researching and I believe that this is not enough time to make the connection. I contacted Air France and initially they told me that it was not enough time, and they offered me some more expensive alternative flights, which I am not satisfied with, as I would arrive a day later. When I told them that their website states that they are responsible for making the connection possible, they started to say that the connection is indeed possible. I also tried to cancel the flight from Valencia to Paris and take another airline that arrives earlier, but they say that cannot be done without paying, as it is part of the same itinerary.

I don’t have much experience flying, and I would like to know your opinion.

Thank you very much!

I decided to post this link because I personally didn't expect that to happen:

> Regional carrier Voepass said in a statement sent to Reuters that the move was "necessary" as it now has one less aircraft in its fleet of ATR turboprops. Voepass said the measure was aimed at "minimizing potential delays and flight cancellations." Daily flights to nine locations will be interrupted at least until Oct. 26, when Voepass will reassess its network while planning for the next season, it said.

While the article does not specify how many planes they currently have, it seems that the number falls into the "not enough" category.

!

Mirror

https://apnews.com/article/brazil-plane-crash-sao-paulo-394427322513643f4eaf517e4ac4c85e

cross-posted from: https://rss.ponder.cat/post/7247

!

!

The pilot did not have time to eject and died.

https://t.me/astrapress/59558

!

!

!

>A pusher tug punched a hole in the fuselage of an Aeroflot plane at Kazan airport.

>According to the Base, the collision occurred on the morning of July 5. The plane was supposed to fly to Antalya. There were 118 people on board.

>However, during towing, the locking bolt was sheared, causing the plane to collide with the tug.

>The plane's fuselage was severely damaged. Passengers had to be sent to a sterile area to await their flight.