Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 450

1975 aviation accident

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 450" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Czech. (January 2017) Click for important translation instructions.

Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Misplaced Pages.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Czech Misplaced Pages article at ]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template {{Translated|cs|Let JP 450}} to the talk page.
For more guidance, see Misplaced Pages:Translation.

(Learn how and when to remove this message)

Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 450
Accident
The accident aircraft in 1973
Date	October 30, 1975
Summary	Controlled flight into terrain
Site	Suchdol, Prague, Czechoslovakia 50°08′15″N 14°23′24″E / 50.1375°N 14.3900°E / 50.1375; 14.3900
Aircraft
Aircraft type	McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32
Operator	Inex-Adria Aviopromet
IATA flight No.	JP450
ICAO flight No.	ADR450
Call sign	ADRIA 450
Registration	YU-AJO
Flight origin	Tivat Airport, Mrčevac, Montenegro
Destination	Prague Ruzyně International Airport, Prague, Czechoslovakia
Passengers	115
Crew	5
Fatalities	79 (initially 75)
Survivors	41 (initially 45)

Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 450, JP 450, was an international charter flight from Tivat in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Prague, Czechoslovakia which crashed in the Prague suburb of Suchdol on October 30, 1975, at 09:20 AM. The McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32 with 115 passengers and 5 crew on board descended, under Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC), below defined Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) during the final approach to Prague Ruzyně Airport RWY 25, entered a gorge above Vltava river, and was unable to outclimb the rising terrain. 75 of the 120 occupants died during the crash itself while 4 others died later in hospital. The accident remains the worst aviation disaster on the Czech Republic soil.

Aircraft

The aircraft involved was a McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32, MSN 47457, registered as YU-AJO, which was manufactured by McDonnell Douglas in 1971. It was also equipped with two Pratt & Whitney JT8D-9 engines.

Accident

The DC-9 was operated by Inex-Adria Aviopromet on a morning flight from Tivat to Prague with mostly Czechoslovakian tourists returning home from vacations on the Adriatic sea. Captain Miodrag Marović (40) and First Officer Rade Popov (49) had an uneventful flight with clear weather, until they entered a published landing procedure above PR non-directional beacon (NDB). Czechoslovakian ATC took over the aircraft at the border at 09:01. After identification, the crew asked for weather information. ATC responded that the total visibility in Prague is 1,500 metres (1.5 km; 0.93 mi) and on runway 25 (later known as runway 24) only 200 metres (660 ft). At the same time, ATC warned the crew that both the instrument landing system (ILS) for RWY 24 and the precision approach radar (PAR) were inoperative - "JP450, ILS and PAR are out of service on runway 25".

The pilot asked - "I understand, but what do we do now?". ATC responded - "You can continue to Prague or divert to another airport."

"Please wait" - the pilot replied.

After a while, the pilot continued - "So the RVR of 1,100 meters and the ILS and approach lights out of service?"

Since ATC never mentioned approach lights to be out of service, this message from the crew reveals that mental load started to build up caused by the uneasiness with the situation at the airport.

ATC responded - "The ILS is out of order. The approach lights and the runway lights are working. There are also beacons (NDBs) in operation."

Based on the information received, the crew decided to proceed according to the flight plan to Ruzyně Airport.

ATC contacted the crew again, while the aircraft was at an altitude of 1,500 metres (4,900 ft) approaching PG NDB (beacon) from the southeast, and instructed the crew to continue to PG NDB then to PR NDB, and make a published, standard turn. ATC approved descent to 550 metres (1,800 ft) (communication was in metres, not feet) and provided QFE pressure of 981. ATC's instruction was correctly read back by the JP450's crew. After passing overhead PR NDB the crew entered a published landing procedure. However, somewhere above the village of Vodochody the crew inadvertently missed to start the published right turn and continued in a broader turn over villages of Veliká Ves and Kojetice. After executing a wider-than-published right turn, the crew entered the final approach for runway 25 in IMC conditions (fog). Without the ILS and PAR support the crew was placed in a challenging and stressful situation during the final approach. Stress hormones level found, post mortem, in the body of the First Officer proves the emotional stress the crew was exposed to.

In addition, while executing a non-standard right turn the crew positioned the aircraft to the south (left) of the published glide path for the final approach. This horizontal deviation from the glide path continued to increase and at the place of the impact it was approximately 0.7 nmi (1.3 km; 0.81 mi).

During the turn, ATC again alerted the crew to an ILS outage, repeated the information about the QFE pressure at the airport, and required confirmation of the approach over two NDBs - "JP450, confirm approach over PR beacon and L beacon".

At 09:18 JP450 confirmed - "I understand, PR and L beacons".

This was the last transmission received from the JP450.

During this communication the crew continued to descend below the altitude approved by the ATC and deviate horizontally from the glide path, flying directly towards a Suchdol’s gorge, cut by the Vltava river, and well below the airport's elevation. Unfortunately, there are no publicly available Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) or Flight Data Recorder (FDR) recordings, to credibly reconstruct the cockpit communication and actions of the crew. Moreover, some sources cited the official report that the CVR stopped recording some 15 minutes before the crash due to a short magnetic tape, so there is no data regarding cockpit communication in this critical part of the flight. The crew, most probably, realized their mistake after establishing a visual contact with the gorge. They selected full power, trying to climb above the rising ground of the river gorge, but it was too late. The aircraft first hit trees, 91 metres (299 ft) below the airport's elevation, then struck a building and crashed into the residential area, leaving a 350 metres (1,150 ft; 380 yd) long debris trace. Time of the crash was 9:20 AM. Taking into account elevation of the first impact 91 metres below the airport elevation, and the last approved descent to 550 meters QFE (above the airport elevation), the crew descended 641 metres (2,103 ft) below the approved altitude.

At 09:21, when the crew did not report, ATC called them - "450, this is Prague. Confirm over PR beacon"

"JP450, can you hear me?"

"450, 450, do you hear?"

"450, I'm broadcasting blindly."

Response from JP450 never came.

Of 115 passengers and 5 crew on board, 40 passengers and 1 flight attendant survived the crash.

Conclusions

This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (September 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This section is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Misplaced Pages editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (September 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

There are no publicly available investigation reports, CVR transcripts or FDR data, without which the true causes of the crash can only be speculated. It is unknown:

if aircraft's navigational instruments and altimeters were functioning correctly and if the crew set them and used properly,
if communications between the crew and ATC was clear, precise and without misunderstandings,
physical and emotional state of the crew and quality of the Crew Resource Management (CRM).

The crash ensued due to the crew descending the aircraft below published MDA and below altitude approved by the ATC. Precisely, taking into account the first point of impact, 91 metres below the airport elevation, and the last approved altitude of 550 meters QFE (above the airport elevation), the crew descended 641 meters (2100 ft) below the approved altitude.

Other contributing factors to the crash are:

flying the aircraft approx. 0.7 nautical miles (1.3 Km) to the left of the published glide path over PR and L NDBs, bringing it directly into the river gorge, which they didn't succeed to out-climb,
inoperative airport's ILS and PAR systems,
poor visibility,
spatial disorientation of the crew.

Taking into account all known facts, this crash can be classified as a Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT) type of accident.

Unsupported theories on causes of the crash

Why the aircraft descended 641 meters lower than the ATC approved, was never clearly determined.

There were several widespread theories, but most of them were misguided, according to experts.

One of them claimed that the crew missed to set their altimeters correctly in accordance with the ATC's instruction. Crash investigation proved that the altimeters were set correctly, since the altimeter found at the crash scene had QFE pressure set at 981. Even if the crew was mistakenly descending having QNH in mind, collision with the terrain below the airport elevation (approx. 350 m Above Mean Sea Level) shouldn't have happened.

Second theory claimed the possibility that the crew confused altitude in meters for altitude in feet. However, the crew confirmed approved altitude several times, in meters. It is hard to imagine that two experienced pilots, with thousands of flying hours on the aircraft, would make such a mistake.

The inhabitants of Suchdol promoted another theory, based on alleged testimonies of survivors, that the crew mistakenly took illuminated railway track and road, under the Suchdol's gorge, for the airport. They based this theory on statements that passengers near the cockpit, shortly before the impact, have heard the pilot announcing visual contact with the runway and starting to land. If this was the case, it could be assumed that the pilot misinterpreted road/railway lights as the runway threshold lights and started landing prematurely. This theory is questionable, though spatial disorientation was a factor contributing to the crash, since an experienced crew, flying under IMC, should restrain from looking out from the cockpit (Visual Flight Rules flight) and must rely solely on their instruments (Instrument Flight Rules flight). However, bearing in mind that ILS and PAR were inoperative, it can happen that the crew was intensively looking out for a visual contact and thus missed to monitor the aircraft's altimeters and correlate read altitude to the ATC's instruction and airport's elevation.

The official report states that, during the inspection of the cockpit wreckage, it was found that "Both radio compasses on board the aircraft were set to only one beacon - PR". This fact does not explain the non-compliance with the altitude, but explains the horizontal deviation from the glide path, and testifies about the crew's acts and cooperation before the crash. On a non-precision approach, when using two beacons, the crew should have set both frequencies, so that the correct course can be followed. This is the reason why the crew did not detect, in the final approach, that they continuously deviate from glide path over PR NDB and L NDB to the south (left). Returning to the previous consideration that the crew was under stress and overwhelmed mentally due to inoperative ILS and PAR, it is highly likely that they were rather focused on looking for an outside visual contact than on instruments. This standpoint is supported by Ladislav Keller, then Czechoslovakian civil pilot and air accident expert, who stated that the insufficient setting of the radio compasses indicated that the crew did not prepare well for landing, did not cooperate properly, and missed to monitor the instruments during the final approach. If the pilots would have been monitoring the altimeters and the approach map, they would have stopped the descent the latest at the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA), used for non-precision approach. Unfortunately, this did not happen.

Keller said: "If the crew stopped descending at decision height (Wiki author's comment: term Decision Height is used for a precision approach, while Minimum Descent Altitude term is used for a non-precision approach, which was flown by JP450), there would probably be no accident because the plane would fly about 90 meters above the runway threshold. However, the crew descended to an altitude of 100 meters below the runway threshold elevation. This indicates that the crew was totally disoriented, did not know their position and did not monitor the altimeter at all. There is a presumption that the pilot was not watching the instruments and looking out of the cockpit."

References

^ "Vyšetřovací zpráva" [Investigative report] (PDF). State Security. Retrieved 27 June 2023.
Kouba, Petr. "Poslední věcí, co spatřilo 79 obětí z jugoslávského letadla, byl ohromný masiv Sedlecké skály" [The last thing the 79 victims of the Yugoslav plane saw was the huge massif of the Sedlecka Rock]. PrahaIN (in Czech). Retrieved 27 June 2023.
^ "ASN Aircraft accident McDonnell Douglas DC-9-32 YU-AJO Praha-Ruzyne International Airport (PRG)". aviation-safety.net. 30 October 1975.
^ Třeček, Čeněk (2015-10-30). "Trosky a hromada těl. Od největší letecké havárie v Česku uplynulo 40 let" [Debris and a pile of bodies. 40 years have passed since the biggest plane crash in the Czech Republic]. iDNES.cz (in Czech). Retrieved 2021-05-11.
^ Šírová, Tereza (2012-10-30). "Věděl, že letadlo padá, do kabiny už nedoběhl. 37 let od největší havárie" [He knew the plane was falling, he didn't run into the cabin. 37 years since the biggest crash]. iDNES.cz (in Czech). Retrieved 2021-05-11.

External links

1975: letadlo zmizelo v mlze, pak se ozval náraz. Zemřelo 77 lidí, article in Sedmička (retrieved from archive.org), including pictures from the site
(in Czech)
Article in Czech with photographs from the accident
Accident description for YU-AJO at the Aviation Safety Network
Accident Photos

McDonnell Douglas DC-9 family

Civil/Commercial

DC-9
- -80/81/82/83/87/88

Boeing 717

Military

Accidents and
incidents

DC-9	West Coast Airlines Flight 956 (1966) TWA Flight 553 (1967) Ozark Air Lines Flight 965 (1968) Ozark Air Lines Flight 982 (1968) Viasa Flight 742 (1969) Allegheny Airlines Flight 853 (1969) 1970 Dominicana air disaster Eastern Air Lines Shuttle Flight 1320 (1970) ALM Flight 980 (1970) Southern Airways Flight 932 (1970) Hughes Airwest Flight 706 (1971) 1972 Turkish Airlines Adana crash JAT Flight 367 (1972) EgyptAir Flight 763 (1972) Delta Air Lines Flight 9570 (1972) Scandinavian Airlines System Flight 130 (1972) Southern Airways Flight 49 (1972) 1972 Chicago–O'Hare runway collision 1973 Nantes mid-air collision Aeroméxico Flight 229 (1973) Delta Air Lines Flight 723 (1973) Eastern Air Lines Flight 212 (1974) Avensa Flight 358 (1974) Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 450 (1975) 1976 Zagreb mid-air collision Southern Airways Flight 242 (1977) Air Canada Flight 189 (1978) TWA Flight 541 (1978) Alitalia Flight 4128 (1978) Itavia Flight 870 (1980) Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (1981) Aeroméxico Flight 230 (1981) Aeroméxico Flight 110 (1981) Avensa Flight 007 (1983) Air Canada Flight 797 (1983) 1983 Madrid runway disaster Ozark Air Lines Flight 650 (1983) Midwest Express Airlines Flight 105 (1985) Aeroméxico Flight 498 (1986) Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 (1987) Continental Airlines Flight 1713 (1987) Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (1988) Alitalia Flight 404 (1990) 1990 Wayne County Airport runway collision Ryan International Airlines Flight 590 (1991) Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 (1991) Japan Air System Flight 451 (1993) USAir Flight 1016 (1994) Intercontinental de Aviación Flight 256 (1995) ValuJet Flight 592 (1996) Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 2553 (1997) Cebu Pacific Flight 387 (1998) TAESA Flight 725 (1999) Sosoliso Airlines Flight 1145 (2005) 2006 Mexico drug bust Hewa Bora Airways Flight 122 (2008)
MD-80	Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 1308 (1981) Northwest Airlines Flight 255 (1987) Austral Líneas Aéreas Flight 046 (1988) Scandinavian Airlines System Flight 751 (1991) China Eastern Airlines Flight 5398 (1993) China Northern Airlines Flight 6901 (1993) Scandinavian Airlines System Flight 347 (1994) TWA Flight 427 (1994) American Airlines Flight 1572 (1995) Delta Air Lines Flight 1288 (1996) Korean Air Flight 1533 (1999) American Airlines Flight 1420 (1999) Alaska Airlines Flight 261 (2000) 2001 Linate Airport disaster China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 (2002) Lion Air Flight 538 (2004) West Caribbean Airways Flight 708 (2005) One-Two-GO Airlines Flight 269 (2007) Atlasjet Flight 4203 (2007) Spanair Flight 5022 (2008) Dana Air Flight 0992 (2012) Air Algérie Flight 5017 (2014) Delta Air Lines Flight 1086 (2015) Ameristar Charters Flight 9363 (2017) Caspian Airlines Flight 6936 (2020) 2021 Houston MD-87 crash RED Air Flight 203 (2022)
MD-90	Uni Air Flight 873 (1999)

Topics

Operators
- MD-80
- MD-90
- Boeing 717

v t e Aviation accidents and incidents in 1975 (1975)
Jan 9 Golden West Airlines Flight 261Jan 17 Kjalarnes helicopter crashJan 30 Turkish Airlines Flight 345Mar 31 Royal Nepal Airlines Pilatus PC-6 Porter crashApr 4 Tân Sơn Nhứt C-5 accidentJun 24 Eastern Air Lines Flight 66Jul 15 Aeroflot Flight E-15Jul 31 Far Eastern Air Transport Flight 134Aug 3 Agadir Royal Air Maroc Boeing 707 crashAug 20 ČSA Flight 540Aug 30 Wien Air Alaska Flight 99Sep 1 Interflug Flight 1107Sep 24 Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150Sep 30 Malév Flight 240Oct 14 Żabbar Avro Vulcan crashOct 30 Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 450Nov 12 Overseas National Airways Flight 032Nov 17 Aeroflot Flight 6274Nov 29 Graham Hill plane crashDec 23 South African Air Force Alouette crash
1974 ◄ ► 1976

Aviation accidents and incidents in 1975 (1975)

Jan 9 Golden West Airlines Flight 261Jan 17 Kjalarnes helicopter crashJan 30 Turkish Airlines Flight 345Mar 31 Royal Nepal Airlines Pilatus PC-6 Porter crashApr 4 Tân Sơn Nhứt C-5 accidentJun 24 Eastern Air Lines Flight 66Jul 15 Aeroflot Flight E-15Jul 31 Far Eastern Air Transport Flight 134Aug 3 Agadir Royal Air Maroc Boeing 707 crashAug 20 ČSA Flight 540Aug 30 Wien Air Alaska Flight 99Sep 1 Interflug Flight 1107Sep 24 Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150Sep 30 Malév Flight 240Oct 14 Żabbar Avro Vulcan crashOct 30 Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 450Nov 12 Overseas National Airways Flight 032Nov 17 Aeroflot Flight 6274Nov 29 Graham Hill plane crashDec 23 South African Air Force Alouette crash

1974 ◄ ► 1976

v t e Aviation accidents and incidents in Czechoslovakia (1918-1993)
Air battle over Merklín (March 1953) TABSO Flight 101 (November 1966) JAT Flight 367 (January 1972) Aeroflot Flight 141 (February 1973) Inex-Adria Aviopromet Flight 450 (October 1975) ČSA Flight 001 (July 1976)

Categories: