KAG wrote:I'm truly thankful no one was seriously hurt. My thoughts also go out to the crew, it's a sick/sinking feeling that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Lessons will be reiterated or learned and I'm proud to see this topic being kept professional.
Fly safe all.
Very good points and my thoughts exactly in not jumping on anybody with needless speculation.......
Heliian wrote:They had supposedly circled for a while and then found a "window" to land instead of diverting to moncton. The plane caught the powerline coming in so i guess they were too low and then bounced, shed parts and slid on its belly. Luckily there were no majour injuries but confidence in air travel is not good.
Wx conditions were above landing minima. If you had ever landed in 3/4 mile and 33 kt gusts, you would know that if your above minima, you make the approach, you get to DH, nothing seen, YOU GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
Any thoughts on why there is no ils to 05? I can't imagine it's a terrain issue. I'm guessing a cost issue more than anything else. With minimums that get you to 277 they probably didn't see a need given the percent of time that weather would demand it. I also feel like airports are holding back upgrading approaches in favour of much cheaper LPVs. Of course any approach with vertical guidance greatly reduces the risk of CFIT on approach (assuming this was the case). I don't fly an Airbus. Does anyone know if the 320 is even capable of LPV? May sound like a silly question but there are a number of large AC not capable.
[/iLooks like they hit the power line. I can't believe how AC is downplaying this accident. The AP manager also calls it a hard landing, and the power going off was a coincidence.
Yes, I remember the old days when a hard landing was when the masks dropped out and maybe a few babies in the back started crying, but most of the time you could still taxi the airplane over to the gate, and then blame the landing on the F/O or the auto land.
Times have changed. Very fortunate, and thankfully no lives were lost.
flaps1 wrote:Any thoughts on why there is no ils to 05? I can't imagine it's a terrain issue. I'm guessing a cost issue more than anything else. With minimums that get you to 277 they probably didn't see a need given the percent of time that weather would demand it. I also feel like airports are holding back upgrading approaches in favour of much cheaper LPVs. Of course any approach with vertical guidance greatly reduces the risk of CFIT on approach (assuming this was the case). I don't fly an Airbus. Does anyone know if the 320 is even capable of LPV? May sound like a silly question but there are a number of large AC not capable.
Any FMS aircraft will have vertical guidance if there is an ils or not. Dive and drive doesn't work very well in a transport category aircraft, so they "should" have been following the FMS generated vertical profile on the Loc approach which is essentially a glideslope with limitations
The auto pilot on my little "toy" airplane can stay on the GS and LOC. (Even on an RNAV approach, which I must assume this one was, no?) With this accident (this one could have killed everybody on board really easily) and the edge light accident in YYC, the short landing in the approach lights in YAM, obviously something is amiss somewhere. Don't know the answer, but it's out there somewhere. Maybe we do need stricter approach bans?
Illya
With all the millions in infrastructure spending, there should be an ILS on each runway at every major airport in Canada!!! Look at bloody Ottawa!! Nations Capital, and the most used runway (25) has no precision approach!
So I heard that runway 32 was not being maintained at the time of the incident/accident, only rwy 05 was open. The other runway was covered in snow drifts. Runway 05 apparently had a JBI of .35 when AC landed. With winds at 340 gusting to 25, that would be 20 knots of crosswind on 05.
Can any pilot tell me if the runway was within limits with that JBI and crosswind?
Seeing that the aircraft took out lights on the approach, I don't think any of the above is a contributing factor to the accident, clearly something else happened (wind shear and loss of lift maybe?) but the crosswind seems really strong for such a slick runway.
flaps1 wrote:Any thoughts on why there is no ils to 05? I can't imagine it's a terrain issue. I'm guessing a cost issue more than anything else. With minimums that get you to 277 they probably didn't see a need given the percent of time that weather would demand it. I also feel like airports are holding back upgrading approaches in favour of much cheaper LPVs. Of course any approach with vertical guidance greatly reduces the risk of CFIT on approach (assuming this was the case). I don't fly an Airbus. Does anyone know if the 320 is even capable of LPV? May sound like a silly question but there are a number of large AC not capable.
As far as I know years back studies were conducted for an G/P with the associated LOC for RWY 05 at Halifax and there were some terrain issues in regard to mineral deposits or something of that nature that concerns were warranted, also G/P placement raised some issues as well. Fast forward to the current with a published RNAV(GNSS) with a WAAS LPV component to 720 DA(257ft HAT), those issues may have been mitigated in the eyes of service provision. If WAAS LPV meets operation requirements to the Canadian major airlines, not for me to comment.
boxcut wrote:Seeing that the aircraft took out lights on the approach, I don't think any of the above is a contributing factor to the accident, clearly something else happened (wind shear and loss of lift maybe?) but the crosswind seems really strong for such a slick runway.
RFI had nothing to do with this.
If a plane lands short of the runway it's normally due to performance decreasing windshear, CFIT(eyes outside and not on instruments and or miss handling automation/hand flying as in the Korean SFO crash), critical mechanical failure, or, as in the 777 Heathrow crash years ago, fuel starvation.
It will be interesting to see the ultimate cause of this accident and it shouldn't take long once crew are interviewed and CVR/FDR are analyzed.
FICU wrote:
It will be interesting to see the ultimate cause of this accident and it shouldn't take long once crew are interviewed and CVR/FDR are analyzed.
I guess if you call 2 years not taking long. The Germans crash an aircraft and within 48 hours we have a a cause. This will take years of planning to cover it all up!
magic wand wrote:I guess if you call 2 years not taking long. The Germans crash an aircraft and within 48 hours we have a a cause. This will take years of planning to cover it all up!
Pressure will be on the TSB to get information out ASAP after the quick reaction of their European counterparts with the Germanwings accident. The Media will be all over them!
Meddler wrote:"...250 meters short of the runway, climbed the embankment up to the runway level and came to a stop past the threshold of the runway near taxiway B about 300 meters down the runway."
