Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

Post Reply
Illya Kuryakin
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1311
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 11:14 pm
Location: The Gulag Archipelago

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by Illya Kuryakin »

FICU wrote:
. . wrote:I'm sure the travelling public would be very happy to know pilots see them as nothing more than an irritation rather than the people who they work for.
I take it you fly in flip flops and shorts in the winter?

Not an irritation at all, more like comedy. They can wear whatever they want but they will face the consequences for lacking simple common sense as did the pax in YHZ and they have only themselves to blame.

It would be a sad day if an airline had to force common sense on people by implementing dress codes appropriate for the weather conditions.

BTW... I also laugh at them when they are hauling their luggage out of the terminal in shorts and flip flops in - 30s wind chill.
I know every time I board an Air Canada flight, the pilots are all wearing Sorels and Snow Goose parkas in their seats. The flight attendants never wear pantyhose, that will just melt into their skin and scar them for life. To say nothing of the CFM pumps half them show up in.
Illya
---------- ADS -----------
  
Wish I didn't know now, what I didn't know then.

Meatservo
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2444
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Negative sequencial vortex

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by Meatservo »

How can they sue Air Canada, Nav Canada and the Halifax airport all at the same time? If one of those defendants actually is liable, doesn't that sort of automatically exonerate the other two? :smt017
---------- ADS -----------
  
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself

User avatar
all_ramped_up
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:32 pm
Location: YQY / YSU
Contact:

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by all_ramped_up »

All I can contribute to the thread is a couple shots of the site I took at work yesterday morning.

Image


Image
---------- ADS -----------
  

boxcut
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2012 7:07 pm

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by boxcut »

Illya Kuryakin wrote:I know every time I board an Air Canada flight, the pilots are all wearing Sorels and Snow Goose parkas in their seats. The flight attendants never wear pantyhose, that will just melt into their skin and scar them for life. To say nothing of the CFM pumps half them show up in.
Illya
Well Illya, TC already issued an advisory about it.
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... 6-1515.htm

So yeah, they should be following those guidelines.

On the passenger side, they should be enforcing a lot of things. Carryon weight and size, no sandals/flipflops. The flying public is at times completely ignorant of the safety risks of their decisions. Air carriers should have the authority to protect passengers from their own ignorance.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2030
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by Old fella »

Meatservo wrote:How can they sue Air Canada, Nav Canada and the Halifax airport all at the same time? If one of those defendants actually is liable, doesn't that sort of automatically exonerate the other two? :smt017

Tort lawyers go after everything, hoping something will stick, most if not all settled out of court with the "king of torts" getting a handsome cut. Remember that MK airlines cargo B747 that sailed off the end rwy 23 in Halifax, the insurance company for this airline started a suit against Government of Canada and Halifax Airport authority, both said well go ahead and screw you shall meet you in court as we are not paying a cent. This lawsuit was quietly dropped as no leg to stand on by company insurance....
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
JohnnyHotRocks
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1036
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 7:18 am

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by JohnnyHotRocks »

Liquid Charlie wrote:
Out of curiosity, did that happen overseas somewhere with a low transition level? I could see how that could happen in a high workload environment with a low transition level. In Canada with the transition level at FL180 I think the odds of missing the multiple checks and double checks would be highly unlikely.
Likely not since the procedure in Europe is to set your altimeter as soon as you are cleared below or above transition - not at actual transition level or altitude.
Although it is a common procedure, the proper way is to change it at the transition level (with exceptions in some countries apparently)

Changing Altimeter Setting Reference
7.1. ICAO PANS-OPS1 requires that the altimeter pressure setting should be changed to the new reference when crossing the transition altitude/level.
7.2. Some national authorities stipulate that, when an aircraft has been cleared to climb from an altitude to a flight level, vertical position will be reported in terms of flight level unless intermediate altitude reports have been specifically requested by ATC. Similarly when a pilot is descending from a flight level to an altitude the pilot will change to the aerodrome QNH unless further flight level vacating reports have been requested by ATC, in which case the QNH will be set following the final flight level vacating report.
7.3. Elsewhere, operators have adopted a similar policy in an attempt to minimise the potential for failing to set the correct pressure setting. This policy takes account of the:
(a) high pilot workload, usually occurring at or around the transition altitude/level;
(b) high rates of climb and descent, which are a feature of modern air transport.
7.4. In countries where the above procedure is in force, controllers must realise that the datum will have been changed, and be prepared to act accordingly.
7.5. Pilots following this procedure must be aware of the consequences in countries where this procedure is not standard if the controller requires the aircraft to level before the cleared flight level/altitude is reached. (e.g. aircraft cleared to descend from FL 100 to altitude 3,000 feet. Transition level FL 40. Pilot will set QNH and commence descent. If controller subsequently requires the aircraft to level at FL 60 the standard pressure setting must be reset.)
---------- ADS -----------
  

costermonger
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 881
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 7:52 pm

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by costermonger »

Meatservo wrote:How can they sue Air Canada, Nav Canada and the Halifax airport all at the same time? If one of those defendants actually is liable, doesn't that sort of automatically exonerate the other two? :smt017
Step 1: sue everybody
Step 2: hope somebody you sued hands you some usable evidence at discovery
Step 3: drop suit against defendants that didn't
Step 4: if any defendants are left, profit

Unrelated: these pictures have increased my estimation of the A320's toughness.
---------- ADS -----------
  

grimey
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2979
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: somewhere drunk

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by grimey »

Meatservo wrote:How can they sue Air Canada, Nav Canada and the Halifax airport all at the same time? If one of those defendants actually is liable, doesn't that sort of automatically exonerate the other two? :smt017
They'll name everyone who they feel could have potentially had an impact on the accident and the aftermath, especially if they have insurance or significant assets. And many lawsuits will find different defendants partially at fault depending on the circumstances. If you sue someone for getting hurt, it's not uncommon at all for a judge to award you partial damages, saying that your own stupidity was partially at fault for what happened.

Hypothetically (and this *IS NOT* what I'm suggesting happened), the airport could be held liable for not having the other runway clear, "forcing" the pilots to try to land on the one that was cleared, and for the late response in getting the passengers & crew in from the cold. AC (through the pilots) could be held liable for any misjudgements or errors they pilots made, or any issue with the aircraft. NC could be held liable if they relayed any information incorrectly, if navaids which they were responsible for failed due to inproper maintenance, or if the ground controller were somehow responsible for the late response in getting the passengers inside.

None of those are mutually exclusive, but expect some defendants to be dropped or breathe a huge sigh of relief after the TSB report comes out.
---------- ADS -----------
  
no sig because apparently quoting people in context is offensive to them.

JBI
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:21 am
Location: YYZ / LGA

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by JBI »

While my past legal practice has generally been defending airlines and operators (and their insurers) for various claims, I feel that part of the rational behind the plaintiffs starting a lawsuit so soon should be explained.

In Canada, when a person is injured due to the negligence of another party (aviation or not), generally speaking, they have two years to file a lawsuit. This makes sense as often it takes time to sort out what injuries a person has, how much work they missed, whether injuries are on going and whether they will require ongoing care in the future. It is not uncommon to have lawsuits filed two years less a day after an injury. However, when there is a situation where multiple people are injured by the same negligence, the courts allow for ONE class action to proceed. So it is helpful for a plaintiff (and their lawyers) to be the first ones to court.

However, it goes beyond simply wanting to be involved in the lawsuit and getting paid. Once a lawsuit is started, all the parties in the lawsuit are subject to information and document disclosure rules. Therefore, although passengers could be considered interested parties in the TSB investigation (most of which is subject to litigation privilege), they are then afforded rights to have certain relevant documents. Again, it makes sense to start an action sooner.

With regard to naming numerous parties, it is (in my opinion) an unfortunate aspect of our legal system that it is much easier to let a party out of a lawsuit then it is to add them after a limitation period has expired. In addition, once a party is added, they too are subject to disclosure requirements. It is not uncommon to list most parties that may be liable at the start of the proceeding. Once evidence is obtained through discovery and document disclosure, parties will then be released. It is less about finding something that will 'stick' and more about ensuring that the proper party is brought into the lawsuit.

Now don't get me wrong, I've seen some pretty frivolous claims, but if you or your family were injured in an accident, aviation or otherwise, you bet you'd start a lawsuit. That's how the system is set up. If you're injured through someone else's negligence, they are required to put you back into the place you were in prior to the injury. The reality is that this is done through a monetary payment. This doesn't mean that the lawyers don't bootstrap or use various types of litigation strategy, but it's not quite the ambulance chasing that gets portrayed on TV.
---------- ADS -----------
  

wowie_kazowie
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 10:56 pm

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by wowie_kazowie »

They missed a few
Sue airbus for making planes that fall apart, Sue the snow plow company for making snow plows that don't plow enough, Sue the power company for putting poles and wires too close to the airport, Sue the lead in light company for making lights too high, and Sue God for making the weather snowy and windy. :twisted:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Eric Janson
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by Eric Janson »

JohnnyHotRocks wrote:
Changing Altimeter Setting Reference
7.1. ICAO PANS-OPS1 requires that the altimeter pressure setting should be changed to the new reference when crossing the transition altitude/level.
7.2. Some national authorities stipulate that, when an aircraft has been cleared to climb from an altitude to a flight level, vertical position will be reported in terms of flight level unless intermediate altitude reports have been specifically requested by ATC. Similarly when a pilot is descending from a flight level to an altitude the pilot will change to the aerodrome QNH unless further flight level vacating reports have been requested by ATC, in which case the QNH will be set following the final flight level vacating report.
The altimeter setting procedures in the event I described earlier were done as per 7.1. This was company SOP and required by the CAA of the country.
Transition Level was FL70 - it was incorrectly entered as 70 instead of 7000 in the PERF APP page. This resulted in no flashing Altimeter scale passing FL70.

I've flown for companies that use 7.2 - much safer imho.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business

Heliian
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1738
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:14 pm

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by Heliian »

Barring a double engine failure or some other "failure", the pilots continued an approach in marginal weather conditions and cocked it up.
---------- ADS -----------
  

HavaJava
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 6:23 am
Location: anywhere but here

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by HavaJava »

Superfriendlyav8er...quite the first post...brevity does not seem to be your forté ;)

This fin did not have any sort of predictive wind shear protection.

Also, I will delve deeper into the manuals, but as I said before, I am almost positive that an aircraft on this profile would not have produced a TAWS warning. Standby and I will get back to you on this, but I am 99% sure.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Old fella
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2030
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 7:04 am

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by Old fella »

Metars:
CYHZ 290500Z 33021G27KT 1 1/2SM -SN DRSN BKN013 OVC027 M06/M07 A2968 RMK SC6SC2 /S13/ SLP058
CYHZ 290414Z 34024G33KT 3/4SM R14/P6000FT/U -SN DRSN BKN010 OVC018 M06/M07 A2965 RMK SF7SC1 SLP046
CYHZ 290400Z 34019G54KT 3/4SM R14/5000VP6000FT/D -SN DRSN BKN007 OVC010 M06/M07 A2964 RMK SF7SC1 SLP045
CYHZ 290313Z 35020G26KT 1/2SM R14/3500V4500FT/N SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2963 RMKSN8 SLP040

CYHZ 290300Z CCA 34019G25KT 1/4SM R14/P6000VM0300FT/N +SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2962 RMK SN8 /S09/ SLP038
CYHZ 290300Z 34019G25KT 1/8SM R14/P6000VM0300FT/N +SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2962 RMK SN8 /S09/ SLP038
CYHZ 290200Z 35019G27KT 1/4SM R14/2600FT/N +SN VV002 M06/M06 A2962 RMK SN8 /S05/ SLP036
CYHZ 290100Z 35015G21KT 1/2SM R14/3500FT/N SN DRSN VV002 M05/M06 A2962 RMK SN8 /S02/ PRESFR SLP037

Here is the METAR for that night, note special issued 0313, followed by 0400 with G54kts and vis from 1/2 to 3/4sm VV300ft@0313 to 700ftbkn@0400. I am not an AC pilot nor have any knowledge on A320 although have some FMS(UNS-1B) C550 time with TC in the mid 90's - this doesn't qualify me for anything needless to say. Between 0300 and 0400 was the time as I understand it this airplane was conducting it's approach. Before the noose comes out for these pilots, as it stands now who knows what they were up against based on wx sequence in a very very short time. Translation: cut them some slack but those bottom feeding tort lawyers have no idea.

Over and out and by your leave.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Liquid Charlie
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1461
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:40 am
Location: YXL
Contact:

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by Liquid Charlie »

For those of us who have flown on the east coast and have had the experience of what kind of turbulence and wind shear one can experience there - I can remember going into Sydney and most of the aircraft abandoning the the approach for turbulence -- for now, I for one am reserving judgement. I will stay faithful to my colleges until proven otherwise --

I also must admit to being slightly horrified how quickly the German crash information was leaked out so quickly. It now has tainted any objectivity and while the allegations might prove be true what if they are not. This was a trial by news media and social media pure and simple. The mob mentality now has amazing powers and tools at it's disposal - ropes are being redundant.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Black Air has no Lift - Extra Fuel has no Weight

ACTPA :kriz:

magic wand
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by magic wand »

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/accident-inve ... 08566.html

- printed within -

Larry Vance, a former safety board investigator, former pilot and now accident consultant, said the fact the flight hit the ground does not necessarily mean this was an unstable approach.

"It could have been stable until it hit."


What am I missing here? At what point do we say the approach was unstable? One would think, if on approach you hit objects, that it was unstable.
---------- ADS -----------
  

PositiveRate27
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 546
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 8:27 am

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by PositiveRate27 »

Stabilized means constant descent rate at a constant airspeed. I think what the article is getting at is the aircraft could have been stabilized but not necessarily on profile, ie. Wrong altimeter setting with low vis. In theory you could fly a constant descent rate into the ground without seeing it at night in hard imc. If this is the case, was the wrong altimeter setting passed to the pilots, or did the set it wrong on the flight deck?


*disclaimer: all hypothetically speaking*
---------- ADS -----------
  

CAL
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 8:47 pm

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by CAL »

Hi guys

Just a question and no comment on what happened.

Given that it was so short of the runway regardless of if it was stabilized or not would the egpws be inhibited as it was on the approach and very near the runway or would it not have given some sort of indication that they were low?

Didnt someone else get very low on this approach some years back?
---------- ADS -----------
  

#37
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 9:43 am

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by #37 »

CAL wrote:Hi guys

Just a question and no comment on what happened.

Given that it was so short of the runway regardless of if it was stabilized or not would the egpws be inhibited as it was on the approach and very near the runway or would it not have given some sort of indication that they were low?

Didnt someone else get very low on this approach some years back?
Think it was a 37 on 33... I had the same thoughts and hope it's nothing to do with a nav shift or whatever. Might rapidly put a lot of handy approaches out of use.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Dockjock
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1004
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 1:46 pm
Location: south saturn delta

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by Dockjock »

-baro ref flashes on the airbus if you descend through transition level without deselecting STD and setting the local QNH. Given that they spend at least :40 below FL180 it seems unlikely that they could have missed that
-FPA is set to one decimal place so -3.08 charted would be set as -3.1. AC procedures prohibit changing or adjusting this inside the FAF
-factual statements about the weather; it was fluctuating above and below minimums for the approach, it was fluctuating above and below x-wind limits for the aircraft type, it was stated however to be at or above legal limits for the approach at the time they conducted it. Regardless, the weather sucked and was very challenging which is probably why they spend :30 holding prior to starting the approach, determining their approach requirements and waiting for it to become legal
-TC permits conducting approaches below the charted visibility in certain circumstances. Given that the approach was conducted during a window where it was below the charted minimum but still legal as per the 'approach ban', perhaps those limits need to be revisited. In other jurisdictions charted vis is limiting
-it was very windy, and the terrain at YHZ is hilly. Gusty winds and hilly terrain produce moderate turbulence (always) and can produce windshear (sometimes)
-darkness
-0100 local
-another runway at YHZ was almost straight into-wind but it was unavailable or not in use for some reason
-the approach to the unavailable runway required GPS, which the aircraft did not have
-chicken/egg scenario: another runway would have been better, but it was unavailable, but even if it was available the aircraft couldn't have used the approach because it didn't have the correct equipment. I expect a fair amount of ink to be spilled on this topic in the Recommendations section of the final report

The job of airline pilot is easy to underestimate and denigrate as all automatic, and just "ILS to ILS." This accident shows otherwise. I have no doubt in my mind that these pilots conducted the approach with strict adherence to the law and to company procedures. Nobody is perfect and in hindsight it is easy to think that different decisions could have been made. I'm glad that they and the other crew and passengers are all still alive to tell the tale one day.
---------- ADS -----------
  

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1772
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by fish4life »

Any idea what kind of duty day these pilots were on? It said they were coming back from a southern destination so would it have been a long pushing 14 hour duty day with a down there and back turn?
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3014
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by CpnCrunch »

Dockjock wrote: -another runway at YHZ was almost straight into-wind but it was unavailable or not in use for some reason
Not really. 05 and 32 both had a 40-50 degree crosswind, from what I can see. No difference at all. (Wind was varying from 0 to 10 degrees M).
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by Lost in Saigon »

fish4life wrote:Any idea what kind of duty day these pilots were on? It said they were coming back from a southern destination so would it have been a long pushing 14 hour duty day with a down there and back turn?
I calculate the total duty of just over 10 hours when they crashed.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Lost in Saigon on Wed Apr 01, 2015 6:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

77W
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:12 pm
Location: Flight Levels

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by 77W »

Would someone mind sending me a PM with the initials of the Capt and FO? Lots of former colleagues on the 320.
---------- ADS -----------
  

55+
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:49 pm

Re: Air Canada Accident in YHZ

Post by 55+ »

Am I correct in assuming AC can't utilize RNAV(GNSS) LNAV/VNAV(baro) and WAAS LPV IAPs in some of their aircraft fleets like the A320. How about others like EMB90, A330 B767/777/787, surely the newer stuff like B777/787 possess all capabilities and utilize such.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”