. . wrote:I am from a bygone era where we had less complex IFR rules.
Seeing as there are far fewer airplanes flying into the ground now than in this bygone era you speak of, something must have changed for the better. Whether that is regulation, training, CRM, or some combination of the above, who knows.
If good judgement alone prevented accidents we wouldn't need speed limits and other traffic regulations either.
Really? Jazz stuffed it into the approach lights in YAM! Jazz took out edge lights in YYC. This subject AC flight stuffed it in about 900 feet short of the runway. All in a fairly recent time frame. King Air did a gear up touch and go in YOO ( I think it was). Again really recent. And yet "far fewer airplanes are flying into the ground now than......" Really? Not from where I sit. Pretty obvious that "training, CRM......." is still not working as well as you seem to think it is.
Shake your head mate. You might hear something rattle.
Illya
Rockie, you're not obligated to continue the approach with 1/2 the required vis, you are legal to do so. This is in no way an obligation. And, as you point out,it is in no way a good idea.
Missed approaches are good for the soul.
Illya
Illya Kuryakin wrote:
Really? Jazz stuffed it into the approach lights in YAM! Jazz took out edge lights in YYC. This subject AC flight stuffed it in about 900 feet short of the runway. All in a fairly recent time frame. King Air did a gear up touch and go in YOO ( I think it was). Again really recent. And yet "far fewer airplanes are flying into the ground now than......" Really? Not from where I sit. Pretty obvious that "training, CRM......." is still not working as well as you seem to think it is.
Shake your head mate. You might hear something rattle.
Illya
The recent glut of such incidents does raise eyebrows. If, however, you have ever taken a CFIT or CRM course you would know that I am talking about the overall trend since the 1960's. Perhaps you are unable to interpret a graph?
Illya Kuryakin wrote:Rockie, you're not obligated to continue the approach with 1/2 the required vis, you are legal to do so. This is in no way an obligation. And, as you point out,it is in no way a good idea.
Missed approaches are good for the soul.
Illya
I agree completely. My point is the crew shouldn't be in that position with that visibility in the first place. The only reason they are is because Transport Canada permits it when every other regulator in the world prohibits it. They all prohibit it for a reason that TC alone seems unable to see.
complexintentions wrote:Perhaps the ban does occasionally contribute to an a/c not being able to land where maybe some rockstar who's used to the local environment could land, but that's not really the best criteria for designing an approach IMO.
An example of the nonsense of the approach ban in one circumstance ...
Going into YYT the rvr was below the ban limit and Air Canada diverted to YDF. We were right behind them on vectors and had extra gas so ATC put us on an extended downwind and after a few minutes we did the approach once rvr was at the limit.
The funny thing... the approach lights and runway threshold lights with some centerline lights were completely visible in the clear night sky. The fog bank was well beyond the threshold and covered the rest of the airport. We did the approach to landing in clear skies and with visual reference to the runway. Air Canada had the same visual reference but had to divert because the rvr was too low and they didn't have the extra gas.
Here's another case. RVR is below limits but the crew can clearly see everything from altitude. They decide to do the approach because after all...the approach ban is just a bunch of bullshit. Everything goes swimmingly until just above the runway when they enter low lying fog and lose all visual reference.
Anecdotes work both ways. And basing policy and regulations on anecdotes is not a good idea.
. . wrote:Maybe this crew did not know they were below minimums when they flew into the ground?
The first question to be answered is did they fly into the ground or fall out of the sky.
Seriously? Like, as in....there was a total vacuum at the end of the runway. Jesus mate, they pooched it.
Illya
... engine thrust roll back, windshear, other major mechanical issue. Can't rule those out. Planting the jet 1100 feet short of the runway and 2600 feet short of the normal touch down point could be something other than CFIT.
I'm of the opinion that TC shouldn't legislate further restrictions on approach bans because of this accident.
The way I see it, companies and crew hold a joint responsibility to mitigate risks in operations. When vis is at 50% of the CAP recommended value, there is an increased inherent risk of having an accident. Let's imagine, for arguments sake, that you saw a light and descended but it turned out to be headlights instead of ODALS (assuming you're flying a SCDA NPA).
I'm primarily against further legislated restrictions because companies and crew should be mature and knowledgeable enough to mitigate the risks. The people making decisions to mitigate or accept risks need to balance many factors which can often change in the span of a few minutes. Having a further restriction placed on the industry will further increase the occurrences where an aircraft is prevented from attempting an approach when they could have reasonably carried out a successful landing.
Rockie wrote:Anecdotes work both ways. And basing policy and regulations on anecdotes is not a good idea.
And taking decision making out of pilot's hands is a good idea? How far will it go? Approach bans based on wind strength and crosswinds? Approach bans based on snow fall or rain intensity?
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by FICU on Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The recent glut of such incidents does raise eyebrows. If, however, you have ever taken a CFIT or CRM course you would know that I am talking about
CFIT and CRM courses have been around for a long time, they are not some recent marvelous invention that defy the laws of common sense.
Maybe these crews that Illya just mentioned that stuffed it up big time in the last few weeks did not take these courses so they had no idea about situational awareness?
I am starting to get afraid to go to the ticket counter of any Canadian airline after reading all this stuff.
---------- ADS -----------
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
. . wrote:CFIT and CRM courses have been around for a long time, they are not some recent marvelous invention that defy the laws of common sense.
Maybe these crews that Illya just mentioned that stuffed it up big time in the last few weeks did not take these courses so they had no idea about situational awareness?
You missed my point entirely. What I am saying is that these courses usually discuss the statistical decrease in CFIT accidents since the middle of the last century. Therefore we must have been doing something right since then for the rate to have decreased.
FICU wrote:
... engine thrust roll back, windshear, other major mechanical issue. Can't rule those out. Planting the jet 1100 feet short of the runway and 2600 feet short of the normal touch down point could be something other than CFIT.
If that was an issue, somebody would have made a comment by now. Keep looking for excuses though.
Illya
iflyforpie wrote:And keep looking through those rose-coloured glasses to how much better everything was way back when. It IS Roy Orbison's birthday today, after all.
How has this got anything to do with "way back when...."?
Two trained, pilots flying for our Flag airline descended through conditions that clearly called for, either a missed approach, or for them not being there in the first place, ad you make a "rose coloured glasses" remark about way back when?
I say again, "keep looking for excuses...." I'm sure we can find some PC bullshit that will give you a warm fuzzy feeling.
Illya
Well one thing is for certain, this crew ran out of ROC aprx 1000 ft back from runway threshold and were aprx 280 ft below MDA. How they ended up there shall be known at a later date.
