Air Canada Accident in YHZ

[ReserveTank]

You guys keep discussing SCDA and approaches and all kinds of other things, but there's one fact that remains:

The crew crashed an airliner full of passengers because they went below minimum altitude without required visual references to continue descent to the runway. Period.
Same thing as the First Air crew. No one wanted to believe that they killed a planeload of passengers due to busting mins, so you guys concocted all kinds of rubbish to exhonerate them in your minds.

Get it in your heads - You can't crash your plane into things if you are at a safe altitude for your position over the ground.

[CpnCrunch]

You guys keep discussing SCDA and approaches and all kinds of other things, but there's one fact that remains:

The crew crashed an airliner full of passengers because they went below minimum altitude without required visual references to continue descent to the runway. Period.
Same thing as the First Air crew. No one wanted to believe that they killed a planeload of passengers due to busting mins, so you guys concocted all kinds of rubbish to exhonerate them in your minds.

Get it in your heads - You can't crash your plane into things if you are at a safe altitude for your position over the ground.

Not quite true. They did have the required visual references to descend below MDA -- the approach lights. You can't really compare this to the First Air gong show.

[55+]

I used to do stepdowns in heavy aircraft too and I defended them for the same reasons you guys do, I preferred having a sight picture develop as well rather than hoping I was in a position to land when I had to make an instant decision at MDA. But I was flying non-GPS equipped aircraft into places with scarce DME coverage so map shift was also an issue and NPA's were definitely non-precision. Technology is slowly catching up though, and SCDA's are safer than step downs for reasons that cannot be credibly argued against.

The main issue today is LOC based NPA's because they are the only ones left that airlines with halfway modern equipment cannot fly with vertical glide path guidance. Using less than published visibility with those is stacking the deck against yourself as this event seems to indicate.

You are obviously an AC pilot and probably know a lot more about this incident than you can/want to let on and no doubt have the qualifications/experience to give a reasonable viewpoint. If 1/2 - 3/4 sm vis is approved for your operations with an operation specification for non-precision IAPs as some posters here indicated well all and good. If 1/2 sm vis is the norm well that is the vis for published CAT 1 ILS and for an MDA of 740ft(approach in question) this would suggest the aircraft has to be on that 3.0deg VPA to accomplish a successful landing with this reduced visibility. I do not want to belittle this crew but something did happen to put them way outside the profile to the point where they ran out of ROC aprx 1000ft back from runway threshold. Perhaps reduced vis for N-P A's just may be revisited..........

[peeelot]

Reserve tank. How do you know they went below mins without visual reference ? Has a report come out saying this? I think everyone needs to step back and let the investigation run its course because a lot of what is being said on this forum is speculation and very much incorrect. We all have to be glad that everyone is alive after there are some physical and mental challenges for people to get over but at the end of the day everyone is accounted for and alive and time will tell what happened. That is my 2 canadian cents so about 1.5 cents US.

[Eric Janson]

Still looking for comments on difficulty in step-downs on something of significant weight.....

I fly an aircraft with a maximum landing weight of 246,000kg (541,000lbs). Minimum approach speed is around 145 knots.

We can only fly a non precision approach as a continuous descent from the FAF to MDA.

We are not allowed to fly level at MDA.

At MDA you either see the runway and land or make a go-around. This is fairly standard at all Airlines.

Going from a descent to level flight and vice versa requires quite large pitch and power changes. This isn't what you want at low altitude as it is very easy to get an unstabilised approach as a result.

Just looking at the Jeppesen plate for the LOC 05 approach. There's nothing complicated about flying it.

The autopilot will intercept and fly the LOC. All the PF has to do is select a flight path angle of -3.1 degrees.

Jeppesen shows a point at D7.8 IHZ as the descent point from 2500'. I would have the aircraft fully configured (gear and final flaps selected and the speed all the way back to minimum approach speed prior to D7.8 IHZ).

There are altitude vs. DME crosschecks every mile so your vertical profile is easy to crosscheck. At MDA you should be on or very close to the correct visual profile.

My company would need the published visibility to fly this approach so I would expect to see the PAPI at MDA.

[Rockie]

You are obviously an AC pilot and probably know a lot more about this incident than you can/want to let on and no doubt have the qualifications/experience to give a reasonable viewpoint.

I am AC but have no more information than anyone else. The company is not commenting at all to us and certainly not publicly until the TSB releases their report (smart), and the TSB isn't saying a word until they do either (just as smart). It is public knowledge however what the weather was like at the time of the incident and it is pretty easy to surmise what approach the crew would have elected to do in those conditions. The rest is just placing yourself in their position and imagining what they would and would not have seen when reaching minimums. The Executive VP of Operations was on camera shortly after the incident stating that the crew was performing an approach in full compliance with the air regulations and he was absolutely right. But the air regulations are excessively permissive with their weather limits combined with this type of approach.

[55+]

You are obviously an AC pilot and probably know a lot more about this incident than you can/want to let on and no doubt have the qualifications/experience to give a reasonable viewpoint.

I am AC but have no more information than anyone else. The company is not commenting at all to us and certainly not publicly until the TSB releases their report (smart), and the TSB isn't saying a word until they do either (just as smart). It is public knowledge however what the weather was like at the time of the incident and it is pretty easy to surmise what approach the crew would have elected to do in those conditions. The rest is just placing yourself in their position and imagining what they would and would not have seen when reaching minimums. The Executive VP of Operations was on camera shortly after the incident stating that the crew was performing an approach in full compliance with the air regulations and he was absolutely right. But the air regulations are excessively permissive with their weather limits combined with this type of approach.

For sure. TSB isn't gonna say anything(for the record, I have dealt with TSB on IAP issues) and know the procedures well and know some of their people as well. As for AC, yes again, no commentary but no doubt there is a "chatter line" from the folks inside which of course stays there - as it should. Yes, the METAR sequence was/is known and so is the published vis of 1sm for that IAP..... Whatever the issues are/not, hope the flight crew do not get hung out to dry.

Cheers.

[KK7]

I fly a DHC-8 and our SCDA/CDAs are always flown using VNAV guidance. In practice it is no different than flying an ILS. At minimums you go around, no level off, and the vertical path brings you in a constant descent to the threshold, so it is very easy to be stabilized. We also fly a LOC as an SCDA with the FMS providing a pseudo glideslope like any other NPA.

We have one approach in our system where we cannot fly it as an SCDA or CDA as the altitudes are not correct in the database. Therefore we fly it as a stepdown. The unfamiliarity of step downs with our pilots in of itself raises the risk, as well as the fact that it is in the mountains, and has very high minimums. We all look forward to this approach being fixed so we can fly it as an SCDA.

[Rockie]

We also fly a LOC as an SCDA with the FMS providing a pseudo glideslope like any other NPA.

I'm curious, does your system provide pseudo-glidepath guidance while actively tracking the localizer, or does it only present the calculated information on your display without linking it to the flight director? Also do you have the capability of flying flight path angle or do you use VFPM?

Regardless...nice information to have when doing those approaches.

[ReserveTank]

How do you know they went below mins without visual reference ?

.

Because they hit obstacles prior to the runway. Just like all below mins crashes.

Has a report come out saying this? I think everyone needs to step back and let the investigation run its course

We don't need 2 years to figure out that they tried to sneak it into YHZ like a Navajo captain tries to sneak it into YTL. The weather at the time is a corroborating factor. They pushed it like so many do, but this time an airliner was crashed.

We all have to be glad that everyone is alive

No kidding? As long as no one is dead and feelings are not hurt let's keep crashing planes.

[ditar]

We also fly a LOC as an SCDA with the FMS providing a pseudo glideslope like any other NPA.

I'm curious, does your system provide pseudo-glidepath guidance while actively tracking the localizer, or does it only present the calculated information on your display without linking it to the flight director? Also do you have the capability of flying flight path angle or do you use VFPM?

Regardless...nice information to have when doing those approaches.

In the 737 (-300) a LOC approach is flown coupled to VNAV. Even on an ILS the VNAV path is still calculated and displayed on the screen.

[Rockie]

In the 737 (-300) a LOC approach is flown coupled to VNAV. Even on an ILS the VNAV path is still calculated and displayed on the screen.

That's a good system.

We don't need 2 years to figure out that they tried to sneak it into YHZ like a Navajo captain tries to sneak it into YTL.

That may be how it works where you're employed but it is not the way it works at Air Canada - "sneaking it in" is not part of our culture nor should it be at this level. This is not a bush operation where that kind of stuff is tolerated by either management or the crews themselves.

[CpnCrunch]

How do you know they went below mins without visual reference ?

.

Because they hit obstacles prior to the runway. Just like all below mins crashes.

The ODALS is 1500ft long and they landed 1100ft short, so how could they possibly have been "without visual reference" when they landed right on top of it?

[Ricktye]

Could very well be how it's supposed to work, but.......

My thoughts on this is that it needs to be solved quick! I feel the cause of this crash, that only by good luck didn't end much more seriously, needs to be addressed with considerably with more haste than say the recent German Wings incident. We know what happened there, here for no apparent reason, we almost lost a whole bunch of people!

Air Canada or "bush", something or someone screwed up!

R...

In the 737 (-300) a LOC approach is flown coupled to VNAV. Even on an ILS the VNAV path is still calculated and displayed on the screen.

That's a good system.

We don't need 2 years to figure out that they tried to sneak it into YHZ like a Navajo captain tries to sneak it into YTL.

That may be how it works where you're employed but it is not the way it works at Air Canada - "sneaking it in" is not part of our culture nor should it be at this level. This is not a bush operation where that kind of stuff is tolerated by either management or the crews themselves.

[MUSKEG]

Did they not take out a power pole prior to contacting approach lights? If so then those lights as well as runway lights would have gone dark as the impact with the power pole did cause a power outage at the airport. Or were the approach lights on a different feed.

[CpnCrunch]

Did they not take out a power pole prior to contacting approach lights? If so then those lights as well as runway lights would have gone dark as the impact with the power pole did cause a power outage at the airport. Or were the approach lights on a different feed.

The powerline is 820ft from the runway (according to http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 20150329-0), but the approach lighting extends to 1500ft (according to the CFS and Cap Gen). So they would have seen the lights well before hitting the powerline.

[HiFlyChick]

Did they not take out a power pole prior to contacting approach lights? If so then those lights as well as runway lights would have gone dark as the impact with the power pole did cause a power outage at the airport. Or were the approach lights on a different feed.

That power line is a different system from the runway lights. In any case, even if that had've been the system, the emergency back-up system for runway lighting, nav aids, etc is extremely quick. Can't recall the exact number, but something less than a second I believe. There's a Cat II ILS on 23, and for that the system needs to be even faster (don't know if the backup for the Cat II includes all other systems but it would make sense.

[pelmet]

A question for those familiar with the YHZ airport. Are there any lights short of the threshold that could be mistaken for runway lights, PAPIs etc in poor visibility.

There was a USAir 737 years back doing an approach in Kansas City in poor vis who mistook lights in a parking lot for the runway and hit power lines with their tail prior to going around.

I have been to YHZ and it seems fairly remote so I would expect not but I have seen a pilot initially go for a set of lights that were not even close to the airport and that was at a remote airport.

[Canoehead]

We also fly a LOC as an SCDA with the FMS providing a pseudo glideslope like any other NPA.

I'm curious, does your system provide pseudo-glidepath guidance while actively tracking the localizer, or does it only present the calculated information on your display without linking it to the flight director? Also do you have the capability of flying flight path angle or do you use VFPM?

Regardless...nice information to have when doing those approaches.

Hi Rockie

(Not sure where KK7 flies- they may have different FMS and/or software, but....)


The current DH8 100/300 FMS installation at Jazz has the ability to fly coupled VNAV approaches for all enabled FMS approaches that can be retrieved from the database (RNAV/GPS/VOR/NDB). It cannot fly localizer based approaches.

The Jazz Q400 FMS installation has the ability to fly those same approaches. Additionally it is WAAS enabled so it can fly to LPV minima. It has 'LOC Steering' capability which allows it to fly localizer based approaches and uses a coded FPA (BARO-VNAV) that is flown fully coupled.

All of the approaches mentioned above have coded flight path angles in the approach that cannot be changed. When the approach is loaded, you get whatever the coded FPA is with the approach (whatever is labeled on the Jepp plate). I can only adjust the flight path angle when programming enroute VNAV. We can program desired FPM, and the FMS calculates the required FPA for that. In short, the FMS flies FPA, and both Jazz Dash fleets have that information coupled to the FD.

The only time the Q400 would ever fly a step-down procedure is if the published/coded FPA on an approach exceeds the CARS limits (2.9 to 3.5 degrees) or approach more than 15 degrees offset from centreline; still presented by the FMS, and will gladly couple to it, but not permitted. The other time a step-down is flown is doing a 'circling approach'.

If I was landing on 05 in YHZ that night in a Q400, I would have loaded the RNAV (LPV) approach. My second choice would've been the LOC approach. Either approach would have been flown fully coupled to the VNAV (Baro VNAV for the LOC, and Satellite based VNAV for the LPV). It's great technology that improves flight safety and permits a nice stabilized approach to the runway.


Hope this helps.

[55+]

We also fly a LOC as an SCDA with the FMS providing a pseudo glideslope like any other NPA.

I'm curious, does your system provide pseudo-glidepath guidance while actively tracking the localizer, or does it only present the calculated information on your display without linking it to the flight director? Also do you have the capability of flying flight path angle or do you use VFPM?

Regardless...nice information to have when doing those approaches.

Hi Rockie

(Not sure where KK7 flies- they may have different FMS and/or software, but....)


The current DH8 100/300 FMS installation at Jazz has the ability to fly coupled VNAV approaches for all enabled FMS approaches that can be retrieved from the database (RNAV/GPS/VOR/NDB). It cannot fly localizer based approaches.

The Jazz Q400 FMS installation has the ability to fly those same approaches. Additionally it is WAAS enabled so it can fly to LPV minima. It has 'LOC Steering' capability which allows it to fly localizer based approaches and uses a coded FPA (BARO-VNAV) that is flown fully coupled.

All of the approaches mentioned above have coded flight path angles in the approach that cannot be changed. When the approach is loaded, you get whatever the coded FPA is with the approach (whatever is labeled on the Jepp plate). I can only adjust the flight path angle when programming enroute VNAV. We can program desired FPM, and the FMS calculates the required FPA for that. In short, the FMS flies FPA, and both Jazz Dash fleets have that information coupled to the FD.

The only time the Q400 would ever fly a step-down procedure is if the published/coded FPA on an approach exceeds the CARS limits (2.9 to 3.5 degrees) or approach more than 15 degrees offset from centreline; still presented by the FMS, and will gladly couple to it, but not permitted. The other time a step-down is flown is doing a 'circling approach'.

If I was landing on 05 in YHZ that night in a Q400, I would have loaded the RNAV (LPV) approach. My second choice would've been the LOC approach. Either approach would have been flown fully coupled to the VNAV (Baro VNAV for the LOC, and Satellite based VNAV for the LPV). It's great technology that improves flight safety and permits a nice stabilized approach to the runway.


Hope this helps.

Valid commentary.. Now that Law Firm in Halifax may want to revisit their their issue against us(NC) on lack of precision procedure Rwy 05