Air Canada Accident in YHZ

[av8ts]

However the Jazz Dash 100/300 aircraft do not have WAAS or "loc steering" so all loc only based approaches are flown as step downs

[ReserveTank]

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?

And there we have it. Why was that airplane at the same altitude as the approach lighting before the runway? Because it was below mins. They reached mins and kept going. That can't be denied.

[CpnCrunch]

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?

And there we have it. Why was that airplane at the same altitude as the approach lighting before the runway? Because it was below mins. They reached mins and kept going. That can't be denied.

You don't need to have visual reference with the runway before descending below minimums. The "visual reference" includes the approach lighting. So they perfectly legally descended below minimums because they had the required visual references to continue the approach legally below minimums.

The interesting question is why the visual references were not sufficient to get them onto the runway.

[ReserveTank]

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.

We all know what is supposed to happen and what actually happens. My company - your company, it doesn't matter. It's individual choices. They tried to push it in through the weather and broke the airplane.

Something tells me if this was Asiana's airplane, we would not have 16 pages of talk about SCDA. We like to defend our own sometimes, even if it's unreasonable.

[ReserveTank]

You don't need to have visual reference with the runway before descending below minimums. The "visual reference" includes the approach lighting. So they perfectly legally descended below minimums because they had the required visual references to continue the approach legally below minimums.

The interesting question is why the visual references were not sufficient to get them onto the runway.

You sort of missed what I'm saying. I know very well what references are required to land.
But you are asking the same question as me. Why are they at field elevation short of the runway.

[Rockie]

They tried to push it in through the weather and broke the airplane. Something tells me if this was Asiana's airplane, we would not have 16 pages of talk about SCDA. We like to defend our own sometimes, even if it's unreasonable.

They had the legal weather to complete the approach and the legal visual references to continue below MDA for landing. Saying they tried to push weather and broke the airplane as a result is not only incorrect, but deflects attention away from the real issue of overly permissive approach ban weather limits coupled with inadequate required visual references for non-precision approaches. It's a good thing the TSB doesn't jump to conclusions like you do or this crew would have been hung out to twist in the wind already.

[55+]

They tried to push it in through the weather and broke the airplane. Something tells me if this was Asiana's airplane, we would not have 16 pages of talk about SCDA. We like to defend our own sometimes, even if it's unreasonable.

They had the legal weather to complete the approach and the legal visual references to continue below MDA for landing. Saying they tried to push weather and broke the airplane as a result is not only incorrect, but deflects attention away from the real issue of overly permissive approach ban weather limits coupled with inadequate required visual references for non-precision approaches. It's a good thing the TSB doesn't jump to conclusions like you do or this crew would have been hung out to twist in the wind already.

Based on your input on this topic and your inside knowledge as an AC pilot, also the known WX sequence, would you have attempted conducting that approach into Halifax RW 05. Let me also back load the question, if you say this crew was legal however lets suppose the crew decided not to try this approach and instead headed over to their alternate(which I understood was Moncton, NB), would the Captain have to answer/justify that decision knowing it was"legal".

[duranium]

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.

ReserveTank

Very well put and right on. To all you aviators who have a doubt, think this one out for a nanosecond or to put it more down to earth, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck........

[Rockie]

Based on your input on this topic and your inside knowledge as an AC pilot, also the known WX sequence, would you have attempted conducting that approach into Halifax RW 05. Let me also back load the question, if you say this crew was legal however lets suppose the crew decided not to try this approach and instead headed over to their alternate(which I understood was Moncton, NB), would the Captain have to answer/justify that decision knowing it was"legal".

Once again I have no inside knowledge of any kind even though I am an Air Canada pilot because nobody is talking and everybody is carefully waiting for the TSB report. I could say what I would do based on the only known facts at this time which are the weather sequence, what kind of airplane it was and what approach they had to be doing and I'm sure my answer wouldn't be much different from yours or anyone else's. But it wouldn't mean much because I don't know who the crew was, I don't know what their fuel state was and I don't know how long their duty day was. I do not know what they actually saw on reaching MDA. I do not know what part turbulence and windshear (if any) played in this accident. I do not know if the human tendency to push down toward the approach lights in very poor visibility played a part. I don't know if the crew may have mistaken ODALS for centreline lights or not. I don't know what part ATC played in this. I could fill a book with what I don't know about that night.

With reference to the back part of your question, no, the Captain would not have to answer for it if he decided to not attempt the approach and instead proceeded straight to his alternate. Safety decisions are the Captain's to make, and anytime I've made a decision like that nobody has questioned me about it afterward. I can say without hesitation that Air Canada does not operate that way.

To all you aviators who have a doubt, think this one out for a nanosecond or to put it more down to earth, if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, looks like a duck........

Do you have specific knowledge that nobody else does? If not maybe you should consider that the TSB doesn't use the "walks like a duck" method of accident investigation for a reason.

[55+]

Rockie.
A reasonable response for sure. Your airline has been flying A320 or variants of it for a good many years- would 20+ be close. This aircraft(variants) flys into Halifax every day of the year winter, spring, summer, fall. It has done countless non-precision IAPs to this runway(05) and others over the years with much the same avionics since coming on line- that a fair comment and more to the point it has done so safely in all kinds of wx to whatever landing minima approved by the regulator. Yours is a top notch airline with A+ record.

This is why the final report will be eagerly awaited wondering how this could happen....

[Old fella]

More information:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/0 ... YAuh_l3mUk

[pelmet]

I'm sure the TSB will focus very closely on what visual cues were available below the MDA/DA/DH/MDH including if any PAPI's were visible, whether this kind of approach puts the aircraft in a position to continue a normal descent to the runway, and what the rate of descent was during the approach and after minimums.

A PNF can be extremely useful in poor conditions by calling out the sink rate and speed relative to Vref or Vapp several times in situations like this, circling approaches, etc when 100% concentration is being used by the PF to align with the runway.

On a nice long runway, any descent path error would seem to be preferable on the long side.

[Eric Janson]

I'm sure the TSB will focus very closely on what visual cues were available below the MDA/DA/DH/MDH including if any PAPI's were visible, whether this kind of approach puts the aircraft in a position to continue a normal descent to the runway, and what the rate of descent was during the approach and after minimums.

A PNF can be extremely useful in poor conditions by calling out the sink rate a speed relative to Vref or Vapp several times in situations like this, circling approaches etc when 100% concentration is being used by the PF to align with the runway.

On a nice long runway, any descent path error would seem to be preferable on the long side.

The Jeppesen plate I have for this approach shows altitude vs. DME all the way from ODKAS (D13.3 IHZ). After ODAKAS there are 11 points at which the vertical profile can be checked with the last one being the MDA.

If you start your descent from 2500' at D7.8 IHZ there are 6 points at which the vertical profile can be checked with the last one being the MDA.

There is nothing difficult about flying this approach in LOC FPA mode in an airbus imho.

[pelmet]

After ODAKAS there are 11 points at which the vertical profile can be checked with the last one being the MDA.

If you start you descent from 2500' at D7.8 IHZ there are 6 points at which the vertical profile can be checked with the last one being the MDA.

Thanks.

I'm sure the investigators will look into whether they were on profile at the MDA and what the trajectory was after that point as well as what information was available to them in order to maintain a proper profile during the visual segment.

Half a mile vis is not a lot for a non-precision approach although with blowing snow, it might be OK until the flare. Difficult to say. Perhaps pilots who landed previously will be interviewed as well.

[CFM Symphony]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-inves ... 5h0002.asp

Update from the TSB. Nothing new that we didn't really know already. 3 images of the interior are shown too, which I believe is the first time those have been published.

[MUSKEG]

That's the hardest hard landing I have ever seen pictures of.

[concorde88]

first major accident since 1997.

[brooks]

So any updates? I'd kinda like to know before I attempt my own non-precision landing in YHZ. I have to admit that I am disappointed with the TSB that it takes this long to produce a report on an accident where the aircraft pretty much remained intact and the crew a passengers survived.

[pelmet]

Maybe the TSB needs to change their culture of secrecy. There could be critical information that they are withholding until the final report(including translation time) which could prevent an accident. If something similar happens, they will have been part of the accident chain.

One can see the difference between the TSB and the NTSB with the Asiana crash where information was given out very quickly in the name of promoting aviation safety and preventing similar automation confusion in the interim.

[Old fella]

Perhaps it could be that Air Canada has issues/concerns with "Findings for Cause and Contributing Factors" as determined by TSB and both parties want to iron out any differences before public release. I do believe a draft report is sent to the responsible carrier for their review and commentary before going public. Just my thoughts.