AC blames Airbus for YHZ crash

[pelmet]

I wonder if the folks at the TSB are aware that they may actually become responsible for an accident someday…or a subsequent accident by withholding critical information long after it should have been released.

Please provide interim statements in the way the NTSB did during the Asiana investigation(which no doubt led to immediate review by 777 operators and widespread discussion among pilots) and release the report in whatever language it is first written in the day it is completed. They do not have to be released in both languages at the same time.

Interim reports don’t have to have every detail and conclusion but useful information and some details can be critical. And it could even be a statement that at this point, after 1 year, we have no idea why the accident happened. This is all for general pilot information to be discussed, in the same manner as was done during the well investigated Asiana accident case.

After all, what if another Airbus goes in like AC under the same circumstances? We have pilots in the know refusing to reveal anything due to it being “conjecture” and a wall of official silence. The price paid by passengers around the world due to these personal and official decisions in increased danger each and every day.

If only we could see this sort of investigation here in Canada...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA8gMNUbY54

[rigpiggy]

forgive me if my memory is hazy, but I am pretty sure that YHZ used to have an ILS on 05...... But when the airport authority bought the new system it didnt pay for the option on that end. I recall there was a warmup time, as my F/O kept going the wrong way, and that was the excuse from the tower.

[55+]

forgive me if my memory is hazy, but I am pretty sure that YHZ used to have an ILS on 05...... But when the airport authority bought the new system it didnt pay for the option on that end. I recall there was a warmup time, as my F/O kept going the wrong way, and that was the excuse from the tower.

No, you are mistaken. There never was an ILS rwy 05.

[Canoehead]

Used to be a back-course on 05 (06)

[crazyaviator]

Lack of interim reports in Canada = Lawyers telling them that they will expose themselves to liability issues ?

[co-joe]

Maybe AC should have just stepped up and installed GPS on the planes. A 705 airliner without LPV capability now shouldn't be allowed.

Instead they spend the money repainting them and buying the crews all new and much cooler uniforms.

Heard an AC flight into YMM jut about begging for the ILS 25 with a sizeable tailwind but centre wouldn't give it to them because WJ was doing the LPV 07. They were asking for a hold, a speed reduction, anything to not have to do the NDB for 07. We felt bad listening to it.

[indieadventurer]

Heard an AC flight into YMM jut about begging for the ILS 25 with a sizeable tailwind but centre wouldn't give it to them because WJ was doing the LPV 07. They were asking for a hold, a speed reduction, anything to not have to do the NDB for 07. We felt bad listening to it.

WJ 737's don't have LPV authorization, most likely would have been the RNP for 07. The Q400s at Encore are LPV capable though.

[pelmet]

Lack of interim reports in Canada = Lawyers telling them that they will expose themselves to liability issues ?

And what about liability in the US where lawsuits are much more common?

Next excuse?

[rookiepilot]

I find it fascinating the difference in every respect between the Asiana SFO accident and this one.

Both landed short. That's it. Isn't it?

Asiana took responsibility and immediately called it an accident.

AC called it a hard landing and now blames the Airbus. Yes legal reasons, whatever but I wonder if they really believe that.

Sorry at this level weather, approaches shouldn't be a primary cause. If they are called that in the report, we have a problem.

Oh BTW rookie50 is now rookiepilot -- about time I fixed that.

[Eric Janson]

Asiana took responsibility and immediately called it an accidentI

Asiana also tried to shift the blame to Boeing and their Auothrottle system design.

[rookiepilot]

Asiana took responsibility and immediately called it an accidentI

Asiana also tried to shift the blame to Boeing and their Auothrottle system design.

http://www.businessinsider.com/asiana-a ... ash-2013-7

Immediately afterwards. This is what should be expected from a corporation's leadership.

Unreserved accountability.

We seem to have a problem over here with that. Apologizing for a traumatic experience, which certainly it was.

Don't customers deserve that?

[oldncold]

Coule of yrs back did a renewal ride with a very exp dacp with serious jet time. This is about the time the cap plates changed. After the ride passed we debriefed. One of the points she totally disagreed with doing 3' slope. On non precision approach in poor wx. Her point was an accident is sure to happen because the fmc cannot react to wind vector changes quickly enough. The hand flying skills were more important and the ability to get to mda quickly maintain mda allows the pnf additional time to accquire the runway environment before the missed approach fix. The back and forth between "Ole school" and the 3 slope will be debated for another 50 years. I agreed with her assesment. 99 % of the time the 3 slope works and airlines train for that but there always be the 1% that it won't work. And the mda step down when properly flown and configure is the correct and safer option. Another? I had about this. Accident still not answered yet is what kind of spool up time in second for those eng. At low power If on a fmc approach 3'slope. Where the signficant gust causes aircraft to go below slope and crew increase power to recover.

[Old fella]

Coule of yrs back did a renewal ride with a very exp dacp with serious jet time. This is about the time the cap plates changed. After the ride passed we debriefed. One of the points she totally disagreed with doing 3' slope. On non precision approach in poor wx. Her point was an accident is sure to happen because the fmc cannot react to wind vector changes quickly enough. The hand flying skills were more important and the ability to get to mda quickly maintain mda allows the pnf additional time to accquire the runway environment before the missed approach fix. The back and forth between "Ole school" and the 3 slope will be debated for another 50 years. I agreed with her assesment. 99 % of the time the 3 slope works and airlines train for that but there always be the 1% that it won't work. And the mda step down when properly flown and configure is the correct and safer option. Another? I had about this. Accident still not answered yet is what kind of spool up time in second for those eng. At low power If on a fmc approach 3'slope. Where the signficant gust causes aircraft to go below slope and crew increase power to recover.

Back in the 70's I got my first instrument rating in an Apachie with a fixed card ADF and you had to demonstrate your ability to fly the NDB approach and also to be able to do NDB hold. Understanding ADF tracking was essential and there were many a frustrating time believe me. My first job flying introduced me to the ole RMI, things a tad easier. I wondered if the current branch of 200 hr cadets coming out of the various airline aviation training schools would know anything about that, probably not because current technology makes it a "not required". That is fair and fine as well but in those days it sure made us guys/gals, good stick and rudder pilots.

[The Hammer]

Coule of yrs back did a renewal ride with a very exp dacp with serious jet time. This is about the time the cap plates changed. After the ride passed we debriefed. One of the points she totally disagreed with doing 3' slope. On non precision approach in poor wx. Her point was an accident is sure to happen because the fmc cannot react to wind vector changes quickly enough. The hand flying skills were more important and the ability to get to mda quickly maintain mda allows the pnf additional time to accquire the runway environment before the missed approach fix. The back and forth between "Ole school" and the 3 slope will be debated for another 50 years. I agreed with her assesment. 99 % of the time the 3 slope works and airlines train for that but there always be the 1% that it won't work. And the mda step down when properly flown and configure is the correct and safer option. Another? I had about this. Accident still not answered yet is what kind of spool up time in second for those eng. At low power If on a fmc approach 3'slope. Where the signficant gust causes aircraft to go below slope and crew increase power to recover.

Back in the 70's I got my first instrument rating in an Apachie with a fixed card ADF and you had to demonstrate your ability to fly the NDB approach and also to be able to do NDB hold. Understanding ADF tracking was essential and there were many a frustrating time believe me. My first job flying introduced me to the ole RMI, things a tad easier. I wondered if the current branch of 200 hr cadets coming out of the various airline aviation training schools would know anything about that, probably not because current technology makes it a "not required". That is fair and fine as well but in those days it sure made us guys/gals, good stick and rudder pilots.

And lots of bent metal too. It's ridiculous how many airports with scheduled service are still served by NDB only approaches in Canada.

[goingnowherefast]

I met a guy who's first NDB approach in his entire life was during 703 PCC training.

[fish4life]

You can do an SCDA easy on a NDB without some computer calculated 3 degree path. Easy mental math allows you to stay on slope using distance from the threshold.

[Cat Driver]

Any one here remember having to use the BFO setting on the ADF for long range heading info?

Or flying the twilight zone of a Radio Range leg?