AC blames Airbus for YHZ crash

[pelmet]

Air Canada lawsuit accuses Airbus of negligence in Halifax crash landing

Airbus's negligence contributed to a crash landing at Halifax Stanfield International Airport two years ago, Air Canada claims in a lawsuit against the French aircraft manufacturer.
In a statement of claim filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Air Canada (TSX:AC.A) said Airbus SAS failed to identify shortcomings of the Airbus 320.
The document said it did not advise that in certain conditions, the plane's flight path angle could be affected by external forces.
It also claims Airbus failed to incorporate a warning system to alert pilots to a deviation from the planned flight path angle.
"(Airbus) failed to provide adequate and/or accurate information as to how pilots should correct a deviation in the flight path in circumstances where manual intervention was required," the March 28 claim said.
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
The statement of claim does not specify an amount for damages, but says: "(Air Canada) pleads that (Airbus) was negligent and that its negligence caused or contributed to the damages claimed in the within action."
"Damages claimed herein include the damage sustained by the aircraft and other expenses related to the subject incident," it said.
Airbus did not immediately return a request for comment Thursday and has not filed a statement of defence. Air Canada declined to comment, as the matter is now before the courts.
Flight 624 hit the ground about 200 metres short of runway 05 shortly after midnight on March 29, 2015, as it approached in gusty winds and heavy snowfall.
The twin-engine plane bounced into the air and crashed near the runway threshold before careening along the tarmac for another 570 metres.
An engine and the plane's landing gear were torn from the airframe amid a shower of sparks and leaking fuel, but there was no fire and the fuselage remained largely intact.
More than two dozen people were injured in the crash landing, which is also the subject of a class-action lawsuit. The defendants in that lawsuit include Air Canada, Airbus SAS, the Halifax International Airport Authority, Nav Canada and Transport Canada.
Air Canada's lawsuit against Airbus says the flight crew correctly configured the aircraft for landing, including entering the correct flight path angle into the flight computer.
"Since the aircraft was correctly configured for approach and landing and the approach was stable, the aircraft should have intercepted the threshold to runway 05 at an altitude of 50 feet," the claim said.
"Instead, the aircraft descended at a steeper angle than expected and touched down short of the runway."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/air-cana ... -1.3347461


It certainly would be nice to know more details and I have tried to post as much information as possible on the original thread but unfortunately, there seems to have been a wall of silence from those actually on type as if they feel that this is more important than getting information out that could prevent another accident during the long time between accident date and accident report being made public. We can't count on the TSB to do this, so perhaps someone else can......

.....Rockie?

[complexintentions]

Does this mean AC will be pulling their A320's from service since they believe them to be unsafe? Or was it only the one that crashed that's to blame?

Hopefully, sometime this decade an accident report will be released. Only been two years so far, for an accident where the FDR/CVR were intact, the airframe readily available to inspect, and crew and pax all survived to interview. God help us if the TSB are ever tasked with solving a truly difficult one.

Given the financial stakes involved I understand AC's attempt to shift blame, but surely it's still on the pilots to know their altitude/distance from a runway? Whatever happened to distance crosschecks, ESPECIALLY on a non-precision approach?

Then again, I'm not talented enough to attempt a LOC backcourse to a contaminated runway with a 70 degree crosswind gusting 54 knots. Divert, divert. If YHZ is too cheap to put in proper approaches they can deal with the delays from their pax ending up elsewhere.

[Maritimer]

It's also my cars fault it hit that power pole..

[BTD]

It might be if your car didn't function as designed, and perhaps the accelerator got stuck while you took that corner. At least you would have a legal case.

I only know what is stated in this article. If it proves true there could be consequences. It wouldn't be the first time an Airbus design flaw led to a landing accident.

[Inverted2]

"It also claims Airbus failed to incorporate a warning system to alert pilots to a deviation from the planned flight path angle."

Isn't that something the PNF (PM) should be doing?

"(Airbus) failed to provide adequate and/or accurate information as to how pilots should correct a deviation in the flight path in circumstances where manual intervention was required," the March 28 claim said."

Hmmm. Below flight path: Pull up/increase thrust?

Is AC grounding the Airbus fleet till this deadly design flaw is corrected?

[Rookie50]

Unbelievable, while predictable.

[Rockie]

.....Rockie?

When the accident report comes out and we all know the specifics I'll be happy to discuss them, until then it's conjecture and I'm not going to get into it. There will be more than enough actual facts to discuss when it does come out.

Then again, I'm not talented enough to attempt a LOC backcourse to a contaminated runway with a 70 degree crosswind gusting 54 knots.

It was a front course, which on a 320 is a lot easier than a BC but still fraught with inherent potential errors.

[JasonE]

They are probably hoping to pass on some of the lawsuit liability to Airbus. Bloody vultures even named Nav Canada.

[55+]

Does this mean AC will be pulling their A320's from service since they believe them to be unsafe? Or was it only the one that crashed that's to blame?

Hopefully, sometime this decade an accident report will be released. Only been two years so far, for an accident where the FDR/CVR were intact, the airframe readily available to inspect, and crew and pax all survived to interview. God help us if the TSB are ever tasked with solving a truly difficult one.

Given the financial stakes involved I understand AC's attempt to shift blame, but surely it's still on the pilots to know their altitude/distance from a runway? Whatever happened to distance crosschecks, ESPECIALLY on a non-precision approach?

Then again, I'm not talented enough to attempt a LOC backcourse to a contaminated runway with a 70 degree crosswind gusting 54 knots. Divert, divert. If YHZ is too cheap to put in proper approaches they can deal with the delays from their pax ending up elsewhere.

Actually Halifax International has nothing to do with the design of IAPs, it is a core airport under the purview of Nav Canada who continues to have that delegated authority. There is a published WAAS(LPV) on that runway, been there for a few years. Also the new Park Air systems do not radiate a back course from the localizer on the opposite end , hence the front course on the runway in question. There are operational reasons why a glide path couldn't be installed, location being one which would result in a very low TCH. That's why NC designed published a LPV procedure.

[confusedalot]

Never flown Airbus, but have flown various lnav/vnav, lpv, overlays, etc.....in various other types. So this is just a question.

Anyone know if this localizer setup was a straight LOC and FPA affair, or was it an overlay-lnav/vnav/lpv sort of thing. Either way, manually flying or not, flight director should be giving proper information if the inputs were correct., no?

[Gilles Hudicourt]

What this lawsuit by Air Canada against Airbus does do is vindicate the pilots.

[pdw]

Hmmm. Below flight path: Pull up/increase thrust?

That is it right there IMO (the misconception). When 'thrust required' exceeded what's available (or not deliverable as fast as required in the gale of that night) the effort you mean turns into too little too late in few seconds. How's a computor going to take blame if it's possible there isn't a Vref that will work ?

[Cliff Jumper]

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Discussion over.

[fish4life]

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

[ehbuddy]

Whether you fly a Cessna 150 or a 747, MDA is MDA and keeping a close eye on that old altimeter does come in handy.

[Cat Driver]

What is wrong with flying the PMA ?

Using the aids the airplane is equipped with and following the published approach being flown on that approach?

[Eric Janson]

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

I've flown older A320s without GPS and I've flown a lot of non precision approaches with this configuration. There isn't a problem flying these safely imho.

Non precision approaches are easy to fly with the airbus whether you fly them fully managed/mixed/selected.

My company still isn't approved for LPV or RNP approaches.

I don't know how things are done at Air Canada but I would be flying this approach as a mixed approach using LOC/FPA modes. There are multiple altitude vs DME crosschecks to ensure the correct vertical path is being flown.

Corrections are a simple increase/decrease in FPA

There does seem to be an issue flying non precision approaches given this and the other 2 incidents both of which could easily have resulted in a hull loss imho.

Hopefully the final report will provide some answers .

[complexintentions]

From a systems perspective, do any of the Airbus types know what Air Canada is referring to in this:

In a statement of claim filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Air Canada (TSX:AC.A) said Airbus SAS failed to identify shortcomings of the Airbus 320. The document said it did not advise that in certain conditions, the plane's flight path angle could be affected by external forces.

It also claims Airbus failed to incorporate a warning system to alert pilots to a deviation from the planned flight path angle.
"(Airbus) failed to provide adequate and/or accurate information as to how pilots should correct a deviation in the flight path in circumstances where manual intervention was required," the March 28 claim said.

Wouldn't being at field elevation half a click back from the field be a clue to the pilots that they had deviated from the planned flight path angle? Yeah, being facetious but seriously, what are they trying to hang their hat on here?

I stand corrected on the localizer - I assumed it was a backcourse as I recall YHZ did have one of the last ones remaining in existence that we had filed as a possible alternate for JFK/BOS and I certainly flew did fly it in past lives. How nice that they finally put something a bit better in. It's like YYT with Cat3, dragged kicking and screaming into this century. But whatever the lateral guidance, any time you're in a manual descent mode you just gotta crosscheck your distance.

I cannot remember doing a basic modes approach due to (lack of) aircraft capability for at least 15 years - this is not new tech. Maybe Airbus should sue Air Canada for not equipping their fleet to a relatively modern standard!

[JBI]

So, you guys know how bad the media is on reporting technical things involving aviation? It is similar with legal issues too...

First point - look at the date this Statement of Claim was filed: March 28, 2017. Two years less a day from when the accident occurred. In Canada, you have a two year limitation period to start a lawsuit. After that time period, generally speaking, you're S.O.L.

The thing is, in complex situations such as this where there has been significant damages, there is an on going potential class action lawsuit from the passengers and the investigations are not complete, it makes way more sense to make sure all of the potential parties who may face liability are added to the lawsuit before it is too late. It is MUCH easier to release a party from a lawsuit after the fact than it is to try and add one after the limitation period has passed.

Second point - although most of us AvCanada Experts don't think that there's much blame to be put on Airbus from this accident, could you say for certain at this point in time that there is absolutely none under the legal definition of negligence? I couldn't, and as a result, if I were in AC's shoes, I wouldn't want to lose the potential that Airbus's insurers will be responsible for some part of the claim or aircraft damage.

Third Point - I'm never sure why media outlets try and quote from the Statement of Claim on lawsuits. They're drafted in a specific way that, like the limitation period issue, it's easier to concede a point than it is to try and add another after the fact. While the lawyers and parties involved need to be aware of the grounds of negligence that are being pled, you almost don't need to read these grounds.

I'm not all that familiar with this lawsuit or the reasons behind the accident. But the fact that this lawsuit has been filed is basically not a newsworthy item. The key point of the article should be: "The investigation is not complete and there may be a chance that Airbus takes some blame but if we don't start a lawsuit today, we won't have the chance at a later date"

[Bolter]

Is this something new, or a known issue with the 320 fms that should have been trained in the sim??
My uneducated guess - known issue that could/should have been included in sim trng. Then again - I've been given shit for doing waas approaches (in a waas enabled aircraft) without receiving "official" training (in short - flew the "glide slope" respecting step downs but didn't set each one individually - just set mda!). Like I care. SIL