Halifax crash report coming Thursday

[goldeneagle]

Golden eagle, rules aren't meant for just you, they're meant for everybody. You're thinking like the guy who doesn't believe speed limits should apply to him because he's a good driver, and mistakingly believes he's the only person who will get hurt by his actions. You're wrong.

Rules are rules, for everybody. Flying a non precision approach to the MDA then fly along level to the MAP is NOT unsafe, nor is flying a constant descent to the MDA and miss from there. The rules say I can do it anytime I want, into any weather conditions I want if I announce in advance it's a planned miss for training purposes. That detail emphasizes my point, it's safe to the MDA, in any weather conditions, even with visibility solidly at zero.

It only becomes unsafe when you start down below the MDA without actually having the required visual reference for a landing.

The thing you seem to be mis-understanding here, there is a big difference between flying an approach, and continuing on to land. THERE IS NOTHING UNSAFE ABOUT FLYING AN APPROACH TO MINIMUMS, then miss. It's only unsafe if you DESCEND BELOW MINIMUM ALTITUDES without required visual references. An approach into zero visibility IS NOT UNSAFE. It only becomes unsafe when you get into the 'get-r-done' mentality and head down below minimum altitudes without seeing enough to safely find and land on the runway.

I'm sure you folks at AC have some definitions of exactly what you need to see to continue down, and they are (according to the report I read in links from this thread) a LOT less than what I use. I'm pretty firm on what I need to see from the MDA on a back course before I start down from the minimum altitude. The runway will have some approach lights, that look like a T in front of you on the ground. Since it's a localizer, they will be 'right there' in front of you, plus or minus any crab you have on for wind. Beyond that, two lines of lights, one on each side. Look up that line on the left side and count to 4. If I see the approach lights and _at least_ 4 of the other ones, I can see the runway and probably land ok, altho I'm more comfortable seeing a lot more than 4. If I'm tired after a long day, I actually want to see a dozen or more. At night, some of them have those annoying bright flashers at the end of the runway, the ones that totally mess up my night vision, but that's easily solved in most cases, just ask the tower to 'kill the strobes please' when you go past the FAF. Likewise that annoying rabbit thing, another one that totally messes up my night vision, and frankly, if it's needed to find the runway, I'm not likely to see enough of those white ones anyways.

I will say with absolute certainty, sitting at MDA if I see 'some lights', but they dont have that recognizeable T shape with the correct colors, and runway lights beyond, I'm not going to blindly descent and hope a runway shows up.

You can harp on playing the safety card all you want, but, there is NOTHING UNSAFE about flying an approach to the MDA in ANY visibility conditions, including ZERO VISIBILITY, this is well acknowledged in the regulations. It only becomes unsafe once you go below the MDA if you haven't got a visual on where you are going to land.

[Rockie]

We may be finally getting the heart of the whole problem with this statement here. Seeing some lights is definitely no required visual reference. When it comes to lights, seeing specific lights asociated with the runway such as the actual runway lights themselves or the approach lights for that runway are required visual references.

Right, however the problem becomes not only identifying the correct lights, but enough of them to determine your lateral and vertical positioning reference the runway. Canadian required visual references don't stipulate that last part like the FAA does. In the case of ODALS on a non-precision approach with only 1/2 sm visibility, complicated by the lights not on their brightest setting, misidentifying those light becomes a distinct possibility. Hence the requirement for charted visibility tied to the type of approach lights installed, and that charted visibility actually existing. You were on the right track before but diverted off it, now you're back on it. Keep going...

You can harp on playing the safety card all you want, but, there is NOTHING UNSAFE about flying an approach to the MDA in ANY visibility conditions, including ZERO VISIBILITY, this is well acknowledged in the regulations. It only becomes unsafe once you go below the MDA if you haven't got a visual on where you are going to land.

Flying the approach is not unsafe, everything I've been talking about refers to what happens from MDA on down. How could you not have gotten that after all the bandwidth spent on it?

[Cat Driver]

This is turning into a clusterf.ck argument that seems to be aimed at trying to make excuses for an accident that should not have happened.....

Regardless of what kind of approach you are flying you will not crash if you follow the approach plate limits and before going below a hard MDA you must be positive of what you are seeing...

[Rockie]

Regardless of what kind of approach you are flying you will not crash if you follow the approach plate limits and before going below a hard MDA you must be positive of what you are seeing...

I agree...if only the regulations were written that way with visibility requirements aimed at doing just that.

[CpnCrunch]

Regardless of what kind of approach you are flying you will not crash if you follow the approach plate limits and before going below a hard MDA you must be positive of what you are seeing...

So what about getting too low on a black-hole approach at night? That seems a somewhat similar situation.

In this case it looks like they definitely did see the approach lights, but they just got too low without realising.

[goldeneagle]

'Seeing some lights' is not required visual reference.

Actually in Canada it is, which is one of the problems. Check the CAP GEN on it, and then look up the FAA requirement wrt to seeing the approach lights and you'll see the significant difference. I posted the FAA required visual references some pages back.

I dont have an old CAP GEN from the time of the incident in question, and my current one is in an airplane well away from my office, not about to go get it. I do have one here from mid 2016 in my office, and it's pretty clear on what's needed. Quoting from the CAP GEN

The visual references required by the pilot ino roder to continue the approach to a safe landing should include at least one of the following references for the intended runway and should be distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
* the runway or runway markings;
* the runway threshold or threshold markings;
* the TDZ or TDZ markings;
* the approach lights;
* the approach slope indicator system;
* the runway identification lights (RILS);
* the threshold and runway end lights;
* the touchdown zone lights (TDZL);
* the parallel runway edge lights; or
* the runway centerline light.

So please explain to me where 'some lights' falls into this list, and passes the 'distinctly visible and identifiable' clause in the definition paragraph ....

[goldeneagle]

Flying the approach is not unsafe, everything I've been talking about refers to what happens from MDA on down. How could you not have gotten that after all the bandwidth spent on it?

No, what you are harping on is wanting regulations changed to disallow flying an approach when reported visibility is below that on the chart. That has NOTHING to do with what happens after MDA. If somebody flies down the approach, doesn't see what they need to see, then they dont go below MDA, it becomes a non issue.

My issue is with you saying you want the rules changed so we cant even fly down anymore. That's completely different than what happens at / after mda.

[Cat Driver]

So what about getting too low on a black-hole approach at night? That seems a somewhat similar situation.

Are you asking me that question?

My answer is if you do not know how to not fly into the ground before the runway in the dark you should not fly in the dark.

[CpnCrunch]

So please explain to me where 'some lights' falls into this list, and passes the 'distinctly visible and identifiable' clause in the definition paragraph ....

They saw some of the approach lights according to the report (not just "some lights"). I think I might have confused the discussion earlier when I thought they misidentified the "lighted facility" as the approach lights, but re-reading the report it definitely says they saw approach lights.

[Rockie]

So please explain to me where 'some lights' falls into this list, and passes the 'distinctly visible and identifiable' clause in the definition paragraph ....

Did you read the part where I talked about misidentifying the lights?

Read this from Canada:

The visual references required by the pilot in order to continue the approach to a safe landing should include at least one of the following references for the intended runway and should be distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:
* the runway or runway markings;
* the runway threshold or threshold markings;
* the TDZ or TDZ markings;
* the approach lights;
* the approach slope indicator system;
* the runway identification lights (RILS);
* the threshold and runway end lights;
* the touchdown zone lights (TDZL);
* the parallel runway edge lights; or
* the runway centerline light.

Now read this from the FAA:

(c) Operation below DA/DH or MDA. Except as provided in paragraph (l) of this section or §91.176 of this chapter, where a DA/DH or MDA is applicable, no pilot may operate an aircraft, except a military aircraft of the United States, below the authorized MDA or continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH unless—

(1) The aircraft is continuously in a position from which a descent to a landing on the intended runway can be made at a normal rate of descent using normal maneuvers, and for operations conducted under part 121 or part 135 unless that descent rate will allow touchdown to occur within the touchdown zone of the runway of intended landing;

(2) The flight visibility is not less than the visibility prescribed in the standard instrument approach being used; and

(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:

(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.

(ii) The threshold.

(iii) The threshold markings.

(iv) The threshold lights.

(v) The runway end identifier lights.

(vi) The visual glideslope indicator.

(vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.

(viii) The touchdown zone lights.

(ix) The runway or runway markings.

(x) The runway lights.

See the difference goldeneagle?

My issue is with you saying you want the rules changed so we cant even fly down anymore. That's completely different than what happens at / after mda.

If you have no intention to land you can fly approaches to WOXOF all you want. If you intend to land however every regulator in the world except Canada stipulates that charted visibility is required before you attempt it. You might not like being restricted in that way but honestly...tough. As you astutely recognized rules are written for everybody, not you.

A question. Are you equally offended at the visibility being restricted at 75 or 50%? Do you think the rules should allow you to try and land regardless of the weather?

[CpnCrunch]

Are you asking me that question?

My answer is if you do not know how to not fly into the ground before the runway in the dark you should not fly in the dark.

I'm just pointing out that even if you can see the runway at MDA, you can still get in trouble afterwards, which is what happened here. I know how to fly at night without hitting the ground, and it mainly involves knowing precisely where you are, what the terrain is, and not getting too low. It's pretty easy to do that in VMC at night though.

[Cat Driver]

It's pretty easy to do that in VMC at night though.

Only if you do not have proper situational awareness which is really not all that difficult, but for some reason that boogyman called a " black hole " seems to have caused a lot of paranoia since some deep thinker thought up that description.

When will someone come up with " in a white hole " for flying in a snowstorm, or " in a brown hole " for flying in a dust storm?

[rookiepilot]

Regardless of what kind of approach you are flying you will not crash if you follow the approach plate limits and before going below a hard MDA you must be positive of what you are seeing...

I agree...if only the regulations were written that way with visibility requirements aimed at doing just that.

You're using the regulations to excuse your airline's substandard procedures -- if not they wouldn't have needed "changing" -- and crews failure to properly manage the approach, regardless of Regs and regardless of any substandard procedures.

The crews responsibility-- no excuses. The rest of these 14 pages is simply noise.

[Cat Driver]

The rest of these 14 pages is simply noise.

In a black hole.

[CpnCrunch]

Only if you do not have proper situational awareness which is really not all that difficult, but for some reason that boogyman called a " black hole " seems to have caused a lot of paranoia since some deep thinker thought up that description.

When will someone come up with " in a white hole " for flying in a snowstorm, or " in a brown hole " for flying in a dust storm?

Well, considering that many people have died from it, it makes sense to call it something. The point is that if you just concentrate on looking that the runway without verifying your height, you could end up landing short. I'm guessing you taught this to your students.

[Cat Driver]

The point is that if you just concentrate on looking that the runway without verifying your height, you could end up landing short. I'm guessing you taught this to your students.

You are guessing I taught them that?

Why would you make such an insulting comment?

[Rockie]

Regardless of what kind of approach you are flying you will not crash if you follow the approach plate limits and before going below a hard MDA you must be positive of what you are seeing...

I agree...if only the regulations were written that way with visibility requirements aimed at doing just that.

You're using the regulations to excuse your airline's substandard procedures -- if not they wouldn't have needed "changing" -- and crews failure to properly manage the approach, regardless of Regs and regardless of any substandard procedures.

The crews responsibility-- no excuses. The rest of these 14 pages is simply noise.

You haven't been reading that noise then otherwise you would have certainly noticed the many times I've mentioned AC's change in procedures. Now AC's procedures are much closer to the way the rest of the world operates.

The rest of these 14 pages is simply noise.

In a black hole.

Black hole visual approaches with their lack of horizon and most other visual cues, possibly combined with visual illusions like runway slope have been recognized as an increased threat for some time. Possibly even before you hung up your spurs. Scoff if you want, but thanks to that recognition and specific training to address it safety has been increased.

[CpnCrunch]

You are guessing I taught them that?

Why would you make such an insulting comment?

Insulting how? Are you saying you didn't teach it?

[goldeneagle]

A question. Are you equally offended at the visibility being restricted at 75 or 50%? Do you think the rules should allow you to try and land regardless of the weather?

I have had many times where reported visibility is on the order of 3/4 mile or less, yet when 3 miles back I can see the runway threshold clearly. At big airports where there is a tower manned 24x7 and they have RVR equipment, yadda yadda, it's one thing. But there are plenty of them out there where it's either an automated setup, or a contract observer that only checks on the hour, so there are no specials when things are up and down. Dont get me started on automated stations that report low numbers at odd times.

I remember oh so clearly one day shortly after the ban came on for non precision approaches, was headed out to Tofino from yvr with some pax. We were about halfway over and ATC gives me an update on the weather, it was calling 1/8 in fog, he asks 'what are your intentions'. I said 'came this far, may as well go look', and copied a hold clearance. Coming in closer, about 10 miles back from the beacon I can see half the runway sticking out of the fog bank, but the wx report is still saying 1/8 mile. It was an easy decision that day, just cancel and go vfr to land. But if it had been a day with 3000 overcast I woulda been sewered because I couldn't do the approach to get below the overcast. These kinds of situations may not be common for you guys going only to full service airports, but, they are surprisingly common going to more out of the way places.

And this is why I say nothing about 'trying to land' as you put it, but, dont prevent me from going down and taking a look at times when reported weather is dubious. Let me fly the approach and see what it REALLY IS on the approach to the runway in question.

[Cat Driver]

Your dismissal of it suggests how out of touch you might be.

I do not dismiss the danger of not being able to see the ground when flying at night.

And yes, I have been retired from teaching since 2005 and in 2005 " black hole " had been around in aviation jargon for a lot of years, I don't use jargon when teaching.