Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Message
Author
CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2842
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#51 Post by CpnCrunch » Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:01 pm

FICU wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:14 pm
We are routinely cleared for approaches out of FL290 in a non-radar environment in Canada. No altitudes given by ATC and terrain clearance is on us. We brief 100nm safe, 25nm safe, and approach altitudes when IMC. Nothing unusual.

Terrain clearance is always the responsibility of the crew whether radar or non-radar. Don’t like the clearance then question it.
Yes, that is how I understand it as well. It just seems unusual in this case for them to be cleared down to 6000ft by ATC. I'm thinking either it was VMC and there was never any risk of CFIT, or else they were confused by the 6000ft clearance and thought it was safe for them to descend.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#52 Post by rookiepilot » Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:30 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:05 pm
rookiepilot wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:26 pm
I assume you are excluding "cleared for AN approach" -- like in N Ontario Uc Airports in that ATC prohibition.
My point was that whether or not they were cleared for the/an approach had nothing to do with it. ATC shouldn't be giving clearance to descend to below IFR minimum altitude at pilot's discretion. Would you get that kind of clearance in N.Ontario? My guess is that they'd clear you down to the minimum IFR altitude, then you'd be cleared for an approach and you then follow the approach chart on your own after that.

The other thing to consider is that they might have been in VMC, which seems possible given the METAR.
I've been cleared for an approach up there from around 6000 feet, below that radio contact, let alone radar contact, was lost. When I review the chart, seems still well above the minimum IFR altitude, depending on exact location, which I suppose is contradictory.

Tell you the truth, there would have been no way to report missed if I had (I didn't need to) on that without climbing up to divert (assuming instead, I wanted another attempt). Good question what the proper procedure should be. Airport was kapuskasing.
---------- ADS -----------
  

TeePeeCreeper
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: in the bush

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#53 Post by TeePeeCreeper » Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:02 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:30 pm
CpnCrunch wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:05 pm
rookiepilot wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:26 pm
I assume you are excluding "cleared for AN approach" -- like in N Ontario Uc Airports in that ATC prohibition.
My point was that whether or not they were cleared for the/an approach had nothing to do with it. ATC shouldn't be giving clearance to descend to below IFR minimum altitude at pilot's discretion. Would you get that kind of clearance in N.Ontario? My guess is that they'd clear you down to the minimum IFR altitude, then you'd be cleared for an approach and you then follow the approach chart on your own after that.

The other thing to consider is that they might have been in VMC, which seems possible given the METAR.
I've been cleared for an approach up there from around 6000 feet, below that radio contact, let alone radar contact, was lost. When I review the chart, seems still well above the minimum IFR altitude, depending on exact location, which I suppose is contradictory.

Tell you the truth, there would have been no way to report missed if I had (I didn't need to) on that without climbing up to divert (assuming instead, I wanted another attempt). Good question what the proper procedure should be. Airport was kapuskasing.
Oh dear.... where to start....

You are certainly within reach of Toronto Center at 2 grand over Kap... worse case you could have relayed though YTS (They are friendly)....

Keep yourself safe, follow the plate and MOCA and don’t be shy?

All the best,

TPC
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gilles Hudicourt
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#54 Post by Gilles Hudicourt » Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:16 am

CpnCrunch wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:05 pm
rookiepilot wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:26 pm
I assume you are excluding "cleared for AN approach" -- like in N Ontario Uc Airports in that ATC prohibition.
My point was that whether or not they were cleared for the/an approach had nothing to do with it. ATC shouldn't be giving clearance to descend to below IFR minimum altitude at pilot's discretion. Would you get that kind of clearance in N.Ontario? My guess is that they'd clear you down to the minimum IFR altitude, then you'd be cleared for an approach and you then follow the approach chart on your own after that.

The other thing to consider is that they might have been in VMC, which seems possible given the METAR.
But in a non RADAR environment, the controller does not know the exact position of the aircraft so how does he clear him accordingly ?

Lets assume for discussions sake that the MOCA is 13000 feet at 100 miles out, that its 12000 at 70 miles and 11000 at 50 miles. Then 10000 inside the 25 mile radius east of radial 360 but 9000 west of that radial.

How does a non RADAR controller clear you down ? By asking you DME ? "Sorry sir, no DME reception out here due high terrain between our position and the DME transmitter"".
"Oh!? then use your FMS derived distance" Wait a minute...... Does that aircraft have GPS ? Is it RNP 4 or RNP 10 ? Or is it INS only with a low accuracy warning ? Or is it an older model Beech King Air with no RNAV at all.....
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2842
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#55 Post by CpnCrunch » Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:39 am

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:16 am

But in a non RADAR environment, the controller does not know the exact position of the aircraft so how does he clear him accordingly ?

Lets assume for discussions sake that the MOCA is 13000 feet at 100 miles out, that its 12000 at 70 miles and 11000 at 50 miles. Then 10000 inside the 25 mile radius east of radial 360 but 9000 west of that radial.

How does a non RADAR controller clear you down ? By asking you DME ? "Sorry sir, no DME reception out here due high terrain between our position and the DME transmitter"".
"Oh!? then use your FMS derived distance" Wait a minute...... Does that aircraft have GPS ? Is it RNP 4 or RNP 10 ? Or is it INS only with a low accuracy warning ? Or is it an older model Beech King Air with no RNAV at all.....
Even in a non radar environment you still give position reports, so ATC should know when you can safely descend. And if there are no position reports and no radar, giving a descent clearance doesn't seem to make sense.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5550
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#56 Post by ahramin » Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:57 am

I can't get over how many pilots here think terrain clearance is ATC's responsibility. The CARs are clear and have already been quoted, the AIM is equally clear:

RAC 1.5.2:
Pilots are cautioned that radar identification of their flight does not relieve them of the responsibility for terrain (obstacle) clearance.
ATC assumes responsibility for terrain (obstacle) clearance when vectoring en route IFR and CVFR flights and for IFR aircraft being vectored for arrival until the aircraft resumes normal navigation.
Yes, in Canada controllers are not permitted to clear you to an altitude that has either a terrain or a traffic conflict. HUX is not in Canada. If you're going to be an airline pilot, you're unlikely to be able to stick to Canadian procedures every time you go to work.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2842
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#57 Post by CpnCrunch » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:10 am

ahramin wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:57 am

Yes, in Canada controllers are not permitted to clear you to an altitude that has either a terrain or a traffic conflict. HUX is not in Canada. If you're going to be an airline pilot, you're unlikely to be able to stick to Canadian procedures every time you go to work.
Yeah, I think that's the key. I would have thought ICAO would have had standards concerning important things like this, but perhaps not.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gilles Hudicourt
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#58 Post by Gilles Hudicourt » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:20 am

CpnCrunch wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:10 am
ahramin wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:57 am

Yes, in Canada controllers are not permitted to clear you to an altitude that has either a terrain or a traffic conflict. HUX is not in Canada. If you're going to be an airline pilot, you're unlikely to be able to stick to Canadian procedures every time you go to work.
Yeah, I think that's the key. I would have thought ICAO would have had standards concerning important things like this, but perhaps not.
What do you mean that they don't. Canada is just as ICAO as Mexico. Elaborate please.....
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5550
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#59 Post by ahramin » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:29 am

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:20 am
CpnCrunch wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:10 am
ahramin wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:57 am

Yes, in Canada controllers are not permitted to clear you to an altitude that has either a terrain or a traffic conflict. HUX is not in Canada. If you're going to be an airline pilot, you're unlikely to be able to stick to Canadian procedures every time you go to work.
Yeah, I think that's the key. I would have thought ICAO would have had standards concerning important things like this, but perhaps not.
What do you mean that they don't. Canada is just as ICAO as Mexico. Elaborate please.....
Remember "Descend VIA STAR" (but don't descend via star altitudes (unless you have a clearance lower than the star altitude))
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2842
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#60 Post by CpnCrunch » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:55 am

Gilles Hudicourt wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:20 am


What do you mean that they don't. Canada is just as ICAO as Mexico. Elaborate please.....
Yes, but not all countries implement all the ICAO standards. Remember "position and hold"?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 833
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#61 Post by rookiepilot » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:56 pm

TeePeeCreeper wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:02 pm

Oh dear.... where to start....

You are certainly within reach of Toronto Center at 2 grand over Kap... worse case you could have relayed though YTS (They are friendly)....

Keep yourself safe, follow the plate and MOCA and don’t be shy?

All the best,

TPC
Talk to Centre at 2000' over Kap? Not unless something has changed...it has been a couple of years. 5-6 grand, on departure too. Through London RDO....sure, that works right to the ground.

The YTS relay is a good idea, if ever needed. It was not.

Thanks for the tips, though
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gilles Hudicourt
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#62 Post by Gilles Hudicourt » Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:17 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:55 am
Gilles Hudicourt wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:20 am


What do you mean that they don't. Canada is just as ICAO as Mexico. Elaborate please.....
Yes, but not all countries implement all the ICAO standards. Remember "position and hold"?
Most countries DO NOT implement ALL ICAO standards, including Canada. The US leads the pack......
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 749
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#63 Post by confusedalot » Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:25 pm

Actually.........most countries do follow icao. But many do not.

I used to fly long haul in Vietnam, and one interesting publication we had in the onboard library was a sort of international CFS type document outlining differences from one country to the next (produced by British Airways).

Most icao differences by country were between 1/8th to 1/2 of a page long. No big deal really, minor insignificant stuff that would not change your life even if you did not know about them.

As I recall, the US differences, about 40 pages. And......here goes.....Canada.......is the winner in icao differences, as I recall, more than the US differences, maybe 60 pages total.

So much for that.
.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

Gilles Hudicourt
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#64 Post by Gilles Hudicourt » Fri Feb 23, 2018 8:30 am

confusedalot wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:25 pm
Actually.........most countries do follow icao. But many do not.

I used to fly long haul in Vietnam, and one interesting publication we had in the onboard library was a sort of international CFS type document outlining differences from one country to the next (produced by British Airways).

Most icao differences by country were between 1/8th to 1/2 of a page long. No big deal really, minor insignificant stuff that would not change your life even if you did not know about them.

As I recall, the US differences, about 40 pages. And......here goes.....Canada.......is the winner in icao differences, as I recall, more than the US differences, maybe 60 pages total.

So much for that.
.
The way it works is that all ICAO member countries accept by default to abide by all ICAO standards and recommended practices except when they advise ICAO of a difference. All the non standard regulations are then published in a "Differences" publications that ICAO will provide to it's subscribers.

Chart providers such as Jeppesen source this information from the ICAO "Differences" manual which they then make available to the pilots inside of their own publications.

It's all explained here: https://www.icao.int/safety/MoD/Manual% ... 92015.docx

If you use Jepps, the country differences are listed (this is an old document as an example) :

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/documents/avia ... ontrol.pdf

The first part is general ICAO regulations, followed by a section with PAN-Europe differences, followed by individual country differences.

All this information is normally available to all pilots who fly overseas.......
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
complexintentions
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1904
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#65 Post by complexintentions » Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:51 pm

*sigh*

ICAO differences.

EGPWS / no EGPWS.

Radar airspace / non-radar airspace.

Native English speaker / non-native English speaker.

Cleared to descend / not cleared to descend.

All of it interesting. Sort of. I guess?

None of it changes the fact that you have to know where you are. Know your minimum safe altitude. And stay above it.

That's pretty much it. Not that complicated.
---------- ADS -----------
  
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.

AuxBatOn
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#66 Post by AuxBatOn » Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:11 pm

complexintentions wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:51 pm
None of it changes the fact that you have to know where you are. Know your minimum safe altitude. And stay above it.

That's pretty much it. Not that complicated.
Really? What about when you are on radar vectors and a controller clears you below a published min IFR altitude? Do you refuse?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

Cliff Jumper
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#67 Post by Cliff Jumper » Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:42 pm

complexintentions wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:51 pm
*sigh*

ICAO differences.
EGPWS / no EGPWS.
Radar airspace / non-radar airspace.
Native English speaker / non-native English speaker.
Cleared to descend / not cleared to descend.
All of it interesting. Sort of. I guess?
None of it changes the fact that you have to know where you are. Know your minimum safe altitude. And stay above it.

That's pretty much it. Not that complicated.
Agreed, no point to look into it any further. No single other crew on the planet could have made that error. So, why bother trying to understand it. :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gilles Hudicourt
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#68 Post by Gilles Hudicourt » Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:30 am

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:11 pm
complexintentions wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:51 pm
None of it changes the fact that you have to know where you are. Know your minimum safe altitude. And stay above it.

That's pretty much it. Not that complicated.
Really? What about when you are on radar vectors and a controller clears you below a published min IFR altitude? Do you refuse?
You can refer to your Minimum Vectoring Altitude Chart if in doubt.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Min ... tude_(MVA)
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Gilles Hudicourt on Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

AuxBatOn
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#69 Post by AuxBatOn » Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:55 am

I don't have access to this in my cockpit..
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5550
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#70 Post by ahramin » Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:22 am

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:55 am
I don't have access to this in my cockpit..
Maybe you should. No reason why you can't have it while the rest of us do.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3213
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#71 Post by pelmet » Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:00 am

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:11 pm
complexintentions wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 6:51 pm
None of it changes the fact that you have to know where you are. Know your minimum safe altitude. And stay above it.

That's pretty much it. Not that complicated.
Really? What about when you are on radar vectors and a controller clears you below a published min IFR altitude? Do you refuse?
If you are on vectors, it is different. If not on vectors, you are responsible. If you have a terrain map function on your aircraft, use it when in high terrain locations on at least one side. I'd be willing to bet that these guys had it and didn't use it.

Wonder if AC has any specific procedures or recommendations about this. If they don't, they should.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Sun Feb 25, 2018 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AuxBatOn
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#72 Post by AuxBatOn » Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:36 am

ahramin wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 8:22 am
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 7:55 am
I don't have access to this in my cockpit..
Maybe you should. No reason why you can't have it while the rest of us do.
It is not an issued DND pub therefore do not have access to it on my EFB or paper copies. If they were critical, they would be directly on approach plates.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5550
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#73 Post by ahramin » Sun Feb 25, 2018 9:21 pm

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 11:36 am
It is not an issued DND pub therefore do not have access to it on my EFB or paper copies.
That's what I'm saying. Maybe it's time they were included in the DND publications. I'd want either a functioning EGPWS or those charts when getting radar vectors in mountainous terrain anywhere in Asia or south of the US. If I were in your position, I'd consider making the point to the people in charge of such things.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
complexintentions
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1904
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

#74 Post by complexintentions » Mon Feb 26, 2018 6:18 am

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:42 pm
Agreed, no point to look into it any further. No single other crew on the planet could have made that error. So, why bother trying to understand it. :roll:
Who said we shouldn't try and understand it? FFS.

I only stated that ultimately, it's up to us - not ATC or the EGPWS or the regulations or someone's language ability or lack thereof - to ensure terrain clearance.

Yes, on vectors that responsibility is delegated to ATC. But 1) that isn't relevant to this specific incident and 2) that doesn't mean you shut your brain off and completely abdicate your responsibility to maintain situational awareness. So, to the smartass who asked "what about on vectors", hell yes if they give me a clearance that doesn't make sense I will absolutely refuse. Wouldn't be the first time I've "self-vectored" myself in places like MNL or BKK on some dark shitty night.

Everyone looking around for blame when it seems like the crew just couldn't read a damn chart.

Let me put it another way. Regardless of the tech, regardless of what ATC clears me to, regardless of what I heard or thought I heard, regardless of what the regs say in Canada or Mexico or Timbuktu: if I know I'm only safe to 10,000 feet, I'm not descending below 10,000 feet.

Not. So. Complicated.
---------- ADS -----------
  
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”