Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

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

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

Post Reply
User avatar
raven54
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:14 am
Location: a dumpster

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by raven54 »

another_try wrote:
raven54 wrote:The MAP for the LOC only is shown on the plate, D0.2.

No, it is not.
If we are talking JEP11-1 for YRB with the G/S out, where the timing/groundspeed reference is printed...it clearly states MAP at D0.2 IRB, as well as on the Vertical depiction.

Whoops! I see you guys are referencing the CAP's!
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by cncpc »

As a practical matter, this accident may be related to not being on the localizer. The aircraft was at or very close to the Localizer MDA when it impacted terrain.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

BEFAN5
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:18 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by BEFAN5 »

ILS NOTAM has been removed. Guess it tested A-ok.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Gino Under
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 736
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Gino Under »

cncpc

I tend to agree with you. It looks like it may have been a LOC approach flown to minima with the VOR frequency tuned.
Hufac at play here along with TEM.

We'll see.
It's still early days.

Gino Under :(
---------- ADS -----------
  

URC
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:56 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by URC »

Hufac ? TEM ?

How does a non-radar (temporary Military) Tower identify aircaft position and provide separation in IMC ? DME and radial reports off the VOR perhaps ?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Lost in Saigon »

There was no "Temporary Tower" being used to control aircraft on the day of the accident. I believe they must have been setting up and only transmitted because of the accident.

There are TWO NOTAMS regarding Class D airspace at CYRB. The first one only established a Control Zone. The second NOTAM established a Military Terminal Control Area with Tower, Ground, Terminal Control, etc.

You can have a Class D Control Zone without a tower. I believe the Temporary Tower only became fully operational during the period of the second NOTAM which began Aug 22.

While the Temporary Tower Facilities may have been in place at the time of the accident, I bet they were only giving advisories. This would possibly explain how the Borek flight was able to do an approach while First Air was still un-accounted for.

Resolute Bay is in Northern Domestic Airspace and the closest controlled airspace is normally overhead at FL270. The first NOTAM created a Class D Control Zone but since there isn't an operating control tower, it automatically reverts to Class E airspace. The only operational impact this has is to increase the VFR Weather Minima within the zone. The MTCA, control tower and radar were not due to be operational until 3 days after this accident occurred. So on that day, the flight would have been cleared out of controlled airspace as it descended below FL270 and would have just needed to report intentions and postion as required for operating in the Mandatory Frequency (MF) area. No positive or radar control would have been available on the approach.


Canadian AIM - Airspace

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... 0-2599.htm
110102 CYRB RESULUTE BAY
CYRB DAH IS AMENDED AS FLW:
CLASS D RESOLUTE CTL ZONE IS ESTABLISHED AS FLW:
THE AIRSPACE WITHIN 10 NM RADIUS 744301N 945810W
SFC TO 6000 FT MSL. FOR OPS NANOOK
1108101300 TIL 1108280100

110124 CYRB RESOLUTE BAY
CYRB DAH IS AMENDED AS FLW:
CLASS D RESOLUTE MTCA IS ESTABLISHED AS FLW:
THE AIRSPACE WITHIN 80 NM RADIUS 744301N 945810W
700 FT AGL TO FL200. FOR OPS NANOOK.
FREQ FOR OPS NANOOK:
RESOLUTE TML: 228.5000 MHZ
: 123.075 MHZ
GLOWWORM(MIL PAR): 243.4000 MHZ
: 128.850 MHZ
RESOLUTE TWR: 236.5 MHZ
: 122.1 MHZ
RESOLUTE GND: 122.6 MHZ
: 149.15 MHZ
1108221200 TIL 1108280100
---------- ADS -----------
  

another_try
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:07 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by another_try »

There's no question it was a CFIT.

They tracked to the VOR instead of on the LOC, either because they forgot to switch freqs prior to intercepting, or else they flew the arc approach and again didn't switch freqs.

There are only two remaining questions: Why didn't they switch freqs, and why didn't their GPWS save them.?
---------- ADS -----------
  

fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1794
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by fish4life »

another_try wrote:There's no question it was a CFIT.

They tracked to the VOR instead of on the LOC, either because they forgot to switch freqs prior to intercepting, or else they flew the arc approach and again didn't switch freqs.

There are only two remaining questions: Why didn't they switch freqs, and why didn't their GPWS save them.?

How can you say that already? How do you know it isn't a situation where the crew applied power for a Go Around and they got nothing, perhaps a roll back in power from contaminated fuel or anything of the sort. It is one thing to speculate it is another to say something happened for sure.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Lost in Saigon »

fish4life wrote:How do you know it isn't a situation where the crew applied power for a Go Around and they got nothing, perhaps a roll back in power from contaminated fuel or anything of the sort. It is one thing to speculate it is another to say something happened for sure.
It sounds like the crew tried to do a missed approach just prior to imact.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... track.html
Canadian forces had been in the immediate vicinity as part of the Operation Nanook 11 arctic capability exercise, which this year, ironically, was to test response to a major air disaster. A source supporting the exercise told Flight International he had been looking east from the airport apron as flight 6560 was due to arrive.

"I could not see the base of the hill opposite because the fog was too low," he said. The 737 had said it was on final instrument landing system approach to 35T, but when the tower controller requested a position update a few minutes later, there was no response, and a Beech 99 pilot - on approach to 17T - was asked to try to contact the flight, with no result. "I saw First Air ground crew waiting for the aircraft and wondering where it was," said the source, who added that an engineer thought he heard a spooling of jet engines, then a thump. No communication was heard during a check on the VHF distress frequency 121.5MHz.
---------- ADS -----------
  

onspeed
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:48 pm
Location: yyz

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by onspeed »

The Military was operating in the tower at the time of the accident, they had been asking crews for their radial and distances off the VOR
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Lost in Saigon »

onspeed wrote:The Military was operating in the tower at the time of the accident, they had been asking crews for their radial and distances off the VOR
They may have been "manning" their "temporary tower", but the applicable NOTAM did not start until Aug 22 so there is NO WAY they were controlling any aircraft. The very fact that another aircraft did an approach while First Air was un-accounted for CONFIRMS this.


If the military were making unauthorized transmissions on the Mandatory Frequency, I hope to hell they did not actually contribute in some way to this accident. Accidents are always a combination of factors. Something as simple as a minor distraction can start a chain of events that can end in disaster.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Lost in Saigon on Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

aurora
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:54 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by aurora »

There is no DME arc, it's a full procedure ILS.
I know what I would have done coming in from the South in the flight levels at an uncontrolled airport. I would descend to my 100/25 safe, self vector onto the ILS by OBS'ing the runway with my RNAV and intercepting the inbound track, and complete a straight in ILS. It would have saved about ten minutes, rather than completing the LOC BC as number 2 behind Borek. I probably wouldn't circle at the bottom for 17 though. At no point in that procedure is it easy to mistake the VOR for the ILS, you would notice instantly from the lack of G/S and b/c the VOR would be off runway centerline. Same procedure only with vectors if it's at an airport with an operational tower.
I can't see anyone flying all the way to the airport center, and completing a full procedure ILS when at that point u can just as easily take the LOC BC full procedure with a headwind instead.
Argue that the weather was too poor for the LOC BC, but why was Borek flying that approach then?
---------- ADS -----------
  

BEFAN5
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:18 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by BEFAN5 »

Maybe deviating from LAW is a contributing factor? I don't see no IAF on that plate.
---------- ADS -----------
  

URC
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:56 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by URC »

If the military were making unauthorized transmissions on the Mandatory Frequency, I hope to hell they did not actually contribute in some way to this accident.
Unauthorized ? Can a verbal transmission/confirmation from the controller on frequency override any NOTAMS ? This happens all the time, eg: "runway is now open NOTAM is cancelled". At what point during the approach did the controller initiate communications with the flight ? Being a new/temporary Tower setup, were there any issues with the quality of the transmissions, coming through unreadable and garbled to the flight crew ?
---------- ADS -----------
  

gwengler
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:58 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by gwengler »

aurora wrote:I know what I would have done coming in from the South in the flight levels at an uncontrolled airport. I would descend to my 100/25 safe, self vector onto the ILS by OBS'ing the runway with my RNAV and intercepting the inbound track, and complete a straight in ILS.
Fair enough, but that's not legal. Because no part of the approach has "NoPT" written on it you MUST fly the full procedure which in this case coming from the south would have been a racetrack to the right/east.
aurora wrote:At no point in that procedure is it easy to mistake the VOR for the ILS, you would notice instantly from the lack of G/S and b/c the VOR would be off runway centerline.
Well, no, it’s not easy but the whole point of the VOR speculation/scenario is that they were UNAWARE that they had the VOR frequency dialled in instead of the ILF frequency. And they would have thought the G/S is unserviceable. The only way to really know you have the correct frequency is to ident it.

Gerd
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Lost in Saigon »

URC wrote:
If the military were making unauthorized transmissions on the Mandatory Frequency, I hope to hell they did not actually contribute in some way to this accident.
Unauthorized ? Can a verbal transmission/confirmation from the controller on frequency override any NOTAMS ? This happens all the time, eg: "runway is now open NOTAM is cancelled". At what point during the approach did the controller initiate communications with the flight ? Being a new/temporary Tower setup, were there any issues with the quality of the transmissions, coming through unreadable and garbled to the flight crew ?
The NOTAM clearly said the tower would not be active until Aug. 22nd. At the time of the accident, the CYRB airspace was UNCONTROLLED. PERIOD! This is self evident because of the Borek aircraft doing his approach without any input from a controller.

We really don't know the source of any transmission from the "Temporary Tower" at this point. Was it Military personnel, or just someone on the radio looking for First Air? I expect that the "Temporary Tower" only got involved when someone realized that there was a potentially missing/overdue aircraft. If it was the Military, it would have been outside the normal day to day operations at Resolute Bay on Aug. 20nd.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Lost in Saigon on Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Lost in Saigon »

gwengler wrote:
aurora wrote:I know what I would have done coming in from the South in the flight levels at an uncontrolled airport. I would descend to my 100/25 safe, self vector onto the ILS by OBS'ing the runway with my RNAV and intercepting the inbound track, and complete a straight in ILS.
Fair enough, but that's not legal. Because no part of the approach has "NoPT" written on it you MUST fly the full procedure which in this case coming from the south would have been a racetrack to the right/east.
It is very common to do straight in approaches at uncontrolled airports. You can ask various Transport types if it is legal, but if you ask 10 different inspectors, you'll get about 20 different answers as to how legal it is.

If you can safely position yourself within the safe area of the procedure turn (10nm from POKAN) at 2200 ASL, I see nothing wrong with descending to 1800 ASL and continuing a straight in ILS/DME approach.

Image
---------- ADS -----------
  

55+
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:49 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by 55+ »

"If the military were making unauthorized transmissions on the Mandatory Frequency, I hope to hell they did not actually contribute in some way to this accident. Accidents are always a combination of factors. Something as simple as a minor distraction can start a chain of events that can end in disaster."

In order to reclassify domestic airspace a Designated Airspace Handbook(DAH) amendment is required and can/is usually done on a temporary basis by notam which is the case here. A MTCA, with Terminal/PAR/Tower/Ground facilities/frequencies has been applied which means that during the amendment times(DAH) communication on the military frequencies are required.

As for chatter on specific freq prior to the effective notam time, perhaps to set up/confirm/talk to/vector to/PAR practice up that way on final, I won't speculate but that is just me........however this CFIT train of thought is a little to easy, something else probably was going down.
---------- ADS -----------
  

cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by cncpc »

gwengler wrote:
aurora wrote:Well, no, it’s not easy but the whole point of the VOR speculation/scenario is that they were UNAWARE that they had the VOR frequency dialled in instead of the ILF frequency. And they would have thought the G/S is unserviceable. The only way to really know you have the correct frequency is to ident it.

Gerd
Another check is to twist the OBS knob left and right right after the ident. If the needle responds, you're tuned to a VOR not a localizer. Unless it required only a small twist, you'd surely notice it when you set the inbound course.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.

onspeed
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 10:48 pm
Location: yyz

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by onspeed »

Lost in Saigon wrote:but when the tower controller requested a position update a few minutes later, there was no response, and a Beech 99 pilot - on approach to 17T - was asked to try to contact the flight, with no result
Why would the controller be asking for position updates if he wasn't controlling the aircraft? That is the impression i get from your quote.

From what i understand (second hand information) is that the tower was talking to both aircraft during the descent and approach, I heard that their radio transmissions had been staticy (sp?) and that they had made multiple attempts to pick up the latest wx in CYRB.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3018
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by CpnCrunch »

Lost in Saigon wrote: It is very common to do straight in approaches at uncontrolled airports. You can ask various Transport types if it is legal, but if you ask 10 different inspectors, you'll get about 20 different answers as to how legal it is.
It's perfectly legal to do a straight in VFR approach at an uncontrolled airport. However if you are doing an IFR approach at an uncontrolled airport you would need to follow IFR rules.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Lost in Saigon
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 9:35 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Lost in Saigon »

onspeed wrote:Why would the controller be asking for position updates if he wasn't controlling the aircraft? That is the impression i get from your quote.
Who said it was a "controller"? Anyone on an MF can ask for a position update. The fact is NO ONE was controlling any aircraft in the CYRB area that day. The NOTAM says so, and the fact that Borek did the approach confirms this. Why is that so hard to understand?
---------- ADS -----------
  

nutbutter
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:07 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by nutbutter »

CpnCrunch wrote:
Lost in Saigon wrote: It is very common to do straight in approaches at uncontrolled airports. You can ask various Transport types if it is legal, but if you ask 10 different inspectors, you'll get about 20 different answers as to how legal it is.
It's perfectly legal to do a straight in VFR approach at an uncontrolled airport. However if you are doing an IFR approach at an uncontrolled airport you would need to follow IFR rules.

Last time I checked circuit procedures at VFR airports it was written in the CARs that you have to join from the downwind, or cross midfield. I don't remember it being written that you can join a straight in... In reality people join the circuit from whatever direction is easiest.

Also as far as IFR is concerned, I would never even suggest the ability to do a straight in ILS at the airport in question on a ride or to a transport type., but practical IFR is different. What's riskier a straight in, or 3 or 4 tight, low level turns in a turbo jet? Comon guys, you aren't all that naive are you?
---------- ADS -----------
  

medi-whacked
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:37 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by medi-whacked »

"Last time I checked circuit procedures at VFR airports it was written in the CARs that you have to join from the downwind, or cross midfield. I don't remember it being written that you can join a straight in... In reality people join the circuit from whatever direction is easiest."

Check again and give us the reference CARS. I am not 100% but I think you will find you are not correct.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
r22captain
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 8:12 pm
Location: CYHZ

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by r22captain »

The AIM rambles on about joining the circuit from an airmanship point of view...CARs do not.
The CARs do not state that one must join the circuit from the upwind side, or on the downwind leg, or from anywhere in particular; nor do the CARs relieve pilots entering or established in the circuit of their right-of-way obligations under CAR 602.19(2).
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... er-754.htm

anyway.....this thread isn't about joining the circuit....

back on track
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”