Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

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

Post Reply
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 » Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:35 pm

medi-whacked wrote:"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.
You need to get out more often. I would rather have a lobotomy than read the CAR's to reference who is right on a fucking internet forum. Seriously?
---------- 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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:44 am

I threw my bible out and have a copy of the CARS in my night table.
---------- ADS -----------
  

HighBypass
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 157
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:36 am
Location: YZF

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by HighBypass » Wed Aug 31, 2011 6:26 am

The plate from last year that I remember for the ILS 35T (when they had the cape martyr ndb) also had an IF called "CIPOT" did it not? That way RNAV capable aircraft inbound from the south could navigate to that point then switch the HSi from rnav to ILS. Why did they get rid of the IF?
---------- ADS -----------
  

RVR6000
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by RVR6000 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:08 am

You are right, the 'CIPOT' fix for the straight-in ILS was there up until few months ago. No idea why they changed it.

Given the crews experience, and local knowledge they wouldn't circle to the east.
---------- ADS -----------
  

RVR6000
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by RVR6000 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 10:15 am

onspeed wrote:
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.

There is no tower or MF radio operators in Resolute. Almost every airport in Nunavut has a CARS operator (community aerodrome radio stations), they have minimal training well below that of a NavCanada MF radio operator.

Its all uncontrolled, pilots are responsibly for traffic avoidance in vmc or imc. Controlled airspace over resolute starts at FL270.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Diadem » Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:44 am

RVR6000 wrote:There is no tower or MF radio operators in Resolute. Almost every airport in Nunavut has a CARS operator (community aerodrome radio stations), they have minimal training well below that of a NavCanada MF radio operator.

Its all uncontrolled, pilots are responsibly for traffic avoidance in vmc or imc. Controlled airspace over resolute starts at FL270.
There is, or at least was, a military tower and terminal set up for Operation Nanook.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Diadem » Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:53 am

Lost in Saigon wrote: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?
I know first-hand that the tower was operational at the time; terminal wasn't, although they were monitoring the frequency, and the Borek 99 was passed off to the tower by them. The tower cleared First Air 6560 to land twice, both when they called 10-mile final and 3-mile final. The 99 did the LOC(BC) because of the wind, but the visibility dropped and they missed, giving no option but to fly the ILS. It had absolutely nothing to do with whether the airspace was controlled.
---------- 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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:07 pm

fish4life wrote:
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.
Neither a botched go-around nor an engine failure in the go-around explains how they ended up more than one nautical mile east of the airport, paralleling the runway. With that kind of a lateral deviation they should have had full deflection on the LOC about 20 miles back from the airport. They were tracking the VOR, there's no question about that. CFIT.
---------- ADS -----------
  

RVR6000
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by RVR6000 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 12:18 pm

Diadem wrote:
Lost in Saigon wrote: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?
I know first-hand that the tower was operational at the time; terminal wasn't, although they were monitoring the frequency, and the Borek 99 was passed off to the tower by them. The tower cleared First Air 6560 to land twice, both when they called 10-mile final and 3-mile final. The 99 did the LOC(BC) because of the wind, but the visibility dropped and they missed, giving no option but to fly the ILS. It had absolutely nothing to do with whether the airspace was controlled.

Which terminal are you talking about, its Edmonton center above 270. I can bet the Borek 99 wasn't even talking to center.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Diadem » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:14 pm

RVR6000 wrote:Which terminal are you talking about, its Edmonton center above 270. I can bet the Borek 99 wasn't even talking to center.
No, they weren't, but note my previous post in which I mention that there was both a military tower and terminal in YRB for Operation Nanook. The MTCA had an 80NM radius, but when the 99 contacted terminal they were told it wasn't active yet and had to contact tower 15 miles out.
---------- 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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:17 pm

Diadem wrote:I know first-hand that the tower was operational at the time; terminal wasn't, although they were monitoring the frequency, and the Borek 99 was passed off to the tower by them. The tower cleared First Air 6560 to land twice, both when they called 10-mile final and 3-mile final. The 99 did the LOC(BC) because of the wind, but the visibility dropped and they missed, giving no option but to fly the ILS. It had absolutely nothing to do with whether the airspace was controlled.
Diadem, Please explain your first hand knowledge, and then please explain how a tower controller would allow another aircraft into the same airspace as First Air, when no one knew where First Air was. That makes absolutely no sense. The tower must have been giving advisories only. Maybe they were just practicing for when they were supposed to be officially open.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Redneck_pilot86
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1239
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:47 pm
Location: between 60 and 70

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Redneck_pilot86 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:33 pm

Was the tower a separate setup, or was it using the existing radios and whatnot from the CARS station? Just curious if it could be so-called tower operators using the radio even though it was still only an MF.
---------- ADS -----------
  
The only three things a wingman should ever say: 1. "Two's up" 2. "You're on fire" 3. "I'll take the fat one"

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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:35 pm

Seriously LIS, you think the tower controller were practicing? With real airplanes, in poor wx? Maybe some fake vectors just to shake out the cobb webs?

Just as Diadem says, they were operational at the time of the accident. Although from what I understand had been using Radial and Distance information off the VOR to get position. I believe the RADAR wasn't up and running yet.

I'd think they might have assumed 6560 was in a lost comm situation when the cleared borek to land, maybe to just get them on the ground and out of the airspace. Who knows.
---------- 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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:41 pm

onspeed wrote:Seriously LIS, you think the tower controller were practicing? With real airplanes, in poor wx? Maybe some fake vectors just to shake out the cobb webs?

Just as Diadem says, they were operational at the time of the accident. Although from what I understand had been using Radial and Distance information off the VOR to get position. I believe the RADAR wasn't up and running yet.

I'd think they might have assumed 6560 was in a lost comm situation when the cleared borek to land, maybe to just get them on the ground and out of the airspace. Who knows.

Seriously "onspeed",

What controller in their right mind would clear Borek for an approach when he had NO IDEA where First Air was. PLEASE EXPLAIN THAT TO ME!!!
---------- ADS -----------
  

Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Diadem » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:41 pm

Lost in Saigon wrote:Diadem, Please explain your first hand knowledge, and then please explain how a tower controller would allow another aircraft into the same airspace as First Air, when no one knew where First Air was. That makes absolutely no sense. The tower must have been giving advisories only. Maybe they were just practicing for when they were supposed to be officially open.
I was in the airspace with them at the time. The tower's airspace only extended to 700', so they weren't responsible for the approach. Furthermore, south of the airport was complete VFR, and the 99 was on a VFR flight plan and was responsible for its own traffic separation. Everyone in the air was concerned about the possibility of a 737 flying around in the clag - we were under the assumption it had missed - with another aircraft on approach behind it, but with terminal inactive the airspace was uncontrolled. Even tower assumed they had missed and had a comm failure until the 99 was on short final and they asked the pilots to keep a look out for it.
The tower was using 122.1, the same frequency as the CARS station, but they were using their own equipment.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Diadem on Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:44 pm

The military had built a separate tower, right next to the runway. They were operating a terminal, ground, clearance delivery and tower frequency.
---------- 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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 2:52 pm

LIS,

I'm assuming the controller could see the whole runway and assumed since it wasn't on the runway it was in a missed approach and since no on could raise it, it had lost coms. I'm not a military controller so I have no idea what their protocol is in such a situation with reference to why they allowed borek to land, other than maybe to get them down and not risk a mid air with a lost comm 737 who might be trying multiple approaches

Bottom line though we don't know what the military controllers protocol is in such a situation.
---------- 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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:01 pm

The weather was below VFR. Borek HAD to be IFR. Only ONE aircraft is allowed into the airspace at one time in non-Radar Controlled airspace. The aircraft must have been uncontrolled. The Tower could not be controlling them.

If the tower was trying to control them there is definitely something wrong here. It is starting to look like this "Tower" may have had some contributing factor in this accident. It doesn't take much of a non-normal event to set a chain of events that can lead to a major accident.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Lost in Saigon on Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:14 pm

Agreed, there were definitely a few non normal events here that played into this. The military being one of them for sure.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Diadem » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:22 pm

Lost in Saigon wrote:The weather was below VFR. Borek HAD to be IFR. Only ONE aircraft is allowed into the airspace at one time. The aircraft must have been uncontrolled. The Tower could not be controlling them.

If the tower was trying to control them there is definitely something wrong here. It is starting to look like this "Tower" may have had some contributing factor in this accident. It doesn't take much of a non-normal event to set a chain of events that can lead to a major accident.
The weather immediately over the airport was IFR. It was like a wall about four miles south of the airport, and beyond that, i.e. on the localizer it was clear VFR. Several aircraft were in the airspace to the south, all VFR.
As I said, the tower's airspace only extended up to 700'. Here's the NOTAM:
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 F) 700FT AGL G) FL200.
All of the aircraft were in uncontrolled airspace until they were on short final, so who would have limited the number of aircraft in the airspace? It wouldn't have mattered whether the tower was active or not; if the 737 and the 99 were above 700' the tower couldn't have told them what to do anyway.
---------- 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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:27 pm

That NOTAM was not in effect on the day of the accident:

110102 CYRB RESOLUTE 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 -----------
  

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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:36 pm

onspeed wrote:Agreed, there were definitely a few non normal events here that played into this. The military being one of them for sure.

The Captain on this flight had been with First Air for 15 years. He had been to Resolute Bay many times before. This should have been an ordinary, routine flight for him.

Something on Aug 20th caused him do operate differently on that day. In my opinion the military is the prime suspect now, as they were the only thing out of the ordinary that day.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Diadem » Wed Aug 31, 2011 3:42 pm

Lost in Saigon wrote:That NOTAM was not in effect on the day of the accident:

110102 CYRB RESOLUTE 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
In that case your previous comment about aircraft being cleared into the airspace is completely invalid: there were no frequencies established until the 22nd and everyone could fly around doing whatever they wanted. The tower was even less responsible for traffic separation.
I don't know why they were operating on the 20th. Maybe they got set up earlier than they anticipated and decided they wanted to activate the airspace; as someone pointed out earlier, they could amend it over the radio to supercede the NOTAM. Regardless of when the NOTAM was applicable, they were operating, and the extent of their mandate was to clear aircraft to take off and land. That's it.
---------- 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 » Wed Aug 31, 2011 4:25 pm

Diadem wrote:
In that case your previous comment about aircraft being cleared into the airspace is completely invalid: there were no frequencies established until the 22nd and everyone could fly around doing whatever they wanted. The tower was even less responsible for traffic separation.

I don't know why they were operating on the 20th. Maybe they got set up earlier than they anticipated and decided they wanted to activate the airspace; as someone pointed out earlier, they could amend it over the radio to supercede the NOTAM. Regardless of when the NOTAM was applicable, they were operating, and the extent of their mandate was to clear aircraft to take off and land. That's it.
I never said anything about an aircraft being cleared into any airspace. I have always maintained that if the "Temporary Tower" was indeed talking to aircraft, there is no way they could have been controlling them.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Diadem » Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:32 pm

As you clarified your earlier post I concede the point. However, you must then explain why the tower would give them landing clearance. Does this not count as controlling them? And, as the tower didn't give them an approach clearance, is it not possible that they were controlling the airspace from the ground to 700', as they were scheduled to two days later? Is it not therefore plausible that they had enabled a portion of the NOTAM earlier than expected while leaving the airspace in the MTCA uncontrolled? And, as the Borek 99 didn't enter this hypothetical control zone until 10 minutes after the 737, which, had it remained flying, probably wouldn't have lingered below 700' within 10 NM of the airport for that period of time, did the tower not reasonably suspect the jet had left their airspace? Everyone, both controller and pilot, assumed the 737 had missed and climbed out for another attempt or a return to YZF. To blame the tower for not preventing a VFR aircraft from making an approach when the tower hadn't confirmed the location of an aircraft which may not have descended below 700' and entered their airspace in the first place is ridiculous. They didn't even have the authority to grant an approach clearance. All they were doing was granting take-off and landing clearance.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”