DOC just couldn't stop

[Koizie1]

I am curious why the thread about Jazz overruning 'Jazz.....just couldnt get it stopped' was locked.

I realise its an embarrassing incident for anyone involved and there may have been many factors leading up to the end result, but if so many pilots study it in CRM it would be good if someone could enlighten their fellow pilots in the hope no one will repeat the mistake (for want of a better word) in future. If you know the facts of this incident, and choose not to share you will feel pretty bad if it happens again to a non Jazz plane in the near future. Apparently it could happen to anyone, so lets try to stop it from happening to anyone. Share with your peers, please.

I don't understand why Doc was flamed for asking a very reasonable and 'relevant' question. I for one am glad someone is asking.

[Doc]

I got a pretty good scoop via PM from a source that will remain a mystery. I think we could all learn from it.


"Basically the long and short of it .. ILS was U/S .. it was a loc only appr incorporating an SCDA to get a lower decision alt. Are you familiar with SCDA's? You have to do the math yourself or charts to come up with a VS. Problem for the crew was they had a strong tailwind component that wasn't accounted for and so their DA was past the miss appr point. When they broke out they had the runway insight but not the threshold.

Side Note: YYB does not take care of their airport. It doesn't matter if there is a blinding snow storm when the clock hits 11pm .. all airport staff go home, and the last RSC is usually taken at 10:30pm. The flight doesn't arrive till midnight. So you can see a little issue here with getting the proper information.

So instead of a go-around the crew opt'd to land the bird thinking they had there bearings. Unfortuately they were 3/4 of the way down the runway when they touched down. The weather that night was something like a half mile and 200' broken. The sucker hole they broke out in, from what I understand, was crappy vis in snow and sleet .. but like I said they had the runway environment insight.

A few things did come out of this .. Sending a/c without all the information .. YYB keeps staff around now till the last flight lands. So now we get an updated RSC/CRFI. Training on SCDA's .. a lack of understanding was to blame. I'll be honest .. I was trained on SCDA's on my initial -8 course. That was a long time ago ... we almost always do ILS's or RNAV's that incorporate a flight path angle.

Those are the coles notes on the matter .. the skipper was new in the left seat. The crew had to go back to sim for a few sessions to understand the events that led up to this point."


Now, I'm not really up on SCDA approaches. Seems they can be rather insidious. When it comes right down to it, this could have happened to anybody. Except of course, YT! I guess the biggest lesson here would be, know where you are on the runway before you touch down. Pretty easy with the old 20/20 hindsight turned up to high though.
It's really such a simple explanation, I'm a wee bit surprised it wasn't posted. Makes sense to me.
Cheers

[Koizie1]

I guess the biggest lesson here would be, know where you are on the runway before you touch down

Thank you

[Bushav8er]

Not to stir the pot but if detailed, relevant information isn't available ofter 10:30pm then an 'informed' decision can't really be made. Perhaps, Jazz knowing this, should schedule the last flight to arrive at 10pm? If YYB wants later flights then they can staff accordingly?

[Samson]

I can't tell if Doc's post is supposed to be sarcastic or not. He's being uncharacteristically understanding about a pilot making a very silly mistake. Could happen to anybody? They touched down a mile and a half past the threshold (!). If I or a loved one was injured in a landing like that I'd be inclined to sue and I hate lawyers as much as the next guy. No, they didn't break the CARS that says you have to have the runway environment in sight. But if you don't know for sure how far down the runway you are and elect to land then you are breaking the CARS that says you can't operate an aircraft in a negligent or reckless manner so as to endanger the life of any person.

Trying to pass the buck and saying that the airport employees going home was a contributing factor is laughable. No RSC? Say that to the pilots operating these aircraft off of water covered glare ice strips. They're the ones really laughing at these city-folk that came to the "north" one snowy night.

Here's a TSB report for you:
The crew lost situational awareness but didn't execute a missed approach.
Contributing factors: None that pilots across the country don't face every single day.
Action taken: Some poor airport workers now have to work late to hold the pilots hands.

[iflyforpie]

Thank you for that post Doc, very informative <level of sarcasm=0>

I remember somebody posting what you needed to see for Required Visual Reference in the last thread.

RAC 9.19.3
The visual references required by the pilot 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 by:

the runway or runway markings;
the runway threshold or threshold markings;
the touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings;
the approach lights;
the approach slope indicator system;
the runway identification lights;
the threshold and runway end lights;
the touchdown zone light;
the parallel runway edge lights; or
the runway centre line lights.

The RAC says all you have to do is see any of these, but...

CAR 101.01

"required visual reference" - in respect of an aircraft on an approach to a runway, means that portion of the approach area of the runway or those visual aids that, when viewed by the pilot of the aircraft, enable the pilot to make an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in order to continue the approach and complete a landing;

Though I think the unusual conditions made for the mistake in this case, you need to have more than just a visual on one of those things listed in the RAC.

[onspeed]

interesting to finally read about what happened, don't know why that couldn't have been posted before... for sure a concern when operating in low vis on non precision approaches.

The 705 I work for says that you have to put it down on the first 1/3 of the runway or go around, i'd be surprised if Jazz didn't have that SOP as well.

Thanks for putting us in the know

[Pilatusable]

Our (and I assume most) SCDA procedures say a missed approach must be executed either at your calculated decision height, or at the published missed approach point, whichever comes first. In this case, if the crew was flying the LOC/DME approach for 08, regardless of the mentioned tailwind factor, when they saw 0.5 DME they should have gone around whether they had descended far enough or not. That is if their SCDA SOPs are the same.

[KAG]

DOC, an SCDA (standard constant descent angle) takes a “dive and drive” non precision and turns it into wannabe ILS. Basically (if I remember correctly) you look at your distance from threshold, and beacon crossing altitude, use a graph to calculate your descent rate and then treat your MDA like a DH. At MDA if you see the runway you land, if not you go missed. It’s pretty slick and keeps the aircraft in a stable descent to the runway instead of making configuration changes. You must calculate your ground speed correctly to give you a accurate descent rate though, which it sounds like didn’t happen.

[Hedley]

I don't fly 705 so could someone fill me in why pilots that fly 705 would rather cut off their left leg than go around when faced with a really badly-screwed up approach?

I'm not just talking Jazz in YYB. How about Air France in YYZ? The latest overrun crash on landing in India?

Does 705 operate that short on fuel? Is there a lot of company paperwork for a go-around? Are pilots ridiculed in the company culture for going around?

I really am interested in learning why a go-around is not viewed as an option by 705.

[Samson]

I think Method Man said it best:
Cash rules everything around me, C.R.E.A.M. Get the money; dollar, dollar bill, y'all.

[Doc]

KAG, frankly I like the old "dive and drive" unless you have accurate glide slope info, either form a GPS, or an actual glide slope on an ILS. Reason....any time you have to "calculate", you increase the likelihood of mistakes. The old method, everything hanging till visual, then it's either a missed or flaps full, landing.

[sanjet]

Great posts. I guess maybe a dive and drive (step down approach) may be better off if you have no VNAV capability on your approach. I find it may keep me more situationally aware when reaching a MAP.

[55+]

Oh my.......... where to start on this thread. Better still, I will hold my tongue!!!!!

SCDA= (distance back from thld X descent gradient 318ft/nm) + 50ft(TCH) + TDZE. To fly it = (approach speed(KIAS) divided by 60, then multiplied by descent gradient of 318 ft/nm.

The above is for a standard 3.0deg VPA or glide path if you wish to call it that. Carry on and have fun.

Quiz time: How do I calculate the VPA on any IAP from the FAF/FAWP to TDZE!!!!!!!!

[Doc]

Oh my.......... where to start on this thread. Better still, I will hold my tongue!!!!!

SCDA= (distance back from thld X descent gradient 318ft/nm) + 50ft(TCH) + TDZE. To fly it = (approach speed(KIAS) divided by 60, then multiplied by descent gradient of 318 ft/nm.

The above is for a standard 3.0deg VPA or glide path if you wish to call it that. Carry on and have fun.

Quiz time: How do I calculate the VPA on any IAP from the FAF/FAWP to TDZE!!!!!!!!

Kind of illustrates my point. WAY to likely to screw that one up. You want me down to 1760 feet by .8 DME? THAT I can do!

A perfect illustration of how the "new" way is not always better than the "old" way, of doing things?

[Tim]

although i agree with the fact that SCDAs arent always the best option, the "calculations" are certainly no more of a distraction than a the appch briefing, figuring out speeds, etc. they take a quick moment and can done once youve got the weather. a simple chart similar to the cold wx correction chart in the CAP GEN makes it easy.

like i said though, i dont think theyre always the best option.

[55+]

although i agree with the fact that SCDAs arent always the best option, the "calculations" are certainly no more of a distraction than a the appch briefing, figuring out speeds, etc. they take a quick moment and can done once youve got the weather. a simple chart similar to the cold wx correction chart in the CAP GEN makes it easy.

like i said though, i dont think theyre always the best option.

Agreed with comments, however one can(I did it) put together an Excel spreadsheet for quick easy reference. After all you do know the range of approach speeds, distances from FAF/FAWP to thld is usually 4 to 8 nm range and you can use altitudes to 10,000(but I would find that a stretch for FAF height).

[KAG]

KAG, frankly I like the old "dive and drive" unless you have accurate glide slope info, either form a GPS, or an actual glide slope on an ILS. Reason....any time you have to "calculate", you increase the likelihood of mistakes. The old method, everything hanging till visual, then it's either a missed or flaps full, landing.

On the flip side any time you have to make last minute AC configuration changes close in and low to the ground, you also increase the chance of making a mistake, usually fatal. Back up your (accurate) calculations using the GPS/MFD and you get a real nice picture and a smooth approach. Either way you’re doing some calculations, and the graphs that Jazz use are pretty easy and quick.

That said I much prefer RNP

[flyinhigh]

SCDA's are actually quite simple and I am surprised that they are not implemented in the smaller 703 sops.

They are as easy as going, ok faf is 4 nm back of faf, look at chart under the distance and 3 deg slope, gives you a number. Add that number to your landing elevation, round to nearest 100 foot and you got your crossing alt.

You now have a 3.0 slope right to your MDA, once you hit that alt you either land or if you have the require vis ques you land.

The old method, everything hanging till visual, then it's either a missed or flaps full, landing.

Problem with this logic, and anyone can tell you that operates turbo fan is 2 things.

1) ALOT of missed approaches will be conducted from not seeing the rwy. Full confige at slow speeds will give as a 5 degree nose up attitude, this attitude means low speed barber pole right there, meaning potential stall. Not what you want while stairing out the window looking for the rwy, but can't see it cause your nose is stuck way up.

2) Ever do a chop and drop in a turbo fan, Not going to be pretty. by the time you pull the thrust, push the nose, try to add the power back to isolate decent/ lowering airspeed. That has deisaster writen ALLL over it.

The RJ takes a good FULL 8 seconds to go from idle to T/O thrust. Now decending to the rwy doing all this, well makes me shutter. To me thats is a go around unless you get your vis early enough, to follow a proper decent profile.

Any other thoughts on this.

[Bede]

KAG, frankly I like the old "dive and drive" unless you have accurate glide slope info, either form a GPS, or an actual glide slope on an ILS. Reason....any time you have to "calculate", you increase the likelihood of mistakes. The old method, everything hanging till visual, then it's either a missed or flaps full, landing.

I wouldn't want to do a dive and drive in anything bigger than a -8; there is simply too much inertia in a large airplane, and like flyinhigh said, with the spool up times on jets, you're asking for it.

The SCDA is an improvement, but after having seen the RNP, there's really nothing better. For 95% of landings, I'd take RNP over an ILS; just much more efficient.