4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

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: 2870
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#26 Post by CpnCrunch » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:20 pm

I'm with dpm...I prefer a steeper glideslope. The PAPI only guarantees clearance for a given distance/angle. If you have an offset final approach with obstacles, that adds to the risk. With an instrument approach there is more obstacle clearance. Flying VFR at night there are many runways that have no instrument approaches due to obstacles.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6804
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#27 Post by photofly » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:39 pm

The PAPI only guarantees clearance for a given distance/angle.
I fully support your right to fly any approach you like, day or night, but I’d like to hear why and specifically where you think following the full instrument approach guarantees you obstacle clearance that the PAPI doesn’t. A specific example airport and approach plate would really help me follow your point.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

User avatar
HiFlyChick
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#28 Post by HiFlyChick » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:44 pm

I think the steeper approach path in something like a C172 is the better option if you're comfortable with the runway - it's longer and/or it's your home airport and you're used to the approach. Two factors to consider, though, is that if you're approaching steeply, you should be sure you're comfortable with doing full slips, since you've already used up the option of full flaps (I presume) or reducing power. The other thing is that at this time of year, you really don't want to be in the situation where you need to pull the power back to idle and shock cool the engine.

If you're doing the 3 deg path in a C172, maybe only use a bit of flap until short final(can't recall the numbers for a 172 - been a while). I keep hearing discussions about stabilized approaches and the like, and that's fine in principle, but for people not in a transport category aircraft, even in a light twin, having full flap from the FAF on is just not realistic. When your flaps are like big ol' barn doors, and it practically takes full power just to maintain level with full flap, why not wait on the last bit of flap until short final? Where on final really depends on your experience level in the situation (i.e. amount of time at night,in the aircraft, at the airport, whatever).

I think where people really get in trouble is when they see someone who is much more experienced doing something a certain way (i.e. not the way we learned in flight school) and they start trying to do the same thing without their judgement or hands and feet skills being developed enough
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
HiFlyChick
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 353
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#29 Post by HiFlyChick » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:47 pm

photofly wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:39 pm
The PAPI only guarantees clearance for a given distance/angle.
I fully support your right to fly any approach you like, day or night, but I’d like to hear why and specifically where you think following the full instrument approach guarantees you obstacle clearance that the PAPI doesn’t. A specific example airport and approach plate would really help me follow your point.
I get what he is trying to say - just that the instrument approach is well defined on the plate, while the PAPI/VASI have limits that are not as well known. I say that because obviously there are certain limits outside which they no longer provide obstacle clearance (distance back, angle off), but darned if I can recall what those numbers are... For those of us that are absent minded, the comfort of an approach plate is that the numbers are all right there in front of you with no memory items required
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6804
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#30 Post by photofly » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:25 pm

HiFlyChick wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:47 pm


I get what he is trying to say - just that the instrument approach is well defined on the plate, while the PAPI/VASI have limits that are not as well known.
I really don’t get what he’s trying to say. The AIM says
At a certified airport, aircraft following the on-slope signal are provided with safe obstruction clearance to a minimum of 6° on either side of the extended runway centreline out to 7.5 km (4.1 NM) from the runway threshold. Newly certified airports are commonly protected out to 8° on each side of the extended runway centreline. Exceptions will be noted in the CFS. Descent using VASIS should not be initiated until the aircraft is visually aligned with the runway centreline. ..

...At some aerodromes, particularly in mountainous regions, a limitation is established as a PAPI useable distance from the threshold and is published in the CFS. The PAPI signal is not to be used until within that specified distance.
So, if in mountainous regions, let’s plan ahead, and read the CFS. And, of course. we’re discussing flying at night, so you even have the CFS with you, don’t you :)

In most cases the PAPI or VASI will coincide with the instrument approach to the same runway; if not, it’s noted on the plate. I’d still like to see an example of somewhere where following the approach slope indicator gives you an unsafe approach. If it’s unsafe, why is it there?
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1032
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#31 Post by rookiepilot » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:08 pm

What's really idiotic is how (I think) it's a good idea, at night at unfamiliar airports in hilly terrain, is to insist on an IFR approach (assuming qualified), even in VFR .

I'm told this is stupid. I think I'll continue to decide for myself rather than hit something.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2870
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#32 Post by CpnCrunch » Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:34 pm

photofly wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:25 pm
I really don’t get what he’s trying to say. The AIM says
I think you've just made my point for me. 6 degrees isn't a lot, if the approach is offset and there are obstacles, and no instrument approach (presumably due to those reasons). I'm pretty sure you'll never get an instrument approach in cases like that, but feel free to prove me wrong.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6804
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#33 Post by photofly » Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:09 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:34 pm
photofly wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:25 pm
I really don’t get what he’s trying to say. The AIM says
I think you've just made my point for me. 6 degrees isn't a lot, if the approach is offset and there are obstacles, and no instrument approach (presumably due to those reasons). I'm pretty sure you'll never get an instrument approach in cases like that, but feel free to prove me wrong.
What do you mean by "if the approach is offset"? Why would there be a VASI or PAPI installed if only an offset approach is safe? Is the approach into Brampton offset for some reason while the VASI or PAPI isn't? Perhaps if there's a PAPI there it's simply a trick to lure unsuspecting pilots to fly into trees, when they should have been flying a special safer but secret and uncharted "offset" approach. Who can say.

It seems straightforward to me. If there's a VASI or a PAPI installed, it's safe to follow. It gives you visual guidance along a constant angle approach right down to the ground that ensures terrain clearance. If you want to ignore the visual aids and fly a steeper approach instead, you're welcome to. I really don't know why you want to make this so complicated.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#34 Post by Big Pistons Forever » Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:27 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:08 pm
What's really idiotic is how (I think) it's a good idea, at night at unfamiliar airports in hilly terrain, is to insist on an IFR approach (assuming qualified), even in VFR .

I'm told this is stupid. I think I'll continue to decide for myself rather than hit something.
Who is telling you this ?
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6804
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#35 Post by photofly » Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:34 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:34 pm
I think you've just made my point for me. 6 degrees isn't a lot,
6 degrees is more than double the full scale deflection on a typical ILS, for comparison. If you have trouble tracking a visual approach well within 6 degrees of the centreline, night or day, some practice might be in order, don't you think?
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

Boney
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2017 5:32 pm

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#36 Post by Boney » Sat Dec 30, 2017 6:13 pm

At night, fly an approach even if its VFR. It will at least give you obstacle clearances. Don't forget to temperature correct the crossing altitudes as you will be lower than indicated when its below 0 Degrees.

If you have lights below you, go to go. If not, better ensure you are at the right obstacle clearing altitudes.

Cheers.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1032
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#37 Post by rookiepilot » Sat Dec 30, 2017 7:59 pm

Big Pistons Forever wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:27 pm
rookiepilot wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:08 pm
What's really idiotic is how (I think) it's a good idea, at night at unfamiliar airports in hilly terrain, is to insist on an IFR approach (assuming qualified), even in VFR .

I'm told this is stupid. I think I'll continue to decide for myself rather than hit something.
Who is telling you this ?
Right here.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
dpm
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:08 pm

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#38 Post by dpm » Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:08 pm

Yes, I'm comfortable flying a 3° glide slope down an ILS or LPV, just like I'm capable of making my Cherokee cruise at 70 KIAS instead of 90–110 KIAS, but in both cases, I'm outside the optimal design envelope for my plane—in the first case, I'm running my engine at a non-trivial power setting to keep my plane on such a flat glide path. My point was just that the 3° glide path is optimised for bigger/faster planes, not for little single-engine/fixed-gear 160 HP planes like mine. We can fly them that way—and we do all the time on ILS approaches—but we're flying them well outside their ideal glide configuration, so why do it the times when we don't have to?

What I like about a 6° glide path, especially at night, is that I'm 2× as far above the landing zone elevation (and possibly relatively more than that above any obstacles) than I would be on a 3° glide path. That's a nice little insurance policy to carry down to the runway with me. More realistically, I don't usually fly a continuous descent, but level out a bit early at circuit altitude until I'm relatively close to the runway, then glide down from there. That lets me avoid the black hole effect when there is no PAPI/VASI, and to use the PAPI/VASI as redundant safety info (rather than the sole source of glide path info) when there is one. Win-win.
---------- ADS -----------
  
@CYRO

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6804
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#39 Post by photofly » Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:44 pm

dpm wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:08 pm
I’m running my engine at a non-trivial power setting to keep my plane on such a flat glide path.
Oh my gosh. A non-trivial power setting!? How truly awful. We should definitely strive to avoid “non-trivial power settings” to keep an airplane where we want it, shouldn’t we?

Why might we want to do that when we don’t absolutely have to? Because if we do, there’s a nice visual approach slope indicator that ensures terrain clearance and avoids many of the hazards associated with landing at an unfamiliar airport at night.

Which I think is where we came in.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2870
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#40 Post by CpnCrunch » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:13 pm

photofly wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:34 pm
6 degrees is more than double the full scale deflection on a typical ILS, for comparison. If you have trouble tracking a visual approach well within 6 degrees of the centreline, night or day, some practice might be in order, don't you think?
An ILS gives you an accurate horizontal indicator that you can follow. If you read my post, you'll see I was talking about an offset approach, e.g. at Nanaimo. If you approach on the VASI on runway centreline at a 3.5 degree glideslope, you'll get pretty close to hitting something there. If you're slightly left of centreline you'll definitely hit something. Hence the 10 degrees right offset, which you don't have any indication of (other than knowing the airport and looking for the obstacle lights).

Apart from that there's the problem of downdrafts...Three Hills and Duncan come to mind, they generally have downdrafts on short final if you're low, due to the terrain. If you come in at a shallow angle and there's a strong wind, you'll probably hit a downdraft. During the day it's not really a big deal, but I'm not sure you'd really want that at night.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2870
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#41 Post by CpnCrunch » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:28 pm

photofly wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:09 pm
Is the approach into Brampton offset for some reason while the VASI or PAPI isn't? Perhaps if there's a PAPI there it's simply a trick to lure unsuspecting pilots to fly into trees, when they should have been flying a special safer but secret and uncharted "offset" approach. Who can say.
Brampton doesn't have an offset approach...
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6804
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#42 Post by photofly » Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:12 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:13 pm
Apart from that there's the problem of downdrafts...
You’re starting to sound like pdw.

I don’t see there’s an issue with Nanaimo. The CFS tells you exactly what you need to know to follow the PAPI safely:
3.5º PAPI Rwy 34 offset 8º rgt & usable within 3NM
Just like the AIM promises. The fact that it’s a terrain obstructed approach means as a pilot unfamiliar with the area I’d be twice as likely to follow the visual guidance provided and much less likely to eyeball my own way in on a dark night. For whose benefit do you think the guidance was installed, if not for mine?
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2870
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#43 Post by CpnCrunch » Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:06 am

photofly wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:12 pm
CpnCrunch wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:13 pm
Apart from that there's the problem of downdrafts...
You’re starting to sound like pdw.

I don’t see there’s an issue with Nanaimo. The CFS tells you exactly what you need to know to follow the PAPI safely:
3.5º PAPI Rwy 34 offset 8º rgt & usable within 3NM
Just like the AIM promises. The fact that it’s a terrain obstructed approach means as a pilot unfamiliar with the area I’d be twice as likely to follow the visual guidance provided and much less likely to eyeball my own way in on a dark night. For whose benefit do you think the guidance was installed, if not for mine?
Have you ever actually flown at the airports I mentioned? Youll notice theres no rw 34 instrument approaches at Nanaimo. The cfs even mentions downdrafts at Duncan....if youd flown there youd know theyre not a figment of pdw's imagination in this case.

All Im saying is that there are valid reasons for a steeper approach at many airports.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6804
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#44 Post by photofly » Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:31 am

CpnCrunch wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:06 am

Have you ever actually flown at the airports I mentioned?
Oh my goodness. No, I haven’t, that’s the point. That’s exactly why at night I’d take care to use the solid visual guidance aids where provided. That’s what they’re for.

You’re welcome to freelance approaches as steep as you like, though.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2870
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#45 Post by CpnCrunch » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:00 am

photofly wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:31 am

Oh my goodness. No, I haven’t, that’s the point. That’s exactly why at night I’d take care to use the solid visual guidance aids where provided. That’s what they’re for.

You’re welcome to freelance approaches as steep as you like, though.
Sure, but my point is that eyeballing a 10 degree offset at night is nothing like following an ILS, and Nav Canada seems to think that it's too dangerous for an instrument approach.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Big Pistons Forever
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5003
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: West Coast

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#46 Post by Big Pistons Forever » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:10 am

My 02 cents

As a general comment I fly VFR 3 deg approaches in large/high performance aircraft and steeper approaches in light aircraft. My experience is that you need quite a bit of power to fly a 3 deg approach with landing flap while flying a steeper approach with just a trickle of power seems more natural.

With respect to night approaches I do not see any downside to a steeper than PAPI approach within reason.

The bottom line for safe VFR night approaches:

Do you homework, make sure you have a plan to get to final that will guarantee terrain clearance , don't descend until you have a safe flight path to the runway with solid visual references and pre brief the go-around.

Something to think about:

AOPA thinks that for a US non instrument rated pilot flying a single engine aircraft the risk of a fatal accident is up to 25 times higher for a night flight as compared to the same flight during the day....

Personally I no longer fly single engine aircraft at night outside the circuit. The risk reward equation just does not work for me.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6804
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#47 Post by photofly » Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:22 am

CpnCrunch wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:00 am
photofly wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 10:31 am

Oh my goodness. No, I haven’t, that’s the point. That’s exactly why at night I’d take care to use the solid visual guidance aids where provided. That’s what they’re for.

You’re welcome to freelance approaches as steep as you like, though.
Sure, but my point is that eyeballing a 10 degree offset at night is nothing like following an ILS, and Nav Canada seems to think that it's too dangerous for an instrument approach.
I don’t think NavCanada opines on or grades the relative dangers of an instrument approach; either an instrument approach within the relevant criteria of TP308 - or whatever it is - can be designed, or it can’t.

For sure there are airports where unfamiliar pilots probably shouldn’t approach to land at night. I don’t know if Nanaimo is such a place. Other than that, I’d still follow the visual guidance. A three degree slope is no trouble, and Nanaimo is steeper at 3.5 degrees.
---------- ADS -----------
  
“This isn’t flying, it’s falling. With style.”

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2870
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#48 Post by CpnCrunch » Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:05 pm

photofly wrote:
Sun Dec 31, 2017 11:22 am
I don’t think NavCanada opines on or grades the relative dangers of an instrument approach; either an instrument approach within the relevant criteria of TP308 - or whatever it is - can be designed, or it can’t.

For sure there are airports where unfamiliar pilots probably shouldn’t approach to land at night. I don’t know if Nanaimo is such a place. Other than that, I’d still follow the visual guidance. A three degree slope is no trouble, and Nanaimo is steeper at 3.5 degrees.
Im guessing it doesnt fulfill the requirements for an instrument approach but is allowed for vfr at night.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1469
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: A mile final 24 CYSN

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#49 Post by pdw » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:30 am

photofly wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:44 pm
dpm wrote:
Sat Dec 30, 2017 8:08 pm
I’m running my engine at a non-trivial power setting to keep my plane on such a flat glide path.
Oh my gosh. A non-trivial power setting!? How truly awful.
DPM's posts are representing the point very well there, actually. The "non-trivial" (a fair bit) is what might be getting a high-weight flat & "draggy" little lowpower-single into trouble in this type of METAR, shorter-rwy, night-fall with obstacle. Seems two similar attempts have failed to get to the threshold.

It's next to impossible to get caught "draggy" like that in this type of AC under its trivial power (idle or nearly) when that's a 6deg-plus descent angle at 20degflap. Hand-on-throttle then has ALL extra power available (even extra flap still avail in event-of unwarned requirement to shorten / steepen it some onto the shorter field if too high/fast short final) for emminent decay/sink or other underestimation of power/height which seems apparent here while " on such a flat glide path".
---------- ADS -----------
  

Cliff Jumper
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:22 am

Re: 4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

#50 Post by Cliff Jumper » Tue Jan 02, 2018 5:37 pm

pdw wrote:
Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:30 am
DPM's posts are representing the point very well there, actually. The "non-trivial" (a fair bit) is what might be getting a high-weight flat & "draggy" little lowpower-single into trouble in this type of METAR, shorter-rwy, night-fall with obstacle. Seems two similar attempts have failed to get to the threshold.

It's next to impossible to get caught "draggy" like that in this type of AC under its trivial power (idle or nearly) when that's a 6deg-plus descent angle at 20degflap. Hand-on-throttle then has ALL extra power available (even extra flap still avail in event-of unwarned requirement to shorten / steepen it some onto the shorter field if too high/fast short final) for emminent decay/sink or other underestimation of power/height which seems apparent here while " on such a flat glide path".
I finally get it.

I've never been happier.

It's like looking at one of those hidden image puzzle pictures for weeks and then finally seeing the sailboat!

What pdw is conveying across the (in and out) keyboard connected subtle output, is the clear effect of time periods when ALL sorts of effects have been transected until the quartering aft inverted push is INCREASING more than the limited time spent student pilot had formulated (too fast to outwards, then quickly retreating inwards) except not here, in this case where THE warnings were presented via the quickly decelerating/needle triggering the need for EXTRA push, or less negative-pull-if-the-swing was obtuse, which needs verification. The same variation has been seen during "similar declination" before (same lat/long tangent, adverse or otherwise) AND IF this has occurred it must be known to those viewing the bases from east-west positions from the steepening of the curve convex or not would be obvious, if not 'underestimated'.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”