AC Incident Nashville

[pelmet]

Found this on Facebook....

An Air Canada Rouge Airbus A319-100, registration C-GSJB, was performing flight AC-1717 from Toronto, Canada to Nashville, Tennessee, when it landed short of Runway 20L on August 14, 2025.
Here's what happened :
• The Incident: The crew, consisting of a line indoctrination training captain and a captain candidate, encountered heavy rain around 200 feet above ground level. The candidate captain, who was flying manually, stated he "lost the runway" and asked if a go-around should be initiated. However, the line-training captain believed the aircraft was on the glide path and advised continuing the approach.
• Short Landing: The aircraft touched down about 420-430 feet before the runway threshold, with the right main landing gear landing on the paved surface preceding the runway and the left main landing gear contacting an airport service road. The aircraft struck a threshold light and suffered minor damage to a tire and had mud on the empennage.
• Aftermath: Despite the incident, the aircraft rolled out without further incident and taxied to the apron. No passengers or crew were injured, but the return flight was canceled, and the aircraft remained grounded in Nashville for over 41 hours.
• Investigation: The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has launched an investigation into the incident to determine the cause and identify potential safety concerns.
The incident highlights the importance of crew resource management and decision-making during challenging weather conditions. The investigation will likely examine factors such as crew training, aircraft performance, and airport procedures

[StrayPilot]

https://youtu.be/lr5d3sGxSXQ

[Sailtime]

Great video! And quite appropriate.

[‘Bob’]

This is why PIC is king.

Lost ground contact 200 feet above the ground? Was this a CAT II or CAT III approach? If not.. you are continuing below minimums without the required visual reference.

You don’t ask questions. You be assertive and place safety over efficiency. Go around!

Too many pilots without enough time in the seat still asking “dad” if it’s ok.

[Inverted2]

What kind of captain upgrade candidate would ask the pilot monitoring if he should continue after losing visual reference?

If they tried that was in LGA or some other place there would be over 100 dead people.

[digits_]

What kind of captain upgrade candidate would ask the pilot monitoring if he should continue after losing visual reference?

If they tried that was in LGA or some other place there would be over 100 dead people.

And what kind of training captain would answer 'yes'?

There must be more to this story. This doesn't add up.

[rudder]

https://avherald.com/h?article=52bbfa30



On Sep 10th 2025 the NTSB published their preliminary report summarizing the sequence of events:

The flight crew consisted of a Line Indoctrination Training Captain, seated in the right seat, and serving as the pilot monitoring (PM), and a captain candidate, seated in the left seat, serving as the pilot flying (PF).

The crew reported that ATC initially instructed them to expect a visual approach to runway 20L. However, due to rain over the airport, ATC later amended the clearance to the RNAV (GPS) Y 20L approach. The flight was cleared to the initial approach fix (IAF) WAYLN, then given radar vectors and subsequently cleared for the approach.

The airplane was configured for landing at approximately 1,100 feet and met the operator’s stabilized approach criteria at both 1,000 and 500 feet; however, the stable call at 500 feet was missed by the PM. At the decision altitude (DA), the autopilot was disconnected. Around 200 feet above ground level (AGL), the crew encountered heavy rain, and the PF requested activation of the windshield wipers.

Shortly after, the PF stated he had “lost the runway” but still believed the runway environment was visible. He asked whether a go-around should be initiated. The PM, who could see the runway environment—albeit distorted by rain—and believed the aircraft was on the glide path, responded that they were good to continue.

At 20 to 30 feet radio altitude, the crew retarded the thrust levers to idle. About the same time, the PF was startled to see the runway threshold lights directly ahead of the aircraft’s nose. The crew perceived that the airplane touched down on the blast pad, a paved surface preceding the runway threshold. The remainder of the landing rollout and taxi were uneventful.

Airport video surveillance captured the incident sequence and showed the airplane as it touched down short of the runway. Following the initial touchdown, the airplane rolled onto the pavement and impacted a runway threshold light.

A post-incident inspection by airport personnel revealed that the left main landing gear contacted an airport service road approximately 420 feet short of the runway threshold.

The right main landing gear touched down approximately 52 feet short of the paved surface, which was about 430 feet short of the runway threshold.

A post flight inspection by maintenance personnel revealed mud on the airplane’s empennage and minor damage to one of the airplane’s tires.


The aircraft touched down 1420’ prior to the touchdown zone. That is nearly 5 football fields.

After being stable at 500’ AGL and stable at minimums (?) I wonder what actual flight path angle would have resulted in such a large deviation from the vertical profile?

RNAV (GPS) Y 20L minimums are 400’ AGL for LNAV and 500’ AGL for LNAV/VNAV. AP disconnected at DA. Is the FD cleared as well on an LNAV approach?

Eerily similar to YHZ. No TDZ/CL lighting. MALSR lighting.

[PostmasterGeneral]

Well, that guy won't be doing line indoc anymore.

[Blueontop]

Well, that guy won't be doing line indoc anymore.

Rumour mill saying he’s been shown the door.

[digits_]

Well, that guy won't be doing line indoc anymore.

Rumour mill saying he’s been shown the door.

Did he see it?

[Inverted2]

I’ve seen hundreds of pilots from Jazz go to AC with the bare minimum 2000 hour requirement and zero PIC experience other than what they got during flight training or renting a Cessna 150 to get their ATPL PIC hours. Not sure if this is the case here but that’s the new normal I suppose.

[‘Bob’]

https://avherald.com/h?article=52bbfa30



On Sep 10th 2025 the NTSB published their preliminary report summarizing the sequence of events:

The flight crew consisted of a Line Indoctrination Training Captain, seated in the right seat, and serving as the pilot monitoring (PM), and a captain candidate, seated in the left seat, serving as the pilot flying (PF).

The crew reported that ATC initially instructed them to expect a visual approach to runway 20L. However, due to rain over the airport, ATC later amended the clearance to the RNAV (GPS) Y 20L approach. The flight was cleared to the initial approach fix (IAF) WAYLN, then given radar vectors and subsequently cleared for the approach.

The airplane was configured for landing at approximately 1,100 feet and met the operator’s stabilized approach criteria at both 1,000 and 500 feet; however, the stable call at 500 feet was missed by the PM. At the decision altitude (DA), the autopilot was disconnected. Around 200 feet above ground level (AGL), the crew encountered heavy rain, and the PF requested activation of the windshield wipers.

Shortly after, the PF stated he had “lost the runway” but still believed the runway environment was visible. He asked whether a go-around should be initiated. The PM, who could see the runway environment—albeit distorted by rain—and believed the aircraft was on the glide path, responded that they were good to continue.

At 20 to 30 feet radio altitude, the crew retarded the thrust levers to idle. About the same time, the PF was startled to see the runway threshold lights directly ahead of the aircraft’s nose. The crew perceived that the airplane touched down on the blast pad, a paved surface preceding the runway threshold. The remainder of the landing rollout and taxi were uneventful.

Airport video surveillance captured the incident sequence and showed the airplane as it touched down short of the runway. Following the initial touchdown, the airplane rolled onto the pavement and impacted a runway threshold light.

A post-incident inspection by airport personnel revealed that the left main landing gear contacted an airport service road approximately 420 feet short of the runway threshold.

The right main landing gear touched down approximately 52 feet short of the paved surface, which was about 430 feet short of the runway threshold.

A post flight inspection by maintenance personnel revealed mud on the airplane’s empennage and minor damage to one of the airplane’s tires.


The aircraft touched down 1420’ prior to the touchdown zone. That is nearly 5 football fields.

After being stable at 500’ AGL and stable at minimums (?) I wonder what actual flight path angle would have resulted in such a large deviation from the vertical profile?

RNAV (GPS) Y 20L minimums are 400’ AGL for LNAV and 500’ AGL for LNAV/VNAV. AP disconnected at DA. Is the FD cleared as well on an LNAV approach?

Eerily similar to YHZ. No TDZ/CL lighting. MALSR lighting.

The giant difference being that the RNAV (GPS) Y 20L has a WAAS LPV glide path. If I recall correctly YHZ was done on a LOC using vertical speed to create a pseudo glide path (not even Baro VNAV).

[BTD]

YHZ used FPA, but close enough.

[rudder]

The giant difference being that the RNAV (GPS) Y 20L has a WAAS LPV glide path. If I recall correctly YHZ was done on a LOC using vertical speed to create a pseudo glide path (not even Baro VNAV).

Are the older 319 FMS capable of LPV approach?

Report makes it seem that DA was above 200’ AGL which implies they were flying to a DA not associated with LPV.

[Eric Janson]

Shortly after, the PF stated he had “lost the runway” but still believed the runway environment was visible. He asked whether a go-around should be initiated. The PM, who could see the runway environment—albeit distorted by rain—and believed the aircraft was on the glide path, responded that they were good to continue.

At 20 to 30 feet radio altitude, the crew retarded the thrust levers to idle. About the same time, the PF was startled to see the runway threshold lights directly ahead of the aircraft’s nose.

WTF? Is this really the standard at Air Canada?

Time to hire some experienced DEC! JMHO.

[bobcaygeon]

The giant difference being that the RNAV (GPS) Y 20L has a WAAS LPV glide path. If I recall correctly YHZ was done on a LOC using vertical speed to create a pseudo glide path (not even Baro VNAV).

Are the older 319 FMS capable of LPV approach?

Report makes it seem that DA was above 200’ AGL which implies they were flying to a DA not associated with LPV.

Is AC even GPS approach qualified on the 320 series yet? Are the crews qualified or do they need to go thru the 18 month AQP process for everyone to qualified?

[pelmet]

It would be nice if the TSB took over this investigation for a more detailed report. There are so many incidents in the US that really end up as just more of a brief than anything else. Just finished a Falcon 50 fatal accident report and it was not overly detailed(except we got the CVR).

[goldeneagle]

The aircraft touched down 1420’ prior to the touchdown zone. That is nearly 5 football fields.

The article says 420, not 1420. That a few less 'football fields' for those that cant figure out how far a thousand feet is.

[rudder]

The aircraft touched down 1420’ prior to the touchdown zone. That is nearly 5 football fields.

The article says 420, not 1420. That a few less 'football fields' for those that cant figure out how far a thousand feet is.

Article says 420-430’ prior to the threshold. TDZ is normally 1000’ beyond the threshold. Hence 1420’.

[55+]

The aircraft touched down 1420’ prior to the touchdown zone. That is nearly 5 football fields.

The article says 420, not 1420. That a few less 'football fields' for those that cant figure out how far a thousand feet is.

Article says 420-430’ prior to the threshold. TDZ is normally 1000’ beyond the threshold. Hence 1420’.

Actually the GPI(ground point of interception) is 954.19 ft based on 3.0deg VPA and 50 ft TCH(50/Tan 3.0), but I understand your point

[Tolippilot]

Aircanada captains and indoc captains don't know basic IFR rules? This incident reeks of nothing short of total incompetence. At the DA insufficient visual reference, go around, there is no maybe or I feel like I maybe might possibly see it. You see the required items, or you don't see it. And the fact that the PM said they could see it, but then proceeded 1400 ft short of the touch down means that they never saw the actual runway at all.

Another crazy part of this as well is the vertical flight profile. If your touching down 1400 ft short of the TZ, then that would equate to a full scale deflection from the vertical path. Which neither pilot noticed..

So here we have two "experienced" pilots, below the DA without visual reference, neither looking at their flignt instruments, and both seemingly unwilling to perform a simple go around.

Incompetence of this level could have EASILY lead to the lose of life of everone onboard that aircraft. With no visual reference and No one monitoring the Instruments, its honesty sheer luck they didn't have a full on CFIT disaster. Time for tc to warm up their paper shredder for these twos licenses I'd say.

[shabadoo]

This “Captain” candidate should never have been in the left seat with his non-existent decision making skills. No surprise though, as he also decided it was a good idea to upgrade. He very clearly had no concept of his own limitations and this crap should have been caught ages ago. I’m almost certain there were red flags along the way and would be curious to see his training record. Just because being a pilot may seem like a good idea doesn’t mean you should be one.

And the trainer? I think his journey ends here as well.

[citabriaguy]

This “Captain” candidate should never have been in the left seat with his non-existent decision making skills. No surprise though, as he also decided it was a good idea to upgrade. He very clearly had no concept of his own limitations and this crap should have been caught ages ago. I’m almost certain there were red flags along the way and would be curious to see his training record. Just because being a pilot may seem like a good idea doesn’t mean you should be one.

And the trainer? I think his journey ends here as well.

Pretty eye baffling how far a couple guys can get today without having any regard for SOPs and some basic IFR regs.

[Eric Janson]

Are the older 319 FMS capable of LPV approach?

Report makes it seem that DA was above 200’ AGL which implies they were flying to a DA not associated with LPV.

Disclaimer:- I don't fly for Air Canada

I fly an older airbus - we don't have WAAS/LPV/Baro VNAV capability.

We are limited to LNAV/VNAV minimums.

From minimums it's a visual segment - we turn off both FDs and set runway track. Aircraft is in TRACK/FPA mode.

Losing visual contact with the runway after passing minimums is an immediate go-around in my book.

We have the 'Pop Up' FD mode when a go-around is initiated - not all the older airbus have this.

[co-joe]

Well, that guy won't be doing line indoc anymore.

Rumour mill saying he’s been shown the door.

Did he see it?

And if he lost sight of the door, would he just keep walking towards it and hope it opens on its own?