Fort St John Accident topic #2

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:54 pm

the_professor wrote:A 40 degree 40kt crosswind on an ILS to minimums? Is anyone surprised when attempting an approach in those conditions occassionally ends up with someone in the snow? I'm not.

But the new approach ban should prevent mishaps like that right? Oh yeah, it's only for visibility. When's it gonna be wind and vis for a ban? When TC will impose some crap restriction to windy conditions to further restrict approaches? I hope we can look towards a day when TC gets its head out from whatever ass it's in and start looking at the real problems.

backcountry skier · Post by **backcountry skier** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:38 pm

JET A-1.

When you get your HAT and SPORTS COAT

, and shoot your first ILS approach to Minimums, you will realize that it was not just " [i]a routine gusty winter ILS to a slick surface[/i]". Get your Facts Straight. KBA did an approach just Minutes before and the PF(PILOT FLYING) for those of you rampies, had no contact at minimums and transfered control as the PNF(PILOT NOT FLYING) had visual and landed.

This IS out of the ordinary for weather and saying otherwise shows you have much to learn. We are all on the same team, so have a little respect for your teammates friend.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 3:43 pm

Thanks ei ei owe.

Regardless of what some of these new commers may have been brain washed into believing there are a lot of us here who have seen just about every conceivable fu.k up in aviation, in fact we learned from fuc.ing up.

My motivation is quite simple, I get real pissed off when people start making excuses for why any accident happens.

If in the final analysis there were circumstances beyond the control of a pilot or a crew that resulted in an accident that will or should come out in a complete examination of what led up to the accident.

Nothing makes me more disgusted than someone saying " Shit Happens ".

I am in the business of ensuring safety to as great a degree as is possible through training and motivating people to think things through and always try and be far ahead of what is going on at the moment and always try and have plan two ready and use it.

For the past few years part of my job was being involved in the PDM courses given to airline pilots in Europe....never did I hear the excuse " shit happens " to describe a drift from being in control to being out of control, either physically or mentally.

Anyhow thanks for the back up.

.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:07 pm

Well Gearcleaner, that had to be the most incoherent rant I've ever read, even considering the low standards of this site.

Skier, if this is true, ("...Get your Facts Straight. KBA did an approach just Minutes before and the PF(PILOT FLYING) for those of you rampies, had no contact at minimums and transfered control as the PNF(PILOT NOT FLYING) had visual and landed...") obviously the weather was worse than forecast, the KBA guy needs recurrent training and the concept of an ILS approach is widely misunderstood. Did the KBA guy transmit a PIREP?

I'd be very interested to know, if there was windshear, if the pilots of the Dart made any attempt to recover from it. I'd also love to know what kind of approach briefing they did.

Does anybody here ever consider their actions in the event of a windshear? ("...Given the poor visibility and the wind shear at the same time caused the aircraft to touchdown prior to the runway...") Does the presence of windshear automatically assume a crash? Are we mere victims any time there is windshear? Isn't windshear recovery part of every turbine twin training regime? If not, why not? Don't you agree that the training was grossly inadequate if it did not include windshear training?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:15 pm

" PF(PILOT FLYING) for those of you rampies, had no contact at minimums and transfered control as the PNF(PILOT NOT FLYING) had visual and landed...")

WTF.....

Kind of CRM is that?

The pilot flying had no contact at minimums.....??? I thought the pilot flying would flying the airplane on the instruments and the PNF would be looking outside???

Weird..

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:29 pm

Let's see, 40kt wind, icy runway, 1/4 mile vis? Um, er, ah, I'm already headed for my alternate. This is not rocket science. Eventually, this is a recipe for bent metal. You could probably get away with it most of the time. But why would you?
My gear is dirty. Anyone know a good gearcleaner?

Ray-Ban · Post by **Ray-Ban** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:31 pm

SKYTRAILS wrote: January 9 Incident

Dear Customers:

The weather forecast for January 9th, 2007 was poor. Our Captain on the flight inspected the weather before departing Grande Prairie on a scheduled flight to Fort St John. At the time the weather did not indicate any changes from his first briefing. However, on approach into Fort St. John the weather had significantly changed since his departure. The visibility had deteriorated to ¼ mile and the winds were gusty. Having the legal weather criteria for an approach and having experienced this type of weather before the crew elected to continue the approach.

Correct me if I am wrong, but with the new approach ban with 1/2 mile vis in the CAP for an ILS, don't you need at least 75% of 1/2 mile.

My calculations give me 3/8 miles to continue past the FAF.

Is that legal weather criteria for an approach?

Ralliart · Post by **Ralliart** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:31 pm

Quote:
" PF(PILOT FLYING) for those of you rampies, had no contact at minimums and transfered control as the PNF(PILOT NOT FLYING) had visual and landed...")

WTF.....

Kind of CRM is that?

The pilot flying had no contact at minimums.....??? I thought the pilot flying would flying the airplane on the instruments and the PNF would be looking outside???

Pilot Monitored Approach?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:34 pm

Yeh, WTF are they teaching these guys today.

Jeeses H. kreist we learned the PMA approach forty years ago from the best trained guys in aviation..the military.

A PMA is about as safe and clinical approach that a pilot can fly outside of autoland.

Properly briefed and flown the PMA is bullet proof.

But it has to be done correct.

Especially the missed portion.

Pugster · Post by **Pugster** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:40 pm

Ralliart wrote: Pilot Monitored Approach?

Exactly what I was thinking. There's a reason that CAT II approaches are flown as PMAs...they work, and damn well.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:42 pm

It's also kind of important, that when the PNF takes control and lands, it should really be within his capabilities to actually make a landing within the confines of a runway with existing conditions.....I guess this little detail was overlooked?

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:46 pm

Who was PF and PNF? Capt or FO? A chimp can fly an ILS but the real skill comes through when the switch is made and landing carried out.

I'd even bet gearcleaner could fly an ILS...... then again, maybe not.

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:38 pm

SKYTRAILS wrote:The weather forecast for January 9th, 2007 was poor. Our Captain on the flight inspected the weather before departing Grande Prairie on a scheduled flight to Fort St John. At the time the weather did not indicate any changes from his first briefing. However, on approach into Fort St. John the weather had significantly changed since his departure. The visibility had deteriorated to ¼ mile and the winds were gusty. Having the legal weather criteria for an approach and having experienced this type of weather before the crew elected to continue the approach.

The preliminary report indicates that the gusty conditions likely created a low level wind shear. Wind shear occurs where there is a rapid change in wind direction and/or speed. This will cause the aircraft to descend very quickly with no prior warning to the crew. Given the poor visibility and the wind shear at the same time caused the aircraft to touchdown prior to the runway.

Actually, there was a sigmet for that area that day. The GFA was calling for LLWS, for Severe Mechanical from SFC to 3G. There were a handfull of pireps that said that they had experienced severe turbulance, all over that area even down to yyc.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:50 pm

" Who was PF and PNF? Capt or FO? A chimp can fly an ILS but the real skill comes through when the switch is made and landing carried out. "

Exactly.

Why don't you phone the ops manager, he offered to explain it all.

tincanflyer · Post by **tincanflyer** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:00 pm

JET A-1 wrote:All CMA/NCA flights to YXJ made it in no prob right before Peace Air's mishap! Just a routine gusty winter ILS to a slick surface. Wasn't like this weather was WAY out of the ordinary for YXJ. Sure it was snowing a little bit more then usual but that is where the PDM comes into play! Or lack of...... Hopefully some of those Mr. Ego King Sh!t pilots at Peace got a reality check!

CMA/NCA has higher training standards and more experienced to[=notch pilots compared to Peace Air

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:23 pm

The way I understand a pilot-monitored approach, the PNF looks out, at minimums says "I have control, landing" or "I have control, go around." The pilot flying would/should never be looking out, no?

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:48 pm

The pilot flying stays on the instruments and flys the approach as accurately as possible.

At the briefed missed point the pilot not flying verbally says missed approach and taps the pilot flying on the hand which is on the power levers, the pilot flying initiates the miss and the PNF moniters and sets power as required.

If the PNF sees the runway enviorement and the landing can be assured he taps the PF on the hand and states " I have the runway, landing is assured " takes control of the airplane and lands it.

The PNF has a seamless visual picture of transition from IMC to visual of the landing area and does not have to transition from instruments to the outside picture.

The PF does not suffer from runway anticipation as he/she is only concerned with accurately flying the approach and missed approach, which is also seamless as the PF is programmed to do this unless control is taken over by the PNF for the landing.

It is a very smooth easy and safe way to fly an airplane.

I've done several million of them, usually letting the FO be PNF because they like to land things.

Cat

moe's friend · Post by **moe's friend** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:15 pm

We got in doing a PMA approach it was 300ft 3/4 of a mile when we got in. Bye the time we were taxing off 29 it was 1\4 mile on the ground. One more a\c got in and then peace had the incident After we got fuel we called to check what the vis was and for our clearence. At that time we were informed that peace had crashed. Unfortunate that Peace crashed glad everyone was ok. I could believe it was wind shear that may have contributed to their incident. Those sorts of conditions are rare for down south I have seen it like that only in the Arctic. It was a challenging day and I would not be to quick to judge. There are lots of people with lots of opinions on this thread some good some bad the only two who know what really happened were the two pilots siting in the front of that Jetstream 31.

keep your sticks on the ice.

wanpaku · Post by **wanpaku** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 9:45 pm

Good post Moe's friend

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:14 pm

When the professional pilot stops asking questions, he ceases to be a professional.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:05 pm

"Actually, there was a sigmet for that area that day. The GFA was calling for LLWS, for Severe Mechanical from SFC to 3G."

If this is true, why was the approach even contemplated, yet alone flown, with this being common knowledge? Is this acceptable?

When the decision to fly the approach was made, did anyone talk about what they would do if windshear was encountered?

So how bad does it have to be before you call it a day? Why would you willingly take a load of passengers into "severe" turbulence and scare the crap out of them?

Why bother having sigmets and metars and notams and all that other stuff if nobody takes the slightest notice of them? "Let's go and have a look."

Going to love to see the report on this one when it comes out.

bob sacamano · Post by **bob sacamano** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:09 pm

xsbank wrote:"Actually, there was a sigmet for that area that day. The GFA was calling for LLWS, for Severe Mechanical from SFC to 3G."

If this is true, why was the approach even contemplated, yet alone flown, with this being common knowledge?

So how bad does it have to be before you call it a day?

That's what I saw on the GFA's while briefing for my flight (run around both provinces, BC & AB).

I stayed home and called it a day, even though my phone kept on ringing trying to get me to go.

A cl601's pirep comes to mind, saying from 150 down they were getting severe turbulance. It wasn't landing at yxj, but that whole system was producing a bumpy ride to say the least.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:16 pm

Severe turbulence - large, abrupt changes in altitude/attitude. Large variation in indicated airspeed. Aircraft may be temporarily out of control.

handyandy · Post by **handyandy** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:02 pm

I'm embarrassed for you guys on this site. After reading the poosts on this subject......show a little class, and respect for the people involved.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sat Jan 13, 2007 1:34 pm

Sorry to embarrass you there handyandy, but when the metal gets bent, a bad decision was made somewhere along the line. Where? That's what everybody is trying to figure out. Why? So some can learn from it. There were some pretty strong indications that perhaps the approach was not in the best interest of all involved? The proof seems to be somewhere just outside the confines of the runway? That's not showing lack of respect...who died?