Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

Post Reply
linecrew
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:53 am
Location: On final so get off the damn runway!

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by linecrew »

privateer wrote:another_try wrote:
Has anyone noticed that there is no missed approach point for the LOC/DME approach on the ILS/DME 35T plate? Not on the DND copies anyway. Take a look. Page 325 in the previous set of pubs that expired yesterday.

Were they intending to fly the LOC approach, dialed in & tracked the VOR by accident, and were then fudging the MA point, since one wasn't published for the approach?
Buddy has a point.

I don't really know a lot about IFR flying but looking at the CAP plate even though there is no published MAP for the localizer approach I have a question. Wouldn't a pilot know given that the final approach fix POKAN is published as 4.0 miles from the threshold if they didn't see the runway after flying that 4 miles at minimums would they not just commence the missed? I mean if you know that you're overtop of the runway do you really need to be told to overshoot in the approach plate?

As an aside, it seems that the Jeppesen folks added the missed approach point on their plates right at the threshold perhaps based on this rationale?
---------- ADS -----------
 
linecrew
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1775
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:53 am
Location: On final so get off the damn runway!

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by linecrew »

SheriffPatGarrett wrote: http://www.ruudleeuw.com/search116.htm
This is supposed to be CF-GND, supposedly done in in Resolute, but it's certainly not that
flat up that hill, must be the other side of the island.
Over all these years, F-27 where ubiquitous and I distinctly remember reading all the
details of a major disaster exactly at the same location, on top of that 500 ft or so hill...could be not a F-27, it is so long ago,
but it was NOT a B-737...lots of horrible accidents up there...it is a loooong flight and you need all your attention,
and since crews often have little fuel, little options and can panic...
Copy and paste these coords into Google Earth and you'll find the F-27 slightly East of Resolute: 74°40'20.85"N 94°35'17.10"W
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
raven54
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:14 am
Location: a dumpster

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by raven54 »

The MAP for the LOC only is shown on the plate, D0.2.
---------- 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 »

raven54 wrote:The MAP for the LOC only is shown on the plate, D0.2.

No, it is not.
---------- 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 »

linecrew wrote:
I don't really know a lot about IFR flying but looking at the CAP plate even though there is no published MAP for the localizer approach I have a question. Wouldn't a pilot know given that the final approach fix POKAN is published as 4.0 miles from the threshold if they didn't see the runway after flying that 4 miles at minimums would they not just commence the missed? I mean if you know that you're overtop of the runway do you really need to be told to overshoot in the approach plate?

As an aside, it seems that the Jeppesen folks added the missed approach point on their plates right at the threshold perhaps based on this rationale?

Approaches do not work that way -- you do not infer things like MAPs based on other data on the charts.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
raven54
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 548
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:14 am
Location: a dumpster

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by raven54 »

another_try wrote:
raven54 wrote:The MAP for the LOC only is shown on the plate, D0.2.

No, it is not.
If we are talking JEP11-1 for YRB with the G/S out, where the timing/groundspeed reference is printed...it clearly states MAP at D0.2 IRB, as well as on the Vertical depiction.

Whoops! I see you guys are referencing the CAP's!
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1435
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by cncpc »

As a practical matter, this accident may be related to not being on the localizer. The aircraft was at or very close to the Localizer MDA when it impacted terrain.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
BEFAN5
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:18 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by BEFAN5 »

ILS NOTAM has been removed. Guess it tested A-ok.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Gino Under
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 750
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 12:06 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by Gino Under »

cncpc

I tend to agree with you. It looks like it may have been a LOC approach flown to minima with the VOR frequency tuned.
Hufac at play here along with TEM.

We'll see.
It's still early days.

Gino Under :(
---------- ADS -----------
 
URC
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:56 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by URC »

Hufac ? TEM ?

How does a non-radar (temporary Military) Tower identify aircaft position and provide separation in IMC ? DME and radial reports off the VOR perhaps ?
---------- 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 »

There was no "Temporary Tower" being used to control aircraft on the day of the accident. I believe they must have been setting up and only transmitted because of the accident.

There are TWO NOTAMS regarding Class D airspace at CYRB. The first one only established a Control Zone. The second NOTAM established a Military Terminal Control Area with Tower, Ground, Terminal Control, etc.

You can have a Class D Control Zone without a tower. I believe the Temporary Tower only became fully operational during the period of the second NOTAM which began Aug 22.

While the Temporary Tower Facilities may have been in place at the time of the accident, I bet they were only giving advisories. This would possibly explain how the Borek flight was able to do an approach while First Air was still un-accounted for.

Resolute Bay is in Northern Domestic Airspace and the closest controlled airspace is normally overhead at FL270. The first NOTAM created a Class D Control Zone but since there isn't an operating control tower, it automatically reverts to Class E airspace. The only operational impact this has is to increase the VFR Weather Minima within the zone. The MTCA, control tower and radar were not due to be operational until 3 days after this accident occurred. So on that day, the flight would have been cleared out of controlled airspace as it descended below FL270 and would have just needed to report intentions and postion as required for operating in the Mandatory Frequency (MF) area. No positive or radar control would have been available on the approach.


Canadian AIM - Airspace

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/p ... 0-2599.htm
110102 CYRB RESULUTE 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 -----------
 
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 »

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.?
---------- ADS -----------
 
fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1810
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by fish4life »

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.
---------- 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 »

fish4life wrote: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.
It sounds like the crew tried to do a missed approach just prior to imact.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... track.html
Canadian forces had been in the immediate vicinity as part of the Operation Nanook 11 arctic capability exercise, which this year, ironically, was to test response to a major air disaster. A source supporting the exercise told Flight International he had been looking east from the airport apron as flight 6560 was due to arrive.

"I could not see the base of the hill opposite because the fog was too low," he said. The 737 had said it was on final instrument landing system approach to 35T, 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. "I saw First Air ground crew waiting for the aircraft and wondering where it was," said the source, who added that an engineer thought he heard a spooling of jet engines, then a thump. No communication was heard during a check on the VHF distress frequency 121.5MHz.
---------- 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 »

The Military was operating in the tower at the time of the accident, they had been asking crews for their radial and distances off the VOR
---------- 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 »

onspeed wrote:The Military was operating in the tower at the time of the accident, they had been asking crews for their radial and distances off the VOR
They may have been "manning" their "temporary tower", but the applicable NOTAM did not start until Aug 22 so there is NO WAY they were controlling any aircraft. The very fact that another aircraft did an approach while First Air was un-accounted for CONFIRMS this.


If the military were making unauthorized transmissions on the Mandatory Frequency, I hope to hell they did not actually contribute in some way to this accident. Accidents are always a combination of factors. Something as simple as a minor distraction can start a chain of events that can end in disaster.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Lost in Saigon on Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
aurora
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:54 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by aurora »

There is no DME arc, it's a full procedure ILS.
I know what I would have done coming in from the South in the flight levels at an uncontrolled airport. I would descend to my 100/25 safe, self vector onto the ILS by OBS'ing the runway with my RNAV and intercepting the inbound track, and complete a straight in ILS. It would have saved about ten minutes, rather than completing the LOC BC as number 2 behind Borek. I probably wouldn't circle at the bottom for 17 though. At no point in that procedure is it easy to mistake the VOR for the ILS, you would notice instantly from the lack of G/S and b/c the VOR would be off runway centerline. Same procedure only with vectors if it's at an airport with an operational tower.
I can't see anyone flying all the way to the airport center, and completing a full procedure ILS when at that point u can just as easily take the LOC BC full procedure with a headwind instead.
Argue that the weather was too poor for the LOC BC, but why was Borek flying that approach then?
---------- ADS -----------
 
BEFAN5
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:18 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by BEFAN5 »

Maybe deviating from LAW is a contributing factor? I don't see no IAF on that plate.
---------- ADS -----------
 
URC
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 211
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:56 pm

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by URC »

If the military were making unauthorized transmissions on the Mandatory Frequency, I hope to hell they did not actually contribute in some way to this accident.
Unauthorized ? Can a verbal transmission/confirmation from the controller on frequency override any NOTAMS ? This happens all the time, eg: "runway is now open NOTAM is cancelled". At what point during the approach did the controller initiate communications with the flight ? Being a new/temporary Tower setup, were there any issues with the quality of the transmissions, coming through unreadable and garbled to the flight crew ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
gwengler
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 6:58 am

Re: Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

Post by gwengler »

aurora wrote:I know what I would have done coming in from the South in the flight levels at an uncontrolled airport. I would descend to my 100/25 safe, self vector onto the ILS by OBS'ing the runway with my RNAV and intercepting the inbound track, and complete a straight in ILS.
Fair enough, but that's not legal. Because no part of the approach has "NoPT" written on it you MUST fly the full procedure which in this case coming from the south would have been a racetrack to the right/east.
aurora wrote:At no point in that procedure is it easy to mistake the VOR for the ILS, you would notice instantly from the lack of G/S and b/c the VOR would be off runway centerline.
Well, no, it’s not easy but the whole point of the VOR speculation/scenario is that they were UNAWARE that they had the VOR frequency dialled in instead of the ILF frequency. And they would have thought the G/S is unserviceable. The only way to really know you have the correct frequency is to ident it.

Gerd
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”