With all due respect Sidebar, how do you reach that absolute conclusion from that report? I just read it, and all I could find in regards to this was that they were shooting an ILS to 35T, but does not in any way eliminate the possibility that they decided at some point to abandon the ILS and were cooperating with the Military by doing an impromptu PARs approach? I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that when First Air made initial contact with the MF that maybe the military asked if they wanted to try a PARs approach as part of an exercise...and to train their people on an actual PARs?
Im not saying this is what happened in any way. I am suggesting it is a possibility that somehow they ended up on a PARs and abandoned the ILS. From what we know, everything else was normal other than they were quite off the ILS glideslope for 35T. Why?
Here is an excerpt from the report you linked to...and it seems to read to me that they (TSB) are continuing to examine the military data?
A temporary military control zone had been established to accommodate the increase in air traffic resulting from Operation Nanook, a military exercise taking place at the time. Information from the military radars that had been installed for the exercise was retrieved for TSB analysis.
flyinthebug wrote:With all due respect Sidebar, how do you reach that absolute conclusion from that report? I just read it, and all I could find in regards to this was that they were shooting an ILS to 35T...
You read the report and you say "they were shooting an ILS to 35T." Is that a conclusion or a fact?
flyinthebug wrote:... does not in any way eliminate the possibility that they decided at some point to abandon the ILS and were cooperating with the Military by doing an impromptu PARs approach?
Possible, but very unlikely. I flew hundreds of PAR approaches in the Canadian Forces and none of them were impromptu. Similarly, none of them switched from ILS to PAR. They started and ended as PAR.
I've flown one and only one PAR approach into YOD and it was VFR, but they offered them to us all the time more for the fun of it than anything. I'm pretty sure that no airline in Canada has PAR approach SOP's, nor do they have training in them. I also don't remember the CARs saying that any specific training is required. Not to say they're difficult but they are different.
But let's say for argument's sake they were conducting one at the time of the accident. Wouldn't that change the entire liability structure of the event? My understanding is that the PAR is the one time "ATC" is responsible for vertical and horizantal guidance of an aircraft.
co-joe wrote:I've flown one and only one PAR approach into YOD and it was VFR, but they offered them to us all the time more for the fun of it than anything.
This is precisely what I was suggesting as a possibility...just couldn't find the proper words. Thank you co-joe. I have heard of them being offered on occasion in CYQQ to civilian aircraft, as an means of training for them and the experience of it for the aircraft crew.
co-joe wrote:But let's say for argument's sake they were conducting one at the time of the accident. Wouldn't that change the entire liability structure of the event? My understanding is that the PAR is the one time "ATC" is responsible for vertical and horizantal guidance of an aircraft.
FICU wrote:If they had no training or previous experience then why would they be doing a PAR in poor wx? Would you do your first PAR if wx was at minimums?
No of course not, but are we sure this would have been the Captain`s first PAR`s approach?... or the First Officers for that matter? Maybe one or both had previous experience shooting a PARs approach?
One thing I recall from flying on the coast, was we all knew that Comox was there if things went really south. If there were no other options, we knew YQQ could help us down.
I`m not trying to be inflammatory here, so I wont be commenting any further. I just know a 737 with a very experienced crew crashed, and was not on the G/S they should have been on with everything else normal. I am only offering possible (speculative) alternatives. I apologize if my speculation is offensive to anyone...that is not my intention. Like everyone else, I want some answers that's all.
The crash had something to do with a switch within the navigation setup on board the aircraft. I think that scenario has been well canvassed on here, but it is obviously only part of the investigation, otherwise we would have had the report long ago. There will be systemic causes for this accident, and it will be linked to some change in the normal environment, and that is likely where the military come in.
I've done PARs into Comox and other places, Greenwood, I think. I seem to remember them being on primary radar only.
Somewhere way way back in all this is a report that appeared to be from someone right there to the effect the military were asking pilots for bearing and distance from the Resolute VOR. That sounds like either procedural IFR or calibrating a new radar setup.
The crash had something to do with a switch within the navigation setup on board the aircraft.
-- speculation turns in fact yet again -- the entire report will be here soon enough and it will be what it is, nothing more, nothing less -- as a group we always seem to try and out think ourselves --
I feel sure that the cause of this accident has been known for a long time, after all the investigators must have everything they need, CVR, FDR, usable wreckage, CARS and military recording tapes etc.
Some trial radar approaches were flown by military helicopters for calibration and training.
The delay in the report must be due to the legal and military aspects which does nothing to serve the cause of flight safety while we wait.
I think that unless you have (a we certainly hope we don't) experienced an event like this first hand and are involved in a major accident most don't understand the process and it's complexities -- even once the report is finished it is distributed to the parties involved for comment and they can request clarification or even challenge the findings - this is the last step in the process and it also takes time -- so even though a report might be finished as far as the investigators are concerned there is still this final step to go through -- needless to say -- lawyers are involved -- the other time consuming issue was the translations involved (that's what I was lead to believe) into more than one northern dialect -- so time inches on -- while ultimately it is about flight safety that takes a back burner until the humanistic side of the accident is considered -- as I said we will be discussing this as a part of our training, along with other examples of tragic events soon enough --
The crash had something to do with a switch within the navigation setup on board the aircraft.
-- speculation turns in fact yet again -- the entire report will be here soon enough and it will be what it is, nothing more, nothing less -- as a group we always seem to try and out think ourselves --
That quote is a repetition of what I was told by a member of Parliament.
Liquid Charlie wrote:I think that unless you have (a we certainly hope we don't) experienced an event like this first hand and are involved in a major accident most don't understand the process and it's complexities -- even once the report is finished it is distributed to the parties involved for comment and they can request clarification or even challenge the findings - this is the last step in the process and it also takes time -- so even though a report might be finished as far as the investigators are concerned there is still this final step to go through -- needless to say -- lawyers are involved -- the other time consuming issue was the translations involved (that's what I was lead to believe) into more than one northern dialect -- so time inches on -- while ultimately it is about flight safety that takes a back burner until the humanistic side of the accident is considered -- as I said we will be discussing this as a part of our training, along with other examples of tragic events soon enough --
I expect a few companies have already incorporated part of the lesson in their training.
The crash had something to do with a switch within the navigation setup on board the aircraft.
-- speculation turns in fact yet again -- the entire report will be here soon enough and it will be what it is, nothing more, nothing less -- as a group we always seem to try and out think ourselves --
That quote is a repetition of what I was told by a member of Parliament.
A member of parliament told you a navigation switch was in the wrong position? So did he tell you that he learned that information from the confidential draft report or what exactly was his source? Why would a member of parliament have even read the confidential draft report? Anyway said person is obviously speculating, but I'm not interested in getting into a he said she said debate. Like Liquid Charlie said, the report will be here soon enough.
Like everybody else on here, I'm eager to find out the cause. I'm sure the one thing that we can all agree on is that there was some sort of navigational error that caused an aircraft to fly an offset ILS into a hillside. Was it a switch problem? or was it some sort of internal aircraft system error? Who knows? I'm positive it will be like every other accident though, a log chain of events leading the crew to believe everything was fine right up until the final 2 seconds....
I expect that some courtesy is extended to MP's in this type of things. I don't think it involved reading the report, it may not have involved any communication with the TSB at all. However, the draft report has been circulated, so there are already a good number of people who know what it contains. Some of them may talk to MPs. MPs then talk to people they know in aviation.
I recall that it was said that it had something to do with a switch that had to be pushed twice before it actually made whatever it was switching happen. And that this was the only aircraft that still had that type of switch.
cncpc wrote:
I recall that it was said that it had something to do with a switch that had to be pushed twice before it actually made whatever it was switching happen. And that this was the only aircraft that still had that type of switch.
I wonder if this MP is a pilot and really understood what was explained by the investigator. That being said, your statement reminds me that on some aircraft, there is a GPS/VorLoc button or switch that you want to make sure is in the proper position for the type of approach you will be doing. I have seen this setup on big planes and on the good old Garmin GNS 430 units.
Operators of aircraft with this type of switch are doing themselves a big favour if it is the checklist. Just like RMI switches that have VOR and ADF selections, they can easily be in the wrong position, especially if you were using one selection for enroute and another selection for approach.
Having the wrong selection can lead to erroneous indications but sometimes they may not be obvious. Any unusual indications or discrepancies on approach are best solved with a go-around and then figure it out instead of continuing.
cncpc wrote:I expect that some courtesy is extended to MP's in this type of things. I don't think it involved reading the report, it may not have involved any communication with the TSB at all. However, the draft report has been circulated, so there are already a good number of people who know what it contains. Some of them may talk to MPs. MPs then talk to people they know in aviation.
I recall that it was said that it had something to do with a switch that had to be pushed twice before it actually made whatever it was switching happen. And that this was the only aircraft that still had that type of switch.
cncpc wrote:
I recall that it was said that it had something to do with a switch that had to be pushed twice before it actually made whatever it was switching happen. And that this was the only aircraft that still had that type of switch.
This is not correct.
This aircraft had 2 separate pushbutton switches that both had to be in the correct position for proper radio navigation. Yes it was the only Aircraft in the fleet that remained with that setup.
cncpc wrote:
I recall that it was said that it had something to do with a switch that had to be pushed twice before it actually made whatever it was switching happen. And that this was the only aircraft that still had that type of switch.
This is not correct.
This aircraft had 2 separate pushbutton switches that both had to be in the correct position for proper radio navigation. Yes it was the only Aircraft in the fleet that remained with that setup.
Here's one for the conspiracy theorists.
The military drone launch/recapture site transmissions on top of the hill above the crash site somehow interfered with the ILS signal ?
There is precedence for this.
