Air Canada Accident in YHZ

[Notta Simfalt]

http://avherald.com/h?article=483e7337&opt=1024

Looks like they hit the power line. I can't believe how AC is downplaying this accident. The AP manager also calls it a hard landing, and the power going off was a coincidence.

[Lost in Saigon]

I wonder what the tailwind component would have been if they did the ILS 23 instead?

CYHZ 290313Z 35020G26KT 1/2SM R14/3500V4500FT/N SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2963 RMKSN8 SLP040
CYHZ 290300Z CCA 34019G25KT 1/4SM R14/P6000VM0300FT/N +SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2962 RMK SN8 /S09/ SLP038
CYHZ 290300Z 34019G25KT 1/8SM R14/P6000VM0300FT/N +SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2962 RMK SN8 /S09/ SLP038

EDIT: I found an online crosswind calculator:

340/20 is a 7 knot tailwind
340/25 is a 8 knot tailwind
350/20 is a 10 knot tailwind
350/25 is a 12 knot tailwind

[FICU]

Crash landed almost 1000 feet short of the runway! The fact there was no fire is incredible with that much damage to the wings. The fact there was no fire means exactly how much fuel was on board!? Very lucky this wasn't a disaster!

[magic wand]

[quote= Very lucky this wasn't a disaster![/quote]

I am thinking it is a disaster..!

[URC]

EDIT: I found an online crosswind calculator:
340/20 is a 7 knot tailwind
340/25 is a 8 knot tailwind
350/20 is a 10 knot tailwind
350/25 is a 12 knot tailwind

You forgot to apply the 18 degress of West Variation. Winds reported in a METAR are in degrees true.

Winds 340T = 358M

340T/20 = 11.5 knots tailwind on runway 23 (233M).

A 10 knot tailwind is a standard maximum limitation. Although I've heard some can use 15 knots. Not sure what Air Canada used on the A320 ?

The winds in the few hours prior to the accident were 360T (018M), favouring runway 05 vs 32. At 350T they were equally 45 degrees off both 05 and 32.

Winds 340T at 25 knots would give you a 20.5 knot crosswind component on runway 05, 350T at 25 knots would be 17.7 knots crosswind.

[FICU]

I am thinking it is a disaster..!

By disaster I meant the plane didn't turn into a fireball with fatalities.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Hit power lines on final, and landed 1000 feet short? Is this accurate? Oh my. They're not having a good couple of months.
Be careful out there.
Illya

[Flying Low]

From AvHerald...

An Air Canada Airbus A320-200, registration C-FTJP performing flight AC-624 (dep Mar 28th) from Toronto,ON to Halifax,NS (Canada) with 133 passengers and 5 crew, was on approach to Halifax's runway 05 at about 00:07L (03:07Z) when the aircraft touched down short of and below the runway threshold, clipped a powerline and approach light about 250 meters short of the runway, climbed the embankment up to the runway level and came to a stop past the threshold of the runway near taxiway B about 300 meters down the runway. The aircraft was evacuated. 23 people received injuries and were taken to a hospital, the aircraft sustained substantial damage (collapsed gear, engine separated, wing damage, horizontal stabilizer damage).

If this is correct I'm pretty sure that doesn't qualify as a hard landing...

[URC]

Hit power lines on final, and landed 1000 feet short? Is this accurate?

If you look at Google Earth you can see the power lines are about 920 feet from the threshold. And note what appears to be pieces of the localizer antenna or approach lights (?) sticking out of the nose and wrapped around the right wing.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsbcanada ... otostream/

[magic wand]

Hit power lines on final, and landed 1000 feet short? Is this accurate?

If you look at Google Earth you can see the power lines are about 920 feet from the threshold. And note what appears to be pieces of the localizer antenna or approach lights (?) sticking out of the nose and wrapped around the right wing.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsbcanada ... otostream/

I am sure there will be photos of the approach lights soon. That will pretty well confirm if they landed short.
In the night time photos of the right hand wing root area, there appears to be a wire near the wing root. I dont see that object ( wire )in the daytime photos..maybe it was removed.

[pianokeys]

Daytime photos are up on the TSB flikr.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsbcanada ... 1565742766

Parts of runway lights imbedded in the wings and nose.

[Strega]

Just hear on the news that "authorities cannot confirm if the weather at the time of the accident played a role"


Why do we tolerate this drivel?

All I can say is Im glad Im not one of the pilots, and or the dispatcher for this flight

[Meddler]

"...250 meters short of the runway, climbed the embankment up to the runway level and came to a stop past the threshold of the runway near taxiway B about 300 meters down the runway."

....got stopped pretty short though.

[KAG]

I'm truly thankful no one was seriously hurt. My thoughts also go out to the crew, it's a sick/sinking feeling that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Lessons will be reiterated or learned and I'm proud to see this topic being kept professional.
Fly safe all.

[floydfrank]

Just hear on the news that "authorities cannot confirm if the weather at the time of the accident played a role"


Why do we tolerate this drivel?

All I can say is Im glad Im not one of the pilots, and or the dispatcher for this flight

Drivel is the word!!!!

[CpnCrunch]

All I can say is Im glad Im not one of the pilots, and or the dispatcher for this flight

What has the dispatcher got to do with it? From my 30 second research it looks like everything was looking good for the RNAV Z 05 approach.

I'm more curious about how it's even possible to land 1000ft short with TAWS, 2 properly trained crew and proper SOPs.

[Old fella]

I'm truly thankful no one was seriously hurt. My thoughts also go out to the crew, it's a sick/sinking feeling that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Lessons will be reiterated or learned and I'm proud to see this topic being kept professional.
Fly safe all.

Very good points and my thoughts exactly in not jumping on anybody with needless speculation.......

[tbaylx]

Standby for new approach ban legislation

[fish4life]

All I can say is Im glad Im not one of the pilots, and or the dispatcher for this flight

What has the dispatcher got to do with it? From my 30 second research it looks like everything was looking good for the RNAV Z 05 approach.

I'm more curious about how it's even possible to land 1000ft short with TAWS, 2 properly trained crew and proper SOPs.

With no idea what happened but looking at some of the wind gusts wind sheer could do it.

[floydfrank]

They had supposedly circled for a while and then found a "window" to land instead of diverting to moncton. The plane caught the powerline coming in so i guess they were too low and then bounced, shed parts and slid on its belly. Luckily there were no majour injuries but confidence in air travel is not good.

Wx conditions were above landing minima. If you had ever landed in 3/4 mile and 33 kt gusts, you would know that if your above minima, you make the approach, you get to DH, nothing seen, YOU GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

[floydfrank]

Standby for new approach ban legislation

Of course, and of course, legislation would never explain why they were so far below the GS.

[flaps1]

Any thoughts on why there is no ils to 05? I can't imagine it's a terrain issue. I'm guessing a cost issue more than anything else. With minimums that get you to 277 they probably didn't see a need given the percent of time that weather would demand it. I also feel like airports are holding back upgrading approaches in favour of much cheaper LPVs. Of course any approach with vertical guidance greatly reduces the risk of CFIT on approach (assuming this was the case). I don't fly an Airbus. Does anyone know if the 320 is even capable of LPV? May sound like a silly question but there are a number of large AC not capable.

[turbo-beaver]

[/iLooks like they hit the power line. I can't believe how AC is downplaying this accident. The AP manager also calls it a hard landing, and the power going off was a coincidence.

Yes, I remember the old days when a hard landing was when the masks dropped out and maybe a few babies in the back started crying, but most of the time you could still taxi the airplane over to the gate, and then blame the landing on the F/O or the auto land.

Times have changed. Very fortunate, and thankfully no lives were lost.

[tbaylx]

Any thoughts on why there is no ils to 05? I can't imagine it's a terrain issue. I'm guessing a cost issue more than anything else. With minimums that get you to 277 they probably didn't see a need given the percent of time that weather would demand it. I also feel like airports are holding back upgrading approaches in favour of much cheaper LPVs. Of course any approach with vertical guidance greatly reduces the risk of CFIT on approach (assuming this was the case). I don't fly an Airbus. Does anyone know if the 320 is even capable of LPV? May sound like a silly question but there are a number of large AC not capable.

Any FMS aircraft will have vertical guidance if there is an ils or not. Dive and drive doesn't work very well in a transport category aircraft, so they "should" have been following the FMS generated vertical profile on the Loc approach which is essentially a glideslope with limitations

[Illya Kuryakin]

The auto pilot on my little "toy" airplane can stay on the GS and LOC. (Even on an RNAV approach, which I must assume this one was, no?) With this accident (this one could have killed everybody on board really easily) and the edge light accident in YYC, the short landing in the approach lights in YAM, obviously something is amiss somewhere. Don't know the answer, but it's out there somewhere. Maybe we do need stricter approach bans?
Illya