Once the pilots break out, the approach is continued visually (with the aid of the PAPIs).
You are assuming they broke out. With a 270 foot or so altimeter error, they could have ended up at that location without ever breaking out.
Ok, I have edited this to state that your scenario is a possibility, but I would rate it as an extremely unlikely one.
xsbank wrote:If you are in a non-precision approach, what about TAWS? Wouldn't you get a "Terrain!" Warning? "Pull up!"?
On an LPV, "Glide Slope!"?
The terrain warning is inhibited when you are within a certain distance of the runway. I don't have that distance handy, but I'm pretty sure that this aircraft would have been within the inhibited envelope.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by HavaJava on Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Forest Gump wrote:...and then there's the idiot passengers traveling to blizzard country, dressed as if they're heading to Mexico! Some of therm didn't even have their shoes on during landing!!
BTW, was runway 32 closed?
Good one! What a bunch of idiots! What right do they have to expect Air Canada to actually land ON the runway. Such sense of entitlement! The bloody cheek! If these passengers don't retain legal council and sue the living shit out of Air Canada, then I'd refer to them as idiots!
Illya
Any reports of icing in cloud? Is that part of the GFA still around?
It will be interesting to look at the air data computer numbers on LLWS on the approach. Surely the INS or IRS will have been able to compute and record that eh?
Super glad no serious injuries. Real lucky.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by co-joe on Mon Mar 30, 2015 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Forest Gump wrote:...and then there's the idiot passengers traveling to blizzard country, dressed as if they're heading to Mexico! Some of therm didn't even have their shoes on during landing!!
No shit!
It made me so happy to hear they were a wee bit chilly in their flip flops, shorts and t-shirts outside in a snow storm after evacuating! Every time I see these people wandering through the airports showing off their tans and so proudly letting us all know they were down south when it's -30 outside I laugh and think do they ever consider the chance of a rapid de-planement or evacuation when they dress themselves for their flight or are they more concerned about showing off their tans to the rest of us?
Forest Gump wrote:...and then there's the idiot passengers traveling to blizzard country, dressed as if they're heading to Mexico! Some of therm didn't even have their shoes on during landing!!
BTW, was runway 32 closed?
Good one! What a bunch of idiots! What right do they have to expect Air Canada to actually land ON the runway. Such sense of entitlement! The bloody cheek! If these passengers don't retain legal council and sue the living shit out of Air Canada, then I'd refer to them as idiots!
Illya
First taking your shoes off on a flight should get you onto a passenger shaming website, but besides that keeping them off for a landing or takeoff kinda puts you onto the Darwin list, you get what you deserve. Shit happens, and mostly during landings and takeoffs. Only time you're going to need to evacuate, so IMHO I'd rather be prepared for that. If you aren't then your problem when you do have an evacuation into a snow storm in flip flops and shorts. Sucks to be you, but it was your choice to wear that.
I wouldn't' worry about lawsuits either, I'm sure the lawyers are already salivating and making contact with everyone on the passenger list.
Wow, you're a real bright individual, following your logic why even have seat belts, idiot manufacturer and regulators, don't they know you have an expectation to arrive safely, without ever evacuating for any reason, ever! If there is an idiot in this case, it's the antagonist poster who goes by idillya.
For those who choose to travel to the great white north with the expectation you will change in the airport, there is a reason we practice evacuations in simulator training, every 6 months, I'll give you a hint, it's not because it never happens. A stuck brake and blown tire could necessitate one, just FYI.
If I were AC, I'd be looking to sue you, illya, for your slanderous remarks, without any basis of facts. For all you or anyone knows thus far, it could have been wind shear or mechanical but you want to crucify the airline and pilots, yep you're the idiot and go ahead and sue me, I believe I coulld defend my position quite easily.
av8ts wrote:Even though the Jazz Q400 is equipped with duel FMS/GPS because this is a LOC based approach it would have been done using LOC and step down. LOC based approaches cannot be flown using GPS
Sorry, I fly the Q400 and we can fly a LOC approach with vertical guidance from the FMS, no step down required. The FMS uses LOC steering and provides a pseudo glideslope using nav sources from GNSS and INS.
My memory is not what it used to be. Your right the Classic has to do a traditional step down when doing LOC approaches but not the Q
HavaJava wrote:Also, Air Canada has numerous checks throughout the descent and approach when correct altimeter settings are confirmed. To have 29.92 is just about as unlikely as a meteor knocking them out of the sky on short final.
This wasn't at Air Canada but I was sitting on the jumpseat watching as my 2 colleagues forgot to set the altimeter. I finally had to say something at glideslope intercept. Numerous checks here too - but it happened anyway.
Glad nobody was seriously hurt.
---------- ADS -----------
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
mbav8r wrote:Wow, you're a real bright individual, following your logic why even have seat belts, idiot manufacturer and regulators, don't they know you have an expectation to arrive safely, without ever evacuating for any reason, ever! If there is an idiot in this case, it's the antagonist poster who goes by idillya.
For those who choose to travel to the great white north with the expectation you will change in the airport, there is a reason we practice evacuations in simulator training, every 6 months, I'll give you a hint, it's not because it never happens. A stuck brake and blown tire could necessitate one, just FYI.
If I were AC, I'd be looking to sue you, illya, for your slanderous remarks, without any basis of facts. For all you or anyone knows thus far, it could have been wind shear or mechanical but you want to crucify the airline and pilots, yep you're the idiot and go ahead and sue me, I believe I coulld defend my position quite easily.
Good plan. Sue me baby, sue me. Must have been a blown tire, or a stuck brake that caused them to hit the ground about 900 feet short. Yup, that's it. A stuck brake.
Guess the passengers should adhere to mbav8r's dress code. I've never heard it on the cabin announcements "Folks, please put your shoes and coats on, because there is no guarentee the Captain will get you all the way to the terminal today. He may have to take out some wiring on short final....
Good call
Illya
I'm shaking my head at how harsh some people are about these poor people standing around in the snowstorm... So yes, probably some of them had on inappropriate clothes, but others would have been dressed normally - do all of you critics fly in a snowsuit? I know I don't - I wear jeans, shoes, not usually boots, and a blouse with maybe a sweater, but often the cabin is so sweltering that I take the sweater off. It was -6 (indicated temp - that doesn't even include wind chill) and snowing like crazy, for goodness sake! The average pax, dressed appropriately for a room temperature cabin would still have been freezing in those conditions. And imagine people with infants - I would've been frantic if I had a baby out in that storm!
And just an aside to the ARFF guy who posted - the emergency responders did a great job - when I said the pax should've been taken care of earlier, I meant the airport should've been trying to help them, not the firefighters. The time I heard was over an hour (one passenger interviewed said about an hour and a quarter). Maybe the pax ran towards the fence, in which case, it would've been difficult to get to them, but I still think someone could've directed them away from the airplane and along towards the FBOs along alpha taxiway (which parallels 05/24). Hopefully HIAA will re-assess their emergency plan with this scenario in mind.
HavaJava wrote:Also, Air Canada has numerous checks throughout the descent and approach when correct altimeter settings are confirmed. To have 29.92 is just about as unlikely as a meteor knocking them out of the sky on short final.
This wasn't at Air Canada but I was sitting on the jumpseat watching as my 2 colleagues forgot to set the altimeter. I finally had to say something at glideslope intercept. Numerous checks here too - but it happened anyway.
Glad nobody was seriously hurt.
Out of curiosity, did that happen overseas somewhere with a low transition level? I could see how that could happen in a high workload environment with a low transition level. In Canada with the transition level at FL180 I think the odds of missing the multiple checks and double checks would be highly unlikely.
It made me so happy to hear they were a wee bit chilly in their flip flops, shorts and t-shirts outside in a snow storm after evacuating! Every time I see these people wandering through the airports showing off their tans and so proudly letting us all know they were down south when it's -30 outside I laugh and think do they ever consider the chance of a rapid de-planement or evacuation when they dress themselves for their flight or are they more concerned about showing off their tans to the rest of us?
Air Canada should hire this person as their public relations expert.
I'm sure the travelling public would be very happy to know pilots see them as nothing more than an irritation rather than the people who they work for.
---------- ADS -----------
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Dress appropriately for the conditions you may encounter. You may have to go outside to get on the airplane so shorts, tank tops and sandals are not likely to give you any protection against the elements of a typical Canadian winter.
The clothes you are wearing can also play a significant role in your safety. People wear synthetic blend fabrics because they are easy to maintain and do not wrinkle when spending a long time seated. However, these fabrics ignite quickly, shrink, melt and continue to burn even after the heat source is removed. In the unlikely event that the aircraft is evacuated, even pantyhose contribute to injuries, as they melt and cause burns from the friction generated with contact on the slide.
* Clothing made of natural fibres such as cotton, wool, denim and leather offer the best protection during an evacuation or fire. Synthetic fibres (rayon, poly/cotton and nylon, including pantyhose, wigs, hairpieces, scarves, ties and underwear) can become very hot and melt causing severe burns.
* Avoid leaving large areas of the body uncovered. Steer clear of shorts or skirts because they do not cover extremities. Wear non-restrictive clothing as this allows you greater movement.
Wearing suitable footwear can prevent the most common injuries to feet during accidents or emergencies. Keep your footwear on during the flight. In an emergency, finding your shoes will probably be one of the last things on your mind. Unprotected feet can slow departure from the airplane once outside. Imagine trying to walk through jet fuel, possibly on fire, broken glass, or sharp metal fragments without shoes to protect your feet.
* Wear fully enclosed low-heeled shoes or boots that have laces or straps.
* Avoid sandals and high-heeled dress shoes. High-heeled dress shoes will have to be removed before using the escape slide.
Out of curiosity, did that happen overseas somewhere with a low transition level? I could see how that could happen in a high workload environment with a low transition level. In Canada with the transition level at FL180 I think the odds of missing the multiple checks and double checks would be highly unlikely.
Likely not since the procedure in Europe is to set your altimeter as soon as you are cleared below or above transition - not at actual transition level or altitude.
Been following this topic regarding this unfortunate incident since I live in this neck of the woods. Nothing to add of course as don't work for AC and know nothing about A320 operation or any airline for that matter. One observation though from posted commentary if I may as I thought Air Canada being the biggest airline here has all the latest technology in all their planes to fly Published GPS approaches and those WAAS LPV which I understand is like an ILS with the lower DH. In reading Nav Canada documents LPV approaches are all over the place now.
. . wrote:I'm sure the travelling public would be very happy to know pilots see them as nothing more than an irritation rather than the people who they work for.
I take it you fly in flip flops and shorts in the winter?
Not an irritation at all, more like comedy. They can wear whatever they want but they will face the consequences for lacking simple common sense as did the pax in YHZ and they have only themselves to blame.
It would be a sad day if an airline had to force common sense on people by implementing dress codes appropriate for the weather conditions.
BTW... I also laugh at them when they are hauling their luggage out of the terminal in shorts and flip flops in - 30s wind chill.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by FICU on Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.
