Air Canada Accident in YHZ

[goldeneagle]

It is not good enough to simply say if the conditions are unsafe the pilot should do a go-around

Are you telling me that you are incapable of making a decision as to wether or not it's safe to proceed, so you want a regulator to take that decision out of your hands ? That's sure what it comes across as to me.

I can possibly see the point for folks that only go from big airport to big airport with an RVR on every runway. But I've done a number of arrivals over the years at various airports where the reported visibility is next to nothing in fog, yet there was a thousand feet or more of one runway sticking out from under that fog bank, so we were able to do the entire arrival in blue skies and sunshine, never did see reduced visibility till the airplane was on the runway and down to taxi speed. By your standards, we wouldn't even be able to attempt the arrival.

There are a lot of airports where the arrival end of the runway is a mile or more from the spot where reported visibility observations are made, and many of them have local geography that makes for big differences over that mile.

Let folks do the approach, and if low visibility at the end of the approach results in folks puttering around in less than required vis to try find a runway, the problem isn't in the regs, that problem is in the cockpit, and changing the regs is not the correct solution. It's just a band-aid to try cover up a systemic problem, and does not address the root cause of the problem at all.

[Rockie]

Common sense.

You're kidding right? I mean, many pilots don't fully appreciate the implications of our rules and how they can impact an approach below MDA, and you've already demonstrated you don't know anything about flying airplanes because you're not a pilot.

Again, I have no issue with your outrage about the rules but what you're having angst about has nothing to do with the accident.

How do you know that, common sense again? You should be on the investigation board.

Umm...the accident aircraft absolutely is where it should NOT have been. Are you suggesting that regulations are never broken?

The aircraft was perfectly legal being where it was, no regulation was broken by it being there and that's my point isn't it? The regulations shouldn't have allowed the airplane to be there and anywhere else in the world it wouldn't have been permitted.

Don't presume CID that you have any idea what you're taking about here because you don't.

[Rockie]

Are you telling me that you are incapable of making a decision as to wether or not it's safe to proceed, so you want a regulator to take that decision out of your hands ? That's sure what it comes across as to me.

Read this carefully...nowhere else do the regulations permit doing an approach with less than the published visibility. It isn't about decision making, it isn't about what the crew did or didn't do, it isn't about you or me or anybody else.

It is about a regulation permitting something that isn't allowed anywhere else, and anywhere else would have prevented the Halifax aircraft from attempting the approach. Canada's regulations are too lax in this regard, and operators are already amending their procedures to prohibit what TC should have a long time ago.

[goldeneagle]

The aircraft was perfectly legal being where it was

Umm, no it wasn't. It was well below MDA, well back of the runway. It was well outside of the approach parameters.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Time to go with published vis minimums and flush the 50% rule where it belongs. Down the shitter. I get what Rockie is saying. There shouldn't be this grey area. If your vis limits are 1 1/2, and its 1 1/4, go someplace else.
Illya

[Rockie]

The aircraft was perfectly legal being where it was

Umm, no it wasn't. It was well below MDA, well back of the runway. It was well outside of the approach parameters.

They had the required visibility to do the approach and they had at least one of the required visual references to descend below MDA to land. They were perfectly legal.

[Illya Kuryakin]

You're kidding right? I mean, many pilots don't fully appreciate the implications of our rules and how they can impact an approach below MDA, and you've already demonstrated you don't know anything about flying airplanes because you're not a pilot.

Don't presume CID that you have any idea what you're taking about here because you don't.

+1000

Best quote of the day!!
Illya

[Illya Kuryakin]

The aircraft was perfectly legal being where it was

Umm, no it wasn't. It was well below MDA, well back of the runway. It was well outside of the approach parameters.

They had the required visibility to do the approach and they at least one of the required visual references to descend below MDA to land. They were perfectly legal.

What is LEGAL, is not always safe.
Illya

[iflyforpie]

“minimum descent altitude”
“minimum descent altitude” means the altitude ASL, specified in the Canada Air Pilot or the Restricted Canada Air Pilot for a non-precision approach, below which descent is not to be made until the required visual reference necessary to continue the approach to land has been established; (altitude minimale de descente)

“required visual reference”
“required visual reference”, in respect of an aircraft on an approach to a runway, means that portion of the approach area of the runway or those visual aids that, when viewed by the pilot of the aircraft, enable the pilot to make an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in order to continue the approach and complete a landing; (référence visuelle requise)

Its not enough to just see something that is listed in what qualifies as required visual references. It has to be seen in such a way that you can visually determine the position of the aircraft relative to the runway and assessing that it is within proper parameters before descending below MDA.

I mean.. if I broke out and saw the approach lights 45 degrees off to the right at an odd angle... should I continue or should I miss.. even though the visibility meets the requirements and I can see a visual reference?

[goldeneagle]

They had the required visibility to do the approach and they had at least one of the required visual references to descend below MDA to land. They were perfectly legal.

If they had the required visual references, then they would have known where the runway was located, and wouldn't have landed on the approach lights.

[Flying Low]

“minimum descent altitude”
“minimum descent altitude” means the altitude ASL, specified in the Canada Air Pilot or the Restricted Canada Air Pilot for a non-precision approach, below which descent is not to be made until the required visual reference necessary to continue the approach to land has been established; (altitude minimale de descente)

“required visual reference”
“required visual reference”, in respect of an aircraft on an approach to a runway, means that portion of the approach area of the runway or those visual aids that, when viewed by the pilot of the aircraft, enable the pilot to make an assessment of the aircraft position and rate of change of position, in order to continue the approach and complete a landing; (référence visuelle requise)

Its not enough to just see something that is listed in what qualifies as required visual references. It has to be seen in such a way that you can visually determine the position of the aircraft relative to the runway and assessing that it is within proper parameters before descending below MDA.

I mean.. if I broke out and saw the approach lights 45 degrees off to the right at an odd angle... should I continue or should I miss.. even though the visibility meets the requirements and I can see a visual reference?

Best post yet. We are paid to make these decisions and as PIC we are going to be held responsible for the outcome. I have never liked the approach ban. As far as I'm concerned I should be able to try the approach...when I get to minimums, if I am comfortable with what I see, I land, otherwise I go around. This should create no danger to anyone. I'm not saying I should bother doing an approach when it's zero/zero or well below minimums but it should be my choice to do the approach based on the information I have.

[TheStig]

We are paid to make these decisions and as PIC we are going to be held responsible for the outcome. I have never liked the approach ban. As far as I'm concerned I should be able to try the approach...when I get to minimums, if I am comfortable with what I see, I land, otherwise I go around. This should create no danger to anyone. I'm not saying I should bother doing an approach when it's zero/zero or well below minimums but it should be my choice to do the approach based on the information I have.

Why do you think the Approach Ban was created? I've highlighted a cue to the answer.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I am from a bygone era where we had less complex IFR rules.

One thing we did understand though was if we could not see and identify the runway and could safely land on it at minimums we missed the approach.

Maybe this crew did not know they were below minimums when they flew into the ground?

[goldeneagle]

I am from a bygone era where we had less complex IFR rules.

Another big difference ., in your era (and mine), if somebody flew an airplane into the ground, we didn't try blame it on defective regulations.

[complexintentions]

Unless they flew into the ground deliberately (I doubt it?), I think it's safe to say they lost situational awareness in at least SOME way whether it was their altitude, lateral position, or both.

But I do agree that allowing descent below MDA with such low vis is a poor reg. I have no problem with an approach ban, it's just simple physics stating that if vis is below such and such value your chances of being able to land successfully are reduced to the point of not being worth burning the fuel for an attempt. Some seem to take it as a personal affront to their ability or something. I mean really, is the goal to see how close you can get to NOT being able to land, to see if you still can? That's why they invented Cat 3B. The lack of facilities at YHZ is a joke, but that's another topic.

Perhaps the ban does occasionally contribute to an a/c not being able to land where maybe some rockstar who's used to the local environment could land, but that's not really the best criteria for designing an approach IMO.

[complexintentions]

Another big difference ., in your era (and mine), if somebody flew an airplane into the ground, we didn't try blame it on defective regulations.

What kind of good ol' boy bullshit is that? No one is blaming the regs for the crash (lawyers don't count). But given that there have been many, many regulatory changes since bygone "eras", it would seem that sometimes regs are deemed weak or insufficient and in need of amending.

And yes, sometimes the changes are regressive - I am not in favour of endless meddling or knee-jerk, poorly though-out reactions. But things should always be striving to improve.

Aligning Canada with the rest of the world re: vis requirements for an approach might be a start.

[Old fella]

I am from a bygone era where we had less complex IFR rules.

One thing we did understand though was if we could not see and identify the runway and could safely land on it at minimums we missed the approach.

Maybe this crew did not know they were below minimums when they flew into the ground?

Been around myself(although not with your time and experience), however that approach to rwy 05(was 06 few yrs back) NDB and LOC and the old backcourse(tis a front course now) has been around for quite a few decades. Been flown by many a DC-8, DC-9 and B737 B747 etc.,etc. without any FMS reference just the standard analog flight directors, some even less and these approaches were the level dive level(MDA). I don't remember ever any airline in Halifax getting into trouble those days doing those aproaches, matter of fact I had my fare share doing those exact ones in many a similar conditions.

Something just not right about this AC incident............

[ditar]

I am from a bygone era where we had less complex IFR rules.

Seeing as there are far fewer airplanes flying into the ground now than in this bygone era you speak of, something must have changed for the better. Whether that is regulation, training, CRM, or some combination of the above, who knows.

If good judgement alone prevented accidents we wouldn't need speed limits and other traffic regulations either.

[rigpiggy]

What is LEGAL, is not always safe.
Illya

And what is safe isn't always legal

[Rockie]

The design of these approaches haven't changed since those bygone days you talk about, but what has changed is the way they are flown. In the old days you levelled off at minimums before the vis limit and flew inbound on the approach track to the missed approach point. As you neared the runway the visual pictured developed over time making it easier to judge azimuth and vertical alignment. The closer you got to the MAP the less likely you were to make the approach. The difference there was that you had time.

Now everybody does NPA's as a stabilized constant descent angle approach (SCDA) because they are proven safer than the dive and drive in preventing CFIT accidents. The problem is approaches like the LOC approach in YHZ haven't changed meaning when you reach MDA you have to make an instant decision to continue or not, and in Canada you have to do that with 1/2 the required visibility necessary to see the runway from MDA. Seeing just the approach lights and continuing is perfectly legal even though there is no vertical guidance. You know you are descending at 3 degrees, but you don't know for sure if you are on the correct 3 degree line to the proper touchdown spot like you would on an ILS or even an RNAV, VOR or NDB approach using the capabilities of the aircraft.

Approaches under those circumstance are sketchy, but they are legal which means crews are obligated to fly them if they are also approved by the company they work for. Operators are stepping back from these and imposing their own restrictions in light of this accident. In my opinion Transport Canada should have imposed those restrictions themselves as the regulator in line with every other regulator in the world.

A no brainer.

[Illya Kuryakin]

I am from a bygone era where we had less complex IFR rules.

Seeing as there are far fewer airplanes flying into the ground now than in this bygone era you speak of, something must have changed for the better. Whether that is regulation, training, CRM, or some combination of the above, who knows.

If good judgement alone prevented accidents we wouldn't need speed limits and other traffic regulations either.

Really? Jazz stuffed it into the approach lights in YAM! Jazz took out edge lights in YYC. This subject AC flight stuffed it in about 900 feet short of the runway. All in a fairly recent time frame. King Air did a gear up touch and go in YOO ( I think it was). Again really recent. And yet "far fewer airplanes are flying into the ground now than......" Really? Not from where I sit. Pretty obvious that "training, CRM......." is still not working as well as you seem to think it is.
Shake your head mate. You might hear something rattle.
Illya

[Illya Kuryakin]

Rockie, you're not obligated to continue the approach with 1/2 the required vis, you are legal to do so. This is in no way an obligation. And, as you point out,it is in no way a good idea.
Missed approaches are good for the soul.
Illya

[FICU]

Maybe this crew did not know they were below minimums when they flew into the ground?

The first question to be answered is did they fly into the ground or fall out of the sky.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Maybe this crew did not know they were below minimums when they flew into the ground?

The first question to be answered is did they fly into the ground or fall out of the sky.

Seriously? Like, as in....there was a total vacuum at the end of the runway. Jesus mate, they pooched it.
Illya

[ditar]

Really? Jazz stuffed it into the approach lights in YAM! Jazz took out edge lights in YYC. This subject AC flight stuffed it in about 900 feet short of the runway. All in a fairly recent time frame. King Air did a gear up touch and go in YOO ( I think it was). Again really recent. And yet "far fewer airplanes are flying into the ground now than......" Really? Not from where I sit. Pretty obvious that "training, CRM......." is still not working as well as you seem to think it is.
Shake your head mate. You might hear something rattle.
Illya

The recent glut of such incidents does raise eyebrows. If, however, you have ever taken a CFIT or CRM course you would know that I am talking about the overall trend since the 1960's. Perhaps you are unable to interpret a graph?