Air Canada Accident in YHZ

[Mach7]

@trey kule

You are correct, one must be responsible for ones mistake(s), that being said, (and I have no inside knowledge of the AC accident), if these Pilots were mandated to do a CDA and where not given the correct training on how to execute such an approach, then the company (IMO) has to take some of the responsibility.

How many CDA's has this crew accomplished in the last year or two? I bet not many.

There are many times I would rather have done a step down approach, but SOPs and company policy do not allow me that latitude, nor do they provide me with any training to do these approaches.

something to consider.......?

[trey kule]

To argue the point...no company can mandate you to do something unsafe..and no company can insist on you doing something unsafe. If they try, and you allow it, you have no business being responsable for other peoples' lives.
As to better , safer ideas. Is that what SMS reporting is all about? Lots of pilots bitch and complain about company procedures. But do nothing else. I think the psycho babblers call that resignation. Very few ever sit down and methodically and clearly put it in writing and submit it to the company. Not as a complaint, but as a suggestion how to do something safer or better.

Not getting training for a type of approach procedure you are expected to do....did I mention putting it in writing? and if no action is taken, putting it in writing again that you will not do the procedure without proper training...

I have been in this business for a very long time. And all to often after an accident people say it was inevitable....but they did nothing to prevent it.

[HiFlyChick]

Mach7 - do you fly larger aircraft or are you in the same boat as I am, which is preferring step-down to SCDA (but not having to choose anyway since all of our company aircraft have LPV)?

Still looking for comments on difficulty in step-downs on something of significant weight.....

[55+]

It should be noted that the minimum visibility approved and published in the CAP and RCAP for non-precision IAPs is 1sm. This is mandated by design criteria TP-308 and you will not see any non-precision IAP in Canada published with a vis less that 1sm.

[Mach7]

@55+

You are somewhat correct, however most companies have an 'op' spec to bring them down to 3/4 or 1/2 mile if they utilize an SCDA approach or utilize the HGS.

@HiFlychick

I don't fly an overly large aircraft, but one that weighs in at 75k for landing and has quite a fast approach speed. In the old days, we did step downs with the Bae146 on a regular basis, with no problems in stability or safety.

[Rockie]

Step down approaches are not generally flown by transport category aircraft because they are proven to expose the aircraft to more risk of CFIT, and they result in an unstabilized state on short final which these aircraft are intolerant of. I don't know of any transport category operator that does them and Air Canada only does SCDA non-precision approaches.

Using the BARO-VNAV capability (we are non-WAAS equipped) affords us computed and displayed vertical guidance to cross the threshold at 50 feet on LNAV, LNAV/VNAV, VOR and NDB approaches (the last two advisory only) which makes the very safe. LOC based approaches however cannot be flown using BARO-VNAV as it is unavailable when tracking a localizer beam. In those cases we cross the FAF level and just before dial in whatever flight path angle (FPA) is appropriate. FPA is wind corrected and automatically compensates for changing ground speed, so provided you start on the correct slope everything should work out OK. Unfortunately there is no indication in the cockpit of your vertical position relative to the correct slope, and anything that temporarily disrupts the path (configuration changes, not starting on the correct slope, using an incorrect angle etc) and you really don't know where you are until you reach MDA.

That's why using a visibility below published for those types of approaches is a bad idea.

As Mach7 pointed out, when executing an ILS or even a non-LOC NPA with vertical guidance you know you are heading to the correct touchdown spot so using a visibility below published isn't such a problem. But with a LOC approach you don't know that for sure, and since you're not doing a step down you don't have the advantage of seeing the sight picture develop as you near the runway, instead you have to make an instant assessment at MDA without the same assurances vis-a-vis vertical position as an ILS.

[55+]

@55+

You are somewhat correct, however most companies have an 'op' spec to bring them down to 3/4 or 1/2 mile if they utilize an SCDA approach or utilize the HGS.

@HiFlychick

I don't fly an overly large aircraft, but one that weighs in at 75k for landing and has quite a fast approach speed. In the old days, we did step downs with the Bae146 on a regular basis, with no problems in stability or safety.

Actually I am very much correct Mach7. Yes, an op specification is towards a specific company that meets pre-determined criteria be it equipment and/or training, however that is internal to company operations AC may have a'specification" for operations regarding non precision vis approval below what is published, no doubt. It is for their(AC) use only and as you know. doesn't apply to other carriers who do not have such approval

[FICU]

I've done many step down NPAs in a 737 in the arctic with no issues as long as you are prepared and ahead of the jet. We now have pseudo glideslope capability but if there is a ragged ceiling at MDA with good visibility below I may elect to do the step down to get to MDA prior to the VDP and reasonably expect to get into VMC conditions rather than the SCDA which may keep us IMC at MDA with no other option than a go-around.

Every situation requires a descion but step down approaches in a larger jet are not unsafe.

[Old fella]

I've done many step down NPAs in a 737 in the arctic with no issues as long as you are prepared and ahead of the jet. We now have pseudo glideslope capability but if there is a ragged ceiling at MDA with good visibility below I may elect to do the step down to get to MDA prior to the VDP and reasonably expect to get into VMC conditions rather than the SCDA which may keep us IMC at MDA with no other option than a go-around.

Every situation requires a descion but step down approaches in a larger jet are not unsafe.

Going way back 35+ yrs ago plenty of B737, DC-8, DC-9, B727, L1011, B747 and the like did these old standard non precision approaches NDB, LOC/BC here in the windy/foggy Maritimes and I can't remember either AC,EPA, Nordair etc. driving one of their aircraft short of the runway on any of these approaches.

[Rockie]

I used to do stepdowns in heavy aircraft too and I defended them for the same reasons you guys do, I preferred having a sight picture develop as well rather than hoping I was in a position to land when I had to make an instant decision at MDA. But I was flying non-GPS equipped aircraft into places with scarce DME coverage so map shift was also an issue and NPA's were definitely non-precision. Technology is slowly catching up though, and SCDA's are safer than step downs for reasons that cannot be credibly argued against.

The main issue today is LOC based NPA's because they are the only ones left that airlines with halfway modern equipment cannot fly with vertical glide path guidance. Using less than published visibility with those is stacking the deck against yourself as this event seems to indicate.

[ReserveTank]

You guys keep discussing SCDA and approaches and all kinds of other things, but there's one fact that remains:

The crew crashed an airliner full of passengers because they went below minimum altitude without required visual references to continue descent to the runway. Period.
Same thing as the First Air crew. No one wanted to believe that they killed a planeload of passengers due to busting mins, so you guys concocted all kinds of rubbish to exhonerate them in your minds.

Get it in your heads - You can't crash your plane into things if you are at a safe altitude for your position over the ground.

[CpnCrunch]

You guys keep discussing SCDA and approaches and all kinds of other things, but there's one fact that remains:

The crew crashed an airliner full of passengers because they went below minimum altitude without required visual references to continue descent to the runway. Period.
Same thing as the First Air crew. No one wanted to believe that they killed a planeload of passengers due to busting mins, so you guys concocted all kinds of rubbish to exhonerate them in your minds.

Get it in your heads - You can't crash your plane into things if you are at a safe altitude for your position over the ground.

Not quite true. They did have the required visual references to descend below MDA -- the approach lights. You can't really compare this to the First Air gong show.

[55+]

I used to do stepdowns in heavy aircraft too and I defended them for the same reasons you guys do, I preferred having a sight picture develop as well rather than hoping I was in a position to land when I had to make an instant decision at MDA. But I was flying non-GPS equipped aircraft into places with scarce DME coverage so map shift was also an issue and NPA's were definitely non-precision. Technology is slowly catching up though, and SCDA's are safer than step downs for reasons that cannot be credibly argued against.

The main issue today is LOC based NPA's because they are the only ones left that airlines with halfway modern equipment cannot fly with vertical glide path guidance. Using less than published visibility with those is stacking the deck against yourself as this event seems to indicate.

You are obviously an AC pilot and probably know a lot more about this incident than you can/want to let on and no doubt have the qualifications/experience to give a reasonable viewpoint. If 1/2 - 3/4 sm vis is approved for your operations with an operation specification for non-precision IAPs as some posters here indicated well all and good. If 1/2 sm vis is the norm well that is the vis for published CAT 1 ILS and for an MDA of 740ft(approach in question) this would suggest the aircraft has to be on that 3.0deg VPA to accomplish a successful landing with this reduced visibility. I do not want to belittle this crew but something did happen to put them way outside the profile to the point where they ran out of ROC aprx 1000ft back from runway threshold. Perhaps reduced vis for N-P A's just may be revisited..........

[peeelot]

Reserve tank. How do you know they went below mins without visual reference ? Has a report come out saying this? I think everyone needs to step back and let the investigation run its course because a lot of what is being said on this forum is speculation and very much incorrect. We all have to be glad that everyone is alive after there are some physical and mental challenges for people to get over but at the end of the day everyone is accounted for and alive and time will tell what happened. That is my 2 canadian cents so about 1.5 cents US.

[Eric Janson]

Still looking for comments on difficulty in step-downs on something of significant weight.....

I fly an aircraft with a maximum landing weight of 246,000kg (541,000lbs). Minimum approach speed is around 145 knots.

We can only fly a non precision approach as a continuous descent from the FAF to MDA.

We are not allowed to fly level at MDA.

At MDA you either see the runway and land or make a go-around. This is fairly standard at all Airlines.

Going from a descent to level flight and vice versa requires quite large pitch and power changes. This isn't what you want at low altitude as it is very easy to get an unstabilised approach as a result.

Just looking at the Jeppesen plate for the LOC 05 approach. There's nothing complicated about flying it.

The autopilot will intercept and fly the LOC. All the PF has to do is select a flight path angle of -3.1 degrees.

Jeppesen shows a point at D7.8 IHZ as the descent point from 2500'. I would have the aircraft fully configured (gear and final flaps selected and the speed all the way back to minimum approach speed prior to D7.8 IHZ).

There are altitude vs. DME crosschecks every mile so your vertical profile is easy to crosscheck. At MDA you should be on or very close to the correct visual profile.

My company would need the published visibility to fly this approach so I would expect to see the PAPI at MDA.

[Rockie]

You are obviously an AC pilot and probably know a lot more about this incident than you can/want to let on and no doubt have the qualifications/experience to give a reasonable viewpoint.

I am AC but have no more information than anyone else. The company is not commenting at all to us and certainly not publicly until the TSB releases their report (smart), and the TSB isn't saying a word until they do either (just as smart). It is public knowledge however what the weather was like at the time of the incident and it is pretty easy to surmise what approach the crew would have elected to do in those conditions. The rest is just placing yourself in their position and imagining what they would and would not have seen when reaching minimums. The Executive VP of Operations was on camera shortly after the incident stating that the crew was performing an approach in full compliance with the air regulations and he was absolutely right. But the air regulations are excessively permissive with their weather limits combined with this type of approach.

[55+]

You are obviously an AC pilot and probably know a lot more about this incident than you can/want to let on and no doubt have the qualifications/experience to give a reasonable viewpoint.

I am AC but have no more information than anyone else. The company is not commenting at all to us and certainly not publicly until the TSB releases their report (smart), and the TSB isn't saying a word until they do either (just as smart). It is public knowledge however what the weather was like at the time of the incident and it is pretty easy to surmise what approach the crew would have elected to do in those conditions. The rest is just placing yourself in their position and imagining what they would and would not have seen when reaching minimums. The Executive VP of Operations was on camera shortly after the incident stating that the crew was performing an approach in full compliance with the air regulations and he was absolutely right. But the air regulations are excessively permissive with their weather limits combined with this type of approach.

For sure. TSB isn't gonna say anything(for the record, I have dealt with TSB on IAP issues) and know the procedures well and know some of their people as well. As for AC, yes again, no commentary but no doubt there is a "chatter line" from the folks inside which of course stays there - as it should. Yes, the METAR sequence was/is known and so is the published vis of 1sm for that IAP..... Whatever the issues are/not, hope the flight crew do not get hung out to dry.

Cheers.

[KK7]

I fly a DHC-8 and our SCDA/CDAs are always flown using VNAV guidance. In practice it is no different than flying an ILS. At minimums you go around, no level off, and the vertical path brings you in a constant descent to the threshold, so it is very easy to be stabilized. We also fly a LOC as an SCDA with the FMS providing a pseudo glideslope like any other NPA.

We have one approach in our system where we cannot fly it as an SCDA or CDA as the altitudes are not correct in the database. Therefore we fly it as a stepdown. The unfamiliarity of step downs with our pilots in of itself raises the risk, as well as the fact that it is in the mountains, and has very high minimums. We all look forward to this approach being fixed so we can fly it as an SCDA.

[Rockie]

We also fly a LOC as an SCDA with the FMS providing a pseudo glideslope like any other NPA.

I'm curious, does your system provide pseudo-glidepath guidance while actively tracking the localizer, or does it only present the calculated information on your display without linking it to the flight director? Also do you have the capability of flying flight path angle or do you use VFPM?

Regardless...nice information to have when doing those approaches.

[ReserveTank]

How do you know they went below mins without visual reference ?

.

Because they hit obstacles prior to the runway. Just like all below mins crashes.

Has a report come out saying this? I think everyone needs to step back and let the investigation run its course

We don't need 2 years to figure out that they tried to sneak it into YHZ like a Navajo captain tries to sneak it into YTL. The weather at the time is a corroborating factor. They pushed it like so many do, but this time an airliner was crashed.

We all have to be glad that everyone is alive

No kidding? As long as no one is dead and feelings are not hurt let's keep crashing planes.

[ditar]

We also fly a LOC as an SCDA with the FMS providing a pseudo glideslope like any other NPA.

I'm curious, does your system provide pseudo-glidepath guidance while actively tracking the localizer, or does it only present the calculated information on your display without linking it to the flight director? Also do you have the capability of flying flight path angle or do you use VFPM?

Regardless...nice information to have when doing those approaches.

In the 737 (-300) a LOC approach is flown coupled to VNAV. Even on an ILS the VNAV path is still calculated and displayed on the screen.

[Rockie]

In the 737 (-300) a LOC approach is flown coupled to VNAV. Even on an ILS the VNAV path is still calculated and displayed on the screen.

That's a good system.

We don't need 2 years to figure out that they tried to sneak it into YHZ like a Navajo captain tries to sneak it into YTL.

That may be how it works where you're employed but it is not the way it works at Air Canada - "sneaking it in" is not part of our culture nor should it be at this level. This is not a bush operation where that kind of stuff is tolerated by either management or the crews themselves.

[CpnCrunch]

How do you know they went below mins without visual reference ?

.

Because they hit obstacles prior to the runway. Just like all below mins crashes.

The ODALS is 1500ft long and they landed 1100ft short, so how could they possibly have been "without visual reference" when they landed right on top of it?

[Ricktye]

Could very well be how it's supposed to work, but.......

My thoughts on this is that it needs to be solved quick! I feel the cause of this crash, that only by good luck didn't end much more seriously, needs to be addressed with considerably with more haste than say the recent German Wings incident. We know what happened there, here for no apparent reason, we almost lost a whole bunch of people!

Air Canada or "bush", something or someone screwed up!

R...

In the 737 (-300) a LOC approach is flown coupled to VNAV. Even on an ILS the VNAV path is still calculated and displayed on the screen.

That's a good system.

We don't need 2 years to figure out that they tried to sneak it into YHZ like a Navajo captain tries to sneak it into YTL.

That may be how it works where you're employed but it is not the way it works at Air Canada - "sneaking it in" is not part of our culture nor should it be at this level. This is not a bush operation where that kind of stuff is tolerated by either management or the crews themselves.

[MUSKEG]

Did they not take out a power pole prior to contacting approach lights? If so then those lights as well as runway lights would have gone dark as the impact with the power pole did cause a power outage at the airport. Or were the approach lights on a different feed.