Halifax crash report coming Thursday

[Notta Simfalt]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/medias-media/a ... 170516.asp

[CpnCrunch]

2 years and 2 months. Is that a record?

[rookiepilot]

Hard. Landing.

Today's report sponsored by AC......

[Canoehead]

2 years and 2 months. Is that a record?

No.. but considering Swissair was 3 ½ years I think, this had better be one incredibly detailed report.
The TSB did an amazing job then; airplane in shreds on the ocean floor with power loss (recorders ended pre-crash). This time the TSB had the freaking thing handed to them on a platter (Rwy 05). So by comparison this report is was overdue.

I'm not holding my breath. Hope I'm surprised.

[Rockie]

Prediction:

This will be a watershed report on par with Dryden, with far reaching recommendations that will fundamentally change the way we operate in Canada for the better.

[plhought]

It'll be an interesting Thursday for sure.

[Jet Jockey]

"The Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) will hold a news conference on 18 May 2017 to make public its investigation report (A15H0002) into the 29 March 2015 collision with terrain involving Air Canada Flight 624 at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport, Nova Scotia."

When: 18 May 2017 10:00 a.m. Atlantic Daylight Time (9am Eastern / 1pm UTC)
Where: Four Points by Sheraton, Halifax, Nova Scotia

The event will be broadcast live on TSB's YouTube channel.

Link: TSB Media Advisory

[teacher]

Like the swissair and Air France accident lots of recommendations will be made but few if any will be enacted.

Here's hoping they shed light on Canada's inadequate runway and approach lighting as well as head scratching approach ban minima.

[Rockie]

The approach ban is toast I'll bet. There's no way to defend it. There should also be a recommendation for every stakeholder in the industry to embrace RNAV approaches with vertical guidance because of their inherent safety, but the real selling point for everyone involved is their vastly lower cost. Airport lighting should also greatly improve with all the money they'll save on LPV and RNP approaches. GLS development should also get honourable mention if the TSB has done their job properly.

I'll be eagerly sitting in front of the telly tomorrow morning and will have my finger on the download button at tsb.gc.ca.

[Donald]

2 years and 2 months. Is that a record?

This one for a relatively simple runway over-run, took almost 2 years as well:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 5Q0075.pdf

[mato]

Anyone watching the live stream. Does not appear to be up an running.

Edit: found it on CBC then the sound gave out so guess I'll give up on the live stream.

[av8ts]

Here it is

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 5H0002.asp

[Rockie]

I just watched it, don't bother. Waiting for the report to be released on the TSB site.

[Snagmaster E]

Deleted.

[Snagmaster E]

Fatigue never mentioned at the presentation.

[CpnCrunch]

I've just scanned the report for the juicy bits. I think it boils down to this:

Air Canada's standard operating procedure and historical practice when flying in flight path angle (FPA) guidance mode was that once the aircraft was past the final approach fix (FAF), the flight crews were not required to monitor the aircraft's altitude and distance from the threshold or to make any adjustments to the FPA. This practice was not in accordance with Air Canada's and Airbus's flight crew operating manuals (FCOM).

It just seems a little odd that nobody noticed this problem before.

[goldeneagle]

Fatigue never mentioned at the presentation.

It was in detail in the report, and considered to be not a factor for this incident.

[DrSpaceman]

So basically they went under the MDA without visual references?

[Snagmaster E]

Is it just me, or did anybody notice that they started the descent 0.2 (1216) back from the FAF and were 0.3 (1824) back from the published MDA? Then wind accounted for 608' farther back from the MDA.

[Snagmaster E]

Fatigue never mentioned at the presentation.

It was in detail in the report, and considered to be not a factor for this incident.

Gotcha. No surprise there that fatigue rules are good as they are.

[Old fella]

Not being an AC pilot nor qualified on the particular aircraft type and in reading this accident report, it suggests deficiencies all round in which this flight crew got caught up in through no real fault of their own.

[telex]

Not being an AC pilot nor qualified on the particular aircraft type and in reading this accident report, it suggests deficiencies all round in which this flight crew got caught up in through no real fault of their own.

So the autopilot was at fault?

[Broker]

Not being an AC pilot nor qualified on the particular aircraft type and in reading this accident report, it suggests deficiencies all round in which this flight crew got caught up in through no real fault of their own.

Failure to monitor and correct flight path deviations and landing with inadequate visual reference point to human factors in my books. Both are very basic components of operating an aircraft whether addressed in company manuals or not.

[RatherBeFlying]

Figure 15 on page 50 says it all.

Basically the FPA mode achieves the desired descent angle in still air - works most of the time when the wind is not too strong.

One would have thought that FPA would be referenced to the touchdown point with GPS or IRS providing corrections. However the aircraft was not equipped with GPS.

The aerodynamicists will point out that FPA needs to be in the Earth Frame, not the Wind Frame.

[HavaJava]

Figure 15 on page 50 says it all.

Basically the FPA mode achieves the desired descent angle in still air - works most of the time when the wind is not too strong.

One would have thought that FPA would be referenced to the touchdown point with GPS or IRS providing corrections. However the aircraft was not equipped with GPS.

The aerodynamicists will point out that FPA needs to be in the Earth Frame, not the Wind Frame.

The Airbus FPA mode is actually quite complex and not well understood. It is not geometric, but attempts to be by comparing barometric vertical speed changes to IRS computed ground speed. The wind is factored in through IRS ground speed calculations but obviously the calculation is not completely instantaneous.

The FPA is not referenced to the touchdown point and if the aircraft deviates from the appropriate glidepath it will not return to that glidepath. Instead it will only attempt to regain the selected flight path angle. For example, if the aircraft is disturbed (through external perturbations), 200 feet below the intended glidepath, the aircraft will attempt to regain the selected FPA and parallel the initial glidepath rather than climb up to correct for the disturbance.