Resolute Bay Accident - Pilots Discussion Thread

[Lost in Saigon]

Well, you were obviously there so you know more of the story than most of us, but I have never heard of a control tower only controlling up to 700' below uncontrolled airspace. From what I have been reading the weather was not VFR and Borek did a missed approach off the Back Course.

If an aircraft is considered NORDO, you must protect ALL the airspace around the destination for something like 30 mins. This all seems highly IRREGULAR to me.

I have a lot of questions about this "Tower". Maybe you, or someone else, can answer them......

On which day did this tower start operating?

What did they call themselves?

Were you flying into or out of CYRB on Aug 20th?

The NOTAM said nothing about a tower in operation. As aircraft approached and gave out their position and intentions on the MF, what did the tower say to them?

Was the Glideslope ever off the air or unreliable on Aug 20, or any day prior? If so, did the tower mention it?

[55+]

As you clarified your earlier post I concede the point. However, you must then explain why the tower would give them landing clearance. Does this not count as controlling them? And, as the tower didn't give them an approach clearance, is it not possible that they were controlling the airspace from the ground to 700', as they were scheduled to two days later? Is it not therefore plausible that they had enabled a portion of the NOTAM earlier than expected while leaving the airspace in the MTCA uncontrolled? And, as the Borek 99 didn't enter this hypothetical control zone until 10 minutes after the 737, which, had it remained flying, probably wouldn't have lingered below 700' within 10 NM of the airport for that period of time, did the tower not reasonably suspect the jet had left their airspace? Everyone, both controller and pilot, assumed the 737 had missed and climbed out for another attempt or a return to YZF. To blame the tower for not preventing a VFR aircraft from making an approach when the tower hadn't confirmed the location of an aircraft which may not have descended below 700' and entered their airspace in the first place is ridiculous. They didn't even have the authority to grant an approach clearance. All they were doing was granting take-off and landing clearance.

If you airline pilots are confused about classification of airspace, who can do it, what publication is referenced and what communication is appliciple during what time via what format..... one has to wonder if the FirstAir crew were facing same while flying the airplane, while setting up the approach, watching the FMS(I understand from this site, FA has Universial systems with WAAS enabled software coding), and communicating to whom ever. Just wondering that is all, nothing more...........

[onspeed]

Nobody i've spoken with has a clear understanding what was going on with the tower, in terms of what their mandate was, at the time of the accident. They seemed to have been issuing landing clearances, which i'm sure would lead people to believe they were in control of the airspace or maybe just the runway. Either not normal.

[55+]

Exactly my point, confusion. May even be a contributing factor or a mentionable item. Who knows!!!


"Was the Glideslope ever off the air or unreliable on Aug 20, or any day prior? If so, did the tower mention it?"

Not sure who monitors the alarms on the nav facilities(maybe Arctic Radio) but equipment is monitored but wouldn't be by that temp military on-site facility. If there was an issue on reliability/unserviceability, it would have been notamed

[Flying Nutcracker]

7+ pages, all this discussion, allbeit interesting angles at times, but I still don't know why this aircraft crashed...

[fbcs]

There's no question it was a CFIT.

They tracked to the VOR instead of on the LOC, either because they forgot to switch freqs prior to intercepting, or else they flew the arc approach and again didn't switch freqs.

There are only two remaining questions: Why didn't they switch freqs, and why didn't their GPWS save them.?

How can you say that already? How do you know it isn't a situation where the crew applied power for a Go Around and they got nothing, perhaps a roll back in power from contaminated fuel or anything of the sort. It is one thing to speculate it is another to say something happened for sure.

Neither a botched go-around nor an engine failure in the go-around explains how they ended up more than one nautical mile east of the airport, paralleling the runway. With that kind of a lateral deviation they should have had full deflection on the LOC about 20 miles back from the airport. They were tracking the VOR, there's no question about that. CFIT.

It's unlikely they were doing a VHF Nav non-presision approach- ILS or RNAV approaches are the norm. The GPWS wouldn't have saved them as they would have been in the landing configuration.

[cncpc]

7+ pages, all this discussion, allbeit interesting angles at times, but I still don't know why this aircraft crashed...

It was lined up on the same inbound heading to the VOR as the inbound heading on the localizer. It crashed when it reached an area where the terrain on that heading inbound to the VOR exceeded the MDA they appeared to be flying at. That's why it crashed.

The questions all relate to what I am sure will be many circumstances which resulted in the aircraft being on the track it was on.

Some very interesting information today about the two approaches by the aircraft, previously unknown, and the existence of a military tower apparently exercising some kind of control, and of it asking aircraft to provide radial/distance info off the VOR.

Are there tower tapes at temporary military towers such as this one? For instance, did the aircraft report the GS unuseable on either approach?

[Lost in Saigon]

Some very interesting information today about the two approaches by the aircraft, previously unknown, and the existence of a military tower apparently exercising some kind of control, and of it asking aircraft to provide off the VOR.

Are there tower tapes at temporary military towers such as this one? For instance, did the aircraft report the GS unuseable on either approach?

If they have any "Tower" tapes, I bet they are going to be "unusable" for some mysterious reason. We don't need them because we have the CVR tapes from Air First 6560.

Here is what I see so far....

We have some "Rookies" playing at "ATC", requesting pointless VOR radial/distance information from a civilian aircraft about to shoot an ILS to minimums in some of the most challenging conditions on this planet.

Sounds like a perfect script for an Episode of "Mayday". http://www.discoverychannel.ca/Showpage.aspx?sid=12966

[Flying Nutcracker]

Cncpc... You have told me HOW it crashed, but yet with all discussion we are not yet educated enough to know exactly WHY it crashed the way it did.

I think you missed my sarcastic point...

[Diadem]

Well, you were obviously there so you know more of the story than most of us, but I have never heard of a control tower only controlling up to 700' below uncontrolled airspace. From what I have been reading the weather was not VFR and Borek did a missed approach off the Back Course.

If an aircraft is considered NORDO, you must protect ALL the airspace around the destination for something like 30 mins. This all seems highly IRREGULAR to me.

I have a lot of questions about this "Tower". Maybe you, or someone else, can answer them......

On which day did this tower start operating?

What did they call themselves?

Were you flying into or out of CYRB on Aug 20th?

The NOTAM said nothing about a tower in operation. As aircraft approached and gave out their position and intentions on the MF, what did the tower say to them?

Was the Glideslope ever off the air or unreliable on Aug 20, or any day prior? If so, did the tower mention it?

Yes, the weather at the aerodrome was IMC, and Borek missed on the first approach, but immediately upon executing the missed broke out into VMC again. The only location that was IMC was immediately around the airport for a distance of four to five miles. All of the traffic remained VFR until well into the approach; I was flying into YRB, and in my case we entered cloud on the ILS at about 1000'. Prior to that point the sky was clear and visibility was unlimited.
The tower was called "Resolute Tower". Every aircraft I heard taking off from and landing at YRB called them "Resolute Tower" without prompting; no one called CARS and was interrupted by the tower. I don't know exactly when they began operating, but every aircraft going in there, including several based there, knew they were operational. I also don't know whether they were limited to 700', but as I said, perhaps that was all they were mandated for under the expectation that terminal would be set up shortly to handle all of the traffic up to FL200. As I said, the terminal controllers were monitoring the frequency but not quite operational, so it's conceivable that they were opened consecutively, with the tower coming online first. I don't know the exact circumstances, and I suspect only the controllers working the station know all the details.

We have some "Rookies" playing at "ATC", requesting pointless VOR radial/distance information from a civilian aircraft about to shoot an ILS to minimums in some of the most challenging conditions on this planet.

What are you basing this condemnation on? By "rookies" do you mean highly trained air traffic controllers who handle dozens of movements every day at air force bases which in numerous cases double as civilian airports? Do you have any actual experience with CF ATC? I've flown through Comox numerous times, both in the MTCA and the control zone, VFR and IFR, and they deal with work loads equivalent to any civilian airport. They are at least as competent and professional as their civilian counterparts. The fact that they were requesting the bearing and distance - i.e. the position - of an aircraft inbound to their airport where they didn't have radar doesn't make sense to you? As I've pointed out repeatedly, the weather was clear VMC until ~5 NM south of the aerodrome. The 737 was in clear weather, not "the most challenging conditions on this planet" until they were on final, and the tower didn't request their position after they reported 10 miles back, when they were still VFR.

[Lost in Saigon]

Tower controllers are VFR only. They have no business trying to control IFR aircraft. The fact that they were means they were "Rookies" playing at being "Controllers".

First Air flies into CYRB all the time. No problem. One day the military shows, up sets up a Mickey Mouse Tower where one is not needed, and we have 12 dead.

I think I will have to leave this topic alone for awhile. I am very angry at what appears to be the needless death of 12 people because our Military needed a "Field trip".

[Flying Nutcracker]

[cncpc]

The military didn't put them on a course to the VOR. But somewhere in the chain of events that led up to that happening, I would think that the unusual presence of the military on the day was a factor in this accident.

How? If you follow the mistuned to the VOR theory, you have to ask when this mistuning happened. It doesn't seem that the VOR comes into play in the enroute or transition phase, and it isn't part of any approach. I've always wondered why 112.3 ever would have been put into a radio. Now, with the information that radial and distance from the VOR was being asked for, I can see a crack opening up that would have started the chain of events.

It seems there was a missed approach and then the accident approach. Could they have been mistuned for both, i.e. not notice the problem twice? Or after the first missed, were they asked for a radial and distance?

I'm not really a coverup conspiracy theorist, but the silence from the TSB is getting loud. They know by now if the HSI was running off the VOR frequency. If that were the cause, they would have given an update on the accident by now. Not the whole story, but the information that they have confirmed the mistuning and continue to investigate what led up to it.

I talked with a national media guy who was there the day after and he said there was something on the airfield rotating around, so I assume SSR then. No info on whether it was working at the time of the incident.

[CD]

I talked with a national media guy who was there the day after and he said there was something on the airfield rotating around, so I assume SSR then. No info on whether it was working at the time of the incident.

Antenna is visible in this photo...

[URC]

It seems there was a missed approach and then the accident approach.

Where are you getting there was a missed approach ? All accounts so far seem to indicate only 1 approach was flown.

[Brewguy]

...I'm not really a coverup conspiracy theorist, but the silence from the TSB is getting loud. They know by now if the HSI was running off the VOR frequency. If that were the cause, they would have given an update on the accident by now...

TSB investigations often take a year or more before a report is issued. And they are not in the habit of releasing interim information before the investigation is finished and the report written. Their 'silence' is normal.

[RogerCheckCopy]

Operational or not, I am reading the NOTAM(s) to say Class "D" control zone as being within 10NM and from surface to 6000'MSL, and Terminal Control area within 80NM from 700AGL to Flight Level 200. If they were talking to military twr/terminal they might have been requested to make position reports at specific DME distances from the VOR?

110102 CYRB RESOLUTE BAY
CYRB DAH IS AMENDED AS FLW:
CLASS D RESOLUTE CTL ZONE IS ESTABLISHED AS FLW:
THE AIRSPACE WITHIN 10 NM RADIUS 744301N 945810W
SFC TO 6000 FT MSL. FOR OPS NANOOK
1108101300 TIL 1108280100


110124 CYRB RESOLUTE BAY
CYRB DAH IS AMENDED AS FLW:
CLASS D RESOLUTE MTCA IS ESTABLISHED AS FLW:
THE AIRSPACE WITHIN 80 NM RADIUS 744301N 945810W
700 FT AGL TO FL200. FOR OPS NANOOK.
FREQ FOR OPS NANOOK:
RESOLUTE TML: 228.5000 MHZ
: 123.075 MHZ
GLOWWORM(MIL PAR): 243.4000 MHZ
: 128.850 MHZ
RESOLUTE TWR: 236.5 MHZ
: 122.1 MHZ
RESOLUTE GND: 122.6 MHZ
: 149.15 MHZ
1108221200 TIL 1108280100

[55+]

You can tell the Military to piss off cause the re-classification of Airspace from Class G to Class D MTCA is WEF 1108221200. They can request all they want, matter of fact you don't have to be on their freq at all. Also, the military doesn't have the authority to re-classify Canadian Domestic Airspace.........................

[nutbutter]

VOR and DME information should be set up on number 2 should it not? The ILS flown on number one, and if completing a straight in, the runway OBS'd on the GPS for the self vector. If you're flying the straight in ILS with the runway OBS'd and you switch to the VOR instead of the LOC, you're going to be a dot off at a ten mile final, without a functioning G/S. Is it possible they missed that and continued on what they thought was a LOC approach with a failed G/S at that point? It would have had to fool both pilots as they both would have made the switch to their number 2 instead of the number 1 Nav. If one switched correctly they would have conflicting information on either side of the cockpit, and at that point its a missed approach. Or if one pilot had kept the OBS'd GPS slaved, they would have noticed being off track again.
This airplane is two crew, with two computers, and two sets of avionics, both pilots need to make this navigational error at the same time in order to track the VOR. Alternatively one pilot needs to convince the second that he's set up incorrectly and should switch to the VOR instead of the GPS or ILS track.
This is how ridiculous the error would have had to have been in the plane I fly, I've never flown a 737-200 though.
Maybe they were tracking the VOR, but its not the easy error some of you are making it out to be.

Clearly SSR, or PSR weren't running at the time.
As for the Comm failure and shooting approaches, what do you think the procedure is with a comm failure and missing an approach? Isn't it carry on to your alternate and shoot the approach at the alternate at your ETA? I don't think circling for a second approach at destination is an option in the CAR's after a comm failure. Borek was in uncontrolled airspace at the time, they can shoot whatever approach they want, whenever they want, all they have to do is announce their intentions on the Terminal Advisory frequency, right? Traffic separation is not provided by ATC in uncontrolled airspace.
Did anyone hear what landing clearance was given to the 737? Were they cleared to land runway 35T or the option so they could circle for 17T? The wording of the landing clearance is important...


I laughed hard when I read this:

Seriously LIS, you think the tower controller were practicing? With real airplanes, in poor wx? Maybe some fake vectors just to shake out the cobb webs?

Give it a rest LIS, the military had very little to do with what was going on that day.

[nutbutter]

We have some "Rookies" playing at "ATC", requesting pointless VOR radial/distance information from a civilian aircraft about to shoot an ILS to minimums in some of the most challenging conditions on this planet.

This also made me laugh hard.

[aurora]

This airplane is two crew, with two computers, and two sets of avionics, both pilots need to make this navigational error at the same time in order to track the VOR. Alternatively one pilot needs to convince the second that he's set up incorrectly and should switch to the VOR instead of the GPS or ILS

This is the key here to the VOR theory an it's why I don't buy it. Give these guys some credit, they knew where they were.
The secret is in that CVR.

If the VOR wasn't tuned up, and they weren't circling, then maybe the avionics shit the bed at the wrong time, or perhaps runaway trim or something on short final.
Any 737-200 drivers care to share their theories?

[Diadem]

Tower controllers are VFR only. They have no business trying to control IFR aircraft. The fact that they were means they were "Rookies" playing at being "Controllers".

First Air flies into CYRB all the time. No problem. One day the military shows, up sets up a Mickey Mouse Tower where one is not needed, and we have 12 dead.

I think I will have to leave this topic alone for awhile. I am very angry at what appears to be the needless death of 12 people because our Military needed a "Field trip".

Okay, in case LIS comes back or anyone else still hasn't got this from the numerous times I've stated it: The tower was not controlling IFR aircraft. They were issuing take-off and landing clearances only. They requested position reports to know where the aircraft was, they weren't controlling it.
The fact that you've condemned the military with having absolutely no information on the causes of the accident, let alone that they were somehow responsible, tells me you had a bias against them before this happened and you're looking for a scapegoat. The TSB has said zero about the findings as to causes and the military tower might have had zero to do with it. On the contrary, without the military being present to launch the rescue operation it would have been left to a couple of dozen civilians with no search and rescue or medical training. Give it a rest.

[BTD]

Give these guys some credit, they knew where they were

Given that the aircraft hit a hill, I think it is not so certain they knew where they were. They may have believed that they knew.

VOR and DME information should be set up on number 2 should it not? The ILS flown on number one

[

Not all aircraft allow both pilots to work off the same radio (nav 1). On the aircraft I currently fly the Capts ILS is set up on Nav 1 and the F/Os on Nav 2. If you want a DME off a VOR then you can hold that frequency in the background for DME information only while flying the NAV. There is no way as an F/O to tune in Nav 1. Or visa versa. This means that while flying an ILS both pilots must be tuned to the ILS.

I'm not sure how the 37-200 works.

Nor do I know if this is the case with this accident. But next time I will double check anyway. Hence speculation not always a bad thing.

If that were the cause, they would have given an update on the accident by now

Just like they did with the Colgan accident in Buffalo? Then the media jumped on the icing bandwagon and the Q400 got some bad press. Then it turned out they just stalled it.

BTD

[Diadem]

Did anyone hear what landing clearance was given to the 737? Were they cleared to land runway 35T or the option so they could circle for 17T? The wording of the landing clearance is important...

If I recall correctly, they were cleared to land runway 35T. I believe they reported planning straight in, and by the time they arrived at the MAP the weather was well below circling minima anyway.

[jetb]

Another canadian carrier used to have an unofficial procedure on the 737-200. If you wanted to retain the dme display while doing an ILS, you would tune #1 to the ILS and #2 to the vor. Then you would transfer the display [overhead switch] to "both on 1" Now, both pilots would have their HSI displaying the info from the #1 radio, and the dme would readout from the vor still tuned on the #2 radio. This practice was banned after a crew mistakenly switched "both on 2" during an approach to Prince George. Thinking they were tracking the LOC, the aircraft descended towards the YXS VOR and very nearly had an accident. [With both radios tuned to the ILS you would not have a DME readout and there is no DME hold switch on the 200] The practice of transferring the display was then banned and to be used only in case of radio failure.