Meatservo wrote:The lack thereof wasn't the cause in either case either however. A boat doesn't sink because its hull isn't covered in enough patches. It sinks because there's a hole in it.
Yes this was my intent. I meant no disrespect to the crew of either accident. I just mean all the equipment in the world won't prevent mistake completely.
Sure it was your intent. Want to buy some swamp land?
No matter how modern the equipment, shit still happens. I've racked up many a mile on crap equipment. It ain't the equipment. Keep drinking the Koolaid though.
Illya
It's difficult to get the intent of a comment when a one liner comes out of left field -- it's a good lesson for all of us ----- especially with a little thread drift added to the mix
Probably to be expected but what is interesting is the claims by this Law firm and what evidence they have in supporting their claims when this accident is just a few weeks old.....
Old fella wrote:Probably to be expected but what is interesting is the claims by this Law firm and what evidence they have in supporting their claims when this accident is just a few weeks old.....
The lawsuit fails to target Transport Canada who wrote the regulations permitting approaches with 50% of the published visibility in the first place. Those regulations and the wholly inadequate required visual references to complete a landing are the real culprits here. Tightening those up might force airports to invest in runway infrastructure and LPV's and/or precision approach aids instead of waterfalls and terminal art.
You cannot sue the government because of laws they did our didn't make. Google sovereign immunity. You can only sue the government for specific torts such as negligence. See Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
You cannot sue the government because of laws they did our didn't make. Google sovereign immunity. You can only sue the government for specific torts such as negligence. See Crown Liability and Proceedings Act.
From Wikipedia:
Canada
Canada inherited common law version of Crown immunity from British law. However, over time the scope of Crown immunity has been steadily reduced by statute law.[5] As of 1994, section 14 of the Alberta Interpretation Act stated, "No enactment is binding on Her Majesty or affects Her Majesty or Her Majesty's rights or prerogatives in any manner, unless the enactment expressly states that it binds Her Majesty."[6] However, in more recent times "All Canadian provinces[...] and the federal government (the Crown Liability Act) have now rectified this anomaly by passing legislation which leaves the "Crown" liable in tort as a normal person would be. Thus, the tort liability of the government is a relatively new development in Canada, statute-based, and is not a fruit of common law."[7]
It has also been a constitutional convention that the Crown in right of each province is immune from the jurisdiction of the courts in other provinces. However this is now in question.[8]
We aren't talking about laws either, we are talking about regulations. If you google "Canadian government sued" you will see that they can be sued and are sued regularly. Winning is another matter though since the government will spend as much of our money as necessary to win or at least delay until the other party gives up. In this case I think it would be fairly easy to prove the regulation failed to protect the public in comparison to stricter regulations everywhere else. I don't know of another jurisdiction that permits using 50% of the published visibilities which are not just numbers selected at random as you no doubt know. There is a reason that approach requires 1 nm visibility.
In all fairness, the aircraft did descend below published limits without adequate reference to the runway environment, evidenced by comming into contact with the ground 900 or so feet short....that's not really anybody else's fault. The approach plate is in plain understandable language. You fulfill the obligations of the approach, look up....no runway, you bug out. This is not rocket science.
Illya
The lawsuit fails to target Transport Canada who wrote the regulations permitting approaches with 50% of the published visibility in the first place. Those regulations and the wholly inadequate required visual references to complete a landing are the real culprits here.
Illya Kuryakin wrote:In all fairness, the aircraft did descend below published limits without adequate reference to the runway environment, evidenced by comming into contact with the ground 900 or so feet short....that's not really anybody else's fault. The approach plate is in plain understandable language. You fulfill the obligations of the approach, look up....no runway, you bug out. This is not rocket science.
Illya
This certainly bears repeating. Couldn't agree more in fact.
---------- ADS -----------
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
In Canada you don't need to see the runway to continue to land, and with the legal weather there at the time the crew wouldn't have. They would see the first few ODALS which is all you legally need. Had the 1mile been required they would have seen all the ODALS and the threshold.
Read the required visual references again in the CAP GEN. Flying that approach and landing off it was legal in every respect with 1/2 mile vis, but anywhere else but Canada and it wouldn't have been.
Are you saying then, that the crew in this accident actually flew this approach correctly, as published? Were they perfectly entitled to continue descent when they did, and they were let down by the way this approach was designed and approved? That the unacceptable-ness of this accident lies in the way the approach is designed and not in the time and location that was chosen to descend below MDA?
Illya Kurakin's statement may not be true in this case. It looks like some people believe that the scene out the window of that plane, while clearly not adequate to allow the aircraft to avoid terrain, was nevertheless adequate to justify a legal descent through the published minimum altitude?
---------- ADS -----------
If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself
I'm not commenting on what the crew did nor will I - I'll leave that to you experts. I'm commenting on the legality of flying that approach in Canada with the weather reported as 1/2sm visibility, and the legality of continuing below MDA for the purpose of landing when all they can see are approach lights when they reach minimums - not the runway itself.
There is nothing wrong with the way the approach is designed. Obstacle limits require minimums 300 feet above the threshold which is 1 nm back on a 3 degree slope. That's why the published vis limit is 1 mile. Canada is the only place I know that permits flying that approach with half the published visibility, and combined with the inadequate required visual references it sets the stage for this kind of event.
Rockie wrote:I'm not commenting on what the crew did nor will I - I'll leave that to you experts. I'm commenting on the legality of flying that approach in Canada with the weather reported as 1/2sm visibility, and the legality of continuing below MDA for the purpose of landing when all they can see are approach lights when they reach minimums - not the runway itself.
There is nothing wrong with the way the approach is designed. Obstacle limits require minimums 300 feet above the threshold which is 1 nm back on a 3 degree slope. That's why the published vis limit is 1 mile. Canada is the only place I know that permits flying that approach with half the published visibility, and combined with the inadequate required visual references it sets the stage for this kind of event.
For a LOC or LOC/DME non-precision apch the ROC(required obstacle clearance) final apch segment is 250ft, intermediate is 500ft and initial(PT or transitional is 1000ft. Visibility values are governed by HAT/HAA values as shown in matrix table.
---------- ADS -----------
Attachments
2015-04-22_18-09-06.jpg (144.59 KiB) Viewed 2149 times
Well Rockie, they landed 900 feet short of the runway.......tell me again how this is okay. I must have missed it. I guess you're saying, there's no legal requirement to see a runway, to continue to a point almost, but not quite all the way to the runway. I should go back to ground school. A total pooch job.
Illya
Once again for those not listening - I am not commenting on what the crew did or did not do. I am commenting on the regulations in Canada that permit flying approaches - especially non-precision approaches with no vertical guidance - with half the required visibility necessary to see the runway when reaching MDA. Furthermore it is not legally necessary to see the runway to descend below MDA for the purpose of landing.
Rockie wrote:
No other jurisdiction I know permits this.
Change is coming. Some operators are already modifying their own approach ban limits, procedures, and facility criteria. TC will eventually get there too.
Rockie wrote:The lawsuit fails to target Transport Canada who wrote the regulations permitting approaches with 50% of the published visibility in the first place. Those regulations and the wholly inadequate required visual references to complete a landing are the real culprits here. Tightening those up might force airports to invest in runway infrastructure and LPV's and/or precision approach aids instead of waterfalls and terminal art.
There already is an LPV approach to that runway; there are also PAPIs.
I think you meant "reading" instead of "listening". And we ARE reading. You stated that the lawsuit fails to target somthing that is irrelevant.
What sort of expertise or experience do you base that opinion on CID? Did your calculator tell you visibility was irrelevant?
HiFlyChick
The PAPI is of no help to you when it is 1000 feet beyond the threshold and your inflight visibility falls 1/2 a mile short of the threshold. At minimums with 1/2 the published visibility you are groping in the soup with inadequate visual references and no vertical guidance.
Rockie wrote:
The PAPI is of no help to you when it is 1000 feet beyond the threshold and your inflight visibility falls 1/2 a mile short of the threshold. At minimums with 1/2 the published visibility you are groping in the soup with inadequate visual references and no vertical guidance.
Well if the visual reference is inadequate, there is a procedure for that, it's written right on the plate in the 'missed approach' section.
You seem to imply, just because the approach can be attempted with lower vis, it should be completed to a landing. There is a world of difference between attempting an approach, and completing a landing. The allowance to proceed with lower than required vis is an acknowledgement of a simple real world fact, visibility changes quickly, and dramatically in many situations, so the regulations put the onus on the flight crew to make appropriate decisions. If you cant see what you need to see, then there is a process for that situation.
goldeneagle wrote:Well if the visual reference is inadequate, there is a procedure for that, it's written right on the plate in the 'missed approach' section.
The visual reference is inadequate for non-precision approaches with no vertical guidance, but it is still legal .. To my knowledge nowhere else are approaches permitted to be flown with less than the published visibility, and when you combine that with the fact it is not legally required to see the runway to descend below MDA for a landing it sets the stage for an accident. Canada does that when no place else does and that is a problem.
It is not good enough to simply say if the conditions are unsafe the pilot should do a go-around. In any other jurisdiction the pilot wouldn't be there in the first place with those reported conditions because every other jurisdiction considers it unsafe. Canada is the outlier here.
What sort of expertise or experience do you base that opinion on CID? Did your calculator tell you visibility was irrelevant?
Common sense.
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.
In any other jurisdiction the pilot wouldn't be there in the first place with those reported conditions because every other jurisdiction considers it unsafe
Umm...the accident aircraft absolutely is where it should NOT have been. Are you suggesting that regulations are never broken?
