Accident Report C-GPBA Exact Air December 9, 2009

[402_pilot]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 9q0203.asp

[RichAir]

The recommendation of the TSB makes sense. Many pilot don't use constant descent approach but they should. CDA are more comfortable for passengers with less changes of power. This will help on an engine failure too because every time you change power setting, you have to retrim. Some are scared of it because some step downs are higher than a 3 degrees approach; just use a x degrees approach. On a heavy, step downs won't bring you safely on the runway. It's time to change the industry mind of step down altitudes.

[2.5milefinal]

I see we are going to start to fixate on SCDA now. What about the bad weather (or maybe bad weather) they were flying in.
These guys busted mins and crashed, just for starters. In my opinion they either lost situational awareness and let it sink into the trees or they stalled it. I am all for the use of SCDA but please lets not start pretending that it may stop approach accidents in the 703 world.
And another thing, is it just me or is the TSB and TC hooked on the acronym CFIT?

[RichAir]

Something I didn't see in the report is the accident happened short of a mine which has bright lights at nite. Maybe in this weather, they though it was the runway. The report also states the alternate wasn't legal when they updated before leaving. I remember I was flying that night thinking I was better not to lose situational awareness because it was the kind of weather for an accident. I had the though it was a cfit as well the next day, maybe tsb and Tc just know what a cfit scenario looks like.

[2.5milefinal]

Did they have control of their situation and machine when they landed short of the runway? Sorry for being blunt but I think not.

[swordfish]

The implementation of SCDA approaches in Canada is LONG overdue. Almost every NPA in Europe is based on SCDA. They are simple to fly -well, with 2 crew - and way more comfortable. Decision making at the MDA is simple: you're either visual or you're in a missed approach.

The step-down procedures in Canada requiring massive power and attitude changes are as primitive and error-prone as slipping on an icy footpath. The introduction of SCDA approaches here should have been done a "long time ago".

[MUSKEG]

I have flown many many step down approaches and although they are not my favorite never have I used MASSIVE power and attitude changes. I would assume that if you are using that technique, when the aircraft crashes you won't get hurt because you are so far behind it.

[55+]

The implementation of SCDA approaches in Canada is LONG overdue. Almost every NPA in Europe is based on SCDA. They are simple to fly -well, with 2 crew - and way more comfortable. Decision making at the MDA is simple: you're either visual or you're in a missed approach.

The step-down procedures in Canada requiring massive power and attitude changes are as primitive and error-prone as slipping on an icy footpath. The introduction of SCDA approaches here should have been done a "long time ago".

Fair enough, your statement has merit. Now explain how this crew perform SCDA to touchdown, what AS and rate of descent required to maintain that 3.0deg VPA profile.

[swordfish]

140 kt, flaps approach, gear down. Depending on the wind, 700 fpm. However, it's a no-brainer to follow the altitudes at the various fixes on the way down, and make incremental adjustments to your power to stay on the slope regardless of finicky wind changes.

"Massive" power changes when you go from 100-200 ft.lbs incremental adjustments to stay on slope, to double the power to level off. And THAT depends on whether your SOP calls for you to be fully configured (for landing) at the FAF....when you need almost cruise power to stay level.

[55+]

742fpm to be precise (based on your IAS of 140kts). Might not seem much(and it isn’t) but throw in some deviations(like high on the initial 3.0VPA intercept altitude) well the descent gradient will have to be higher to appoint it may exceed 400ft/nm(3.7 deg VPA) which is the max allowed of a str-in. Unless you are FMS equipped , the RNAV(GNSS) is loaded in and your VPA is calculated, annunciated, displayed, this isn’t an issue. But for a 70’s era BEA100, who knows.
SCDA has to be flown on the dot…………..

[2.5milefinal]

SCDA works ok without an auto pilot but its way better with a (good) working auto pilot.