AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by Rockie »

Aircraft are not certified to auto land except on CATII/III runways with low visibility airport procedures in effect. Specific aircraft equipment must be serviceable, specific crew procedures must be briefed and executed, the aircraft may not be above max landing weight, and the wind must within certain limits. If all these conditions are met, the crew is of course still responsible and must be hands on ready to initiate a go-around at any point if necessary.

Auto lands can be carried out on CAT I runways but must be treated with heavy suspicion as neither the runway, ILS installation or aircraft are certified for it, and none of the protective procedures are in place to ensure ILS beam non-interference.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by Eric Janson »

An autoland and a Cat2/3 approach are 2 different things.

As Rockie correctly states an autoland can be made on any runway with an ILS. However there is no guarantee it will be successful for any number of reasons.

Normally an Airline will publish a list of autoland approved runways.

Mine doesn't - so I don't do autolands except on Cat2/3 certified runways. I'm not a Test Pilot.

If low visibility procedures are not in effect it is important to inform ATC that you are making an autoland so they can keep vehicles and aircraft out of the ILS protected areas.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by pelmet »

Rockie wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:15 am Auto lands can be carried out on CAT I runways but must be treated with heavy suspicion as neither the runway, ILS installation or aircraft are certified for it, and none of the protective procedures are in place to ensure ILS beam non-interference.
From the FAA...." Air Traffic Control (ATC) protects the ILS critical areas when arriving aircraft are inside the outer marker/final approach fix (FAF) on an ILS approach, and the reported ceiling is less than 800 feet or visibility is less than 2 miles."

https://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviatio ... O12007.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by Rockie »

I see you’ve made it your life’s work to dispute everything I say Pelmet...very well.

CAT I runways do not have the same ILS critical area isolation criteria or procedures CAT II/III runways have to enable auto lands. That’s just one of the reasons they aren’t certified on CAT I runways, or on CAT II/III runways when those criteria are not met. Have you noticed CAT II/III hold lines don’t exist on CAT I runways?

So no Pelmet, none of the required ILS beam interference protections exist on a CAT I runway for auto lands.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by pelmet »

Rockie wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:14 pm I see you’ve made it your life’s work to dispute everything I say Pelmet...very well.

So no Pelmet, none of the required ILS beam interference protections exist on a CAT I runway for auto lands.
I just dispute incorrect information whether it is from you or anyone else. It has nothing to do with personal opinion about a poster. Too bad this crew didn't advise ATC about doing an Autoland. This incident would not have happened. Does AC have a restriction on autolands on CAT I runways?
Rockie wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:15 am Auto lands can be carried out on CAT I runways ………………… none of the protective procedures are in place to ensure ILS beam non-interference.
Rockie wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:14 pm none of the required ILS beam interference protections exist on a CAT I runway for auto lands.
"From the FAA...." Air Traffic Control (ATC) protects the ILS critical areas when arriving aircraft are inside the outer marker/final approach fix (FAF) on an ILS approach, and the reported ceiling is less than 800 feet or visibility is less than 2 miles."
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by Rockie »

Pelmet. CAT I runway ILS critical area sterilization does not meet the standard required for CAT II runways. Argue against that all you like. Auto lands are not certified on CAT I runways in part for that reason, for anyone including Air Canada. Argue against that all you like too.

Tower sterilizing the ILS critical area on a CAT I runway does nothing to permit auto lands, it doesn’t move that ball down the field so much as an inch. It’s irrelevant. The sterilization required for an auto land does not occur on a CAT I runway because it doesn’t exist on a CAT I runway. Is that sufficiently clear for you? In fact for a CAT I runway it’s not a requirement to even have a control tower to begin with. You also have no idea if attempting an auto land would have prevented this incident unless access to alternate timelines is one of your talents.

It’s not relevant to why your argument is wrong in the US, but why are you quoting FAA tower procedures when this incident occurred in Toronto? You also didn’t answer my question if you’ve ever seen CAT II/III hold lines on a CAT I runway.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Flying Low
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 927
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by Flying Low »

The CAT I protected area is smaller than the CAT II/III protected area. On a CAT II/III runway you will often see different hold lines for CAT I vs CAT II/III. I know a 757 crew that set up for an autoland on a CAT I runway in the early hours of the morning only to have to take over manually at 50-100' agl as the the plane nosed down at the runway. There is nothing that says you can't do an autoland but if CATII/III or LVOP/RVOP operations are not in effect then you do not have the same protected area and the signal may get interfered with. In a case where they lost visual reference close to the ground would they have noticed a divergence due to signal interference? Hard to say.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."
altiplano
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5377
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by altiplano »

I agree with flying low.

There is nothing that prohibits you from doing autolands on a Cat 1 runway.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by Rockie »

Auto lands are not certified on a CAT I runway. Nobody said they were prohibited unless your company chooses to make that policy which some do. AC doesn’t. Others specify which ones you can and which ones you can’t. In all cases where it is not certified you do so knowing it’s not certified and act accordingly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by pelmet »

Flying Low wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:21 am I know a 757 crew that set up for an autoland on a CAT I runway in the early hours of the morning only to have to take over manually at 50-100' agl as the the plane nosed down at the runway.
The exact same thing can happen....and has happened on CAT II/III runways without sufficient protection.
Rockie wrote: Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:15 am Auto lands can be carried out on CAT I runways ………...and none of the protective procedures are in place to ensure ILS beam non-interference.
Rockie wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:55 am Pelmet.

why are you quoting FAA tower procedures when this incident occurred in Toronto?
From TC...….

"It has become evident that further clarity is required regarding when ILS signals are protected while an aircraft is established on an ILS approach. ILS signals will only be protected under the conditions described below. Glide Path Signal Protection Procedures A controller will protect the glide path signal when: 1. The ceiling is less than 1,000 feet or visibility is less than 3 miles, or both; and 2. The arriving aircraft is inside the final approach fix (FAF) on an ILS approach. "

https://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-an ... 017_01.pdf

Thanks Rockie but it sounds to me like at least some AC pilots are doing exactly as I suggest. Did you tell them differently. I suggest you ask your company why they have not prohibited what I suggest...an Autoland which would have prevented this AC incident. Advise ATC in advance and be ready to disconnect even if they have been advised.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by Rockie »

Still don’t know the difference between a CAT I and a CAT II runway or that there even is a difference.

Still don’t get that auto land is not certified on a CAT I runway...or why...or what that means.

Still think you can predict with absolute certainty this wouldn’t have happened with an auto land.

Still haven’t answered if you’ve seen CAT II/III hold lines on a CAT I runway.

I consider myself lucky I won’t ever have to fly with you Pelmet. No matter how many times it’s patiently explained to you, you refuse to acknowledge much less recognize, consider and prioritize the big picture. You’re the guy fixated on the lightbulb while the captain futilely tries to get you looking out the window at the Everglades rising to kill you.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by pelmet »

Rockie wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 5:55 pm Still don’t know the difference between a CAT I and a CAT II runway or that there even is a difference.

Still don’t get that auto land is not certified on a CAT I runway...or why...or what that means.

Still think you can predict with absolute certainty this wouldn’t have happened with an auto land(which would have prevented yet another incident).

Still haven’t answered if you’ve seen CAT II/III hold lines on a CAT I runway.

I consider myself lucky I won’t ever have to fly with you Pelmet. No matter how many times it’s patiently explained to you, you refuse to acknowledge much less recognize, consider and prioritize the big picture. You’re the guy fixated on the lightbulb while the captain futilely tries to get you looking out the window at the Everglades rising to kill you.
Still can't admit when you post wrong information and are corrected(a very hazardous attitude).

Still think you know more than the FAA and TC when their information is specifically used to prove your statements wrong(on this and the earlier thread).

Still haven't told us why autoland is not prohibited at Canada' biggest airline on CAT I runways.

Still haven't told us why two of your co-workers disagree with you right here on this thread.

Still think that this incident would have happened if autoland had been used.

Still think that insults somehow make your argument the correct one as compared to factual information(which shows complete immaturity and lack of credibility).

Still haven't told us why you would not use something because it is not certified.

Are you really serious that just because something is not "certified" you consider it to be invalid for use?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by Rockie »

pelmet wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 11:28 pm Still can't admit when you post wrong information and are corrected(a very hazardous attitude).

Still think you know more than the FAA and TC when their information is specifically used to prove your statements wrong(on this and the earlier thread).

Still haven't told us why autoland is not prohibited at Canada' biggest airline on CAT I runways.

Still haven't told us why two of your co-workers disagree with you right here on this thread.

Still think that this incident would have happened if autoland had been used.

Still think that insults somehow make your argument the correct one as compared to factual information(which shows complete immaturity and lack of credibility).

Still haven't told us why you would not use something because it is not certified.

Are you really serious that just because something is not "certified" you consider it to be invalid for use?
1. Everything I’ve said is correct. I could give the link to look it up yourself, but if you wanted to you would have done it already. You don’t want to.

2. I’ve posted TC, FAA and cited manufacturer and company policy on this and the other issue that proves me right. You’re not interested in it because it proves you wrong.

3. You didn’t ask why auto land isn’t prohibited on CAT I runways at AC. It is allowed for practise using the required degree of caution under certain conditions. It is not allowed as normal procedure to accomplish something the pilot cannot do that it is not certified for. It is not certified to land on anything but a CAT III/III runway with all the appropriate procedures in place, and within certain environmental and aircraft conditions. This is from the A320 limitations section:

Automatic landing system performance is demonstrated with CAT II or CAT III ILS/ MLS airport installation. However, automatic
landing in CAT I or better weather conditions is possible on CAT I ground installations or on CAT II/III ground installations when ILS/
MLS sensitive areas are not protected
, if the following precautions are taken:

– "The airline checked that the ILS/ MLS beam quality, and the effect of the terrain profile before the runway have no adverse
effect on AP/FD guidance. Particularly, the effect of terrain profile within 300 m before the runway threshold must be evaluated
– The flight crew is aware that LOC or G/S beam fluctuations, independent of the aircraft system, may occur. The PF is prepared to
immediately disconnect the autopilot, and to take the appropriate action, should not satisfactory guidance occur
– At least CAT2 capability is displayed on the FMA and the flight crew uses CAT II/III procedures
– Visual references are obtained at an altitude appropriate for the CAT I approach. If not, a go-around must be performed."


Notice is says nothing about protecting the ILS sensitive area on a CAT I installation Pelmet. That's because it isn't relevant...it make no difference whatsoever unless it's on a CAT II/III installation with CAT II/III ILS sensitive area protection. It is not written anywhere that the company has satisfied the first precaution on that list, and until that is completed I cannot do an autoland on this runway as it would be violating the aircraft limitations.

4. None of my co-workers have disagreed with me on this thread. If they had they would be disputing company policy and manufacturer guidance, and I haven’t seen anybody do that.

5. Show me where I said this incident would have happened if they used auto land. I on the other hand can show where you said with absolute certainty - twice - that it wouldn’t have.

6. I give you factual information but you refuse to see it. Don’t talk to me about insults.

7. Show me where I said I wouldn’t use something because it is not certified. I explicitly told you when and under what conditions I could.

8. Show me where I said something is invalid for use because it is not certified. Again, I’ve explicitly said when we could use it.


You make stuff up, and you do not recognize or even acknowledge evidence that doesn’t support your belief. It is not possible to have a rational discussion with someone like you.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by pelmet »

Ignoring the rest of your typical rant, you did actually post something useful(I suppose because it is a quote)…...
Rockie wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 3:28 am This is from the A320 limitations section:

Automatic landing system performance is demonstrated with CAT II or CAT III ILS/ MLS airport installation. However, automatic
landing in CAT I or better weather conditions is possible on CAT I ground installations or on CAT II/III ground installations when ILS/
MLS sensitive areas are not protected
, if the following precautions are taken:

– "The airline checked that the ILS/ MLS beam quality, and the effect of the terrain profile before the runway have no adverse
effect on AP/FD guidance. Particularly, the effect of terrain profile within 300 m before the runway threshold must be evaluated
– The flight crew is aware that LOC or G/S beam fluctuations, independent of the aircraft system, may occur. The PF is prepared to
immediately disconnect the autopilot, and to take the appropriate action, should not satisfactory guidance occur
– At least CAT2 capability is displayed on the FMA and the flight crew uses CAT II/III procedures
– Visual references are obtained at an altitude appropriate for the CAT I approach. If not, a go-around must be performed."
I have never flown an Airbus, therefore this information is new to me. The Boeing manuals are different and simply say to monitor more closely and nothing that I have seen in Boeing manuals mentions about the airline checking out the approach.

Boeing says(at least for some of its aircraft) in their FCTM discussion of Autoland capabilities...... "ILS beam quality may vary and autolands performed from a Category I approach at these facilities should be closely monitored." Admittedly, I assumed the Airbus is the same, especially with this quote from the accident report....."The flight crew discussed the lack of centreline lighting on Runway 15R and the possibility of using the Autoland system if conditions worsened."

However, the truth is the truth and that is all I am interested in. It appears that my recommendation should not necessarily apply to Airbus aircraft unless the airline has actually taken the opportunity to spend some money enhancing safety and checked the appropriate items, ideally this would be done at a home base like YYZ. Safety costs money. Maybe AC should spend a little money doing so and getting the new rain repellent for their windshields. Might prevent an incident like this.

See my next post about why I brought up the Autoland discussion but meanwhile, I amended the post initiating the Autoland discussion.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pelmet on Sat Sep 29, 2018 8:48 am, edited 8 times in total.
hamstandard
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 161
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:33 am

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by hamstandard »

Speaking of autolands at YYZ, has anybody noticed an unusual pitch up of several degrees tendency on runway 06 during an Autoland? Seen it a few times.
---------- ADS -----------
 
NotDirty!
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 554
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 4:04 pm

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by NotDirty! »

altiplano wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:43 am I agree with flying low.

There is nothing that prohibits you from doing autolands on a Cat 1 runway.
Except on the 320 at AC; as per ATB 560:
CAT 2 or CAT 3 OPERATIONS MUST BE IN EFFECT FOR AUTOMATIC LANDING. AUTOLAND during CAT 1 operations is prohibited for line operations until clarification of the procedure is received from airbus.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by pelmet »

NotDirty! wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:58 pm
altiplano wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:43 am I agree with flying low.

There is nothing that prohibits you from doing autolands on a Cat 1 runway.
Except on the 320 at AC; as per ATB 560:
CAT 2 or CAT 3 OPERATIONS MUST BE IN EFFECT FOR AUTOMATIC LANDING. AUTOLAND during CAT 1 operations is prohibited for line operations until clarification of the procedure is received from airbus.
So is it an A320 thing only? Sounds like a little ass covering by Airbus for potential liability protection.

From the report....."The flight crew discussed the lack of centreline lighting on Runway 15R and the possibility of using the autoland system if conditions worsened." and "Autoland can also be executed on a CAT I approach. In this occurrence, because the reported RVR was almost double that which was required, the PF determined that an autoland was not necessary."

No wonder I thought that it could be used on the Airbus on 15R and now you know why I suggested it. Because of what was written in the TSB report. And as I said earlier, apparently AC Airbus pilots ARE obviously willing to seriously discuss using it.....according to the TSB. So I didn't make up anything as falsely accused by guess who...once again.
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5377
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by altiplano »

NotDirty! wrote: Fri Sep 28, 2018 4:58 pm
altiplano wrote: Wed Sep 26, 2018 8:43 am I agree with flying low.

There is nothing that prohibits you from doing autolands on a Cat 1 runway.
Except on the 320 at AC; as per ATB 560:
CAT 2 or CAT 3 OPERATIONS MUST BE IN EFFECT FOR AUTOMATIC LANDING. AUTOLAND during CAT 1 operations is prohibited for line operations until clarification of the procedure is received from airbus.
I didn't know that... I'm not flying the bus...

Anyway, I can imagine whose idea it is... and I think it's garbage, but what are you going to do...
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by Rockie »

I’ve found over the years that manufacturers and airline fleet management people who make policy generally have more information at their disposal than we do. It’s also generally a good idea to follow those policies even if it contradicts what the Avcanada peanut gallery thinks.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: AC A320 slides off runway at YYZ

Post by pelmet »

So to sum up...…

From the report....."The flight crew discussed the lack of centreline lighting on Runway 15R and the possibility of using the autoland system if conditions worsened." and "Autoland can also be executed on a CAT I approach. In this occurrence, because the reported RVR was almost double that which was required, the PF determined that an autoland was not necessary."

But...autolands are not allowed in the Airbus at AC and therefore company procedures concerning this were followed regardless of the earlier discussion in the cockpit. However, if your company has taken the time to analyze the cat 1 Autoland ability for a particular runway(or there is no restriction on your aircraft), my earlier advice stands....do the Autoland.

Then we got a good example of how the inertia of larger aircraft can take time to counteract and at a critical location....this can be the result. The drift continued even after touchdown.

"when the aircraft was descending through 26 feet AGL, the PF made a brief large right roll input (approximately 75% of maximum deflection) on the sidestick, and the aircraft responded by entering a 4° right bank. The aircraft heading began to increase slightly and the aircraft began to drift to the right of the runway centreline.
Approximately 1 second later, the PF reduced the thrust to idle.

".....at approximately 8 feet AGL, the aircraft was 32 feet to the right of the centreline, and the PM told the PF that the aircraft was drifting to the right. The PF acknowledged and input a left roll command and applied left rudder. The wings returned to level, although the drift to the right continued due to the aircraft’s momentum."


"the left main wheels touched down on the runway surface, followed quickly by a very brief right-main-wheel touchdown, or skip. At this point, the aircraft was on the paved runway surface, 2227 feet from the displaced threshold and 64 feet to the right of the runway centreline. The outboard wheel of the right main gear was approximately 20 feet from the right runway edge. The aircraft continued drifting to the right following the skip, and when the right main wheels touched down again, they were approximately 8 feet to the right of the paved runway surface, in wet grass.

As the aircraft continued to move laterally to the right, the nose wheel touched down on the grass, approximately 280 feet beyond the final right-main-wheel touchdown point, and struck 1 runway edge light. The outboard left main wheel and left engine cowling then each struck 2 runway edge lights, and the outboard left tire was punctured and deflated."


If you are drifting, especially in poor vis, you might want to consider going around as it might prevent a runway excursion.

I have never flown the Bus, so I am not sure if a 75% roll input during the flare in light winds is a normal event or not.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”