TSB Report into 2015 Jazz 'landing' in CYAM

[Cliff Jumper]

I just noticed the report is out - not sure when it came out. Sorry if it's been posted before

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 5o0015.asp

Apart from the obvious, it seems to suggest that a lot of Jazz flights are unstable. I would have bet against that. Am I reading it wrong?

[pelmet]

I only read the findings part of the report. I have to admit that I was extremely surprised to read this about a carrier like Jazz...

"The company standard operating procedures require an approach speed of Vref + 5 knots; however, this is being interpreted by flight crews as a target to which they should decelerate, from 120 knots, once the aircraft is below 500 feet. As a result, the majority of examined approaches, including the occurrence approach, were unstable, due to this deceleration."

And they are doing this in IMC?

[atphat]

Reading the report I am much more concerned about the crews decision to continue the "approach" when given RVR reports of 1100-1000 ft? Very experienced crew. Scary.

[bobcaygeon]

I only read the findings part of the report. I have to admit that I was extremely surprised to read this about a carrier like Jazz...

"The company standard operating procedures require an approach speed of Vref + 5 knots; however, this is being interpreted by flight crews as a target to which they should decelerate, from 120 knots, once the aircraft is below 500 feet. As a result, the majority of examined approaches, including the occurrence approach, were unstable, due to this deceleration."

And they are doing this in IMC?

Going from 120 to 106 in any Dash 8 takes zero effort with those props. If the TSB wants to point fingers they should look at the operating environment Jazz is expected to operate in and out of every day ie YYZ. ATC is constantly asking them to keep their speed up. The classic Dash 8 never lands with full flaps because its too slow and ATC would have a mental breakdown.

The crews have flown the aircraft to the operating environment that they have likely worked in for a very long time.

The AOM is a paper document that even the guy who wrote it doesn't follow (in this particular area) the rare time he leaves his desk for the line.

[Black_Tusk]

I only read the findings part of the report. I have to admit that I was extremely surprised to read this about a carrier like Jazz...

"The company standard operating procedures require an approach speed of Vref + 5 knots; however, this is being interpreted by flight crews as a target to which they should decelerate, from 120 knots, once the aircraft is below 500 feet. As a result, the majority of examined approaches, including the occurrence approach, were unstable, due to this deceleration."

And they are doing this in IMC?

I don't fly the classic, and wasn't there in 2015, but that's nothing like our AOM for the jet. Jazz has been pushing stable approaches for a long time now and were told to say unable if ATC tells us to keep your speed up if it's outside a stable approach parameter. I get told daily 160/170 to the faf, especially in YVR. In the jet, that is not stable according to the AOM. So maybe it's time to have a chat between TC and Nav Can to stop this nonsense.

[ahramin]

I only read the findings part of the report. I have to admit that I was extremely surprised to read this about a carrier like Jazz...

"The company standard operating procedures require an approach speed of Vref + 5 knots; however, this is being interpreted by flight crews as a target to which they should decelerate, from 120 knots, once the aircraft is below 500 feet. As a result, the majority of examined approaches, including the occurrence approach, were unstable, due to this deceleration."

And they are doing this in IMC?

I don't fly the classic, and wasn't there in 2015, but that's nothing like our AOM for the jet. Jazz has been pushing stable approaches for a long time now and were told to say unable if ATC tells us to keep your speed up if it's outside a stable approach parameter. I get told daily 160/170 to the faf, especially in YVR. In the jet, that is not stable according to the AOM. So maybe it's time to have a chat between TC and Nav Can to stop this nonsense.

Or maybe it's time to rethink a stable approach criteria that can't deal with the real world and has little to no net safety benefit.

[skypirate88]

I only read the findings part of the report. I have to admit that I was extremely surprised to read this about a carrier like Jazz...

"The company standard operating procedures require an approach speed of Vref + 5 knots; however, this is being interpreted by flight crews as a target to which they should decelerate, from 120 knots, once the aircraft is below 500 feet. As a result, the majority of examined approaches, including the occurrence approach, were unstable, due to this deceleration."

And they are doing this in IMC?

I don't fly the classic, and wasn't there in 2015, but that's nothing like our AOM for the jet. Jazz has been pushing stable approaches for a long time now and were told to say unable if ATC tells us to keep your speed up if it's outside a stable approach parameter. I get told daily 160/170 to the faf, especially in YVR. In the jet, that is not stable according to the AOM. So maybe it's time to have a chat between TC and Nav Can to stop this nonsense.

I have a hard time believing you can't meet stable criteria while maintaining 170 to the FAF. The RJ AOM states while IMC, you must be stable (landing config) by 1000 feet and 500 feet in VMC. Why is it that you are unable to meet the criteria? I don't fly the RJ so I am curious.

We get told to maintain 170 to the FAF in YYZ all the time on the Q. It is pretty easy to accommodate that request, and then still make our stable criteria by 1000. Our props don't help us slow nearly as quick as the classic.

[teacher]

Agreed with many of the comments when it comes to speed on approach. If the stable approach criteria of most large airlines were adhered to by the Dash 8 a go around would be required daily OR ATC would have a melt down as stated above.

On the classic I've had 180 KTS to the marker assigned by ATC in a 300 and there's no way we could have achieved the stable approach criteria without VERY aggressive power, prop and flap changes.

If stable approaches are SO important ATC has to start getting on board and prioritize them over efficiently moving aircraft.

[Black_Tusk]

I only read the findings part of the report. I have to admit that I was extremely surprised to read this about a carrier like Jazz...

"The company standard operating procedures require an approach speed of Vref + 5 knots; however, this is being interpreted by flight crews as a target to which they should decelerate, from 120 knots, once the aircraft is below 500 feet. As a result, the majority of examined approaches, including the occurrence approach, were unstable, due to this deceleration."

And they are doing this in IMC?

I don't fly the classic, and wasn't there in 2015, but that's nothing like our AOM for the jet. Jazz has been pushing stable approaches for a long time now and were told to say unable if ATC tells us to keep your speed up if it's outside a stable approach parameter. I get told daily 160/170 to the faf, especially in YVR. In the jet, that is not stable according to the AOM. So maybe it's time to have a chat between TC and Nav Can to stop this nonsense.

I have a hard time believing you can't meet stable criteria while maintaining 170 to the FAF. The RJ AOM states while IMC, you must be stable (landing config) by 1000 feet and 500 feet in VMC. Why is it that you are unable to meet the criteria? I don't fly the RJ so I am curious.

We get told to maintain 170 to the FAF in YYZ all the time on the Q. It is pretty easy to accommodate that request, and then still make our stable criteria by 1000. Our props don't help us slow nearly as quick as the classic.

Some fixes are 1200' +-AGL so 200 feet to slow to 135, add flaps is not enough time to become stable. Especially in the 705 which is quite slippery, it would require big power adjustments. When VMC, sure it's doable since you have until 500' but should we be doing it? I'm still pretty new on the plane but just my observations thus far.

[Commonwealth]

I just reread 602.31-the one about compliance to ATC instructions.

Does a speed to the FAF constitute an instruction, or is it a clearance where compliance requires acceptance by the PIC?

[pelmet]

Thanks,

Some good replies. It looks like it has spread from YYZ to places like YAM. Is the same sort of flying done everywhere even though it is an issue in only the busier locations. Perhaps a 500 foot stable in IMC could be considered for ILS approaches only. Is that realistic?

[Lotro]

.

[PROC_HDG]

Isn't the bigger issue here that the crew continued the approach even after losing visual reference to the runway/approach lights?

PROC_HDG

[ahramin]

Isn't the bigger issue here that the crew continued the approach even after losing visual reference to the runway/approach lights?

PROC_HDG

BINGO. When was the last time anyone had that in the sim?

[Tail-Chaser]

I don't fly the classic, and wasn't there in 2015, but that's nothing like our AOM for the jet. Jazz has been pushing stable approaches for a long time now and were told to say unable if ATC tells us to keep your speed up if it's outside a stable approach parameter. I get told daily 160/170 to the faf, especially in YVR. In the jet, that is not stable according to the AOM. So maybe it's time to have a chat between TC and Nav Can to stop this nonsense.

I have a hard time believing you can't meet stable criteria while maintaining 170 to the FAF. The RJ AOM states while IMC, you must be stable (landing config) by 1000 feet and 500 feet in VMC. Why is it that you are unable to meet the criteria? I don't fly the RJ so I am curious.

We get told to maintain 170 to the FAF in YYZ all the time on the Q. It is pretty easy to accommodate that request, and then still make our stable criteria by 1000. Our props don't help us slow nearly as quick as the classic.

Some fixes are 1200' +-AGL so 200 feet to slow to 135, add flaps is not enough time to become stable. Especially in the 705 which is quite slippery, it would require big power adjustments. When VMC, sure it's doable since you have until 500' but should we be doing it? I'm still pretty new on the plane but just my observations thus far.

I can see how the speed difference can be a problem, but there's no reason you can't be doing 160 to the FAF with flaps 45, then slow to ref pretty quickly within about a mile or so from there. Just my observation.

[Black_Tusk]

If you're 45 flap doing 160 you'll be tickling if not over the barber pole.

[Tail-Chaser]

If you're 45 flap doing 160 you'll be tickling if not over the barber pole.

Flap operating/extended speed is 170 for flaps 45.

[crazyaviator]

Flap operating/extended speed is 170 for flaps 45

. yeppers and why not fly at VNE limits all day long cause the manufacturer says you can do that ! what about redline all engine gauges because you CAN,,,,,, IDIOTS !!

[Black_Tusk]

Flap operating/extended speed is 170 for flaps 45

. yeppers and why not fly at VNE limits all day long cause the manufacturer says you can do that ! what about redline all engine gauges because you CAN,,,,,, IDIOTS !!

[Tail-Chaser]

Flap operating/extended speed is 170 for flaps 45

. yeppers and why not fly at VNE limits all day long cause the manufacturer says you can do that ! what about redline all engine gauges because you CAN,,,,,, IDIOTS !!

I agree with you, as I said 160kts and not 170. I stated the flap limit because I believe that someone was asserting that 160 was the limitation which would be incorrect.