Halifax crash report coming Thursday

[pelmet]

I've seen over 100 FPA approaches flown in an A320 simulator using the same SOPs and not once did the aircraft end up significantly low on the approach when the procedure was flown in accordance with the training.

I wonder about the sim scenario. If you have flown many of them, then you will know that there are differences between the sim and the airplane. And different sims from different manufacturers can handle differently from each other.

I have seen in a sim where no change in rudder input during the entire takeoff roll results in the desired trajectory along the runway being maintained such as in a crosswind. It is a computer thing.

I wonder how accurate the winds on approach are in a sim setup for FPA. Can the random so-called “perturbations” of turbulence and varying winds which can result in a parallel trajectory really be simulated? Is it the same in all sims?

Perhaps there is a greater tendency for it all to work out positioning-wise in the sim if the initial trajectory was properly set up. That could mislead crews into thinking that FPA will always get you into the desired position over the threshold if you started out properly.

Then some similar experiences on the line where the ‘perturbations’ all mostly cancelled themselves out reinforced that view when in fact, there could be occasional times where it doesn’t work out.

It would be interesting to hear from some experienced guys on real world versus simulator experiences using FPA and its accuracy in placing the aircraft in a nice position for landing with no further or only very minor further inputs required for the last portion of the descent once the AP is disconnected.

[Capt. Underpants]

Yes there are differences, but as you know the simulator will only fly to the programmed performance profile. This one was never identified in any differences briefing I was involved with, and I've used about a dozen different simulators in numerous locations. The Airbus simulators are excellent overall because they have mountains of captured flight data and systems data to build on. As with the 737 MAX MCAS situation, you can't train it if you don't identify it.

[swordfish]

There must be HUNDREDS of npa's flown every day by 320 (-family) that don't end up in the same predicament. Systematically beating the odds of failure.

I am not proposing or pontificating punitive measures for the crew. The preliminary report that John Lee delivered to NATA a year ago alluded to all the corrolary factors but nowhere did they lay the blame for the event squarely where it belonged.

That is what I object to.

[Heliian]

It's a tale as old as time.

Pilots pushed it and lost. Blame whomever you want, it won't change what happened and it won't stop someone else from doing it.

[pelmet]

It's a tale as old as time.

Pilots pushed it and lost. Blame whomever you want, it won't change what happened and it won't stop someone else from doing it.

Possibly. But I am just trying to get deeper into what the thought process was. Was there an assumption by the crew that the descent trajectory would take them to a proper position like a glide slope all the time, most of the time, perhaps they knew there was no guarantee of proper positioning and just got caught up in all the goings on of the approach and things happened more quickly than expected, etc.

If the Airbus sims never show that ‘perturbations’ might lead to deviations due to sim not being able to simulate randomness of perturbations, it would be useful for pilots to be informed of this.

One would think that with winds frequently decreasing significantly on approach, that FPA guidance would frequently be inaccurate.

Anybody have actual experiences they want to share.

[pelmet]

CVR might be made public....

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/p ... spartandhp

[goingnowherefast]

Didn't know that was allowed in Canada. Can't imagine ACPA being happy about it either.

[Capt. Underpants]

This needs to be challenged all the way to the SCOC, and the TSB and TC should be the ones who take that challenge forward.

[ReserveTank]

CVR might be made public....

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/p ... spartandhp

As well it should be.

[boeingboy]

What possible information could they need when the transcripts are available?

[Eric Janson]

One would think that with winds frequently decreasing significantly on approach, that FPA guidance would frequently be inaccurate.

Anybody have actual experiences they want to share.

Flown plenty of approaches using NAV/FPA and TRACK/FPA. Always seemed to get me to where i needed to be.

It is critical to monitor altitude vs distance and adjust the FPA as required. You never just set it and never crosscheck altitude vs distance.

I've never flown for any Operator that allowed for anything but the charted visibility to be used for an NPA. This ensured sufficient visual references to see the PAPI/VASI at MDA and make small corrections.

No operator I have worked for could legally have flown this approach on the night in question.

[Donald]

What possible information could they need when the transcripts are available?

I assume they are suing everybody involved, so maybe this is info for their lawsuit?

[bcflyer]

One would think that with winds frequently decreasing significantly on approach, that FPA guidance would frequently be inaccurate.

Anybody have actual experiences they want to share.

Flown plenty of approaches using NAV/FPA and TRACK/FPA. Always seemed to get me to where i needed to be.

It is critical to monitor altitude vs distance and adjust the FPA as required. You never just set it and never crosscheck altitude vs distance.

I've never flown for any Operator that allowed for anything but the charted visibility to be used for an NPA. This ensured sufficient visual references to see the PAPI/VASI at MDA and make small corrections.

No operator I have worked for could legally have flown this approach on the night in question.

I agree 100%. The fact that TC signed off on an ops spec that allowed a NPA to be flown in 1/2 vis speaks volumes about the state of regulation in this country. (It has since changed however we are still allowed to go below the published vis and still aren’t allowed to adjust the angle inside the FAF)
FPA works just fine as long as you remember that’s is a cloud breaking procedure just like any other NPA. When people start using it like a precision approach things get a bit sketchy.

[Capt. Underpants]

What possible information could they need when the transcripts are available?

The TSB doesn't release transcripts. A transcript is a documented version of what was said, like a script for a scene in a movie. The TSB will summarize important elements of cockpit communications when they are directly relevant to the investigative findings - but that's as far as it goes in terms of public information.

[Capt. Underpants]

CVR might be made public....

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/p ... spartandhp

As well it should be.

Why?

[pelmet]

One would think that with winds frequently decreasing significantly on approach, that FPA guidance would frequently be inaccurate.

Anybody have actual experiences they want to share.

Flown plenty of approaches using NAV/FPA and TRACK/FPA. Always seemed to get me to where i needed to be.

It is critical to monitor altitude vs distance and adjust the FPA as required. You never just set it and never crosscheck altitude vs distance.

But the question is....when do you decide that the approach is not 'satisfactory'. At a 0.1 mile difference, 0.5 miles, something else. Did the other pilot read the distance off at exactly the correct time when you see a bit of a disrepency. Seems very subjective.

[valleyboy]

CVR recordings are not for public consumption in Canada. There will be a long legal battle of this judge rules in favour. The age of instant gratification undermines the whole process of accident investigation. I for one think 2 years is a very reasonable time period to get to the truth. Who in their right mind wants a incorrect analysis of an accident just to satisfy what people think they want.

This is also greed driven by a bunch who want to sue. It's ironic that monies paid to victims eventually comes out of the pockets of future passengers. Compensation sure but at a reasonable rate not the inflated settlements of the USA.

[Eric Janson]

I agree 100%. The fact that TC signed off on an ops spec that allowed a NPA to be flown in 1/2 vis speaks volumes about the state of regulation in this country. (It has since changed however we are still allowed to go below the published vis and still aren’t allowed to adjust the angle inside the FAF)

That sounds like another one of these accidents waiting to happen imho.

Not to mention that this goes against the manufacturers procedures.

But the question is....when do you decide that the approach is not 'satisfactory'. At a 0.1 mile difference, 0.5 miles, something else. Did the other pilot read the distance off at exactly the correct time when you see a bit of a disrepency. Seems very subjective.

It's very simple - just read the altitude vs Distance profile as published on the chart.

Example:- 10 DME/3200'

as PNF I always mention the next distance/altitude prior to reaching it as a reminder to the PF.

At 10 DME the PNF states "xx ft high/low" or "on profile"

What is important is the TREND - if I'm consistently 20' high I'll just leave everything alone.

If I'm 20' high at one fix and 30' high at the next then I will adjust the FPA (-3.2 to regain profile then -3.1 to keep profile. Small corrections).

FPA is becoming a thing of the past. Increasingly NPA's are being flown like an ILS - the latest airbus aircraft will actually display ILS symbology on an NPA.

Depending on who you fly for you may now never see an NPA outside of a Simulator.

[goingnowherefast]

That's a dangerous game that judge is playing. It undermines the whole intent of the CVR. People will just fly around with the CB pulled instead of letting some greedy lawyer get their hands on it.

[rookiepilot]

That's a dangerous game that judge is playing. It undermines the whole intent of the CVR. People will just fly around with the CB pulled instead of letting some greedy lawyer get their hands on it.

How is accountability maintained and enforced?

Purely via the cozy relationship between the regulators and the airlines? Like Boeing and the FAA, by chance? Are you saying the families of the dead victims shouldn't be compensated in that case?

How everyone can criticize Boeing's culture, and want them to pay, but are freaked out by any mention of holding a Canadian airline accountable....is beyond me.