Halifax crash report coming Thursday

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
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by Eric Janson »

pelmet wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2368
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by Donald »

boeingboy wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:29 am 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?
---------- ADS -----------
 
bcflyer
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1304
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:35 am
Location: Canada

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by bcflyer »

Eric Janson wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:36 am
pelmet wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Capt. Underpants
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by Capt. Underpants »

boeingboy wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:29 am 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Capt. Underpants
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by Capt. Underpants »

ReserveTank wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:56 am
pelmet wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:05 pm CVR might be made public....

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/p ... spartandhp
As well it should be.
Why?
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by pelmet »

Eric Janson wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:36 am
pelmet wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pelmet on Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 797
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Black air has no lift - extra fuel has no weight
http://www.blackair.ca
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by Eric Janson »

bcflyer wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:59 am 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.
pelmet wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by rookiepilot »

goingnowherefast wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 4:47 pm 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.
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by goingnowherefast »

SMS, hahaha.

Can sue all you want, just don't use the CVR or FDR.
---------- ADS -----------
 
55+
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 421
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 4:49 pm

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by 55+ »

---------- ADS -----------
 
rigpiggy
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2858
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:17 pm
Location: west to east and west again

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by rigpiggy »

---------- ADS -----------
 
ReserveTank
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:32 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by ReserveTank »

bcflyer wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:59 am
Eric Janson wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:36 am
pelmet wrote: Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
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.
This is exactly it. FPA is a lot like using V/S in terms of "roughing it" down to MDA. You still have to pay attention to MDA (or DDA), MAP fix distance, and VDP. I have a heavy type with a FPA mode, and it's a sore spot for crews because some tend to rely on it blindly. Ours was based mostly upon groundspeed, which essentially makes it a glorified V/S. Our AOM called for setting FPA 0.3 NM prior to FAF or FAWP. Our company had safety reports of crews trying to fly it in completely void of a legitimate profile and references to continue down. The SCDA thing going on down in the States (some call it CDFA) is promoting this behaviour. The approaches are NPA but set up as a precision profile. Most operators have the missed altitude preset, so now there is nothing to catch you except callouts. Plus, on planes with RA only and no BARO computer callouts, you have to ignore the "minimums" automated call. Bad stuff...just to dispatch an aircraft.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ReserveTank
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:32 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by ReserveTank »

goingnowherefast wrote: Thu Nov 21, 2019 5:45 pm SMS, hahaha.

Can sue all you want, just don't use the CVR or FDR.
Normally, I'd agree, but the crew crashed a plane. MDA is MDA, and it seems that they broke it. Having the context of the audio is powerful and should shed a lot of light on exactly how this went down. They know it would be damning (as it should be), hence the resistance. I support my fellow airline pilots, but if you're out there busting mins in an airliner full of people, it should be game over for you.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by Eric Janson »

ReserveTank wrote: Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:05 pm This is exactly it. FPA is a lot like using V/S in terms of "roughing it" down to MDA. You still have to pay attention to MDA (or DDA), MAP fix distance, and VDP. I have a heavy type with a FPA mode, and it's a sore spot for crews because some tend to rely on it blindly. Ours was based mostly upon groundspeed, which essentially makes it a glorified V/S. Our AOM called for setting FPA 0.3 NM prior to FAF or FAWP. Our company had safety reports of crews trying to fly it in completely void of a legitimate profile and references to continue down. The SCDA thing going on down in the States (some call it CDFA) is promoting this behaviour. The approaches are NPA but set up as a precision profile. Most operators have the missed altitude preset, so now there is nothing to catch you except callouts. Plus, on planes with RA only and no BARO computer callouts, you have to ignore the "minimums" automated call. Bad stuff...just to dispatch an aircraft.
Using FPA is a huge improvement over V/S mode imho.

Almost half the approaches I do are NPAs. These are done at night with a large 4 Engine jet.

If flown properly FPA allows for flying a very accurate vertical profile. The problem may be that people don't see NPAs outside the Simulator and don't practice them in VFR conditions to gain confidence in the system.

All NPAs are becoming continuous descent approaches - flying level at MDA is prohibited at my company. My company adds 40' to all MDAs to cover the go-around.

Continuous descent on the correct profile is far safer than making large corrections close to the ground imho.

If NPAs are not being flown correctly then that is a training issue imho. The manufacturers procedures are there for a reason.

We can set our minimums referenced to Barometric altitude or Radio Altimeter (Cat 2/3 only).

You should always be crosschecking your vertical position on every approach you fly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Ki-ll
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:16 pm

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by Ki-ll »

ReserveTank wrote: Fri Nov 22, 2019 10:13 pm Normally, I'd agree, but the crew crashed a plane. MDA is MDA, and it seems that they broke it. Having the context of the audio is powerful and should shed a lot of light on exactly how this went down. They know it would be damning (as it should be), hence the resistance. I support my fellow airline pilots, but if you're out there busting mins in an airliner full of people, it should be game over for you.
Have you read the report? Do you have doubts in what TSB found to be the cause?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Cliff Jumper
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by Cliff Jumper »

Eric Janson wrote: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:50 am
You should always be crosschecking your vertical position on every approach you fly.
I completely agree with your point, but it might not be valid here.

Have a look at the alt/distance chart in figure 1 in the report, and then compare it to the cross-check altitudes on the plate in the appendix. If they had in fact been cross-checking, at which point would they have released that they were low?

Not until they were 0.7nm final.

Too late, in my opinion. Below MDA, and much later than I'd want the PNF cross checking an altitude chart.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by Eric Janson »

Cliff Jumper wrote: Sat Nov 23, 2019 10:31 am
Eric Janson wrote: Sat Nov 23, 2019 1:50 am
You should always be crosschecking your vertical position on every approach you fly.
I completely agree with your point, but it might not be valid here.

Have a look at the alt/distance chart in figure 1 in the report, and then compare it to the cross-check altitudes on the plate in the appendix. If they had in fact been cross-checking, at which point would they have released that they were low?

Not until they were 0.7nm final.

Too late, in my opinion. Below MDA, and much later than I'd want the PNF cross checking an altitude chart.
I see 5 different points where altitude vs DME can be checked after passing the FAF (the last one being MDA). Crosschecking these would have shown the aircraft was below the profile. It wasn't part of the SOP according to the report.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Cliff Jumper
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:22 am

Re: Halifax crash report coming Thursday

Post by Cliff Jumper »

Agreed, there are 5 different points. Look at the altitudes and distances on figure 1. The aircraft was above the slope on the first four points, and didn't fall below until the last one, which as you mention, is past the MDA.

So, if they had cross checked (which they didn't) they would have realized that they were a little high, but correcting. Until they got to 0.7 nm final, at about 200 feet. The idea that you would cross check that last point, once you're already past the MDA, and inside of a mile final, is a little absurd in my opinion.

Maybe that's just me however? Is your airline cross checking altitudes on NPA's, inside of a mile final?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”