Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

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

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

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by confusedalot » Tue Feb 20, 2018 5:39 am

Yes of course, that would be the obvious course of action in a non radar environment, which is why I still think something is still missing in this particular writeup/event. One of those he said she said affairs where confusion was paramount?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

Eric Janson
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by Eric Janson » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:31 am

I think some of you may be missing the following:-
Air traffic control cleared the flight to descend to 6000 feet MSL at pilot's discretion.
Perfectly normal to get this kind of clearance.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business

BBQ Chips
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:55 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by BBQ Chips » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:07 am

I have flown into Huatulco many times. Once as a brand new FO my Captain interpreted exactly this clearance in exactly the same way while we were IMC. I quickly corrected them and we landed without incident (not saying I am a super pilot, just illustrating how easily and quickly the clearance can be confused based on 2 words). A thick Mexican accent never helps things either. Perhaps a better clearance would be “cleared 6000 feet with your own terrain “
---------- ADS -----------
  

mbav8r
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1933
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by mbav8r » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:43 am

Have not flown into Mexico but a question that comes to mind, are the terms “radar identified and radar services terminated” in use?
Perhaps the crew thought they were identified.
---------- ADS -----------
  

monkey
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:36 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by monkey » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:19 am

The descent into HUX is made in Non Radar environment. Like all of Central America, Mexico, you are on your own for terrain. Cleared for the approach doesn't mean you can just automatically descend down to whatever altitude you want to, you still need to respect minimum safe altitudes. In this case from NUDOS, the reference for safe altitude is the airway MEA, then the 25 NM sector altitude from the chart. The highest peak is essentially directly on the airway, if you descend down from NUDOS it won't take long to get to the same altitude as the ridge line.

Pretty serious lack of situation awareness, they are very lucky not to have had a hull loss.
---------- ADS -----------
  

hst
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:44 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by hst » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:51 am

confusedalot wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:43 pm
Something is missing in this picture.
I’d agree. A healthy dose of S.A!

Having operated into this airport many times in the past (C3,SSV days) this place along with OAX, MZO, PVR etc should make one extra vigilant with respect to terrain and procedural IFR clearances.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by CpnCrunch » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:23 am

monkey wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:19 am
Cleared for the approach doesn't mean you can just automatically descend down to whatever altitude you want to, you still need to respect minimum safe altitudes.
But they weren't just "cleared for the approach". They were cleared to descend to 6000ft at their discretion. I don't think this could happen in Canada, as ATC is prohibited from issuing clearances below the minimum IFR altitude unless within radar airspace.

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and ... 19.pdf#top

Isn't "descend at your discretion" normally reserved for VFR, at least in Canada? And doesn't ICAO regulate this phraseology?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by CpnCrunch on Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

kevenv
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 596
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:19 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by kevenv » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:05 am

CpnCrunch wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:23 am
I don't think this could happen in Canada, as ATC is prohibited from issuing clearances below the minimum IFR altitude unless being radar vectored.

http://www.navcanada.ca/EN/products-and ... 19.pdf#top
That's not what your attachment says at all.

"Within air traffic service (ATS) surveillance coverage, it is common for controllers to issue the minimum
vectoring altitude (MVA) when issuing direct routes. An MVA can be lower than a published minimum IFR
altitude (minimum sector altitude [MSA], minimum obstacle clearance altitude [MOCA], MEA, or area
minimum altitude [AMA])."

For our purposes the MVA is an appropriate minimum ifr altitude. No need to be on vectors for us to use it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by CpnCrunch » Tue Feb 20, 2018 11:13 am

Sorry, I meant within radar coverage, which is what the PDF says. I've edited my original comment.

In this case they were in a non-radar envionment.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by confusedalot » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:17 pm

But, but, but, on the Air Canada OTS thread, it has been declared that Air Canada only hires the faultless best.....and those who are not offered a position are substandard.

Sorry for the sarcasm, one of my chief character faults. Yeah, this is looking like a rather blatant situational awareness problem.

Just waiting for an AC shill to hijack the thread.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4070
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by pelmet » Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:07 am

confusedalot wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:17 pm
Just waiting for an AC shill to hijack the thread.
They seem to have mysteriously disappeared. I'll fill in.....No one hurt, on time....good job.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by confusedalot » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:27 am

absolutely, thank god the egpws did a good job and nobody got hurt.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

Gilles Hudicourt
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2034
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
Location: YUL

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by Gilles Hudicourt » Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:21 am

confusedalot wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:32 pm
Oh and one more thing, every single airplane driver in this world knows that there is such a thing a minimum radar vectoring altitudes that the controller knows at any given place but you may perhaps not, since they are not published on jepps. So clearing an airplane to 6000 feet east of Hualtuco does not make sense, knowing the cumulogranites that just so happen to permanently be there.

So...are you going to question the controller on his minimum radar vectoring altitude in comfy yyz? You better have a good answer for that if you do.

Which brings me to my first point; something is missing in this picture, nothing more.
Except that this was a non radar environment. Like in Canada in such a case, the pilots are responsible for terrain clearance......
Minimum Altitudes to Ensure Obstacle Clearance
602.124 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, except when taking off or landing, or when being radar-vectored by an
air traffic control unit
, ensure that the aircraft is operated at or above
(a) the MOCA, when the aircraft is on an airway or air route; and
(b) the minimum altitude established by the Minister to ensure obstacle clearance and specified on an IFR chart, when the aircraft is within airspace in respect of which such a minimum altitude has been established.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
confusedalot
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 906
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: location, location, is what matters

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by confusedalot » Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:39 am

I think you are missing the point. We all know the rules, we all know not to fly into terrain, we all know, by reading the report comfy at our computers, that they were in a non radar environment.

Question is, did they realize that? If they did, and knowing the rules like everybody does, why did they do what they did?

Back to the situational awareness issue. Anyways, it's been debated to death.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attempting to understand the world. I have not succeeded.

veni, vidi,...... vici non fecit.

:?

RFN
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 6:26 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by RFN » Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:20 am

Just flew into HUX the other day; my second time there ever, and my first in over 4 years. It was about a 6-7k ft ceiling over the mountains and basically SKC over the water.

The controllers are very clear, "Thick Mexican Accents" and all, that you are now radar service terminated. And even if you were still getting vectors, 6000ft is a long way from 14000. wow.
Its a good thing that controllers in other countries around the world don't have strong accents. Or terrain.

HUX is terrain critical, but it is by no means a complicated airport at all. The charts are painfully clear, even to a Non-AC driver. If you can get a reroute from Mexico City to the Oaxaca VOR and down to the HUX, that airway gets you in the lower 25 mile sector West of the 338 radial (i think... chart isn't in front of me), to 11400. If still IMC, crossing the VOR at 11400, and say 200kts with some flap makes it very simple and easy to descend on the teardrop to land on 25.

This incident is exactly why EGPWS (and the Escape Maneuver) exist so yay it did ITS job.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
daedalusx
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 302
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:51 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by daedalusx » Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:35 am

RFN wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:20 am
This incident is exactly why EGPWS (and the Escape Maneuver) exist so yay it did ITS job.
EGPWS can be MEL-ed ... what would have happened then ? Yay luck did ITS job ?!

Image
---------- ADS -----------
  
In twenty years time when your kids ask how you got into flying you want to be able to say "work and determination" not "I just kept taking money from your grandparents for type ratings until someone was stupid enough to give me a job"

User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2045
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by complexintentions » Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:56 pm

Actually if the EGPWS had been MEL'ed that day it's equally possible they would have been more vigilant about checking their min safe altitudes.
---------- ADS -----------
  
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by rookiepilot » Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:23 pm

daedalusx wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 10:35 am
RFN wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:20 am
This incident is exactly why EGPWS (and the Escape Maneuver) exist so yay it did ITS job.
EGPWS can be MEL-ed ... what would have happened then ? Yay luck did ITS job ?!

Image
.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by rookiepilot on Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by rookiepilot » Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:26 pm

CpnCrunch wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:23 am
monkey wrote:
Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:19 am
Cleared for the approach doesn't mean you can just automatically descend down to whatever altitude you want to, you still need to respect minimum safe altitudes.
But they weren't just "cleared for the approach". They were cleared to descend to 6000ft at their discretion. I don't think this could happen in Canada, as ATC is prohibited from issuing clearances below the minimum IFR altitude unless within radar airspace.
I assume you are excluding "cleared for AN approach" -- like in N Ontario Uc Airports in that ATC prohibition.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4070
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by pelmet » Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:28 pm

complexintentions wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 12:56 pm
Actually if the EGPWS had been MEL'ed that day it's equally possible they would have been more vigilant about checking their min safe altitudes.
And it is possible they would not.

Perhaps some only are more vigilant when the EGPWS is MEL'd as is implied by the above statement. Of course, if it is inop for a reason....such as, it was not working on the flight prior it being MEL'd, then perhaps, unknown to the crew, it was inop during a previous flight. One should not base their increased vigilance on the hope of the GPWS system's operability.

Plus, one should not be relying on it in the first place as it may have bad information. EGPWS is not just terrain, it is obstacles(option) as well but obstacles change, meaning the database needs to be changed. Airlines have a history of not having the database up to date.

I can't copy from this PDF file but on page 19 is an example of a EGPWS equipped aircraft crashing with no EGPWS alert.
https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/upl ... p18-20.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by pelmet on Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by rookiepilot » Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:36 pm

.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by rookiepilot on Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4070
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by pelmet » Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:42 pm

Looks like some in Transport Canada are blaming recent Air Canada incidents on government budget cuts....

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/travel/news/b ... spartandhp
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1483
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by rookiepilot » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:53 pm

pelmet wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:42 pm
Looks like some in Transport Canada are blaming recent Air Canada incidents on government budget cuts....

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/travel/news/b ... spartandhp
.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by rookiepilot on Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

CpnCrunch
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2933
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:38 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by CpnCrunch » Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:05 pm

rookiepilot wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 4:26 pm
I assume you are excluding "cleared for AN approach" -- like in N Ontario Uc Airports in that ATC prohibition.
My point was that whether or not they were cleared for the/an approach had nothing to do with it. ATC shouldn't be giving clearance to descend to below IFR minimum altitude at pilot's discretion. Would you get that kind of clearance in N.Ontario? My guess is that they'd clear you down to the minimum IFR altitude, then you'd be cleared for an approach and you then follow the approach chart on your own after that.

The other thing to consider is that they might have been in VMC, which seems possible given the METAR.
---------- ADS -----------
  

FICU
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 2:37 am

Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

Post by FICU » Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:14 pm

We are routinely cleared for approaches out of FL290 in a non-radar environment in Canada. No altitudes given by ATC and terrain clearance is on us. We brief 100nm safe, 25nm safe, and approach altitudes when IMC. Nothing unusual.

Terrain clearance is always the responsibility of the crew whether radar or non-radar. Don’t like the clearance then question it.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”