Air Canada YHZ

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

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

User avatar
HiFlyChick
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by HiFlyChick »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:12 am ...It's not up to carriers to be forced to adapt, logical as that might sound, they can choose to go somewhere else. It's up to the airport to build and maintain proper facilities to attract business, and that takes money. The provider of a service adapts to their customer....
That's probably the best way that I've heard it expressed, RP - well done! I've been thinking about it from the perspective of safety in going from place to place, equipment, etc (i.e. the airlines providing the service for their customer), but totally missed it from the perspective of the air operators are customers and HIAA should be supplying what they need/want to attract them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by rookiepilot »

HiFlyChick wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:34 am
That's probably the best way that I've heard it expressed, RP - well done! I've been thinking about it from the perspective of safety in going from place to place, equipment, etc (i.e. the airlines providing the service for their customer), but totally missed it from the perspective of the air operators are customers and HIAA should be supplying what they need/want to attract them.

737 MAX -- same deal. It isn't stupid hysteria, if the customer, mom and pop casual flier, think its serious. It's perception, confidence has been impaired -- to the customer.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5122
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by pelmet »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:12 am By Pelmets logic, clearly doesn't understand business in the slightest, Pearson would could decommission it's ILS network too, as it costs lots of money to maintain and keep certification, and all airlines should be using WASS anyway. :roll:
Actually, they will someday. The days of the ILS are dated. GPS is going to replace it just like radar is planned to be replaced. People with reasonable knowledge on subject realize that maintaining existing infrastructure is much less expensive than installing it. That's logic.

I must admit that I get quite a bit of entertainment reading RookiePilots posts on the other forum complaining about me like a 5 year old.

So lets see some of the useful posts he has given us on this thread which may help us pilots encountering the same situation....

rookiepilot wrote: Tue Mar 05, 2019 7:15 pm Very , very classy of whoever this was, at the same time.

So classy -- Heck, if I was on board, I'd happily split the bill with you if it's your money. Less inclined if it's a full 777!
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Mar 06, 2019 3:28 pm Those luxury "fact finding" trips must be fun too. Just like the government.
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Mar 12, 2019 5:40 am "Well, copy and paste function still works = Value added. :roll:"


Oh gee...thanks so much for your intelligent posts Rookie(or is it Rockie?) which have provided so much more useful info to the flying pilot as compared to mine. They are almost as useless as all the ones you made on the hangar fire thread. You seem to just be a waste of bandwidth. If you have nothing useful to post aside from always blaming others(Makes sense because I think he is a lawyer), try going somewhere else, like the other forum where I can smile every time I see your failed childish attempts to insult me.
---------- ADS -----------
 
av8ts
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 839
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 8:31 am

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by av8ts »

pelmet wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:27 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:12 am By Pelmets logic, clearly doesn't understand business in the slightest, Pearson would could decommission it's ILS network too, as it costs lots of money to maintain and keep certification, and all airlines should be using WASS anyway. :roll:
Actually, they will someday. The days of the ILS are dated. GPS is going to replace it just like radar is planned to be replaced. People with reasonable knowledge on subject realize that maintaining existing infrastructure is much less expensive than installing it. That's logic.


Are you saying CatIII ILS approaches will be replaced by gps/wass approaches?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by Diadem »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:12 am
HiFlyChick wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 5:38 am
I must confess that I too wonder why everyone is so appalled that YHZ doesn't have an ILS to 32 and 05 instead of putting any onus on the carriers to get WAAS. I've heard the counter-argument from folks who say that from a strictly business point of view, if Halifax wants to increase its cargo business and grow as a world class hub then they need to entice carriers with good facilities (i.e. cater to everyone, including those without RNAV).
A) because of their weather, which can be demanding.

B) because of the multiple indicidents there, would seem to demand someone take a good look at the facilities, and I don't mean the Tim Hortons.

C) your second sentence, and the type of traffic Halifax has and wants to attract, if they wish to grow. Applies to any major airport. Airports are major economic drivers for a region, and maybe some cargo operators won't want to risk their birds there. And maybe the lack of good facilities has held Halifax back, before WASS even existed.

It's Small town thinking.

If Halifax was concerned about the cost -- and they should have done this many, many years ago --- they certainly could take a customer survey and see what people say about what they want out their airport.

It's not up to carriers to be forced to adapt, logical as that might sound, they can choose to go somewhere else. It's up to the airport to build and maintain proper facilities to attract business, and that takes money. The provider of a service adapts to their customer.

By Pelmets logic, clearly doesn't understand business in the slightest, Pearson would could decommission it's ILS network too, as it costs lots of money to maintain and keep certification, and all airlines should be using WASS anyway. :roll:
What a ridiculous concept: spend millions to build and maintain approaches based on 1930s technology to appease a couple of dinosaurs that refuse to join the rest of us in the 21st Century. Halifax didn't switch to RNAV approaches and then force everyone to adopt the technology; they started certifying RNAVs because almost everyone was moving to new technology that's more efficient and every bit as accurate as an ILS. They can build as many LPVs as they want without installing a single piece of hardware, but you want the airport to install, certify, and maintain ILSs to every runway end in order to allow Air Canada to avoid having to retrofit their aircraft with LPV-capable GPSs? Sounds like you want the public to subsidize another company...
Think of it this way: if an airline stated an interest in flying to YHZ, but they don't have any VOR receivers in their aircraft, and they wanted the airport to install NDB-NDB approaches to all runways before they started going there, would the airport really be losing much by not having their business? AC obviously wants to fly into YHZ, so if they want to be able to compete with WestJet without losing money over incidents and diversions, they should get with the times and get some avionics that are as up-to-date as WS's. When I first started my career, I flew some light twins that were built in the 1970s and had been retrofitted with LPV-capable GPSs, so obviously the cost would be bearable for a company as large as AC.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by Diadem »

av8ts wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:55 am Are you saying CatIII ILS approaches will be replaced by gps/wass approaches?
It's probable that LAAS approaches with CAT II-comparable mins will start coming online in the next decade.
---------- ADS -----------
 
RVR6000
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by RVR6000 »

av8ts wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:55 am
pelmet wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:27 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 6:12 am By Pelmets logic, clearly doesn't understand business in the slightest, Pearson would could decommission it's ILS network too, as it costs lots of money to maintain and keep certification, and all airlines should be using WASS anyway. :roll:
Actually, they will someday. The days of the ILS are dated. GPS is going to replace it just like radar is planned to be replaced. People with reasonable knowledge on subject realize that maintaining existing infrastructure is much less expensive than installing it. That's logic.


Are you saying CatIII ILS approaches will be replaced by gps/wass approaches?

Yeap, GLS approaches are good to CAT 1 limits now. CAT II/III are in development. Few US airports already advertise GLS approaches. 787 and 737 are equipped with it at AC.

Neat technology developed by the US military.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/GBA ... stem_(GLS)

https://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/2016 ... tation.pdf
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by RVR6000 on Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by rookiepilot »

Diadem wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:05 am
What a ridiculous concept: spend millions to build and maintain approaches based on 1930s technology to appease a couple of dinosaurs that refuse to join the rest of us in the 21st Century.
What's the issue with surveying their current and prospective customers, doing a cost benefit analysis, and deciding from there, from a customer centric point of view?

It's maybe not AC, but the cargo business YHZ might wish to build. Let the customer decide, and pay through the fee structure.

If the customer agrees with you and is adopting WASS, fantastic.

--------------------------

YHZ is a tough case too. Not many alternates nearby for a cargo 747, and add the weather there. Going to a far away alternate, big bucks for that cargo operator.

Even one more ILS, probably to 05, would add a lot of options and reduce risks. Probably should have been there all along , probably would never be put in now----------I'll concede that
---------- ADS -----------
 
Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by Diadem »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:18 am What's the issue with surveying their current and prospective customers, doing a cost benefit analysis, and deciding from there, from a customer centric point of view?
You don't think they've done that? I would bet they have, and I would bet that they've found that it's not cost-effective to build a whole new ILS. There are probably very few operators who would be deterred from operating into YHZ because they don't specifically have an ILS onto a specific runway; most companies operate aircraft that are modern enough to use the LPV approaches. If they try to appeal to every potential customer, and offer them their first choice of facilities, they're going to spend huge amounts of money to attract a few extra flights per year. The main advantage that Halifax has is geography, in that it's a convenient stopping point between North America and Europe, and the number of ILSs is much less important to airlines than things like fuel burns. The only real competition they have in proximity to Europe is YYT, which is obviously a much worse choice if the operator is concerned about weather conditions. In addition, any new operators that might consider stopping in YHZ, i.e. they aren't carrying O&D freight to or from YHZ, wouldn't really be adding much to the airport's business; they would pay a landing fee and buy some fuel, so there wouldn't be nearly enough of a business case to justify spending millions on a new ILS. AC, WS, Cargojet, and Morningstar are obviously going to keep flying there, even if there aren't any improvements, because there's enough demand to keep filling their aircraft. If AC isn't willing to update their aircraft, then they'll keep diverting and having incidents, which will lose them customers to WS.
I mean, WestJet is already years ahead of AC when it comes to RNPs, and they're saving huge amounts of money because of it. Technology helps with efficiency, and the short-term cost of installing GPSs is hugely justified by long-term savings, not to mention the ability to use RNAVs at all airports to which they operate. Installing a single ILS allows the use of a single approach to a single runway, but LPV-capable GPSs would allow them to utilize RNAVs all over the world. What about situations where the ILS is NOTAMed offline? They'll have to use more rudimentary approaches or divert. It severely limits their capabilities, and I put the responsibility squarely on AC for not bothering to modernize their own equipment.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2237
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by rookiepilot »

Diadem wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:47 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:18 am What's the issue with surveying their current and prospective customers, doing a cost benefit analysis, and deciding from there, from a customer centric point of view?
You don't think they've done that? I would bet they have, and I would bet that they've found that it's not cost-effective to build a whole new ILS. There are probably very few operators who would be deterred from operating into YHZ because they don't specifically have an ILS onto a specific runway; most companies operate aircraft that are modern enough to use the LPV approaches. If they try to appeal to every potential customer, and offer them their first choice of facilities, they're going to spend huge amounts of money to attract a few extra flights per year. The main advantage that Halifax has is geography, in that it's a convenient stopping point between North America and Europe, and the number of ILSs is much less important to airlines than things like fuel burns. The only real competition they have in proximity to Europe is YYT, which is obviously a much worse choice if the operator is concerned about weather conditions. In addition, any new operators that might consider stopping in YHZ, i.e. they aren't carrying O&D freight to or from YHZ, wouldn't really be adding much to the airport's business; they would pay a landing fee and buy some fuel, so there wouldn't be nearly enough of a business case to justify spending millions on a new ILS. AC, WS, Cargojet, and Morningstar are obviously going to keep flying there, even if there aren't any improvements, because there's enough demand to keep filling their aircraft. If AC isn't willing to update their aircraft, then they'll keep diverting and having incidents, which will lose them customers to WS.
I mean, WestJet is already years ahead of AC when it comes to RNPs, and they're saving huge amounts of money because of it. Technology helps with efficiency, and the short-term cost of installing GPSs is hugely justified by long-term savings, not to mention the ability to use RNAVs at all airports to which they operate. Installing a single ILS allows the use of a single approach to a single runway, but LPV-capable GPSs would allow them to utilize RNAVs all over the world. What about situations where the ILS is NOTAMed offline? They'll have to use more rudimentary approaches or divert. It severely limits their capabilities, and I put the responsibility squarely on AC for not bothering to modernize their own equipment.
All very reasonable.

I just find it curious that YHZ seems to be standing out a little with more than its share of incidents; what if anything the airport can do about it?

Maybe nothing.
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4365
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by altiplano »

Airlines want serviceable runways.

I read runway 32 was closed... couldn't have landed into wind whatever the equipment was.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5122
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by pelmet »

altiplano wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:21 am Airlines want serviceable runways.

I read runway 32 was closed... couldn't have landed into wind whatever the equipment was.
Listening to the audio, it sounded like both runways were active at the time that the 767 initiated its approach. Subject to confirmation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1869
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by goingnowherefast »

3 accidents in YHZ in how long? We should ban operations into that airport now! (Sarcasm)
---------- ADS -----------
 
hamstandard
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 139
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by hamstandard »

[quote=pelmet post_id=1071873 time=1552487242 user_id=4697]
[quote=rookiepilot post_id=1071862 time=1552482721 user_id=53090]
By Pelmets logic, clearly doesn't understand business in the slightest, Pearson would could decommission it's ILS network too, as it costs lots of money to maintain and keep certification, and all airlines should be using WASS anyway. :roll:
[/quote]

Actually, they will someday. The days of the ILS are dated. GPS is going to replace it just like radar is planned to be replaced. People with reasonable knowledge on subject realize that maintaining existing infrastructure is much less expensive than installing it. That's logic.

I must admit that I get quite a bit of entertainment reading RookiePilots posts on the other forum complaining about me like a 5 year old.

So lets see some of the useful posts he has given us on this thread which may help us pilots encountering the same situation....


[quote=rookiepilot post_id=1071060 time=1551838558 user_id=53090]
Very , very classy of whoever this was, at the same time.

So classy -- Heck, if I was on board, I'd happily split the bill with you if it's your money. Less inclined if it's a full 777!
[/quote]

[quote=rookiepilot post_id=1071150 time=1551911332 user_id=53090]
Those luxury "fact finding" trips must be fun too. Just like the government.
[/quote]

[quote=rookiepilot post_id=1071710 time=1552394405 user_id=53090]
"Well, copy and paste function still works = Value added. :roll:"[/quote]



Oh gee...thanks so much for your intelligent posts Rookie(or is it Rockie?) which have provided so much more useful info to the flying pilot as compared to mine. They are almost as useless as all the ones you made on the hangar fire thread. You seem to just be a waste of bandwidth. If you have nothing useful to post aside from always blaming others(Makes sense because I think he is a lawyer), try going somewhere else, like the other forum where I can smile every time I see your failed childish attempts to insult me.
[/quote]

I think he may have made one slightly useful post but I do wonder how much it costs to install an ILS versus just maintaining an ILS?
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5122
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by pelmet »

pelmet wrote: Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:54 pm Classic flash freeze.
This is the initial published brief from the TSB...

"C-FTCA a Boeing 767-300 aircraft operated by Air Canada, was conducting flight ACA614 from
Toronto/Lester B. Person Intl (CYYZ), ON to Halifax/Stanfield Intl (CYHZ), NS with 8 crew
members and 211 passengers on board. During the landing rollout on Runway 23, the aircraft
encountered a slippery area on the runway and was pushed by the wind, causing it to turn
approximately 45° to the right. The nose wheel entered a snow ridge on the edge of the runway,
which caused the rear of the aircraft to slide approximately 180°, coming to a stop facing in the
opposing direction of travel. Due to the weather conditions, the surface of the runway experienced
a flash freeze from a wet condition, and became extremely slippery as ice formed quickly.

Passengers were taken to the terminal by bus, and the aircraft was towed to the apron. There was
no damage to the aircraft, and no injuries reported by the passengers or crew."


It appears that this was the equivalent a runway excursion based on the nosegear left the prepared area of the runway. It is a good idea to closely monitor the temperature when it is just above freezing, from a runway condition point of view and the need to de-ice.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5122
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Air Canada YHZ

Post by pelmet »

I'm really not sure why these guys would continue the approach and land with a big crosswind and a significant tailwind...….

"At 1825:15, the Halifax terminal controller contacted the occurrence flight crew to provide the Embraer's pilot weather report (PIREP), stating, “we had [the Embraer] roll out on 23, and he said it was very slippery. He barely got stopped towards the end of it. As far as visibility he saw things at 300 feet above the ground.” The crew responded, “thanks for the heads up.”

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... a0012.html

Sometimes it seems obvious.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”