Fatal Crash - Gabriola Island - Dec 10, 2019

[valleyboy]

Reminds me of all those legal circling only approaches up north that were safer than the straight in ones that didn’t exist

exactly, home brew was more than a drink

[Big Pistons Forever]

I don’t see the point of the above statement. Flying an approach which you are not authorized is operating in

Regardless you can be in denial but it happens often. I'm not condoning it just saying the regs are practically useless and very little fall out to those who choose to ignore them. Instead of burying our heads in the sand we should be aware it happens. I think we are past the school boy age and can accept the facts of life. Denial is a silly thing, just look at the world around us at the present time.

Flying an RCAP approach when you know you do not have the regulatory prerequisites is a choice. I think it is a bad choice and speaks to a disdain for operating inside regulatory boundaries. There is no grey here it is black and white.

You as PIC are in total control of your decision as to what approach you are going to fly.

I won’t apologize for insisting that pilots who aren’t authorized should not fly RCAP approaches just like I won’t apologize for insisting that pilots don’t fly over gross or without sufficient fuel.

Only you can decide whether you want to operate legally or.not.....

[valleyboy]

Only you can decide whether you want to operate legally or.not.....

Exactly and the point I was making. It boils down to education and mentoring. Human factors and decision making are the two central causes of accidents and incidents. To quote a very knowledgeable "bad person", "there will be no new causes for aviation accidents"

Brain power always should trump rules when it comes to safety. I'll let that statement since in and see the reaction. In my experience black and white decision making does not exist in life let alone aviation. Shit, even TC can't agree on rules from region to region.

[L39Guy]

L39guy, you don't appear to know what an ILS is, what an RCAP approach is, or what a GPS approach is. The ILS approach into Nanaimo is an RCAP approach and cannot be flown without an OPS SPEC. It might be a good idea to review the AIM before commenting further.

In that post I inadvertently said "GPS" when I should have said "RCAP" but anyone reading my previous posts would have realized this typo. I have edited the change.

FYI, I have a really, really good idea about what an ILS, GPS and other approaches are as I have had an instrument rating and flown professionally for the past 37 years; I have also been designing these things for the past 20.

[Cliff Jumper]

L39guy, you don't appear to know what an ILS is, what an RCAP approach is, or what a GPS approach is. The ILS approach into Nanaimo is an RCAP approach and cannot be flown without an OPS SPEC. It might be a good idea to review the AIM before commenting further.

In that post I inadvertently said "GPS" when I should have said "RCAP" but anyone reading my previous posts would have realized this typo. I have edited the change.

FYI, I have a really, really good idea about what an ILS, GPS and other approaches are as I have had an instrument rating and flown professionally for the past 37 years; I have also been designing these things for the past 20.

I'm sure you do, but it was three separate GPS 'typos' in two different posts (two still remain unedited). So, you can see how it would appear as though you didn't know what you were talking about.

-Big Pistons, out of curiosity, are you aware of any private aircraft operator (not PORD/604), that has ever been issued an infraction for flying an RCAP or had an incident during an unapproved RCAP approach (that was actually related to the approach)? The legality of this is often debated, so I'd be curious if there is any semi-legal precedent.

[Big Pistons Forever]

[
-Big Pistons, out of curiosity, are you aware of any private aircraft operator (not PORD/604), that has ever been issued an infraction for flying an RCAP or had an incident during an unapproved RCAP approach (that was actually related to the approach)? The legality of this is often debated, so I'd be curious if there is any semi-legal precedent.

Why should it matter ?

The pilot is either authorized to do the approach or not. If the pilot knows they are not authorized and do it anyway because they think they are unlikely to get busted, well that says a lot about the pilots decision making process, and not in a good way....

[Cliff Jumper]

Why should it matter ?

The pilot is either authorized to do the approach or not. If the pilot knows they are not authorized and do it anyway because they think they are unlikely to get busted, well that says a lot about the pilots decision making process, and not in a good way....

Sorry for my lack of clarity BPF.

What I was trying to say was ....your interpretation of the rules are generally excellent, and your background is without question, however could you possibly provide any formal legal interpretation of this rule? I think (know) that many people have different interpretations. We both know that regardless of the knowledge and background of an individual, their interpretation of a regulation is not the-final-say. I think that your interpretation and explanation is sound, I just wanted to know if it was supported elsewhere. I was unable to find anything myself, but you are clearly more connected.

Btw, I totally agree with the "don't knowingly break the rules" idea. However, I'm not sure that this person was aware that it was 'not authorized'.

[iflyforpie]

There isn’t exactly big brother out there monitoring your every move. Most other pilots and ATC are worried about complying with their own rules rather than policing others.

It’s not completely out of the realm of possibility that an Aerostar is commercially operated under two crew SOPs with the Ops Spec for RCAP approaches. Nobody is pulling out registrations or examining training files as an aircraft is doing an approach.

Most of aviation and how we conduct ourselves is based on INTEGRITY—which I tell everyone as often as I can is the single most important quality in aviation. No, we aren’t perfect, and I will admit that I have busted both minimums and approach ban... but my superiors were the very first to hear about it the moment I realized I had (it was a NOTAM that was missed, not my job but as PIC I took responsibility). ATC never came on the radio and said it was below legal limits to conduct the approach.

Most RCAP approaches are restricted because of excessive climb gradients in the missed approach—as is the case in Nanaimo. So if you don’t miss, it’s basically the same as a regular ILS.

The only way I’d think it would become a legal issue is in the case of an accident where aircraft or crew performance and operation and training didn’t met the RCAP guidelines and were a direct cause of the crash. Since the approach wasn’t even attempted, it’s not a factor here.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Why should it matter ?

The pilot is either authorized to do the approach or not. If the pilot knows they are not authorized and do it anyway because they think they are unlikely to get busted, well that says a lot about the pilots decision making process, and not in a good way....

Sorry for my lack of clarity BPF.

What I was trying to say was ....your interpretation of the rules are generally excellent, and your background is without question, however could you possibly provide any formal legal interpretation of this rule? I think (know) that many people have different interpretations. We both know that regardless of the knowledge and background of an individual, their interpretation of a regulation is not the-final-say. I think that your interpretation and explanation is sound, I just wanted to know if it was supported elsewhere. I was unable to find anything myself, but you are clearly more connected.

Btw, I totally agree with the "don't knowingly break the rules" idea. However, I'm not sure that this person was aware that it was 'not authorized'.

I would suggest CAR 602.127 applies

Instrument Approaches
602.127 (1) Unless otherwise authorized by the appropriate air traffic control unit, the pilot-in-command of an IFR aircraft shall, when conducting an approach to an aerodrome or a runway, ensure that the approach is made in accordance with the instrument approach procedure.

Since every RCAP plate has the Note "This aeronautical information/data is published for OPS SPEC use only" if you were to fly the approach without holding the appropriate Ops Spec then you would not be flying the approach "in accordance with the instrument approach procedure" and therefore would be in violation of CAR 602.127

But as Pie pointed out ultimately the PIC owns the decision, not TC, not Navcanada, the PIC....... therefore I don't see how as you put it

However, I'm not sure that this person was aware that it was 'not authorized'.

How can you not know that you are "not authorized" ?

[ahramin]

In EFBs the plates are all together. CAP, RCAP, RNP, all approaches are there. If you are not expecting it, it's easy to think that an ILS is a CAP approach and miss the note that says Ops Spec.

Especially in Victoria where the ATIS says approach in use is ILS 27 and you're all set up for it and then your F/O points out you can't do it .

[CpnCrunch]

In EFBs the plates are all together. CAP, RCAP, RNP, all approaches are there. If you are not expecting it, it's easy to think that an ILS is a CAP approach and miss the note that says Ops Spec.

Especially in Victoria where the ATIS says approach in use is ILS 27 and you're all set up for it and then your F/O points out you can't do it .

But it says "RESTRICTED ILS RWY 27" in the procedures list, and when you click on it it says "RESTRICTED" on the left and right-hand sides of the chart (at least on FltPlan Go). Similar for the one at YCD.

The only confusion I can see is that you might read the OPS SPEC and think that if you meet the climb gradient then it's ok to do the approach. If you look at the MILL BAY departures they actually have much more stringent requirements for climb than the ILS 27, yet they're not restricted. Maybe there should be a note specifically saying that it needs whatever OPS SPEC training and certification is required, in addition to meeting the climb gradient.

[ahramin]

If Foreflight says Restricted that's good. I'm using Garmin Pilot and the only indicator is a note randomly sprinkled on the plate. Same story for LIDO.

[iflyforpie]

Departures are different. Quite possibly since you are entering them from a static environment vs a dynamic one and the actual risk is less since most aircraft pass well above 35 above the departure end of the runways vs below DH or at MDA at the MAP.

They used to have missed approaches in the RCAP well in excess of 425ft per nautical mile (I want to say 460 or 500 ft in some cases) before the Advisory Circular or whatever came out restricting them to under 425. But lots of departures have 500ft/nm requirements which is pretty insane when you thing about it—especially if you’re dealing with an engine failure.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If Foreflight says Restricted that's good. I'm using Garmin Pilot and the only indicator is a note randomly sprinkled on the plate. Same story for LIDO.

Yes but it is still on the plate. I get that a lot of plates are not exactly user friendly, especially with using notes for extra information but if the reason a pilot flew the RCAP without the required authorization is because they didn't read all the notes......well that's on the pilot

In any case I would suggest that the majority of the GA community use Foreflight or FlyPlan.com and RCAP charts are prominently marked as to their status.

I realize we have gone down a rabbit hole here which has nothing to do with the tragic accident which is the subject of this thread, but I felt it was important to stamp out this urban legend that private pilots could fly RCAP approaches. This is completely false and many GA aircraft may not have the performance to safely fly the missed approach on some RCAP approaches

[pelmet]

Departures are different. Quite possibly since you are entering them from a static environment vs a dynamic one and the actual risk is less since most aircraft pass well above 35 above the departure end of the runways vs below DH or at MDA at the MAP.

They used to have missed approaches in the RCAP well in excess of 425ft per nautical mile (I want to say 460 or 500 ft in some cases) before the Advisory Circular or whatever came out restricting them to under 425. But lots of departures have 500ft/nm requirements which is pretty insane when you thing about it—especially if you’re dealing with an engine failure.

Maybe BPF could provide us an explanation of why a ILS would be restricted. And if it is simply due to missed approach climb gradient.....why(if true) would it not apply to a similar departure procedure gradient.

Restricting an ILS means forcing users into a different approach that is statistically less safe.

[photofly]

The ILS RWY26 at CYTZ is restricted because the glideslope is at 4.8 degrees.

The RNAV (GNSS) X RWY 08 is restricted because the missed approach requires a climb gradient greater than 425 feet per nautical mile.

[rookiepilot]

The ILS RWY26 at CYTZ is restricted because the glideslope is at 4.8 degrees.

The RNAV (GNSS) X RWY 08 is restricted because the missed approach requires a climb gradient greater than 425 feet per nautical mile.

Both cause of a big honkin' smokestack that I suspect isn't even operational....

[iflyforpie]

The ILS RWY26 at CYTZ is restricted because the glideslope is at 4.8 degrees.

The RNAV (GNSS) X RWY 08 is restricted because the missed approach requires a climb gradient greater than 425 feet per nautical mile.

Both cause of a big honkin' smokestack that I suspect isn't even operational....

Reminds me of the Berlin Airlift where the Soviets erected a radio tower on one of the approaches. The Americans complained, the British protested, and the French with that typical Gallic indifference simply blew it up.

[photofly]

Anyone from Quebec free on Tuesday?

[iflyforpie]

Restricting an ILS means forcing users into a different approach that is statistically less safe.

The procedures are often statistically less safe because of what the pilots do with them. I believe that most non-precision approaches become accidents because the pilot doesn’t adhere to step down altitudes and MDAs, and are often combined with circling procedures done too close to the airport which makes a successful landing or subsequent missed approach more dangerous.

For an NDB A, there’s a lot of room. Nav Canada knows NDBs are crap so there’s a lot of protected airspace and wiggle room and the minimums are usually quite high, the missed approach gradient shallow, and visibility required nearly 3 miles. They will be the first to be approach banned and for a smart pilot, the last to be attempted if weather is low.

But it hardly applies anymore. Look at this airport. There’s a straight in LPV approach. Just as safe as an ILS, even safer if you count no false captures. If he knew he could only do the LPV with the SPECI reporting at minimums and the PIREP over 200 feet below minimums, would he even try it? Or if he did, he’d be ready for a missed approach with a far less demanding climb gradient as he helped his “student” clean up, fly the plane, and activate the missed approach procedure.

Even lots of non-precision approaches often have SCDA info, which is meant to take the risk of diving and driving out of an NPA.

The trick is to set higher minimums and assume the weather will get worse. Choosing to go with forecast weather 200ft below and 3/4 of a mile below advisory vis for the legal approach (ie: approach banned for 1 3/4) and right at minimums and 1/4 mile for the RCAP with an inexperienced pilot in the left seat seems a bit reckless to me.