Daniel Cooper wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:29 am
Nobody said they didn't calculate landing distance, did they?
If whipline is calculating 8150' for a landing distance and the runway is 7700' long they either didn't do one or did it and failed to take into account contamination or tailwind.
In any case 7700' with a tailwind is a short runway for an -800, never mind snow on it. Should be setting off alarm bells for any -800 crew before even looking at a landing distance calculation.
HiFlyChick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:15 am
The LDA for runway 14 at YHZ is 7700 ft, but what about the fact that the touchdown point for an ILS is not at the threshold? On a light twin you can chop and drop once you're visual (within reason), but what about the big guys? With a stabilized approach following the glidepath right to the ground, the touchdown point is quite a ways down the runway. For any of the heavy metal, does this always get factored in when considering if you're gonna get stopped before the end?
A stabilized 3 degree ILS will put most aircraft touching down about 1500 from the beginning of the runway. Landing performance programs normally take that into account.
From a Navajo to Airbus 380 the accepted normal is a stabilized approach with vertical guidance all the way to touchdown. Thus chopping and dropping off an ILS is not recommended.
J31 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:34 am
From a Navajo to Airbus 380 the accepted normal is a stabilized approach with vertical guidance all the way to touchdown. Thus chopping and dropping off an ILS is not recommended.
You're right, of course, and with the profusion of 703 accidents I shouldn't suggest it
J31 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:15 am
Rwy 5-32 was NOTAM closed. Westjet does not do LPV approaches with the 737.
Sorry - I was thinking of the RNAV 32... There's been so many storms here lately that I can't keep track of one mess of crappy weather from another!
What's so concerning is the mindset that diversion, even under such bad conditions, isn't an option. I've heard many discussions about whether operators should upgrade to WAAS or Halifax should upgrade to 4 ILSes, and in the end, if operators don't want to do the costly upgrade then they have to be good with going elsewhere. That in itself might motivate Halifax to upgrade to ILS on 32 and 05. It might not, but then they also have to accept the loss in business.
Is this a lack of decision making skills in general, or an increase in pressure from the operators to get in? I assume that by the time someone makes captain on a 737 (or 747 in the case of last year's accident) that the employer won't be so quick to fire him based on the occasional diversion in terrible weather... or is that naivete on my part?
HiFlyChick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:03 am
What's so concerning is the mindset that diversion, even under such bad conditions, isn't an option. I've heard many discussions about whether operators should upgrade to WAAS or Halifax should upgrade to 4 ILSes, and in the end, if operators don't want to do the costly upgrade then they have to be good with going elsewhere. That in itself might motivate Halifax to upgrade to ILS on 32 and 05. It might not, but then they also have to accept the loss in business.
Apparently it was looked into and it would be very challenging to put ILSes on all 4 due to terrain/obstacles.
WAAS is a pipedream for airline operators due to obvious cost/benefits.
---------- 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"
It is very hard to show a return on investment upgrading runways and approaches. So I do not think Halifax will consider an ILS on 5 or 32 when a LPV approach gets you down to 200-250 ft decision altitude right now.
Conversely building stores and restaurants in terminals generates revenue. That is the cold hard truth about the capitalistic society.
Air operators have do decide on how to equip their aircraft and accept the operational limits. Diversions are part of the cost of doing business.
Westjet has good policies, procedures, and tools to assess whether to land or divert. I will wait for the report to comment.
J31 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:14 am
It is very hard to show a return on investment upgrading runways and approaches. So I do not think Halifax will consider an ILS on 5 or 32 when a LPV approach gets you down to 200-250 ft decision altitude right now.
Conversely building stores and restaurants in terminals generates revenue. That is the cold hard truth about the capitalistic society.
Air operators have do decide on how to equip their aircraft and accept the operational limits. Diversions are part of the cost of doing business.
Westjet has good policies, procedures, and tools to assess whether to land or divert. I will wait for the report to comment.
Using OPT, Talpa numbers for Wet/Dry snow over 1/8in/Medium and 10 kts tailwind, no gust, 60-63T WT. I get max auto brake 7950-8250FT which can be reduced to 6900-7100 using Good to Medium braking action but you’d have to be 100% certain of the RSC or else you will go off at the end.
It would be interesting to compare aerodata performance numbers with Boeing OPT/Talpa. I’d be very interested to know what the crew inputted and what the TLR gave them, which metar/atis they used, did they carry a bit of extra speed on the approach due to gust factor, etc.
---------- 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"
Recently I did a pretty abnormal and expensive diversion (I don't work for WJ). About 2 short simple questions from management was all that was asked. "did you consider the wx at ___insert more typical diversion airport___?" Managers just have to have some explanation to the higher ups why they're footing the bill for a diversion and loss of revenue.
My favourite line is "because the aircraft is not WAAS/LPV capable". Thus turning the tables back on the higher-ups who are in charge of spending the upgrade money for WAAS/LPV capability.
It's also quite tricky to figure out the cost/benefit of upgrading aircraft to WAAS/LPV. Asking "How many more landings will happen with WAAS?" is a tricky question to ask when you typically fly to airports with multiple ILS installations. Although, it doesn't take many diversions to pay for WAAS. What does a diversion cost, including re-accomodating the passenger travel, repositioning the aircraft, cancelled flights and lost revenue while the aircraft is delayed, what about the flights the crew was supposed to operate? How do you calculate the price of pissed off passengers that are going to book with AC next time? Many variables that are hard to quantify. WAAS is probably a big scary number for a 737, just guessing, ~$250,000? Easy to scare a bean counter with an accurate avionics price quote when comparing it to less concrete diversion "price" with all the subjective data and guesses.
Although running a plane off the runway also scares bean counters.
goingnowherefast wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 4:10 pm
Do WJ crews get questioned on diversions?
Recently I did a pretty abnormal and expensive diversion (I don't work for WJ). About 2 short simple questions from management was all that was asked. "did you consider the wx at ___insert more typical diversion airport___?" Managers just have to have some explanation to the higher ups why they're footing the bill for a diversion and loss of revenue.
My favourite line is "because the aircraft is not WAAS/LPV capable". Thus turning the tables back on the higher-ups who are in charge of spending the upgrade money for WAAS/LPV capability.
In situations like this I just file a Commanders report explaining what happened.
It may be that the PR people need to have something to give to the press/passengers or anyone else asking about what happened on flight XXX.
I've never heard a word about any Diversions/Go-arounds/Extra fuel I have made/taken - that's how it should be.
---------- ADS -----------
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
HiFlyChick wrote: ↑Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:03 am
What's so concerning is the mindset that diversion, even under such bad conditions, isn't an option. I've heard many discussions about whether operators should upgrade to WAAS or Halifax should upgrade to 4 ILSes, and in the end, if operators don't want to do the costly upgrade then they have to be good with going elsewhere. That in itself might motivate Halifax to upgrade to ILS on 32 and 05. It might not, but then they also have to accept the loss in business.
Apparently it was looked into and it would be very challenging to put ILSes on all 4 due to terrain/obstacles.
WAAS is a pipedream for airline operators due to obvious cost/benefits.
Ahhh look at the airport, actually NS as a whole. The only reason why not having 4 ILS's is for economic reasons. Why would you put ILS's on 05, or 32 when they are only used maybe 5% of the time. That said the airport authority seems more interested in selling you crap than improving aircraft ops(stub to 14, high speed turnoff, a second rvr on button of rw14(call visual by windsor, but airport closed due to rvr<1600 on 23, etc....)
rigpiggy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:31 am
Ahhh look at the airport, actually NS as a whole. The only reason why not having 4 ILS's is for economic reasons. Why would you put ILS's on 05, or 32 when they are only used maybe 5% of the time. That said the airport authority seems more interested in selling you crap than improving aircraft ops(stub to 14, high speed turnoff, a second rvr on button of rw14(call visual by windsor, but airport closed due to rvr<1600 on 23, etc....)
An ILS on 05 would have made this Westjet flight a non-event, and probably would have prevented the AC accident in 2015. Seems a worthwhile investment to me.
I agree 100% as to the fiscal motivations of the airport authority.
notwhoyouthinkIam wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 9:42 am
It just goes to show that we're all human and, no matter how much experience we have, we are all prone to making mistakes.
Why is it on this forum, I so often read these words -- when it's a commercial accident -- regardless of the cause.
When it's GA, -- the comments lean to how stupid the "weekend warrior" was, regardless of the cause. Certainly I experienced those kind of trolls, after my accident which TSB investigated and acknowledged was mechanical failure! Facts don't matter in this cesspool.
Seems a different standard, just observing.
Mechanical is mechanical, weather is weather, and pilot error is pilot error.
