Halifax crash report coming Thursday

[Donald]

Sounds like pelmet flies the ATR for First Air.

[pelmet]

You didn't address why 98% of the travelling public should be subjected to reduced safety regulations to accommodate you and the other 2% of the travelling public. Do you have a reason they and the crews who fly them would be satisfied with?

One can continuously push for higher limits each time there is an accident. In fact, that seems to be what is happening. Assuming the limits are increased as you propose and another accident happens. Then what? Another push for even higher limits.

The Fredericton accident had nothing to do with misidentifying lights so lets look at the accidents that have happened due to misidentification. In reality, since the changes made after the Fredericton accident, there have been tens of thousands of flights completed safely in Canada. Perhaps it is hundreds of thousands of flights with no shortage of them in poor weather conditions. One accident has now happened because a crew appears to have made an assumption that they were on a proper 3 degree glidepath and therefore assumed that a light they saw was the required light and therefore crashed.

So now for 100% of the people, you want to raise the limits when the system has proven that it can work safely under the current requirements. If we use the "Safer" argument, on can continually say that this is safer than that so why would you want to do that until one has to argue that not flying is safer than flying.

One can also say that non-precision approaches should be banned, more fuel should be carried, crosswind limits should be lowered. Each will make the system safer. All have been involved in occasional accidents.

But you can't change that day in, day out for year after year, airlines have been operating safely under the current rules.

[Rockie]

So now for 100% of the people, you want to raise the limits when the system has proven that it can work safely under the current requirements.

One can continuously push for higher limits each time there is an accident.

Actually the approriate limit is already right there on the approach plate, all TC needs to do is remove the regulation allowing operators to ignore it. If you northern skygods with the superhuman eyesight want to get a waiver from TC allowing you to continue doing what you've been doing go right ahead.

[confusedalot]

Interesting.

Has there been a trend towards CFIT caused by approach ban limits that are too low. Not sure, but probably not.

Would this occurrence have had a different outcome at published minimum visibility. Probably, I am only assuming that they would have clearly seen the PAPI, thereby providing clearer approach angle information.

Would mandatory PAPI on non precision approaches reduce the level of risk. Yes.

We collectively were supposed to enter the proactive world with new trends, but seems to me that we are trending back to reactive solutions.

Not suggesting it, but if you look at empirical data only, published visibility and perhaps mandatory PAPI are the only way to trend towards 100% risk free operations.

Lets see where the risk managers take this.................

[Commonwealth]

Nobody moves, nobody gets hurt.

[Flying Low]

I'll likely get flamed for this but here goes.

I preferred the days before the approach ban. Fly the approach. You either see enough to land or you don't. There is nothing unsafe about flying any approach to minimums and then going around. This requires a little forethought on the part of the aircraft Captain. What do I need to see to continue below minimums and what do I need to see to land. Some of this will depend on aircraft equipment (having an accurate distance to threshold, GPS or DME, etc.), airport equipment (glideslope, VASIS or PAPI) and some of it will depend on the pilots experience level and what they are comfortable with.

[complexintentions]

Well, I'm convinced. I think it's nice of AC to crash (sorry, "land hard") with regularity to enable these improvements.

Thanks, Rockie!

Problem is, when they raise the limits what will you blame your next one on? I'll guess we'll have to wait and see.

[Rockie]

What rules do you fly under again Complex? If I recall it isn't Canada's, so you should probably worry about surviving under the regime you work for.

[Shady McSly]

Updated TSB Recommendations:

Don't try and land on approach lights thinking they're runway centre lights.

Case closed.

[Dyna]

11 pages and counting. It's absolutely ridiculous that this is such a debate. It's not about Air Canada. Two professional pilots, regardless of the name on their pay cheque, seriously screwed the pooch. A perfectly serviceable aircraft (an airliner none the less) was flown into the weeds well short of the runway. There's no excuse for that. Ever. This is a serious business with people paying for professional pilots to do their job safely. While I understand they didn't intentionally crash their aircraft, there still isn't an acceptable excuse for the outcome. None. Anyone saying otherwise is simply looking at it through rose coloured glasses.

Approach ban? ODALS? Give your fucking heads a shake.

And Rockie, I've been there. Many times. Landed on that approach a bunch, went around when I couldn't. You need to expect better performance from the crew instead of making excuses.

It's ridiculous this needs to be mentioned, but I've never been PFO'd by Air Canada.

[Cat Driver]

I'm really worried that Complex might be in over his head flying over there.

Hopefully he will keep in touch with Rockie for advise.

[Rockie]

Another guy who doesn't see the need for investigations...

Well Cat, I guess you know where Complex works so are they allowed to use half the charted visibility there? Just trying to establish credibility here.

[pelmet]

Updated TSB Recommendations:

Don't try and land on approach lights thinking they're runway centre lights.

Case closed.

I know, I'm late to the game on reading the report.

From what I can tell in the report, there was no misidentification of the required visual references. I had thought that they saw the lights from something else but I didn't see any mention of it. This was based on earlier posts I saw. Looks more like a depth perception issue. No PAPI's seen by the pilots.

A single row of approach lights. Could they have been interpreted as the runway centerline lights as stated above? If so, would a longer row of approach lights made any difference as the TSB suggests would have been required in the US for this approach?

[Dyna]

Another guy who doesn't see the need for investigations....

Understood. Pointing out that the crew really screwed it up means I hate investigations. Gotta love the lefty loonball thought process, or lack thereof.

You're not benefiting the profession with your stance here. Or your employer. But feel free to carry on.

[CpnCrunch]

The report doesn't explicitly say what lights they saw, but if you look at the distance when they passed over the "lighted facility", it was 0.7nm back, whereas the ODALS only extend to 0.25nm. I think the implication is that the misidentified the "lighted facility" as the ODALS. (Although I haven't read through the entire report, so perhaps it discusses this).

[rookiepilot]

11 pages and counting. It's absolutely ridiculous that this is such a debate. It's not about Air Canada. Two professional pilots, regardless of the name on their pay cheque, seriously screwed the pooch. .

It's been shown many times the corporate culture has a huge influence, on what happens in that company. United Airlines, exhibit A. Same problem, expressed differently.

I find AC's complete lack of humility or taking open responsibility telling......

You would think a company involved in an accident would be dealing with their own safety issues, not lecturing Nav Can or other carriers about theirs.

But what do I know.....

[Rockie]

Not much it seems. AC has made many changes to the way we operate in direct response to this accident.

[rookiepilot]

Not much it seems. AC has made many changes to the way we operate in direct response to this accident.

I can't let this pass. Naive question, if they felt the need to make changes, why is their an issue taking complete, unabridged, public responsibility for the accident?

I know the answer, as no pro AC person will ever answer it.

Let me ask another one Rockie:

Do the passengers have a moral and legal right to win a big settlement?

Or are they once again, whining self loading frieght that should sit down, shut up and aren't entitled to even a safe ride -- or recourse when it goes wrong.

Of course, no one is responsible for anything, and making excuses is acceptable behaviour.

I really dont get this industry's sheer contempt for its own customers.

[CpnCrunch]

why is their an issue taking complete and public responsibility for the accident?

When has that ever happened after an accident?

[rookiepilot]

why is their an issue taking complete and public responsibility for the accident?

When has that ever happened after an accident?

Yet from day one of flight training, I was taught about my responsibility, honesty, transparency, goodness and knot tying skills. Really believed it, too.

Must have missed something.

[CpnCrunch]

Yet from day one of flight training, I was taught about my responsibility, honesty, transparency, goodness and knot tying skills. Really believed it, too.

Must have missed something.

Sure, individuals admit responsibility for accidents, but companies generally don't. What was Westjet's response to their 50ft low and over short of the runway at Montego Bay?

[complexintentions]

What rules do you fly under again Complex? If I recall it isn't Canada's, so you should probably worry about surviving under the regime you work for.

Hmm. I've worked under a large variety of systems - Canada's included. If you consider that when operating into a foreign nation's airspace you are subject to the more limiting set of rules (your own, or the foreign regulators), it could be said I've operated under pretty much all of them. I have miraculously managed to "survive" thus far (knock wood), but your concern is touching.

All of that is completely besides the point here, which is that no amount of rules will prevent an accident like this. Of course it's important to always look for ways to improve regs. But lax viz requirements to shoot an approach don't automatically give leave for lax crew performance. Sorry. God knows I've tried to be respectful of the crew in question because besides being a horrible thing for them to go through, they're also human. But you keep forcing the conversation back to accountability and the unfortunate lapse on that night by your efforts (and your employers) to avoid it at all costs.

Your desperation to try and assign a massively disproportionate amount of the reason for the YHZ crash to regulatory weakness, is quite frankly, a bit disturbing. To then further try and claim changes to regulations are a gift from AC and seemingly expect thanks, is just over the top.

[Rockie]

We've all worked under different rule Complex, and as you point out if another country's rules are more strict you must comply with them. You're conveniently omitting however that if another country's rules are more lax than your own you comply with your own. Which to say if you ever do that approach in YHZ you are limited by the published visibility.

Had AC624 been similarly limited this accident wouldn't have happened. Had the required visibility taken into account the short ODALS lighting installed then this accident wouldn't have happened. Had the required visual references been the same as those in the US this accident wouldn't have happened.

This accident did happen because the crew thought they saw what they needed to see, and thought they were in a position to land. You and every other "expert" blaming the crew might have done the same thing. Nobody except Canadian licensed crew would have been permitted to even attempt that approach that night. You wouldn't have been so you wouldn't have been in that crew's position. Your blaming the crew for doing something your regulator wouldn't let you do is just hypocritical noise from the peanut gallery.

[Rockie]

why is their an issue taking complete and public responsibility for the accident?

When has that ever happened after an accident?

Yet from day one of flight training, I was taught about my responsibility, honesty, transparency, goodness and knot tying skills. Really believed it, too.

Must have missed something.

The individuals involved are now living with something hopefully you will never have to. As for the company they have made significant changes to the way they operate. They have self-imposed much higher visibility limits in the interest in safety than what Canada's uniquely lax regulations permit, and will keep them even if TC doesn't change the regulations to what the rest of the world uses. That's a large commercial disadvantage AC is placing on itself to protect your safety when you take one of their flights.

Saying AC is not accepting responsibility shows how little you really know about it.

[pdw]

.. the unanticipated right IFR turn-correction below FAF to uncrab into only "19kts"-sustained / 40degree-Xwind (esp lee-of the berm).

Help me out here, I don't understand this.

In the report there is mention of deviation from the flightpath due to winds, so I took that to mean also laterally.

Anyway, that would mean up there before the FAF the autopilot is steering left into significant left crab heading (in 50-70deg xwind and "54kts" plus ?) to stay on the LOC ... immediately prior to the PF after 'disconnect' having to correct substantially right under manual control while in descent into reduced xwind near surface "19kts"/40deg; so this correction would be distraction from their math of the vertical path in this "viz" description.

The only hint of any strong kts of offshore flow to the LO off Nova Scotia at the time is "70km" at Beaver Island airport.