EGPWS can be MEL-ed ... what would have happened then ? Yay luck did ITS job ?!
Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
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"
- complexintentions
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2183
- Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
- Location: of my pants is unknown.
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
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.
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
.
Last edited by rookiepilot on Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
I assume you are excluding "cleared for AN approach" -- like in N Ontario Uc Airports in that ATC prohibition.CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:23 amBut 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.
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
And it is possible they would not.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.
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
Last edited by pelmet on Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
.
Last edited by rookiepilot on Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
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
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/travel/news/b ... spartandhp
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
.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
Last edited by rookiepilot on Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
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.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.
The other thing to consider is that they might have been in VMC, which seems possible given the METAR.
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
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.
Terrain clearance is always the responsibility of the crew whether radar or non-radar. Don’t like the clearance then question it.
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
Yes, that is how I understand it as well. It just seems unusual in this case for them to be cleared down to 6000ft by ATC. I'm thinking either it was VMC and there was never any risk of CFIT, or else they were confused by the 6000ft clearance and thought it was safe for them to descend.FICU wrote: ↑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.
- rookiepilot
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4403
- Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
I've been cleared for an approach up there from around 6000 feet, below that radio contact, let alone radar contact, was lost. When I review the chart, seems still well above the minimum IFR altitude, depending on exact location, which I suppose is contradictory.CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:05 pmMy 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.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.
The other thing to consider is that they might have been in VMC, which seems possible given the METAR.
Tell you the truth, there would have been no way to report missed if I had (I didn't need to) on that without climbing up to divert (assuming instead, I wanted another attempt). Good question what the proper procedure should be. Airport was kapuskasing.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1016
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:25 pm
- Location: in the bush
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
Oh dear.... where to start....rookiepilot wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:30 pmI've been cleared for an approach up there from around 6000 feet, below that radio contact, let alone radar contact, was lost. When I review the chart, seems still well above the minimum IFR altitude, depending on exact location, which I suppose is contradictory.CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:05 pmMy 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.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.
The other thing to consider is that they might have been in VMC, which seems possible given the METAR.
Tell you the truth, there would have been no way to report missed if I had (I didn't need to) on that without climbing up to divert (assuming instead, I wanted another attempt). Good question what the proper procedure should be. Airport was kapuskasing.
You are certainly within reach of Toronto Center at 2 grand over Kap... worse case you could have relayed though YTS (They are friendly)....
Keep yourself safe, follow the plate and MOCA and don’t be shy?
All the best,
TPC
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2227
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
- Location: YUL
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
But in a non RADAR environment, the controller does not know the exact position of the aircraft so how does he clear him accordingly ?CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:05 pmMy 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.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.
The other thing to consider is that they might have been in VMC, which seems possible given the METAR.
Lets assume for discussions sake that the MOCA is 13000 feet at 100 miles out, that its 12000 at 70 miles and 11000 at 50 miles. Then 10000 inside the 25 mile radius east of radial 360 but 9000 west of that radial.
How does a non RADAR controller clear you down ? By asking you DME ? "Sorry sir, no DME reception out here due high terrain between our position and the DME transmitter"".
"Oh!? then use your FMS derived distance" Wait a minute...... Does that aircraft have GPS ? Is it RNP 4 or RNP 10 ? Or is it INS only with a low accuracy warning ? Or is it an older model Beech King Air with no RNAV at all.....
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
Even in a non radar environment you still give position reports, so ATC should know when you can safely descend. And if there are no position reports and no radar, giving a descent clearance doesn't seem to make sense.Gilles Hudicourt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:16 am
But in a non RADAR environment, the controller does not know the exact position of the aircraft so how does he clear him accordingly ?
Lets assume for discussions sake that the MOCA is 13000 feet at 100 miles out, that its 12000 at 70 miles and 11000 at 50 miles. Then 10000 inside the 25 mile radius east of radial 360 but 9000 west of that radial.
How does a non RADAR controller clear you down ? By asking you DME ? "Sorry sir, no DME reception out here due high terrain between our position and the DME transmitter"".
"Oh!? then use your FMS derived distance" Wait a minute...... Does that aircraft have GPS ? Is it RNP 4 or RNP 10 ? Or is it INS only with a low accuracy warning ? Or is it an older model Beech King Air with no RNAV at all.....
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
I can't get over how many pilots here think terrain clearance is ATC's responsibility. The CARs are clear and have already been quoted, the AIM is equally clear:
RAC 1.5.2:
RAC 1.5.2:
Pilots are cautioned that radar identification of their flight does not relieve them of the responsibility for terrain (obstacle) clearance.
Yes, in Canada controllers are not permitted to clear you to an altitude that has either a terrain or a traffic conflict. HUX is not in Canada. If you're going to be an airline pilot, you're unlikely to be able to stick to Canadian procedures every time you go to work.ATC assumes responsibility for terrain (obstacle) clearance when vectoring en route IFR and CVFR flights and for IFR aircraft being vectored for arrival until the aircraft resumes normal navigation.
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
Yeah, I think that's the key. I would have thought ICAO would have had standards concerning important things like this, but perhaps not.ahramin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:57 am
Yes, in Canada controllers are not permitted to clear you to an altitude that has either a terrain or a traffic conflict. HUX is not in Canada. If you're going to be an airline pilot, you're unlikely to be able to stick to Canadian procedures every time you go to work.
-
- Rank 10
- Posts: 2227
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2012 5:51 am
- Location: YUL
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
What do you mean that they don't. Canada is just as ICAO as Mexico. Elaborate please.....CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:10 amYeah, I think that's the key. I would have thought ICAO would have had standards concerning important things like this, but perhaps not.ahramin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:57 am
Yes, in Canada controllers are not permitted to clear you to an altitude that has either a terrain or a traffic conflict. HUX is not in Canada. If you're going to be an airline pilot, you're unlikely to be able to stick to Canadian procedures every time you go to work.
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
Remember "Descend VIA STAR" (but don't descend via star altitudes (unless you have a clearance lower than the star altitude))Gilles Hudicourt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:20 amWhat do you mean that they don't. Canada is just as ICAO as Mexico. Elaborate please.....CpnCrunch wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:10 amYeah, I think that's the key. I would have thought ICAO would have had standards concerning important things like this, but perhaps not.ahramin wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:57 am
Yes, in Canada controllers are not permitted to clear you to an altitude that has either a terrain or a traffic conflict. HUX is not in Canada. If you're going to be an airline pilot, you're unlikely to be able to stick to Canadian procedures every time you go to work.
Re: Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco
Yes, but not all countries implement all the ICAO standards. Remember "position and hold"?Gilles Hudicourt wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:20 am
What do you mean that they don't. Canada is just as ICAO as Mexico. Elaborate please.....