Air Canada Rouge EGPWS warning at Huatulco

[CpnCrunch]

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.

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.

[rookiepilot]

I assume you are excluding "cleared for AN approach" -- like in N Ontario Uc Airports in that ATC prohibition.

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.

The other thing to consider is that they might have been in VMC, which seems possible given the METAR.

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.

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.

[TeePeeCreeper]

I assume you are excluding "cleared for AN approach" -- like in N Ontario Uc Airports in that ATC prohibition.

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.

The other thing to consider is that they might have been in VMC, which seems possible given the METAR.

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.

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.

Oh dear.... where to start....

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

[Gilles Hudicourt]

I assume you are excluding "cleared for AN approach" -- like in N Ontario Uc Airports in that ATC prohibition.

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.

The other thing to consider is that they might have been in VMC, which seems possible given the METAR.

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.....

[CpnCrunch]

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.....

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.

[ahramin]

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:

Pilots are cautioned that radar identification of their flight does not relieve them of the responsibility for terrain (obstacle) clearance.

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.

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.

[CpnCrunch]

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.

Yeah, I think that's the key. I would have thought ICAO would have had standards concerning important things like this, but perhaps not.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

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.

Yeah, I think that's the key. I would have thought ICAO would have had standards concerning important things like this, but perhaps not.

What do you mean that they don't. Canada is just as ICAO as Mexico. Elaborate please.....

[ahramin]

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.

Yeah, I think that's the key. I would have thought ICAO would have had standards concerning important things like this, but perhaps not.

What do you mean that they don't. Canada is just as ICAO as Mexico. Elaborate please.....

Remember "Descend VIA STAR" (but don't descend via star altitudes (unless you have a clearance lower than the star altitude))

[CpnCrunch]

What do you mean that they don't. Canada is just as ICAO as Mexico. Elaborate please.....

Yes, but not all countries implement all the ICAO standards. Remember "position and hold"?

[rookiepilot]

Oh dear.... where to start....

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

Talk to Centre at 2000' over Kap? Not unless something has changed...it has been a couple of years. 5-6 grand, on departure too. Through London RDO....sure, that works right to the ground.

The YTS relay is a good idea, if ever needed. It was not.

Thanks for the tips, though

[Gilles Hudicourt]

What do you mean that they don't. Canada is just as ICAO as Mexico. Elaborate please.....

Yes, but not all countries implement all the ICAO standards. Remember "position and hold"?

Most countries DO NOT implement ALL ICAO standards, including Canada. The US leads the pack......

[confusedalot]

Actually.........most countries do follow icao. But many do not.

I used to fly long haul in Vietnam, and one interesting publication we had in the onboard library was a sort of international CFS type document outlining differences from one country to the next (produced by British Airways).

Most icao differences by country were between 1/8th to 1/2 of a page long. No big deal really, minor insignificant stuff that would not change your life even if you did not know about them.

As I recall, the US differences, about 40 pages. And......here goes.....Canada.......is the winner in icao differences, as I recall, more than the US differences, maybe 60 pages total.

So much for that.
.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Actually.........most countries do follow icao. But many do not.

I used to fly long haul in Vietnam, and one interesting publication we had in the onboard library was a sort of international CFS type document outlining differences from one country to the next (produced by British Airways).

Most icao differences by country were between 1/8th to 1/2 of a page long. No big deal really, minor insignificant stuff that would not change your life even if you did not know about them.

As I recall, the US differences, about 40 pages. And......here goes.....Canada.......is the winner in icao differences, as I recall, more than the US differences, maybe 60 pages total.

So much for that.
.

The way it works is that all ICAO member countries accept by default to abide by all ICAO standards and recommended practices except when they advise ICAO of a difference. All the non standard regulations are then published in a "Differences" publications that ICAO will provide to it's subscribers.

Chart providers such as Jeppesen source this information from the ICAO "Differences" manual which they then make available to the pilots inside of their own publications.

It's all explained here: https://www.icao.int/safety/MoD/Manual% ... 92015.docx

If you use Jepps, the country differences are listed (this is an old document as an example) :

https://ww1.jeppesen.com/documents/avia ... ontrol.pdf

The first part is general ICAO regulations, followed by a section with PAN-Europe differences, followed by individual country differences.

All this information is normally available to all pilots who fly overseas.......

[complexintentions]

*sigh*

ICAO differences.

EGPWS / no EGPWS.

Radar airspace / non-radar airspace.

Native English speaker / non-native English speaker.

Cleared to descend / not cleared to descend.

All of it interesting. Sort of. I guess?

None of it changes the fact that you have to know where you are. Know your minimum safe altitude. And stay above it.

That's pretty much it. Not that complicated.

[AuxBatOn]

None of it changes the fact that you have to know where you are. Know your minimum safe altitude. And stay above it.

That's pretty much it. Not that complicated.

Really? What about when you are on radar vectors and a controller clears you below a published min IFR altitude? Do you refuse?

[Cliff Jumper]

*sigh*

ICAO differences.
EGPWS / no EGPWS.
Radar airspace / non-radar airspace.
Native English speaker / non-native English speaker.
Cleared to descend / not cleared to descend.
All of it interesting. Sort of. I guess?
None of it changes the fact that you have to know where you are. Know your minimum safe altitude. And stay above it.

That's pretty much it. Not that complicated.

Agreed, no point to look into it any further. No single other crew on the planet could have made that error. So, why bother trying to understand it.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

None of it changes the fact that you have to know where you are. Know your minimum safe altitude. And stay above it.

That's pretty much it. Not that complicated.

Really? What about when you are on radar vectors and a controller clears you below a published min IFR altitude? Do you refuse?

You can refer to your Minimum Vectoring Altitude Chart if in doubt.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Min ... tude_(MVA)

[AuxBatOn]

I don't have access to this in my cockpit..

[ahramin]

I don't have access to this in my cockpit..

Maybe you should. No reason why you can't have it while the rest of us do.

[pelmet]

None of it changes the fact that you have to know where you are. Know your minimum safe altitude. And stay above it.

That's pretty much it. Not that complicated.

Really? What about when you are on radar vectors and a controller clears you below a published min IFR altitude? Do you refuse?

If you are on vectors, it is different. If not on vectors, you are responsible. If you have a terrain map function on your aircraft, use it when in high terrain locations on at least one side. I'd be willing to bet that these guys had it and didn't use it.

Wonder if AC has any specific procedures or recommendations about this. If they don't, they should.

[AuxBatOn]

I don't have access to this in my cockpit..

Maybe you should. No reason why you can't have it while the rest of us do.

It is not an issued DND pub therefore do not have access to it on my EFB or paper copies. If they were critical, they would be directly on approach plates.

[ahramin]

It is not an issued DND pub therefore do not have access to it on my EFB or paper copies.

That's what I'm saying. Maybe it's time they were included in the DND publications. I'd want either a functioning EGPWS or those charts when getting radar vectors in mountainous terrain anywhere in Asia or south of the US. If I were in your position, I'd consider making the point to the people in charge of such things.

[complexintentions]

Agreed, no point to look into it any further. No single other crew on the planet could have made that error. So, why bother trying to understand it.

Who said we shouldn't try and understand it? FFS.

I only stated that ultimately, it's up to us - not ATC or the EGPWS or the regulations or someone's language ability or lack thereof - to ensure terrain clearance.

Yes, on vectors that responsibility is delegated to ATC. But 1) that isn't relevant to this specific incident and 2) that doesn't mean you shut your brain off and completely abdicate your responsibility to maintain situational awareness. So, to the smartass who asked "what about on vectors", hell yes if they give me a clearance that doesn't make sense I will absolutely refuse. Wouldn't be the first time I've "self-vectored" myself in places like MNL or BKK on some dark shitty night.

Everyone looking around for blame when it seems like the crew just couldn't read a damn chart.

Let me put it another way. Regardless of the tech, regardless of what ATC clears me to, regardless of what I heard or thought I heard, regardless of what the regs say in Canada or Mexico or Timbuktu: if I know I'm only safe to 10,000 feet, I'm not descending below 10,000 feet.

Not. So. Complicated.