Air Canada Accident in YHZ

[CFR]

I'm wondering if the CVR has a recording of a significant disagreement.

[KK7]

Even though the Jazz Q400 is equipped with duel FMS/GPS because this is a LOC based approach it would have been done using LOC and step down. LOC based approaches cannot be flown using GPS

Sorry, I fly the Q400 and we can fly a LOC approach with vertical guidance from the FMS, no step down required. The FMS uses LOC steering and provides a pseudo glideslope using nav sources from GNSS and INS.

[karmutzen]

Not sure what all GPS comments are about, the MDA (flown as a DH) difference between LPV and the LOC-DME on this runway is only 20' (257 vs 277'). Visibility recommendation remains the same at 1sm to give the flight crew a chance at the leadin lights from MDA/DH when flown as a CDA (MAP would be misleading because it is at the threshold). AC may have their own approach as an RCAP.

See KK7 comments for some enlightenment on FMS. You can also pseudo a baro gp. Pretty hard to end up a couple thousand feet short if all the buttons are pushed right.

[TOGA Party]

How is the 320's Flight path angle on these approaches input? Manually? I'm unfamiliar with Airbus ops.

The plate shows an FPA of 3.08 degrees.

[AEROMONKEY]

Sounds to me that the ARFF crew did a great job. Very stressful at night in a storm....Their main priority is the aircraft and anyone that may be still inside....people wandering around can wait....should they have been picked up sooner? sure.....easier said then done...I am an ARFF and the last thing you want is people roaming all over in the dark with fire trucks trying to respond. Anyone remember the Asiana crash....girl was crushed to death by an ARFF truck. They were all back inside within an hour....sounds pretty good to me!

And calling it a hard landing....i can see why at first....its dark...very few details, the pictures showed the plane on the runway and everyone lived. Some PR person sees that and thinks hard landing....it was corrected pretty early.

[SenyorJim]

God, you are a heartless sucker!

It is indeed good that there were emergency vehicles if needed, Inverted2, but I'm trying to figure out why they left all of those poor pax standing around in the snow and sub-zero temps for over an hour. Even if they didn't have the busses right away, they should have at least tried to get a start with helping people. Even if they had to call up every FBO on the field and get them to drive their courtesy vans to bravo taxiway and shuttle them in groups of 8-10 back to a nearby hangar - anywhere but outside!

Or maybe let the fire department ensure nothing is going to burst into flames or worse. I mean, what would you be saying if they started shuttling passengers and the plane erupted into flames injuring dozens because the fire trucks were blocked by fbo vans or busses. How about people turn their brains on and dress accordingly, or maybe put their shoes back on for landing. People get what they pay for, cheap tickets don't buy busses sitting on standby for the %.001 chance a commercial airliner will crash at the airport and everyone lives. How about these passengers wake up, complaining about the cold cause they dressed like they were still on vacation. They just survived what historically should have killed most or all... Stop bitching about how cold your fingers were, you're alive, today should be the best day of the rest of your lives!

How this plane didn't explode into a ball of fire killing every single person on board is beyond me. Complaining about the cold, next they'll be crying about how long it took to get their bags.

[costermonger]

How is the 320's Flight path angle on these approaches input? Manually? I'm unfamiliar with Airbus ops.

The plate shows an FPA of 3.08 degrees.

I'm hypothesizing that if the approach flight path angle for vertical guidance on the LOC is manually input, perhaps they input 3.8 accidentally instead of 3.08 giving them a steeper descent from the FAF. Anyone wanna do the math and see if this places them 1000 short?

Again, totally unfamiliar with Airbus ops and pure speculation. Probably wrong.

I'm also totally unfamiliar but your post made me curious.

Both from 2000' at ZHZ, so A=FPA, a=1537 and b=distance over the ground in feet

3.08° - reach TDZE in 28,564 feet - 4.7 miles.
3.8° - reach TDZE in 23,140 feet - 3.8 miles.

That's a big difference.

[Apollo]

What was the temperature at the time of the incident?

Glad noone was hurt!

[pianokeys]

What was the temperature at the time of the incident?

Glad noone was hurt!

It was -6C and dewpoint -7C.

Everyone is very lucky that it wasn't worse.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Why do so many posters here keep calling this an " incident"?

[Jet Jockey]

Not sure what all GPS comments are about, the MDA (flown as a DH) difference between LPV and the LOC-DME on this runway is only 20' (257 vs 277').

You info is incorrect...

For the RNAV (GNSS) approach to runway 05, the following apply:

The DA for the minimum on the LPV approach is 720'MSL or 257' above ground.

The MDA minimum on the LNAV approach is 860' MSL or 397' above ground.

To use the LNAV approach with a DA minimum you need to add 50', so the new minimum would be 910' MSL or 447' above ground.


For the LOC approach to runway 05, the following apply:

The MDA minimum on the LOC approach is 740' MSL or 277' above ground.

To use the LOC approach with a DA minimum you need to add 50', so the new minimum would be 790' MSL or 327' above ground.

The difference between using a DA on the LPV approach (720'/257') and a DA on the LOC approach (790'/327') is 70'.

Then the big advantages to the LPV approach are a "real" angular approach like an ILS which gets more precise as you close in on the landing, usually lower minimums, you don't have to compensate/correct the Vpath with TEMP COMP (only the minimum) and a safer glide path that is not prone to crew error inputs like a LNAV/LNAV-Vnav approach.

[Redneck_pilot86]

How is the 320's Flight path angle on these approaches input? Manually? I'm unfamiliar with Airbus ops.

The plate shows an FPA of 3.08 degrees.

I'm hypothesizing that if the approach flight path angle for vertical guidance on the LOC is manually input, perhaps they input 3.8 accidentally instead of 3.08 giving them a steeper descent from the FAF. Anyone wanna do the math and see if this places them 1000 short?

Again, totally unfamiliar with Airbus ops and pure speculation. Probably wrong.

I'm also totally unfamiliar but your post made me curious.

Both from 2000' at ZHZ, so A=FPA, a=1537 and b=distance over the ground in feet




3.08° - reach TDZE in 28,564 feet - 4.7 miles.
3.8° - reach TDZE in 23,140 feet - 3.8 miles.

That's a big difference.

Accidentally set at 3.18 would be pretty close though...

[Forest Gump]

...and then there's the idiot passengers traveling to blizzard country, dressed as if they're heading to Mexico! Some of therm didn't even have their shoes on during landing!!
BTW, was runway 32 closed?

[sanjet]

A true testament to the design of this aircraft. The engine sheered off as designed during the crashed landing. Happy crew and pax all survived!

[Jack Klumpus]

Unlike the Q (since some brought it up), the Airbus cannot fly a LOC in managed mode. This means that a LOC approach can be flown horizontally managed and vertically selected. The pilot flying will have to set the Flight Path Angle to the desired degree, and continually cross check the altitude vs height from the chart.

Since the profile is flown selected, they would add 50' to the minimums, and on top, add whatever the cold weather correction is.

And yes, the FPA is manual. It's the same knob as the VS, only when pressed, switches to FPA. 3.08 would be set as -3.1, and fine tuned as the approach goes.

[HavaJava]

I'd be willing to bet my house that this is not a case of continuing the approach below minimums without visual reference. If the pilots hit minimums (or lost visual contact after minimums) there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a go-around would have been initiated.

So, yes, an improper vertical path is possible but I'm sure that it would not have been followed blindly to impact. It may have left the pilots in a unexpected position upon breaking out and then a mixture of optical illusion (black hole effect, snow streaming by the landing lights, crab angle, insufficient approach lighting, etc), turbulence and possible windshear may have led to the aircraft coming in too low. Personally, I think unreported severe windshear will be a primary cause.

I will be very interested to see if the PAPI's were working properly (or at all) as the final visual segment would have been significantly more difficult without them.

And, while low in probability, a loss of power or unresponsive throttle fault (ala British Airways) also could have occurred.

[goldeneagle]

Information posted earlier in the thread, I think holds a very enlightening set of clues.

Metar shows altimeter setting at the time, was 29.65. Loc minimums, 277 feet. If you dial 29.92 on the altimeter, it'll be reading off by about 270 feet in these conditions. High to low, look out below. Fly a picture perfect approach with 29.92 on the dial in these conditions, should set one up to be at minimums roughly a half mile (750 meters or so) before the threshold. But with a 270 foot error from altimeter setting, you actually end up at ground level, a half mile (roughly 750 meters) before the runway.

I think this is the simplest explanation that puts this aircraft, in ground contact, at that location.

[HavaJava]

Golden eagle,

Once the pilots break out, the approach is continued visually (with the aid of the PAPIs). No pilot is going to disregard 4 red PAPIs and continue their pre-calculated vertical profile into the ground.

Also, Air Canada has numerous checks throughout the descent and approach when correct altimeter settings are confirmed. To have 29.92 is just about as unlikely as a meteor knocking them out of the sky on short final.

[xsbank]

If you are in a non-precision approach, what about TAWS? Wouldn't you get a "Terrain!" Warning? "Pull up!"?

On an LPV, "Glide Slope!"?

Approach altitude cross-checks?

Full approach briefing including altimeter settings?

[goldeneagle]

Golden eagle,

Once the pilots break out, the approach is continued visually (with the aid of the PAPIs).

You are assuming they broke out. With a 270 foot or so altimeter error, they could have ended up at that location without ever breaking out.

[HavaJava]

Golden eagle,

Once the pilots break out, the approach is continued visually (with the aid of the PAPIs).

You are assuming they broke out. With a 270 foot or so altimeter error, they could have ended up at that location without ever breaking out.

Ok, I have edited this to state that your scenario is a possibility, but I would rate it as an extremely unlikely one.

If you are in a non-precision approach, what about TAWS? Wouldn't you get a "Terrain!" Warning? "Pull up!"?
On an LPV, "Glide Slope!"?

The terrain warning is inhibited when you are within a certain distance of the runway. I don't have that distance handy, but I'm pretty sure that this aircraft would have been within the inhibited envelope.

[Illya Kuryakin]

...and then there's the idiot passengers traveling to blizzard country, dressed as if they're heading to Mexico! Some of therm didn't even have their shoes on during landing!!
BTW, was runway 32 closed?

Good one! What a bunch of idiots! What right do they have to expect Air Canada to actually land ON the runway. Such sense of entitlement! The bloody cheek! If these passengers don't retain legal council and sue the living shit out of Air Canada, then I'd refer to them as idiots!
Illya

[co-joe]

Any reports of icing in cloud? Is that part of the GFA still around?

It will be interesting to look at the air data computer numbers on LLWS on the approach. Surely the INS or IRS will have been able to compute and record that eh?

Super glad no serious injuries. Real lucky.

[FICU]

...and then there's the idiot passengers traveling to blizzard country, dressed as if they're heading to Mexico! Some of therm didn't even have their shoes on during landing!!

No shit!

It made me so happy to hear they were a wee bit chilly in their flip flops, shorts and t-shirts outside in a snow storm after evacuating! Every time I see these people wandering through the airports showing off their tans and so proudly letting us all know they were down south when it's -30 outside I laugh and think do they ever consider the chance of a rapid de-planement or evacuation when they dress themselves for their flight or are they more concerned about showing off their tans to the rest of us?

[tbaylx]

...and then there's the idiot passengers traveling to blizzard country, dressed as if they're heading to Mexico! Some of therm didn't even have their shoes on during landing!!
BTW, was runway 32 closed?

Good one! What a bunch of idiots! What right do they have to expect Air Canada to actually land ON the runway. Such sense of entitlement! The bloody cheek! If these passengers don't retain legal council and sue the living shit out of Air Canada, then I'd refer to them as idiots!
Illya

First taking your shoes off on a flight should get you onto a passenger shaming website, but besides that keeping them off for a landing or takeoff kinda puts you onto the Darwin list, you get what you deserve. Shit happens, and mostly during landings and takeoffs. Only time you're going to need to evacuate, so IMHO I'd rather be prepared for that. If you aren't then your problem when you do have an evacuation into a snow storm in flip flops and shorts. Sucks to be you, but it was your choice to wear that.

I wouldn't' worry about lawsuits either, I'm sure the lawyers are already salivating and making contact with everyone on the passenger list.