Doug Moore wrote: … “there but for the Grace of God, go I”
I agree with most of your post except this part. I really hope there are no professional pilots who believe the only thing preventing a crash is some imaginary superhero up in the sky.
Just as I prefaced my original comments … “Tough crowd here”.
“There but for the Grace of God go I” is a colloquial saying which I believe in our North American continent, and at least to people of my generation, means that other’s misfortune could very easily have been our own, but for fate, luck or divine intervention (whatever that is). Just like another saying, “the devil made me do it” means that a person couldn’t resist doing something, rather than implying that the devil’s influence was actually the cause of the action.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by Doug Moore on Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
boxcut wrote:I would have thought that CVR transcripts would be made public, not hushed up, by the TSB.
Here's what the TSB said about CVRs in the Resolute Bay report:
... voice recordings [are] privileged in the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act. While the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) may make use of any on-board recording in the interests of transportation safety, it is not permitted to knowingly communicate any portion of an on-board recording that is unrelated to the causes or contributing factors of an accident or to the identification of safety deficiencies.
The reason for protecting cockpit voice recorder (CVR) material lies in the premise that these protections help ensure that this essential material is available for the benefit of safety investigations. The TSB has always met its obligations in this area and has restricted the use of CVR data in its reports. Unless the CVR material is required to both support a finding and identify a substantive safety deficiency, it will not be included in the TSB's report.
Sidebar wrote:Here's what the TSB said about CVRs in the Resolute Bay report:
... voice recordings [are] privileged in the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act. While the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) may make use of any on-board recording in the interests of transportation safety, it is not permitted to knowingly communicate any portion of an on-board recording that is unrelated to the causes or contributing factors of an accident or to the identification of safety deficiencies.
The reason for protecting cockpit voice recorder (CVR) material lies in the premise that these protections help ensure that this essential material is available for the benefit of safety investigations. The TSB has always met its obligations in this area and has restricted the use of CVR data in its reports. Unless the CVR material is required to both support a finding and identify a substantive safety deficiency, it will not be included in the TSB's report.
I don't necessarily disagree with TSB's refusal to communicate CVR material (I don't need to hear audio of a crew's last moments and I'm pretty sure their families don't either), but the logic as quoted above is less than compelling: "...[TSB] is not permitted to knowingly communicate any portion of an on-board recording that is unrelated to the causes or contributing factors of an accident..."
I'm not sure if the wording here is deliberately obtuse, but duh, why would TSB want to knowingly communicate any information that is not relevant?
And to that point, they're not coming right out and saying that they're not permitted to communicate relevant information, which would imply that they are in fact permitted to do so but elect not to. So what gives? Are they hoping to just lose the issue in a fog of words?
Moreover, communicating the information in no way lessens its "availability" to TSB investigators.
AuxBatOn wrote:Is this in the new iteration of the TERPS manual?
The FAA orders 8260(various revisions) were previously used by "notice" from Transport Canada, however those were incorporated into the new TP-308 Change 6.0 - Volume 3 which came into affect either end of 2013 or mid-2014. That's how I understand it
The Transportation Safety Board investigation into the Air Canada crash will take months, perhaps years, before conclusions are reached and a final report is published.
It will make safety recommendations, not assign blame.
And in the end Canadians will know less about what went on in the cockpit than would be the case in many other countries. Unlike U.S. investigations, where a transcript of the cockpit voice recorder is part of the public record, Canadian pilots have successfully lobbied to keep them secret and only terse summaries are published.
I take issue with the last sentence. Having been around when the TSB Act was being drafted, the intent was to determine cause and not to assign blame. The intent of the legislators (not lobbying pilots) was to prevent sensitive information such as the CVR from entering the public realm. Similarly, statements the pilots give to the TSB are also protected. TC are also excluded access from this info. I agree with the logic--I see no reason the public needs to hear the words of pilots in what is sometimes the last moments of their lives.
Doug, I agree with your sentiments as stated above.
I'm very happy there were no fatalities or serious injuries, and offer best wishes to the flight crew with hopes they come to peace with this.
Having said that, my recollection of Rwy 05 in YHZ is that it was, and still remains today a runway waiting for an accident to happen. As I recall (been retired 7 years), 05 has a hump about 1000’ down the runway and the terrain gently slopes in both directions down the runway and moreso in the opposite direction towards the approach end and down an embankment into a small gulley/valley. No precision approach. Particularly at night, even on a clear night, the “visual” illusion/perception on final approach of this terrain sloping up to the runway and then down beyond the hump can easily trick the unaware into believing that you are higher than you should be. So the conditions for a trap are all set. Night time, instrument approach, no flight path guidance other than the non-precision FPA (Flight Path Angle) and possibly VASIS/PAPI, break-out of the clouds and you’re into the short strokes, the transition from instruments to the visual picture (when most likely you are already well below 1000’ AGL) can lead you to believe that “Holy Crap, I’m high!” with a natural inclination to increase rate of descent until the realization seconds later becomes “Holy crap, I’m low!” and before you can say WTF, it’s a “Gotcha”!
Having said that, my recollection of Rwy 05 in YHZ is that it was, and still remains today a runway waiting for an accident to happen. As I recall (been retired 7 years), 05 has a hump about 1000’ down the runway and the terrain gently slopes in both directions down the runway and moreso in the opposite direction towards the approach end and down an embankment into a small gulley/valley. No precision approach. Particularly at night, even on a clear night, the “visual” illusion/perception on final approach of this terrain sloping up to the runway and then down beyond the hump can easily trick the unaware into believing that you are higher than you should be. So the conditions for a trap are all set. Night time, instrument approach, no flight path guidance other than the non-precision FPA (Flight Path Angle) and possibly VASIS/PAPI, break-out of the clouds and you’re into the short strokes, the transition from instruments to the visual picture (when most likely you are already well below 1000’ AGL) can lead you to believe that “Holy Crap, I’m high!” with a natural inclination to increase rate of descent until the realization seconds later becomes “Holy crap, I’m low!” and before you can say WTF, it’s a “Gotcha”!
I think you're discribing RWY 32 not 05.
There is a precision IAP RW 05 at Halifax RNAV(GNSS) Category Minima LPV, ditto for RWs 23, 14 and 32. Been there over past couple of years. Question is, does AC utilize these procedures in their A320 and other aircraft. Nav Canada to their credit have embarked on an initiative to make more available at many airports.
No Air Canada aircraft are LPV capable because none of the airplanes are equipped with WAAS. That will change by 2020 when they all must have WAAS and comply with the FAA's ADS-B requirements. Hopefully by then every runway in the country will have an LPV procedure and we can put non-precision approaches out of their misery.
Rockie wrote:No Air Canada aircraft are LPV capable because none of the airplanes are equipped with WAAS. That will change by 2020 when they all must have WAAS and comply with the FAA's ADS-B requirements. Hopefully by then every runway in the country will have an LPV procedure and we can put non-precision approaches out of their misery.
What about RNAV(GNSS) LNAV non-precision minima, I assume most if not all of the AC fleet are able and with vertical guidance down to the MDA........
Doug Moore wrote: … “there but for the Grace of God, go I”
I agree with most of your post except this part. I really hope there are no professional pilots who believe the only thing preventing a crash is some imaginary superhero up in the sky.
Just as I prefaced my original comments … “Tough crowd here”.
“There but for the Grace of God go I” is a colloquial saying which I believe in our North American continent, and at least to people of my generation, means that other’s misfortune could very easily have been our own, but for fate, luck or divine intervention (whatever that is). Just like another saying, “the devil made me do it” means that a person couldn’t resist doing something, rather than implying that the devil’s influence was actually the cause of the action.
How about the but for the grace of my own decision making, skill or luck(in terms of not being around for a mechanical failure, etc) go I instead of thinking that fate or divine intervention have anything to do with aviation safety.
There is a precision IAP RW 05 at Halifax RNAV(GNSS) Category Minima LPV, ditto for RWs 23, 14 and 32. Been there over past couple of years.
LPV counts as Precision Approach now? That's news to me. Especially since RWY 05 is a Non-Precision Approach Runway according to the Jepps and the AIM.
7.5.2 Precision Approach Runways
(a) High Intensity Approach Lighting (HIAL) System—CAT I:
This system consists of rows of five white variableintensity
light units spaced at 30 m intervals commencing
90 m from the threshold and extending back for a distance
of 900 m (terrain permitting). Additional light bars have
been added to the low intensity system (incorporated
in this system) because of the lower landing minimum.
These are as follows:
RWY 05 only has ODALS, no HIALS. Per the AIM, ODALS makes the runway a non-precision approach runway. It also makes me wonder how the aircraft conducted an approach with a vis of 1/2 mile, since that is inside approach ban for that runway.
Having said that, my recollection of Rwy 05 in YHZ is that it was, and still remains today a runway waiting for an accident to happen. As I recall (been retired 7 years), 05 has a hump about 1000’ down the runway and the terrain gently slopes in both directions down the runway and moreso in the opposite direction towards the approach end and down an embankment into a small gulley/valley. No precision approach. Particularly at night, even on a clear night, the “visual” illusion/perception on final approach of this terrain sloping up to the runway and then down beyond the hump can easily trick the unaware into believing that you are higher than you should be. So the conditions for a trap are all set. Night time, instrument approach, no flight path guidance other than the non-precision FPA (Flight Path Angle) and possibly VASIS/PAPI, break-out of the clouds and you’re into the short strokes, the transition from instruments to the visual picture (when most likely you are already well below 1000’ AGL) can lead you to believe that “Holy Crap, I’m high!” with a natural inclination to increase rate of descent until the realization seconds later becomes “Holy crap, I’m low!” and before you can say WTF, it’s a “Gotcha”!
I think you're discribing RWY 32 not 05.
Maybe what I described makes you think of Rwy 32 but nope, I'm referring to Rwy 05.
Doug Moore wrote:
Just as I prefaced my original comments … “Tough crowd here”.
“There but for the Grace of God go I” is a colloquial saying which I believe in our North American continent, and at least to people of my generation, means that other’s misfortune could very easily have been our own, but for fate, luck or divine intervention (whatever that is). Just like another saying, “the devil made me do it” means that a person couldn’t resist doing something, rather than implying that the devil’s influence was actually the cause of the action.
pelmet wrote:
How about the but for the grace of my own decision making, skill or luck(in terms of not being around for a mechanical failure, etc) go I instead of thinking that fate or divine intervention have anything to do with aviation safety.
"How about the but for the grace of my own decision making, skill or luck(in terms of not being around for a mechanical failure, etc) go I instead of thinking that fate or divine intervention have anything to do with aviation safety."
What Pelmet said above. +1 I think people underestimate the actions of....people.
I wonder about the possibility of false visual reference illusions, in addition to a bad approach angle. I believe there is some lighting on the localizer array. Perhaps with the whiteouts and a little fatigue, those lights could be mistaken for runway end lights.
Rockie wrote:No Air Canada aircraft are LPV capable because none of the airplanes are equipped with WAAS. That will change by 2020 when they all must have WAAS and comply with the FAA's ADS-B requirements. Hopefully by then every runway in the country will have an LPV procedure and we can put non-precision approaches out of their misery.
What about RNAV(GNSS) LNAV non-precision minima, I assume most if not all of the AC fleet are able and with vertical guidance down to the MDA........
Most of the Air Canada 320 fleet does not have GPS and are unable to do an RNAV/GNSS approach.
I'm not trying to be a smart mouth or anything, but honestly, I'm trying to figure out what you guys are talking about with regards to the whole "05 is an accident waiting to happen" thing (or 32 for that matter). It was at its worst when there was only a backcourse because if you didn't have an HSI you were stuck with the reverse indications and the whole step-down approach annoyance. Then they made it a front course and added LPV. Ok, so if you don't have WAAS you're stuck with no glideslope, but it is my understanding that the equipment that the airlines use has the capability of dialling in the SCDA info thereby giving vertical guidance (I have only used basic flight directors in King Airs, nothing fancy - just the chicken bars for GPS or ILS so I don't know about those).
The undulations of the runway are very small, and in truth, I've never noticed any sort of illusions created by them. Also, previous comments about hills are baffling to me as well. It's Nova Scotia, for goodness sake, where our north and south "mountains" in the Valley are < 1000 ft tall! The airport is on 500 ft ground and there are a few hills around the area but nothing that really stands out or has even been noticeable to me.
As someone on the radio pointed out, they didn't land a thousand (or so) ft short because the aiming point isn't on the numbers, they landed 2000 ft short of the normal touchdown point. The runway is now in excess of 10,000 ft long. Something went terribly wrong in terms of what altitude they thought they were at vs. where the really were. Other than vis and difficulty spotting the PAPIs against the snowy background (or were they covered at that point - don't know the height of the light standards) I don't think the layout of the land really played into it - I seriously have never noticed any of the land features that you've mentioned as affecting my judgement with regards to the slope of the approach.
Rockie wrote:No Air Canada aircraft are LPV capable because none of the airplanes are equipped with WAAS. That will change by 2020 when they all must have WAAS and comply with the FAA's ADS-B requirements. Hopefully by then every runway in the country will have an LPV procedure and we can put non-precision approaches out of their misery.
What about RNAV(GNSS) LNAV non-precision minima, I assume most if not all of the AC fleet are able and with vertical guidance down to the MDA........
Most of the Air Canada 320 fleet does not have GPS and are unable to do an RNAV/GNSS approach.
Kinda surprising one of the worlds biggest airlines cheaps out on modern equipment like GPS. How long has GPS/RNAV approaches been around for now? I was doing GPS approaches 13 years ago in a Beechcraft.
Inverted2 wrote:
Kinda surprising one of the worlds biggest airlines cheaps out on modern equipment like GPS. How long has GPS/RNAV approaches been around for now? I was doing GPS approaches 13 years ago in a Beechcraft.
The majority of the A320 fleet were delivered to AC around 1991. Although the A320 is still in production, these aircraft a far from new.
Inverted2 wrote:
Kinda surprising one of the worlds biggest airlines cheaps out on modern equipment like GPS. How long has GPS/RNAV approaches been around for now? I was doing GPS approaches 13 years ago in a Beechcraft.
The majority of the A320 fleet were delivered to AC around 1991. Although the A320 is still in production, these aircraft a far from new.
I realize that but GPS can actually be retrofitted to older aircraft. I know a guy who's J3 Cub didn't even come with seatbelts when new. Of course it has them now.
Inverted2 wrote:
Kinda surprising one of the worlds biggest airlines cheaps out on modern equipment like GPS. How long has GPS/RNAV approaches been around for now? I was doing GPS approaches 13 years ago in a Beechcraft.
The majority of the A320 fleet were delivered to AC around 1991. Although the A320 is still in production, these aircraft a far from new.
To be fair the design criteria only came out very early 90's and lots of goings on there believe me with depictions,distances, turn expansion etc., etc. GPS as it was known then never really got going till after mid 90's. No doubt the many industry conferences and there were many, discussions were a plenty.AC probably had much more heavy duty items on its plate like merger......
Nav Canada got into the RNAV thought process shortly after they appeared due ANS commercialized Act in 1997.... Panel mounted GPS receiver aka KLN-90 appeared for general aviation and away we went as GPS approaches were going everywhere in places that really were questionable
i really find it hard to believe that the A320 fleet didn't get a GPS upgrade ever since.......wow ! so they can't do Rnav approaches ! ....they must at least be rnav 2 for enroute continental, aren't they ? inertial with DME\DME i'm hopping. Does the air canada A320's FMS have baro VNAV capability , coupled or at least advisory VNAV ?
