Air Canada Accident in YHZ

[brooks]

No GPS on most of the Airbus 320 fleet?
So I assume the ADRIU(s) and VHF/UHF updating qualify them to conduct the Enroute RNAV but not approach is that the plain and simple of it? Makes you wonder what the Rouge 319s can do if they cannot conduct a GPS Approach. Doesn't really seem as capable as say a 737.

[tbaylx]

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.

Our 1970's B737-200's are gps and waas equipped..its a financial decision by AC not to equip the fleet, not anything to do with the manufacturer date.

[sparky99]

When I was still at AC in 2011, we had just started installing provisions for a Multi Mode Reciever (Including GPS) on the 320's. The mods were only partial installs, I guess in the last four years they never finished them.

[linecrew]

When I was still at AC in 2011, we had just started installing provisions for a Multi Mode Reciever (Including GPS) on the 320's. The mods were only partial installs, I guess in the last four years they never finished them.

Maybe they don't want to invest anymore money on a type that will be replaced by the 737-MAX starting in 2017:

http://aircanada.mediaroom.com/index.php?item=727

[Doug Moore]

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.

Hi HiFlyChick,

I appreciate your honesty in “trying to figure out” what I previously discussed about Rwy 05. It indicates to me that you have an interest in other’s opinions and an open mind in discussing them.

I’m not saying that 05 is a “dangerous” runway, as obviously, year in and year out aircraft land safely on this runway. What I have said is that I was always very wary of that runway due to its environmental issues and that if one wasn’t aware one could very easily get sucked into descending lower than desired, particularly at night and/or in bad weather. Hence my description: “an accident waiting to happen”.

Visual illusions are affected by different conditions such as rain, falling/blowing snow, daytime/night-time, etc,; and are perceived differently from individual to individual. Some individuals, maybe most individuals, are not easily deceived by a visual illusion, but there will always be someone, sooner or later, who through no fault of their own, unwittingly and unaware will find themselves deceived by such a visual illusion. This has nothing to do with “decision making, skill or luck” (or bad luck) and everything to do with being human. Even the best stick and rudder pilot, with superior decision-making and CRM skills is still human.

In any event, my hope is that at least one pilot has been given pause to consider the effects of visual illusions approaching Rwy 05 in YHZ. You may be interested in reading this TSB Aviation Investigation Report written almost 20 years ago involving another aircraft landing on this same runway. If you don't want to read the whole report, go to para 1.18.4
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 6a0035.asp

Cheers,

[stefan_777]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 6a0035.asp

Thanks for the link, the future TSB report might have some glaring similarities.

I managed to get an archived recording of the tower frequency prior to the crash.
The local scanner had marginal reception, and it got knocked out presumably when the power went out.

A few things I could make out clearly:

When the tower controller cleared AC624 to land, he reported winds 010 20G30. A later wind check was about the same.

Early in the approach, AC624 requested max light intensity. From 4/5 up to 5/5.

There were several aircraft movements on RWY 05 in the 30 minutes after midnight before the crash. More people to chat with TSB.

[costermonger]

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

I don't have the current TP-308, but the current TERPS manual and TC AIM both still define LPV procedures as APVs (as opposed to NPA or PA). I am foggy on the exact bit of trivia but I recall that LPVs can't be considered precision approaches because they don't meet some precision approach requirement of ICAO Annex 10 vol. 1, the details of which I have successfully forgotten.

[Eric Janson]

Just a few comments to those of you focused on what equipment is installed in an aircraft.

Just because the aircraft is capable of flying a certain type of approach does not always mean you are allowed to. You still need to have the approval on the company AOC. This is issued by the CAA in the state where the aircraft is registered.

Some examples from various Airlines where I've worked:-

-NDB approaches prohibited with widebody aircraft
-Circling approaches prohibited
-RNP approaches prohibited
-iPad use not approved as EFB
-Performance and loadsheet apps on iPad not approved

Approvals can be a lot more complicated when the company is flying aircraft with 150+ passengers.

[Leightonzook]

I for one believe in the grace of God. He is not a superhero in the sky but my personal lord and saviour.
He gave me a brain to us and also made the environment I fly in and the rules of science that I fly by.
Where the coment "but for the grace of God go I " comes in is that God does help us think and reason situations through and is the controller of the daily environment I live in. So yes it is by his grace we live and don't have accidents sometimes when we should of and didn't even know bout it. Good things do happen to good people , I just wish the tsb was more open with there findings so we all could learn from what happened. My condolences to the pilots.

[Liquid Charlie]

I just wish the tsb was more open with there findings so we all could learn from what happened. My condolences to the pilots.

Really -- the results will come out and we can learn from that - meanwhile if there were glaring safety issues the TSB has already or will be in the process of taking them to Air Canada - and why are the pilots being judged - just maybe there are other reasons at play here - yes they are traumatised but to blame them or even second guess what went on is pure fantasy at this point. I think subconsciously most pilots feel better if you can point the finger at an individual and say "man you fuked up" and bent an aeroplane. Why? because we as a group do not even want to explore the possibility of something happening where we had no control over --

I know this is the era of instant gratification but maybe accurate information and a proper analysis out weighs the need to know for now - if AC has an FDM program I'm sure the incident has already been animated and in the hands of the gate keeper.

[55+]

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

I don't have the current TP-308, but the current TERPS manual and TC AIM both still define LPV procedures as APVs (as opposed to NPA or PA). I am foggy on the exact bit of trivia but I recall that LPVs can't be considered precision approaches because they don't meet some precision approach requirement of ICAO Annex 10 vol. 1, the details of which I have successfully forgotten.

Taken from FAA order 8260.58 (2012). The latest TP-308 V6 October 2013 Volume 3 reflects same as all RNAV references have been migrated into Volume 3... which is the criteria used for Precision Apch construction and evaluation. Just my interpretation, but whatever.

8260.58 defined: Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance (LPV). An approach with vertical guidance (APV) evaluated using the OCS dimensions (horizontal and vertical) of the precision approach trapezoid, with adjustments specific to the WAAS. These procedures are published on RNAVGPS approach charts as the LPV minima line.

[AuxBatOn]

I believe the reason why LPVs are (were?) not considered precision approaches is because of runway markings and approach lighting, rather than precision in itself.

I don't remember this verbage (although GPS approaches were not the focus) from my TERPS training a couple of years ago

[55+]

I believe the reason why LPVs are (were?) not considered precision approaches is because of runway markings and approach lighting, rather than precision in itself.

I don't remember this verbage (although GPS approaches were not the focus) from my TERPS training a couple of years ago

Again, not quite. Physical characteristics of the intended runway for which an approach procedure is designed has to meet the criteria in TP-312 Aerodrome standards and practices(Full disclosure: I have 3 yrs experience with TC at Regional/HQ level in this area). The characteristics are take-off/landing approach slopes, outer surface, transitional surfaces, strip widths. There are three categories(a) non-instrument(b)non-precision(c) precision and each have different requirements. There is a lot of detail but I will not get into it here. A precision approach can be designed to a non- precision runway assessment but the lowest approved minima would be 250ft HAT, for a non- instrument runway assessment or no assessment at all the lowest for a precision approach would be 500ft HAT. For a precision runway assessment a CAT 1 ILS would be down to 200ft HAT, as it stands now the lowest LPV is to 250ft HAT even for a precision assessed runway like 23/05 in YHZ. Lots of data to absorb when dealing with runways vs instrument approach procedures that is for sure. TP-312 is an obstacle limitation manual while TP-308 is an obstacle clearance manual.

You said you have"terps" training(FAA I assume), well when I did my TP-308 conventional and supplementary RNAV(GNSS) and RNAV Departure modules, the 312/308 differences were part of the training, actually I gave some of the 312 training due to previous knowledge. However, I have said enough on this particular thread as commentary on IAP design caught my eye and yes I am a ATPL with experience turbine/jet background.

Kindest regards
55+

[HiFlyChick]

...
In any event, my hope is that at least one pilot has been given pause to consider the effects of visual illusions approaching Rwy 05 in YHZ. You may be interested in reading this TSB Aviation Investigation Report written almost 20 years ago involving another aircraft landing on this same runway. If you don't want to read the whole report, go to para 1.18.4
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 6a0035.asp
...

Thanks for the clarification, Doug - it's sometimes hard to get a sense of a person's intent on a forum. It's good in any situation to be aware of factors which differ from what you are used to and what visual illusions may therefore result.

[ehbuddy]

It really does not matter what runway/airport at all. Did the visibility warrant the approach? Was the crosswind within the limits of the airplane? Its not rocket science here by any means...............cross the FAF and descend down to the MDA. Fly the track (LOC) and altitude to the MAP and go around if you have to. Or even better you will see the PAPI's and get the 2 red's and 2 white's.............fly the slope from that point to the runway.

[Jimmy_Hoffa]

It really does not matter what runway/airport at all. Did the visibility warrant the approach? Was the crosswind within the limits of the airplane? Its not rocket science here by any means...............cross the FAF and descend down to the MDA. Fly the track (LOC) and altitude to the MAP and go around if you have to. Or even better you will see the PAPI's and get the 2 red's and 2 white's.............fly the slope from that point to the runway.

Hope you manage to fill up your log book with experience long before your luck runs out with this type
of mentality towards this profession. Things are not always that simple. Here is your first lesson.

AIM
7.6.1.6
Where a visual approach slope indicator system (PAPI or
VASI) is provided on a precision approach runway, it will be
turned off in weather conditions of less than 500 ft (150 m)
ceiling and/or visibility less than 1 mi., unless specifically
requested by the pilot. This is to avoid possible contradiction
between the precision approach and VASI/PAPI glide slopes.

RWY 05 in YHZ does not have an ILS, but given the weather conditions over the past few hours and days leading up to the incident there is also a good possibility that the PAPI's could have been obscured with snow.

Either way. Hope you learned everything is not so black and white as you think it is.

JH

[ehbuddy]

"Hope you manage to fill up your log book with experience long before your luck runs out with this type
of mentality towards this profession. Things are not always that simple. Here is your first lesson"

No lesson required..........not a baby here.

I base my comment on 35 years in the cockpit with over 19 thousand hours in the book the bulk of it 705, 9 type ratings and 20 years flying out of Halifax kind of says it all. How about you? Student Pilot that is able to cut and paste and probably has never done the Loc 05 in CYHZ before?

Its a Non Precision Approach..............fly it properly and it all works out fine........no magic here.

PAPI or not.............you fly at MDA until the MAP or a visual transition and go from that point. They did not even make it to the Airport Fence and started hitting things.

So slam me if you want to but it seems that the bulk of us who have flown the LOC 05 in crappy weather have made it safely to the gate and did not hit the 35' power line 1900 feet prior to the normal touchdown zone

[Old fella]

"Hope you manage to fill up your log book with experience long before your luck runs out with this type
of mentality towards this profession. Things are not always that simple. Here is your first lesson"

No lesson required..........not a baby here.

I would my 35 years in the cockpit with over 19 thousand hours in the book the bulk of it 705, 9 type ratings and 20 years flying out of Halifax kind of says it all. How about you? Student Pilot that is able to cut and paste and probably has never done the Loc 05 in CYHZ before?

Its a Non Precision Approach..............fly it properly and it all works out fine........no magic here.

PAPI or not.............you fly at MDA until the MAP or a visual transition and go from that point. They did not even make it to the Airport Fence and started hitting things.

So slam me if you want to but it seems that the bulk of us who have flown the LOC 05 in crappy weather have made it safely to the gate and did not hit the 35' power line 1900 feet prior to the normal touchdown zone

+1

[rudder]

So slam me if you want to but it seems that the bulk of us who have flown the LOC 05 in crappy weather have made it safely to the gate and did not hit the 35' power line 1900 feet prior to the normal touchdown zone

Simple question - do you believe that it was this particular crews intention to hit the power line and have the outcome that they did? I am guessing that it was not.

Like most other accidents, there were contributing factors to the ultimate result. The purpose of the TSB investigation is to identify those factors and if necessary implement changes so that this type of event will not repeat itself.

Most of the procedures and limitations that we use everyday are as a result of a previously identified shortcomings in the system. These flaws do not reveal themselves as a result of successful gate arrivals but rather as a result of incidents or accidents.

I am just speculating but I cannot help but predict that the reduced approach ban visibility available in Canada (but not in the US) for non-precision approaches will come under significant scrutiny as part of this investigation.

[ehbuddy]

Yes Rudder you are 100% correct.

The discussion was based on the NON PRECISION APPROACH aspect and if flown correctly would not put you in a situation where you are going to hit power lines etc.

They may have been flying the approach properly and had other issues such as mechanical/electrical, engine roll back, wind shear, mis-set altimeters or a multitude of other things.

My intention was only to state with a perfectly functioning airplane flying the LOC 05 to the 'letter' would/should not have got them in a situation to have hit the power lines and burm.

[HiFlyChick]

...
I am just speculating but I cannot help but predict that the reduced approach ban visibility available in Canada (but not in the US) for non-precision approaches will come under significant scrutiny as part of this investigation.

I have a very bad feeling that you will be right on this...
What will be really frustrating is if they limit all non-ILS approaches (since the jury still seems to be out on whether LPV is precision or not), not taking into account that perhaps if they'd had a glideslope (i.e. the equipment and SOPs to use it) they wouldn't have gotten themselves into this mess.

We had a ton of snow that night and I will be very interested to find out from the TSB as to whether the PAPIs were covered or not. Not sure of their regular height but there was (and still is) a lot of snow down, and as I recall, that was the night that we got another 9+ inches. That being said, if only they'd had WAAS they wouldn't need to be relying on only external glideslope indications.

Wonder if this will inspire AC to install WAAS capable GPS's..?

[toelessjoe]

For what it's worth I was there that night sitting at the Shell waiting to taxi over to the gate. I refused because the snow was as high as THREE FREAKIN' FEET on the ramp. The plows were out in full force and it still was coming in that quickly. The weather at the time was as bad as I've ever seen and my PSTAR was written decades (and over 8000 hours) ago. As many times as the METAR's and SPECI's have been mentioned here (I don't know I'm too lazy to look) I can say with some degree of certainty they don't reflect the whole picture of just how INCREDIBLY F&!*ING SH!TTY the weather actually was. We're all entitled to our individual opinions even without the final TSB report so here's mine: windshear at the worst possible time (i.e. at or just prior to minimums. Unless something or someone comes out with something contradictory that can be proven beyond a doubt I'll believe my theory to be accurate.

- Toeless.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Missed approaches are good for the soul.
Illya

[toelessjoe]

Missed approaches are good for the soul.
Illya

Yes but minimums for the loc on 05 are 277'. Reduced power + windshear + fairly low minimums = a bad news scenario. Or at least it's a theory I can subscribe to. Like I said, it's a pretty realistic scenario given that the weather REALLY REALLY SUCKED DONKEY BALLS!!

- Toeless.

[Liquid Charlie]

REALLY REALLY SUCKED DONKEY BALLS!!

The donkey or ass, Equus africanus asinus, is a domesticated member of the horse family, Equidae. The wild ancestor of the donkey is the African wild ass

-- LMFAOOOOOOOOO