Air Canada YHZ

[HiFlyChick]

Can anyone comment on the reliability of info from that site? I just wonder where they would have gotten this info....

[altiplano]

Do you have information to the contrary? Were you at the airport? Is your friend the runway treatment truck driver? Were you at the Starbucks?

Avherald seems like a reliable publication in my experience. Certainly no reason apparent to doubt it.

[Jet Jockey]

Why did they perform a CAT II approach in CAT I weather?

Aren't CAT II approaches limited to a maximum crosswind component of 15kts?

[Victory]

It's kind of surprising YHZ doesn't have an ILS on RWY32. Why wouldn't they?

[rookiepilot]

It's kind of surprising YHZ doesn't have an ILS on RWY32. Why wouldn't they?

Nor on 05.......

Nor an arrestor bed system. It would seem to me YHZ would be an excellent place for one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enginee ... tor_system

[pelmet]

It's kind of surprising YHZ doesn't have an ILS on RWY32. Why wouldn't they?

Over the long term, approaches at airports are moving toward gbas/gls/Ian type approaches. ILS has issues that can cause problems and is expensive to install. It will disappear just like the ndb

[rookiepilot]

Over the long term, approaches at airports are moving toward gbas/gls/Ian type approaches. ILS has issues that can cause problems and is expensive to install. It will disappear just like the ndb

I'm sure the next pilot flying into YHZ during adverse winds and weather is deeply comforted by that fact.

[pelmet]

Over the long term, approaches at airports are moving toward gbas/gls/Ian type approaches. ILS has issues that can cause problems and is expensive to install. It will disappear just like the ndb

I'm sure the next pilot flying into YHZ during adverse winds and weather is deeply comforted by that fact.

It is....the way it is. And if the conditions are not satisfactory, a pilot takes deep comfort in diverting to their alternate.

[rookiepilot]

a pilot takes deep comfort in diverting to their alternate.

An Alternate! Never would have thought of that one. Thanks!

Of course the comment stream was about the airport infrastructure.......

One would think for a major airport, with horrid winter weather, it should have an ILS to at least three runways, as St Johns does.....

[HiFlyChick]

Do you have information to the contrary? Were you at the airport? Is your friend the runway treatment truck driver? Were you at the Starbucks?

Avherald seems like a reliable publication in my experience. Certainly no reason apparent to doubt it.

It's on the internet - I like to know where something on the internet came from if there is no other source stating the same info. Just thinking that the media would've been all over the info about the truck, so either (a) they just didn't find it online or (b) it's incorrect

[altiplano]

Do you have information to the contrary? Were you at the airport? Is your friend the runway treatment truck driver? Were you at the Starbucks?

Avherald seems like a reliable publication in my experience. Certainly no reason apparent to doubt it.

It's on the internet - I like to know where something on the internet came from if there is no other source stating the same info. Just thinking that the media would've been all over the info about the truck, so either (a) they just didn't find it online or (b) it's incorrect

The mainstream media didn't report it so it can't be true?

LOL...

We shall see... avherald isn't the only source I have heard it from.

[goingnowherefast]

One would think that the national carrier with multi-million dollar airplanes could afford WAAS/LPV upgrades too.

Don't see AC ordering any 747-8s. Why would YHZ buy an ILS for an LPV equipped runway? Let's get with the times.

[pelmet]

One would think for a major airport, with horrid winter weather, it should have an ILS to at least three runways, as St Johns does.....

One would think that the national carrier with multi-million dollar airplanes could afford WAAS/LPV upgrades too.

Why would YHZ buy an ILS for an LPV equipped runway? Let's get with the times.

Now we are getting some actual intelligent input about infrastructure instead of mindlessly demanding more ILS's. Airlines have choices when it comes to their navigational capabilities. I seem to remember AC upgrading their Airbuses after the YHZ accident.A pilot might take comfort that their airline is spending their money on giving them the tools to be able to utilize the available approaches.

That being said, I wonder if in this particular incident aircraft had already decided due to runway length not to land on 32. After all, other aircraft were successfully completing approaches onto it at the time of the incident.

[HiFlyChick]

The mainstream media didn't report it so it can't be true?

My logic is that the mainstream media will jump on any "juicy" tidbit they can get, so if they saw this and didn't publish....
If it was true, I would expect a front page headline on the local paper and leading the local news about the truck "AIRPORT TRUCK BREAKS DOWN - AIRPLANE SLIDES OFF RUNWAY AS A RESULT!" The general masses can understanding that without getting into lengthy discussions about flash freezing, into wind runway, lack of ILS, etc

I must confess that I too wonder why everyone is so appalled that YHZ doesn't have an ILS to 32 and 05 instead of putting any onus on the carriers to get WAAS. I've heard the counter-argument from folks who say that from a strictly business point of view, if Halifax wants to increase its cargo business and grow as a world class hub then they need to entice carriers with good facilities (i.e. cater to everyone, including those without RNAV).

What interests me is what it would cost to put RNAV/WAAS into an airliner vs. the cost of the actual airliner itself. Does the current fleet have RNAV, just not WAAS?

[rookiepilot]

I must confess that I too wonder why everyone is so appalled that YHZ doesn't have an ILS to 32 and 05 instead of putting any onus on the carriers to get WAAS. I've heard the counter-argument from folks who say that from a strictly business point of view, if Halifax wants to increase its cargo business and grow as a world class hub then they need to entice carriers with good facilities (i.e. cater to everyone, including those without RNAV).

A) because of their weather, which can be demanding.

B) because of the multiple indicidents there, would seem to demand someone take a good look at the facilities, and I don't mean the Tim Hortons.

C) your second sentence, and the type of traffic Halifax has and wants to attract, if they wish to grow. Applies to any major airport. Airports are major economic drivers for a region, and maybe some cargo operators won't want to risk their birds there. And maybe the lack of good facilities has held Halifax back, before WASS even existed.

It's Small town thinking.

If Halifax was concerned about the cost -- and they should have done this many, many years ago --- they certainly could take a customer survey and see what people say about what they want out their airport.

It's not up to carriers to be forced to adapt, logical as that might sound, they can choose to go somewhere else. It's up to the airport to build and maintain proper facilities to attract business, and that takes money. The provider of a service adapts to their customer.

By Pelmets logic, clearly doesn't understand business in the slightest, Pearson would could decommission it's ILS network too, as it costs lots of money to maintain and keep certification, and all airlines should be using WASS anyway.

[HiFlyChick]

...It's not up to carriers to be forced to adapt, logical as that might sound, they can choose to go somewhere else. It's up to the airport to build and maintain proper facilities to attract business, and that takes money. The provider of a service adapts to their customer....

That's probably the best way that I've heard it expressed, RP - well done! I've been thinking about it from the perspective of safety in going from place to place, equipment, etc (i.e. the airlines providing the service for their customer), but totally missed it from the perspective of the air operators are customers and HIAA should be supplying what they need/want to attract them.

[rookiepilot]

That's probably the best way that I've heard it expressed, RP - well done! I've been thinking about it from the perspective of safety in going from place to place, equipment, etc (i.e. the airlines providing the service for their customer), but totally missed it from the perspective of the air operators are customers and HIAA should be supplying what they need/want to attract them.

737 MAX -- same deal. It isn't stupid hysteria, if the customer, mom and pop casual flier, think its serious. It's perception, confidence has been impaired -- to the customer.

[pelmet]

By Pelmets logic, clearly doesn't understand business in the slightest, Pearson would could decommission it's ILS network too, as it costs lots of money to maintain and keep certification, and all airlines should be using WASS anyway.

Actually, they will someday. The days of the ILS are dated. GPS is going to replace it just like radar is planned to be replaced. People with reasonable knowledge on subject realize that maintaining existing infrastructure is much less expensive than installing it. That's logic.

I must admit that I get quite a bit of entertainment reading RookiePilots posts on the other forum complaining about me like a 5 year old.

So lets see some of the useful posts he has given us on this thread which may help us pilots encountering the same situation....

Very , very classy of whoever this was, at the same time.

So classy -- Heck, if I was on board, I'd happily split the bill with you if it's your money. Less inclined if it's a full 777!

Those luxury "fact finding" trips must be fun too. Just like the government.

"Well, copy and paste function still works = Value added. "

Oh gee...thanks so much for your intelligent posts Rookie(or is it Rockie?) which have provided so much more useful info to the flying pilot as compared to mine. They are almost as useless as all the ones you made on the hangar fire thread. You seem to just be a waste of bandwidth. If you have nothing useful to post aside from always blaming others(Makes sense because I think he is a lawyer), try going somewhere else, like the other forum where I can smile every time I see your failed childish attempts to insult me.

[av8ts]

By Pelmets logic, clearly doesn't understand business in the slightest, Pearson would could decommission it's ILS network too, as it costs lots of money to maintain and keep certification, and all airlines should be using WASS anyway.

Actually, they will someday. The days of the ILS are dated. GPS is going to replace it just like radar is planned to be replaced. People with reasonable knowledge on subject realize that maintaining existing infrastructure is much less expensive than installing it. That's logic.

Are you saying CatIII ILS approaches will be replaced by gps/wass approaches?

[Diadem]

I must confess that I too wonder why everyone is so appalled that YHZ doesn't have an ILS to 32 and 05 instead of putting any onus on the carriers to get WAAS. I've heard the counter-argument from folks who say that from a strictly business point of view, if Halifax wants to increase its cargo business and grow as a world class hub then they need to entice carriers with good facilities (i.e. cater to everyone, including those without RNAV).

A) because of their weather, which can be demanding.

B) because of the multiple indicidents there, would seem to demand someone take a good look at the facilities, and I don't mean the Tim Hortons.

C) your second sentence, and the type of traffic Halifax has and wants to attract, if they wish to grow. Applies to any major airport. Airports are major economic drivers for a region, and maybe some cargo operators won't want to risk their birds there. And maybe the lack of good facilities has held Halifax back, before WASS even existed.

It's Small town thinking.

If Halifax was concerned about the cost -- and they should have done this many, many years ago --- they certainly could take a customer survey and see what people say about what they want out their airport.

It's not up to carriers to be forced to adapt, logical as that might sound, they can choose to go somewhere else. It's up to the airport to build and maintain proper facilities to attract business, and that takes money. The provider of a service adapts to their customer.

By Pelmets logic, clearly doesn't understand business in the slightest, Pearson would could decommission it's ILS network too, as it costs lots of money to maintain and keep certification, and all airlines should be using WASS anyway.

What a ridiculous concept: spend millions to build and maintain approaches based on 1930s technology to appease a couple of dinosaurs that refuse to join the rest of us in the 21st Century. Halifax didn't switch to RNAV approaches and then force everyone to adopt the technology; they started certifying RNAVs because almost everyone was moving to new technology that's more efficient and every bit as accurate as an ILS. They can build as many LPVs as they want without installing a single piece of hardware, but you want the airport to install, certify, and maintain ILSs to every runway end in order to allow Air Canada to avoid having to retrofit their aircraft with LPV-capable GPSs? Sounds like you want the public to subsidize another company...
Think of it this way: if an airline stated an interest in flying to YHZ, but they don't have any VOR receivers in their aircraft, and they wanted the airport to install NDB-NDB approaches to all runways before they started going there, would the airport really be losing much by not having their business? AC obviously wants to fly into YHZ, so if they want to be able to compete with WestJet without losing money over incidents and diversions, they should get with the times and get some avionics that are as up-to-date as WS's. When I first started my career, I flew some light twins that were built in the 1970s and had been retrofitted with LPV-capable GPSs, so obviously the cost would be bearable for a company as large as AC.

[Diadem]

Are you saying CatIII ILS approaches will be replaced by gps/wass approaches?

It's probable that LAAS approaches with CAT II-comparable mins will start coming online in the next decade.

[RVR6000]

By Pelmets logic, clearly doesn't understand business in the slightest, Pearson would could decommission it's ILS network too, as it costs lots of money to maintain and keep certification, and all airlines should be using WASS anyway.

Actually, they will someday. The days of the ILS are dated. GPS is going to replace it just like radar is planned to be replaced. People with reasonable knowledge on subject realize that maintaining existing infrastructure is much less expensive than installing it. That's logic.

Are you saying CatIII ILS approaches will be replaced by gps/wass approaches?

Yeap, GLS approaches are good to CAT 1 limits now. CAT II/III are in development. Few US airports already advertise GLS approaches. 787 and 737 are equipped with it at AC.

Neat technology developed by the US military.

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/GBA ... stem_(GLS)

https://www.icao.int/SAM/Documents/2016 ... tation.pdf

[rookiepilot]

What a ridiculous concept: spend millions to build and maintain approaches based on 1930s technology to appease a couple of dinosaurs that refuse to join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

What's the issue with surveying their current and prospective customers, doing a cost benefit analysis, and deciding from there, from a customer centric point of view?

It's maybe not AC, but the cargo business YHZ might wish to build. Let the customer decide, and pay through the fee structure.

If the customer agrees with you and is adopting WASS, fantastic.

--------------------------

YHZ is a tough case too. Not many alternates nearby for a cargo 747, and add the weather there. Going to a far away alternate, big bucks for that cargo operator.

Even one more ILS, probably to 05, would add a lot of options and reduce risks. Probably should have been there all along , probably would never be put in now----------I'll concede that

[Diadem]

What's the issue with surveying their current and prospective customers, doing a cost benefit analysis, and deciding from there, from a customer centric point of view?

You don't think they've done that? I would bet they have, and I would bet that they've found that it's not cost-effective to build a whole new ILS. There are probably very few operators who would be deterred from operating into YHZ because they don't specifically have an ILS onto a specific runway; most companies operate aircraft that are modern enough to use the LPV approaches. If they try to appeal to every potential customer, and offer them their first choice of facilities, they're going to spend huge amounts of money to attract a few extra flights per year. The main advantage that Halifax has is geography, in that it's a convenient stopping point between North America and Europe, and the number of ILSs is much less important to airlines than things like fuel burns. The only real competition they have in proximity to Europe is YYT, which is obviously a much worse choice if the operator is concerned about weather conditions. In addition, any new operators that might consider stopping in YHZ, i.e. they aren't carrying O&D freight to or from YHZ, wouldn't really be adding much to the airport's business; they would pay a landing fee and buy some fuel, so there wouldn't be nearly enough of a business case to justify spending millions on a new ILS. AC, WS, Cargojet, and Morningstar are obviously going to keep flying there, even if there aren't any improvements, because there's enough demand to keep filling their aircraft. If AC isn't willing to update their aircraft, then they'll keep diverting and having incidents, which will lose them customers to WS.
I mean, WestJet is already years ahead of AC when it comes to RNPs, and they're saving huge amounts of money because of it. Technology helps with efficiency, and the short-term cost of installing GPSs is hugely justified by long-term savings, not to mention the ability to use RNAVs at all airports to which they operate. Installing a single ILS allows the use of a single approach to a single runway, but LPV-capable GPSs would allow them to utilize RNAVs all over the world. What about situations where the ILS is NOTAMed offline? They'll have to use more rudimentary approaches or divert. It severely limits their capabilities, and I put the responsibility squarely on AC for not bothering to modernize their own equipment.

[rookiepilot]

What's the issue with surveying their current and prospective customers, doing a cost benefit analysis, and deciding from there, from a customer centric point of view?

You don't think they've done that? I would bet they have, and I would bet that they've found that it's not cost-effective to build a whole new ILS. There are probably very few operators who would be deterred from operating into YHZ because they don't specifically have an ILS onto a specific runway; most companies operate aircraft that are modern enough to use the LPV approaches. If they try to appeal to every potential customer, and offer them their first choice of facilities, they're going to spend huge amounts of money to attract a few extra flights per year. The main advantage that Halifax has is geography, in that it's a convenient stopping point between North America and Europe, and the number of ILSs is much less important to airlines than things like fuel burns. The only real competition they have in proximity to Europe is YYT, which is obviously a much worse choice if the operator is concerned about weather conditions. In addition, any new operators that might consider stopping in YHZ, i.e. they aren't carrying O&D freight to or from YHZ, wouldn't really be adding much to the airport's business; they would pay a landing fee and buy some fuel, so there wouldn't be nearly enough of a business case to justify spending millions on a new ILS. AC, WS, Cargojet, and Morningstar are obviously going to keep flying there, even if there aren't any improvements, because there's enough demand to keep filling their aircraft. If AC isn't willing to update their aircraft, then they'll keep diverting and having incidents, which will lose them customers to WS.
I mean, WestJet is already years ahead of AC when it comes to RNPs, and they're saving huge amounts of money because of it. Technology helps with efficiency, and the short-term cost of installing GPSs is hugely justified by long-term savings, not to mention the ability to use RNAVs at all airports to which they operate. Installing a single ILS allows the use of a single approach to a single runway, but LPV-capable GPSs would allow them to utilize RNAVs all over the world. What about situations where the ILS is NOTAMed offline? They'll have to use more rudimentary approaches or divert. It severely limits their capabilities, and I put the responsibility squarely on AC for not bothering to modernize their own equipment.

All very reasonable.

I just find it curious that YHZ seems to be standing out a little with more than its share of incidents; what if anything the airport can do about it?

Maybe nothing.