Air Canada A320 accident at Halifax
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last time I was in YHZ was about 3 years ago. That berm that ripped off the tail of the MK 747 was still there. It sticks up to be level with the runway fo instrument approach equipment. If still there, it is a huge hazard for an aircraft touching down short.
Psychophysiological entity
Not that this would necessarily have made much difference, but the power lines should have been moved underground years ago - at least in the stretch at the end of the runway.
I'm afraid I can't remember the voltage used - that found across the top outer wires - but I'm fairly sure it's in the thousands. It's hard to bury that kind of voltage, and to drop it, and then raise it again, would be horribly expensive.
I'm kind of puzzled. Even using say, 4,000 volts, the amount of power used by an airfield would be vastly more than those lines could carry - even if they came in from four different directions and then combined.
I think it's more likely the lines were shorted and that shut down some larger sub-station. That should mean the main power could be reinstated fairly quickly. Possibly.
A6000PIC...
The local , provincial and federal politicians should insist that the airport infrastructure be upgraded to include an ILS on Rwy 05. Long overdue.
There is no reason why the crew could not have used that approach and have Vpath info to touch down on the RWY.
This airport is also CAT II certified with an approach to CAT II minimums on RWY 23.
IIRC when in CAT II/CAT III operation, airports (in Canada) have to be on their own internal power using their own generators and not rely on an outside source for power.
@ geneman...
Q1. What is the decision height for the localiser appr on that runway?
But like I said above there is a more stable/precision RNAV (GNSS) approach with Vpath to RWY 05.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet Jockey...
It's not quite like that, in Europe at least; they are (usually) on mains power, but with a "no-break" stand-by.
The stand-by can be an alternative source of mains power (obviously coming from a completely independent distribution) or a diesel or turbine-driven generator that is kept spinning 24/7.
The standby cuts in as soon as a loss of power is sensed; I don't remember the so-called no-break period allowed but it is a very few seconds, such that a landing aircraft is not seriously discommoded. If in the last 50 -100 ft or so, it is "hoped" that the landing lights will help complete a safe touch-down before AGL is restored, if the aircraft is committed. A GA may be an option if not.
The stand-by will normally power the AGL, radars (approach at least), navigation and comms, essential ramp lighting, emergency systems and safety lighting in terminals etc.
There's no law that I know of that says it must be mains supply backed by local generator rather then the other way round, but the bean-counters would have a strong view on the cost of running full-time on a private generator. The spinning generator requires very little power unless and until it takes the load.
PS A quick reminder look at ICAO Annexe 14 Chapter 8.1 tells us that for Cat II/III the switch-over time, to use ICAO terminology, is 1 second for the really essential AGL, eg runway centre line, TDZ, end lighting etc, and 15 seconds for the rest. It's a rivetting read.
It's not quite like that, in Europe at least; they are (usually) on mains power, but with a "no-break" stand-by.
The stand-by can be an alternative source of mains power (obviously coming from a completely independent distribution) or a diesel or turbine-driven generator that is kept spinning 24/7.
The standby cuts in as soon as a loss of power is sensed; I don't remember the so-called no-break period allowed but it is a very few seconds, such that a landing aircraft is not seriously discommoded. If in the last 50 -100 ft or so, it is "hoped" that the landing lights will help complete a safe touch-down before AGL is restored, if the aircraft is committed. A GA may be an option if not.
The stand-by will normally power the AGL, radars (approach at least), navigation and comms, essential ramp lighting, emergency systems and safety lighting in terminals etc.
There's no law that I know of that says it must be mains supply backed by local generator rather then the other way round, but the bean-counters would have a strong view on the cost of running full-time on a private generator. The spinning generator requires very little power unless and until it takes the load.
PS A quick reminder look at ICAO Annexe 14 Chapter 8.1 tells us that for Cat II/III the switch-over time, to use ICAO terminology, is 1 second for the really essential AGL, eg runway centre line, TDZ, end lighting etc, and 15 seconds for the rest. It's a rivetting read.
Last edited by Capot; 29th Mar 2015 at 18:21.
Air Canada's A320 don't have GPS approach capability?
Of course I wouldn't do a CAT II approach on RWY 23 with those winds.
I just brought it up because I wanted to mention if the airport is CAT II certified it should have a backup power supply.
Of course I wouldn't do a CAT II approach on RWY 23 with those winds.
I just brought it up because I wanted to mention if the airport is CAT II certified it should have a backup power supply.
@ llmavll...
LOL...
You've got to be kidding me! A modern aircraft with no GPS approach capability
Once again the el cheapos (bean counters) in the company decided safety could take a back seat.
I remember when I flew for an Air Canada feeder on the Dash 8 it always astounded me that they would order a brand new aircraft with only one FMS.
You've got to be kidding me! A modern aircraft with no GPS approach capability
Once again the el cheapos (bean counters) in the company decided safety could take a back seat.
I remember when I flew for an Air Canada feeder on the Dash 8 it always astounded me that they would order a brand new aircraft with only one FMS.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Home
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CYHZ
There are so many holes in the 'Swiss Cheese' for a LOC 05 approach.
Runway 05 has virtually non-existant approach lights, descent is predicated on DME (from another rwy) which reads 1.7 at the threshold, cold weather corrections, as well as crap weather and middle of the night, etc.
The pilot reads on his NavDisplay the distance to threshold, and on the PFD the DME distance manually input in the RAD/NAV page for a different rwy.
For the A320 pilots reading this ... an aircraft without any GPS, would this approach be flown in LOC/FPA or V/S? Descent planned on a raw data DME vs altitude table?
Runway 05 has virtually non-existant approach lights, descent is predicated on DME (from another rwy) which reads 1.7 at the threshold, cold weather corrections, as well as crap weather and middle of the night, etc.
The pilot reads on his NavDisplay the distance to threshold, and on the PFD the DME distance manually input in the RAD/NAV page for a different rwy.
For the A320 pilots reading this ... an aircraft without any GPS, would this approach be flown in LOC/FPA or V/S? Descent planned on a raw data DME vs altitude table?
Those power lines will interfere with an ils signal, as they traverse the extended centerline. Therefore the presence of those power lines preclude the installation of an ils on rwy 05.
A fox niner...
There are two ways to see this...
You can ask Hydro to burry the wires and then install an ILS approach to the runway and then ask the local, provincial and federal governments to pick up the tab for all that work (tax payers).
OR
Ask Air Canada to install GPS in their aircrafts so they can do a RNVA/LPV approach with a 50 foot higher DA when compared to an ILS.
You can ask Hydro to burry the wires and then install an ILS approach to the runway and then ask the local, provincial and federal governments to pick up the tab for all that work (tax payers).
OR
Ask Air Canada to install GPS in their aircrafts so they can do a RNVA/LPV approach with a 50 foot higher DA when compared to an ILS.
It will be interesting to see if this was an NPA that went wrong (like UPS at Birmingham) or nasty sink/windshear on short finals. Or a bit of both. I wonder what the picture was like at MDA? None of the actuals reproduced here are above minima...
To collect what looks to be part of the 23 ILS localiser array with the radome they must have touched down a fair distance short of the threshold.
To collect what looks to be part of the 23 ILS localiser array with the radome they must have touched down a fair distance short of the threshold.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The power line
From Google earth seems to be lower than the runway threshold in any case
But
Looking at the insulators it could be anything up to 11,000V and looks to be about 32mm2 (.058 sq in)
To underground three spans (about 300yds) would be in the region of about £30,000 - hardly a huge expense, though the cost of the telecomms cables on the same poles is unknown.
But to actually hit that line the aircraft was below the height of the runway threshold which suggests that the line isn't really the problem!
From Google earth seems to be lower than the runway threshold in any case
But
Looking at the insulators it could be anything up to 11,000V and looks to be about 32mm2 (.058 sq in)
To underground three spans (about 300yds) would be in the region of about £30,000 - hardly a huge expense, though the cost of the telecomms cables on the same poles is unknown.
But to actually hit that line the aircraft was below the height of the runway threshold which suggests that the line isn't really the problem!
Last edited by west lakes; 30th Mar 2015 at 16:50.