737 reported down in Canada
I don't get CBC so I didn't see the interview. But it seems to me that television networks generally deliver a product intended to appeal to it's core audience. The human interest angle fits the bill.
I would think the answers Rockhound is interested in were given during a TSB interview. These are of course not televised.
Anyone care to profer an opinion as to when the TSB may provide more information regarding their investigation?
I would think the answers Rockhound is interested in were given during a TSB interview. These are of course not televised.
Anyone care to profer an opinion as to when the TSB may provide more information regarding their investigation?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compared to the interviews we see of victims here in the US, that was an extremely well done piece. He asked the right questions, was gentle when he had to be, and followed a logical, chronological order with his questions. She was amazingly poised and comfortable. If only journalism was always conducted with such professionalism. I agree with Jazz Hands....let the TSB do the investigating.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: BC
Age: 61
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The actual TSB report won't be out for at least a full year, and in this case probably close to 2 years (since they are doing a class 2 investigation, which is longer than the class 3 they usually do) Factual information will come out in bits and pieces. I suspect that we will find out the basics within a month or two. The sad part is that everyone focuses on the immediate cause (such as perhaps following the VOR instead of the ILS) but the real investigative work comes down to finding out why a trained crew would make this error, and that takes more time and analysis.
but the real investigative work comes down to finding out why a trained crew would make this error, and that takes more time and analysis.
Once an "immediate cause" is identified, that's a good time for all pilots to start thinking about how the same or similar causal factors may exist within their own operation and what might be done about it. If nothing else, whatever it is can be added to the mental list of things to watch out for.
I have confidence that the TSB analysis and conclusions will be thorough and well founded with respect to this specific accident. I also trust that knowing certain details regarding the immediate cause would be of some assistance to safety departments and the pilot community at large in taking steps aimed at preventing a similar occurrence.
Final reports often cite a number of administrative and managerial factors related to the genesis of whatever went wrong and then go on to recommend policy or regulatory changes to address the problems. This takes time. All well and good, but the more immediate concern is to identify the immediate cause and determine whether steps need to be taken in your own operation or in your own thinking.
Thank you for your response hf4you, I appreciate it.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Undoubtedly there will be many factors involved with this accident.
Here are a few factors that caused the holes to line up in this "Swiss Cheese" model:
1) The Military Temporary Tower requested numerous radial/distance reports.
2) The radio quality of the tower was very poor. Other pilots reported hearing frustration in the voices of
the First Air Crew in dealing with the annoying and difficult to understand requests from the Tower.
3) This aircraft had a switch that enabled the Nav display to switch sources.
4) This aircraft was the only B737 in the First Air fleet without EGPWS.
Here are a few factors that caused the holes to line up in this "Swiss Cheese" model:
1) The Military Temporary Tower requested numerous radial/distance reports.
2) The radio quality of the tower was very poor. Other pilots reported hearing frustration in the voices of
the First Air Crew in dealing with the annoying and difficult to understand requests from the Tower.
3) This aircraft had a switch that enabled the Nav display to switch sources.
4) This aircraft was the only B737 in the First Air fleet without EGPWS.
LIS:
Items 1,2 and 4 your post are new information to me.
Excessive radio transmissions can be a distraction during a high workload phase of flight, especially if they are difficult to understand.
I take it that the airplane was equipped with basic GPWS or TAWS then.
The matter of the NAV source switch has been discussed, but of course we don't know what NAV source was actually selected and displayed during the approach.
A little at a time...
Items 1,2 and 4 your post are new information to me.
Excessive radio transmissions can be a distraction during a high workload phase of flight, especially if they are difficult to understand.
I take it that the airplane was equipped with basic GPWS or TAWS then.
The matter of the NAV source switch has been discussed, but of course we don't know what NAV source was actually selected and displayed during the approach.
A little at a time...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew there'd be a reaction to my post #173 so, before commenting further, I wanted to listen to Peter Mansbridge's interview with Nicole Williamson again on the CBC website. On the site I found a transcript of the full interview
CBC News - The National - In Depth & Analysis - Nunavut Crash Survivor
which was edited for broadcast (and IMHO not edited very well).
I take back what I wrote about Mansbridge not asking the right questions but my opinion of journalists' knowledge of aviation matters remains low.
Mansbridge did ask if the cabin crew made the usual pre-landing announcement and Nicole confirmed that they did. Nicole went on to say "the wheels came out". Mansbridge interjected: "You could feel the wheels retract?" Well, it was probably a slip of the tongue but he should have known better. Nicole politely corrected him by repeating "the wheels came out". Mansbridge: Did you see anything on the ground? Nicole: You could see bits and pieces of the ground. But it was pretty foggy. Mansbridge: You never saw Resolute as such? You never saw buildings? Nicole answered no to both questions and went on to say "I saw Resolute for the first time when I was sitting on the hill waiting for the firemen to come [up] to us".
The foregoing exchange was not broadcast. What was broadcast was:
Mansbridge: Was there any sense that there was anything wrong, before it was clear there was something wrong? Nicole: Absolutely not. There were no sights, no smells. There were no noises. It was...completely sudden and violent, but the key is that it was sudden".
It seems pretty clear to me that the pilots were attempting to land on 35. Also clearly, a major navigational error occurred. The question is, how and why?
I cannot get this accident out of my mind. I first flew into Resolute (as a pax of course) in a Wardair Bristol Freighter in 1962, since when I've been in and out of Res dozens of times, in a succession of aircraft big and small, in good weather and bad. I believe commercial jet service to Res started in 1968 (with a Nordair 737). In all that time, up to First Air Flt 6560 on August 20 2011, there has, to my knowledge, not been a single serious air accident at Resolute. Considering the facilities available and the notoriously bad weather at Res, it's a remarkable safety record.
CBC News - The National - In Depth & Analysis - Nunavut Crash Survivor
which was edited for broadcast (and IMHO not edited very well).
I take back what I wrote about Mansbridge not asking the right questions but my opinion of journalists' knowledge of aviation matters remains low.
Mansbridge did ask if the cabin crew made the usual pre-landing announcement and Nicole confirmed that they did. Nicole went on to say "the wheels came out". Mansbridge interjected: "You could feel the wheels retract?" Well, it was probably a slip of the tongue but he should have known better. Nicole politely corrected him by repeating "the wheels came out". Mansbridge: Did you see anything on the ground? Nicole: You could see bits and pieces of the ground. But it was pretty foggy. Mansbridge: You never saw Resolute as such? You never saw buildings? Nicole answered no to both questions and went on to say "I saw Resolute for the first time when I was sitting on the hill waiting for the firemen to come [up] to us".
The foregoing exchange was not broadcast. What was broadcast was:
Mansbridge: Was there any sense that there was anything wrong, before it was clear there was something wrong? Nicole: Absolutely not. There were no sights, no smells. There were no noises. It was...completely sudden and violent, but the key is that it was sudden".
It seems pretty clear to me that the pilots were attempting to land on 35. Also clearly, a major navigational error occurred. The question is, how and why?
I cannot get this accident out of my mind. I first flew into Resolute (as a pax of course) in a Wardair Bristol Freighter in 1962, since when I've been in and out of Res dozens of times, in a succession of aircraft big and small, in good weather and bad. I believe commercial jet service to Res started in 1968 (with a Nordair 737). In all that time, up to First Air Flt 6560 on August 20 2011, there has, to my knowledge, not been a single serious air accident at Resolute. Considering the facilities available and the notoriously bad weather at Res, it's a remarkable safety record.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Closer than you think
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there has, to my knowledge, not been a single serious air accident at Resolute
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
Apparently there used to be all kinds of old wrecks around Resolute from the old days of poor navigation and lots of fog with no nearby airports. But they wer plowed under long ago. I saw the F-27 on the hill and a wreckage pile said to be a Lancaster. Wasn't there a portion of a DC-3 near the lake on final for 35.
All among the many old wrecks that I saw up in the arctic as can be seen here. I have pics of many more. Tucked away somewhere
Abandoned Plane Wrecks of the North
All among the many old wrecks that I saw up in the arctic as can be seen here. I have pics of many more. Tucked away somewhere
Abandoned Plane Wrecks of the North
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, there are (or were) plenty of aircraft wrecks around the Resolute airport but they date mainly from the 40s and 50s. OK, so we now have knowledge of one serious accident since 1962 (the non-fatal, F-27 write-off in 1968) but I'll bet there aren't many more.
Anyway, that wasn't the point of my post. The point was, I believe we can forget about any go-around, back course approach or other deviation by Flt 6560.
Rockhound
Anyway, that wasn't the point of my post. The point was, I believe we can forget about any go-around, back course approach or other deviation by Flt 6560.
Rockhound
Join Date: May 2005
Location: North Bay ON Canada
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TSB Report
A progress report on the investigation has been publidhed on the TSB website yesterday:
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Media Advisory - Aviation - First Air Flight 6560, 20 August 2011, Resolute Bay (A11H0002)
Jimbo
Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Media Advisory - Aviation - First Air Flight 6560, 20 August 2011, Resolute Bay (A11H0002)
Jimbo
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crew initiated a go-around 2 seconds before impact. At this time, the flaps were set to position 40, the landing gear was down and locked, the speed was 157 knots and the final landing checklist was complete.
The report doesn't say they did the approach at 157 knots. It says at the time of impact, they were in a missed approach, and the speed was 157 knots. Seems quite normal to me.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost in Siagon:
This is only 2 seconds after they began the "go around." 157 knots is nearly Approach Category E.
2 seconds into a "go around" (the report's term). I don't think it would be a missed approach that far off the ILS. Nothing about it seems normal to me.
What is unusual about a go-around with flaps 40 and the speed at 157 knots?
The report doesn't say they did the approach at 157 knots. It says at the time of impact, they were in a missed approach, and the speed was 157 knots. Seems quite normal to me.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It makes sense that when they saw the ground instead of the runway, they did did a missed approach. Having the airspeed increase to 157 knots as they applied Go-around power seems normal to me.
Do you think it is unusual to have the airspeed increase during a go-around?
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost in Siagon:
Your patronizing tone aside, 157 knots is quite unusual two seconds into a go-around, assuming the airplane is being flown at normal precision final approach speed until the go-around is commenced.
Do you think it is unusual to have the airspeed increase during a go-around?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I don't mean to be patronizing. In my experience a go-around is a very difficult, confusing, maneuver where things rarely happen as they should.
I find it totally plausible that the speed could be at 157 knots 2 seconds into a go-around given the circumstances of where they were when they made the decision to go-around.
Please explain why you think it is not.
I find it totally plausible that the speed could be at 157 knots 2 seconds into a go-around given the circumstances of where they were when they made the decision to go-around.
Please explain why you think it is not.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: netherlands
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I don't mean to be patronizing. In my experience a go-around is a very difficult, confusing, maneuver where things rarely happen as they should.
If that is your experience, you or your airline do not live up to a professional standard.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lost in Siagon
That was not my professional experience. We trained twice a year to execute a missed approach from both an ILS and non-precision missed approach. Whenever weather was near minimums for an ILS we were triggered to execute the missed approach and fairly often had to do just that. It was quite routine. The airplane that I flew much of my career that most resembled the 737 was the 727. An average Vref would be 120, to which we added 5 to 10 knots.
Presumably, 2 seconds prior to that they should have been flying a normal final segment speed, although it does not appear they were. We really need to learn more from the investigators before we can surmise where the crew knew (or thought) they were.
When we did orderly missed approaches at my airline in a 727 the first objective was reconfiguration to missed approach and altitude gain. Speed increase came very slowly at first. The 727s I flew were not unlike the 737-200 in that they didn't have awesome climb performance like the 767 I flew later on.
As to the term "go around" I am not sure what the investigators mean by use of that term. A go-around for me was usually higher and not because of weather.
Sorry, I don't mean to be patronizing. In my experience a go-around is a very difficult, confusing, maneuver where things rarely happen as they should.
I find it totally plausible that the speed could be at 157 knots 2 seconds into a go-around given the circumstances of where they were when they made the decision to go-around.
When we did orderly missed approaches at my airline in a 727 the first objective was reconfiguration to missed approach and altitude gain. Speed increase came very slowly at first. The 727s I flew were not unlike the 737-200 in that they didn't have awesome climb performance like the 767 I flew later on.
As to the term "go around" I am not sure what the investigators mean by use of that term. A go-around for me was usually higher and not because of weather.