Air Canada A320 accident at Halifax
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: Canada
Agreed. The crosswind as reported by the controller moments before the crash was nothing extreme.
My guess is that they mistook the localizer array as the beginning of the runway, due to whiteout conditions. The approach lights for 05 are few and far between, but there are a few lights on the localizer array.
A very unlucky/fatigued pilot might mistake those as runway end lights, a false visual reference.
The actual runway endlights could have been obscured by snowbanks, especially due to a shallow (botched) approach angle.
My guess is that they mistook the localizer array as the beginning of the runway, due to whiteout conditions. The approach lights for 05 are few and far between, but there are a few lights on the localizer array.
A very unlucky/fatigued pilot might mistake those as runway end lights, a false visual reference.
The actual runway endlights could have been obscured by snowbanks, especially due to a shallow (botched) approach angle.
Last edited by stefan_777; 4th April 2015 at 03:08.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,338
Likes: 821
From: Tring, UK
My guess is that they mistook the localizer array as the beginning of the runway, due to whiteout conditions. The approach lights for 05 are few and far between, but there are a few lights on the localizer array.
As they were already on the ground when they went through the localiser (witness the aerial stuck in the nose), they’d have touched down short of the what they were interpreting as “runway” anyway.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
From: W of 30W
Originally Posted by phiggsbroadband
Does anyone know what the crew have to say about this, and are they still flying?
Can be a good pilot all your life until you're not anymore ... That's our job.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
From: W of 30W
At this point, except that the airplane hit the ground 1000ft before threshold, we know nothing. Is it due to human error, technical malfunction or characteristic, environmental issue, mix of everything ... ?
The crew must have a good idea, and probably TSB by now.
The crew must have a good idea, and probably TSB by now.
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles
The lowest required visibility for this approach according to the Jepp charts is 1sm, the reported visibilities from the METARS taken just before and just after the accident are 1/2sm and 3/4sm respectively. Am I missing something here?
Joined: Jul 2004
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 637
Likes: 17
From: Found in Toronto
Post 114: http://www.pprune.org/8925370-post114.html
In Canada vis on the plates are not limits, approach bans are lower and depend on company sops and equipment used....
Post 115: http://www.pprune.org/8925377-post115.html
As stated above, approaches in Canada aren't visibility limited. I believe AC and WJ would both have lower ops specs, somewhere around 1/2-3/4 mile. So I believe they were legal to shoot approach, landing is limited on seeing the runway (or lights) at MDA/DH. I think everything was legal from that stand point.
Joined: Apr 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,914
Likes: 608
From: surfing, watching for sharks
Flying changes
Can you provide a reference in FAAO 7110.65 or some other govt document?
In the USA, if you report the current ATIS, and it contains gusts, the tower controller is not required to report gusts to you.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 317
Likes: 0
From: Singapore
75% of required vis is standard with 50% available as an OPS Spec AC, WS, QK
etc would all have the 50% ops spec.
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 768
Likes: 45
From: Montreal
Canadaairbuspilot said
You add 50 feet to your MDA gives you about 320 AGL. There would be time to decide you have no runway insight and go around. If at 320 feet AGL you break out right at minimums (on path) I doubt you'd have enough room to dive it down to where they hit the ground. If you broke out a little earlier with the "lights only" you would thing the vis good enough (I know it was fluctuating) to see that the path the airplane was on was not working.
You add 50 feet to your MDA gives you about 320 AGL. There would be time to decide you have no runway insight and go around. If at 320 feet AGL you break out right at minimums (on path) I doubt you'd have enough room to dive it down to where they hit the ground. If you broke out a little earlier with the "lights only" you would thing the vis good enough (I know it was fluctuating) to see that the path the airplane was on was not working.
EXEMPTION FROM PARAGRAPH 602.128(2)(b) OF THE CANADIAN AVIATION REGULATIONS - Transport Canada
Most operators apply the exemption above to use the MDA as the DA. The 50' figure commonly thrown around relates to the height above the runway threshold intended by the constant descent angle, and is about where the flare should begin. Agree that not much 'diving' could take place even if the crew wanted to. Impact was at least 2000' short of target.
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 9,192
Likes: 961
From: Seat 1A
You add 50 feet to your MDA gives you about 320 AGL.
Originally Posted by malabo
The 50' figure commonly thrown around relates to the height above the runway threshold intended by the constant descent angle, and is about where the flare should begin.
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 133
From: Paradise
No, in other countries, the 50ft is added to the MDA to create a "derived decision altitude" at which the go-around must be commenced if not "Visual".
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 48
Likes: 1
From: Canada
I am not going to confirm where I work, but looking at my name and other Canadian Airbus operators come up with your own conclusions. 
Where I work we add 50 feet to the MDA and treat it like a DA and make a landing/go around decision at that point.
Where I work we add 50 feet to the MDA and treat it like a DA and make a landing/go around decision at that point.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 903
Likes: 24
From: CYUL
@ CanadianAirbusPilot and Capn Bloggs ...
Where I work we add 50 feet to the MDA and treat it like a DA and make a landing/go around decision at that point.
No, in other countries, the 50ft is added to the MDA to create a "derived decision altitude" at which the go-around must be commenced if not "Visual". It is designed to ensure that the aircraft does not go below the MDA (or if it does, not by very much) during the go-around manoeuvre. You won't catch me flaring at 50ft!
Exactly!
At least in Canada, TC does not want you to go below a DA at anytime unless visual with the landing environment.
So when a CDA is used on a "non precision" type approach with only a MDA published, one must add the 50 foot increase to that MDA and now use that "new DA" minimum as the point where a "visual/landing or Go Around" decision is taken.
This “DA procedure” must be part of an operator’s SOP and must have been approved by TC prior to conducting this procedure.
Now perhaps some operators have different approvals or in some other jurisdictions this is not required at all but I wouldn’t know.
Joined: Mar 2015
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 68
Likes: 14
From: CYUL
I agree with CanadianAirbus Pilot..sounds like I flew Airbus for the same Airline 
MOT required us to add 50 feet to the MDA, so that during a Go Around, on a coupled/selected approach we would not descend through the published MDA.. The MDA was (is?) considered a hard floor. Descend though it on a Sim ride during the Go around (with no runway in sight) and it could be a Failure, or at least an RS..
MOT required us to add 50 feet to the MDA, so that during a Go Around, on a coupled/selected approach we would not descend through the published MDA.. The MDA was (is?) considered a hard floor. Descend though it on a Sim ride during the Go around (with no runway in sight) and it could be a Failure, or at least an RS..
Last edited by Retired DC9 driver; 6th April 2015 at 13:52.
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 211
Likes: 3
From: farmm intersection, our ranch
Can you provide a reference in FAAO 7110.65 or some other govt document?
Last edited by flyingchanges; 6th April 2015 at 18:47.