Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Air Canada A320 accident at Halifax

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Air Canada A320 accident at Halifax

Old 14th Dec 2016, 14:28
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Transport Canada can be sued by passengers of Halifax plane crash, judge rules
Zeffy is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2016, 19:08
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: here and there
Age: 69
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Transport Canada has no duty of care to Canadian air travellers in general, she ruled
Strange statement from a 'judge' (if was made as it appears in the article).
WTF ? I like to ask what, then, is the purpose of existence of Transport Canada ?
to collect fees ?

And BTW the Canadian transport system - not just air - is also being used by other, not 'Canadian' travelers too.
vmandr is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2016, 20:28
  #323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: CYUL
Posts: 880
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It's Air Canada's fault! As such they should be the only ones getting sued but we know in the real world everyone is going to get sued that is involved in some way with this accident.

1- This accident could have been easily avoided if Air Canada had installed the proper equipment in their aircrafts (older 320s).

2- The pilots screwed up (for whatever reasons) causing an accident, end of story. Again since they are Air Canada employees, it's Air Canada's problem.
Jet Jockey A4 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2016, 20:44
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Strange statement from a 'judge' (if was made as it appears in the article).
WTF ? I like to ask what, then, is the purpose of existence of Transport Canada ?
to collect fees ?
The judge is correct. In general a regulator's duty of care is to the public at large (collectively), not to specific individuals. Such is the law in Canada and probably the rest of the world.

In this case, Transport Canada can still be sued only in their role as the owner & landlord of Halifax airport (as part of the Canadian National Airport System). Transport Canada would have been immune had the accident occurred at an airport that's not owned by them.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 14th Dec 2016, 23:32
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: here and there
Age: 69
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JJ4

Agreed !

peekay4

As in every other accident, i believe in the case of 'the fish rots/stinks from the head down'.
the regulator's oversight is stipulated/defined in legislation. 'public' and 'collective' are vague, legal terms. however when part of the 'public' - one or more individuals - are hurt, have every right to sue. (if they'll win against the State is a different thing).
And yes, same law / principle for the rest of the world.

Since they have oversight of all transport activities, they cant be immune, regardless, me thinks.
vmandr is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 00:49
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: down under
Posts: 462
Received 10 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by RAD_ALT_ALIVE
Hmmm....sounds remarkably familiar, but I can't put my finger on it;

1. Legacy carrier with a local reputation for arrogance,
2. Overrun/crash (the 'c' word),
3. PR department refusing to acknowledge the 'c' word,

The only thing missing will be the spending of 10's of millions of dollars in fixing what appears to be a write-off.
is it the Q word that you're looking for?
cooperplace is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 01:13
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
however when part of the 'public' - one or more individuals - are hurt, have every right to sue
No, there is no such right. Otherwise anyone can sue the government for every wrongdoing by any regulated entity. That would be nonsense.

In general, governments enjoy sovereign immunity. This comes from a very long heritage in common law, where in the old days "a king can do no wrong" (rex non potest peccare). In more modern times, a suit could only go forward if the government has waived its right to immunity in limited circumstances, as codified in statutes (e.g., in Canada, in the Crown Liability Act).

Also, in this specific case, Transport Canada as the regulator does not have a "proximate" (close and direct) relationship with any individual passenger, but only to the public collective. Without this proximity, there is no "duty of care" -- as the judge correctly observed -- and so there is no right to sue. See the Supreme Court case of Kamloops v. Nielsen.

It would be different if the suit had alleged some sort of operational error by Transport Canada, but that's not the case here. Equipping certain approaches with ILS vs VOR is a policy question, not an operational one, and government entities are generally immune to liability from broad policy decisions. For reference see the Supreme Court judgement in Just v. British Columbia.

The reason Transport Canada can be named as part of the suit is only because of their dual role as the airport's landlord -- so they may be liable, like any other landlords.
peekay4 is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 02:08
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: here and there
Age: 69
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Enlightening peekay.

In general, governments enjoy sovereign immunity
I guess only till the next ...elections

one way or another i am driving towards the 'head of the fish' which blames everyone and never gets blamed itself. ie Sweden in that CRJ accident. nice text, screened by lawyers, recommendations to everyone but themselves (maybe with exception of Swedish SAR).
all 'authorities' the same.
vmandr is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 19:01
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: CYLT
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If Transport Canada owes no duty of care to air travellers, I guess they can cancel all future audits and furlough their Aviation safety inspectors that oversee and monitor Air Canada!
EdmontonCTR is offline  
Old 15th Dec 2016, 19:27
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Europe
Age: 45
Posts: 625
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Some here some to misinterpret what is the legal obligation of the regulator vs that of the operator.

The direct duty of care towards air travellers lies with the operator. That is enshrined in the regulations you are bound to follow when offering airline services.

Therefore, the regulator has a 'duty of care' only to ensure the airlines operating under their licenses are following the rules, including rendering duty of care as stipulated in the regulations.

It's the airline who have an obligation to offer support directly to anyone involved in an incident, just as e.g. a train operator would be. If the operator does not live up to all of their responsibilities, it is up to the regulatory agency to beat them into shape, ultimately by curtailing or withdrawing their operating license if they refuse to follow the regulations. But it is never the job of the regulator to offer duty of care to passengers in any direct sense.
SMT Member is offline  
Old 16th Dec 2016, 17:25
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 827
Received 76 Likes on 12 Posts
peekay4

Though your comments about suing governments in Canada are generally correct they do not apply to suing government entities operating as "regulator". There are many examples of Canadian federal regulatory agencies being sued -- including at least a dozen suits against Transport Canada in its regulatory role since 2000. ALL have been settled out of court (for obvious reasons, if you understand precedent and confidentality).

Feel free to PM me if you want to discuss this further.
grizzled is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2017, 16:34
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Newfoundland
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AC sues Airbus

Air Canada lawsuit accuses Airbus of negligence in Halifax crash landing | CTV News
AJW709 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2017, 19:32
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Not here
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From article and TV report:


... The document (statement of claim) said it did not advise that in certain conditions, the plane's flight path angle could be affected by external forces.

It also claims Airbus failed to incorporate a warning system to alert pilots to a deviation from the planned flight path angle.

"(Airbus) failed to provide adequate and/or accurate information as to how pilots should correct a deviation in the flight path in circumstances where manual intervention was required," ...


... Air Canada's lawsuit against Airbus says the flight crew correctly configured the aircraft for landing, including entering the correct flight path angle into the flight computer.

"Since the aircraft was correctly configured for approach and landing and the approach was stable, the aircraft should have intercepted the threshold to runway 05 at an altitude of 50 feet,"
the claim said.

"Instead, the aircraft descended at a steeper angle than expected and touched down short of the runway."
alph2z is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2017, 20:06
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The document (statement of claim) said it did not advise that in certain conditions, the plane's flight path angle could be affected by external forces.
So, Air Canada is suing Airbus, accusing that Airbus did not advise them about gravity?

It also claims Airbus failed to incorporate a warning system to alert pilots to a deviation from the planned flight path angle.
Isn't the PNF the warning system? Air Canada already pays for one on every flight!

"(Airbus) failed to provide adequate and/or accurate information as to how pilots should correct a deviation in the flight path in circumstances where manual intervention was required," ...
I have not read an Airbus Flight Manual, I wonder if it has a picture of the side stick explaining "pull back for nose up". I suppose placarding requirements may be more basic than I realized!

As a Canadian pilot, I'm embarrassed by these claims attributed to Air Canada. Sorry rest of the world
9 lives is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2017, 22:03
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
A non precision approach in selected guidance should use distance and crossing altitudes as depicted on the approach chart as the vertical guidance., but the altitudes may needs correcting for temperature variations. . If the latter is the case then the required flight path angle needs adjusting. This is what pilots have done for years in all types and is called airmanship.It is nothing to do with a specific manufacturer.
Altimeter Temperature Error Correction - SKYbrary Aviation Safety
The descent rate required will also be influenced by the ground speed of the aircraft whilst commencing the approach but again this is instrument flying basics.
tubby linton is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2017, 00:24
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looking through another forum a while back, I saw a post stating that this was one of their non-gps aircraft. Therefore, more likely to have a slight error in the calculated vertical path.

To be honest with you, I have found that the calculated path on these VNAV approaches corrected by GPS to be amazingly accurate right down to 50 feet. And who out there has not been in a situation of extremely murky minimums with the pilot just barely able to have the required visual reference and then continuing inside on instruments for at least a few more seconds until the picture is clearer.

But if the path is incorrect, and the references you saw at minimums were actually something else, you could be headed toward something else beside the threshold plus 50 feet.

Is this plausible?
JammedStab is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2017, 05:56
  #337 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,303
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Somehow I feel it is the (financial) damage control team trying to pull a crazy stunt. Most likely there thousands AirCanada employess embarrased too.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 3rd Apr 2017, 06:46
  #338 (permalink)  
PJ2
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: BC
Age: 76
Posts: 2,484
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by tubby_linton
If the latter is the case then the required flight path angle needs adjusting.
Agreed, but not because of the higher altimeter reading.

A corrected baro altitude places the airplane at the correct FAF crossing height, albeit at a higher altimeter reading. So for practical purposes the geometry is not steeper, it is the same.

If the airplane has GPS or temperature-compensated baro-VNAV, in a Managed RNAV approach, a correct descent path is calculated and flown either by the pilot, (following the flight directors) or the auto-flight system.

If the aircraft doesn't have GPS or a compensated baro-VNAV, a Selected FPA requires correction because the air, being at the same cold temperature all the way down, has a reduced pressure gradient resulting in a reduced altitude change and shallower descent. So the FPA has to be corrected and made slightly steeper.
PJ2 is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 15:08
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 42
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by FlightDetent
Somehow I feel it is the (financial) damage control team trying to pull a crazy stunt. Most likely there thousands AirCanada employess embarrased too.


Yup, I certainly am.

In other...possibly related news, our COO (who flies the 787 too) is leaving effective end of April.
Air Canada Announces Departure of Klaus Goersch
©hris is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2017, 15:23
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shame on AC to proceed with such a ridiculous lawsuit.
It was a very challenging situation for the crew to shoot that non precision approach with low visibility, strong gusty crosswind, and then most probably turbulence all over the place. Whatever the cold temperature correction and the associated flight path angle correction, the crew failed to go around at the minimum altitude.
CONF iture is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.