Air Canada A320 accident at Halifax
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: froggylandia
Age: 74
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Canadian account of events
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: ALandDownUnder
Posts: 115
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very lucky that no-one was killed, the aircraft could easily have rolled or a post crash fire occurred. Don't think the aviation industry could handle 2 deadly a320 crashes in a week regardless of cause.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Some damage...hard landing"
There was a totally unbelievable announcement made by Air Canada's Chief Operating Officer, Klaus Goersch, at a press conference somewhere (Halifax airport?). Well, unbelievable if it wasn't for the fact that the announcement was recorded. Here's the link:
Air Canada AC624 crash: Plane hit antenna array before crash
I quote:
The aircraft had a hard landing and has incurred some damage and is sitting at the end of the runway. After some hard landings the airplane can continue taxying to the gate. That was not the case here.
Words fail me.
Air Canada AC624 crash: Plane hit antenna array before crash
I quote:
The aircraft had a hard landing and has incurred some damage and is sitting at the end of the runway. After some hard landings the airplane can continue taxying to the gate. That was not the case here.
Words fail me.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: yankton, sd
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a hard landing would require a satisfactorily passed inspection to return to service.
I don't think this plane will require an inspection, I don't think it will fly again any time soon.
I don't think this plane will require an inspection, I don't think it will fly again any time soon.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The latest from Air Canada, looks to be a bit of a whoopsie.
Air Canada AC624 touched down 335 metres short of runway, TSB says - Nova Scotia - CBC News
Air Canada AC624 touched down 335 metres short of runway, TSB says - Nova Scotia - CBC News
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: CANADA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is always interesting that YHZ Airport Authority can find money for a shinny new terminal but no money for proper airport navaids, and they are not alone in Canada.
I suspect that runway 32 was not available as it had not been cleared of snow, the airport operations mgr. would make that decision.
The weather was horrible and the strong wind gust at the approximate time will likely be a factor. I have flown into YHZ in really crappy weather and it is not a great airport in winter storms. Too many holes in the swiss cheese model for an accident last night.
I suspect that runway 32 was not available as it had not been cleared of snow, the airport operations mgr. would make that decision.
The weather was horrible and the strong wind gust at the approximate time will likely be a factor. I have flown into YHZ in really crappy weather and it is not a great airport in winter storms. Too many holes in the swiss cheese model for an accident last night.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Canada
Age: 68
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posted on CNN site at 22:14Z today Video distributed by CNN partner CTV Network appeared to show the plane stationary, with part of the nose missing and a nick in one wing.
Bloody hell, if that's a "nick"............
Bloody hell, if that's a "nick"............
Last edited by 604guy; 30th Mar 2015 at 00:45. Reason: corrected CNN posting time from 21:14Z to 22:14Z
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1SM required?
SPECI CYHZ 290414Z 34024G33KT 3/4SM R14/P6000FT/U -SN DRSN BKN010
OVC018 M06/M07 A2965 RMK SF7SC1 SLP046=
CYHZ 290400Z 34019G54KT 3/4SM R14/5000VP6000FT/D -SN DRSN BKN007
OVC010 M06/M07 A2964 RMK SF7SC1 SLP045=
SPECI CYHZ 290313Z 35020G26KT 1/2SM R14/3500V4500FT/N SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2963 RMK SN8 SLP040=
CYHZ 290300Z 34019G25KT 1/8SM R14/P6000VM0300FT/N +SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2962 RMK SN8 /S09/ SLP038=
Am I missing something? The approaches to Rwy 05 need 1sm Vis. There is no RVR listed but it would be 5000 RVR?
From the time period 0300z. Onward I do not see 1sm advertised unless it was called 1sm by Approach Control when the flight was just outside of the FAF and dropped back down to 1/2sm on the 0313z SPECI. Would the be inside the FAF before 0313z? The viz was worse earlier? Crash at approx 0330z and I still dont see the legal approval to be inside the FAF. Ideas?
OVC018 M06/M07 A2965 RMK SF7SC1 SLP046=
CYHZ 290400Z 34019G54KT 3/4SM R14/5000VP6000FT/D -SN DRSN BKN007
OVC010 M06/M07 A2964 RMK SF7SC1 SLP045=
SPECI CYHZ 290313Z 35020G26KT 1/2SM R14/3500V4500FT/N SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2963 RMK SN8 SLP040=
CYHZ 290300Z 34019G25KT 1/8SM R14/P6000VM0300FT/N +SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2962 RMK SN8 /S09/ SLP038=
Am I missing something? The approaches to Rwy 05 need 1sm Vis. There is no RVR listed but it would be 5000 RVR?
From the time period 0300z. Onward I do not see 1sm advertised unless it was called 1sm by Approach Control when the flight was just outside of the FAF and dropped back down to 1/2sm on the 0313z SPECI. Would the be inside the FAF before 0313z? The viz was worse earlier? Crash at approx 0330z and I still dont see the legal approval to be inside the FAF. Ideas?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FlyinTrim....the FPA isnt calculated off the DME. This approach would be flown in LOC/FPA. You would descend down to 2000' for the FAF and then at the FAF it would be FPA -3.0 (plus temp correction) down to your MDA. The only DME you would need is where you can descend down to 2000' but that doesn't seem to be the problem here.
Or am I missing what you are saying?
Or am I missing what you are saying?
I'm not familiar with how Airbus carry out their Non Precision Approaches.
Can you still use LOC/FPA on aircraft without GPS? Would they not use LOC/VS?
Using LOC/FPA and 3.08 degrees should set things up nicely without any problems.
I think that somewhere during the approach, and for some reason, there was a loss of situational awareness.
Originally Posted by Lost In Saigon
Originally Posted by msbbarratt
@N707ZS,
If the plane was doing about 150mph at the time, that's 240km/h, approx 60meter/sec. With 60Hz mains in Canada that would be a full cycle of AC mains electricity every meter travelled by the aircraft. If there were an arc generated at the peak +ve & -ve voltage that would occur at 120Hz, or about every 50 centimeter travelled by the aircraft.
I'd say that's a pretty close correlation to the apparent spacing between the "burn marks" in that photo, so I fear that that is what they actually are.
If the plane was doing about 150mph at the time, that's 240km/h, approx 60meter/sec. With 60Hz mains in Canada that would be a full cycle of AC mains electricity every meter travelled by the aircraft. If there were an arc generated at the peak +ve & -ve voltage that would occur at 120Hz, or about every 50 centimeter travelled by the aircraft.
I'd say that's a pretty close correlation to the apparent spacing between the "burn marks" in that photo, so I fear that that is what they actually are.
Edit added upon reflection: Wavelength has nothing to do with what msbbarratt is saying. My misunderstanding.
Last edited by balsa model; 30th Mar 2015 at 03:15.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi FlyinTrim.
Doesn't matter if the aircraft have GPS or not if they are doing a LOC approach, the LOC is the lateral Nav engaged (and tracking) and the vertical is done using FPA (Flight Path Angle), its not recommended to use V/S inside the FAF. So without looking at the plate, I believe you could descend to 2000' around 7-8 NM back from the FAF. Then at the FAF (you are already tracking in LOC, you would then engage FPA (actually the same button as V/S but in a diff mode) and dial down to -3.0 (plus cold wx corr). You can only put in whole numbers and one decimal place, so I believe its 3.0 for that approach. FPA is better than V/S due to not having any effect on G/S or wind. Actually makes it pretty simple, draw a 3.0 degree line from FAF to runway and thats the airplane "should" do.
Again, just my 2 cents, I'm very interested to hear what the outcome is as well.
If anything comes of this I hope both the airport upgrades Rwy 05 or Rwy 32 approach and second that AC upgrades their GPS program faster. Might have been a different outcome if either was in place.
Cheers
manibah:
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.
Doesn't matter if the aircraft have GPS or not if they are doing a LOC approach, the LOC is the lateral Nav engaged (and tracking) and the vertical is done using FPA (Flight Path Angle), its not recommended to use V/S inside the FAF. So without looking at the plate, I believe you could descend to 2000' around 7-8 NM back from the FAF. Then at the FAF (you are already tracking in LOC, you would then engage FPA (actually the same button as V/S but in a diff mode) and dial down to -3.0 (plus cold wx corr). You can only put in whole numbers and one decimal place, so I believe its 3.0 for that approach. FPA is better than V/S due to not having any effect on G/S or wind. Actually makes it pretty simple, draw a 3.0 degree line from FAF to runway and thats the airplane "should" do.
Again, just my 2 cents, I'm very interested to hear what the outcome is as well.
If anything comes of this I hope both the airport upgrades Rwy 05 or Rwy 32 approach and second that AC upgrades their GPS program faster. Might have been a different outcome if either was in place.
Cheers
manibah:
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.
Everything is under control.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, D.C.
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never mind missing burn marks. Wavelength (distance between peaks) of an 60 Hz AC power waveform is on the order of 2000 to 3000 miles.
Last edited by Eboy; 30th Mar 2015 at 03:40. Reason: typo
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,257
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt those stripes are burn marks at all.
Some digital video cameras will produce similar marks (called "zebras") on over-exposed image areas to help the camera operator dial in the proper exposure. The picture might be a screen grab (or screen shot) of a video camera's LCD.
Some digital video cameras will produce similar marks (called "zebras") on over-exposed image areas to help the camera operator dial in the proper exposure. The picture might be a screen grab (or screen shot) of a video camera's LCD.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ llmavll
Many thanks - its been a long time since Inhave used my Canadian ATPL and since then the CARS Approach Ban requirements have been updated.
CARS 705 Air Carrier can attempt an approach with 50% of the published visibility for Non-Precision, APV and SCDA non-precision approaches as long as the crew, aircraft, approach and setup (including a calculated planned descent angle) are met aling with an identified missed approach point.
Ref: Advisory Circular: COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS AVIATION ADVISORY CIRCULAR
No. 0237 2006.09.08
Many thanks - its been a long time since Inhave used my Canadian ATPL and since then the CARS Approach Ban requirements have been updated.
CARS 705 Air Carrier can attempt an approach with 50% of the published visibility for Non-Precision, APV and SCDA non-precision approaches as long as the crew, aircraft, approach and setup (including a calculated planned descent angle) are met aling with an identified missed approach point.
Ref: Advisory Circular: COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS AVIATION ADVISORY CIRCULAR
No. 0237 2006.09.08
As well as the viewfinder, such info can be selected so it is overlaid on the camera output or the recording.