Air Canada A320 accident at Halifax
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the chances that this accident wouldn't have happened if the Glideslope was operational?
Also why the Notam saying there was a change in the Glideslope angle (2.70 to 3.00 degrees.)
Also why the Notam saying there was a change in the Glideslope angle (2.70 to 3.00 degrees.)
@ phiggsbroadband...
What are the chances that this accident wouldn't have happened if the Glideslope was operational?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: KBOS
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no GS for this runway.
This approach is one of the most challenging I've flown in the past couple of years. Bad Wx, non precision, night time black hole approach after a long day of flying.
This approach is one of the most challenging I've flown in the past couple of years. Bad Wx, non precision, night time black hole approach after a long day of flying.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: my desk
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not the first time for this runway......
http://http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1996/a96a0035/a96a0035.asp
http://http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/1996/a96a0035/a96a0035.asp
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are the chances that this accident wouldn't have happened if that runway had a Glideslope, like they do at most international airports in most civilized countries?
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: KBOS
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it was the result of a blown approach then with an ILS chances are significantly reduced (near zero). Wx or equipment failure etc not so much.
As far as equipment goes YHZ has 2 ILS approaches and RWY 5 also has an RNAV approach with LPV mins (1 mile vis and 257 above). It's also up to the airline to keep up with the times.
As far as equipment goes YHZ has 2 ILS approaches and RWY 5 also has an RNAV approach with LPV mins (1 mile vis and 257 above). It's also up to the airline to keep up with the times.
Last edited by UncleNobby; 30th Mar 2015 at 15:01.
Psychophysiological entity
electric-chris and others. Given your name, I'll have to accept what you say, but I'm left bewildered by having that potential power across an extended centreline. As mentioned a short circuit - even downstream of a transformer - was alarming. It lit our road up and set light to trees. More importantly, it fired lengths of the carrying cable/ground cable six feet into the ground like white hot arrows.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Age: 55
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@TWT
TSB said the wreck would be there for the better part of the week. Twitter post
Have they removed it from the runway yet ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting "hard landing" that tore off part of the stabilizer/elevators...
I guess the "it really doesnt look good" feeling go around type didnt happen that night
It doesnt matter how bad the weather,how tricky the approach,if you are not 100% sure that you are safely set for a landing then up you shall go again.
I guess the "it really doesnt look good" feeling go around type didnt happen that night
It doesnt matter how bad the weather,how tricky the approach,if you are not 100% sure that you are safely set for a landing then up you shall go again.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UncleN:
But, there is a PAPI.
There is no GS for this runway.
This approach is one of the most challenging I've flown in the past couple of years. Bad Wx, non precision, night time black hole approach after a long day of flying.
This approach is one of the most challenging I've flown in the past couple of years. Bad Wx, non precision, night time black hole approach after a long day of flying.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: cheese
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The empennage has significant damage as well. I would have guessed that the stuctures were clipped by the bottom surfaces of the a/c, but now I wonder if it was low enough that the wings cut through the middle of the lighting/antenna and the top of these structures struck the empennage.
If the nose was being pulled up in an attempt to avoid ground contact, the tail would have been at such a trajectory as to go through the approach lighting stanchions, thus explaining the damage to the horizontal stab.
It was never going to count as an overrun, given that the aircraft came to a halt with 8000ft+ of runway ahead of it. 
Most AIBs use the CICTT's Occurrence Category definitions, and under those the event would be likely classified as both a CFIT ("includes collisions with those objects extending above the surface (for example ... power lines ...)" followed by a Runway Excursion.
"Crash" doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions.
http://www.intlaviationstandards.org...efinitions.pdf
Most AIBs use the CICTT's Occurrence Category definitions, and under those the event would be likely classified as both a CFIT ("includes collisions with those objects extending above the surface (for example ... power lines ...)" followed by a Runway Excursion.
"Crash" doesn't appear anywhere in the definitions.
http://www.intlaviationstandards.org...efinitions.pdf
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the balmy beautiful south
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be willing to bet my house that this is not a case of continuing the approach below minimums without visual reference. If the pilots hit minimums (or lost visual contact after minimums) there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that a go-around would have been initiated.
So, yes, a improper vertical path is possible but I'm sure that it would not have been followed blindly to impact. It may have left the pilots in a unexpected position upon breaking out and then a mixture of optical illusion (black hole effect, snow streaming by the landing lights, crab angle, insufficient approach lighting, etc), turbulence and possible windshear may have led to the aircraft coming in too low. Personally, I think unreported severe windshear will be a primary cause.
I will be very interested to see if the PAPI's were working properly (or at all) as the final visual segment would have been significantly more difficult without them.
And, while low in probability, a loss of power or unresponsive throttle fault (ala British Airways) also could have occurred.
So, yes, a improper vertical path is possible but I'm sure that it would not have been followed blindly to impact. It may have left the pilots in a unexpected position upon breaking out and then a mixture of optical illusion (black hole effect, snow streaming by the landing lights, crab angle, insufficient approach lighting, etc), turbulence and possible windshear may have led to the aircraft coming in too low. Personally, I think unreported severe windshear will be a primary cause.
I will be very interested to see if the PAPI's were working properly (or at all) as the final visual segment would have been significantly more difficult without them.
And, while low in probability, a loss of power or unresponsive throttle fault (ala British Airways) also could have occurred.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another completely unnecessary hull loss???
Oh how many more hull losses and lives to we need to lose, before ANSPs and operators alike finally realize we need RNP and GLS, to serve every runway end served by air transport? For years now, with LAND3, and AIII modes (and the misnamed CAT III mode in Airbusses), and both GLS and RNP, there is never any need any more to ever land on any runway not best aligned with the wind, as long as it is length and mu adequate. In fact, if needed (as for length or mu), it is now technically possible to safely even do it for many modern types up to the maximum demonstrated capability of the airframe, notwithstanding some present authority imposed conservative AFM values that may apply. There should and can ALWAYS be a guided path both laterally and vertically, to the TDZ, and safely back out, with RNP and GLS, 100% of the time. RNP with GLS can serve all runways at any applicable airport, is vastly better than ILS, is much less expensive than ILS, and is now already available on or could readily be retrofit on relevant modern transport types. Events from from Asiana 214, to the A330 in Nepal on 4 March, to UPS at KBHM, to even the LGA MD88 not potentially landing using Rwy 04 into the wind, instead of facing the XW on Rwy 13 in low mu, could have likely prevented each accident. We are long past the point where flight crews need to ever again be faced with high minima visual illusions, or XWs or TWs on mu limited runways, or needing "duck-unders" for mu. So the authorities, ANSPs, and airlines also own "a piece of this one" for culpability, and not just as always, "blame it exclusively on the pilots".
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, this airport should have been equipped with an ILS on that runway long time ago. Weather there is very marginal at times so I don't understand why not spending on proper equipment. It's easy to blame the pilots. Yes, diverting was a choice (I've done it before under those circumstances) but doesn't stop the fact that infrastructure is to blame as well. Even many developing Countries have better equipped airports.