Air Canada A320 accident at Halifax
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/174...0dacf504f2b7bf
lost in saigon, why are the power line on the wrong side of the road on your picture? You described the scene correctly in your narrative.
lost in saigon, why are the power line on the wrong side of the road on your picture? You described the scene correctly in your narrative.
cactusbusdrvr "People here have questioned why they didn't use the PAPi. With a half mile of visibility even on the proper descent angle to the runway it would have been difficult. At a 3 degree glide path 300' above field elevation puts you a mile out. PAPis are usually about 500' down from the end of the runway. So that's just over a mile from the missed approach point to the PAPi. Hard to pick up with blowing precipitation."
I'm one that asked the question. I'm not intending to blame the pilot here, but surely if the pilot had the visual references required, and sufficient flight visibility to proceed (not just talking about rules now, talking about practical necessity for safe landing) the PAPI would have been visible soon enough and high enough to be useful in the visual segment. Unless of course it was snow-covered or otherwise affected by the conditions.
The decision to proceed below minimums is not merely a one-time deal. Conditions must continue to be sufficient - not marginal, sufficient - or the pilot should go-around.
So, my question becomes - if it appeared to the pilot at the time that visual conditions were sufficient for a safe landing and that the airplane was in an appropriate position to land then why would the airplane touchdown 1000 ft or so short of the runway?
I'm one that asked the question. I'm not intending to blame the pilot here, but surely if the pilot had the visual references required, and sufficient flight visibility to proceed (not just talking about rules now, talking about practical necessity for safe landing) the PAPI would have been visible soon enough and high enough to be useful in the visual segment. Unless of course it was snow-covered or otherwise affected by the conditions.
The decision to proceed below minimums is not merely a one-time deal. Conditions must continue to be sufficient - not marginal, sufficient - or the pilot should go-around.
So, my question becomes - if it appeared to the pilot at the time that visual conditions were sufficient for a safe landing and that the airplane was in an appropriate position to land then why would the airplane touchdown 1000 ft or so short of the runway?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Fredericton
Age: 75
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This flight had the most lucky and blessed of passengers and crew. Had there been a sea wall or concrete berm at the approach end of the runway, the result would have been worse than that of OZ214 at KSFO.
This accident prove one thing; no one is infallible despite all the great equipment onboard, the so called super duper trained crew, etc.
This accident prove one thing; no one is infallible despite all the great equipment onboard, the so called super duper trained crew, etc.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.google.ca/maps/place/174...0dacf504f2b7bf
lost in saigon, why are the power line on the wrong side of the road on your picture? You described the scene correctly in your narrative.
lost in saigon, why are the power line on the wrong side of the road on your picture? You described the scene correctly in your narrative.
I edited my text to read: "went through a power line, continued across a road, and then up a hill"
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, my question becomes - if it appeared to the pilot at the time that visual conditions were sufficient for a safe landing and that the airplane was in an appropriate position to land then why would the airplane touchdown 1000 ft or so short of the runway?
An NPA in an Airbus has certain challenges, one of which is you are likely using AP and FD to minima - then if you continue, it's AP and FDs off to a manual / visual landing.
Fine if it's a calm day, and the NPA leaves you in a good position. But with snow, a significant crosswind, and by all accounts, some significant windshear effects on that approach, the holes have the potential to align. Add in the L time, the long hold etc. etc.
Of course in theory if everything was followed to the letter of the rulebook, and with 20:20 hindsight, no accident would have occurred. The alternative is 2 skilled and well intentioned pilots got caught out, or better (for them) some technical issue arose.
This one I think is worth awaiting a report.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Age: 55
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@lost in saigon
I'm not sure the Aircraft touched down in the area you indicate. I saw no evidence of that when I was there yesterday. Here is a photo looking away from the runway along the few approach lights. As far as I could see the first contact was the power lines, the second was the last light stand at the fence, the third was the fuselage contacting the antenna array and the gear contacting the snow/ground.
If hey had I expect I would have seen TSB guys there marking it with orange paint.
Guess we'll know for sure when they plot the data.
Looking away from the runway, standing just below the powerlines that were clipped.
Light stand
Berm, Snow and array
Yes, the aircraft first hit in an area that is actually about 40' BELOW the runway elevation.
If hey had I expect I would have seen TSB guys there marking it with orange paint.
Guess we'll know for sure when they plot the data.
Looking away from the runway, standing just below the powerlines that were clipped.
Light stand
Berm, Snow and array
Last edited by Mudman; 31st Mar 2015 at 21:00. Reason: Added more pics
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@lost in saigon
I'm not sure the Aircraft touched down in the area you indicate. I saw no evidence of that when I was there yesterday. Here is a photo looking away from the runway along the few approach lights. As far as I could see the first contact was the power lines, the second was the last light stand at the fence, the third was the fuselage contacting the antenna array and the gear contacting the snow/ground.
If hey had I expect I would have seen TSB guys there marking it with orange paint.
Guess we'll know for sure when they plot the data.
Cheers
Mudman
Looking away from the runway, standing just below the powerlines that were clipped.
I'm not sure the Aircraft touched down in the area you indicate. I saw no evidence of that when I was there yesterday. Here is a photo looking away from the runway along the few approach lights. As far as I could see the first contact was the power lines, the second was the last light stand at the fence, the third was the fuselage contacting the antenna array and the gear contacting the snow/ground.
If hey had I expect I would have seen TSB guys there marking it with orange paint.
Guess we'll know for sure when they plot the data.
Cheers
Mudman
Looking away from the runway, standing just below the powerlines that were clipped.
I was just going by this map posted in AvHerald: Accident: Air Canada A320 at Halifax on Mar 29th 2015, touched down short of runway
Last edited by Lost in Saigon; 1st Apr 2015 at 00:03.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nova Scotia
Age: 55
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@lost in saigon
No worries. I could be wrong. I tweeted TSB to see if they would clarify.
Also if you measure from the berm to the end of the white area (rather than the end of the asphalt) the distance is about 1100'. Guess it depends on how one defines the end of the runway.
Incidentally the RVR info at Nav Canada shows the end of 05 to be at the old taxiway prior to the extension. Touch out of date.
No worries. I could be wrong. I tweeted TSB to see if they would clarify.
Also if you measure from the berm to the end of the white area (rather than the end of the asphalt) the distance is about 1100'. Guess it depends on how one defines the end of the runway.
Incidentally the RVR info at Nav Canada shows the end of 05 to be at the old taxiway prior to the extension. Touch out of date.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Coastal Georgia
Age: 71
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just going by this map posted in AvHerald:
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few things I gathered from an archived ATC recording:
AC624 requested maximum aerodrome light intensity early in the approach, it was 4/5 at the time, supposedly going up to 5/5 later but it's hard to tell from the recording.
When the tower controller cleared AC624 to land, he reported winds 010 20G30. Nothing out of the ordinary for CYHZ. The visibility was probably the dominant weather factor, 1/2sm or less due to the blowing snow.
My ATC recording stops presumably when the aircraft contacted the power lines, knocking out the local scanner.
The aircraft certainly did not touchdown before the power lines, it would have nosed into the embankment leading up to the antenna array. Otherwise the story would have been much worse.
CYHZ has a reputation for frequent IFR conditions. Maybe it's a good time to install a proper ILS system on both ends of its longest runway.
I'll have popcorn ready for the explanation of going below the MDA.
AC624 requested maximum aerodrome light intensity early in the approach, it was 4/5 at the time, supposedly going up to 5/5 later but it's hard to tell from the recording.
When the tower controller cleared AC624 to land, he reported winds 010 20G30. Nothing out of the ordinary for CYHZ. The visibility was probably the dominant weather factor, 1/2sm or less due to the blowing snow.
My ATC recording stops presumably when the aircraft contacted the power lines, knocking out the local scanner.
The aircraft certainly did not touchdown before the power lines, it would have nosed into the embankment leading up to the antenna array. Otherwise the story would have been much worse.
CYHZ has a reputation for frequent IFR conditions. Maybe it's a good time to install a proper ILS system on both ends of its longest runway.
I'll have popcorn ready for the explanation of going below the MDA.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Found in Toronto
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good photos on the TSB/RCMP Flickr page: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsbcan...h/16940541286/
These photos show the aircraft beyond Bravo taxiway and by my calculations that is about 2000' from the runway threshold.
These photos show the aircraft beyond Bravo taxiway and by my calculations that is about 2000' from the runway threshold.
Last edited by Lost in Saigon; 31st Mar 2015 at 23:54.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: usa
Age: 37
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never meant to suggest any judgement here. Could have been any of us if you throw in a bit of fatigue.
My point is that the pilots on this thread need to maintain a focus on the crew's decisions and options available while the smart guys that design the IAP's work out the cost/benefit analysis of a strictly RNP AR / autoland industry. we are commercial operators not corporate flight departments for the most part so feasibility is an issue.
Poor decisions are made, this crew got caught up in it pretty bad. Im taking it as a wake up call to stay focused and divert or go around and let the accountants deal with service to that field.
My apologies to anyone offended.
My point is that the pilots on this thread need to maintain a focus on the crew's decisions and options available while the smart guys that design the IAP's work out the cost/benefit analysis of a strictly RNP AR / autoland industry. we are commercial operators not corporate flight departments for the most part so feasibility is an issue.
Poor decisions are made, this crew got caught up in it pretty bad. Im taking it as a wake up call to stay focused and divert or go around and let the accountants deal with service to that field.
My apologies to anyone offended.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Great White North
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Halifax Runway Berms
To MudMan
Thanks for the info.
I wondered why LOC-23/24 had the extension kit. The original was on the standard ~10’ mounts – current appears to be the ~20’ extension kit. The “old berm” was over 12’ AGL. I suspect the existing is likely in the order of 3-4’? I guess nobody will see it until the snow melts!? A prudent move to reduce the berm height on relocation, too bad that they probably didn’t grade the backside as I suspect they did on the RWY side, given past experience with MK-747. Unfortunately, I suspect that the existing installation is “capped” with tons of concrete, as was the original berm. The passengers of this flight are sooooo luck that the original berm was no longer in place . . . as that is where this entire a/c would have likely stopped . . . not just the undercarriage !!?
. . . Sorry, this site won't allow me to post photo of the enormous slab of concrete on-top the berm.
Thanks for the info.
I wondered why LOC-23/24 had the extension kit. The original was on the standard ~10’ mounts – current appears to be the ~20’ extension kit. The “old berm” was over 12’ AGL. I suspect the existing is likely in the order of 3-4’? I guess nobody will see it until the snow melts!? A prudent move to reduce the berm height on relocation, too bad that they probably didn’t grade the backside as I suspect they did on the RWY side, given past experience with MK-747. Unfortunately, I suspect that the existing installation is “capped” with tons of concrete, as was the original berm. The passengers of this flight are sooooo luck that the original berm was no longer in place . . . as that is where this entire a/c would have likely stopped . . . not just the undercarriage !!?
. . . Sorry, this site won't allow me to post photo of the enormous slab of concrete on-top the berm.
The snow at the berm shows two deep impact marks, likely from the gear, which the photos show lying between the berm and the threshold.
These folks had a really narrow escape.
These folks had a really narrow escape.
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Attitude on Impact
Looking at that pic, I see the large "gouge" where the fuselage impacted, but there's a smaller one just to the left of it. Since the port engine sheared off rather cleanly, it seems to me that the smaller gouge is from the engine not the landing gear.
If that's the case, there's no matching gouge for the starboard engine. That suggests to me that the a/c was in a left bank attitude when it hit. Could a 50+ kt wind gust force the a/c the size of an A320 even lower?
If that's the case, there's no matching gouge for the starboard engine. That suggests to me that the a/c was in a left bank attitude when it hit. Could a 50+ kt wind gust force the a/c the size of an A320 even lower?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The Colonies
Posts: 30
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.
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?
IMO, far better to set up the 3.08° further back and clip the FAF/2000ft on a steady descent path with minor FPA adjustments to go down the charted Altitude/Distance profile.