Worth noting that the "Further Action Required: No" is Transport Canada's categorisation of the event.

The Canadian TSB, on the other hand, opened an investigation on 17th March, categorising the event as a Class 3 - defined as:

"Individual occurrences that do not meet the criteria of Class 2 occurrences may be investigated when
1. there is significant public expectation that the TSB should independently make findings as to cause(s) and contributing factors; or
2. there is potential for better understanding the latent unsafe conditions contributing to a significant safety issue; or
3, a government representative so requests (pursuant to Section 14(2) of the CTAISB Act); or the Board must do so to meet its obligations or commitments."

JJA4, so since TC also says on its CADORS main page "The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is the official source of aviation accident and incident data in Canada" does this mean that TSB is going to look into it any further or not? Which of them decides?

Well I hope we get some additional investigation and info at a later date from the TSB.

The latest video from onboard the aircraft while on the first approach is a bit perplexing.

Yes they can...

The TSB is independent of Transport Canada and may indeed continue to investigate the incident.

However, if they do continue to investigate and produce a report of the incident, the TSB will only be able to suggest/recommend that certain measure are taken to avoid another such event...

They have no authority to penalise the crew or the company for their actions (assuming something was wrong) because only TC can do that and since TC is already on the record that "no further action is required", nothing is going to come out of this.

Are you saying that TSB Safety Recommendations directed at Transport Canada are routinely ignored ?

Perhaps "ignored" is too absolute a term, how about "considered, but not acted upon by regulatory change....". 'Doesn't mean TC is not thinking about how to make things better....

Well, no I'm not saying that but I'm sure not all recommendations directed at TC from the TSB are implemented.

In this case (and I'm speculating here) because I don't have all the facts, it seems this crew was caught off guard by deteriorating weather and continued an approach below the minimum with the results we have seen.

So what can the TSB do about it? I suspect nothing. What can they write in a report that would change anything since rules are already in place to cover minimums?

I'm not even sure by the time the TSB got word of this incident that the DFDR was available to them with data from the incident.

It would be up to TC to say that the crew "busted minimums" and handout whatever penalties for such an infraction which would likely be a little slap on the wrist.

If TC is not going to get involved (which seems to be the case), then it would be up to the chief pilot of the company to take action, again I'm afraid it's just another slap on the wrist.

Interesting situation.... I guess what's happened here is that no-one in either authority was concerned (or even aware) until the publicity started. TC then jumped in and took a quick look, decided "nothing to see here, move along". Then the TSB says "hey maybe there is".

If it turned out that for a silly example the aircraft had a runaway nose down pitch trim that the crew heroically overcame and didn't think worth mentioning (prob: 10-6) then I guess that TC would have to reconsider their "no further action" judgement! Re other more likely causes - it will be interesting to follow this little story.

What clunckdriver said.

This thread must represent the apogee of the trainspotters here.
Never seen so much :mad:
Classic was the muppet who put a nine year old jepp plate up.
Flight simmers
FYI current same plate is dated 27/1/17, then only real pilots would have these........

I corrected "the muppet" in my post #48.

Well, looking at the video from the bar near the end of the runway, that was pretty damn low. Not only can you see the wake, you see the pressure wave in front of the wings, so they were in ground effect.

http://i63.tinypic.com/5u3p2.jpg

Looking at a relative comparison from the video from the shore, the red line is the wingspan 112' (34m) and the green line is the distance from wheel to the water surface. The comparative lines show at this point, just as the aircraft begins GA, (and still a distance offshore) appears to show about 52' (16m) above the water surface.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXCJPHRErZ8

Should be about 50' (15m) at threshold.....

Best to review the actual video to see the water surface, etc used for the comparison.

In regards to the procedure designers adding the decent profile, that is of course, how the procedure is designed, what is charted is up to the State and the particular criteria it has decided to use.

From a previous post in this thread, this needs to reference the threshold, not beginning of pavement. TCH here is 50 feet.

http://www.jacdec.de/WP/wp-content/u...wAppr_MAP1.png

EDIT: BTW, looking at the Frozen ac, they used about 1925 lbs of paint for that.....pretty good hit on the MLW! For Canada, that is like 7 pax w/cheese....

Waving hands to the champion:
new video
It's ridiculous the instrument approach system of this famous western international airport.

Yes, it's an interesting situation. Just at DH/MDA, finally get a visual, call out a visual, and then the weather shuts the view of the runway.

What do the airline's SOPs, FARs, legal, TSB, TC, FAA, NTSB, boeing procedures, airbus procedures, etc.... say about this ??

Pretty sure that almost ALL of them require a GO AROUND if visual clues are lost below DA/DH... (seriously, you had to ask?)

You have to figure that this thread has gone about as far as possible and has been beaten to death by supposition...Let it go folks, there's nothing more to look at...move along.

Why is there discussion that the crew lost visual with the runway?

There is video from the far end of the runway that shows the airplane visible on the first approach. If we can see them...

Sure they got low, maybe the precipitation gave some illusions, maybe they were distracted. Not great and not the usual of course. But there is no indication they couldn't see the (presumably well lit) runway.

@ YRP...

Again look at the latest video (in post 193 above) and tell me that's a normal approach? Tell me you really think that being that low (50-75' AGL) that far back from the runway threshold is normal?

Yes they executed a missed approach, the only sensible thing to do in their situation and saved the day in the process. The question is why did they get into that position in the first place...

Again looking at the latest video, pay attention to the "Go Around" and you will notice that the aircraft goes into the clouds at perhaps 200 to 300 feet AGL.

What if there was a cloud base like the one on the GO Around on the approach?

Wouldn't that indicate that they pushed the limits?

The last two videos, one by pax, the other head on from beach show precip.

• Possible refraction
• Possible downdraft with precip
• Well below CAVOK, but within limits
• Height perception above​ water surface difficult, especially in prevailing viz

~= a lined up Emmenthaler

Did the EGPWS pipe up? If not, why not?

... they can see us." Not necessarily so at all.

@YRP
Lights? It's only the box and the papi. No approach lights there.

You really can't say that because we see them, they saw us. The place is a big sum of multiple visual illusions.
Difficult depth perception, approach over water, threshold on the beach, displaced threshold, short runway, no approach or centerline lights, no horizon because of the hills behind it, runway at an angle on the coast and high MDA after which LNAV and vertical profile go a different way (which can be a distraction at the least or a short moment of vertigo if you don't expect it). And that's in good weather.
The airport is a lot of fun but needs a good preparation and briefing.