blues deville Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I think the debate over what to call it is starting to generate bad PR for the company. Calling it a hard landing is being seen by some as an attempt to minimize or whitewash what happened.Whatever you call it, it was still a very serious incident, that fortunately didn't result in any fatalities.The COO was very careful with his choice of words, as he should be, however this is clearly and unfortunately a crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Everyone that’s ever flown professionally knows very well how much of a handful any aircraft can be when landing in conditions such as those that existed in Halifax that evening; real piloting skills are required. Over the past 15 years, or so, air carriers have been hiring pilots that are progressively less experienced and placing them directly onto automated aircraft such as the 320. These individuals essentially become typists and will never develop the kind of skills that can only come from real life experience. That being the case, if we were to respect the known limitations of the modern airline pilot; is it appropriate to allow them to conduct flight operations in conditions that are at the edge of an aircraft’s performance envelope as demonstrated by a professionally educated and trained test pilot? IOW’s, how can we expect a line pilot to ‘fly’ the aircraft in extreme circumstances when he’s never undertaken the task in anything other than a simulator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 CBC stated that the "pilot(s ?)" had 15 years experience....but failed to state if that was the cockpit total....... or the PF experience.It will all come out sometime...we all need patience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted March 30, 2015 Author Share Posted March 30, 2015 DEFCON you are opening up a debate on a topic that may or may not be a factor in this incident. I think that it is a very worthy topic for debate, especially for my generation that grew up flying single engine, pilot self-navigating, easily bent airframes. And I'm very keen to hear Don's (and others) point of view as to your inference and other human factors.That being said, I think that this discussion is something that we ought to avoid right now as it makes subtle suggestions as to cause where such may not be a factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boney Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Not sure, but the landing occurred at 1327Z. The pilots would have been using the latest ATIS report 0300Z. Could the 0313Z report been on the ATIS? Did the tower reported a new ATIZ was out or did they update the winds for the crew?I believe that the crew was using the 0300Z, but even with the 0313Z report, under the AC limitations, they were good for the landing. On approach, there is that possibility that the winds fluctuated up to the 0400Z reported winds. Therefore, windshear was a strong possibility. One of the passengers on CBC reported that the engines spooled up before the contact with the wires. That is a strong clue.Awaiting the report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/558968-air-canada-a320-accident-halifax-7.html#post8926100 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airt Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Saw some more pictures this AM.The right horizontal stabiliser is basically missing ! If this was due to it being sheared off by the power line , everyone is a lot luckier than I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Saw some more pictures this AM.The right horizontal stabiliser is basically missing ! If this was due to it being sheared off by the power line , everyone is a lot luckier than I thought.I'm gonna speculate and this is pure armchair speculation ..................the power line may not have hit the stab....I would suspect the gear hit the power lines cause it is hard to imagine the wires just catching the tail..........how about pieces of the gear flying up and hitting the stabilizer...maybe on both sides of the vertical stab probably after initial impact with the terra firma.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Total speculation here, but it could be the approach light stanchions that did that damage. I assume the nose would have been pulled up in an attempt to avoid ground contact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMEfirst Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 The COO was very careful with his choice of words, as he should be, however this is clearly and unfortunately a crash.It's too bad he got into a debate with the reporter over the word 'crash" The correct terminolgy in this case is "hard landing with runway excursion". The word "crash" is what a layperson would use to describe the above.Last weeks German Wings "crash" in technical terms is considered and "controlled flight into terrain with catastrophic loss of the hull and complete loss of life"You have to expect that the public like dumbed down language like "the plane ran out of gas" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIP Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 With the RNAV RNP Y for 05 and 32 DH is 250' agl. RNP .1, and 311' for RNP .3 for RWY 32 with a 3* glide path. That's almost as good as an ILS.I do agree that too much money is spent on the terminals (like the squished soda can in YEG) however, I'm not sure the AIF applies to the taxiway / RWY improvements.Couldn't disagree more !!!!That is NOT an ILS, nor is it something that an autoland can be used on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pivot Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Not sure, but the landing occurred at 1327Z. The pilots would have been using the latest ATIS report 0300Z. Could the 0313Z report been on the ATIS? Did the tower reported a new ATIZ was out or did they update the winds for the crew?I believe that the crew was using the 0300Z, but even with the 0313Z report, under the AC limitations, they were good for the landing. On approach, there is that possibility that the winds fluctuated up to the 0400Z reported winds. Therefore, windshear was a strong possibility. One of the passengers on CBC reported that the engines spooled up before the contact with the wires. That is a strong clue.Awaiting the report. I agree.The next METAR was "CYHZ 290400Z 34019G54KT".A 35 knot gust would be very hard to deal with in any aircraft. Will there be any data of what the actual tower wind was at the landing time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I vote "Hard Landing". (I know I don't get a vote, but hey...?)... The aircraft made the runway, and the people all walked away! That's not a crash in my book.Ohhhh Kayyy. You wanna try fixin' it? Saw an interesting post in the Globe comments. The term "crash" is not defined anywhere. Incidents, accidents, loss of life - all defined. I think it fair to say this falls under the term accident as there was major damage and many injuries.I do not however accept the term hard landing. This smacks more of a CFIT event. Has anyone tried that avenue in this thread yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 It's too bad he got into a debate with the reporter over the word 'crash" The correct terminolgy in this case is "hard landing with runway excursion". The word "crash" is what a layperson would use to describe the above.Last weeks German Wings "crash" in technical terms is considered and "controlled flight into terrain with catastrophic loss of the hull and complete loss of life"You have to expect that the public like dumbed down language like "the plane ran out of gas"Disagree somewhat. I'm thinking more along the lines of CFIT as the first point of impact (power lines) was actually outside the airport boundary. TSB is saying the antenna array in the picture was about 1,000 feet short of the runway. I could understand if they touched down on the runway and then had an excursion. But they weren't an aeroplane prior to even sliding TO the runway before then sliding off.Anyone else care to weigh in on that thought?Regardless, sticking to the line of "hard landing" is not going to win the AC spokesperson(s) any PR points, methink... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Ok... how about, "Landed short." ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 TSB says CFIT:http://finance.yahoo.com/news/collision-terrain-involving-air-canada-205200788.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 TSB says CFIT:http://finance.yahoo.com/news/collision-terrain-involving-air-canada-205200788.htmlNot nit-picking but your link says.................................. COLLISON WITH TERRAIN" no mention of CONTROLLED FLIGHT, in fact the article states that it was an "accident".Perhaps the author dumbed down CFIT into "collision with terrain", I don't know, or perhaps "they" feel CFIT is not an abbreviation that the public would be familiar with.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YYCMatt Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I guess Asiana 214 was just a "hard landing" too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I stand corrected. Collision with terrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Every landing is (to a varying degree) a collision with terrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st27 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 My question is why was 05 in use and not 32 which would be the in to wind runway... the wind was favouring 32 all night...was it because the Airport Authority wanted to use a runway slightly better minimums so they could keep the operation going??? The choice of 05 is dubious and there has been no mention of what the JBI was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Every landing is (to a varying degree) a collision with terrain.Ah... yes...and I have been privy to a few of yours but alas,....you were never to mine !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 John Thanks for your thoughts, but I don’t think I’m opening a debate on the issue, only carrying it forward and on from a previous thread. In one of the more recent crash dissections here on this board, someone posted an abstract taken from a paper addressing the subject. I thought it was interesting because it also suggested that pilots with your type of background demonstrated a lack of ability to recall old skills in a critical moment after a period of time operating automated aircraft. Like everyone else, I heard the reports with respect to the 15 year experience levels of the accident pilots and equate that number to a particular generation of aviators we all know. I don’t know why the aircraft came down short of the runway and have nothing to offer in that regard. I expect we’ll find out in due course and I can wait for the official report. On the other hand, the discussion regarding automation is relevant to the times without being even remotely accusatory; if there’s blame, or fault to found, as I attempted to say earlier, it properly belongs to the industry leaders and regulators and not on the backs hapless pilots after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MD2 Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Curious what kind of approach does Air Canada normally do to runway 05? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Oy, this "name the accident" debate sure is getting beaten to death. Whatever you call it, and however it happened, I'm sure the pilots are going through hell right now, reliving the nightmare over and over again, second guessing themselves and beating themselves up. Like James, I'm sending positive thoughts to them and their families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.