Air Canada Flight Number 624 In The News


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My feelings on this thread will come as no surprise to anyone. I believe it is a fundamental professional discourtesy to the operating crew and those close to them to speculate like this. 8 pages no

IFG and Maverick, maybe he can't afford a new keyboard, or maybe he has a disability. Either way, we can be inclusive here. James, please keep posting. Your contributions are welcomed and valued. B

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 a

Posted Images

Certainly similar to Asiana in sequence, though likely not in cause. Ironically the brutal weather that contributed to the sequence of events may have helped improve the outcome with a soft bed of snow to ease the impact and grease the trip down the runway.

Pretty impressive the 320 was able to take that kind of abuse with fuselage intact. Certainly everyone got lucky in the outcome. AC's international reputation caught a break as billing it as a runway excursion seems to have deflected most international coverage of what was a crash. Halifax's airport authority comes off as looking unprepared with no plan in place to get incident victims to the terminal, surely they've got a better procedure in place. Hopefully this shames them or the Feds to upgrade ILS at an international airport..

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

That is supposed to be it's primary purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its pretty embarassing that YHZ and YYT do not have ILS approaches for all runways given the amount of low vis days they have.

Certainly not an expert at this but I've been told that in some cases, full ILS approaches (LOC & GS) cannot be installed due to various reasons such as local terrain, runway slope and other airport design/ground issues. YHZ is not the only Canadian airport with less than full ILS approaches for all runways. I've had my share of after midnight arrivals into most of them and it's always a good time especially after a long haul from the south.

Not sure what is installed now but not that long ago YUL had a LOC/BC on 28 because they couldn't have a GS attenna due to the location of the runway threshold. Also 06R used to be a LOC only approach.

In this YHZ case, I doubt an ILS would have allowed them to complete an autoland with those reported cross winds. I can't remember my A320 autoland wind limits but I think Saturday night's weather would have prevented it.

The choices for YHZ 05 are LOC and RNAV. The paths are about the same at 2.99 and 3.01 degrees. Like everyone else here, I'm trying to figure how they got so low. I suppose a severe windshear event would be the most likely reason or was there a map shift of some kind while flying the RNAV profile?

There was a 757 sim we used (AA in DFW I think) that had multiple selections of windshear events for training purposes. There was one on the panel which I determined you needed to be an F18 with afterburners on to get up and away. A pair of RB211-535's would not do it.

Perhaps the poorly timed wind gust at YHZ was more than an A320 can handle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The term "Hard Landing" was issued shortly after the accident by an individual that was not even in the same city as the accident. He was speaking with data obtained shortly after the event that was passed along so likely 3rd or 4th hand. Once the dust cleared and the snow let up it was clear this was not a hard landing and the "Hard Landing" was dropped by Air Canada Spokes people. The Media, however, ran with it and it is now sparking a useless debate. By the definition set out in the CARs this was an ACCIDENT. Not an incident, not a hard landing, definately not a Crash, AN ACCIDENT.

CAn we please stop the useless debate and wait to see what the TSB discovers as to what actually transpired during that approach to 05.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess Asiana 214 was just a "hard landing" too.

People died in that one. Huge difference!

That might be your point I guess... The difference in outcome had only to do with fluke? ... might be so, but then that can also be said for some that make it to the gate and are never heard about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Golly Miss Molly, That Sho is Hard to Watch! OUCH! :(

I am surprised at how well the main fuselage held up. Less damage than one would expect. That orange piece sticking out of the front pressure bulkhead is not part of the plane. Seems the nose must have impacted the antenna array. Again NOT what would have expected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An official report:

  • March 30, 2015 4:52 PM
Collision with terrain involving an Air Canada Airbus A320 at Stanfield International Airport, Halifax, Nova Scotia

OTTAWA, March 30, 2015 /CNW/ -

The occurrence

On 29 March 2015, at approximately 1240 a.m., Air Canada flight ACA 624, an Airbus A320, on a scheduled flight from Toronto's Lester B. Pearson International Airport, Ontario, to Halifax, Nova Scotia, collided with terrain approximately 1100 feet from the threshold of Runway 05, eventually coming to rest about 1100 feet down the runway. There were 133 passengers and 5 crew members on board; all of whom exited the aircraft. Twenty-five people were taken to hospital for treatment of injuries.

What we know

The initial impact was significant and caused substantial damage to the aircraft. The main landing gear separated and the underside of the aircraft was heavily damaged (fuselage and wings). During this impact, the aircraft collided with a localizer antenna array – part of the instrument landing system – and became airborne again, travelling forward on Runway 05. There is an extensive debris field between the localizer antenna location and the threshold of the runway.

During the first day on site, Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) investigators documented the wreckage, the impact marks and the debris field. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR) and the flight data recorder (FDR) were recovered from the aircraft and have been sent to the TSB Engineering Laboratory in Ottawa, Ontario.

Investigation team work

The investigation team is led by the Investigator-in-Charge, Doug McEwen. Mr. McEwen has been an investigator with the TSB for 18 years. He is assisted in this investigation by experts in flight operations, air traffic services, weather, aircraft structures, aircraft systems, aircraft engines, and human performance.

Some of these experts come from within the TSB, but assistance is also being provided by the following organizations: Transport Canada (TC), NAV CANADA, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Airbus, and France'sBureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses. This is a normal part of any investigation, as these experts play a key role in helping the team uncover and understand all of the underlying factors which may have contributed to the accident.

Watchlist

Although more analysis is required, this accident displays some of the characteristics of an approach-and-landing accidents which is on TSB's Watchlist.

Next steps

The investigation is ongoing and the next steps include the following:

  • survey the impact and wreckage site
  • continue examining and photographing the wreckage
  • removing the aircraft from the runway to restore normal operations
  • gather Air Traffic Control voice and data recordings
  • conduct witness interviews
  • gather meteorological information
  • collect operational information from the aircraft
  • preliminary review of the recorders at the TSB Lab to assist field investigators
  • determine which wreckage to collect for closer examination
    • further examination will be at the TSB Lab

Communication of safety deficiencies

Should the investigation team uncover safety deficiencies that present an immediate risk, they will be communicated without delay so they may be addressed quickly and the aviation system made safer.

The information posted is factual in nature and does not contain any analysis. Analysis of the accident and the Findings of the Board will be part of the final report. The investigation is ongoing.

The TSB is an independent agency that investigates marine, pipeline, railway and aviation transportation occurrences. Its sole aim is the advancement of transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.

SOURCE Transportation Safety Board of Canada

rt.gif?NewsItemId=C7840&Transmission_Id= For further information: TSB Media Relations, 819 994-8053; The TSB is online at www.tsb.gc.ca. Keep up to date through RSS, Twitter (@TSBCanada), YouTube, Flickr and our blog.
Link to post
Share on other sites

People died in that one. Huge difference!

That might be your point I guess... The difference in outcome had only to do with fluke? ... might be so, but then that can also be said for some that make it to the gate and are never heard about.

Yes that was my point, I'm certain the reasons for impacting terrain short of the runway will be different but the difference in what they impacted (snow/power lines/antenna) vs a sea wall I think made a big difference in the outcomes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly not an expert at this but I've been told that in some cases, full ILS approaches (LOC & GS) cannot be installed due to various reasons such as local terrain, runway slope and other airport design/ground issues. YHZ is not the only Canadian airport with less than full ILS approaches for all runways. I've had my share of after midnight arrivals into most of them and it's always a good time especially after a long haul from the south.

Not sure what is installed now but not that long ago YUL had a LOC/BC on 28 because they couldn't have a GS attenna due to the location of the runway threshold. Also 06R used to be a LOC only approach...

Thanks, I guess the term "unfortunate" would be more accurate. I hope that part of this investigation looks into the available approaches and if they can be improved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We were debating at work yesterday how a 737 would have fared in this incident and whether or not the airplane would look like a christmas cracker or not.

Here's what a 737 can do when it goes "off roading".

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/christmas-miracle-154-passengers-survive-american-airlines-flight-331-crashes-jamaica-article-1.433596

Regarding YHZ, I think a longer bodied aircraft (A321, B737-900) would not have done as well.

After reviewing the weather sequences at the time of their approach, with a 90 degree crosswind gusting up to 50+kts, the runway would have been well to the right of the nose. I think the transisiton to visual conditions and finding the PAPI/runway might be a challenge.

If you were to activate a low level windshear plus the YHZ weather conditions flying the NPA on 05 in an A320 sim, I wonder what the average results would be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

the following may be of interest, was the ground-proximity warning system partly to blame?

Carriers urged to update terrain-alert software
Source: pro.png
in 2 hours

Safety authorities are advising operators to ensure they have the latest software for enhanced ground-proximity warning systems, in the wake of the UPS freighter crash in Alabama.

Although the Airbus A300-600F, which struck terrain while attempting to land at Birmingham, had been fitted with an approved Honeywell warning system, it did not feature the most recent available software.

If the software on the jet had been updated the aircraft would have entered the terrain alert envelope about 200ft above the ground, some 1.3nm from the runway threshold.

The crew of the A300 received a ‘sink rate’ warning about 8s before an initial collision with trees, with a ‘too low, terrain’ caution sounding just after the strike.

In a special bulletin dated 13 March the US FAA states that the latest software would have provided a ‘too low, terrain’ alert some 6.5s earlier, when the aircraft was 150ft higher.

“Although it is not clear if the later version of the software would have prevented the accident, it would have provided a significantly improved margin of safety,” it adds.

The bulletin, which has also been highlighted by the European Aviation Safety Agency, has not been elevated to a formal airworthiness directive.

US National Transportation Safety Board investigators pointed out that the A300’s high descent rate would nevertheless have “compromised” the effectiveness of the warning system, even with the updated software.

But their analysis of the August 2013 crash determined that an immediate activation of the go-around switch, or an aggressive manual response to the terrain alert, would have enabled the aircraft to avoid the impact.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/carriers-urged-to-update-terrain-alert-software-410802/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the latest equipment certainly makes life easier in the flight deck.

Apparently this particular AIr Canada A320 was not equipped with GPS therefore limiting the crew to flying the LOC only approach versus an RNAV to runway 05.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would they have had to do a temperature corrected SCDA type of approach?

Temperature/altitude corrections would have been required with the reported weather during their approach.

Metars:

CYHZ 290500Z 33021G27KT 1 1/2SM -SN DRSN BKN013 OVC027 M06/M07 A2968 RMK SC6SC2 /S13/ SLP058

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

CYHZ 290313Z 35020G26KT 1/2SM R14/3500V4500FT/N SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2963 RMKSN8 SLP040

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any speculation as to why the horizontal stabilizers were heavily damaged?

I'm leaning toward the main landing gear after it was taken off and perhaps bounced upwards. The localizer array should have already been taken out by the wings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Aerial photos.

Was the 1R door not used because airframe damage prevented it from being opened properly? I haven't heard any reports about injuries to cabin crew so I assume they were able to complete their evacuation duties. On the A320, how many cabin crew are seated at the forward doors?

From this link and series of photos, it appears they had no issues with lateral control as the landing gear marks in the snow are just slightly right of the center line. I guess this where the aircraft became airborne again before touching down on the runway.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1915802/new-photos-show-aerial-view-of-air-canada-flight-624-crash-site/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.