Fido Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 It is on the Internet so it must be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumpy Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 I stand corrected. That was pretty low but the crew made the right call to go around. There are many elements that could cause them to end up in that position with wind shear being among them. With isolated heave rain showers and high terrain it could be a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudder Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 What that video appears to be is a near CFIT on a NPA. Fortunately, the outcome was favourable but obviously worthy of review by the crew, the operator, and potentially the regulator. Both the Jazz NPA CFIT event in YAM (ground contact short of the runway) and the AC NPA CFIT event in YHZ (ground contact short of the runway) reports should be out shortly. In these cases, and in the case of the WJ SXM near ground/water contact short of the runway, it would appear that Wxx was a contributing factor. Other common factor is NPA and descent below MDA for the purpose of landing. Important lesson here is that the stabalized approach criteria apply from company threshold (typically 1000' AGL for IMC) all the way to touchdown. Lots of approaches that were stable at 1000' AGL can become unstable as the final approach continues. The only correct response is to call for and initiate a go-around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neverminds Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 This is YYT today. no stabilized approaches there today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 37 minutes ago, rudder said: ................... the Jazz NPA CFIT event in YAM (ground contact short of the runway)............................ Jazz final report here................ http://www.avherald.com/h?article=48293761&opt=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 11, 2017 Share Posted March 11, 2017 1 hour ago, rudder said: What that video appears to be is a near CFIT on a NPA. Fortunately, the outcome was favourable but obviously worthy of review by the crew, the operator, and potentially the regulator. Both the Jazz NPA CFIT event in YAM (ground contact short of the runway) and the AC NPA CFIT event in YHZ (ground contact short of the runway) reports should be out shortly. In these cases, and in the case of the WJ SXM near ground/water contact short of the runway, it would appear that Wxx was a contributing factor. Other common factor is NPA and descent below MDA for the purpose of landing. Important lesson here is that the stabalized approach criteria apply from company threshold (typically 1000' AGL for IMC) all the way to touchdown. Lots of approaches that were stable at 1000' AGL can become unstable as the final approach continues. The only correct response is to call for and initiate a go-around. No rush to read and review the AC incident at YHZ, but with all passengers, flight & cabin crew plus CVR/FDR intact, what could possibly take so long to publish this report? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnboy Posted March 12, 2017 Author Share Posted March 12, 2017 Unable to find any CADOR's report for this incident. Pretty sure it would have met the criteria for filing one. http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/q.aspx?lang=eng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 1 hour ago, Johnboy said: Unable to find any CADOR's report for this incident. Pretty sure it would have met the criteria for filing one. http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/q.aspx?lang=eng I don't think that web site has information on any event outside of Canada. This is the only "semi official" reference I can find: http://www.jacdec.de/category/incident-news/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 12, 2017 Share Posted March 12, 2017 What was the altimeter setting at the time of the event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runaway Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 On 3/11/2017 at 1:49 PM, Fido said: It is on the Internet so it must be true. Not on CBC News.....can't be true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 The exception that proves the rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted March 13, 2017 Share Posted March 13, 2017 "The airline denied in a press statement the following day, there was no deviation from the normal approach path, saying: “According to the information I have been given there was nothing unusual about the first approach.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homerun Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 On 2017-03-13 at 5:57 PM, moeman said: "The airline denied in a press statement the following day, there was no deviation from the normal approach path, saying: “According to the information I have been given there was nothing unusual about the first approach.” Then why the go-around? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 1 hour ago, Homerun said: Then why the go-around? The "out" would be 'questionable weather" Viz up and down' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airband Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 Quote “According to the information I have been given there was nothing unusual about the first approach.” I hear a tune change... http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1078284&playlistId=1.3325649&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 15, 2017 Share Posted March 15, 2017 3 hours ago, Airband said: I hear a tune change... http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1078284&playlistId=1.3325649&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1 The video from beach level is clear evidence the aircraft was low on the VNAV path. Hard for WS to say it is "operation normal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinair Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 but but airplanes fly and land all by themselves don't they... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDR Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 Just a point.. They screwed up but then they didn't compound the error by trying to salvage the landing. They deserve credit for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 3 hours ago, GDR said: Just a point.. They screwed up but then they didn't compound the error by trying to salvage the landing. They deserve credit for that. "The airline denied in a press statement the following day, there was no deviation from the normal approach path, saying: “According to the information I have been given there was nothing unusual about the first approach.” Absolutely. They did the right by going around when the approach was unstable or below the path, visual or electronic. What's odd is for their PR perople to say anything different when publically commenting on the event. Most SOPs require a PA and then later a report to your Flt. Operations. So I'd say they finallly received the correct information. Also, that's one airport where you can expect to have your approach and landing videoed and critiqued by some industry people. As in this case, a travel writer and some off duty or vacationing pilots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critter Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 14 hours ago, blues deville said: The video from beach level is clear evidence the aircraft was low on the VNAV path. Hard for WS to say it is "operation normal". Hi blues. There is no path past the missed approach point on that particular approach. It has to be...for the most part...hand flown. Maybe we're asking the wrong question. While there's no denying they were closer to the ocean at that point, how low were they on the desired profile? Looking at the two videos, they don't seem that much higher on the second approach which is compounded by the lack of references between the water and the overcast sky. just tossin it out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 35 minutes ago, Critter said: Hi blues. There is no path past the missed approach point on that particular approach. It has to be...for the most part...hand flown. I just checked my own logbook. Its been awhile now but I have flown directly or double stop into SXM 21 times on both Boeing and Airbus aircraft. However defined by your company's decision point on this approach, there is still a visual path (PAPI) to be flown. This 737 was clearly below it on the first attempt. They did the right thing by going around. ATC at SXM is a bit of a nightmare at the best of times and a go-around won't necessarily put you number one for the approach. They will fit you in where they can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critter Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 You're definitely kickin it more old school inside that missed approach point. A lot of the "magic" disappears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 16, 2017 Share Posted March 16, 2017 43 minutes ago, Critter said: You're definitely kickin it more old school inside that missed approach point. A lot of the "magic" disappears. Well there's no magic, it's science, technology and procedure. At MDA on an NPA, such as the VOR Z at SXM using VNAV becomes a visual maneuver using all available cues. PAPI, VASI, and VNAV depending on your company data base, will continue to display to 50' above the runway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Well...............I see the WestJet incident made AVHERALD .....and the TSB is at least aware of it... Makes the WestJet denial look a little flimsy. http://www.avherald.com/h?article=4a65586e&opt=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 20, 2017 Share Posted March 20, 2017 Was in the back of an AC777 (YVR-YYZ) a few weeks ago and Toronto had some forecast snow showers all day. On short final (below 500'agl) the 777 went around. A quick right hand vector back (watched it all on the tv screen) for a smooth landing on 23. After the GA event the Captain made a brief PA. "Aircraft on the runway......". My guess was slippery highspeed exits and an aircraft ahead slowed up to safely make the turn off. Everybody wants to make those first two left exits on 23 or it's a long taxi around the end. Cold weather ops can screw that up. I'm curious what was said to the passengers/guests who spent another 45 mins on the Disney World 737. Not one comment from the passengers on board on any social media site. SXM is an upscale destination. Usually a doctor or lawyer on board. Will the TSB contact any pax for an interview? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.