dagger Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/air-canada-lawsuit-accuses-airbus-of-negligence-in-halifax-crash-landing-1.3347461 HALIFAX - Air Canada is claiming a French aircraft manufacturer's negligence contributed to a crash landing at Halifax Stanfield International Airport two years ago. The Canadian airline is suing Airbus SAS, saying the company failed to identify shortcomings of the Airbus 320. In a statement of claim filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court, Air Canada (TSX:AC.A) says Airbus did not advise that in certain conditions, the plane's flight path angle could be affected by external forces. The document says it also failed to incorporate a warning system to alert pilots to a deviation from the planned flight path angle. None of the allegations are proven in court. Airbus did not immediately return a request for comment Thursday and has not filed a statement of defence. Flight 624 hit the ground about 200 metres short of runway 05 shortly after midnight on March 29, 2015, as it approached the airport in gusty winds and heavy snowfall. More than two dozen people were injured in the crash landing, which is also the subject of a class-action lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 This should be very interesting..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, Kip Powick said: This should be very interesting..... What's that saying in sports? A strong offence is your best defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super 80 Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 These are insurance lawsuits. It's just like this on a grander scale: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34523300 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 To me, this lawsuit implies nobody was monitoring the flight path, and blaming Airbus for faulty autoflight software! First rule of thumb, a virtual commandment when talking about auto-flight: If it's not doing what you expect/want/need, then "click, click" the autopilot & auto-throttle and control the flight path manually. This was not done in Halifax on this flight as is evidenced by it hitting the ground so far back from, not the touchdown zone, but the threshold. "The document says it also failed to incorporate a warning system to alert pilots to a deviation from the planned flight path angle." In my opinion, the ultimate warning system is comprised of two pilots with situational awareness. Is there a date the TSB will release a report of their investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 The A310 had the "Bird in the Cage" for NPA but it was only used until MDA on a NPA. Once at MDA, one has to maintain MDA until either the RW is seen or one arrives at MAP. If the RW is seen, the final approach becomes a visual approach and if VASI or PAPI is available, one uses it. I have never seen the "Bird in the Cage" used to put the aircraft below MDA or on the runway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 The statement of claim is fairly specific in what they allege Airbus failed to do. I am quite curious where this is coming from because it's hardly a "catch-all" claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Kip Powick said: The A310 had the "Bird in the Cage" for NPA but it was only used until MDA on a NPA. Once at MDA, one has to maintain MDA until either the RW is seen or one arrives at MAP. If the RW is seen, the final approach becomes a visual approach and if VASI or PAPI is available, one uses it. I have never seen the "Bird in the Cage" used to put the aircraft below MDA or on the runway. Is this the flight director mode you are referring to? FPV/A or Flight Path Vector/Angle. Glass cockpit aircraft have turned NPA's into pseudo glide paths and the technique is excellent. However at MDA it becomes a visual manoeuver and visual clues are required as you mentioned, PAPi, VASI, approach lights and of course a runway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Moon The Loon said: "The document says it also failed to incorporate a warning system to alert pilots to a deviation from the planned flight path angle." In my opinion, the ultimate warning system is comprised of two pilots with situational awareness. Is there a date the TSB will release a report of their investigation? This was an unfortunate accident and the airline's lawyers may also want to include the season of "winter" in their statement of claim. Someone signed out this aircraft as ready for flight in all weather operations. Someone also accepted this aircraft as ready for flight in all weather operations. The airline sold tickets on the flight. Unless immediately following this incident the airline had grounded all similar type aircraft until today, I don't see how this case will ever be heard in court. I have a feeling the lawyers involved know the contents of the soon to be released (before the end of the decade?) TSB report and it probably doesn't reflect well on the airline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 15 minutes ago, blues deville said: Is this the flight director mode you are referring to? FPV or Flight Path Vector I don't have the manuals anymore but your pic looks like the bird is caged....I seem to remember the FDR being more pictoral but it has been awhile. I didn't spend much time looking for a pic of the actual A310 FDR on the Net. It was a hard system to master and most often "old-school" pilots opted NOT to use it and use the other nav aids we had for any BC LOC approach with DME and ADFs. I was rather fortunate as we had an Airbus pilot/rep/instructor with us for a couple of months at WD and I did many Atlantic crossings with him and he certainly passed on a lot of info. On one of my return flights with him we stopped in YOW for the night as he was catching another flight the next morning so I photocopied all his notes and tips.....sheesh...it cost me $35.00 at the hotel but I ended up with a full binder of tips and hints !! Here is a comment from another forum that shows the basics of FPV.. http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/452973-fpv-fpv-cage.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kip Powick said: I was rather fortunate as we had an Airbus pilot/rep/instructor with us for a couple of months at WD and I did many Atlantic crossings with him and he certainly passed on a lot of info. On one of my return flights with him we stopped in YOW for the night as he was catching another flight the next morning so I photocopied all his notes and tips.....sheesh...it cost me $35.00 at the hotel but I ended up with a full binder of tips and hints !! Was that Tom or Larry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Air Canada's lawsuit against Airbus says the flight crew correctly configured the aircraft for landing, including entering the correct flight path angle into the flight computer. "Since the aircraft was correctly configured for approach and landing and the approach was stable, the aircraft should have intercepted the threshold to runway 05 at an altitude of 50 feet," the claim said. "Instead, the aircraft descended at a steeper angle than expected and touched down short of the runway." One serious thing about flying these kinds of approaches in below zero temps is making perfect adjustments to the altitudes for temperature on the published approach. Anything less than perfection will generate a path below 3 degrees when closer to minimums. Can happen even with a reported surface temp at zero. A much more critical correction than FAF and DH on a cold day ILS because no matter what the temp is you still have a ground based glide path that puts you over the runway at 50'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, J.O. said: Was that Tom or Larry? Actually it was Hugo........ nice guy but always walked through the terminals with his jacket wide open and flapping in the wind !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, Kip Powick said: Actually it was Hugo........ nice guy but always walked through the terminals with his jacket wide open and flapping in the wind !!!! You have to love the "open jacket guy". Sit and watch in any US airport terminal and it's like their last landing was a Pax Evac with no time to button up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 4 minutes ago, blues deville said: the aircraft should have intercepted the threshold to runway 05 at an altitude of 50 feet," the claim said. If I understand this, they must have been on auto pilot, or even hand flying, but following the FPV after they passed MDA I guess I am just old school,,,,,,if I remember correctly the approach there has the minimums of about 300 feet AGL and 1 mile viz. If they met the viz mins why would they still be flying the dials??? Would you not "disconnect" when visual and hand fly to the RW, especially if it was in gusty wind conditions?? Oh well, perhaps the TSB is on the same page as AC and together they think they have a case.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av8tor Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 minute ago, Kip Powick said: If they met the viz mins why would they still be flying the dials??? Would you not "disconnect" when visual and hand fly to the RW, especially if it was in gusty wind conditions?? Bingo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, blues deville said: Air Canada's lawsuit against Airbus says the flight crew correctly configured the aircraft for landing, including entering the correct flight path angle into the flight computer. "Since the aircraft was correctly configured for approach and landing and the approach was stable, the aircraft should have intercepted the threshold to runway 05 at an altitude of 50 feet," the claim said. "Instead, the aircraft descended at a steeper angle than expected and touched down short of the runway." One serious thing about flying these kinds of approaches in below zero temps is making perfect adjustments to the altitudes for temperature on the published approach. Anything less than perfection will generate a path below 3 degrees when closer to minimums. A much more critical correction than FAF and DH on a cold day ILS. The claim says they were correctly configured, so that may not be the issue. In any case, lowest recorded temperature at YHZ was -8 C on that day. Depending on the non-precision approach being flown, the MDA was either 300 ft or 500 ft agl. The temperature corrections for MDA in that condition would be in the range + 30' and + 50' respectively. Even if they missed the temperature correction completely, the error should not have put them on a trajectory to touch down 600' short of the threshold, especially when you consider that the temperature corrections also require an increase in the FPA. Obviously this is all speculation that will only be (hopefully) cleared up by the TSB report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, Kip Powick said: If I understand this, they must have been on auto pilot, or even hand flying, but following the FPV after they passed MDA. Probably but most FCOMs require a disconnect at 500'agl on NPA's. The aircraft, Airbus or Boeing will follow whatever path generated by the altitudes selected or input at each waypoint on the approach. I have a feeling at this critical phase of flight they were well below the VASI generated 3 degree path on RW05 but didn't see it until it was too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 The A320 autopilot disconnects at MDA - 50' on a non-precision approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, J.O. said: The claim says they were correctly configured, so that may not be the issue. In any case, lowest recorded temperature at YHZ was -8 C on that day. Depending on the non-precision approach being flown, the MDA was either 300 ft or 500 ft agl. The temperature corrections for MDA in that condition would be in the range + 30' and + 50' respectively. Even if they missed the temperature correction completely, the error should not have put them on a trajectory to touch down 600' short of the threshold, especially when you consider that the temperature corrections also require an increase in the FPA. Obviously this is all speculation that will only be (hopefully) cleared up by the TSB report. Correctly configured yes. MCDU loaded. Gear down, landing flaps, on speed/thrust with checklist completed. Doesn't mean it was the corrected path for -8 degrees. That has to be manually input by the pilots using a chart which requires some interpulation. You really want to have good vis at MDA on these approaches as it's your last chance to correct the flight path if your adjustments weren't perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Another factor (and of course change one item and it might never have happened) in the accident is the terrain before the threshold of the runway. Runway 05 sits up much higher than the ground immediately prior. Any normal flat terrain might have generated a GPWS warning before they got this low on the profile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 Hmmmm. Lots of speculation about what is going on. Understandable, but let's remember there are two of our own swept up in this. I would add a couple of thoughts. I know it wasn't meant to be so broad, but for clarity, nothing is "all weather". Everything that flies is tested only so far. If you end up in conditions beyond what the testing supported (either directly or through extrapolation), you may very well end up dealing with the unexpected. Roselawn comes to mind, a grim early case of SLD icing. It is anyone's guess what is at the heart of this legal action, but perhaps this flight found a corner case in the guidance logic that Airbus had not seen. No idea. FPA correction in cold weather is a subject of some debate. I seem to recall, though, that failure to correct for temperature would lead to too shallow an FPA, so you would arrive at MDA closer than planned to the runway, with the potential of being unable to complete the apporach. Too steep an FPA could result if one decided to correct for a temperature much colder than actual. But, in this case, the risk would be arriving at MDA too early to see anything, so would go around when a proper angle might have succeeded. Either way, this event occurred in the visual segment. As to what happened, well, here we wait.... Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 14 minutes ago, Vsplat said: Hmmmm. Lots of speculation about what is going on. Understandable, but let's remember there are two of our own swept up in this. I would add a couple of thoughts. I know it wasn't meant to be so broad, but for clarity, nothing is "all weather". Everything that flies is tested only so far. If you end up in conditions beyond what the testing supported (either directly or through extrapolation), you may very well end up dealing with the unexpected. Roselawn comes to mind, a grim early case of SLD icing. It is anyone's guess what is at the heart of this legal action, but perhaps this flight found a corner case in the guidance logic that Airbus had not seen. No idea. FPA correction in cold weather is a subject of some debate. I seem to recall, though, that failure to correct for temperature would lead to too shallow an FPA, so you would arrive at MDA closer than planned to the runway, with the potential of being unable to complete the apporach. Too steep an FPA could result if one decided to correct for a temperature much colder than actual. But, in this case, the risk would be arriving at MDA too early to see anything, so would go around when a proper angle might have succeeded. Either way, this event occurred in the visual segment. As to what happened, well, here we wait.... Vs Haven't forgotten about "the two" and it's quite possible I know who they are. Tough day for them. But it was also a revenue flight carrying some 100 plus passengers. If you do not make the correct adjustments on each waypoint on this kind of approach in below zero temps you will be low or generate too shallow a path. At MDA it will be too late unless you see the VASI/PAPI and correct immediately (level off or reduce descent rate) or just go-around. I've seen this happen even with temps at slightly above zero. Not hydro line low but three reds and a white low. Not a time to be lazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Kip Powick said: If they met the viz mins why would they still be flying the dials??? Would you not "disconnect" when visual and hand fly to the RW, especially if it was in gusty wind conditions?? Oh well, perhaps the TSB is on the same page as AC and together they think they have a case.... The gusty cross wind was another factor they had to deal with on this crappy night. At MDA the runway wouldn't be directly ahead then add in reduced vis with the snow conditions. PF/PM. Head up, head down. A real coordinated effort. What a lousy situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted March 30, 2017 Share Posted March 30, 2017 2 hours ago, blues deville said: Haven't forgotten about "the two" and it's quite possible I know who they are. Tough day for them. But it was also a revenue flight carrying some 100 plus passengers. I am not sure I follow your logic here. How does the fact that there were passengers on board make it OK to speculate? Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.