blues deville Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 35 minutes ago, Vsplat said: 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 Vsplat.....just my point of view. No anger, nothing personal or any other issues. You mentioned "two of our own". I would also be concerned about the passengers on this flight that belong to someone as well. Many of whom will not fly again as a result of the crash. Others are apparently dealing with permanent injuries. The pilots involved here will have a permanent memory of the event but will probably fly again. It's what they do. So my logic is you cannot just feel for "our own". Without the "others" our jobs don't exist. This is an airline employee forum. Issues related to this business are discussed, debated, reviewed and sometimes beaten to death (guilty). This is not a fun topic to discuss but it's in the news today because the airline involved has taken serious legal action against an aircraft manufacturer it has been associated with for over 20 years. I'm not home to watch Lisa Laflamme but unless Trump has tweeted something stupid today, I'll bet this is her lead CTV story tonight. blues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 4 hours 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 !!!! But he had his hat on, correctly slanted, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 4 hours 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 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.... That's actually a great question, Kip. On many dirty approaches I've flown, if George is doing a good job, especially in a crosswind, I've done inside/outside scanning once the decision to LAND was made. How many times have "we" (those here) disconnected only to lose the crosswind correction and get somewhat destabilized in either or both horizontal/vertical tracking? I know I have, hence over the years, if George is working, keep him working until you need to take control ONCE THE DECISION AT MDA/DH TO LAND HAS BEEN MADE. I honestly have no clue what happened in Halifax. My initial thinking was an altimeter setting error, combined with temperature correction error but an interim report by the TSB ruled that theory out. My best guess is the folks who, to this day, know why they crashed short of the runway, let alone the airport boundary, are the two pilots operating the flight. I SINCERELY HOPE they are not sought out to be blamed/punished but to be encouraged to be honest and open about what they were thinking and why they did/did not do what they did/did not. Unfortunately, in this day and age of aviation related litigation, that might just never happen. What a sad, sorry road we are going down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 The FPA correction for cold weather increases the FPA. If the temperature is below 0º, then one corrects the FPA by adding a factor...eg charted FPA -3.0º, becomes -3.3º FPA. If you don't make the correction, the charted/indicated/selected -3.0º FPA is true -2.7º FPA. The ideal FPA has you reach MDA in a stabilized descent where (if visual) you can continue the same stabilized descent all the way to touchdown. If you failed to make the FPA cold weather correction one would reach MDA closer to the runway than the "ideal" point, and therefore you would have increase your rate of descent to achieve a touchdown in the touchdown zone.... If you made too great a correction, then one would be below the ideal FPA and arrive at MDA further back than the nominal point. None of this explains why the crew descended below MDA so far back...were there technical issues (the AC lawsuit seems to suggest this) or other contributing factors. To me, the key unanswered question is what factors contributed to the crew descending below MDA (apparently so far back). The TSB report will no-doubt address this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conehead Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 3 hours ago, blues deville said: I'm not home to watch Lisa Laflamme but unless Trump has tweeted something stupid today, I'll bet this is her lead CTV story tonight. I'm surprised, she didn't mention it al all. Top story was the Bombardier executive pay. Nothing about the lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 7 hours ago, Vsplat said: ............................the risk would be arriving at MDA too early to see anything, so would go around............................ I'm sorry but I can't seem to follow that train of thought.. If one crosses the beacon and descends to MDA and is still not visual one should hold MDA until the timing or DME readout indicates you are at MAP. If one reaches MDA early and are on track, one would not normally consider going around until at least one of the other indicators (DME or timing) indicates you are at MAP..(no visual acquisition) . ...................or am I not reading your intent correctly.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 3 hours ago, anonymous said: The FPA correction for cold weather increases the FPA. If the temperature is below 0º, then one corrects the FPA by adding a factor...eg charted FPA -3.0º, becomes -3.3º FPA. If you don't make the correction, the charted/indicated/selected -3.0º FPA is true -2.7º FPA. The ideal FPA has you reach MDA in a stabilized descent where (if visual) you can continue the same stabilized descent all the way to touchdown. Sorry my posts reference the use of VNAV method, not FPA. I agree. A temp corrected FPA should increase the actual FPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 2 hours ago, Kip Powick said: I'm sorry but I can't seem to follow that train of thought.. If one crosses the beacon and descends to MDA and is still not visual one should hold MDA until the timing or DME readout indicates you are at MAP. If one reaches MDA early and are on track, one would not normally consider going around until at least one of the other indicators (DME or timing) indicates you are at MAP..(no visual acquisition) . ...................or am I not reading your intent correctly.? Some interesting reading. http://www.atac.ca/web/images/Documents/SCDA Approach Briefing .ppt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 3 hours ago, conehead said: I'm surprised, she didn't mention it al all. Top story was the Bombardier executive pay. Nothing about the lawsuit. Oh that little corporate corruption thing? Hey, who hasn't done that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homerun Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 14 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. 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. Information I have is that temp corrections were made and the crew dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's. Hence the suit against Airbus. Also, I have heard (unconfirmed) that the papi/vasis were either buried in snow or turned off as per tower MANOPS given prevailing conditions. Either way, they were not visible/available. (Again unconfirmed until we see the final report) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Homerun said: Information I have is that temp corrections were made and the crew dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's. Hence the suit against Airbus. Also, I have heard (unconfirmed) that the papi/vasis were either buried in snow or turned off as per tower MANOPS given prevailing conditions. Either way, they were not visible/available. (Again unconfirmed until we see the final report) I don't think I've said anywhere that they did not apply all required corrections. My posts are discussing the issues of cold weather operations when conducting NPA's. If what you say is true, accepting an approach clearance to a runway with those visual approach items u/s would be a concern for investigators. Also of great interest to a lawyer representing any of the passengers who were injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Rich Pulman said: Nope, holding MDA until the MAP in a commercial jet is not appropriate. I guess the B737-200 wasn't really classified as a commercial jet then. Did many a NPA, "wabush-GooseBay-Deerlake" approaches where we maintained MDA until visual and then landed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 29 minutes ago, blues deville said: It what you say is true, accepting an approach clearance to a runway with those visual approach items u/s would be a concern for investigators. Also of great interest to a lawyer representing any of the passengers who were injured. And that is the concern I have been trying to underscore with every single speculatory thread I have seen. While it is natural to want to express one's feelings and thoughts about something like this, doing so in a public forum like this one, whose members have some depth in the subject, must be weighed carefully. The press, and other interested parties, come here and we know it. For example, there is absolutely no reason to highlight a theoretical, unverified comment about the role of the PAPIs, whether the crew knew which lights were and were not visible, and whether or not they decided to accept an approach with less than required lighting. Yet the theory is virtually underlined as being of great interest to a lawyer. There is already a lawsuit underway and some of the claims are pretty out there. I think it is a disservice to feed that fire. But that is my opinion, and this forum allows us all the freedom to express same... Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, Kip Powick said: I guess the B737-200 wasn't really classified as a commercial jet then. Did many a NPA, "wabush-GooseBay-Deerlake" approaches where we maintained MDA until visual and then landed. He is incorrect. The 737-200 you flew did not have the avionics to conduct the method of NPA's being discussed. And make no mistake, the 737-200 was the beginning of one of, if not the best selling "commercial airliners" built by Boeing. VNAV operation requires some kind of flight management system and display, such as in most modern glass cockpit aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Kip, what you are describing is a version of the old 'dive and drive' policy. Large aircraft struggled with step downs so a constant descent to MDA resulted, followed by the level off if required as you describe. This was termed by some as 'constant descent', but it was not. The visual segment was often flown at a different angle once the decision to land was made. Contrast the above with the constant descent angle non precision approach policy in place today. CDA approaches hold virtually the same flight path angle from the FAF (or designed descent point) until they cross the threshold. MDA (plus an additive when needed) is treated like a decision height. Either you have the required visibility to continue on the same descent angle to land, or you go around. So, too steep a CDA selection, you arrive at MDA too soon, too far away from the threshold to see it. Nothing seen, go around. Too shallow a CDA and you may break out way too tight, having to steepen the remainder of the flight path angle too much in order to cross the threshold at the design height, so go around. I hope this clears up the difference. Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Blues, while VNAV approaches are a great thing, CDA approaches do not require any specific avionics. You can actually fly a perfectly safe, and legal, constant descent angle approach using only (temperature corrected) vertical speed. It has been done on the B737, DC9 and RJ at Air Canada. Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 15 minutes ago, Vsplat said: And that is the concern I have been trying to underscore with every single speculatory thread I have seen. While it is natural to want to express one's feelings and thoughts about something like this, doing so in a public forum like this one, whose members have some depth in the subject, must be weighed carefully. The press, and other interested parties, come here and we know it. For example, there is absolutely no reason to highlight a theoretical, unverified comment about the role of the PAPIs, whether the crew knew which lights were and were not visible, and whether or not they decided to accept an approach with less than required lighting. Yet the theory is virtually underlined as being of great interest to a lawyer. There is already a lawsuit underway and some of the claims are pretty out there. I think it is a disservice to feed that fire. But that is my opinion, and this forum allows us all the freedom to express same... Vs So what you saying is any lurking press or other interested parties are reading everything except your posts on this forum. Yesterday one of our national airlines made a very public statement with regards to a serious accident involving an A320. I don't think this little forum of ours is going change the course of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 I am certain the press reads whatever they want. What is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, Vsplat said: Kip, what you are describing is a version of the old 'dive and drive' policy. Alrighty then....you are probably correct ....the good old days where pilots actually "flew" the machines. It's very difficult to become 'fossilized' at such a young age ..but it certainly was a lot more fun back then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 1 minute ago, Vsplat said: I am certain the press reads whatever they want. What is your point? Vsplat ( and your handle is one of my favourites here) my point is expect to hear other points of view on this or any public forum. I doubt any lawyer will use information found here to help argue any legal case. I know I wouldn't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st27 Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 The co. made, what used to be a cloud breaking non precision approach, into science. Things have changed...we are now unable to do an ndb approach unless we have dme on a non gps aircraft. It's not like the old days! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Blues, I wouldn't either, on that we agree. The sad fact is that there is a certain sub-class of humanity that will draw inspiration for financially motivated assault from anywhere they can. Outrageous claims get their start somewhere. I'll leave it there, I think we have handily thumped this aspect of things. Of course, we would not have to have such a discussion if the TSB released its report in a timely manner, then we could at least talk about what actually happened. Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 11 minutes ago, Vsplat said: Blues, while VNAV approaches are a great thing, CDA approaches do not require any specific avionics. You can actually fly a perfectly safe, and legal, constant descent angle approach using only (temperature corrected) vertical speed. It has been done on the B737, DC9 and RJ at Air Canada. Vs I guess the CP at CAIL was old school and it worked. When my previous airline introduced 757's we conducted all NPA's using only VS. No VNAV and the 757 did not have FPV. Finally after many meetings with TC we received approval to use VNAV as designed by Boeing. I did the demo flight in an AC 767 sim while TC sat and watched. Even after the successful display of the procedure, the TC inspector still said he didn't think it was safe but would review our request for approval. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 4 minutes ago, Vsplat said: I'll leave it there, I think we have handily thumped this aspect of things. Of course, we would not have to have such a discussion if the TSB released its report in a timely manner, then we could at least talk about what actually happened. Vs 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted March 31, 2017 Share Posted March 31, 2017 Maybe a different thread at this point. Our approval required two things: temperature correction for the target vertical speed and verification that the pitch down technique resulted in the aircraft capturing the expected flight path close to where the crew thought they were. Like the Airbus selected FPA, vertical speed is unanchored. Start in the wrong place or at the wrong height and you are not going to end up where you need to... 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.