Guest leftbase Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Nice to hear this doesn't only happen to the pilots with a "P" in front of their license number... Apparently a 172 in Vernon yesterday was on a left base for runway 23 in CYVK (Vernon). Imagine the pilot's surprise to see a 319 with a big maple leaf on the tail on a right base for the same runway! (The Cessna gave way...) Next R/T: "ACA183 is in the go around". Said Airbus landed uneventfully shortfully thereafter on runway 15 in CYLW (Kelowna), which incidentally was where they were flightplanned to from CYYZ... We're all human... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CP Bob Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 For the record, ACA 0183 did not operate yesterday, August 25. More innacurate G&M reporting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CP Bob Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 For the record, ACA 183 did NOT operate yesterday, August 25. Sounds like more inaccurate G&M reporting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pitstacker Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 The story is true! It was on Saturday though. With the forest fires south of YLW, there are NO IFR approaches available into YLW. Only visual approaches are allowed right now. I guess they got lost somehow. That's the reason why AC183 has been cancelled every day since! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 Well, when you send them flatlanders in to the hills these things happen;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leftbase Posted August 26, 2003 Share Posted August 26, 2003 You're right, the incident date was August 23. The incident report date was August 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stem Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 The story is not true...misinterpretation of events led people who do not know any better to assume the 319 was landing in YQV. The GA was initiated over YQV (you just happen to fly over YQV on visual from the east sometimes) for other reasons. Some of you guys will believe anything..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LOCBCVORDME1rwy33 Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 haha Stem, were you in the left or right seat or just a buddy? On a Vis App. would you have your gear out flaps 40 and G/S around 140kias and be at 500-1000ft. AGL when you are over a landmark that is 17 miles from the real runway, not to mention to do thius in mountainous terrain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leftbase Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 I guess Transport will too... Occurrence Information Occurrence Type: Incident Occurrence Date: 2003/08/23 Occurrence Time: 1911 Z Day Or Night: Fatalities: 0 Injuries: Canadian Aerodrome ID: CYVK Aerodrome Name: Vernon Occurrence Location: Vernon Province: British Columbia Country: CANADA World Area: North America Reported By: NAV CANADA AOR Number: 31861 TSB Class Of Investigation: TSB Occurrence No.: Event Information Conflict - potential Navigation assistance Navigation error Weather - visibility Aircraft Information CDN Registration: C-GQDJ Foreign Registration: Flight #: Aircraft Category: Aeroplane Country of Registration: CANADA Make: CESSNA Model: 152 Year Built: 1980 Amateur Built: No Engine Make: AVCO LYCOMING Engine Model: O-235-L2C Engine Type: Reciprocating Gear Type: Phase of Flight: Unknown Damage: No Damage Owner: OKANAGAN AVIATION SERVICES LTD Operator: Operator Type: Commercial CDN Registration: Foreign Registration: Flight #: ACA183 Aircraft Category: Aeroplane Country of Registration: CANADA Make: AIRBUS Model: A319 112 Year Built: Amateur Built: No Engine Make: Engine Model: Engine Type: Gear Type: Phase of Flight: Approach Damage: No Damage Owner: Operator: AIR CANADA (5262) Operator Type: Detail Information User Name: Hughes, Neil Date: 2003/08/25 Further Action Required: Yes O.P.I.: Commercial & Business Aviation Narrative: ACA183 an A319 Airbus was cleared for the visual approach to Kelowna from Toronto. The Tower observed ACA183 was at an unusually low altitude for his position and asked the aircraft for his altitude. The aircraft advised 3000'. Next call from the aircraft was ""ACA183 is in the go around"". The Tower advised that ACA183 was at the wrong airport and advised the position of the Kelowna airport. Shortly thereafter the aircraft reported having the airport in sight and continuing with the visual approach to Runway 15 in Kelowna. Aircraft landed 1857Z. At 1900Z the pilot of GQDJ,a C172, called the Tower from the Vernon airport and reported that he had been on left base for Runway 23 at Vernon when he observed an Airbus on right base for Runway 23, to which he gave way, and observed the aircraft in the missed approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marion Vanderlubbe Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 TC seems really interested in this "not true" story. Curious though, why would you fly over Yorkton (YQV) on a visual to Kelowna? Some of you guys will try to cover up anything... Occurrence Information Occurrence Type: Incident Occurrence Date: 2003/08/23 Occurrence Time: 1911 Z Fatalities: 0 Injuries: Canadian Aerodrome ID: CYVK Aerodrome Name: Vernon Occurrence Location: Vernon Province: British Columbia Country: CANADA World Area: North America Reported By: NAV CANADA AOR Number: 31861 TSB Class Of Investigation: TSB Occurrence Event Information Weather - visibility Navigation assistance Conflict - potential Navigation error Aircraft Information CDN Registration: C-GQDJ Aircraft Category: Aeroplane Country of Registration: CANADA Make: CESSNA Model: 152 Phase of Flight: Unknown Damage: No Damage Owner: OKANAGAN AVIATION SERVICES LTD Operator Type: Commercial CDN Registration: Flight #: ACA183 Aircraft Category: Aeroplane Country of Registration: CANADA Make: AIRBUS Model: A319 112 Phase of Flight: Approach Operator: AIR CANADA (5262) Detail Information User Name: Hughes, Neil Date: 2003/08/25 Further Action Required: Yes O.P.I.: Commercial & Business Aviation Narrative: ACA183 an A319 Airbus was cleared for the visual approach to Kelowna from Toronto. The Tower observed ACA183 was at an unusually low altitude for his position and asked the aircraft for his altitude. The aircraft advised 3000'. Next call from the aircraft was ""ACA183 is in the go around"". The Tower advised that ACA183 was at the wrong airport and advised the position of the Kelowna airport. Shortly thereafter the aircraft reported having the airport in sight and continuing with the visual approach to Runway 15 in Kelowna. Aircraft landed 1857Z. At 1900Z the pilot of GQDJ,a C152, called the Tower from the Vernon airport and reported that he had been on left base for Runway 23 at Vernon when he observed an Airbus on right base for Runway 23, to which he gave way, and observed the aircraft in the missed approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marion Vanderlubbe Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Sorry about the redundancy, you beat me to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stem Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 Wasnt in either seat but talked to one of them. 500-1000 feet hey?...they called 3000' which is 1500-2000' AGL there... no? Considering the smoke in the valley maybe they had to be that low to stay visual. Not sure how the 172 determined right base for 23 but knowing the map in the 'bus and the crew I'll take their word over the weekend warrior. sorry about the YQV!!- you know what i meant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikePapaKilo Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 The CADORS report is interesting reading. Thanks MVL Then "stem" says: ...but knowing the map in the bus.... It's entirely possible that this will become a new CRM classic. Somewhere between the approach briefing before top of descent, the in-range check, and the apparent assumption of a final approach track that was different by about 80 degrees from the final track at YLW, some semblance of SA was apparently lost. How could this happen, with the "map on the bus", an almost 90 degree ADF variance to the LW beacon, perhaps two flags on the ILS, and the DME. At 3,000 feet ILS and DME reception at YLW can be spotty, depending upon which hill the airplane is being shadowed by. Notwithstanding reduced viz - and that's when we make most use of the map and other toys, how could this event unfold to the point of a go-around ? Curious indeed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stem Posted August 27, 2003 Share Posted August 27, 2003 yes it is curious but...right base for 23 would indicate a hdg of 150 +/- 30 (for accuracy from the 172) which is entirely possible for a track to ylw rwy 15...3000 could be construed as low on a normal day but the visiblity was hampered and a visual approach to 15 ylw has no altitude restrictions that I can think of apart from SOPs. Vernon apt is not on our charts. Also interesting is the timing of ATC's wrong airport call and the GA call...the story related to me had the GA call being made first, and not for thinking they were too high or at the wrong airport. Give the guys the benefit of the doubt for now at least and forget the conspiracy theories...cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Marion Vanderlubbe Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 Now there's a strange version. You're saying that they maybe descended to 3000 to get visual, where the min sector is over 5000? That with the map they would know where they were, but Vernon isn't on your charts? That they took up a heading to track to YLW15, but displaced it several miles to the east. That could put them planning to head down over Kalamalka, but then they blow through an aerodrome traffic zone without talking to a soul. The Cessna's based at Vernon, I'd bet a guy there doing circuits has a much better idea of his position that someone who doesn't even have the airport on his chart. Okay, everything is hunky-dory, they're motoring along fat, dumb and happy and suddenly have to do a go-around. This is normal? What do you do go-arounds for, besides missed approaches (hmm, not here, not even at the airport yet), terrain clearance (couldn't be that, they know exactly where they are, right?) or traffic conflict (blowing through someone else's traffic pattern maybe? The Cessna had already taken action according to him, maybe that wasn't apparent to your buddies?). If they were where they were supposed to be, why the need for the G-word? Wanna play "spot the violation?" The Marion Vanderlubbe Firebombing Society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ECB Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 Coulda just been a simple, honest mistake. I'm they didn't mean to and won't ever again, end of story. At least they went around and didn't land. There are a few cases years back of foriegn carriers landing at Downsview instead of Malton and Cartierville instead of Dorval (er, Trudeau Intl) and how about that Western Airlines dude, they had a holiday for him! A few years back I was having a friendly visit with the guys in Gander Tower. As I chatted with the lone Controller I noticed the Aeroflot IL-86 clared to land on rwy 31 seemed a bit odd. The Controller shook his head, picked up the mike and casually said, "Aeroflot, pull up and go-around, your on final for rwy27" which is about 3000'. Seeing my jaw drop he said, "oh, they do that s&%t all the time", hotlined the Terminal unit and went on as if nothing had hapened. He was right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ECB Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 Coulda just been a simple, honest mistake. I'm sure they didn't mean to and won't ever again, end of story. At least they went around and didn't land. There are a few cases years back of foriegn carriers landing at Downsview instead of Malton and at Cartierville instead of Dorval (er, Trudeau Intl). And how about that Western Airlines dude, they had a holiday for him in Montana or some place! A few years back I was having a friendly visit with the guy in Gander Tower. As I chatted with the lone Controller I noticed the Aeroflot IL-86 cleared to land on rwy 31 seemed a bit odd. The Controller shook his head, picked up the mike and casually said, "Aeroflot, pull up and go-around, your on final for rwy 27" (which is about 3000'). Seeing my jaw drop he said, "oh, they do that s&%t all the time", hotlined the Terminal unit and went on as if nothing had happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stem Posted August 28, 2003 Share Posted August 28, 2003 no thats not what Im saying but you seem to have the coffee shop version all locked up in that mind of yours. Ever missed because things weren't working out as planned initially, ever flown into conditions where the vis was decreasing the closer you got to the airport, ever had such a lousy ride with 120 pax in valley that you thought it best to get out? There's more reasons to GA than they mention in your From the Ground Up Manual so head back to the coffee shop and talk about something else...hope you follow this incident up...my money is on the crew being cleared. I'm outta here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted August 30, 2003 Share Posted August 30, 2003 Yes, as a matter of fact I have, but there were no Transport or NavCanada reports written about it. Back to the coffee shop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.