[url=http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 4f0065.pdf]http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 4f0065.pdf[/url]
As an airbus Pilot myself I can understand that you can mess up an approach - I've done a few myself over the years.
What I can't understand is why a go-around wasn't made - this is a very obvious unstabilised approach.
SOPs not followed and checklists not done - one of the 2 Pilots should have called for a go-around imho.
[b]If things aren't working out - go-around - get everything sorted out and do it correctly the second time.
[/b]Very nearly another Asiana 214[b].
[/b]
AC1804 Montego Bay Report Released
-
Nark1
They lost focus aka situational awareness just inside the FAF. Almost stalled it onto the runway.
It's interesting that Rouge doesn't allow flexibility in selecting landing gear down early to slow down. One of the best tools to slow down an aircraft that doesn't like to slow down and get down.
Moral of the story, don't fly Air Canada if they require a LOC/DME NP approach.
It's interesting that Rouge doesn't allow flexibility in selecting landing gear down early to slow down. One of the best tools to slow down an aircraft that doesn't like to slow down and get down.
Moral of the story, don't fly Air Canada if they require a LOC/DME NP approach.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[img width=500 height=463]http://dl9fvu4r30qs1.cloudfront.net/e1/ ... es-680.jpg[/img]
Once you finish laughing (or crying) at the antics of
the Three Stooges in the cockpit, an interesting data
point:
[quote]At 1429:21, the aircraft touched down hard, with [b]a vertical load factor of 3.12g[/b]
The aircraft [b]did not sustain structural damage[/b] or damage that adversely affected its flight
characteristics ... a flight permit was obtained from Airbus and Transport Canada (TC) to
fly the aircraft to Miami, Florida...
Both left and right shock absorbers were replaced as a precaution, as recommended by Airbus.[/quote]
Despite Larry, Curly and Moe planting that mother on
hard, without any apparent interest in the use of the
throttles, it was undamaged.
This is considerably different than conventional wisdom,
which says that a greaser landing is the highest possible
aspiration of any decent, god-fearing pilot, especially
when coming in hot to a short, wet runway.
Once you finish laughing (or crying) at the antics of
the Three Stooges in the cockpit, an interesting data
point:
[quote]At 1429:21, the aircraft touched down hard, with [b]a vertical load factor of 3.12g[/b]
The aircraft [b]did not sustain structural damage[/b] or damage that adversely affected its flight
characteristics ... a flight permit was obtained from Airbus and Transport Canada (TC) to
fly the aircraft to Miami, Florida...
Both left and right shock absorbers were replaced as a precaution, as recommended by Airbus.[/quote]
Despite Larry, Curly and Moe planting that mother on
hard, without any apparent interest in the use of the
throttles, it was undamaged.
This is considerably different than conventional wisdom,
which says that a greaser landing is the highest possible
aspiration of any decent, god-fearing pilot, especially
when coming in hot to a short, wet runway.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
[quote]don't fly Air Canada if they require a LOC/DME NP approach[/quote]
It's fascinating how many accidents have occurred
recently, when crews don't have a glideslope.
I wonder if anyone will notice? Or care?
[img width=500 height=375]https://i.cbc.ca/1.3014702.1427723176!/ ... ngines.jpg[/img]
Gotta love that "hard landing", as Air Canada
refers to it, in Halifax, when they tried to fly
an approach without a GS.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-inves ... 5h0002.asp
[quote]The aircraft was flying the localizer approach procedure to land on Runway 05 at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport.
A localizer approach only provides pilots with lateral guidance to align the aircraft with the runway for landing.[/quote]
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Ai ... Flight_214]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Ai ... Flight_214[/url]
[quote]The instrument landing system's vertical guidance (glide slope) on runway 28L was out of service, as scheduled, beginning on June 1 (and a Notice To Airmen (NOTAM) to that effect had been issued);
therefore, a Precision ILS approach to this runway was not possible.[/quote]
Jesus. Sound familiar?
I wonder how long until commercial operators are only
allowed to fly automated, straight-in precision approaches.
Not that there's any technical reason that this couldn't
happen, with LPV everywhere.
It's fascinating how many accidents have occurred
recently, when crews don't have a glideslope.
I wonder if anyone will notice? Or care?
[img width=500 height=375]https://i.cbc.ca/1.3014702.1427723176!/ ... ngines.jpg[/img]
Gotta love that "hard landing", as Air Canada
refers to it, in Halifax, when they tried to fly
an approach without a GS.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-inves ... 5h0002.asp
[quote]The aircraft was flying the localizer approach procedure to land on Runway 05 at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport.
A localizer approach only provides pilots with lateral guidance to align the aircraft with the runway for landing.[/quote]
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Ai ... Flight_214]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Ai ... Flight_214[/url]
[quote]The instrument landing system's vertical guidance (glide slope) on runway 28L was out of service, as scheduled, beginning on June 1 (and a Notice To Airmen (NOTAM) to that effect had been issued);
therefore, a Precision ILS approach to this runway was not possible.[/quote]
Jesus. Sound familiar?
I wonder how long until commercial operators are only
allowed to fly automated, straight-in precision approaches.
Not that there's any technical reason that this couldn't
happen, with LPV everywhere.
-
Nark1
The problem with Montego Bay is that it isn't challenging. In terms of "none normal" operations. There isn't mountains, exceedingly steep angle approach etc...
Nor is 8700' of runway an issue for the A319.
Nor is 8700' of runway an issue for the A319.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
John Swallow
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 1:58 pm
"This is considerably different than conventional wisdom, which says that a greaser landing is the highest possible
aspiration of any decent, god-fearing pilot, especially when coming in hot to a short, wet runway."
I retired a few years ago, but who is saying this...? I haven't heard this in my limited circle.
aspiration of any decent, god-fearing pilot, especially when coming in hot to a short, wet runway."
I retired a few years ago, but who is saying this...? I haven't heard this in my limited circle.
-
Colonel
- Posts: 3450
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2015 10:31 am
The pilot was completely behind the aircraft.
He finally got the airspeed under control at 200 feet (!) but
failed to bump the throttles up from idle to maintain his airspeed.
He finally noticed that his airspeed was 20 knots low (!) just
before touchdown and jammed the throttles all the way forward,
but too late. He actually landed in a stall, performing quite the
short field landing.
[quote]At 1429:05, the flight crew confirmed with each other that they were cleared to land. The
aircraft was approximately 0.5 nm from the threshold; the airspeed was decreasing through
134 knots (VAPP). The aircraft was descending through approximately 200 feet above ground
level (agl) with a pitch of 5.6° nose-up, and [b]engine thrust was at idle[/b]; the rate of descent was
570 fpm. At 1429:13, the FWC emitted an aural warning of “one hundred.â€
At 1429:15, approximately 0.2 nm from the threshold, the PF applied nose-up side-stick
input, consistent with the landing flare, as the aircraft descended through 80 feet agl. The
airspeed was 123 knots (11 knots below VAPP), the rate of descent was approximately 650
fpm, and the calculated true angle of attack (AOA) was approximately 9.9°. The normal
technique is to reach a 30-foot flare height at VAPP in a stabilized condition and to begin a
progressive flare while simultaneously closing the thrust levers, in order to be at idle before
touchdown.
At 1429:18, [b]at 40 feet agl, the airspeed was decreasing through approximately 115 knots
(19 knots below VAPP)[/b]. The pitch angle had stabilized at 9.8° nose-up, the rate of descent was
approximately 860 fpm, and the calculated true AOA was approximately 13.8°. At this point,
the aircraft was in a low-energy state. The FWC issued an alert of “thirty,†and the [b]thrust
levers were momentarily advanced to maximum take-off thrust[/b] (take-off/go-around
[TOGA]) power. The engine thrust responded but increased by only 4% before the aircraft
touched down.
During the flare, with full nose-up side-stick input, the nose-up pitch command increased,
the calculated true [b]AOA reached a maximum of approximately 15.3°[/b], and the elevator
position oscillated between 1° and 5° nose-up. This sequence is consistent with alpha
protection, a mode of the aircraft’s high-AOA protection system that enables the PF to pull
the side-stick full aft and achieve the best possible lift, minimizing the risk of aerodynamic
stall or control loss.16 The pitch attitude subsequently began to decrease from the maximum
9.8° nose-up value before touchdown.
At 1429:21, the aircraft touched down hard, with a vertical load factor of 3.12g. The airspeed
was 108 knots, and the pitch angle was 7.7° nose-up. At main gear touchdown, the calculated
distance past the displaced threshold17 was approximately 125 feet.[/quote]
I don't know many people who land jets with no power.
Kind of a Bob Hoover move.
He finally got the airspeed under control at 200 feet (!) but
failed to bump the throttles up from idle to maintain his airspeed.
He finally noticed that his airspeed was 20 knots low (!) just
before touchdown and jammed the throttles all the way forward,
but too late. He actually landed in a stall, performing quite the
short field landing.
[quote]At 1429:05, the flight crew confirmed with each other that they were cleared to land. The
aircraft was approximately 0.5 nm from the threshold; the airspeed was decreasing through
134 knots (VAPP). The aircraft was descending through approximately 200 feet above ground
level (agl) with a pitch of 5.6° nose-up, and [b]engine thrust was at idle[/b]; the rate of descent was
570 fpm. At 1429:13, the FWC emitted an aural warning of “one hundred.â€
At 1429:15, approximately 0.2 nm from the threshold, the PF applied nose-up side-stick
input, consistent with the landing flare, as the aircraft descended through 80 feet agl. The
airspeed was 123 knots (11 knots below VAPP), the rate of descent was approximately 650
fpm, and the calculated true angle of attack (AOA) was approximately 9.9°. The normal
technique is to reach a 30-foot flare height at VAPP in a stabilized condition and to begin a
progressive flare while simultaneously closing the thrust levers, in order to be at idle before
touchdown.
At 1429:18, [b]at 40 feet agl, the airspeed was decreasing through approximately 115 knots
(19 knots below VAPP)[/b]. The pitch angle had stabilized at 9.8° nose-up, the rate of descent was
approximately 860 fpm, and the calculated true AOA was approximately 13.8°. At this point,
the aircraft was in a low-energy state. The FWC issued an alert of “thirty,†and the [b]thrust
levers were momentarily advanced to maximum take-off thrust[/b] (take-off/go-around
[TOGA]) power. The engine thrust responded but increased by only 4% before the aircraft
touched down.
During the flare, with full nose-up side-stick input, the nose-up pitch command increased,
the calculated true [b]AOA reached a maximum of approximately 15.3°[/b], and the elevator
position oscillated between 1° and 5° nose-up. This sequence is consistent with alpha
protection, a mode of the aircraft’s high-AOA protection system that enables the PF to pull
the side-stick full aft and achieve the best possible lift, minimizing the risk of aerodynamic
stall or control loss.16 The pitch attitude subsequently began to decrease from the maximum
9.8° nose-up value before touchdown.
At 1429:21, the aircraft touched down hard, with a vertical load factor of 3.12g. The airspeed
was 108 knots, and the pitch angle was 7.7° nose-up. At main gear touchdown, the calculated
distance past the displaced threshold17 was approximately 125 feet.[/quote]
I don't know many people who land jets with no power.
Kind of a Bob Hoover move.
-
ScudRunner-d95
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 5:08 pm
any landing you can walk away from is a good landing, any landing you can still use the plane after is a great one!
-
Eric Janson
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:31 am
There is nothing difficult about flying Non Precision Approaches with a fly-by-wire airbus imho
In the simplest modes you can fly a Track and a Vertical Angle. You don't need to worry about wind.
In the most complex mode the aircraft will automatically follow the lateral and vertical profile. It's very similar to flying an ILS.
Most approaches are coded with a 3 degree descent angle in the navigation database - the aircraft will display a pseudo glideslope. You just need to check the height vs. distance on the approach plate to ensure you're on the correct vertical profile.
It is all designed to be easy.
There may be an issue where people never get to do Non Precision approaches. I don't remember doing any outside the Simulator when I flew A330/A340 in S Asia. Interestingly NDB approaches were prohibited on this fleet.
My present company has just started doing RNP Approaches. We are not allowed to use LPV minimums (yet) just LNAV/VNAV minimums. There's a lot of preparation involved in these approaches - the ones I've done in the aircraft put us on the runway centerline and on the correct profile. It's GPS based so no navaids are required.
Because my company operates globally we regularly do Non Precision Approaches. I'd say about 40% of the approaches I do are Non Precision.
The report doesn't say when these Pilots had last flown a Non Precision Approach - certainly possible they hadn't done one in a long time.
In the simplest modes you can fly a Track and a Vertical Angle. You don't need to worry about wind.
In the most complex mode the aircraft will automatically follow the lateral and vertical profile. It's very similar to flying an ILS.
Most approaches are coded with a 3 degree descent angle in the navigation database - the aircraft will display a pseudo glideslope. You just need to check the height vs. distance on the approach plate to ensure you're on the correct vertical profile.
It is all designed to be easy.
There may be an issue where people never get to do Non Precision approaches. I don't remember doing any outside the Simulator when I flew A330/A340 in S Asia. Interestingly NDB approaches were prohibited on this fleet.
My present company has just started doing RNP Approaches. We are not allowed to use LPV minimums (yet) just LNAV/VNAV minimums. There's a lot of preparation involved in these approaches - the ones I've done in the aircraft put us on the runway centerline and on the correct profile. It's GPS based so no navaids are required.
Because my company operates globally we regularly do Non Precision Approaches. I'd say about 40% of the approaches I do are Non Precision.
The report doesn't say when these Pilots had last flown a Non Precision Approach - certainly possible they hadn't done one in a long time.
-
Fendermandan
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:54 pm
I heard from someone that drivers can get canned if they go 10 kts below VAPP. What happened to these guys?
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 4 Replies
- 2233 Views
-
Last post by Colonel
-
- 0 Replies
- 79 Views
-
Last post by Scudrunner
-
- 0 Replies
- 1137 Views
-
Last post by News
