Halifax Crash
 

Air Bus A320 crash in Halifax, misses the run way by 1150 ft. Amazingly no one hurt.

I think it hit light towers from being too low. Glad I wasn't on board.http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1427808106.jpg

How can a pilot miss the glide slope that much? Was he sleeping?

Air Canada Airbus A320 plane crash lands at Halifax Airport | Daily Mail Online

Air Canada Airbus A320 'crash': Shocking photos of wrecked plane after 23 people injured in landing disaster - Mirror Online

Where is the landing gear ? Was he so low that he clipped them off ? Sheeet !

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1427815497.jpg

Been a tough week for Airbus...

Glad there were no serious injuries or deaths.

angela

AC 624 crash: MacGillivray Law to file class action lawsuit - Nova Scotia - CBC News


There should also be one against the Airport Authority for being incompetent...

Air Canada AC624 crash: It took 50 minutes to get everyone inside - Nova Scotia - CBC News

Probably texting his girlfriend that he was about to land. Or they were hired on from an Asian airline.

I read it was a localizer/DME approach. DME = Distance Measuring Equipment not Digital Motor Electronics. The localizer aligns you with the runway (worked just fine) and then a certain distance out you start descending and at or before your minimum decision altitude if you see the runway you land else you go around and try again.

Hey pilots, would we be better off solely in the hands of a pilot not relying upon electronics?

Probably a bad DME relay

"Stormy conditions" at the airport, according to one report. Low visibility, possible windshear conditions, LOC approach (no ILS glidepath guidance) slippery runway. Add to that possible pilot fatigue, possible sudden shear which could have induced loss of lift suddenly (tailwind shear), and possible pilot error.

Boeings have a VNAV (vertical navigation guidance) capability that may double for glidepath guidance cue on non-precision instrument approaches such as a Localizer-only (lateral guidance to the runway, no glidepath guidance). Airbus undoubtedly has this same VNAV guidance capability.

Maybe he started descent to the runway too soon and then had a shear that exacerbated being a little low? Maybe it had been a long day with weather delays and they were fatigued? I guess we'll find out.

That runway is served by two instrument approaches - the older style LOC approach, and an RNAV approach. The LOC approach is based on the aircraft tracking a very precise radio beam to the runway, and the RNAV approach is based on GPS. Both are very precise, and if executed properly in the Airbus (or any modern high end aircraft these days), will get the aircraft exactly into the slot to be in a perfect position to land once the runway environment has been visually identified.

For the life of me, I can't understand how the crew managed to allow the aircraft to descend so far below the FMS generated "glideslope" so as to land about 1100 feet short of the runway, never mind the intended touchdown spot which is normally somewhere about 1000 feet down the runway itself, so in reality about 2000 feet short of where it should have touched down.

For reference, I fly the Airbus 320 series for a living, so I'm very familiar with how that approach should have been handled in that jet.

Depends on the pilot. Depends on his (her) flying background, training, proficiency, fatigue, health, mindset (as we just saw in Switzerland). Depends on the equipment/airplane, weather, various external pressures from operational inputs (the airline, the airport air traffic control, etc.)

Some pilots are artists when they hand-fly, some are quick to connect and loathe to disconnect the autopilot. Sometimes the autopilot is handy when you're tired and in bad weather/low ceilings and you click it off at about 500 feet and fly the landing yourself. No big deal.

A good pilot trusts that the equipment is functioning properly but can also identify when it might not be. Sometimes even the good pilots have a bad day and wind up skidding down the runway on their belly. Think of Sullenberger. BIRDS! Thump, thump, thump, thump. Next thing you know it's ten minutes later and they're all climbing onto a ferry in the middle of the Hudson River. Sometimes sh it just happens.

Well said.

Ever been so tired that you didn't care how hard the landing was going to be? WHAM! Land on all three with no airspeed left and she doesn't even bounce because the last ounce of energy, the last knot of flying airspeed was scrubbed off when the wheels, all of them, hit the runway. Fatigue has got to be a factor. Slow to recognize danger is an indicator of fatigue.

Hey 450knotOffice

At what point in the approach would you have to start manually flying the plane.

Reading pprune, Air Canada A320's don't have gps, hence no RNAV.

Well, that depends on the airline's specific procedures, but when the weather is bad, most airlines require the autopilot fly the jet down to the point where the pilots see the runway, or "minimums" (the lowest altitude for that particular approach), at which point they may disconnect the autopilot and continue the descent to land normally. By the way, that's not to imply that the pilots can't fly the approach themselves, it's just considered the best way to fly the approach to the airport. Also, when the autopilot is disconnected, the actual guidance that the autopilot uses is still there for the pilots to use. Clicking off the autopilot does not disconnect the flight guidance and leave the pilots with only "raw data".


Interestingly enough, when looking at the two approaches, the LOC approach allows slightly lower visibility and a slightly lower Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA), so not using the RNAV shouldn't have been an issue. That airplane STILL internally creates a glidepath that the pilot is supposed to follow to the runway.