← Back to Squawk list

Air Canada Suing Airbus

Übermittelt vor 7 Jahren

HALIFAX -- Airbus's negligence contributed to a crash landing at Halifax Stanfield International Airport two years ago, Air Canada claims in a lawsuit against the French aircraft manufacturer. (www.bnn.ca) Mehr...

Nick Blazanovic

30 Mitgliederkommentare

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Jeff Phipps vor 7 Jahren 6

I think this is merely legal strategy due to AC being sued by passengers from this accident. It will undoubtedly be used to push the liability argument from the operator to the manufacturer. If AC truly thought this is a systemic problem with the aircraft, would they not ground them all until a fix (software update) has been produced?

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Report

Victor Engel vor 7 Jahren -2

But now they KNOW....

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

djames225 vor 7 Jahren 2

Here is the Transport Safety Board Canada report so far..you can keep up to date by using the Aviation Investigation number http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/aviation/2015/a15h0002/a15h0002.asp
And here is a copy of the lawsuit instigation some has mentioned: http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/aviation/2015/a15h0002/a15h0002.asp

From what many have commented on here, and I apoligize as apparently I'm wrong in my speculation according to them, that on a localizer approach, the aircraft couldn't give mis-information as to glide slope angle or terrain distance.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Report

joel wiley vor 7 Jahren 2

Thanks for posting. Speculations are hypotheses subject to verification and change.

The link for the lawsuit duplicates that of the investigation. I think the copy of the lawsuit link failed and the previously copied link (investigation) was in cache. At least that's what usually happens to me.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

djames225 vor 7 Jahren 1

Dang it..thanks for pointing that out joel, about the second link mistake..and as far as I can see, that is as far as the investigation report has given so far as it is still an on-going investigation.
Here is the correct 1st phase lawsuit link..it too is ongoing and is in preliminary:
http://wagnerslaw.webprestige.ca/_library/20160329_affmoffat.pdf

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

Hector Lopez vor 7 Jahren 3

Blame the airplane manufacturer, and everybody else they can think, looks to me like the crew didn't know how to maintain control.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Report

djames225 vor 7 Jahren 0

Wasn't a situation of maintaining control, was a situation that flight systems were inaccurate at the time of the incident.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

vector4traffic vor 7 Jahren 2

At 100ft you're required to be able to see the runway in order to continue the landing but if you're further away from the threshold than you're supposed to be isn't that an automatic go-around?

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

Hector Lopez vor 7 Jahren 1

Seems to me that we have a few pilots out there struggling to interpret data while flying the airplanes. Too dependent in automation and multi function systems that they simply forget the basics.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

Highflyer1950 vor 7 Jahren 1

Explain which inaccuracy of "flight systems" are you referring to?

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

captoats vor 7 Jahren 3

Sounds like a bunch of ambulance chasing lawyers looking for deep pockets to mine. The crew was conducting a non precision approach to whatever minimums applied. If the runway environment isn't in sight at minimums, you go around. In the old days, this would have been a dive and drive approach; decend quickly to the MDA and drive in at that altitude until the missed approach point where you either land or go around. Not a very stable way to conduct an approach in a large transport category aircraft. Today with GPS and FMS systems, we have the ability to create a simulated glide path angle from the final approach fix to the runway which will give the pilot a stable decent path to the runway, similar to a glide slope but not as precise, hence the non-precision approach. If the angle is mis-entered or vertical speed is erroneously entered instead, you still have the MDA minimums to adhere to before continuing descent to the runway IF YOU VISUALLY HAVE IT IN SIGHT. Having flown the A320 for 18 years, I suspect this will turn out to be more of a pilot induced accident. Just my opinion of course

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Report

joel wiley vor 7 Jahren 2

Does the AC legal department chase ambulances?

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

bentwing60 vor 7 Jahren 0

Regardless of who is chasing whose ambulance, when you get to the MDA and MAP you don't go any lower without the strong belief that you can land. That would be runway or environment in sight! If they were flying a LPV approach, the mins. are usually the same as an ILS or slightly higher with a corresponding Vis. requirement. And the MDA and MAP would be at the same place and they didn't get there (to the MAP) before they hit the dirt. Regardless of the lawyers, those two guys got to the MDA and didn't stop the airplane from descending. And they obviously didn't see the runway till the bounce.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

Highflyer1950 vor 7 Jahren 2

Yup.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

Highflyer1950 vor 7 Jahren 1

That particular fin # was one of the first buses delivered,. AC painted in the Raptors colour scheme and if memory serves, delivered without GPS.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

indy2001 vor 7 Jahren 2

This case will be interesting to watch. It's not the first time that an Airbus aircraft seemed to have a will of its own. An acquaintance who flew Airbuses before retiring said the most common thing that he heard as instructor pilot was "What the ---- is it doing now?"

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Report

Highflyer1950 vor 7 Jahren 2

Good point, however the aircraft will only do what you input. The majority of incidents that you refer to are, not understanding how the info that you just inputed into the FMS will affect the aircraft, especially when you are expecting something different. Hence, " what is it doing now" and the proverbial...." it's doing it again"! I certainly can't say for sure, but on this particular a/c, I believe the same control knob controls FPA (flight path angle) and Rate of Descent. If one incorrectly set FPA instead of Rate of Descent on a Non- Prescision approach and blew through MDA, then about all you have going for you is EGPWS, oh, and two pilots with four eyes!v

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

indy2001 vor 7 Jahren 3

It sounds like this Air Canada crew would beg to differ with you. They apparently input the approach correctly, at least as far as they know. Since Air Canada is suing Airbus, it would seem to me that their actions have been verified.

BTW the instructor pilot I cited was talking about crews that have been flying the Airbus for many years, not rookies. The quote was referring to his time with them in the simulator and on checkrides.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

Highflyer1950 vor 7 Jahren 1

I get it. The sim is the most common place where fingers are constantly pressing the wrong buttons because everyone is in a hurry and under a fair amount of pressure and it happens to guys with thousands of hours on the equipment.......been there, done it. As I said before, no one has stated,yet anyways, whether the crew were using FPA or V/S on this approach?

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

william baker vor 7 Jahren 2

Didn't this happen when the airbus a320 came out on a Air France demonstration flight where the plane wasn't claiming but gradually descending into some tress and crashed straight and level with the engines spolled up to max power???

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

mike SUT vor 7 Jahren 5

No....that was because they set the altitude in the mode control panel to 100 feet and never turned off the flight directors when the power was pushed up to try climb. The aircraft said "but you want me to maintain 100 feet" and continued to pull power back to idle in order to maintain the requested altitude since they were already there. Eventually they ran into the trees. The "joke" in the 320 community was that it was really caused by multiple bird strikes.....unfortunately the birds were still sitting in their nests when they were hit by the plane. Sadly lives were lost. Had they turned the flight directors off, they could have climbed because the system wouldn't have had a target altitude to try maintain, and the autothrust would have maintained TOGA power until the pilots pulled it back.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

william baker vor 7 Jahren 1

Ahh gotcha. I heard about t but didn't go in depth on it fully. Thanks for the information.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

Highflyer1950 vor 7 Jahren 3

This may clear it up.
The DFDR was read the same night by the Brétigny sur Orge Flight Test Centre:

12:43:44 the aircraft begins its descent (initially at 300 feet per minute) from 2000 feet with 'Flaps 1'.
12:44:14 the engine power is reduced to flight idle. Three seconds later, the undercarriage is extended. A further 10 seconds later, 'Flaps 2' is selected.
12:44:45 'Flaps 3' is selected as the aircraft descends through 500 feet at an airspeed of 177 knots.
12:45:06 the aircraft descends through 200 feet at an airspeed of 155 knots.
12:45:15 the aircraft, now at 90 feet, begins a deviation to the right (maximum bank angle: 30°) to line up with the grass strip 34R.
12:45:23 the aircraft completes the deviation at a height of 46 feet and an airspeed of 141 knots. During this manoeuvre, a fluctuation in the radio altimeter height corresponds to the aircraft passing over a patch of trees. (Before and after this fluctuation, the readings of the radio altimeter and those of the barometric altimeter match perfectly). Three seconds later, the aircraft descends through 40 feet at an airspeed of 132 knots. The Captain begins to flare the aircraft (he lifts the nose 4°) to level its flight. The aircraft levels off at 30 feet.
12:45:30 nose-up attitude increases to 7°.
12:45:35 nose-up attitude is now 15° and speed is 122 knots. TOGA power is applied. Four seconds later, the aircraft begins striking the treetops.[3]

Too little, too late.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

Highflyer1950 vor 7 Jahren 2

I can't figure out why they did not fly the LOC/DME 32 the more into the wind runway and the minimums are slightly lower, unless the runway was unavailable due to contamination (snow)? Flying the backcourse LOC/NDB with that strong a x-wind would have definitely obscured the Captain's ability to visually orient himself on a non-precision approach, however the EGPWS should have saved the day if reacted to quickly. Not an Airbus fan but I don't think the airplane is at fault here!

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Report

vector4traffic vor 7 Jahren 1

I don't understand, was the plane in auto-land? If the pilots can see that the plane is off the glideslope so close to the runway then why didn't they TOGA?

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Report

captoats vor 7 Jahren 3

I flew the 320 for 18 years and it's a marvelous machine so I can speak with authority. There is no auto land capibility on a non precision approach, which this was

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

Pileits vor 7 Jahren 0

RETOD...RETOD..RETOD

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Report

Christian Parada vor 7 Jahren 0

"The document said it did not advise that in certain conditions, the plane's flight path angle could be affected by external forces."

Are you telling me that wind can affect a plane's performance?! NONSENSE!!!

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Report

djames225 vor 7 Jahren -1

It can if it plays havock with instumentation..if all vectors are correctly entered and the ILS was functionig correctly, according to what is being said, sounds to me like the flight system didn't conceive the proper threshold altitude for IFR...if you can't use VFR, then you are relying heavily on proper IFR call outs and instrumentaion

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

djames225 vor 7 Jahren 0

And I'm being down voted because of my speculation and am being told electronics can never make a mistake?..sorry.

Antwort ↓•Permalink•Übergeordnetes Element•Report

Anmelden

Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?

Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf FlightAware.com zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..

Schließen