Aviation Appreciation Station

[KelVarnsen]

I should have worded it better. I should have said it could have been a factor, not the cause.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by KelVarnsen

It be much cooler if it was 3 787's doing flybys.

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

How about a AN-225, an A380, a 747-800, and a 787?

I don't get you airliner guys

That's like saying you'd prefer a brand new Kenworth and a Greyhound to drive by you on the street instead of say a Mercedes SL 55 AMG. Sure, older than a bus and a semi, but a lot cooler, no?

[jeffman]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I don't get you airliner guys

That's like saying you'd prefer a brand new Kenworth and a Greyhound to drive by you on the street instead of say a Mercedes SL 55 AMG. Sure, older than a bus and a semi, but a lot cooler, no?

I agree to an extent. Seeing a AN 225, AN 124 IL 76, C2 or Y20 would be h3lla cool to see in Canada though due to rarity

[Ryan Coke]

Originally Posted by Acey

Yeah it's non-precision but in perfectly clear weather they should be able to land the airplane visually with no problems.

Mech failure notwithstanding, under no circumstance will the probable cause of the accident in the final NTSB report be stated as "the probable cause of this accident was the unavailability of the instrumental landing system..."

But it is likely that it will be cited as a contributing factor. I bet if the ils was working this accident wouldn't have happened (if what I think happened turns out to be true). I agree that the lack of an ils shouldn't cause a accident like this, but it likely did. The reasons are too long to get into here, but things like degradation of hand flying skills due to automation, low experience levels of many airline pilots in many parts if the world, and poor training and cockpit dynamics due to a very hierarchical way of doing things in many countries.

The airport will get noted for the lack of the ils, and probably ATC for their tendency to bring aircraft high.

All IMO, of course, and with due regard for the fact that their may be some surprises in the official findings.

[Acey]

And displace those thresholds even further. If this accident happens 18 months ago without the current thresholds... bad news.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

But it is likely that it will be cited as a contributing factor. I bet if the ils was working this accident wouldn't have happened (if what I think happened turns out to be true). I agree that the lack of an ils shouldn't cause a accident like this, but it likely did. The reasons are too long to get into here, but things like degradation of hand flying skills due to automation, low experience levels of many airline pilots in many parts if the world, and poor training and cockpit dynamics due to a very hierarchical way of doing things in many countries.

The airport will get noted for the lack of the ils, and probably ATC for their tendency to bring aircraft high.

All IMO, of course, and with due regard for the fact that their may be some surprises in the official findings.

Great post Ryan, thanks for the contribution your knowledge brings.

A question for you heavy metal drivers, with the typical "nose up" approach of the larger jets does that change the visual cues of ones approach with regards to how the runway looks?

I think back to my flight school days and being taught the "tall and narrow" runway means you are high and "short and fat" means you are low (with the ideal approach being in the middle with the numbers of the runway staying right in the same spot on your windscreen as you approached).

Does this hold true in the larger transport category aircraft?

Of course this also disregards that the runway in question had a perfectly functioning PAPI display.

[Ryan Coke]

Fundamentally, yes it works the same. Obviously as you get low to the runway the flare looks different due to the greater eye to wheel height (for others, basically you are sitting higher above the ground as you touch down).

Honestly, probably the biggest issue is that on smaller aircraft we almost always use those visual cues on an approach, whereas on transport jets it is fairly rare...we have such great technology there we almost always have a glide slope or synthetic vertical path, it is rare to do an approach based solely on visual cues like that. So we tend to lose that skill over time.

At least in Canada and North America pilots get a lot of experience doing that kind of flying on smaller aircraft, whereas in many countries (like Korea) they are the product of cadet programs. They essentially get hired and trained to fly large jets right from the start with very little other experience, so they lack many of those basic flying skills.

The Air France crash into the Atlantic is another example of this.

[FLAME ENVY]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Fundamentally, yes it works the same. Obviously as you get low to the runway the flare looks different due to the greater eye to wheel height (for others, basically you are sitting higher above the ground as you touch down).

Honestly, probably the biggest issue is that on smaller aircraft we almost always use those visual cues on an approach, whereas on transport jets it is fairly rare...we have such great technology there we almost always have a glide slope or synthetic vertical path, it is rare to do an approach based solely on visual cues like that. So we tend to lose that skill over time.

At least in Canada and North America pilots get a lot of experience doing that kind of flying on smaller aircraft, whereas in many countries (like Korea) they are the product of cadet programs. They essentially get hired and trained to fly large jets right from the start with very little other experience, so they lack many of those basic flying skills.

The Air France crash into the Atlantic is another example of this.

I would also attest that many North American pilot's flying anything over 12.5K have lost very basic stick and rudder skills if they have flown nothing else in some time, just the nature of the beast. Heck, many would be troubled flying VFR for that matter. I know a CL-65 driver who was handcuffed transitioning into a recreational Cessna 210 after 4 years flying the Bomb. Very few pro drivers hand fly into/out of the flight levels which is a shame, busy ATC corridors south of the border don't always make this practical but it can be done more often than not if one chooses. The ultimate remedy for getting the hands and feet working again is doing some dual in a Pitts S-2A/B/C each year.

[Leon]

Surely they get trained on how to use PAPI lights? That approach must have had 4 red for the 1nm final approach..

[Madman]

Starrting Sept 3rd, Air Canada will have daily Calgary to Red Deer flights using Air Georgian Beechcraft 1900Ds.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busines...833/story.html

[Bigtime]

It will be interesting to see how this service does. I think the B1900 could be the right size aircraft to serve the route, rumours of WestJet Encore and their 78 seat Q400's is just too much capacity on this route. Compared to the 18 seats on the B1900.

I've already heard folks saying "Why fly, just drive to Calgary.", well the flights look to be intended for traffic connecting through YYC to points onward. Parking at YQF is free, and there is no airport improvement fee, so some fares starting there may be cheaper or equal to driving to YYC and then catching your flight.

[stazzy33]

So you only pay the airport improvement fee if you are originating from the airport?

[billybob123]

Depends on the airport. YYZ charges originating passengers $25 and connecting passengers $4 (used to be $8). Most (all?) other Canadian airports only charge originating passengers.

Most US airports charge the same for origination as connection but I think it's a max $3.

[STeeLy]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

It will be interesting to see how this service does. I think the B1900 could be the right size aircraft to serve the route, rumours of WestJet Encore and their 78 seat Q400's is just too much capacity on this route. Compared to the 18 seats on the B1900.

I've already heard folks saying "Why fly, just drive to Calgary.", well the flights look to be intended for traffic connecting through YYC to points onward. Parking at YQF is free, and there is no airport improvement fee, so some fares starting there may be cheaper or equal to driving to YYC and then catching your flight.

So what you're saying is... it may be more economical for SOME people, who are going away for a long trip to drive up to Red Deer, and fly to their destination via Calgary.

(Of course, no one ever would, because for many places in Calgary, 2 cab rides to and from the airport are cheaper than driving to and from Red Deer.)

[Acey]

He's saying if you live in Red Deer, and are flying to Montreal for example, it's cheaper to park in Red Deer and then fly Red Deer - Calgary - Montreal.

Similar situation for my dad who often flies Lethbridge - Calgary - Toronto.

[surferguy]

Any reason for the three military choppers over downtown this am? Or just that it is the stampede?

[stazzy33]

Originally Posted by surferguy

Any reason for the three military choppers over downtown this am? Or just that it is the stampede?

Was wondering the same thing.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Leon

Surely they get trained on how to use PAPI lights? That approach must have had 4 red for the 1nm final approach..

White on White, fly all night!
Red on White, you're all right!
Red on Red, YOU'RE DEAD!

[Bigtime]

Those were US Blackhawks, they arrived from Alaska yesterday, probably heading back to the lower 48.

[MG153]

saw a big Hercules crusing around today on several occasions, not sure what it was doing, it didnt look military.