All
← Back to Squawk list
Air Canada Suing Airbus
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) More...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
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.
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.
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
Here is the correct 1st phase lawsuit link..it too is ongoing and is in preliminary:
http://wagnerslaw.webprestige.ca/_library/20160329_affmoffat.pdf
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
That particular fin # was one of the first buses delivered,. AC painted in the Raptors colour scheme and if memory serves, delivered without GPS.
Does the AC legal department chase ambulances?
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.
Yup.
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.