AC might have a strong case here, if the TSB agrees with their claim. Airbus may yet have another flaw in it's FPA CPU design, assuming the approach was conducted in coupled/selected mode (LOC 05).

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... rc404=true

This is really interesting. If everything was correct then why did the aircraft not reach the threshold? Everything was recorded in the FDR. If everything worked correctly except the software then this is going to be a game changer for the software developers at Airbus.

The obvious question will be Airbus sales to AC. Is AC planning to drop Airbus products?

billreid wrote:

The obvious question will be Airbus sales to AC. Is AC planning to drop Airbus products?

As far as I know they already planned to go all Boeing and Bombardier.

Arniepie wrote:

billreid wrote:

The obvious question will be Airbus sales to AC. Is AC planning to drop Airbus products?

As far as I know they already planned to go all Boeing and Bombardier.

Yeah, eventually the only Airbus products will be at rouge. The last out of the mainline fleet will likely be the 333's.

I suppose somewhere in the A320 manuals there is a disclaimer that the pilots have the ultimate responsibility for controlling the aircraft as the electronic aids might malfunction.

It's easy to blame the software but at the end of the day pilots should always be able to land the plane themselves. Is AC defending their pilots?

Well AC is retiring their A320 family aircraft already.
Are we about to see them retire the A330's now? Very interesting nonetheless

How many safe A320- landings have there been under similar circumstances? I guess thousands if not millions. It's hard to imagine that now, in the year 2017, decades after EIS, they found "another flaw"...

1900Driver wrote:

Airbus may yet have another flaw in it's FPA CPU design, assuming the approach was conducted in coupled/selected mode (LOC 05

First Question: Is there such a procedure of an "unmonitored" localizer approach?

Okie

N292UX wrote:

Well AC is retiring their A320 family aircraft already.

Yes, but that was planned years ago when AC ordered the 737 MAX.

N14AZ wrote:

How many safe A320- landings have there been under similar circumstances? I guess thousands if not millions. It's hard to imagine that now, in the year 2017, decades after EIS, they found "another flaw"...

AC would not publicly accuse a major manufacturer of negligence if it did not have strong evidence to support their civil claim.

It's easy to blame the software but at the end of the day pilots should always be able to land the plane themselves. Is AC defending their pilots?

Yes pilots should be able to land the planes it is their responsibility, however if there is serious flaw in the software that contributed to the crash, Airbus should be held liable for how its product performed.

cumulushumilis wrote:

Yes pilots should be able to land the planes it is their responsibility, however if there is serious flaw in the software that contributed to the crash, Airbus should be held liable for how its product performed.

That's true, but AC will have to prove it in court. Until then, we can only speculate. I would be surprised though if there is some sort of software bug in a 30-years old aircraft design, but you never know.

Every machine or software comes with a manual that clearly lists the Operating scope and the known discrepancies. It is expected that pilots have read the manuals and understood the machine they are going to be operating. It is also expected that an airlines training systems cover these thoroughly.

So it comes down to this: Do the Airbus manuals refer to the specific conditions found at Halifax and suitable handling procedures? If they do, did Air Canada's training modules cover these during the simulator training or otherwise? Were the pilots trained inhouse or was it outsourced?

I wonder if this claim is being brought by the insurer of the aircraft in AC's name using the insurer's right of subrogation.

KarelXWB wrote:

That's true, but AC will have to prove it in court. Until then, we can only speculate. I would be surprised though if there is some sort of software bug in a 30-years old aircraft design, but you never know.

Does the software ever get updated after the aircraft is delivered?

billreid wrote:

If everything was correct then why did the aircraft not reach the threshold? Everything was recorded in the FDR. If everything worked correctly except the software then this is going to be a game changer for the software developers at Airbus.

This will go nowhere.....

Firstly AFAIK AC does not use Airbus manuals, they use their own, in part due to the law in Canada which requires bilingual documents. This also goes for charts, AFAIK they use their own in house developed approach charts, but a 3rd party Nav database on the aircraft.

Second is low temperature altimitary, I would wager they failed to start the approach at the altitude corrected for cold Wx and adjust the FAF and MDA for -6degC and the elevation. If you start the approach at 2500 ft on a -6 day there, you are actually around 160 ft closer to the ground, go down at 3.1 degrees and you will be hitting the ground short of the runway.

Thirdly, the approach angle is 3.08 degrees, you cannot set this in the FCU, so the pilots either selected 3.0 or 3.1. They are required to cross check the DME/Alt on the chart as the approach unfolds.

Fourth, from the MDA the pilots are required to fly manually on the visual segment to the runway with the flight directors turned off, they need to turn the autopilot off and look out the front of the window.

Fifth, they have a radar altimeter height on the PFD that is telling them when they are 2500 ft or below

Don't mean to go off topic but man that plane got really messed up, I'd love to see a simulation of the accident.

KarelXWB wrote:

cumulushumilis wrote:

Yes pilots should be able to land the planes it is their responsibility, however if there is serious flaw in the software that contributed to the crash, Airbus should be held liable for how its product performed.

That's true, but AC will have to prove it in court. Until then, we can only speculate. I would be surprised though if there is some sort of software bug in a 30-years old aircraft design, but you never know.

I would be surprised too but sadly Software bugs pop up all the time in old software. When there is a patch, configuration change, enhancement of some sort there is always that chance that a new fault can be introduced into the system. I don't pretend to know Airbus's QA practices when it comes to software testing however I imagine that any regression testing they did do maybe did not identify this anomaly. I don't think this anomaly has existed for 30 years but was the result of an update of some kind. If that is the case then the liability would clearly lie with with the manufacturer.

Is Air Canada ever wrong?

Attaboy jimbo. You got absolutely blown up on your last anti AC rant. Way to keep it simple this time. A vanilla flame. Golf clap.

N14AZ wrote:

How many safe A320- landings have there been under similar circumstances? I guess thousands if not millions. It's hard to imagine that now, in the year 2017, decades after EIS, they found "another flaw"...

As a software engineer, I can assure you that it is not in the least bit surprising that a bug would be found after software has been in production for decades. In fact, I'd bet my life on the fact there are still bugs in that codebase.

Wait a minute, a few things don't add up, the were conducting a Non-Precision approach which means they should have monitored Runway distance Vs. Altitude and adjusted path accordingly, was this done? Also when the Flight Warning Computer callout screams "100 above" you're getting ready for a Go-Around, by the time the "Minimums" call out is heard and you don't see the runway all you have to do is set the thrust levers to ToGa sit back and monitor the airplane climb back to a safe altitude provided the Autopilot is engaged (which I think it was, it would be unwise to shoot a manual approach in those conditions).

Also, on Non Precision Approaches (non Rnav), 50 feet must be added to the Minumum Descent Altitude to compensate for the altitude loss during the go-around maneuver. There must be a good reason for the crew to have busted those minimums.

From the warmth and comfort of my armchair I believe AC has no case here.

Arniepie wrote:

billreid wrote:

The obvious question will be Airbus sales to AC. Is AC planning to drop Airbus products?

As far as I know they already planned to go all Boeing and Bombardier.

Exactly. Not a lot of near-term risk.

KarelXWB wrote:

It's easy to blame the software but at the end of the day pilots should always be able to land the plane themselves. Is AC defending their pilots?

Shades of Asiana in SFO. I'm not talking technically as I am not knowledgeable, but clearly there are times when the outward impression is "How'd that happen? Didn't they see?" Obviously there are extenuating circumstances but I hope the conversation is consistent between the two. IOW, if it wasn't Boeing's fault because "the pilots", then allow that "it wasn't Airbus' fault because 'the pilots'". The investigation will figure that all out for us.

Maybe hire better pilots who actually know how to fly planes, like the Air Canada flight 143 and Air Canada flight 797 pilots.

FlyUSAir wrote:

Maybe hire better pilots who actually know how to fly planes, like the Air Canada flight 143 and Air Canada flight 797 pilots.

Unless they can fly from a Ouija board....they are all flying in the great beyond now.....

trent772 wrote:

Wait a minute, a few things don't add up, the were conducting a Non-Precision approach which means they should have monitored Runway distance Vs. Altitude and adjusted path accordingly, was this done? Also when the Flight Warning Computer callout screams "100 above" you're getting ready for a Go-Around, by the time the "Minimums" call out is heard and you don't see the runway all you have to do is set the thrust levers to ToGa sit back and monitor the airplane climb back to a safe altitude provided the Autopilot is engaged (which I think it was, it would be unwise to shoot a manual approach in those conditions).

Also, on Non Precision Approaches (non Rnav), 50 feet must be added to the Minumum Descent Altitude to compensate for the altitude loss during the go-around maneuver. There must be a good reason for the crew to have busted those minimums.

From the warmth and comfort of my armchair I believe AC has no case here.

Unwise to shoot an approach in IMC?

This is the type of mentality that gets us pilots who can't fly.

The human interface in the Airbus is trash. It won't start down at TOD, it can't figure out when to leave a hold, insanely crappy interface for a commercial airliner in mass production.

While it is quite possible there is a software, procedural or flight manual issue, this statement from the article: "The document said it did not advise that in certain conditions, the plane’s flight path angle could be affected by external forces." is quite revealing. ANY pilot knows that flight angle path CAN and WILL be affected by external forces.

Someone suggested that AC wouldn't launch a case with solid evidence; I say that people and companies launch civil suits all the time on very questionable evidence, particularly when it relates to an associated civil suit already in progress where both parties are defendents and are trying to deflect liability.

Varsity1 wrote:

unwise to shoot an approach in IMC?

Go ahead, laugh all you want but please do give it another shot at that reading thing, I never said it was unwise to conduct an approach in IMC, I wrote that it would be unwise to shoot a MANUAL Approach in those weather conditions as workloads would be greatly increased.

I think that AC surely believes there is a flaw in the software this also may be a way to spread the liability a bit so when all the lawsuits are settled AB can kick in a few bucks.

Arniepie wrote:

billreid wrote:

The obvious question will be Airbus sales to AC. Is AC planning to drop Airbus products?

As far as I know they already planned to go all Boeing and Bombardier.

Not completely. At mainline the A320 series is going to be replaced by the 737 Max but a number of the A320 series aircraft will still be running with Rouge for the foreseeable future. And as far as I know there are no plans at this time to replace the A330's.

Interesting hope the FAA catches up on this.

Seems a bit negligent on the part of the AC pilots. I understand that they're could've been a flaw with the software but the pilots shove recognized something was wrong and made the appropriate actions. Will be very interesting to follow where this leads.

At my airline, we are well aware of the requirement to monitor and cross check the descent during a non precision approach. We are also trained on appropriate changes to the Flight Path Angle to correct deviation from the correct profile. Hard to believe such a large modern airline wouldn't have the experience to realise that monitoring and adjusting of automation is of great importance.

As this event was some time ago, Airbus would surely have initiated corrective action by now if there was a serious flaw. Have they?

JerseyFlyer wrote:

As this event was some time ago, Airbus would surely have initiated corrective action by now if there was a serious flaw. Have they?

They've also kept utilising their A320s which seems interesting if they think they malfunctioned.

Arniepie wrote:

billreid wrote:

The obvious question will be Airbus sales to AC. Is AC planning to drop Airbus products?

As far as I know they already planned to go all Boeing and Bombardier.

So, it's fair to say that AC has nothing Toulouse...

greg85 wrote:

At my airline, we are well aware of the requirement to monitor and cross check the descent during a non precision approach. We are also trained on appropriate changes to the Flight Path Angle to correct deviation from the correct profile. Hard to believe such a large modern airline wouldn't have the experience to realise that monitoring and adjusting of automation is of great importance.

I wonder how Longhauler will try to spin this one?

JerseyFlyer wrote:

Airbus would surely have initiated corrective action by now if there was a serious flaw.

The only flaws were the two chaps upfront. How they let the aircraft deviate and descend below mda is beyond me. Were they sitting on their hands or twiddling their thumbs?

I haven't flown a 'bus in five or so years so perhaps someone can remind me. I recall a tidbit in the manuals (as is the case with Boeing) where it suggests you take over if aircraft performance is not satisfactory. Have airbus omitted this guidance?

greg85 wrote:

At my airline, we are well aware of the requirement to monitor and cross check the descent during a non precision approach. We are also trained on appropriate changes to the Flight Path Angle to correct deviation from the correct profile. Hard to believe such a large modern airline wouldn't have the experience to realise that monitoring and adjusting of automation is of great importance.

I'm sure this is the case at Air Canada as well, given our climate and the number of NPAs across the country.

I'm sure they are doing this on the grounds that the alleged software flaw is a *contributing factor*. As we all know accidents follow the "Swiss cheese" model where a number of holes ("contributing factors") line up.

The actions of the pilots, will surely also be analyzed.

This may also have to do with the fact that Airbus is named on the Class Action Suit following the accident.

I'm sure the lawyers will do well with this...

Beech

Chaostheory wrote:

greg85 wrote:

At my airline, we are well aware of the requirement to monitor and cross check the descent during a non precision approach. We are also trained on appropriate changes to the Flight Path Angle to correct deviation from the correct profile. Hard to believe such a large modern airline wouldn't have the experience to realise that monitoring and adjusting of automation is of great importance.

I wonder how Longhauler will try to spin this one?

I've never seen him spin anything on here, he does a great job answering with facts.

Whiteguy wrote:

I've never seen him spin anything on here, he does a great job answering with facts.

Other than the holier than thou attitude displayed towards other airlines, sure.

1900Driver wrote:

Airbus may yet have another flaw in it's FPA CPU design

seahawk wrote:

Interesting hope the FAA catches up on this.

Haha, isn't it cute how everyone (I know, hyperbole) is running around in circles of joy that FINALLY somebody finds reasons why 'busses are utterly dangerous...

luftaom wrote:

I wonder if this claim is being brought by the insurer of the aircraft in AC's name using the insurer's right of subrogation.

Something along this line in my opinion!

Anyway, 1st rule of accident investigation in aviation: How to improve safety - NOT how to direct blame...

67:

Huh?

bergkampsticket wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

As this event was some time ago, Airbus would surely have initiated corrective action by now if there was a serious flaw. Have they?

They've also kept utilising their A320s which seems interesting if they think they malfunctioned.

Certainly the A320 has its share of crashes directly attributed to technical flaws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XL_Airways_Germany_Flight_888T#Investigation

Looks like AC may have a strong case here....

bmacleod wrote:

bergkampsticket wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

As this event was some time ago, Airbus would surely have initiated corrective action by now if there was a serious flaw. Have they?

They've also kept utilising their A320s which seems interesting if they think they malfunctioned.

Certainly the A320 has its share of crashes directly attributed to technical flaws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XL_Airways_Germany_Flight_888T#Investigation

Looks like AC may have a strong case here....

So does every aircraft. Since when does that make a strong case for "negligence"? Were Boeing negligent for not recognizing the rudder valve fault of the 737? I don't think so.
Crashes happen because everything that can happen will happen at some point. Despite all the effort by all the manufacturers to think about all possible scenarios. It's called reality.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

As this event was some time ago, Airbus would surely have initiated corrective action by now if there was a serious flaw. Have they?

I won't speculate on the validity of the lawsuit.

But corrective action may never come. Hear me out. When American hit the top of the mountain in Cali, they did so with the speed brakes out. The fix to have an auto retract system when full power is set would not have been complex, and in a perfect world they would do so. But it could have also meant in a legal sense that there was a design flaw thus being culpable.

Always easier to blame the two dead guys up front than any manufacturing flaw.

Problem here is those two guys are alive. I would suggest the result of the investigation will see all parties getting blame. AC, the pilots, the airport, nav Canada. It'll be a mess.

sixtyseven wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

As this event was some time ago, Airbus would surely have initiated corrective action by now if there was a serious flaw. Have they?

I won't speculate on the validity of the lawsuit.

But corrective action may never come. Hear me out. When American hit the top of the mountain in Cali, they did so with the speed brakes out. The fix to have an auto retract system when full power is set would not have been complex, and in a perfect world they would do so. But it could have also meant in a legal sense that there was a design flaw thus being culpable.

Always easier to blame the two dead guys up front than any manufacturing flaw.

Problem here is those two guys are alive. I would suggest the result of the investigation will see all parties getting blame. AC, the pilots, the airport, nav Canada. It'll be a mess.

How is not making the top of a mountain after a GPWS alert with speed brakes extended a manufacturing (actually design, if at all) flaw, when it actually behaved exactly like intended? Yes, it does make sense to automatically retract the speed brakes after TO/GA, but isn't that taking away full authority from the competent pilot?

Surely of all examples this was one of the worst to take...

As final note: Just because a different design would have helped the outcome this time, as is the case for AA in Cali, it is not automatically a contributing factor.

robsaw wrote:

While it is quite possible there is a software, procedural or flight manual issue, this statement from the article: "The document said it did not advise that in certain conditions, the plane’s flight path angle could be affected by external forces." is quite revealing. ANY pilot knows that flight angle path CAN and WILL be affected by external forces.

Someone suggested that AC wouldn't launch a case with solid evidence; I say that people and companies launch civil suits all the time on very questionable evidence, particularly when it relates to an associated civil suit already in progress where both parties are dependents and are trying to deflect liability.

In product liability cases in Canada and other jurisdiction, the courts tend to follow the Strict Liability doctrine of law. Tort liability which is set upon the defendant without need to prove intent, negligence or fault; as long as you can prove that it was the defendant's object that caused the damage. ... Liability attaches even where the defendant has acted completely reasonably. The pilots can even make errors, misinterpret the readings etc and be the cause of the crash. but because they were operating an Airbus with a computer box that may have contributed to the cause, the manufacturer can still be liable.

You just need to prove one of the three types of claims:

Manufacturing defects
-are those that occur in the manufacturing process and usually involve poor-quality materials or shoddy workmanship. Not this case
-Design defects occur where the product design is inherently dangerous or useless (and hence defective) no matter how carefully manufactured; this may be demonstrated either by showing that the product fails to satisfy ordinary consumer expectations as to what constitutes a safe product, or that the risks of the product outweigh its benefits (perhaps)
-Failure-to-warn defects arise in products that carry inherent non obvious dangers which could be mitigated through adequate warnings to the user, and these dangers are present regardless of how well the product is manufactured and designed for its intended purpose. (Air Canada's accusation)

As such I can almost guarantee this case will have merit and most likely will go to mediation/settlement without any of us knowing the outcome on A.net because of confidentiality clauses.

Sadly rarely does civil law follow common sense and moral decency

[list=][/list]

Nicoeddf wrote:

Anyway, 1st rule of accident investigation in aviation: How to improve safety - NOT how to direct blame...

But of course this thread about a civil lawsuit, where the 1st rule is blame everyone with even the slightest potential for having any liability and sort it out later through negotiation or a court case.

robsaw wrote:

[list=][/list]

Nicoeddf wrote:

Anyway, 1st rule of accident investigation in aviation: How to improve safety - NOT how to direct blame...

But of course this thread about a civil lawsuit, where the 1st rule is blame everyone with even the slightest potential for having any liability and sort it out later through negotiation or a court case.

Absolutely. Thats why I try to directing my ridicule at the notions of "yet another" failure in the control system or the notion that "hopefully" the FAA gets involved.

FREE CONSULTATION
Call Toll Free: 1-800-465-8794
WAGNERS
A Serious Injury Law Firm
Wagners Law Firm based in Halifax, Nova Scotia and Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman with offices in Vancouver, British Columbia, jointly commenced a proposed class action against numerous defendants, including Air Canada, NAV Canada, Transport Canada, the Halifax International Airport Authority and Airbus, the manufacturer of the aircraft.

To register to be included as a Class Member in the class action, please go to the link below:
http://www.wagners.co/current-class-act ... gistration
Fill in this form http://www.wagners.co/_library/AC624_reg_form.pdf