Plane crash near Resolute Bay kills 12 - Aug 20, 2011

[Good2Golf]

Hopefully, significantly more detail comes out once the investigation is released, concerning what the TC-DND MOU for the CZ/MTCA contained.  The transition is definitely a concern, and why I would have thought that the CZ and the MTCA would more appropriately be activated at the same time, otherwise inbound IFR traffic would be controlled(Class A)-uncontrolled-controlled(Class D) and the handover between Arctic Centre and Resolute Tower would have to have been a well-coordinated activity.  I think there remains the question of understanding by all as to what Classes of airspace were active in the 10-20 August period.  I still am left with the sense that, while the Class D CZ was activated by NOTAM on 10 Aug, that it was not specifically manned until much later, thus leaving the CZ as Class E until then, and even then, I'm unclear as to what level of control (or advisory?) was being provided on the day of the crash.  If the CZ is active and IF there is a controller, then it is Class D and IFR traffic requires clearance to commence an approach and VFR traffic must initiate communication with the tower.

I don't know enough about the particular avionics configuration of the incident aircraft, re: Nav1/2 select, but the ramification of having the VOR feeding the HSI/OBS with the ILS/LOC inbound course dialled in, vice the ILS receiver is certainly unsettling.  In the discussion on AvCanada, some people were implying that if the crew of 6560 had a G/S flag on approach, they should have conducted a missed approach right away.  I don't think that is or should be an expectation.  Potential of a VOR vice ILS/LOC track inbound aside, a reversion to LOC-only after established on the ILS(/DME) so long as still above MDA (or FAF crossing hight, if prior to) is quite reasonable.  In fact, I can't think of an ILS approach that I've ever flown where I didn't brief a back-up LOC-only if the G/S went U/S during the approach -- of course, starting a timing at the FAF if the MAP isn't DME-based is an important part of having a valid LOC-only back-up.

For those of who have flown the approach into Res, I can see how in lower vis, Char Lake, although smaller, could be mistaken for Resolute Lake, as the geometry (alignment with the runway axis) of flying over Resolute Bay itself, then Char Lake, although offset to the East of the runway by ~1NM (lined up towards the VOR and the actual crash site), looks almost the same as crossing the south shore, then Resolute Lake towards RWY 35T.


Regards
G2G

 

[YZT580]

If the NOTAM wasn't in effect then the tower was not manned legally.  Thus no clearance issued by YRB is valid.  Arctic Radio is not licensed to issue clearances.  They relay clearances from the appropriate centre that are issued via landline.  The overhead sector is in UL.  With a valid class E he was defacto responsible for the control zone and his clearance should have been cleared to the airport for an approach. maintain (moca) or above until passing the VOR.  Report this frequency when cancelling IFR.  CV within 10 DME.  Why do I suspect that neither UL nor YB knew anything about it?

 

[Good2Golf]

If the NOTAM wasn't in effect then the tower was not manned legally.  Thus no clearance issued by YRB is valid.  Arctic Radio is not licensed to issue clearances.  They relay clearances from the appropriate centre that are issued via landline.  The overhead sector is in UL.  With a valid class E he was defacto responsible for the control zone and his clearance should have been cleared to the airport for an approach. maintain (moca) or above until passing the VOR.  Report this frequency when cancelling IFR.  CV within 10 DME.  Why do I suspect that neither UL nor YB knew anything about it?

Well, when Transport Canada's Director, Accident Investigation Branch ( Letter, 08 February 2012: Director AIB, to Comd 1 CAD, re: IFR Separation in Class D Airspace ) in his letter of admonishment to the RCAF can't even get the Airspace Regulations right, you know something is messed up.  In paragraph 2 of Mr. Clitsome's letter to (then) MGen Parent, he states that "Within Class D airspace aircraft must be equipped with radios capable of communicating with the air traffic control agency, and must receive permission to enter the airspace."  The first highlighted part is factually incorrect, a NORDO plane can pre-arrange entry, and the second highlighted portion is only the case for IFR aircraft, not VFR, and we don't even know for sure that Borek 99 was IFR planned.

As we know from YZT's post earlier:

The plot thickens!  Here is the reference for Class D to E  from RAC  2.8.4 Class D Airspace

Class D airspace is a controlled airspace within which both IFR and VFR flights are permitted, but VFR flights must establish two-way communication with the appropriate ATC agency prior to entering the airspace. ATC separation is provided only to IFR aircraft. Aircraft will be provided with traffic information. Equipment and workload permitting, conflict resolution will be provided between VFR and IFR aircraft, and upon request between VFR aircraft.  Airspace classified as Class D becomes Class E airspace when the appropriate ATC unit is not in operation...

VFR need only establish contact with ATC, not ask for any kind of permission to operate in the Class D control zone.

YZT, I suspect, as do you, that Concordia likely had no contact with Borek 99 for it to conduct its LOC(BC) 17T approach.  If Borek 99 had previously been VFR and tried to get an IFR clearance from Arctic Radio, I'm not sure how much success they would have had.  Not directly myself, but I have heard that low-level comms with agencies other than the "big-3" (Iqaluit, Inuvik and Rankin Inlet) is sporadic at best, and not necessarily conducive to facilitating airspace management in the North.

Perhaps in the future, there will be an expansion of controlled airspace and/or ATC (vice CARS/RDO/'FSS') comms in the North commensurate with the increase in activity foreseen in the years to come.

Regards
G2G

 

[Zoomie]

I have heard that low-level comms with agencies other than the "big-3" (Iqaluit, Inuvik and Rankin Inlet) is sporadic at best, and not necessarily conducive to facilitating airspace management in the North.

Personal experience - Arctic Radio is best contacted through high flying "over-the-pole" airliners.  HF reception at low level, that far north is next to impossible.  I've crossed through the ADIZ on a DVFR and never been able to make the requisite calls to North Bay.

I've also flown VFR from Eureka to Cambridge Bay, discovered IFR conditions, coordinated with Cambridge Radio and shot the approach (to the missed approach).  Low-level IFR in the NDA is a completely different beast,  as we have all experienced - RADAR coverage is nil, radio coverage sporadic, you are truly on your own with a fine fuel HOWGOZIT curve.

 

[dapaterson]

TSB report has been released.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/A11H0002/A11H0002.asp

 

[YZT580]

Canadian Rules:  2.8.4 Class D Airspace

Class D airspace is a controlled airspace within which both IFR and VFR flights are permitted, but VFR flights must establish two-way communication with the appropriate ATC agency prior to entering the airspace. ATC separation is provided only to IFR aircraft. Aircraft will be provided with traffic information. Equipment and workload permitting, conflict resolution will be provided between VFR and IFR aircraft, and upon request between VFR aircraft.

Airspace classified as Class D becomes Class E airspace when the appropriate ATC unit is not in operation.

With the TMA not operational the airspace should have reverted to Class E.  Now there is a jurisdictional problem. Are the tower controllers qualified part 3 IFR controllers?  If they are not, as long as the control zone is open Edmonton would have been responsible for providing IFR separation to the two flights: only possible within the control zone and Edmonton was never mentioned in the safety bulletin it went straight to the military.  I would suggest that there are a whole lot of re-writes to do in the regs before any attempt is made to establish another remote TCA/Tower.  This is not an easy fix.

 

[kev994]

Resolute Bay is in the Arctic Control Area, Edmonton Center does not talk to anyone below F270, and even then they would only clear someone to descend out of controlled airspace. If it's class E then deconfliction is on your own.

 

[YZT580]

2.8.5 Class E Airspace

Class E airspace is designated where an operational need exists for controlled airspace but does not meet the requirements for Class A, B, C, or D.

Operations may be conducted under IFR or VFR. ATC separation is provided only to aircraft operating under IFR. There are no special requirements for VFR.

Unless I am reading this wrong, someone had to supply IFR separation in the Class E.  I am well aware that Edmonton ends at 270.  No mans land underneath until you get to the class E.  Now who is going to take control?  Tower type isn't qualified, ergo Edmonton.  But they don't adjoin.  That is why my last comment.  This is a mess.  NavCanada, Transport and the DND are going to have to re-write the rules and it isn't going to be easy.

 

[kev994]

Ack, I'm mixing up E and G. Disregard.