Betrayed by Procedure! The Electrifying story of Air Canada flight 624

Mentour Pilot・2 minutes read

Air Canada Flight 624 faced challenging weather conditions during landing in Halifax, leading to a crash landing due to deviations caused by strong gusts of wind; however, miraculously, all passengers and crew survived, with only one serious injury, 24 minor injuries, and 113 unharmed individuals prompting the need for updated procedures and improved approach lighting. The investigation revealed conflicting non-precision approach procedures with Airbus guidance, emphasizing the importance of mandatory threat and error briefings, collaboration with Airbus for fleet upgrades, and enhanced safety protocols.

Insights

  • The crew of Air Canada Flight 624 faced challenging weather conditions during their approach to Halifax, with reduced visibility and strong winds, ultimately leading to a crash landing due to deviations caused by gusts of wind.
  • The investigation following the crash highlighted conflicts between Air Canada's non-precision approach procedures and Airbus guidance, emphasizing the importance of updated procedures, mandatory threat and error briefings, and improved approach lighting systems to enhance safety measures in collaboration with Airbus for fleet upgrades.

Get key ideas from YouTube videos. It’s free

Recent questions

  • What were the weather conditions during the flight?

    Challenging weather with gusty winds and snowfall.

  • Who decided to be the Pilot Flying for the flight?

    The captain with over 11,700 hours of flight time.

  • How many members were in the cabin crew?

    Three members due to a new regulation.

  • What caused the aircraft to deviate from the correct path?

    Strong gusts of wind during the approach.

  • What were the outcomes of the crash landing?

    One serious injury, 24 minor injuries, and 113 unharmed individuals.

Related videos

Summary

00:00

Air Canada Flight Faces Challenging Weather

  • On the evening of March 29, 2015, an Air Canada crew prepared for a flight from Toronto to Halifax, Nova Scotia, facing challenging weather conditions.
  • The weather forecast for Halifax indicated gusty winds, light snow, and reduced visibility, with snowfall expected to intensify during landing.
  • Due to the aircraft's limitations, the crew planned to execute a localizer DME approach for landing on Runway 05, lacking vertical guidance.
  • The crew had special approval to start the approach with half the published minimum visibility, which was crucial for their planning.
  • The captain, with over 11,700 hours of total flight time, decided to be the Pilot Flying for the flight, accompanied by an experienced first officer.
  • The aircraft, a 24-year-old Airbus A320, was well-maintained, with only a minor issue regarding an inoperative air Pack Flow indicator.
  • Despite the aircraft's limitations, the crew decided to proceed with the flight, ensuring they had enough fuel for potential diversions.
  • The cabin crew, consisting of three members due to a new regulation, briefed passengers on emergency procedures and safety protocols.
  • Passengers were advised to dress appropriately for the weather and instructed on emergency procedures, including the use of oxygen masks and life vests.
  • The flight took off from Toronto, and during the climb, the pilots discussed alternate airports due to concerns about the weather conditions at the destination.

15:35

Flight 624: Challenging Approach and Crash Landing

  • The runway was equipped with high-intensity lights and a PAPI indicating a Three Degree Glide slope.
  • The lighting system had five intensity settings based on visibility and pilot requests, with setting 5 being the brightest and setting 4 being four times less bright than setting 5.
  • In Halifax, a mistake in the lighting panel setup caused the approach lights to be reduced to setting 2 when the runway lights were at setting 4.
  • Pilots of Flight 624 prepared early for a challenging approach due to strong winds and snowfall forecasted.
  • Corrections were made for minimum altitudes during the approach due to cold temperatures affecting air density.
  • The crew corrected the Final Approach fix altitude and Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA) accurately for temperature variations.
  • The crew adjusted the flight path angle to 3.5 degrees for the approach towards Runway 05.
  • The approach was supposed to be flown in a coupled selected manner using the autopilot for lateral guidance and a constant selected vertical descent angle.
  • The crew received updated weather information indicating poor visibility but decided to start the approach after visibility improved to half a mile.
  • During the approach, the aircraft was fully configured and stabilized according to Air Canada procedures, but strong gusts of wind caused the aircraft to deviate from the correct path, leading to a crash landing.

31:23

Air Canada Crash Investigation and Improvements

  • The tower controller activated the crash button at specific times, leading to the emergency crew finding all passengers and crew miraculously surviving the crash, with only one serious injury, 24 minor injuries, and 113 unharmed individuals.
  • The investigation revealed that Air Canada's non-precision approach procedures conflicted with Airbus guidance, leading to the pilots flying too low and too far from the runway due to vague guidance and autopilot engagement, exacerbated by the lack of proper approach lighting settings.
  • Issues such as plan continuation bias, lack of GPWS activation, unprepared cabin crew, faulty backup generators, and passengers evacuating with hand luggage highlighted the need for updated procedures, mandatory threat and error briefings, and improved approach lighting at airports, prompting Air Canada to collaborate with Airbus for fleet upgrades.
Channel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatarChannel avatar

Try it yourself — It’s free.