2 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

there is no GS at Fox Harbour  

??? So what does a PAPI/VASI provide if not a GS? Have you even watched the video and/or read the accident report?

The abbreviated precision approach path indicator (APAPI) guidance, although not appropriate for this aircraft type, would have assured a reduced main landing gear clearance of eight feet above threshold. At 0.5 nm, the pilot flying (PF) descended below the APAPI guidance, further reducing the TCH.

Edited September 10, 20196 yr by FDEdev

7 hours ago, FDEdev said:

??? So what does a PAPI/VASI provide if not a GS? Have you even watched the video and/or read the accident report?

  The point is, the PAPI provides a visual approach path within a range of degrees of elevation which is VASTLY different than a GS or GP which is routinely flight checked and calibrated. 0.5 nm visually means almost nothing, they were clearly going by their own feel at that point and being in their not only newer but a fair bit larger aircraft into that airport with a narrow runway caused an illusion of being too high so they descended and landed short. The APAPI in this case was meant for aircraft with an EWH of up to 10 feet, if they had known or recognized that maybe they would have flown it slightly higher on final.

44 minutes ago, Dave_YVR said:

  The point is, the PAPI provides a visual approach path within a range of degrees of elevation which is VASTLY different than a GS or GP which is routinely flight checked and calibrated. 0.5 nm visually means almost nothing...

...an illusion of being too high so they descended and landed short.

Don't know where you've got this wrong info from. I think you are mixing up VASI (200ft) and PAPI (50ft) accuracy.

If you would look at the video you would see that the approach was unstable with very large glideslope deviations (which has nothing to do with illusion) 

 

Edited September 11, 20196 yr by FDEdev

It was an APAPI for aircraft with an EWH of up to 10feet. Much smaller than a GLEX. Glideslope fluctuations with no Glideslope, funny how that works.

AGAIN, for the sake of the OP's question. If the chart says the PAPI angle is different than the instrument approach path, there's a reason for it and it does happen. 

Ok, I give up. If you don't read the report, don't watch the video and don't realize that a PAPI provides a rather precise GS, then a further discussion doesn't make sense.

About the glideslope fluctuations, glideslope deviations would have been the better terminology, agreed and corrected.

Edited September 11, 20196 yr by FDEdev

18 hours ago, Dave_YVR said:

Incorrect, there is no GS at Fox Harbour and the accident was directly related to the eye to wheel height differences between types.  

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2007/a07a0134/a07a0134.html#3.0

Papi angles and ILS gp angles are not always the same.

Given the link you posted, no. The eye to whell height was just a factor, but not the cause.

" The flight crew members flew the approach profile as they had done in the past on the smaller Bombardier Challenger 604 (CL604), with no consideration for the Global 5000 greater aircraft eye-to-wheel height (EWH), resulting in a reduced TCH "

Reduced TCH doesn't mean crash...

" The abbreviated precision approach path indicator (APAPI) guidance, although not appropriate for this aircraft type, would have assured a reduced main landing gear clearance of eight feet above threshold. At 0.5 nm, the pilot flying (PF) descended below the APAPI guidance, further reducing the TCH. "

I guess, flying TOO LOW compared to what the APAPI indicates sounds more like a cause... Specially when the APAPI would have kept the aircraft on a clear glide path (even with reduced clearance to obstacles).

This accident is directly related to poor airmanship, flying deliberately too low on glide path, at low energy, without correcting (trust). I guess the landing was even shorter than they expected...

Edited September 11, 20196 yr by n666eo