JAZZ and 757

[blues deville]

Photoshopped. that aircraft is curently undergoing inspection in Manchester. If you look at the EXIF data supplied by Flickr you can see it was modified by Photoshop.

Delivery will be november 5th after its acceptance flight from Manchester.

Yes I don't think this aircraft will have anything Jazz related on it until fully C-reg'd. This particular 757 has spent several seasons in Canada with Skyservice formerly as C-FFAN ex-Air Tours/MyTravel. Air Tours tried to write it off in POP a few years ago but it was repaired and still going strong.

[ModerateChop]

Air Tours tried to write it off in POP a few years ago

Details ? Date ? Copy of accident Report ?

[manwest]

Yes I don't think this aircraft will have anything Jazz related on it until fully C-reg'd. This particular 757 has spent several seasons in Canada with Skyservice formerly as C-FFAN ex-Air Tours/MyTravel. Air Tours tried to write it off in POP a few years ago but it was repaired and still going strong.

Perhaps your thinking of the Skyservice B767 in PUJ a while back.??? Landed with a bit of a crunch.

[J.O.]

That 757 had a tail strike at POP in 1998. Saw it a few days later under repair by the Boeing go team.

ASN Article

[Guest alkaid]

That 757 had a tail strike at POP in 1998. Saw it a few days later under repair by the Boeing go team.

ASN Article

Thanks J.O. Looking back at past posts it seems that you are a safety oriented guy. Perhaps some information or report on the Skyservice 767 that was damaged on landing in that area several years ago. At least a reasonably easy way to get the report if there is one made by somebody. I don't know anyone who has read about what happened and it is extremely important to aviation safety to be able to find out to prevent it from happening again.

Once again, thanks for the above link.

[Seeker]

Yup, that's a tailstrike alright.

[boestar]

The aircraft will have to have the Jazz logo on it somewhere predominently displayed. This is one of the rules of operating on anothers behalf. you may recall that Skyservice had their name on all of the aircraft they operated. But I do know that that aircraft has not had the logo applied as yet.

[manwest]

The aircraft will have to have the Jazz logo on it somewhere predominently displayed. This is one of the rules of operating on anothers behalf. you may recall that Skyservice had their name on all of the aircraft they operated. But I do know that that aircraft has not had the logo applied as yet.

Pic of aircraft??

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/allan/jazz-air-757-55590.aspx

[Rookie]

Not a chance that airplane will have even a remote mention of Air Canada on it.

Jazz Air Inc (NOT Air Canada Jazz) is the registered company name, which is changing to Chorus. More than likely the airplane will be painted in TC colours with an "Operated by Chorus Aviation" decal applied somewhere.

[Don Hudson]

Thanks J.O. Looking back at past posts it seems that you are a safety oriented guy. Perhaps some information or report on the Skyservice 767 that was damaged on landing in that area several years ago. At least a reasonably easy way to get the report if there is one made by somebody. I don't know anyone who has read about what happened and it is extremely important to aviation safety to be able to find out to prevent it from happening again.

Once again, thanks for the above link.

alkaid;

If I may leap in for a sec, the following may be of interest regarding nosewheel/fuselage damage from high pitch rate de-rotations:

NTSB Safety Recommendation

and,

AAIB Bulletin # 1/2003

and,

Boeing Aero; Preventing Hard Nosewheel Touchdowns

FDA/FOQA usually have events which monitor de-rotation pitch rates and 'g' loadings. From my discussions with those who flew the B767, especially the -300, they knew of the tendency of the airplane to pitch down upon spoiler deployment, (countered slightly by the introduction of reverse) and and few have experienced it. I've experienced it on the A330 but it didn't seem to have the same tendency.

Don

[better4me]

Not a chance that airplane will have even a remote mention of Air Canada on it.

Jazz Air Inc (NOT Air Canada Jazz) is the registered company name, which is changing to Chorus. More than likely the airplane will be painted in TC colours with an "Operated by Chorus Aviation" decal applied somewhere.

Who owns the current Jazz color scheme (red, green, orange, yellow variety), Air Canada or Jazz/Chorus?

[blues deville]

Details ? Date ? Copy of accident Report ?

I think JO has added a report.

Short version....the tail struck the ground during a low level go-around. The only part of the tail section left intact below the rudder was the framework holding the APU in place. If you get to see it up close, check out the the extra rivets from the aft cabin doors to the APU exhaust. There's lots!

bd

[blues deville]

Perhaps your thinking of the Skyservice B767 in PUJ a while back.??? Landed with a bit of a crunch.

Nope. Different event.

bd

[blues deville]

alkaid;

If I may leap in for a sec, the following may be of interest regarding nosewheel/fuselage damage from high pitch rate de-rotations:

NTSB Safety Recommendation

and,

AAIB Bulletin # 1/2003

and,

Boeing Aero; Preventing Hard Nosewheel Touchdowns

FDA/FOQA usually have events which monitor de-rotation pitch rates and 'g' loadings. From my discussions with those who flew the B767, especially the -300, they knew of the tendency of the airplane to pitch down upon spoiler deployment, (countered slightly by the introduction of reverse) and and few have experienced it. I've experienced it on the A330 but it didn't seem to have the same tendency.

Don

As mentioned in the NTSB report, pre-1994 767-300 fuselages on the opposite side the forward cargo door had insufficient framework and were subject to damage with incorrect de-rotations. The Skyservice 767 incident was a result of landing on the nosewheel momentarily with the mains still off the ground. Boeing marketed the 757 and 767 to been flown by one set of pilots but there is a definite "feel" difference in the flight controls. The inboard ground spoilers did have a tendancy to wash out the tail at touchdown and its something Boeing fixed when they designed the 777s.

bd

[blues deville]

The aircraft will have to have the Jazz logo on it somewhere predominently displayed. This is one of the rules of operating on anothers behalf. you may recall that Skyservice had their name on all of the aircraft they operated. But I do know that that aircraft has not had the logo applied as yet.

True but this can be managed by placing a small label at each door frame mentioning the name of aircraft operator. When C3 sent aircraft back to the UK with Air 2000 for the summer (same paint scheme at the time, minus 1000 years) the only mention of Sir Angus was a small label at each door. Skyservice did the same with some of their UK returns operated by Canadian pilots on C-reg equipment. It does not necessarily have to be legible from far, far away.

I think they want to market this operation as Thomas Cook Canada and Jazz's visibilty may be low. But we shall soon see!

bd

[boestar]

The logo, apparently, has to be dominant according to what we are being told. Will see what happens when it gets applied. Only a couple of weeks left now.

[Guest alkaid]

alkaid;

If I may leap in for a sec, the following may be of interest regarding nosewheel/fuselage damage from high pitch rate de-rotations:

NTSB Safety Recommendation

and,

AAIB Bulletin # 1/2003

and,

Boeing Aero; Preventing Hard Nosewheel Touchdowns

FDA/FOQA usually have events which monitor de-rotation pitch rates and 'g' loadings. From my discussions with those who flew the B767, especially the -300, they knew of the tendency of the airplane to pitch down upon spoiler deployment, (countered slightly by the introduction of reverse) and and few have experienced it. I've experienced it on the A330 but it didn't seem to have the same tendency.

Don

Thanks Don,

That is interesting stuff. However, according to a subsequent poster "The Skyservice 767 incident was a result of landing on the nosewheel momentarily with the mains still off the ground" so it sounds like there could be a different reason for the incident. I'm sure somebody must know if there was a report. A large company like Skyservice is going to have some sort of investigation. Hopefully someone can confirm if the Dominican's did look into it. And if it was only an internal investigation that ended up as a controlled document, well that company(at least that portion of it) no longer exists, so I think that the only repurcussions to releasing it(if someone were to have it) would be increased safety.

[J.O.]

The DR did indeed assign a investigator in charge and promised to complete their investigation IAW ICAO annex 13. Unfortunately they lacked the resources and experience to do an effective investigation. They were assisted by the TSB (whose offer to lead the investigation was declined) and the TSB lab in Ottawa did the recorder analysis and provided a detailed report. A couple of months later, a draft report was received by the TSB and at SSV with a request that we review it and provide comments. It was overly simplified and none of the conclusions in the report were supported by the factual information. Feedback stating such was given to the IIC in the DR. That was the last anyone in Canada heard from the DR. All attempts by SSV and the TSB to communicate with the DR in the hopes of putting it to bed were unanswered and in the end we couldn't even determine if the IIC was still employed.

An internal report was written and submitted to management and was accepted, but that report is now gone. Unfortunately I learned a valuable lesson in that I should always keep copies of my work even when it's done on the company's behalf. I lost everything when my company laptop was locked out and scrubbed when I logged on to the system the morning of the shutdown.

The points Don and BDV have shared are all accurate with respect to spoilers on landing. I would add that the earliest versions of the B767-300 (such as this one) were known to be "weak" in the fuselage area affected. Future versions were strengthened significantly in that area, and those that were repaired after such damage were also strengthened, but no "retrofit" was ever made available. I believe that close to a dozen B767-300s have now suffered similar damage on landing.

Due to the age of the FDR, the number of data points on the SSV aircraft was quite limited and the sampling rates were not frequent enough to give a thorough analysis, particularly in areas such as G load, control column and surface position. An element that caused concern and confusion was that the highest vertical G-load recorded was somewhere around 1.85G (I can't recall precisely), which is well below that which should have caused such damage, but it could be that a higher G was achieved but not measured. As BDV said, it did appear that the nosewheel may have contacted the ground at one point with the mains in the air but there is some conjecture in that conclusion, again because of missing data points. The CVR was not useable because it was not properly secured after the event (not the fault of the crew). By the time it was properly secured, it had continued recording and the event was erased. All I can say with certainty is that the fuselage buckled due to a load on the nosegear during landing. A major contributing factor was the weakness of the early B767-300 fuselage. Sorry that I can't provide anything more substantial.

[Guest alkaid]

The DR did indeed assign a investigator in charge and promised to complete their investigation IAW ICAO annex 13. Unfortunately they lacked the resources and experience to do an effective investigation. They were assisted by the TSB (whose offer to lead the investigation was declined) and the TSB lab in Ottawa did the recorder analysis and provided a detailed report. A couple of months later, a draft report was received by the TSB and at SSV with a request that we review it and provide comments. It was overly simplified and none of the conclusions in the report were supported by the factual information. Feedback stating such was given to the IIC in the DR. That was the last anyone in Canada heard from the DR. All attempts by SSV and the TSB to communicate with the DR in the hopes of putting it to bed were unanswered and in the end we couldn't even determine if the IIC was still employed.

An internal report was written and submitted to management and was accepted, but that report is now gone. Unfortunately I learned a valuable lesson in that I should always keep copies of my work even when it's done on the company's behalf. I lost everything when my company laptop was locked out and scrubbed when I logged on to the system the morning of the shutdown.

The points Don and BDV have shared are all accurate with respect to spoilers on landing. I would add that the earliest versions of the B767-300 (such as this one) were known to be "weak" in the fuselage area affected. Future versions were strengthened significantly in that area, and those that were repaired after such damage were also strengthened, but no "retrofit" was ever made available. I believe that close to a dozen B767-300s have now suffered similar damage on landing.

Due to the age of the FDR, the number of data points on the SSV aircraft was quite limited and the sampling rates were not frequent enough to give a thorough analysis, particularly in areas such as G load, control column and surface position. An element that caused concern and confusion was that the highest vertical G-load recorded was somewhere around 1.85G (I can't recall precisely), which is well below that which should have caused such damage, but it could be that a higher G was achieved but not measured. As BDV said, it did appear that the nosewheel may have contacted the ground at one point with the mains in the air but there is some conjecture in that conclusion, again because of missing data points. The CVR was not useable because it was not properly secured after the event (not the fault of the crew). By the time it was properly secured, it had continued recording and the event was erased. All I can say with certainty is that the fuselage buckled due to a load on the nosegear during landing. A major contributing factor was the weakness of the early B767-300 fuselage. Sorry that I can't provide anything more substantial.

Thanks J.O.,

Every little bit of info helps including being aware of the structural weakness of early aircraft of this type. Having been so closely involved I was hoping a few more details might have been remembered. Fortunately I thought of looking at the CADORS site which provided a bit more detail for us to learn from.

"Initial information from T.S.B. Initial Notification (#A05F0093): C-GLMC, a Boeing 767-300 aircraft operated by Skyservice Airlines as flight SSV560, was landing at Punta Cana, Dominican Republic (MDPC) after a flight from Toronto (LBPIA) (CYYZ). The First Officer was the pilot flying (PF). The main wheel touchdown was normal, but the PF held the nose up longer than usual. When the PF pushed the control column forward to lower the nose, the nose landing gear came down hard causing the nosewheel to bounce several times. The aircraft came to a full stop on the runway and then taxied to the gate. Upon inspection at the gate by the flight crew, extensive circumferential wrinkling of the fuselage skin just forward of the L2 passenger door and behind the forward baggage compartment were noted. The T.S.B. was advised that the Dominican Republic will be conducting an investigation. The T.S.B. has been appointed an Accredited Representative to the investigation."

If the above info was accurate, it appears that reverse thrust was not the causal factor here. I seem to remember that the PF was very inexperienced on type and that this was a somewhat challenging landing. But I am not sure.

[blues deville]

Thanks J.O.,

Every little bit of info helps including being aware of the structural weakness of early aircraft of this type. Having been so closely involved I was hoping a few more details might have been remembered. Fortunately I thought of looking at the CADORS site which provided a bit more detail for us to learn from.

"Initial information from T.S.B. Initial Notification (#A05F0093): C-GLMC, a Boeing 767-300 aircraft operated by Skyservice Airlines as flight SSV560, was landing at Punta Cana, Dominican Republic (MDPC) after a flight from Toronto (LBPIA) (CYYZ). The First Officer was the pilot flying (PF). The main wheel touchdown was normal, but the PF held the nose up longer than usual. When the PF pushed the control column forward to lower the nose, the nose landing gear came down hard causing the nosewheel to bounce several times. The aircraft came to a full stop on the runway and then taxied to the gate. Upon inspection at the gate by the flight crew, extensive circumferential wrinkling of the fuselage skin just forward of the L2 passenger door and behind the forward baggage compartment were noted. The T.S.B. was advised that the Dominican Republic will be conducting an investigation. The T.S.B. has been appointed an Accredited Representative to the investigation."

If the above info was accurate, it appears that reverse thrust was not the causal factor here. I seem to remember that the PF was very inexperienced on type and that this was a somewhat challenging landing. But I am not sure.

This thread is getting off track but the key words here are "Initial information". A follow-up report from the FDR indicated initial touchdown on the mains were with thrust not at idle and the spoilers did not deploy allowing the aircraft to become slightly airborne again. When the FO was advised by the training captain to check forward on the controls, he did placing a momentary excess weight on the nosewheel.

The TSB considered the event to be an incident and did not send an investigative team to PUJ.

bd

[Guest alkaid]

This thread is getting off track but the key words here are "Initial information". A follow-up report from the FDR indicated initial touchdown on the mains were with thrust not at idle and the spoilers did not deploy allowing the aircraft to become slightly airborne again. When the FO was advised by the training captain to check forward on the controls, he did placing a momentary excess weight on the nosewheel.

The TSB considered the event to be an incident and did not send an investigative team to PUJ.

bd

Thank you for the information. While one could feel that the thread is getting off topic, we do have a bunch of Jazz folk that will be flyying a very similar aircraft and incident prevention is extremely important, although it appears to apply to most similar aircraft. The lack of spoiler deployment due to thrust still being applied at touchdown reminds me of the First Air 737 in Yellowknife which also was damaged after a forward control column input was made while airborne. Some similarities to the Jazz CRJ incident in Toronto a few years ago as well.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2001/a01w0117/a01w0117.asp

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2007/a07o0124/a07o0124.asp

[blues deville]

Thank you for the information. While one could feel that the thread is getting off topic, we do have a bunch of Jazz folk that will be flyying a very similar aircraft and incident prevention is extremely important, although it appears to apply to most similar aircraft. The lack of spoiler deployment due to thrust still being applied at touchdown reminds me of the First Air 737 in Yellowknife which also was damaged after a forward control column input was made while airborne. Some similarities to the Jazz CRJ incident in Toronto a few years ago as well.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2001/a01w0117/a01w0117.asp

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2007/a07o0124/a07o0124.asp

No worries. The fleet manager and training manager hired by Jazz to run your program are exceptional and will prepare your crews to operate the 757 safely and effectively. An excellent reference book to have in your home library is the B757 FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual). Enjoy the aircraft.

bd