Rouge A319 Fin263

[AAS]

I've heard this Rouge 319 had a hard landing in MBJ.

3.1 on the G meter.

Aircraft is to be ferried to MIA gear down for maintenance.

[blues deville]

Is the aircraft back in service?

From CADORS National Report

Aircraft Information

Registration Mark:FZUG Foreign Registration:

Flight #:ROU1804 Flight Rule:IFR

Aircraft Category:Aeroplane Country of Registration:Canada

Make:AIRBUS Model:A319-114

Year Built:1997 Amateur Built:No

Engine Make:CFM INTERNATIONAL Engine Model:CFM56-5A5

Engine Type:Turbo fan Gear Type:Land

Phase of Flight:Landing Damage:No Damage

Owner:Air Canada rouge LP

Operator:AIR CANADA ROUGE (17978)

Operator Type:Commercial CARs Subpart:705

Aircraft Event Information

Hard landing

Occurrence Summary

Date Entered:2014-05-15

Narrative:

TSB Report#A14F0065: The Air Canada Rouge LP Airbus A319-100 aircraft (AC1804, C-FZUG) sustained a hard landing in MKJS (Montego Bay, Jamaica). The hard landing was reported by the crew and through the onboard diagnostics, maintenance determined that the aircraft experienced a 3.12 Gs landing, exceeding the hard landing limit of 2.6 Gs. One bolt on the left hand gear slave upper link migrated from its hole after the nut sheared. Airbus was notified of the event and a Hard Landing Phase 1 inspection was performed with no findings. Based on this information a Phase 2 inspection may not be required. The aircraft was removed from service and was scheduled for a ferry flight with the landing gear extended, to an MRO facility in Miami, Florida. FDR data was provided to the TSB for further evaluation. A minor injury to one passenger was reported.

O.P.I.: Further Action Required:No

[Critter]

I don't rely on MBJ ATC to report accurate winds. They always seem to be reporting steady wind when that is clearly not the case. I've had the bottom drop out a few times short final as there always seems to be a bit of a shear due to them hills.

[blues deville]

Apparently Airbus will not approve a ferry flight for this aircraft. It appears the damage is substantial and it's still parked in MBJ.

Anyone know the age of the A319 (C-FZUG)?

[moeman]

According to this site, it's 16.9 years young:

http://www.planespotters.net/Airline/Air-Canada-Rouge

[Zan Vetter]

I was in MBJ yesterday and didn't see it. Then again I wasn't looking. But I heard it was already back home.

[J.O.]

It'd be pretty hard to hide an A319 at MBJ.

[blues deville]

Perhaps they finally got approval for a ferry flight.

[Don Hudson]

Unless there was significant damage, (cracks on the gear trunions or spar-web) I can't see Airbus not granting a ferry permit. Where'd the original information that Airbus wouldn't grant the permit come from? The CADORS stated that the airplane was already scheduled for a ferry flight.

Notwithstanding all, this was a good catch by the maintenance people in MBJ and grounding the airplane instead of flying it until it could all be sorted out was the correct response to the pilot reports and the flight data.

[blues deville]

Unless there was significant damage, (cracks on the gear trunions or spar-web) I can't see Airbus not granting a ferry permit. Where'd the original information that Airbus wouldn't grant the permit come from? The CADORS stated that the airplane was already scheduled for a ferry flight.

From a friend in AC maintenance. He was called out to inspect the aircraft and review the damage, however, management staff went instead. The aircraft may have been ferried to MIA and that's where it sits. I am not sure. But if we see C-FZUG around in the next few weeks we will know it was repairable.

[Guest]

Here is the final report: from the TSB  http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/unstable-approach-led-to-may-2014-hard-landing-of-air-canada-rouge-flight-in-montego-bay-jamaica-610111835.html

Unstable approach led to May 2014 hard landing of Air Canada Rouge flight in Montego Bay, Jamaica

RICHMOND HILL, ON, Jan. 9, 2017 /CNW/ - In its investigation report (A14F0065) released today, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) determined that an unstable approach led to the 10 May 2014 hard landing of an Air Canada Rouge Airbus 319 at the Sangster International Airport in Montego Bay, Jamaica. There were no injuries and no structural damage to the aircraft.

The Air Canada Rouge Airbus A319 was operating as flight AC1804 from Toronto, Ontario, to Montego Bay, Jamaica, with 131 passengers and 6 crew members on board. At approximately 14 minutes before touchdown, the aircraft was cleared for a non-precision approach to Runway 07 at the Montego Bay airport. The approach became unstable and the aircraft touched down hard. The landing subjected the main landing gear to very high loading. The aircraft was subsequently inspected and the main landing gear shock absorbers were replaced as a precaution.

The investigation determined that the approach became unstable as a result of inconsistent airspeed management and delayed configuration of the aircraft for landing. The flight crew did not adhere to standard operating procedures, which required the monitoring of all available parameters during approach and landing.  The investigation also found that simulator training to recognize an unstable approach leading to a missed approach had not been provided. As such, the flight crew did not recognize the instability of the approach and continued it well beyond the point at which a missed approach and go-around should have been initiated.

If flight crews do not follow standard procedures and best practices that facilitate the monitoring of stabilized approach criteria and excessive parameter deviations, there is a risk that undesired aircraft states will be mismanaged. Unstable approaches are one of the key safety issues on the 2016 TSB Watchlist. There is also an outstanding Board recommendation (A14-01) calling for Transport Canada to require airlines to monitor and reduce unstable approaches that continue to a landing.

Following the occurrence, Air Canada Rouge refined its stable-approach policy, modified its training to include more manual flying scenarios and incorporated simulator training for unstable approaches leading to a missed approach.

See the investigation page for more information.

The TSB is an independent agency that investigates marine, pipeline, railway and aviation transportation occurrences. Its sole aim is the advancement of transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.

The TSB is online at www.tsb.gc.ca. Keep up to date through RSS, Twitter (@TSBCanada), YouTube, Flickr and our blog.

[Canoehead]

Pretty good, detailed report.

But upwards of 3 years later?  There must be an insane amount of bureaucracy to deal with.  It's the year 2017 now.  We have better communication and computing power than ever.  That information should not take this long to be disseminated, especially when they knew within days what happened.  Is this a function of lawyers and official languages act or am I missing something?

 

[Don Hudson]

Yes, good report with good analysis and recommendations. So it's a real puzzle as to why this report is two years, eight months in the making, especially when the TSB is stating,

Quote

If flight crews do not follow standard procedures and best practices that facilitate the monitoring of stabilized approach criteria and excessive parameter deviations, there is a risk that undesired aircraft states will be mismanaged. Unstable approaches are one of the key safety issues on the 2016 TSB Watchlist. There is also an outstanding Board recommendation (A14-01) calling for Transport Canada to require airlines to monitor and reduce unstable approaches that continue to a landing.

If it is on their watch-list, why not get the report out ASAP? Unless I'm missing something, it's not a complicated thing to analyze, assess and report upon.

Rouge may have dealt with the handling matter and sim training etc., but they aren't the only airline in Canada that needs to hear about adhering to SOPs and keeping the approach stable.

[Kip Powick]

I am wondering if a similar set of circumstances/happenings occurred at HZ

[Vsplat]

Kip, I don't know why you would speculate on HZ this way.  IMO it is unfair to the crew and, quite frankly, throwing needless fuel on a litigation fire.

You will no doubt see the differences between a visual approach on a VFR day to a warm destination and a minimums IFR approach on a cold day in a snow storm.  And, of course, rather different outcomes.

There is an active TSB investigation in progress, please just let it continue.

Vs

 

 

[Kip Powick]

35 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

Kip, I don't know why you would speculate on HZ this way.  IMO it is unfair to the crew and, quite frankly, throwing needless fuel on a litigation fire.

You will no doubt see the differences between a visual approach on a VFR day to a warm destination and a minimums IFR approach on a cold day in a snow storm.  And, of course, rather different outcomes.

There is an active TSB investigation in progress, please just let it continue.

Vs

 

 

Ouch !

There was no intent to "assume" that the Halifax crew copied the other crew with their cockpit procedures. What I was attempting to intimate, perhaps poorly,  was that the HZ accident could have been of the same variety....unstabilized approach....fair enough ??

I don't really see how my post could throw " fuel on a litigation fire" when there is no report available for anyone and what weight would any posting on any forum by anyone have unless the poster posted concrete evidence from a named source. ?

Re; the active investigation...I will assume you, like me and many others on this forum, are wondering  why it is taking so long to come up with a report........as we approach year two. 

I would think a major carrier in Canada would get a bit more priority with respect to making the report available, especially to the airline industry so that corrective actions, if  illuminated  and required, could be put into effect immediately. 

[blues deville]

4 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

I am wondering if a similar set of circumstances/happenings occurred at HZ

I've done each destination many times in both Airbus and Boeing. There's a difference between an NPA at MBJ and a lousy winter night NPA into YHZ. 

Lets wait to see what the TSB has to say about YHZ.

[Vsplat]

Kip, based on your clarification, I believe I got your meaning correct.

Please read the recent developments regarding YHZ and the numerous attempts to assign negligence wherever it may stick.  I assume you have read the TSB report at MBJ and the numerous places it cites crew deviations from SOP.  Do you really want to link that context to YHZ in any way without knowing the facts?

We have had this type of discussion before.  Do I wish official reports could be done more quickly?  Perhaps, but not at the expense of accuracy.  The TSB is as under funded as it gets.  That is no secret.  If it is any consolation, major airlines generally assign delegates to the investigation and, to the extent everyone respects protocol, those who need to know about a pressing threat surfaced in the course of the investigation generally find out as soon as possible.  The rest of us just need to wait for our tax dollars to work.

Vs

[Kip Powick]

Vsplat / blues deville