Kip Powick Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 MY SPECULATION ---- Aircraft in landing config and the N/G caught the ground first and pulled the nose down, ground impact, nose cone gone and from then on everyone was a passenger.Note the buckling in the area of the FO's window which in my mind would indicate the N/G being rammed back by ground impact.Would be nice to have a photo of initial impact point but it doesn't look like it was on the runway. If impact was on the runway, the aircraft would have slid a lot further down the asphalt ...I think.....plus that nose area wouldn't have picked up that piece of red antennae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Yikes !!!!Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deicer Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Wonder if they will post an aerial shot of the whole scene from point of impact to final resting place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Posted March 29, 2015 Author Share Posted March 29, 2015 Well, THAT explains why it was a 'hard landing'. Hard to do it smooth when much of the gear and perhaps one engine is no longer helping with a smooth transition to pavement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av8tor Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 My recollection of YHZ Rwy 05 is that it was/is a runway waiting for an accident to happen. As I recall (been retired 7 years), 05 has a hump at the touch down end and the terrain gently slopes away down the runway and moreso in the opposite direction down into a small valley. No precision approach. Particularly at night, even on a clear night, the illusion/perception on final approach can easily be one of being higher than you believe you should be. So the conditions for a trap are all set. Night time, instrument approach, bad weather (really bad snowstorm, really gusty winds), no flight path guidance other than the non-precision FPA (Flight Path Angle) and possibly VASIS/PAPI, break-out of the clouds, restricted vis, turbulence, the transition to the visual picture says to you “Holy Crap, I’m high!”, increase rate of descent until the realization (very quickly) becomes “Holy crap, I’m low!” and before you can say WTF, it’s a Gotcha!I’m not for an instant second-guessing the pilots involved in this accident, what I am saying is that I was always very wary of that runway, particularly at night. I believe that in 2015, and have believed for many years now, that here is no need, no necessity and no excuse for non-precision approach aids at airports, particularly international airports. Every runway that has an instrument approach should be served by a precision approach. Having been myself the subject of an Accident Investigation Board, I have some sense of what the two involved pilots are going through. I wish them well – they may very well be members of this forum – and in a feeble attempt to inject a bit of humor into a situation that I know is not very funny for them or their passengers: Remember the big picture … any landing that you can walk away from … is a good one! Speaking only of course, as one who has gone before them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 My recollection of YHZ Rwy 05 is that it was/is a runway waiting for an accident to happen. As I recall (been retired 7 years), 05 has a hump at the touch down end and the terrain gently slopes away down the runway and moreso in the opposite direction down into a small valley. No precision approach. Particularly at night, even on a clear night, the illusion/perception on final approach can easily be one of being higher than you believe you should be. So the conditions for a trap are all set. Night time, instrument approach, bad weather (really bad snowstorm, really gusty winds), no flight path guidance other than the non-precision FPA (Flight Path Angle) and possibly VASIS/PAPI, break-out of the clouds, restricted vis, turbulence, the transition to the visual picture says to you Holy Crap, Im high!, increase rate of descent until the realization (very quickly) becomes Holy crap, Im low! and before you can say WTF, its a Gotcha!Im not for an instant second-guessing the pilots involved in this accident, what I am saying is that I was always very wary of that runway, particularly at night. I believe that in 2015, and have believed for many years now, that here is no need, no necessity and no excuse for non-precision approach aids at airports, particularly international airports. Every runway that has an instrument approach should be served by a precision approach. Having been myself the subject of an Accident Investigation Board, I have some sense of what the two involved pilots are going through. I wish them well they may very well be members of this forum and in a feeble attempt to inject a bit of humor into a situation that I know is not very funny for them or their passengers: Remember the big picture any landing that you can walk away from is a good one! Speaking only of course, as one who has gone before them.YHZ 05 an accident waiting to happen? Really? In this case I doubt they saw anything resembling runway enviroment until closer to minimums. Any odd visual illusions created by local terrain or runway slope would not be a factor here for a night landing. Wind direction/windshear more likely a factor on this particular landing. Glad no one was seriously injured in Halifax. I'm sure this AC flightcrew will be able to advise exactly what went wrong for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 29, 2015 Share Posted March 29, 2015 Can someone officially clarify?Was this a "crash" or "hard landing" ?Just my thoughts..... but if it was a "hard landing", shouldn't the aircraft have contacted the runway first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Can someone officially clarify?Was this a "crash" or "hard landing" ?Just my thoughts..... but if it was a "hard landing", shouldn't the aircraft have contacted the runway first.Good question. The COO from Air Canada was asked the same thing earlier today. I believe he said a hard landing makes it to the gate. A crash doesn't. Listen to his comments here:https://ca.news.yahoo.com/twenty-five-hospital-air-canada-flight-slides-off-090153577.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av8tor Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 YHZ 05 an accident waiting to happen? Really? In this case I doubt they saw anything resembling runway enviroment until closer to minimums. Any odd visual illusions created by local terrain or runway slope would not be a factor here for a night landing. Wind direction/windshear more likely a factor on this particular landing.Glad no one was seriously injured in Halifax. I'm sure this AC flightcrew will be able to advise exactly what went wrong for them.Yup, blues, an accident waiting to happen. Really. That’s my opinion only. I am permitted to have one, aren’t I?It should go without saying that no one knows what these two pilots saw or didn’t see when they transitioned to visual, or where in the approach phase they transitioned to visual– except the two pilots themselves.In the photo posted above by CD, it appears that the red shrapnel to the left of what appears to be a standing approach light bar is the renmants of some part of the approach lighting. It has been reported (but not confirmed) that the aircraft struck power lines at some point and in the above-referenced photograph power lines can be seen in the bottom right-hand corner of the photo. On television these power lines have been shown from a different angle and it appears (once again not confirmed) that a segment of the power lines are missing.Anything and everything will be considered as a “factor” in this accident investigation and yes, having two live pilots and all the data recorders should allow the TSB investigation to proceed with all factors able to be examined fully.Their report will hopefully allow us all to understand what happened and put measures in place to prevent a similar occurrence from ever happening again.Thankfully, no one was seriously injured in this most unfortunate event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAS Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Due to injuries & the severe damage this incident should be classified as an accident. From Transportation Safety Board RegulationsAviation OccurrencesMarginal note:Report to Board2. (1) The owner, operator, pilot-in-command, any crew member of the aircraft and any person providing air traffic services that have direct knowledge of an occurrence must report the following aviation occurrences to the Board if they result directly from the operation of an aircraft:(a) in the case of an accident(i) a person is killed or sustains a serious injury as a result of(A) being on board the aircraft,( coming into direct contact with any part of the aircraft, including parts that have become detached from the aircraft, or© being directly exposed to jet blast, rotor down wash or propeller wash,(ii) the aircraft sustains structural failure or damage that adversely affects the aircrafts structural strength, performance or flight characteristics and would normally require major repair or replacement of any affected component, except ( in the case of an incident involving an aircraft having a maximum certificated take-off weight greater than 2 250 kg, or of an aircraft being operated under an air operator certificate issued under Part VII of the Canadian Aviation Regulations(iv) difficulties in controlling the aircraft are encountered owing to any aircraft system malfunction, weather phenomena, wake turbulence, uncontrolled vibrations or operations outside the flight envelope,(v) the aircraft fails to remain within the intended landing or take-off area, lands with all or part of the landing gear retracted or drags a wing tip, an engine pod or any other part of the aircraft, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Yup, blues, an accident waiting to happen. Really. That’s my opinion only. I am permitted to have one, aren’t I?It should go without saying that no one knows what these two pilots saw or didn’t see when they transitioned to visual, or where in the approach phase they transitioned to visual– except the two pilots themselves. event.Of course you are. However, if you come out swinging with that statement be ready for a comment or two. I hope they did see a runway (or approach/runway lights) because if they didn't its going to be tough explaining to the boss why they got so low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 CAUTION....If one wants to reference AVHERALD I would suggest you read that sites FAQs....... particularly the last QUESTION concerning using their information.The statement Simon uses is not exactly clear but we don't want anyone here getting charged with borrowing his information Kip: the following is their official policy and it would appear that some quotes are allowed.Q: Can we take information from articles of The Aviation Herald and publish on our website? Without subscription you can use information provided in our articles for your private purposes, but you are not allowed to republish the information in any form (exception: to illustrate an argument user posts on bulletin boards may use small quotes with proper credit and link to our original article even without subscription). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thor Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 My thoughts and prayers are with the pilots, be strong guys, most of us are pilots on this forum and we respect you as pilots. Therefore but for the grace of God go I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av8tor Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Of course you are. However, if you come out swinging with that statement be ready for a comment or two. Hey blues,I don’t mind, and in fact fully expect a “comment or two” to my own commentaries here. I don’t see how my remarks on Rwy 05 represent “come out swinging” - after all, I was commenting about an airport runway – and, while you may not have so intended, your incredulity (”Really?”) smacked of condescension and dismissal (to me). Or maybe I’m just too sensitive? I still believe that there are huge unappreciated and misunderstood environmental issues with Rwy 05 in YHZ. You’ve flown in there and apparently don’t see it; I’ve flown in there and do. I’d be happy to discuss the environmental issues at any length but out of respect for the two pilots involved in this accident we should all try to not armchair-quarterback this event and just let the TSB do its job.To move on, as to whether this event was an “accident” or a “hard landing”, in my opinion , this was unquestionably an accident – hard landing or not. AC would like this to be classified as a hard landing but the TSB, again, will make that determination.Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
av8tor Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 My thoughts and prayers are with the pilots, be strong guys, most of us are pilots on this forum and we respect you as pilots. Therefore but for the grace of God go I.+1 Amen to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Hey blues,I dont mind, and in fact fully expect a comment or two to my own commentaries here. I dont see how my remarks on Rwy 05 represent come out swinging - after all, I was commenting about an airport runway and, while you may not have so intended, your incredulity (Really?) smacked of condescension and dismissal (to me). Or maybe Im just too sensitive? I still believe that there are huge unappreciated and misunderstood environmental issues with Rwy 05 in YHZ. Youve flown in there and apparently dont see it; Ive flown in there and do. Id be happy to discuss the environmental issues at any length but out of respect for the two pilots involved in this accident we should all try to not armchair-quarterback this event and just let the TSB do its job.To move on, as to whether this event was an accident or a hard landing, in my opinion , this was unquestionably an accident hard landing or not. AC would like this to be classified as a hard landing but the TSB, again, will make that determination.Cheers,My "really" was just a innocent reply to your comment. Nothing nasty at all. I had just never heard anyone make that statement regarding 05 at YHZ. Have a good week and keep the posts coming. bd(Great avatar by the way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thor Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Why not an ILS on 05 AND 32 ????Instead of turning the terminal into a shopping mall that is esthetically pleasing how about some proper infrastructure.Many airports in Canada in the same dire need of this (CYOW at the top of my list).With the RNAV RNP Y for 05 and 32 DH is 250' agl. RNP .1, and 311' for RNP .3 for RWY 32 with a 3* glide path. That's almost as good as an ILS.I do agree that too much money is spent on the terminals (like the squished soda can in YEG) however, I'm not sure the AIF applies to the taxiway / RWY improvements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 to all involved chins up, we all support you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Remember that when incidents / /accidents are originally commented on for the news, the people commenting have very little real time information and are usually in the information gathering process. Originally reported as a hard landing because no one knew any better until the scene was assessed. That hard landing was upgraded to Accident / /Crash once it was assessed. As was posted above the guidelines are clear as to which is which. In this case we have an ACCIDENT.I am glad there were no serious injuries.On the Runway note. Having had the opportunity to land (as a Passenger) on that runway at least 20 times in the last year I can agree that something is strange with the approach. It is one of the roughest approaches and usually not a very good landing. The aircraft type makes ZERO difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Approach end of RW 05 Runway to the left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 IFG and Maverick, maybe he can't afford a new keyboard, or maybe he has a disability. Either way, we can be inclusive here.James, please keep posting. Your contributions are welcomed and valued. Besides, it's good exercise for my old brain to figure out what you're saying. ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I vote "Hard Landing". (I know I don't get a vote, but hey...?)... The aircraft made the runway, and the people all walked away! That's not a crash in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cp fa Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I think the debate over what to call it is starting to generate bad PR for the company. Calling it a hard landing is being seen by some as an attempt to minimize or whitewash what happened.Whatever you call it, it was still a very serious incident, that fortunately didn't result in any fatalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I vote "Hard Landing". (I know I don't get a vote, but hey...?)... The aircraft made the runway, and the people all walked away! That's not a crash in my book.CBC and many local stations are now calling it a "Crash Landing".. I guess that covers the fact that after that landing, they could not taxi to the gate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.