Air Canada Flight Number 624 In The News

[inchman]

I thought about the bus thing. But having a bus sitting around 24 hours and someone to man it would cost close to 1/2 a million per year. I guess, potentially, the driver could be another airport employee doing something else while waiting for the call for the bus, but this is still at least an extra shift... maybe 2.

For something that might happen once every 20 years or so, this was just another Maslow's thing... I'm alive, so now I want to be warm. And maybe those cold passengers should have worn some appropriate clothing, rather than sandals and shorts.The worst thing that happened here was that those who weren't wearing winter clothing got cold. If this had happened anytime between May and October, they might have gotten, at worst, cool.

The airport manager said something about airport-licenced drivers. I'm not sure why the rules couldn't be relaxed for an emergency... perhaps an escort vehicle taking a few vehicles in at a time. They do it with snow removal dump trucks and other maintenance equipment.

If that 1/2 million was spent on something important like a decent approach lighting system or ILS, then the bus might not have been needed.

[Moon The Loon]

I thought about the bus thing. But having a bus sitting around 24 hours and someone to man it would cost close to 1/2 a million per year. I guess, potentially, the driver could be another airport employee doing something else while waiting for the call for the bus, but this is still at least an extra shift... maybe 2.

For something that might happen once every 20 years or so, this was just another Maslow's thing... I'm alive, so now I want to be warm. And maybe those cold passengers should have worn some appropriate clothing, rather than sandals and shorts.The worst thing that happened here was that those who weren't wearing winter clothing got cold. If this had happened anytime between May and October, they might have gotten, at worst, cool.

The airport manager said something about airport-licenced drivers. I'm not sure why the rules couldn't be relaxed for an emergency... perhaps an escort vehicle taking a few vehicles in at a time. They do it with snow removal dump trucks and other maintenance equipment.

If that 1/2 million was spent on something important like a decent approach lighting system or ILS, then the bus might not have been needed.

Thanks Inchman, but you could say the same thing about the ARFF vehicles themselves, although they do train regularly using them. Probably not the case for a bus in this example. But what price safety? Had the temperature been 10 degrees colder, what would have been the case for those folks who were shoeless and in T-shirts?

Your comment about approach aids? Spot on.

[acsidestick]

Why not have a bus waiting always at/in the firehall. Instead of 6-8 guys jumping into the same vehicle, one could jump in the bus and drive just as fast following the first fire truck, and would be delayed 0 seconds by doing so. Bus and fire truck arrive with same number of AARF as usual.

[Guest]

Why not have a bus waiting always at/in the firehall. Instead of 6-8 guys jumping into the same vehicle, one could jump in the bus and drive just as fast following the first fire truck, and would be delayed 0 seconds by doing so. Bus and fire truck arrive with same number of AARF as usual.

Would the bus have the same capability to reach the crash site? I thought the AARF vehicles had some ability to operate off road so to speak.

[John S.]

I don't think that you need to have a bus waiting at the airport. Just having it sitting there would cost a lot just for weekly test runs if nothing else.

If I were the on duty manager that night I would have gone out to the taxi/limo line and told the first 5 vehicles to follow me. I would have then taken them airside to the waiting passengers and told the drivers to take a load to the terminal and come back for another till everyone's inside. Everybody would have been out of the cold in fifteen minutes tops.

As for airside security: To hell with any security nonsense - let's get those people inside. NOW!

I hope that group wins compensation from the airport authority and the airport management in particular.

[DEFCON]

Crash fire rescue services were thoroughly considered during the Dryden Enquiry. The overall coverage situation has only been degraded in the time following. Standby bus services are highly unlikely.

[blues deville]

Or just have a full supply of large blankets and hand warmers in one of the rescue vehicles. Enough to keep people warm until they can be moved indoors.

[Say Again, Over!]

Those ideas to get the people in are all well intentionned but would only be worthwhile if the accident happened near or on the runway. Limos wouldn't make it very far on a much contaminated runway and the bus would be next to useless off the pavement as well. Besides would one bus be enough? Let's say you can fit 80 people in a large city type bus, you might still need three more in some scenarios.

After securing the scene, the ARFF will go into passenger protection. It's not to say someone might not get frostbite and that everyone will be toasty warm but, hey, you just survived an airplane crash. Comfort is secondary.

[moeman]

[acsidestick]

Guys, most AARF have vehicles 10 and even 30 years old with less than 100 Kms on them. Having a bus which is basically new and gets driven the same KM should last forever if started each week and taken for a 200m trip around the firehall. It would get about as much use as the real fire trucks. Any point ON the airport should be within short walking distance from a nearest taxiway or runway.

I don't understand the "there is nothing that could possibly be done to avoid this ever again mindset". In this case, the plane in ON a runway. A bus could have had everyone inside within 15 minutes.

As to the expense of having a vehicle sit around for year, that is what AARF does. No standby driver needed, as AARF can drive it themselves if on airport property.

Montreal still has a half dozen people movers sitting doing nothing, but they still have them. In an event like this, they could be utilized with an airstair.

This bus holds 256 passengers

[Thebean]

Why buy buses when it's more fun to endlessly build airport bricks and mortar and being able to puff one's chest out as to who has the prettiest warehouse, (which is pretty much all an airport terminal building is / should be, anyway) at annual boondoggle conferences held in exotic climes in the midst of Canada's winter?

Require the LAA's to have bus capacity for 200 people available on 15 minutes notice and they'll conjure up a way to increase the AIF another $5 a head as they each build the sexiest custom buses the world has ever seen, and find a way to pay another tranche of bureaucrats a couple hundred G's a year to manage the process.

[ywgame]

Re initial touch down for Kip...not sure what rule is about linking but avherald has the details and pics...the berm is at 780 ft from threshold and initial ground contact is at 1100 feet from threshold.

[Kip Powick]

Re initial touch down for Kip...not sure what rule is about linking but avherald has the details and pics...the berm is at 780 ft from threshold and initial ground contact is at 1100 feet from threshold.

That description on AVHearld is certainly questionable. If the aircraft touched down SW of the road, why is there not a picture of that "touchdown" area??

Personally I think the aircraft hit the hydro wires, then hit just short of the berm/array and flopped onto the runway. I do not believe it "touched down" short of the perimeter road.

The "Google earth screenshot on AVHearld could be in error...and I think it is.

[MD2]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but with prevailing winds strongly favoring Runway 32, was there a reason the approach was done onto runway 05? Is that why they had to hold, perhaps for the runway to be cleared? In general, why does Air Canada often asks for NDB approaches, instead of RNAV approaches? Their aircraft are likely not equipped for RNP and LPV approaches, but are they not equipped to do LNAV/VNAV constant descent angle approaches? Thanks

[blues deville]

Not sure if this has been discussed, but with prevailing winds strongly favoring Runway 32, was there a reason the approach was done onto runway 05? Is that why they had to hold, perhaps for the runway to be cleared? In general, why does Air Canada often asks for NDB approaches, instead of RNAV approaches? Their aircraft are likely not equipped for RNP and LPV approaches, but are they not equipped to do LNAV/VNAV constant descent angle approaches? Thanks

Apparently this A320 and some others in their fleet are not GPS equipped. Landing on 32 would certainly have been a better choice for the reported winds but I don't think the runway was cleared.

[Thebean]

Isn't YHZ 05/23 10,500' long?

It was one of the Space Shuttle's alternate landing sites. Lots and lots of stopping distance available.

It's not like YTZ where, even with the extension, there'd be half the runway available.

[Seeker]

Isn't YHZ 05/23 10,500' long?

It was one of the Space Shuttle's alternate landing sites. Lots and lots of stopping distance available.

It's not like YTZ where, even with the extension, there'd be half the runway available.

Not that it seems to be an issue in this case but runway length is not necessarily the most important concern with slippery runways - usually it's about the CRFI and crosswind component.

[Lakelad]

..
Air Canada Flight 624 passengers receiving $5K cheques from airline

Lawyer Ray Wagner calls it 'a gratuity' and says $5K payments don't change airline's liability

Thu Apr 02, 2015 - CBC News

Passengers from Air Canada Flight 624 confirmed to CBC News Thursday that the airline has been sending out letters and cheques to those who were on board when the plane crash landed at Halifax Stanfield International Airport early Sunday morning.

One passenger, who did not want to be named, said she received a cheque for $5,000 on Wednesday. The woman said it was couriered to her.

Another passenger who was sent a cheque said he has consulted with a lawyer to find out if he can cash the cheque and still be part of a class action lawsuit. He said he's still waiting for legal advice.

Personal injury lawyer Ray Wagner, whose office is in Halifax, said he has read about five of the letters.

"The $5,000 is not an admission of liability, it is a payment for their expenses and inconvenience," he said. "If there is a settlement, at the end of the day, for that individual, then that $5,000 will be deducted from it."

He said passengers from Flight 624 that get cheques can cash them, but should be cautious.

"They should have it looked at by a lawyer before they do so, just to make sure there's no changes in the text [of the letter]."

In a copy of the letter provided to CBC News, Air Canada refers to the crash as an "unfortunate experience" and says "we certainly understand the events were disturbing to you." It also gives passengers a 1-800 number to call to deal with any losses or expenses related to the crash.

Air Canada spokesperson Angela Mah said the airline continues to deal directly with passengers with any matters they may have.

"Contrary to statements by third parties, there is no requirement for our customers to sign any commitment," she said.

'Deep psychological injuries'

.

[MD2]

Apparently this A320 and some others in their fleet are not GPS equipped. Landing on 32 would certainly have been a better choice for the reported winds but I don't think the runway was cleared.

Thanks, not sure but RSC reports from the time can verify which runway was cleared and in use. Based on the winds perhaps it was 32 and they had to request 05 because of their onbord equipment. What approach does Air Canada have to 32?

[inchman]

Apparently this A320 and some others in their fleet are not GPS equipped. Landing on 32 would certainly have been a better choice for the reported winds but I don't think the runway was cleared.

The wind in the METAR was 35019G26. As we know, non-tower winds are in True. The declination in YHZ is 17 degrees. So, if we assume that the wind was exactly 350T, it was somewhere around 007M. If we're going to be perfectly accurate, the runway heading is 053 or 323. So, it's 2 degrees difference. Runway 05 is 3000 ft longer, has centerline lights and was the better cleared runway.

From a runway selection perspective 05 was the correct choice.

[Seeker]

The wind in the METAR was 35019G26. As we know, non-tower winds are in True. The declination in YHZ is 17 degrees. So, if we assume that the wind was exactly 350T, it was somewhere around 007M. If we're going to be perfectly accurate, the runway heading is 053 or 323. So, it's 2 degrees difference. Runway 05 is 3000 ft longer, has centerline lights and was the better cleared runway.

From a runway selection perspective 05 was the correct choice.

There you go, ruining their finger-pointing with facts. Spoilsport!

[DEFCON]

A suit will give these people what, a refund for damage to, or a loss of personal property if any? I don't believe they can make a claim for fear, pain, or inconvenience and 5K may be the best result anyone will see under the circumstances.

[Kip Powick]

A class action suit is presently being readied. ( Lawyer was on TV this morning). Some folks have been on TV stating they can't sleep, keep reliving the nightmare etc. etc......

(anything for a buck and I am sure many feel..."why not"...this 'government' airline can afford a few million" especially when the Conservatives are using 7.5 Million of our tax dollars to 'advertise' their budget !!)

Sue happy...unfortunately a trait we have slowly inherited from those that live south of us.....how sad.

[MD2]

The wind in the METAR was 35019G26. As we know, non-tower winds are in True. The declination in YHZ is 17 degrees. So, if we assume that the wind was exactly 350T, it was somewhere around 007M. If we're going to be perfectly accurate, the runway heading is 053 or 323. So, it's 2 degrees difference. Runway 05 is 3000 ft longer, has centerline lights and was the better cleared runway.

From a runway selection perspective 05 was the correct choice.

What instrument approach would have been available to the crew for runway 32?

[Seeker]

Only GNSS based approachs on 32 in YHZ.