Jump to content

WS excursion YHZ


Kasey
 Share

Recommended Posts

Plane arriving from Toronto slides off Halifax airport runway

Published Sunday, January 5, 2020 12:44PM ASTLast Updated Sunday, January 5, 2020 1:37PM AST
WestJet Flight 248

Halifax Stanfield International Airport Fire & Emergency Services says it appears the aircraft contained over 100 passengers. They also note the passengers are awaiting busses to transport them off of the runway.

SHARE

  facebook-icon.png  
2K
  twitter-icon.png  
 
  reddit-icon.png  
  share-icon.png  
 
 
  print-icon.png  
  email-icon.png  
 

HALIFAX -- Amidst snowy weather, a plane carrying passengers from Toronto slid off the runway at Halifax Stanfield International Airport on Sunday afternoon.

At around 12:20 p.m., reports of WestJet flight 248 from Toronto veering off the runway at the airport began appearing on social media.

 

My flight, Westjet 248 from Toronto has slid off the runway. No idea of damage although it doubt it. I think we are ok. But a big ass tow truck is in its way.
It could be a while before we get to the airport.

 
 
 
 
 
 

A Westjet plane has slid off the runway at Halifax Airport. Multiple tweets from people on the flight suggest everyone is ok. Buses are transporting passengers back to the airport. @CTVAtlantic

 
Embedded video
 
 
 
 

There are currently no reports of injuries, fatalities or damage to the aircraft.

Halifax Stanfield International Airport Fire & Emergency Services says it appears the aircraft contained over 100 passengers. They also note the passengers are awaiting busses to transport them off of the runway.

 

A WestJet aircraft is currently disabled at the end of runway 14/32. We’re in the process of transporting passengers from the aircraft to the terminal building. No injuries are reported at this time.

 
 
 
 

At around 1:15 p.m., passengers began disembarking the aircraft to be transported to the airport.

 

The first group of passengers have left. Each coach carries 20 people. So 40 people has left. But since this is a full, big plane, and I am in the third last row in the back. I’m going to be here for a while.

View image on Twitter
 
23
From the tower tapes at liveatc.net and FlightRadar24, C-FUJR, a B-738, 172 pax plus 6 crew, no injuries, no visible damage.

Weather around the time of the accident:

CYHZ 051549Z 01016G27KT 1/2SM R14/5000FT/N SN OVC002 M00/M00 A2912 RMK ST8 SLP869

ILS to 14, tower winds 010/14G22, RVR's 3500, then 4500 then 4000.Twitter Ads info and privacy
 
 
 
 
 
 

SHARE

  facebook-icon.png  
2K
  twitter-icon.png  
 
  reddit-icon.png  
  share-icon.png  
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Ogimet.com. Overrun occurred off the end of 14 at 1607Z

METAR/SPECI from CYHZ, Halifax International Airport (Canada). SP     05/01/2020 17:35->     

SPECI CYHZ 051735Z 36022G33KT 3/4SM R14/5000VP6000FT/U -SN
           DRSN OVC004 M01/M01 A2910 RMK ST8 /S10/ SLP860=

SA     05/01/2020 17:00->     

METAR CYHZ 051700Z 36020G29KT 3/4SM R14/5500VP6000FT/N -SN
           DRSN OVC002 M01/M01 A2911 RMK ST8 /S09/ SLP864=

SP     05/01/2020 16:18->     

SPECI CYHZ 051618Z 36018G25KT 1/2SM R14/4000FT/N SN OVC003
           M01/M01 A2912 RMK ST8 SLP869=

SA     05/01/2020 16:00->     

METAR CYHZ 051600Z 36015G23KT 1/2SM R14/4000V5500FT/D SN
           OVC002 M00/M00 A2912 RMK ST8 /S07/ SLP869=

SP     05/01/2020 15:49->     

SPECI CYHZ 051549Z 01016G27KT 1/2SM R14/5000FT/N SN OVC002
           M00/M00 A2912 RMK ST8 SLP869=

SP     05/01/2020 15:30->     

SPECI CYHZ 051530Z 01016G23KT 5/8SM R14/P6000FT/D -SN OVC002
           M00/M00 A2914 RMK ST8 /S05/ SLP874=

SA     05/01/2020 15:00->     

METAR CYHZ 051500Z 01016G24KT 1 1/4SM -SN OVC003 M00/M00
           A2915 RMK ST8 SLP879=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's time for the operators to start cancelling a lot more flights to YHZ. That might convince them to spend some of their AIF money on actually improving the Airport.

Edited by J.O.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TSB investigators trying to determine why jet skidded off Halifax runway

Published Monday, January 6, 2020 10:07AM ASTLast Updated Monday, January 6, 2020 11:18AM AST
plane skids off runway

Passengers disembark a Westjet aircraft that skidded off the runway at Halifax Stanfield International Airport on Sunday, Jan. 5, 2020. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Andrew Vaughan)

SHARE

  facebook-icon.png  
117
  twitter-icon.png  
 
  reddit-icon.png  
  share-icon.png  
 
 
  print-icon.png  
  email-icon.png  

HALIFAX -- Three investigators from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada are trying to determine why a passenger jet skidded off the end of a runway at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport on the weekend.

WestJet Flight 248 landed in the midst of a snowstorm just after noon on Sunday and overshot Runway 14 with 172 passengers and seven crew members aboard.

There were no injuries and it remains unclear whether the Boeing 737 was damaged when it came to a stop on a grassy area about 50 metres beyond the runway.

"There was preliminary information that there was no apparent damage to the aircraft," board spokesman Chris Krepski said in an interview. "The maintenance organization for WestJet will take a closer look at the aircraft."

Krepski said the board has three main options as it moves forward with its investigation.

The board could conduct a comprehensive investigation and submit a full report with recommendations. It could also submit a shorter report based on a limited probe, or it could simply add basic details to its database if investigators determine there is nothing that would contribute to transportation safety.

"Right now, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada continues to gather information and we'll assess that information to determine what the scope of an investigation might be," Krepski said.

Runway 14 was reopened Sunday around 10 p.m. after the jet was towed away.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Jan 6, 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This runway/airport claims another victim. Fortunately no real harm done but trying to land in YHZ in low vis, into wind and on a contaminated runway (as often happens) required a precision approach - shame on the YHZ airport authority. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Quote

'The investigation found that, while preparing for the runway change, the flight crew mentally assessed that the head wind for Runway 05 would become a crosswind for Runway 14. As a result, they did not recalculate the effects of the wind for the approach to Runway 14, but rather considered that the landing distance and the target approach speed calculated for Runway 05 were still appropriate. However, the reported wind speed and direction changed as the flight progressed, resulting in a tailwind component that exceeded the operator’s limitation, a lower required approach speed, and a landing distance that exceeded the runway length available. None of this was recognized by the flight crew and, as a result, they continued the approach to Runway 14. The unchanged target approach speed combined with the tailwind component resulted in the aircraft touching down at a faster groundspeed, thus requiring a longer stopping distance. The wet snow contamination on the runway reduced braking effectiveness, which also contributed to an increase in landing distance.'

TSB Investigation Report - WJA248 Runway Overrun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, it's a whitewash alright, not as bad as others I've seen though.  In this case I object to no mention being made of the fact that this is the 3rd recent crash/incident at Halifax due to substandard approach aids and lighting.  The passengers who read this report should be told that the reason for this was the failure of the Halifax Airport Authority to properly equip the airport with an ILS on runway 05.  The reason for AC's 624 was, no ILS on runway 05, the reason for the 747 overrun (virtually identical to this westjet occurance) was NO ILS ON RUNWAY 05!  Does anyone other than me see a pattrrn?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PA38-112 said:

The reason for AC's 624 was, no ILS on runway 05, the reason for the 747 overrun (virtually identical to this westjet occurance) was NO ILS ON RUNWAY 05!  Does anyone other than me see a pattrrn?

Yes, it would be wonderful to have an ILS on every runway at every airport, but that isn't going to happen.

So pilot decisions, pilot skill, pilot reliance on technology, had nothing to do with these incidents?? So it was the YHZ airport authority  who should be blamed because they don't have a precision approach to runway 05.??

I thought qualified pilots were able to make rational decisions, display situation awareness at all times   and no matter what nav aid an airport had, could fly to the airport  make a successful approach and land.......OR...if it did not feel comfortable  even attempting, or during  the approach.......go somewhere else. ??

Yes, I see a pattern...... a pattern where some  pilots are not fully aware of the conditions that await them at any airport and are...perhaps...reluctant to call for a diversion, or at least  a GO AROUND..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the pilots made a mistake.  It's right theer in the report.  The pilots on 624 made  a mistake.  The pilots of the 747 made a mistake.  All reported and recorded neatly in the offical reports.  What is not recorded is the number of pilots that went to Moncton or back to Toronto.  Maybe therea re hundreds.  We only get the failures.  what is also not recorded is the failure of the airport to be properly equipped and managed.  I'm a pilot and you sort of sound like a pilot too so I know that the final decision and responsibility lies with the pilot.  My point is that the tools being provided are substandard.  Every 2-bit backwoods strip of pavement in the US has an ILS at both ends but one of the most essentail airports in Canada with the worst weather can't manage to build one.  This is pathetic and they should be called on it.  I'm not saying the pilots are blameless but the airport and governemtn are not blameless either but you wouldn't know it from reading the report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, when things go wrong, there is usually plenty of blame to go around. IMO it's no better laying all the blame on Nav Can than it is on the crew.  The approach aids and runway lighting are known in advance.  The crew needs to decide, for each approach, if they have a good option or not.  Some days it's easy.

Comparing the Canadian model to the US may evoke envy, but there are a lot of things that have to be considered when comparing. 

Besides, given the runway conditions so often present in YHZ, I think having an ILS is not a silver bullet.  Wasn't there a 767 excursion landing on 23 there?  That's a CAT II runway.

Vs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vsplat said:

Well, when things go wrong, there is usually plenty of blame to go around. IMO it's no better laying all the blame on Nav Can than it is on the crew.  The approach aids and runway lighting are known in advance.  The crew needs to decide, for each approach, if they have a good option or not.  Some days it's easy.

Comparing the Canadian model to the US may evoke envy, but there are a lot of things that have to be considered when comparing. 

Besides, given the runway conditions so often present in YHZ, I think having an ILS is not a silver bullet.  Wasn't there a 767 excursion landing on 23 there?  That's a CAT II runway.

Vs

Plenty of blame to go around?  OK, let's check the report.  Nope, says all the pilots fault.  How about the 747 that did the same thing?  Nope, all the pilots fault there too.  I never said the pilots weren't at fault.  My point is that the airport authority failed in their duty to provide the safest service possible.  The pilots fly the airplane, the airport authority flies the airport.  The fact that the pilots are often called upon to mitigate the errors and omissisions of the airport authority doesn't mean they should escape scrutiny.  Why doesn't the airport have an ILS on 05?  Money.  That's it.  They can get away without spending the money and figure the public doesn't know the differennce.  Think about this;  the dept of highways could save a lot of money if they just stopped snow removal.  When there was bad weather the drivers could take responsibility for their own decision and stay home or drive according to their assessment.  We could blame those who got stuck in the ditch or froze to death from their own bad decisionmaking.  Why dosen't this happen?  because the next day there would be mobs in front of the Premiers office and 30,0000 phone messages along with all day coverage on the talk radio channels.  When a similar decision is made by the airport authority, nobody hears about it adnd the reports all say "pilot error."  Sure, "pilot error" but also "airport authority error".  The public pays a great deal of money in taxes and AIFs but don't realize they are getting a Chevette for Corvette price.

BTW, I never said NavCanada.  It's the HIAA I have a problem with (along with the TSB for running interfererence).

Also the 767 incident was a low-speed taxi excurion due to slippery ramp.  The landing runway was irrelevant.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PA38-112 said:

BTW, I never said NavCanada.  It's the HIAA I have a problem with (along with the TSB for running interfererence).

Also the 767 incident was a low-speed taxi excurion due to slippery ramp.  The landing runway was irrelevant.

I suggest you research a lot more and slag a lot less.  The way you are throwing terms like 'failed in their duty' around, sooner or later you're gonna end up on the wrong side of something official.

You didn't mention Nav Canada, but in your rush to judgement, you should have.  You wanted to lay blame for the lack of an ILS.  Who exactly do you think determines where ILS, or any navaids go, or who owns them?  The airport authorities I have dealt with (and that's a few) generally want the highest precision approach Nav Can will spring for.  Diversions don't pay landing fees.

As you mention AC 624, you might have taken the time to read that report.  It lays out how, specifically, YHZ 05 ended up without an ILS.  While it's frustrating as pilots to have to shoot a NPA to a runway, misplaced blame and allegations are really not helpful.

Here's the quote from the TSB.

"1.18.12 Runway 05 landing system - Halifax International Airport Authority (HIAA) has not received a request to perform a risk assessment from its stakeholders (NAV CANADA, air carriers, and pilots), nor has it received any information indicating that the safety of the runway is compromised with the type of landing system currently installed. Performing a risk assessment of the types of landing systems installed on runways is the responsibility of NAV CANADA, as it is the owner and operator of these sy st ems. In 1998, NAV CANADA conducted a feasibility analysis for the installation of an ILS on Runway 05 at CYHZ. The results indicated high installation costs for both localizer and glidepath equipment, with very little improvement in airport accessibility (less than 0.75%). In January 1999, the analysis results were presented at the Air Navigation System National Advisory Committee (ANSNAC), which stated that an ILS would be installed on a cost-recovery basis. However, no further action was taken because there was no agreement from customers to proceed on a cost-r eco ver y basis.NAV CANADA has indicated that risk is managed to an acceptable level for any approach type based on criteria such asthe design, installation, and maintenance of all underlying navigation systems; the use of approved criteria in the design and maintenance of the procedures; andthe associated aircraft and crew systems authorized to use the approach. "

Finally, The 767 event was nowhere near the ramp.  The event happened on the runway itself.  Here is the TSB investigation.  https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/aviation/2019/a19a0012/a19a0012.html.

 

Kip, good on you for your good natured reply...

Vs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well ain't that a kick in the crotch.  I guess I was wrong.  All these years being mad at the HIAA when I should have been mad at Navcanada instead. Most of the rest of my post stands though.  I dispute their "why-built-it-when-no-one-will-use-it-anyway excuse.  I used to fly into Halifax and I would have used an ILS on 05 a lot!  We can see that in the last 10 years it would have saved the destruction of a A320 and a B747 which sounds like good value to me. Aside from that the feasibility study was done in 1998 and probably used data from '97 or '96.  As far a I recall that before the runway 23 extension project and before the whole cargo ramp expansion.  I would expect the cost has gone down (not including inflation), the expected use numbers has risen, and the willingness of operators to pay for the service has increased.  

I really like this part of what you quoted: NAV CANADA has indicated that risk is managed to an acceptable level for any approach type based on criteria such as•the design, installation, and maintenance of all underlying navigation systems; •the use of approved criteria in the design and maintenance of the procedures; and•the associated aircraft and crew systems authorized to use the approach.  Fantastic. Risk is "managed" by off-loading it to the pilots.   I used to work with a guy like that,  he "managed" his repsonsibilities at work by off-loading them to me. Nobody liked that guy very much.

Regarding the 767;  you said having an ILS doesn't guarantee safety and referred to the 767 which landed on a cat2 runway and still had an excursion.  My point was that having an ILS on rwy 05 would increase safety.  Reading the report shows that the landing on 23 (loss of control and excursion) had a 10 knot tw whereas if they had landed on 05 there would have been a 10 knot hw.  I do not see this example as supporting your claim that extra ILSs don't add to safety because it sure looks to me like it would (in this case at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you insist on misquoting and misinterpreting stuff as you have, this discussion is not going to succeed.  

2 hours ago, PA38-112 said:

I do not see this example as supporting your claim that extra ILSs don't add to safety because it sure looks to me like it would (in this case at least).

I have not made such a claim.  ILS installations do improve approach safety.  My statement was that 'an ILS is not a silver bullet'.  Landing excursions often involve factors unrelated to the approach aid in use.

You keep referring to the 747 overrun.  The reports I have read indicate it was runway 14 with the ILS in use.  The winds favored 23, which as we already know had an ILS.  Having an ILS on 05 would not have made a lick of difference in that case as 05 would have over tailwind limits. Here is the associated comment from the TSB.

"according to METAR issued 7 minutes after arrival, the winds were 230 degrees, 11 gusting 18 knots. The ceiling was 1200 feet above ground and visibility was 8 miles"

It appears you still have not read the report on that 767 event.  I won't waste any further time debating opinion with you.

As you seem interested in landing excursions, I suggest you do some legwork on why these events occur.  There is a body of study on the topic.  Some here have read much of that material and remain active contributors in excursion mitigation within the safety community.

  

Vs

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2021 at 2:53 AM, PA38-112 said:

Oh, it's a whitewash alright, not as bad as others I've seen though.  In this case I object to no mention being made of the fact that this is the 3rd recent crash/incident at Halifax due to substandard approach aids and lighting.  The passengers who read this report should be told that the reason for this was the failure of the Halifax Airport Authority to properly equip the airport with an ILS on runway 05.  The reason for AC's 624 was, no ILS on runway 05, the reason for the 747 overrun (virtually identical to this westjet occurance) was NO ILS ON RUNWAY 05!  Does anyone other than me see a pattrrn?

Blaming this accident on the lack of an ILS is kinda like blaming it on a failure to put more pavement at the far end. It does nothing to help the rest of us understand how to avoid a similar situation in the future. When you sign the flight release you accept responsibility for operating the airplane in accordance with the regs, to follow the SOPs and to conduct the flight appropriately for the conditions. As was well documented in the report, this particular crew didn’t live up to that standard on the day. There was plenty of information and tools made available to assist this crew to make a different decision. The hard truth is any one of us could have a similarly bad day, and the investigators primary task is to bring us the understanding we need to prevent a recurrence - period.

Finding the lack of an ILS as causal in an official report would be a huge disservice to the system. No rule was broken by HIAA or Nav Canada. An ILS on every strip of pavement would be nice to have, but so would an extra mile of runway. 

Edited by J.O.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure about the WJ pilots in this instance,  but every time I landed or took off there was a handy little reference I referred to ... a backup to ensure that the reported tower wind was representative of the runway I was using .....it is called a windsock....so if this guy was coming over the fence, landing on a snowy contaminated runway, with the sock pointing in the wrong direction...well, caveat emptor....an ILS is not going to help his decision making IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Vsplats post.

"Cost recovery basis"

This means if they install it, the airlines will pay for it over time.  It is apparent that the airlines do  not want to pay for it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...