Near ground collision in Trail

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Near ground collision in Trail

Post by pelmet »

Is there an A/G operator in Trail?

"C-GIPC, a Beech 1900C aircraft operated by Pacific Coastal Airlines, was conducting flight
PCO451 from Vancouver Intl (CYVR), BC to Trail, BC (CAD4) with 2 crew members and 19
passengers on board. During the approach to land on Runway 16 at CAD4, an airport vehicle was
proceeding northbound on Runway 34, performing a runway inspection. A collision was avoided
when the vehicle was able to exit the runway onto the main apron, prior to PCO451 reaching that
intersection. Radio communications had not been established between PCO451 and the vehicle.
There was no damage to the aircraft, and no injuries."
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by pelmet »

https://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/ ... 8p0177.pdf

Report is out. Shows how easy a major accident can happen at these uncontrolled airports when it comes to snow clearing ops. I guess one should be extra paranoid about checking the runway when there is likely to have been snow clearing ops and a higher likelihood of a vehicle still on the runway. Maybe one should contact the snowplow driver again and confirm the number of vehicles that were working on the runway and if they can all be seen as cleared.

Or maybe someone has a better idea based on what they do in situations like this.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Oldguystrtn2fly
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:30 am

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by Oldguystrtn2fly »

Isn’t checking the runway something that should be done on approach every time?
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by cncpc »

Oldguystrtn2fly wrote: Sun Mar 08, 2020 5:33 pm Isn’t checking the runway something that should be done on approach every time?
I expect that there were IFR conditions there at the time, the approach is from the American side, and that's a pretty tight valley to be manouevering a 1900 around to have a look at the runway.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
kevind
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:09 pm

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by kevind »

Was landing on 16, south bound. VFR at the time. Long straightish in follow the valley approach. Valley is tight to do a circuit in a 172 would be an adventure in a 1900
---------- ADS -----------
 
Oldguystrtn2fly
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:30 am

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by Oldguystrtn2fly »

Well, I am not instrument rated so I am gonna ask. If you fly an approach in IMC, and break out at minimums, is there any need to look down the runway to make sure it’s empty before you land?
---------- ADS -----------
 
co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4562
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by co-joe »

There's no way a 1900 operated in 704 can balance on a 4000' runway. Pasco gets away with it because the C doesn't have accelerate stop and accelerate go numbers published, and they operates their D's into there using C numbers. It's just a matter of time before these guys crunch a 1900 full of people, abusing the grandfather status of the C.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Capt. Underpants
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 333
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by Capt. Underpants »

co-joe wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:54 pm There's no way a 1900 operated in 704 can balance on a 4000' runway. Pasco gets away with it because the C doesn't have accelerate stop and accelerate go numbers published, and they operates their D's into there using C numbers. It's just a matter of time before these guys crunch a 1900 full of people, abusing the grandfather status of the C.
Is it fair to assume that you've notified the appropriate authorities of this non-compliance?
---------- ADS -----------
 
MUSKEG
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 872
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 11:49 am

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by MUSKEG »

The “C” certainly has accelerate stop and go charts.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Daniel Cooper
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 335
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 am
Location: Unknown

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by Daniel Cooper »

Oldguystrtn2fly wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:44 pm Well, I am not instrument rated so I am gonna ask. If you fly an approach in IMC, and break out at minimums, is there any need to look down the runway to make sure it’s empty before you land?
Yes there is.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Oldguystrtn2fly
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 104
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 9:30 am

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by Oldguystrtn2fly »

Daniel Cooper wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:27 am
Oldguystrtn2fly wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:44 pm Well, I am not instrument rated so I am gonna ask. If you fly an approach in IMC, and break out at minimums, is there any need to look down the runway to make sure it’s empty before you land?
Yes there is.

I figured there would be....
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by cncpc »

Capt. Underpants wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 8:18 am
co-joe wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 6:54 pm There's no way a 1900 operated in 704 can balance on a 4000' runway. Pasco gets away with it because the C doesn't have accelerate stop and accelerate go numbers published, and they operates their D's into there using C numbers. It's just a matter of time before these guys crunch a 1900 full of people, abusing the grandfather status of the C.
Is it fair to assume that you've notified the appropriate authorities of this non-compliance?
He's notified us. I expect the appropriate authorities are aware of this.

There is 600 feet of well prepared gravel at the north end, and 500 at the south. That's not included in the 4000 foot of paved.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by cncpc »

Oldguystrtn2fly wrote: Mon Mar 09, 2020 4:44 pm Well, I am not instrument rated so I am gonna ask. If you fly an approach in IMC, and break out at minimums, is there any need to look down the runway to make sure it’s empty before you land?
Yes. But still, you may not see, or expect, what's there. The holes in the cheese line up.

https://worldairphotography.wordpress.c ... light-314/
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
kevind
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:09 pm

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by kevind »

The overruns at both ends are now paved
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by cncpc »

kevind wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:39 pm The overruns at both ends are now paved
Ok. I guess I was looking at an old Google Earth overhead. So there's 5000 feet there now.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
kevind
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 1:09 pm

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by kevind »

---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by iflyforpie »

Even from the north VFR it’s not easy. Pilots who’ve never been there before wonder why I’m so low and calling for flaps and gear when they can’t even see the runway yet.

But you can do a visual downwind. It’s tight.. and be prepared for the EGPWS to be going off continuously, but it can be done.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4562
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by co-joe »

cncpc wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 2:25 pm
kevind wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 1:39 pm The overruns at both ends are now paved
Ok. I guess I was looking at an old Google Earth overhead. So there's 5000 feet there now.
I guess they just plumb forgot to update the CFS then because it still 4001x75'. Even 5000' isn't enough to balance unless you have anti skid.
---------- ADS -----------
 
co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4562
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by co-joe »

The authorities know pasco doesn't operate to balance field, just like they know they operate no alternate IFR in D's but using C fuel flow numbers. It's just how things are done at the south terminal.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cncpc
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1632
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:17 am

Re: Near ground collision in Trail

Post by cncpc »

co-joe wrote: Tue Mar 10, 2020 11:10 pm The authorities know pasco doesn't operate to balance field, just like they know they operate no alternate IFR in D's but using C fuel flow numbers. It's just how things are done at the south terminal.
And this concerns you in what way?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Good judgment comes from experience. Experience often comes from bad judgment.
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”