Westjet CYHZ

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

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

User avatar
HiFlyChick
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by HiFlyChick »

pelmet wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:39 am 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
With winds of 010/14G22 (if I understand the previous post correctly, these winds were given by tower, therefore in deg mag), the tailwind component would be of 09G14 kts - that just seems like a lot of tailwind component to accept, even without a contaminated runway. Not that it can't be done, but you have to draw the line on max tailwind somewhere and it seems like 10 kts is what I've heard from most people (and what the companies I've worked for have set as a max, and we were flying light twins)
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2258
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by mbav8r »

HiFlyChick wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:39 pm
pelmet wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:39 am 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
With winds of 010/14G22 (if I understand the previous post correctly, these winds were given by tower, therefore in deg mag), the tailwind component would be of 09G14 kts - that just seems like a lot of tailwind component to accept, even without a contaminated runway. Not that it can't be done, but you have to draw the line on max tailwind somewhere and it seems like 10 kts is what I've heard from most people (and what the companies I've worked for have set as a max, and we were flying light twins)
10 knots is our max, however that is steady state wind, the gust is not factored in.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"
fish4life
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 6:32 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by fish4life »

Very few airplanes I know of can take more than 10kts on the tail as per the AFM, Q400 being on of them where it’s approved up to 20kts but no contam and a bunch of other restrictions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
HiFlyChick
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by HiFlyChick »

mbav8r wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:07 am
HiFlyChick wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:39 pm
pelmet wrote: Thu Jan 09, 2020 10:39 am 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
With winds of 010/14G22 (if I understand the previous post correctly, these winds were given by tower, therefore in deg mag), the tailwind component would be of 09G14 kts - that just seems like a lot of tailwind component to accept, even without a contaminated runway. Not that it can't be done, but you have to draw the line on max tailwind somewhere and it seems like 10 kts is what I've heard from most people (and what the companies I've worked for have set as a max, and we were flying light twins)
10 knots is our max, however that is steady state wind, the gust is not factored in.
Interesting that they don't factor in the gust factor... A good gust can be pretty significant
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2258
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by mbav8r »

HiFlyChick wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:49 am
mbav8r wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:07 am
HiFlyChick wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 8:39 pm

With winds of 010/14G22 (if I understand the previous post correctly, these winds were given by tower, therefore in deg mag), the tailwind component would be of 09G14 kts - that just seems like a lot of tailwind component to accept, even without a contaminated runway. Not that it can't be done, but you have to draw the line on max tailwind somewhere and it seems like 10 kts is what I've heard from most people (and what the companies I've worked for have set as a max, and we were flying light twins)
10 knots is our max, however that is steady state wind, the gust is not factored in.
Interesting that they don't factor in the gust factor... A good gust can be pretty significant
Yes, problem is, often the gust could preclude an attempt at landing.
You may or may not encounter the gust, so we use the steady state wind and if you encounter an obvious gust exceeding the limits, go around.
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"
lostaviator
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 340
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:42 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by lostaviator »

mbav8r wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 12:42 pm
HiFlyChick wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 10:49 am
mbav8r wrote: Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:07 am 10 knots is our max, however that is steady state wind, the gust is not factored in.
Interesting that they don't factor in the gust factor... A good gust can be pretty significant
Yes, problem is, often the gust could preclude an attempt at landing.
You may or may not encounter the gust, so we use the steady state wind and if you encounter an obvious gust exceeding the limits, go around.
I predict a FOM amendment in our future: "and tailwind" added to "wind gusts will be accounted for in crosswind limitations" under the wind limits chart.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Greenback
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2020 8:26 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by Greenback »

WJ max tailwind is 10kts including gust.
---------- ADS -----------
 
whipline
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 606
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:40 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by whipline »

I ran the numbers, ball parking a landing weight of 63,000kgs. Using the talpa arc (1500 feet) medium braking or 3 (best case) flap 40 and 2 engine reverse it came up with 8150 feet for max auto brake. 11 knot tailwind 12 knot crosswind.

Most NG are good for 15 knot tailwind landings. Max x-wind would be either 25/13 knots based on medium/3. Not sure how much runway was cleared for narrow or full width.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1051
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by Eric Janson »

Thanks for the replies Ladies and Gents - very interesting to read that this is not universally applied (what I was afraid of...).

With Apps and Software to calculate landing distance readily available and easy to use (and even easier to modify) there is no reason not to do this on every landing imho.

This can be implemented now - no reason to wait for legislation. I know some senior people read these forums - this needs to happen if not already in place imho.

Regarding the 10 knots tailwind limit - this comes from the manufacturer. It is possible to buy a higher limit (15 knots) which then becomes the legal limit. As far as I know this is simply a paperwork exercise.

I've seen it before with a leased fleet from various companies where one aircraft was limited to 10 knots and another of the same type had a 15 knots limitation
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
User avatar
Daniel Cooper
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 289
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:38 am
Location: Unknown

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by Daniel Cooper »

Nobody said they didn't calculate landing distance, did they?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
HiFlyChick
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by HiFlyChick »

The LDA for runway 14 at YHZ is 7700 ft, but what about the fact that the touchdown point for an ILS is not at the threshold? On a light twin you can chop and drop once you're visual (within reason), but what about the big guys? With a stabilized approach following the glidepath right to the ground, the touchdown point is quite a ways down the runway. For any of the heavy metal, does this always get factored in when considering if you're gonna get stopped before the end?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by HiFlyChick on Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
ant_321
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 599
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:43 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by ant_321 »

HiFlyChick wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:15 am The LDA for runway 14 at YHZ is 7700 ft, but what about the fact that the touchdown point for an ILS is not at the threshold? On a light twin you can chop and drop once you're visual (within reason), but what about the big guys? With a stabilized approach following the glidepath right to the ground, the touchdown point is quite a ways down the runway. For any of the heavy metal, does this always get factored in when considering if you're gonna get stopped before the end?
Yes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
HiFlyChick
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by HiFlyChick »

Does anyone know if this aircraft had LPV capabilities? I'm assuming that the reason why they took 14 at all was that they didn't, but maybe they thought that 200 ft ceiling made it not even worth the effort of trying the RNAV 05....
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5122
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by pelmet »

Eric Janson wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:35 am Regarding the 10 knots tailwind limit - this comes from the manufacturer. It is possible to buy a higher limit (15 knots) which then becomes the legal limit. As far as I know this is simply a paperwork exercise.
My airline has decided on a maximum tailwind component for contaminated runways(which as we know includes frozen and unfrozen contaminants) and is written clearly in their governing publication…..

Zero knots. Yet diversions are extremely rare. Its probably not a bad idea.
---------- ADS -----------
 
J31
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:21 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by J31 »

HiFlyChick wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:30 am Does anyone know if this aircraft had LPV capabilities? I'm assuming that the reason why they took 14 at all was that they didn't, but maybe they thought that 200 ft ceiling made it not even worth the effort of trying the RNAV 05....
Rwy 5-32 was NOTAM closed. Westjet does not do LPV approaches with the 737.
---------- ADS -----------
 
tbaylx
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 815
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:30 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by tbaylx »

Daniel Cooper wrote: Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:29 am Nobody said they didn't calculate landing distance, did they?
If whipline is calculating 8150' for a landing distance and the runway is 7700' long they either didn't do one or did it and failed to take into account contamination or tailwind.

In any case 7700' with a tailwind is a short runway for an -800, never mind snow on it. Should be setting off alarm bells for any -800 crew before even looking at a landing distance calculation.
---------- ADS -----------
 
J31
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 7:21 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by J31 »

HiFlyChick wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 7:15 am The LDA for runway 14 at YHZ is 7700 ft, but what about the fact that the touchdown point for an ILS is not at the threshold? On a light twin you can chop and drop once you're visual (within reason), but what about the big guys? With a stabilized approach following the glidepath right to the ground, the touchdown point is quite a ways down the runway. For any of the heavy metal, does this always get factored in when considering if you're gonna get stopped before the end?
A stabilized 3 degree ILS will put most aircraft touching down about 1500 from the beginning of the runway. Landing performance programs normally take that into account.

From a Navajo to Airbus 380 the accepted normal is a stabilized approach with vertical guidance all the way to touchdown. Thus chopping and dropping off an ILS is not recommended.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
HiFlyChick
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by HiFlyChick »

J31 wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:34 am From a Navajo to Airbus 380 the accepted normal is a stabilized approach with vertical guidance all the way to touchdown. Thus chopping and dropping off an ILS is not recommended.
You're right, of course, and with the profusion of 703 accidents I shouldn't suggest it
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
HiFlyChick
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:27 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by HiFlyChick »

J31 wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:15 am Rwy 5-32 was NOTAM closed. Westjet does not do LPV approaches with the 737.
Sorry - I was thinking of the RNAV 32... There's been so many storms here lately that I can't keep track of one mess of crappy weather from another!

What's so concerning is the mindset that diversion, even under such bad conditions, isn't an option. I've heard many discussions about whether operators should upgrade to WAAS or Halifax should upgrade to 4 ILSes, and in the end, if operators don't want to do the costly upgrade then they have to be good with going elsewhere. That in itself might motivate Halifax to upgrade to ILS on 32 and 05. It might not, but then they also have to accept the loss in business.

Is this a lack of decision making skills in general, or an increase in pressure from the operators to get in? I assume that by the time someone makes captain on a 737 (or 747 in the case of last year's accident) that the employer won't be so quick to fire him based on the occasional diversion in terrible weather... or is that naivete on my part?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
daedalusx
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:51 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by daedalusx »

HiFlyChick wrote: Mon Jan 13, 2020 9:03 am
What's so concerning is the mindset that diversion, even under such bad conditions, isn't an option. I've heard many discussions about whether operators should upgrade to WAAS or Halifax should upgrade to 4 ILSes, and in the end, if operators don't want to do the costly upgrade then they have to be good with going elsewhere. That in itself might motivate Halifax to upgrade to ILS on 32 and 05. It might not, but then they also have to accept the loss in business.
Apparently it was looked into and it would be very challenging to put ILSes on all 4 due to terrain/obstacles.

WAAS is a pipedream for airline operators due to obvious cost/benefits.
---------- ADS -----------
 
In twenty years time when your kids ask how you got into flying you want to be able to say "work and determination" not "I just kept taking money from your grandparents for type ratings until someone was stupid enough to give me a job"
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”