Westjet CYHZ

[pelmet]

Heavy tailwind/gust
Shitty runway surface condition
Shitty visibility and ceiling
On a -800 which doesn’t have the greatest reputation for its braking/landing performance
And they landed on the shortest runway ...

It doesn’t look like they tried to hold and wait, they just went straight for gusto. 15min before them there was an AC321 that diverted back to YUL, they didn’t even try doing the approach - you’d think it would have clued them in.

What the fu.ck where they thinking?

Got this info from another forum...…

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



Seems kind of worriesome for a runway excursion both laterally and off the end of the runway. Wet snow.

Remember, those tower winds are averaged over a certain time period.

[BGH]

A346 Dude;

Post was about dispatch giving you as much information as they had - in the earlier days some at dispatch thought they ran the airline.
First incident was PWA in the early 70's,second incident was CAI.
You are right though both have long disappeared.

Daryl

[goingnowherefast]

So it's not regulation to account for runway contamination on takeoff or landing? Surprised we're not running planes off the end of runways daily all winter long.

Altitude, temperature, wind and aircraft weight, all good to go. Oh, and there's 2" of slush, lets go flying! Glad TC lives in their own special little world and not reality (sarcasm)

[Capt. Underpants]

No one said that. Sheesh.

[Eric Janson]

Can someone please answer my previous question:-

Is there a requirement at Canadian Airlines to compute the landing distance prior to commencing approach?

This is mandatory under EASA and we have to write both the required and the factored landing distance (115%) on the CFP.

[altiplano]

It's not mandated by TC.

At my airline it's fleet dependant.
Some every landing. Some only under certain conditions ie. strip under 8000', or contam, or tailwind, or, or, etc, etc.

[ZBBYLW]

On my fleet it’s required anytime the runway is less than 7,000 feet, the pressure altitude is >7,000, runway is contaminated or you have a tailwind. I’ve got in the habit of doing it every leg, but it’s not required.

[ReserveTank]

Can someone please answer my previous question:-

Is there a requirement at Canadian Airlines to compute the landing distance prior to commencing approach?

This is mandatory under EASA and we have to write both the required and the factored landing distance (115%) on the CFP.

I was looking for this as well. It may be individually mandated by each company's ops manual. My company requires a calculation by top of descent for actual conditions no matter what.

[mbav8r]

Can someone please answer my previous question:-

Is there a requirement at Canadian Airlines to compute the landing distance prior to commencing approach?

This is mandatory under EASA and we have to write both the required and the factored landing distance (115%) on the CFP.

This is from 2005 after the Air France runway overrun, however the current CARS only reference wet runway for dispatch, it appears the recommended updates have been delayed several times since then but should be published with the gazette this year, barring anymore unforeseen delays.

“In summary, when these amendments to the CARs come into force, CAR 705 air operators and their flight crews will be required to determine that sufficient landing distance is available prior to conducting an approach to land, taking into consideration the condition of the runway surface (dry, damp, wet, or contaminated) resulting from deteriorating weather.”

TSB reassessment of Transport Canada's response to Recommendation A07-05 (February 2019)

To date, the following actions have been taken by Transport Canada (TC) to address the safety deficiency identified in Recommendation A07-05, regarding aircraft landing distance considerations in deteriorating weather:

Since 1999, TC has issued 5 Notices of Proposed Amendment addressing aircraft performance on wet and contaminated runways.
In 2018, TC published Civil Aviation Safety Alert (CASA) No. 2018-08, Operation with Aeroplanes Utilizing Take-off and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA)-Based Performance Information to Calculate Landing Distance. In the short term, this initiative should help raise the awareness of flight crews, flight dispatchers and air operators of hazards associated with operation on contaminated runways.
In addition to the above actions, TC plans to publish, in 2019/2020, two Advisory Circulars on wet and contaminated runways.

However, TC has postponed the pre-publication of the proposed regulatory amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part I, several times. It now anticipates publication in the spring of 2020. Even though the new regulations may, if adopted, reduce the risk associated with the safety deficiency identified in Recommendation A07-05, the Board is very concerned by the protracted delays to enact the proposed regulations.

Since 2010, runway overruns have been part of the TSB Watchlist, which identifies the key safety issues that need to be addressed to make Canada's transportation system even safer. Until the proposed regulatory amendments are in effect, commercial air travellers in Canada continue to be exposed to the risks that gave rise to Recommendation A07-05.

Therefore, the response to Recommendation A07-05 is assessed as Satisfactory Intent.”

This being said, my company procedure is,

     Any tailwind (max. 10 kts). On any runway less than 7000 feet. When directed to by the QRH. Wet or contaminated runway. Any time a QRH Landing Distance Factor is required

[Gear Jerker]

At the teal regional, mandatory using actual conditions every landing, normal or non normal. Primarily using ACARS, can also use TLR data, QRH, and will soon have an all encompassing app on our tablets.

[HiFlyChick]

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)

[mbav8r]

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.

[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.

[HiFlyChick]

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

[mbav8r]

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.

[lostaviator]

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.

[Greenback]

WJ max tailwind is 10kts including gust.

[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.

[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

[Daniel Cooper]

Nobody said they didn't calculate landing distance, did they?