Aircraft disabled on ylw runway ...

[cdnavater]

They were over YNY and turned back to YLW? YYC has an ARFF level of 9, YLW has 6 or maybe 7 if they call out the city fire department and it gets there in time. I have no idea how a Q performs on one engine butt hey were maybe 5-10 minutes closer to ylw over yyc by the time you factor in the descent and approach setup.

In the end whatever works is the right answer. We're just talking here for training purposes. As it turns out this was more than just a simple engine failure, once the TSB lets WS touch the plane we'll get a much clearer picture of what happened. ylw may well have been the safest option, I just like to make my own risk analysis and discuss what other options the crew could have considered based on my experience.

Lets look at a few things, they were essentially over Enderby leveling off at 240 when the trouble started. Not surprising, if an engine is going to cave, it tends to be when you make power adjustments. quick measure on google maps, to carry on to YYC is just over 220 miles strait ahead, with some very big rocks in the way. Cranbrook is just over 160 miles (strait line) with more big rocks in the way. Kelowna is just off the right wing, around 50 miles with falling terrain the whole way ? Now which is the better choice considering the reports say there was initially a fire ?

I've never flown a Q, question for those that have. Can the Q maintain 16,000 and cabin pressure for an hour with one side caged ? That would be the minimum requirement to carry on to YYC or get to YXC. If it cant hold 16,000 with a pressurized cabin for an hour, then those options have just gone away, and the options left on the table are Kelowna, back to Kamloops, over to Penticton, or off to Vancouver, all of which can be done unpressurized. Ofc the turn back to Vancouver does involve crossing over some big rocks again, just not as high as the ones in front.

A look at the flightaware data shows they made the turn, essentially turned direct for the FAF for a strait in at Kelowna, and started a relatively rapid descent. Ceiling was reported at 9000 broken at Kelowna, realistic to expect that to be similar up and down the valley. They levelled off at 8000, and then turned to do the back and forth dipsey doodle for a while. So they would have been under the ceiling in essentially VMC for that part. The bit I dont understand, is why they didn't carry on with the strait in to Kelowna, they were in a position to make it easily. Were they running checklists for the sake of running checklists ? Or was there some other problem compounding the situation ? My first guess is, they didn't have 3 green lights on the landing gear, which is not a huge surprise if there has been a fire in the nacelle. But this is just a guess, could be a few other reasons to abort the strait in, I just dont know which would apply.

Another question for the inquisition, if they had completed the strait in, so landed 20 minutes sooner, would everybody still be criticizing them ?

As for the folks worried about descending into a place with only one runway, well on the off chance there are two catastrophic failures happening at once, WJ has a stove caged and then YLW has a runway blocked, they still had plenty of options, but it involved looking up from procedures and charts, and actually look out the window. Strait ahead, climb to a thousand, 80 degree left turn as you go by Peachland, then get on the horn and call 20 mile final for Penticton. Weather is good, surely a couple of airline pilots can do a 25 mile jaunt down the lake VFR and land at an airport they have probably used many times in the past. Probably would have added another 10 minutes to the flight, 15 if they had gear issues and left the gear down for that part.

I will be very curious to find out why they did the back and forth north of the airport before landing, but, IMHO, they absolutely chose the correct diversion destination. Heck, even the maintenance folks probably agree, YLW is probably one of the better places in the province to get an engine change done on the Q.

Please tell me who you fly for so I can avoid that airline, for all our sakes I hope you are retired, your unprofessional demeanour shines through.
The only time to land without completing the proper checklist and preparation is if the fire is not out, it’s not for the sake of completing a straight(not strait) in.

[digits_]

Your point, not well received, given you have a reading and comprehension problem.
I clearly stated, that an airport with a single runway, read single point failure could be closed for any number of reasons so to commit to such an airport without being able to climb back out, unless you are on fire, would be ridiculously pour judgment and speak volumes about the decision maker.
The aircraft ahead of you blows a tire and is disabled on the runway, the only runway, now what. The wind exceeds your crosswind limitations, you land anyway? Is that the type of pilot you are? Oh, it’s just the demonstrated limit, with your extreme capabilities I’m sure it’s fine though!
So, as I stated, this aircraft in question would be able to climb back out but would have to shuttle to mea given the 9000’ ceiling.

You seem to think you have an infinite number of plan B's available. You don't. The time in the air is -at the very least- limited by the fuel you have on board. And then there are considerations such as fire.

Also:

There had been reports that the plane's engine was on fire mid-air, but Elchitz said the plane was not on fire when it landed.

So yeah, don't think they/I would care much about a crosswind limitation at that point...


But let's say they weren't on fire. You're flying Kamloops to Calgary, engine fails. Perhaps you know why, most likely you don't. Keep flying over the mountains for another hour, or land in 15 minutes in Kelowna. You decide Kelowna is best. You are on short final and some gusts or wind direction shift causes the wind to exceed your crosswind limitation. Are you really going to divert SE, enter IMC again, climb over more mountains to avoid a 1kt/2kt/5kt even 10 kt crosswind limitation exceedance?

Seriously?

Again: in an emergency, you do what you need to do to land safely. Limitations are suggestions at that point. Every SOP I've ever read states that the crew can divert from them in emergency situations. That means you're not even breaking SOPs if that's really what you're worried about.

Except you’re now exceeding the crosswind limit because of your decision to go to an airport you can’t climb back out of, if you go back over everything, you said climb gradient does not matter.

You're mixing up scenarios. I was asking you a question in your situation where you do have an out, if you would seriously go around and divert over mountains single engine because on final you're exceeding the crosswind limit by 2 kts. Obviously in that hypothetical scenario you could outclimb terrain, otherwise the question wouldn't make much sense.

Now that is clarified, I'll ask again: would you SE go missed and divert over the mountains because the crosswind on short final is exceeding your limitation by 2 kts? Let's assume the wind is 5 kts stronger than when you diverted, so the crosswind exceedance is unexpected.

Some other idiot talked about painting yourself into a corner, that is the very definition.
Your scenario relies on a single runway not being compromised and then flying visually to another airport, I think you idiots need to attend another PIC evaluation, assuming you have passed one already. Doesn’t seem likely.

Going around because you might exceed a limitation during an emergency situation sounds like you're burning down a whole room to avoid painting yourself in a corner. You're burning fuel to go to an alternate which could *also* have other unexpected runway closures.

To be clear, I never once said it was a poor decision to divert there, I said if I did I would want an out and ignoring that is to not consider all possibilities, which is what we do. We make our decisions based on experience,

Are you making your decisions based on SOPs or on experience? 'experience' is another way of saying 'I'll do what I think is best'. Which is fine, but then you'll have to accept that other pilots might do other things.

I suspect that most pilot's experience would tell them it's acceptable to exceed a crosswind limitation by 2 kts in an emergency situation.

you fucken idiots clearly haven’t had an airport close on you because of a disabled aircraft on the only runway.

I have. I've even close one once myself. In both cases, the runway was clear in under 20 minutes. And both occurrences were in a small airport with limited services.

Also note that a disabled aircraft normally only blocks less than 50% of the runway. If it's life and death, you'd have 4500 ft available in Kelowna. A closed runway when you're inbound with a serieus emergency can still be partially usable. And if you're on fire, there's taxiways too.

[cdnavater]

You seem to think you have an infinite number of plan B's available. You don't. The time in the air is -at the very least- limited by the fuel you have on board. And then there are considerations such as fire.

Also:

So yeah, don't think they/I would care much about a crosswind limitation at that point...


But let's say they weren't on fire. You're flying Kamloops to Calgary, engine fails. Perhaps you know why, most likely you don't. Keep flying over the mountains for another hour, or land in 15 minutes in Kelowna. You decide Kelowna is best. You are on short final and some gusts or wind direction shift causes the wind to exceed your crosswind limitation. Are you really going to divert SE, enter IMC again, climb over more mountains to avoid a 1kt/2kt/5kt even 10 kt crosswind limitation exceedance?

Seriously?

Again: in an emergency, you do what you need to do to land safely. Limitations are suggestions at that point. Every SOP I've ever read states that the crew can divert from them in emergency situations. That means you're not even breaking SOPs if that's really what you're worried about.

Except you’re now exceeding the crosswind limit because of your decision to go to an airport you can’t climb back out of, if you go back over everything, you said climb gradient does not matter.

You're mixing up scenarios. I was asking you a question in your situation where you do have an out, if you would seriously go around and divert over mountains single engine because on final you're exceeding the crosswind limit by 2 kts. Obviously in that hypothetical scenario you could outclimb terrain, otherwise the question wouldn't make much sense.

Now that is clarified, I'll ask again: would you SE go missed and divert over the mountains because the crosswind on short final is exceeding your limitation by 2 kts? Let's assume the wind is 5 kts stronger than when you diverted, so the crosswind exceedance is unexpected.

Some other idiot talked about painting yourself into a corner, that is the very definition.
Your scenario relies on a single runway not being compromised and then flying visually to another airport, I think you idiots need to attend another PIC evaluation, assuming you have passed one already. Doesn’t seem likely.

Going around because you might exceed a limitation during an emergency situation sounds like you're burning down a whole room to avoid painting yourself in a corner. You're burning fuel to go to an alternate which could *also* have other unexpected runway closures.

To be clear, I never once said it was a poor decision to divert there, I said if I did I would want an out and ignoring that is to not consider all possibilities, which is what we do. We make our decisions based on experience,

Are you making your decisions based on SOPs or on experience? 'experience' is another way of saying 'I'll do what I think is best'. Which is fine, but then you'll have to accept that other pilots might do other things.

I suspect that most pilot's experience would tell them it's acceptable to exceed a crosswind limitation by 2 kts in an emergency situation.

you fucken idiots clearly haven’t had an airport close on you because of a disabled aircraft on the only runway.

I have. I've even close one once myself. In both cases, the runway was clear in under 20 minutes. And both occurrences were in a small airport with limited services.

Also note that a disabled aircraft normally only blocks less than 50% of the runway. If it's life and death, you'd have 4500 ft available in Kelowna. A closed runway when you're inbound with a serieus emergency can still be partially usable. And if you're on fire, there's taxiways too.

Absolutely!
My issue was your comment about out climbing the terrain not being relevant.

[Choppermech1986]

I have. I've even close one once myself. In both cases, the runway was clear in under 20 minutes. And both occurrences were in a small airport with limited services.

A trainee put a 152 or 172 off the edge of the runway in YLW last year and it was closed for well over an hour. One would hope that if there was an inbound Dash with an emergency, there would be more urgency but if you're like me and think that it should take 20 mins to clear a runway in YLW, you'd be wrong.

[tbayav8er]

At the end of the day, the QRH says "land at nearest suitable airport" if I remember correctly. YLW is more than suitable, and as others have said, it is not a tight valley. The conditions were VFR, with a bit of wind. A 9000' runway with VFR weather conditions is more than suitable enough for me, especially considering the Q's above average single engine performance. Complex special missed approach procedures are practiced regularly in the simulator during recurrent.....in YLW. Sounds like the crew did an awesome job from everything I've heard so far.

[RoAF-Mig21]

At the end of the day, the QRH says "land at nearest suitable airport" if I remember correctly. YLW is more than suitable, and as others have said, it is not a tight valley. The conditions were VFR, with a bit of wind. A 9000' runway with VFR weather conditions is more than suitable enough for me, especially considering the Q's above average single engine performance. Complex special missed approach procedures are practiced regularly in the simulator during recurrent.....in YLW. Sounds like the crew did an awesome job from everything I've heard so far.

Yup. Exactly. Also, people underestimate the experience these pilots have with the area.

I flew many times into Kelowna and Castlegar, just to name a few. Once you know the area and terrain, it's not as challenging as some think. Kelowna is in a wide open valley. I always got a kick when flying with some YYZ based pilots that were brought out over The Rocks. They were on their "A-Game. We're not in Sudbury anymore" kind of mentality. It was good though. Not making fun of them, but just pointing out that local knowledge plays a big role in your decision making and one's comfort zone limit. It's only natural.

[averageatbest]

Yup. Exactly. Also, people underestimate the experience these pilots have with the area.

I flew many times into Kelowna and Castlegar, just to name a few. Once you know the area and terrain, it's not as challenging as some think. Kelowna is in a wide open valley. I always got a kick when flying with some YYZ based pilots that were brought out over The Rocks. They were on their "A-Game. We're not in Sudbury anymore" kind of mentality. It was good though. Not making fun of them, but just pointing out that local knowledge plays a big role in your decision making and one's comfort zone limit. It's only natural.

Sudbury? The only mountains we need to avoid out east now is Mount Royal on approach in Montreal.

[RoAF-Mig21]

Yup. Exactly. Also, people underestimate the experience these pilots have with the area.

I flew many times into Kelowna and Castlegar, just to name a few. Once you know the area and terrain, it's not as challenging as some think. Kelowna is in a wide open valley. I always got a kick when flying with some YYZ based pilots that were brought out over The Rocks. They were on their "A-Game. We're not in Sudbury anymore" kind of mentality. It was good though. Not making fun of them, but just pointing out that local knowledge plays a big role in your decision making and one's comfort zone limit. It's only natural.

Sudbury? The only mountains we need to avoid out east now is Mount Royal on approach in Montreal.

I think you missunderstood my metaphor (also my English sucks, so I may have used it improperly).

[altiplano]

They were over YNY and turned back to YLW? YYC has an ARFF level of 9, YLW has 6 or maybe 7 if they call out the city fire department and it gets there in time. I have no idea how a Q performs on one engine butt hey were maybe 5-10 minutes closer to ylw over yyc by the time you factor in the descent and approach setup.

In the end whatever works is the right answer. We're just talking here for training purposes. As it turns out this was more than just a simple engine failure, once the TSB lets WS touch the plane we'll get a much clearer picture of what happened. ylw may well have been the safest option, I just like to make my own risk analysis and discuss what other options the crew could have considered based on my experience.

Lets look at a few things, they were essentially over Enderby leveling off at 240 when the trouble started. Not surprising, if an engine is going to cave, it tends to be when you make power adjustments. quick measure on google maps, to carry on to YYC is just over 220 miles strait ahead, with some very big rocks in the way. Cranbrook is just over 160 miles (strait line) with more big rocks in the way. Kelowna is just off the right wing, around 50 miles with falling terrain the whole way ? Now which is the better choice considering the reports say there was initially a fire ?

I've never flown a Q, question for those that have. Can the Q maintain 16,000 and cabin pressure for an hour with one side caged ? That would be the minimum requirement to carry on to YYC or get to YXC. If it cant hold 16,000 with a pressurized cabin for an hour, then those options have just gone away, and the options left on the table are Kelowna, back to Kamloops, over to Penticton, or off to Vancouver, all of which can be done unpressurized. Ofc the turn back to Vancouver does involve crossing over some big rocks again, just not as high as the ones in front.

A look at the flightaware data shows they made the turn, essentially turned direct for the FAF for a strait in at Kelowna, and started a relatively rapid descent. Ceiling was reported at 9000 broken at Kelowna, realistic to expect that to be similar up and down the valley. They levelled off at 8000, and then turned to do the back and forth dipsey doodle for a while. So they would have been under the ceiling in essentially VMC for that part. The bit I dont understand, is why they didn't carry on with the strait in to Kelowna, they were in a position to make it easily. Were they running checklists for the sake of running checklists ? Or was there some other problem compounding the situation ? My first guess is, they didn't have 3 green lights on the landing gear, which is not a huge surprise if there has been a fire in the nacelle. But this is just a guess, could be a few other reasons to abort the strait in, I just dont know which would apply.

Another question for the inquisition, if they had completed the strait in, so landed 20 minutes sooner, would everybody still be criticizing them ?

As for the folks worried about descending into a place with only one runway, well on the off chance there are two catastrophic failures happening at once, WJ has a stove caged and then YLW has a runway blocked, they still had plenty of options, but it involved looking up from procedures and charts, and actually look out the window. Strait ahead, climb to a thousand, 80 degree left turn as you go by Peachland, then get on the horn and call 20 mile final for Penticton. Weather is good, surely a couple of airline pilots can do a 25 mile jaunt down the lake VFR and land at an airport they have probably used many times in the past. Probably would have added another 10 minutes to the flight, 15 if they had gear issues and left the gear down for that part.

I will be very curious to find out why they did the back and forth north of the airport before landing, but, IMHO, they absolutely chose the correct diversion destination. Heck, even the maintenance folks probably agree, YLW is probably one of the better places in the province to get an engine change done on the Q.

Please tell me who you fly for so I can avoid that airline, for all our sakes I hope you are retired, your unprofessional demeanour shines through.
The only time to land without completing the proper checklist and preparation is if the fire is not out, it’s not for the sake of completing a straight(not strait) in.

Might as well skip my airline too then... I'm with golden...

Expediting an immediate return, even on a diversion, is absolutely reasonable. Going around VFR or flying down the lake VFR to the next runway is absolutely reasonable, preferred really.

There is so much over-proceduralisation at this point, a good crew, a capable crew, knows how and when to keep things moving. It astonishes me the idea that crews should always be spending 30 minutes reading and talking and briefing instead of flying the aircraft to the runway in VFR below.

How many rides are spent with everybody heads down reading every word, every note in the QRH, doing every possible QRHN check, diversion cl, non-precision cl, blah, blah...

There's been plenty of accidents because the crew was too consumed with procedure then to fly the airplane and put it on the ground during an emergency.

This crew did a great job.

[tbayav8er]

Lets look at a few things, they were essentially over Enderby leveling off at 240 when the trouble started. Not surprising, if an engine is going to cave, it tends to be when you make power adjustments. quick measure on google maps, to carry on to YYC is just over 220 miles strait ahead, with some very big rocks in the way. Cranbrook is just over 160 miles (strait line) with more big rocks in the way. Kelowna is just off the right wing, around 50 miles with falling terrain the whole way ? Now which is the better choice considering the reports say there was initially a fire ?

I've never flown a Q, question for those that have. Can the Q maintain 16,000 and cabin pressure for an hour with one side caged ? That would be the minimum requirement to carry on to YYC or get to YXC. If it cant hold 16,000 with a pressurized cabin for an hour, then those options have just gone away, and the options left on the table are Kelowna, back to Kamloops, over to Penticton, or off to Vancouver, all of which can be done unpressurized. Ofc the turn back to Vancouver does involve crossing over some big rocks again, just not as high as the ones in front.

A look at the flightaware data shows they made the turn, essentially turned direct for the FAF for a strait in at Kelowna, and started a relatively rapid descent. Ceiling was reported at 9000 broken at Kelowna, realistic to expect that to be similar up and down the valley. They levelled off at 8000, and then turned to do the back and forth dipsey doodle for a while. So they would have been under the ceiling in essentially VMC for that part. The bit I dont understand, is why they didn't carry on with the strait in to Kelowna, they were in a position to make it easily. Were they running checklists for the sake of running checklists ? Or was there some other problem compounding the situation ? My first guess is, they didn't have 3 green lights on the landing gear, which is not a huge surprise if there has been a fire in the nacelle. But this is just a guess, could be a few other reasons to abort the strait in, I just dont know which would apply.

Another question for the inquisition, if they had completed the strait in, so landed 20 minutes sooner, would everybody still be criticizing them ?

As for the folks worried about descending into a place with only one runway, well on the off chance there are two catastrophic failures happening at once, WJ has a stove caged and then YLW has a runway blocked, they still had plenty of options, but it involved looking up from procedures and charts, and actually look out the window. Strait ahead, climb to a thousand, 80 degree left turn as you go by Peachland, then get on the horn and call 20 mile final for Penticton. Weather is good, surely a couple of airline pilots can do a 25 mile jaunt down the lake VFR and land at an airport they have probably used many times in the past. Probably would have added another 10 minutes to the flight, 15 if they had gear issues and left the gear down for that part.

I will be very curious to find out why they did the back and forth north of the airport before landing, but, IMHO, they absolutely chose the correct diversion destination. Heck, even the maintenance folks probably agree, YLW is probably one of the better places in the province to get an engine change done on the Q.

Please tell me who you fly for so I can avoid that airline, for all our sakes I hope you are retired, your unprofessional demeanour shines through.
The only time to land without completing the proper checklist and preparation is if the fire is not out, it’s not for the sake of completing a straight(not strait) in.

Might as well skip my airline too then... I'm with golden...

Expediting an immediate return, even on a diversion, is absolutely reasonable. Going around VFR or flying down the lake VFR to the next runway is absolutely reasonable, preferred really.

There is so much over-proceduralisation at this point, a good crew, a capable crew, knows how and when to keep things moving. It astonishes me the idea that crews should always be spending 30 minutes reading and talking and briefing instead of flying the aircraft to the runway in VFR below.

How many rides are spent with everybody heads down reading every word, every note in the QRH, doing every possible QRHN check, diversion cl, non-precision cl, blah, blah...

There's been plenty of accidents because the crew was too consumed with procedure then to fly the airplane and put it on the ground during an emergency.

This crew did a great job.

Exactly. Part of being a good airline pilot is knowing when you have time, and when you don't. Sounds like these pilots figured it out, and executed a perfectly safe diversion, while getting the engine issue sorted out, without spending an excessive amount of extra time in the air.

[goldeneagle]

Might as well skip my airline too then... I'm with golden...

Over the years here, been lotsa things we have disagreed on, but we always tend to be on the same page when it comes to how to fly an airplane when the chips are down.

[cdnavater]

[quote=cdnavater post_id=<a href="tel:1243118">1243118</a> time=<a href="tel:1678054729">1678054729</a> user_id=78357]
[quote=goldeneagle post_id=<a href="tel:1243113">1243113</a> time=<a href="tel:1678052894">1678052894</a> user_id=6355]
[quote=co-joe post_id=<a href="tel:1243086">1243086</a> time=<a href="tel:1678045901">1678045901</a> user_id=53]
They were over YNY and turned back to YLW? YYC has an ARFF level of 9, YLW has 6 or maybe 7 if they call out the city fire department and it gets there in time. I have no idea how a Q performs on one engine butt hey were maybe 5-10 minutes closer to ylw over yyc by the time you factor in the descent and approach setup.

In the end whatever works is the right answer. We're just talking here for training purposes. As it turns out this was more than just a simple engine failure, once the TSB lets WS touch the plane we'll get a much clearer picture of what happened. ylw may well have been the safest option, I just like to make my own risk analysis and discuss what other options the crew could have considered based on my experience.

Lets look at a few things, they were essentially over Enderby leveling off at 240 when the trouble started. Not surprising, if an engine is going to cave, it tends to be when you make power adjustments. quick measure on google maps, to carry on to YYC is just over 220 miles strait ahead, with some very big rocks in the way. Cranbrook is just over 160 miles (strait line) with more big rocks in the way. Kelowna is just off the right wing, around 50 miles with falling terrain the whole way ? Now which is the better choice considering the reports say there was initially a fire ?

I've never flown a Q, question for those that have. Can the Q maintain 16,000 and cabin pressure for an hour with one side caged ? That would be the minimum requirement to carry on to YYC or get to YXC. If it cant hold 16,000 with a pressurized cabin for an hour, then those options have just gone away, and the options left on the table are Kelowna, back to Kamloops, over to Penticton, or off to Vancouver, all of which can be done unpressurized. Ofc the turn back to Vancouver does involve crossing over some big rocks again, just not as high as the ones in front.

A look at the flightaware data shows they made the turn, essentially turned direct for the FAF for a strait in at Kelowna, and started a relatively rapid descent. Ceiling was reported at 9000 broken at Kelowna, realistic to expect that to be similar up and down the valley. They levelled off at 8000, and then turned to do the back and forth dipsey doodle for a while. So they would have been under the ceiling in essentially VMC for that part. The bit I dont understand, is why they didn't carry on with the strait in to Kelowna, they were in a position to make it easily. Were they running checklists for the sake of running checklists ? Or was there some other problem compounding the situation ? My first guess is, they didn't have 3 green lights on the landing gear, which is not a huge surprise if there has been a fire in the nacelle. But this is just a guess, could be a few other reasons to abort the strait in, I just dont know which would apply.

Another question for the inquisition, if they had completed the strait in, so landed 20 minutes sooner, would everybody still be criticizing them ?

As for the folks worried about descending into a place with only one runway, well on the off chance there are two catastrophic failures happening at once, WJ has a stove caged and then YLW has a runway blocked, they still had plenty of options, but it involved looking up from procedures and charts, and actually look out the window. Strait ahead, climb to a thousand, 80 degree left turn as you go by Peachland, then get on the horn and call 20 mile final for Penticton. Weather is good, surely a couple of airline pilots can do a 25 mile jaunt down the lake VFR and land at an airport they have probably used many times in the past. Probably would have added another 10 minutes to the flight, 15 if they had gear issues and left the gear down for that part.

I will be very curious to find out why they did the back and forth north of the airport before landing, but, IMHO, they absolutely chose the correct diversion destination. Heck, even the maintenance folks probably agree, YLW is probably one of the better places in the province to get an engine change done on the Q.

Please tell me who you fly for so I can avoid that airline, for all our sakes I hope you are retired, your unprofessional demeanour shines through.
The only time to land without completing the proper checklist and preparation is if the fire is not out, it’s not for the sake of completing a straight(not strait) in.
[/quote]

Might as well skip my airline too then... I'm with golden...

Expediting an immediate return, even on a diversion, is absolutely reasonable. Going around VFR or flying down the lake VFR to the next runway is absolutely reasonable, preferred really.

There is so much over-proceduralisation at this point, a good crew, a capable crew, knows how and when to keep things moving. It astonishes me the idea that crews should always be spending 30 minutes reading and talking and briefing instead of flying the aircraft to the runway in VFR below.

How many rides are spent with everybody heads down reading every word, every note in the QRH, doing every possible QRHN check, diversion cl, non-precision cl, blah, blah...

There's been plenty of accidents because the crew was too consumed with procedure then to fly the airplane and put it on the ground during an emergency.

This crew did a great job.
[/quote][/quote]
Well, you know what they say, there’s 5% of any group….
This crew did a great job, no question.
But you people have a reading problem or you’re just like a politician, grab a “sound bite” a forget the other things I’ve said.
Like, if you’re still on fire there is no delay, get on the ground but you would just . out procedure to get on the ground sooner with an engine that is secured. I guess I don’t see the urgency with one shut down, again assuming the fire indication is out. This is a PAN PAN and there’s time to do your job properly. If I declared a May Day, different story.
I took issue with one poster saying the climb gradient was not relevant. It is a factor that needs to be considered, weather can change and your VFR in the valley might not be possible.
I once had dispatch try to talk me into diverting to a closer alternate based on the TAF which would make it a usable alternate, if I commit to this I no longer have fuel for my original alternate. What they didn’t factor was the ILS was notam’d unserviceable and the weather that caused my diversion was early at destination and heading directly to this “new” closer alternate.
I inquired with ATC about the ILS, they advised it could be turned back on, so I diverted, had I not got the ILS turned back on we would not have got in as the weather was right at 200’ 1/2 when we got there, about 12 mins after the decision to go there and it was 3600’ bkn.
Over the last 30 years of my career, I can’t tell you how many times the weather went from great to not in a matter of minutes, so yah, I want a way out if I go in.

[digits_]

But you people have a reading problem or you’re just like a politician, grab a “sound bite” a forget the other things I’ve said.

It would be nice if you didn't do it yourself then either.

I took issue with one poster saying the climb gradient was not relevant.

This is what I wrote:

They are in an emergency situation. They don't have to meet any missed approach climb gradients anymore.

As a response to a poster claiming

Just saying oh we'll fly the lake to Penticton is all well and good, but you have to be able to meet the missed approach climb gradient single engine, which now means setting up and briefing the possibility of a complex special on one engine

So yes

It is a factor that needs to be considered

Yes it is, but there's no legal requirement whatsoever to meet single engine climb gradients once you're actually experiencing a single engine emergency.

[altiplano]

Well, you know what they say, there’s 5% of any group….
This crew did a great job, no question.
But you people have a reading problem or you’re just like a politician, grab a “sound bite” a forget the other things I’ve said.
Like, if you’re still on fire there is no delay, get on the ground but you would just . out procedure to get on the ground sooner with an engine that is secured. I guess I don’t see the urgency with one shut down, again assuming the fire indication is out. This is a PAN PAN and there’s time to do your job properly. If I declared a May Day, different story.
I took issue with one poster saying the climb gradient was not relevant. It is a factor that needs to be considered, weather can change and your VFR in the valley might not be possible.
I once had dispatch try to talk me into diverting to a closer alternate based on the TAF which would make it a usable alternate, if I commit to this I no longer have fuel for my original alternate. What they didn’t factor was the ILS was notam’d unserviceable and the weather that caused my diversion was early at destination and heading directly to this “new” closer alternate.
I inquired with ATC about the ILS, they advised it could be turned back on, so I diverted, had I not got the ILS turned back on we would not have got in as the weather was right at 200’ 1/2 when we got there, about 12 mins after the decision to go there and it was 3600’ bkn.
Over the last 30 years of my career, I can’t tell you how many times the weather went from great to not in a matter of minutes, so yah, I want a way out if I go in.

5%?.What's that supposed to mean?

We clearly have different views of what "doing your job properly" involves. Ad nauseam proceduralisation is what some guys need I guess.

[altiplano]

Might as well skip my airline too then... I'm with golden...

Over the years here, been lotsa things we have disagreed on, but we always tend to be on the same page when it comes to how to fly an airplane when the chips are down.

Have we? Disagreed I mean? I don't keep track anymore... I'm glad we have something in common then. And where it really counts!

[cdnavater]

Well, you know what they say, there’s 5% of any group….
This crew did a great job, no question.
But you people have a reading problem or you’re just like a politician, grab a “sound bite” a forget the other things I’ve said.
Like, if you’re still on fire there is no delay, get on the ground but you would just . out procedure to get on the ground sooner with an engine that is secured. I guess I don’t see the urgency with one shut down, again assuming the fire indication is out. This is a PAN PAN and there’s time to do your job properly. If I declared a May Day, different story.
I took issue with one poster saying the climb gradient was not relevant. It is a factor that needs to be considered, weather can change and your VFR in the valley might not be possible.
I once had dispatch try to talk me into diverting to a closer alternate based on the TAF which would make it a usable alternate, if I commit to this I no longer have fuel for my original alternate. What they didn’t factor was the ILS was notam’d unserviceable and the weather that caused my diversion was early at destination and heading directly to this “new” closer alternate.
I inquired with ATC about the ILS, they advised it could be turned back on, so I diverted, had I not got the ILS turned back on we would not have got in as the weather was right at 200’ 1/2 when we got there, about 12 mins after the decision to go there and it was 3600’ bkn.
Over the last 30 years of my career, I can’t tell you how many times the weather went from great to not in a matter of minutes, so yah, I want a way out if I go in.

5%?.What's that supposed to mean?

We clearly have different views of what "doing your job properly" involves. Ad nauseam proceduralisation is what some guys need I guess.

Do you know why the procedures are there, years and years of test pilots showing us what not to do! Rushed procedures lead to mistakes, always! I’ve been a training pilot since the 90’s, I’ve seen all types come through and the guys that just want to throw procedures out the window are full of ego.
I’m willing to bet you have said the words, these new procedures are a way for the company to dumb it down for the idiots
Again, I’ll pose it as a question instead. Would you drop procedure and checklist to just get on the ground sooner with a secured engine?

[altiplano]

Immediate return is a procedure.

So is a VFR go around.

[cdnavater]

Immediate return is a procedure.

So is a VFR go around.

Hmm, can’t seem to find the reference for immediate return, I found a statement about crews using their judgement when not covered by procedures.
Is it your good judgement that says forget the checklist, we’re landing anyway? Curious, in the scenario we have been discussing, are you preparing the cabin?
In my world, a secured engine is an “abnormal landing” and I cannot justify landing without preparation that’s covered by the QRH, including company procedure that says for a planned single engine approach, you “shall” review the single engine go around route and procedure. After that if we decide that due to the weather for a go around, we will plan for a VFR return around the lake, then so be it.
You know what’s not covered if you don’t follow procedure, your ass! Better have a good reason other than,
“Ad nauseam proceduralisation is what some guys need I guess.“
Go ahead and rush things for the sake of, “I know better” I just hope I’m not on board when time comes.

[Conflicting Traffic]

Immediate return is a procedure.

So is a VFR go around.

Hmm, can’t seem to find the reference for immediate return, I found a statement about crews using their judgement when not covered by procedures.
Is it your good judgement that says forget the checklist, we’re landing anyway? Curious, in the scenario we have been discussing, are you preparing the cabin?
In my world, a secured engine is an “abnormal landing” and I cannot justify landing without preparation that’s covered by the QRH, including company procedure that says for a planned single engine approach, you “shall” review the single engine go around route and procedure. After that if we decide that due to the weather for a go around, we will plan for a VFR return around the lake, then so be it.
You know what’s not covered if you don’t follow procedure, your ass! Better have a good reason other than,
“Ad nauseam proceduralisation is what some guys need I guess.“
Go ahead and rush things for the sake of, “I know better” I just hope I’m not on board when time comes.

I'm not sure what you're ranting about here. What necessary procedure are you alleging was skipped by the crew?

[altiplano]

Immediate return is a procedure.

So is a VFR go around.

Hmm, can’t seem to find the reference for immediate return, I found a statement about crews using their judgement when not covered by procedures.
Is it your good judgement that says forget the checklist, we’re landing anyway? Curious, in the scenario we have been discussing, are you preparing the cabin?
In my world, a secured engine is an “abnormal landing” and I cannot justify landing without preparation that’s covered by the QRH, including company procedure that says for a planned single engine approach, you “shall” review the single engine go around route and procedure. After that if we decide that due to the weather for a go around, we will plan for a VFR return around the lake, then so be it.
You know what’s not covered if you don’t follow procedure, your ass! Better have a good reason other than,
“Ad nauseam proceduralisation is what some guys need I guess.“
Go ahead and rush things for the sake of, “I know better” I just hope I’m not on board when time comes.

Never said most of what you are implying. Never said rush. But said that crews needn't beat every eventuality to death and can efficiently expedite an approach and landing. Where I come from there are a lot of procedures and checklists, literally checklists about checklists, lots of talking, it uses up lots of time... it isn't ALL necessary all the time. Sure some are and can be resources and have a time to be referenced, but time and fuel is a resource too. Our decision making, our situational awareness prioritises how we use or don't use those resources case to case.

Contrarily, you seem to know what's best, and prefer to carry on and fly past a suitable airport, an airport with high crew familiarity, with a long runway, with VFR weather, with adequate facilities, the type of airport that the QRH procedure has strongly inferred you should land at, after possibly/probably/hopefully putting out a fire... Go ahead and carry on to destination yonder over the mountains for the sake of "I know better' I just hope I'm not on board when time comes.

[altiplano]

https://youtu.be/PlwibCZbF8Y

Hold the chicken...

[goldeneagle]

Again, I’ll pose it as a question instead. Would you drop procedure and checklist to just get on the ground sooner with a secured engine?

So, there is an easy way to answer that question. Look at history, keeping in mind that there were initial reports of a fire.

flight PRO420 out of Dorval many years ago, not sure why the forum code insists on blanking out the name of the airline, keeps replacing it with a dot when I put in the name of the company. Fire in a nacelle, they turned back, then diverted to Mirabel, not sure if it was closer or not. Thought things were under control, engine was secured and fire out. Almost made it back, they were over the runway when the wing folded up. Had they made it back 30 seconds sooner, a totally different outcome was likely. FWIW, they thought the fire was out, but it wasn't.

Horizon 2658 out of SeaTac back in the 80's. They turned around and flew a circuit to land with traffic. By the time they got on final, fire had done in the hydraulics, landed with no steering and no brakes. Aircraft stopped when it hit a couple jetways. At least the wing stayed attached till they hit the first one. Nobody knows knows if a 180 back to a downwind landing would have got them on the ground with steering and brakes still working. the report does suggest they didn't have control issues till turning base to final.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buBgdau5Dn4

Air Canada 797. They decided it would be better to overfly some perfectly good runways where a DC9 could land and get stopped, chose instead to go to the big city that had services available. Those services didn't help the folks that burned alive in the back of the airplane. Had they landed at the first available runway, would have got on the ground, done an evac, everybody survived and could have stood outside watching the airplane burn, much like what happened to the PWA 501, a 737 in Calgary back in the 80's. Minor injuries during the evac, but everybody survived and got to watch an airplane burning on the taxiway.

Now take off the pilot hat, and I'll put on my engineer hat.

Any fire in a nacelle has only two significant sources of fuel to drive it, 3 if the gear retracts into the nacelle and can expose the tires to the fire. Hydraulic fluid will ignite at just north of 500C, and after ignition will burn substantially hotter. Jet fuel will ignite at a temperature slightly lower, and once burning, in still air burns just north of 1000C, hotter if it's being fanned by a 100mph breeze, and up north of 2000C at the pressures found inside a turbine combustion chamber. I haven't bothered to check ignition and burn temps for the rubber on the tires, without knowing the specifics of the compounds it's not realistic to check that part out.

Aluminum is a great material, strong as steel, but much lighter. Yield temp for aluminum is just north of 600C, varies somewhat with the alloy in question, but all alloys are well below the 1000C you get from a jet fuel fire. If that alluminum is exposed to yield temps for a time, even a short time, it will be weakened, and the clock will start ticking, each flex will take more out of it, and it does NOT recover from flex anymore. It's kinda like twisting the tab back and forth on your can of beer, once you go past the yield point, it gets weaker and weaker every time you twist, till just the touch of a finger is all it takes to break off.

After a fire in a nacelle, just because you think it's out, doesn't mean that it is fully extinguished, reference pro420 above. You are now riding in a machine that depends on aluminum that has potentially been exposed to temps above yield temperature. After that, every bump you hit, or other load you put on it, will weaken it even more, and if you dont get the load off of it, eventually it's going to give up.

It's quite likely the secured engine is just that, and the wing is fine, but it's also possible you have a bunch of aluminum getting weaker every time you hit a bit of turbulence, and if you dilly dally in the air it will reach the point of breaking. It's not a simulator where you can reset and run the scenario again if things go south, it's the real world and there is this old saying about 'playing with fire', it's not a smart thing to do.

There is a time and a place for checklists, and there is a time and place to set the book down and fly the airplane. If you have, or had a fire out on the wing, the first suitable runway is where you need to be going, and if it's right in front of you, get wheels on the ground ASAP. The only reason to not go directly to land is if you are having issues with getting the gear down and locked.

[rookiepilot]

The criticism of this crew to divert to a nice long runway, in a wide valley, with lovely VFR conditions prevailing, after a fire, handling a serious emergency safely with no injuries, is rather bizarre to me.

Not 2 weeks ago, a professional airline crew took a wrong turn and crossed an active runway without clearance at JFK, causing a near catastrophe. JFK was their home base — BTW.

Not a word of criticism of that crew here. Just comments they shouldn’t have to talk to the NTSB about what happened.



Surely, everyone’s right. I don’t get what being an airline pilot is all about, and real thankful for that.

Good job to this crew.

[digits_]

Not 2 weeks ago, a professional airline crew took a wrong turn and crossed an active runway without clearance at JFK, causing a near catastrophe. JFK was their home base — BTW.

Not a word of criticism of that crew here. Just comments they shouldn’t have to talk to the NTSB about what happened.

Title of the topic you started:

AA Crew involved in JFK near miss refuses to talk to NTSB

Now take a guess why people were only commenting about their (lack of) talking to the NTSB

[cdnavater]

Immediate return is a procedure.

So is a VFR go around.

Hmm, can’t seem to find the reference for immediate return, I found a statement about crews using their judgement when not covered by procedures.
Is it your good judgement that says forget the checklist, we’re landing anyway? Curious, in the scenario we have been discussing, are you preparing the cabin?
In my world, a secured engine is an “abnormal landing” and I cannot justify landing without preparation that’s covered by the QRH, including company procedure that says for a planned single engine approach, you “shall” review the single engine go around route and procedure. After that if we decide that due to the weather for a go around, we will plan for a VFR return around the lake, then so be it.
You know what’s not covered if you don’t follow procedure, your ass! Better have a good reason other than,
“Ad nauseam proceduralisation is what some guys need I guess.“
Go ahead and rush things for the sake of, “I know better” I just hope I’m not on board when time comes.

I'm not sure what you're ranting about here. What necessary procedure are you alleging was skipped by the crew?

None, go back and read the whole thread to see where it went off the rails. I never once criticized this crew, bang up job!