Georgian's Citation Off runway in YYZ

mculshaw · Post by **mculshaw** » Sun May 21, 2006 2:17 pm

From a email list I subscribe to:

GGN2100 C550 landing from TEB went off the end of RW33L at 1650hrs approximately....two pilots and two passengers on board....all OK.

Currently all traffic on RW33R until further notice......tow crew on the way to tow the C550 off the grass back to Landmark Aviation area.

Some lights taken out at the end of the runway, but no other appreciable damage as far as we know now.

costermonger · Post by **costermonger** » Sun May 21, 2006 3:19 pm

33L's active again so they must've got it clear.

N2 · Post by N2 » Sun May 21, 2006 7:55 pm

Is that runway not long enough to provide ample stopping distance for that aircraft?

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Sun May 21, 2006 8:06 pm

I 'spose you could ask Air France the same question, about rwy 24

One can't help but wonder if (just if) the citation crew was hollered at by ATC a total of (say) thirty-seven times to "keep the speed up" during the approach.

If so, I am sure that the TSB will find that this had nothing whatsoever to do with them running off the end of the runway, and I am sure that ATC is now happy that the citation did indeed, keep the speed up.

Turkey · Post by **Turkey** » Mon May 22, 2006 8:33 am

From another post only 4 days ago:

"LOL, no doubt.
Does your friend work for georgian, I heard from my friend that because they go in to yyz controlers are always telling them to keep up the speed causing them to overspeed."

Perhaps there's something to this comment...

Flying Newf · Post by **Flying Newf** » Mon May 22, 2006 9:34 am

The Captain is the only one responsible. That’s his/her job; keep the AC and passengers safe! I don't know the entire story here, but the buck stops with the Captain. ATC has their job, and that’s to keep the flow moving safely. The Captain tells them limits, they make it work.

N2 · Post by N2 » Mon May 22, 2006 11:02 am

That's what I always thought too newf, I mean that would be like blaming someone else for a suicide because someone yelled jump! Also if the captain did put the aircraft in a dangerous situation because of outside presssures it tells me he hasn't got the stuff to be captain of anything.

ZBB118.10 · Post by **ZBB118.10** » Mon May 22, 2006 11:33 am

Strangely enough, such ATC instructions are also to be heard out here on the left coast. "Keep the speed up" always makes the approach more fun, as do ATC messages prefaced with the phrase "go fast"

Note to aircraft manufacturers: all gear and flap limiting speeds to be VNE -5kts on future aircraft designs...

justplanecrazy · Post by **justplanecrazy** » Mon May 22, 2006 11:47 am

Hedley wrote: One can't help but wonder if (just if) the citation crew was hollered at by ATC a total of (say) thirty-seven times to "keep the speed up" during the approach.

Hedley I'm starting to wonder what kind of pilot you are. If ATC tells you to keep the speed up at 15 miles final, you can slow it down closer in. A lot of controllers get surprised by slowtations coming way back on the speed, but I find it's more the pilot than the airplane for the most part. There's nothing worse than a pilot that needs to start a stabalized approach with final configuration 10 miles back of the ILS intercept because they can't keep those damn needles on the map.

If you don't have the capability to handle the airplane at that speed tell ATC unable and they'll pull you out until they have enough space for you to fly the approach at the speed of a cessna. If you just keep saying Roger and not increasing the speed, then yes they'll keep telling you because they see the speed decreasing and you're either not understanding, forgetting, or ignoring them. It's kinda like dealing with someone driving 30km/h down the 401. Either keep the speed up or let us know so we can direct traffic around you or get you off the road.

abc xyz · Post by **abc xyz** » Mon May 22, 2006 12:57 pm

9088 ft rwy with a 30-40 kt wind in a Citation. so ground speed would = what 85-100 kts give or take. Talking to my dad about the incident he said when landing yesterday on the same runway he had a gs of 115 with a Vapp of 140 around 4 pm in a A330

what keeps popping up in my mind (arm chair qb) is that the 1st exit (F2) is 3/4 down the rwy - did this guy purposely try to land long so he could get parked faster up at the north end???? then the plan snowballed????

maybe im way off in left field but 9000 feet you can land a citation 3 times

comments

neophyte · Post by **neophyte** » Mon May 22, 2006 1:13 pm

I am with abc xyz on this one.

I don't think it is too much to ask to keep the speed up on the approach. 170kts till the FAF is fast but if an Airbus/Boeing/RJ/Challenger (whatever) can do it time and time again with no problem, there has to be more to the story than the speed. The weight of the aircraft and the resulting inertia is what makes things tricky and I think we can all agree that the Citation has nowhere near the inertia that a A330 does!

If you are unable to comply, let ATC know, problem resolved.

Happy Holiday Monday!

Neo

Flaps 1 Billion · Post by **Flaps 1 Billion** » Mon May 22, 2006 1:48 pm

how about you wait to hear what actually happened, perhaps it's not as bad or dangerous or maybe the captain does have the 'stuff', dumb comment.

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Mon May 22, 2006 1:53 pm

abc xyz wrote:9088 ft rwy with a 30-40 kt wind in a Citation. so ground speed would = what 85-100 kts give or take. Talking to my dad about the incident he said when landing yesterday on the same runway he had a gs of 115 with a Vapp of 140 around 4 pm in a A330

what keeps popping up in my mind (arm chair qb) is that the 1st exit (F2) is 3/4 down the rwy - did this guy purposely try to land long so he could get parked faster up at the north end???? then the plan snowballed????

maybe im way off in left field but 9000 feet you can land a citation 3 times

comments

I was thinking the same abc. Time will tell but I am sure the outcome will place blame on the pilots landing long or attempting to roll it out to the end.

I haven't flown one in 12 years or so, but it is a light, low momentum aircraft that should not face runway issuesin YYZ, especially with a strong headwind.

squawk 7600 · Post by **squawk 7600** » Mon May 22, 2006 2:27 pm

Is it possible they landed long due to wake turbulence from ABC XYZ's father's A330 landing and then discovered reverse thrust was unavailable or perhaps a brake failure??? Did any of you "arm chair experts" ever think of that?

monkeyspankmasterflex · Mon May 22, 2006 2:41 pm

how about you wait to hear what actually happened, perhaps it's not as bad or dangerous or maybe the captain does have the 'stuff', dumb comment.

Agreed. Just glad no one is hurt.

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Mon May 22, 2006 3:10 pm

squawk 7600 wrote:Is it possible they landed long due to wake turbulence from ABC XYZ's father's A330 landing and then discovered reverse thrust was unavailable or perhaps a brake failure??? Did any of you "arm chair experts" ever think of that?

Firstly, 7600, you had better squawk 7700 if you even think TR's figure into landing distances.... secondly, your speculation is different from everyone elses??? So you are not armchair quarterbacking??? Gimme a break dumbass!!!

I know it is not wise to speculate, but I have extensive experience in that type and even with a brake failure AND TR failure, it will stop itself in the runway confines at YYZ. The Citation is a light, low-energy aircraft, especially with a 30 kt headwind.

Missed_Approach · Post by **Missed_Approach** » Mon May 22, 2006 3:17 pm

Interestingly enough, I had/have some of the very same thoughts and ideas and questions many of you are asking. When it comes down to it, the ATC requests specific items, and it is up to the PIC to acknowledge and comply if it is feasable. If not, the pilot makes the call as to whether or not the maneuver is safe.

It your responsiblity to do what is safe, regardless of ATC instructions, and to let the controller know what you are doing and why. That is what pilot in command means, 'whatever happens, it's your fault'.

Check CARs 602.31 and in the AIM RAC 1.7 ATC Clearances, Instructions and Information.

RAC Section 1.7 states,

"Whenver an ATC clearence is recieved and accpted by the pilot, compliance shall be made with the clearence. If a clearance is not acceptable, the pilot should immeditately inform ATC of this fact since acknowledgement of the clearance alone will be take by the controller indicating acceptence. For example, upon recieving a clearance for takeoff, the pilot should acknowledge the clearance and take off without undue delay or, if not ready to take off at that particular time, inform ATC of his or her intentions, in which case the clearance may be changed or cancelled.

A pilot shall comply with the ATC instructions that is directed to and received by the pilot, provided safety of the aircraft is not jeopardized."

Enough said.

squawk 7600 · Post by **squawk 7600** » Mon May 22, 2006 4:34 pm

gr8gazu, relax little buddy.

Just cutting the crew a little slack. But my question still stands: is it possible they landed longer than usual to get off at the end to save everyone time, made a highspeed taxi to the end, then realized approaching J that they had no TR's or brakes and missed the end? Also, was it raining at the time of landing? Did the winds shift dramatically at landing? If I recall, it was quite gusty in YYZ around that time.

I realize I am also speculating, but lets cut a fellow pilot a little slack here. It seems that when something like this happens (as minor as it is) people want to see other people "fail" to overshadow their own insecurities.

abc xyz · Post by **abc xyz** » Mon May 22, 2006 5:39 pm

hi squawk 7600 - i dont mean to sound arrogant but what type of flying level are you at??? if you are fairly new to the game im gonna give you sage advice - runway behind you aint worth SHIT. you land your airplane in the touchdown zone PERIOD. if your passengers have to wait for a longer taxi so be it - it is your license and nobody elses. too many incidents/accidents are from pure stupidity.

i highly doubt they had a dual thrust reverser and brake failure - even if they did stopping in 8000 ft or so should not be an issue as you probably should have known right after touchdown if the shit was hitting the fan.

Mornazinomoretuzzi · Post by **Mornazinomoretuzzi** » Mon May 22, 2006 6:43 pm

I was under the impression that the aircraft did not overrun. Early reports indicated it slid off to one side. I could be wrong, just guessing at this point I guess. We did have some light rain on and off during the day. Perhaps this, combined with the crosswind made for a nasty hydroplane, viscous, reverted rubber, all possible? I wonder what the braking conditions were like at the time of the incident. ???

Bubbaganoosh · Post by **Bubbaganoosh** » Mon May 22, 2006 6:52 pm

Mornazituzzi wrote: reverted rubber???

Thats been the cause of a lot of teen pregnancies, just ask 'Wigwam Willy

3Green · Post by **3Green** » Mon May 22, 2006 7:02 pm

It truly is incredible to see all the arm-chair qb's out in full force on this one! Nicely done guys.
Thanks for lookin up that CARS reference, by the way. Ya know, I'm sure there are only a handful of pilots on this site that have ever wondered what "Pilot In Command" referred to. Glad you cleared that one up for us.
I don't understand the obsession you guys have with taking the misfortunes of others, and putting your spin/ideas/super-duper skills and assessment to it, ONLINE, and make their bad day even worse.
Just from recognizing some of the names on here, the experience is from low experience to higher experience. I would expect that the higher experienced guys would know/"understand" enough of these situations to just let them lie. Before you know it, the comments on THIS BOARD are being discussed, laughed at, and scoffed at in FBO's and Terminals across the country. That's not fair to the crew or the investigation.
Case in point, we've seen this topic go from a Citation goes off the END of a runway, to a Citation slides off the side of a runway.

abc xyz · Post by **abc xyz** » Mon May 22, 2006 8:18 pm

http://www.liveatc.net/.archive/cyyz/CY ... 6-1630.mp3

YYZ tapes from yesterday - the pilot on the radio says and i quote "going to the north end looking for a long landing" around 1/2 through the recording

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Mon May 22, 2006 8:31 pm

abc,
Sounds like you know a little more than what you're portraying on the posts. Good link to the tapes.

abc xyz · Post by **abc xyz** » Mon May 22, 2006 8:43 pm

hi ei ei owe,

nope i have no insider knowledge. i just found the link at airliners.net like 20 mins ago. i flew out of YYZ for many years so i know the place and some of the quirks of operating there. 33L as i mentioned doesnt have a taxiway till like 3/4 of the way down (F2)

scenario : smaller plane off the end plus heading to north end 2 and 2 together means try to land long.