CMA Incident in Rainbow Lake

[Captain_Canuck]

Morning,

Heard something about CMA rejecting at 80kts in Rainbow Lake and went off the end. Any truth to this?

[matrix]

Cadors Number: 2009C3243Reporting Region: Prairie & Northern
Occurrence Information

Occurrence Type:Accident Occurrence Date:2009-11-20 Occurrence Time:2223 Z Day Or Night:day-time Fatalities:0 Injuries:0
Canadian Aerodrome ID:CYOP Aerodrome Name:Rainbow Lake Occurrence Location:Rainbow Lake (CYOP) Province:Alberta Country:CANADA World Area:North America
Reported By:NAV CANADA AOR Number:113622-V1 TSB Class Of Investigation: TSB Occurrence No:
Aircraft Information

Flight #: Aircraft Category:Aeroplane Country of Registration:CANADA Make:BEECH Model:1900D Year Built:1997 Amateur Built:No Engine Make:PRATT & WHITNEY-CAN Engine Model:PT6A-67D Engine Type:Turbo prop Gear Type:Land Phase of Flight:Takeoff Damage:No Damage Owner:CENTRAL MOUNTAIN AIR LTD Operator:CENTRAL MOUNTAIN AIR LTD. (3999) Operator Type:Commercial
Event Information
Aerodrome or runway shutdown
Loss of control - on ground
Rejected take-off

Detail Information

User Name:Beauchamp, Carol Date:2009-11-23 Further Action Required:Yes O.P.I.:Maintenance & Manufacturing Narrative:The aircraft was departing runway 09. The pilot attempted to abort the take off due an indication. The aircraft is sitting 100 feet off the runway on the approach end of runway 27. Runway NOTAMed closed.
User Name:Beauchamp, Carol Date:2009-11-25 Further Action Required:Yes O.P.I.:Maintenance & Manufacturing

UPDATE There was no engine malfunction There was no overshoot / missed approach – aircraft was in take off phase Rejected takeoff was commenced after calling V1. The indication causing the reject was a stall warning Photographs of stall warning vane showed moisture on both the faceplate and on the vane. A normally operating stall warning heater will boil off all moisture from the heated area. Either the heat was not selected on or it was not functioning. Maintenance inspected the “horn” but did not specify if the heaters worked. More info to follow. Please note that for the most part, CADORS reports contain preliminary, unconfirmed data which can be subject to change.

[FlaplessDork]

Glad everyone is OK.

Does this mean there is a job opening soon?

Sorry bad joke.

[Inverted2]

Rejected takeoff after V1? Fail.

[matt foley]

Stall warning and still on ground/stays on ground...PASS!

[200hr Wonder]

Matt where in the world is it acceptable to reject a take off after V1? Please tell me where?

[AMM]

Q: Whats the difference between an accident and an incident?
A: 100' of pre-threshold area.

Or would the a/c still count as inaccessible?

[D5GRVTY]

*********1900 PILOTS*******


I don't want to speculate on the CMA crew's actions, it's a pet peeve of mine when people comment from the sidelines before all the information is known.

However there has been quite a few similar incidents, so I'm commenting on the 1900 systems in the hopes that someone flying the 1900 reads this and understands one of the weaknesses of stall vane system. These are two incidents I found by quickly googling, there is more.

http://www.flightsafety.org/ap/ap_july98.pdf

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 7c0229.asp

The important line from the TSB report

"Electrical voltage is supplied to the stall warning heat system at 28 volts in the air, and is reduced to 10 volts for ground operation by the operation of the left landing gear safety switch."

Even with the stall vane heat turned on, minimal heat is provided on the ground. If there is any presence of contaminates, they may partially melt and on the stall vane and cause false stall warnings.

You can turn on the stall vane early (like right after start) to give it more time to warm up, however under contaminated runway conditions, I would be very weary of any stall indications after take off.

I hope this helps someone out.

Cheers

D5

[matt foley]

* Transport Canada defines it as: Critical engine failure recognition speed and adds: This definition is not restrictive. An operator may adopt any other definition outlined in the aircraft flight manual (AFM) of TC type-approved aircraft as long as such definition does not compromise operational safety of the aircraft.[7]

Hint. Engine failure. If the A/C is deemed unflyable (look up Canadian DC-10 YVR circa 1996-97ish) then one can and should reject at any speed including after take off(depending how long after take off this may be either an RTO or emergency landing). I suggest looking up the definition of V1 in your 704/705 SOP, AFM and CARS. I hope those of you that are slinging pooh at me are not operating A/C with published V1 without knowing what it governs...nah.

PS. When in doubt, anything happens on the ground stays on the ground.

[North Shore]

Matt where in the world is it acceptable to reject a take off after V1? Please tell me where?

Didn't Canadian do it at YVR with a DC10 about 15 years back? There was a compressor stall in one of the engines, which made a loud 'bang' and the Captain, fearing a bomb explosion, made the decision to stop after (IIRC) V1 had been called. They too went off the end..

[EDITED for dumb-ass-ness on my behalf...]

I guess, at the end of the day, everyone walked away, so that's a good thing.

[FlaplessDork]

I heard through the grapevine they rejected before V1 on a contaminated runway.

[Liquid Charlie]

They were above V1 (DC10) and the whole thing was beaten to death but in the end they damaged an airplane needlessly. Brings us to a very important part of these occurrences -- startle factor -- plays a large roll and certainly isn't our friend. Hands and feet start flying when maybe they shouldn't - High Speed rejects are right up there and forgot to add that to my list of safety concerns.

[200hr Wonder]

My point exactly. There is a reason why we train and train and train some more for what to do at V1, then is not the time to be re-writing SOPs, checklists and so forth.

I can think of very few reasons why you would not continue after V1. Massive structural failure? The spar folded up?

So you get a fire light right after V1 and you choose to reject, what are the consequences of your action? You may end up visiting the bushes at the far end of the runway. How many people can think of an airworthy aircraft that has been needlesly damaged due to rejection after V1? So you get a light just above V1, what are the consequences of continuing that take off? Fire Light? Aircraft have to meet certain criteria for certification, including the amount of time the spar takes to burn through, you have enough time to complete a circuit and land. Stall Horn? It is a wee little flapper on one trailing edge that could be going for any number of reasons, the airplane does not know it is going off and will continue to fly, because the flight crew knows that the wing is clean due SOPs, so who cares? Continue. Loss of power? Well there is a reason for all of the procedures. Beyond that I am having trouble thinking of a single reason why you would reject after V1?

Just for the sake of argument, Wonder, what would you do if one of the engines fell off your wing after V1? Then, there's the whole issue of Stall warning - you're kinda in a tough corner if you are still on the ground, past V1, and the machine, through its warning system, is telling you that it won't fly...

Well massive structural failure? I doubt if an engine fell off of anything but an under mount nacelle such as an airliner you would have control anyway with the associated damage to control cables etc. The stall warning is just that a warning and guess what the plane does not know that the horn is going off and will more than likely fly.

If you do reject after V1 did you know that you are no longer covered by insurance? Seeing as V1 and required actions are very clearly spelled out in the AFM, guess what by rejecting after V1 you are operating the airplane outside of the AFM specifications which makes your CofA invalid and ergo your insurance. Certainly the worst of your worries when passenger and crew safety is at stake but none the less something to think about.

[xsbank]

"...after V1 its an airborne emergency and we will take no action except to raise the gear and silence the warning. At 400 feet we will evaluate, good one or bad one (memory items?) and is there a turn?" Jets are cool.

It was a stall warning. How does that affect your flight? If they had taken it into the air, they would have just been annoyed by a spurious warning and likely have pulled the circuit breaker (or whatever happens in a 1900). Staying on the ground risked losing the aircraft or at best damaging it.

You reject after V1 at your peril because many accident reports and conclusions from smarter people than me have proven that to reject after V1 is infinitely more dangerous than to take the junk into the air and make a calm response to whatever it is that has broken.

Rejecting after V1 means the intentional ignoring of a balanced field. This crew (thankfully!) got lucky. Glad you're still with us!

[whiteguy]

Passenger loads usually good out of Rainbow? So far there were 12 of you on this flight!

[Caracrane]

D5VRGTY got the answer. In some melting snow or light icing cond. horn will come on exaclty on rotation but is not in stall condition it's a fact and seen that on the D quite a few times but when green capt. with not moch exp. on time along with green f/o they don,t know many tricks about her and every D's does that in those conditions....or at least on the east coast. many thousound hours of experience on type pilots thought me how to fly this thing and that particular detail was brought to me in order not to be caught doing that cause it was a faulty warning. Too bad. everybody is OK and that's the main thing

[Caracrane]

how much time each crewmember have on the D just for fun. That's why I always say that there's a lot to learn from an old bear.

[skyclear350]

I'd reject after V1 if the runway was long enough...I'd rather be on the ground with a problem than in the air.

[FlaplessDork]

A source of mine says no damage and they rejected below V1. What are the balanced field requirements 704 for a contaminated runway?

[xsbank]

Flapless, if that's true, except for the fact that rejecting for that particular failure is debatable, there doesn't seem to be much to discuss, except that those of you who think rejecting after V1 is a reasonable action should do some research.

Boy I must be getting mellow, I deleted all the invective I had saved up. Interestingly, it felt just as good to type it and then toast it as if I had really posted it. What a concept.

[cmadude]

Happen to me a few times with CMA. DEGRVTY is very correct. What usually happens, arrivining in icing conditions with a short turn around, if you dont put heat on while taxing YOU WILL get the stall horn activiated as soon as you have any back pressure on the control wheel..

Had that three times then figured it out and passed my knowledge along. That was in the 90's. Ice and snow will build up around the vane after you turn off the heat after landing. The stall system very noisy and gets ya pretty good.

cheers

[Go Guns]

I've had it on the C model as well as the D.

[Flybaby]

This thread makes me sad to be a pilot. The fact people on here believe it's alright to reject an aircraft with a warning, most likely at Vr, on a containment 4500' runway with a plane that has two operating engines and no major damage or fire is frankly depressing.
I'm glad no one was killed or hurt.

[CL-Skadoo!]

Glad everyone is OK.

Does this mean there is a job opening soon?

Sorry bad joke.

[Rowdy]

Rejecting above v1... seriously people.... *shakes head*

if it was below v1 on a contaminated runway and they got it stopped without doing any damage.. then the crew desreves a pat on the back