Buffalo in YZF

[FlyGy]

This is a very interesting statement ... however ....

It wasn't a statement, it was a question, there is a difference.

 

look for the lesson, look at yourself and say what would I do

That's what BPF was trying to do, he's trying to learn from this situation and part of learning is to ask questions. Questions you can't answer with any actual facts. Adiabatic would likely be the only one I would trust with accurate information, and that's who BPF asked.

 

But do not lay blame... that is not our jobs in here.

He wasn't laying blame, he was asking a question, there is a difference.

But I am sure when that crew walked to that aircraft that day ... the last thing they thought of was having to deal with that emergency and what the final outcome was.

No doubt when BPF asked a simple question to help him to understand the reasoning behind the actions of the crew, he wasn't expecting such condescension either, yet here we are.

You'll note that Adiabatic's response was informative and a reasonable explanation was provided, without any of the condecending undertones. I appreciate that, because now we know why they chose to do the landing in that fashion.

[godsrcrazy]

We elected to leave the left main and nose wheel down, to minimize damage to the rest of the airplane (airmanship). We saved two props and engines, and we saved the fuselage. Looks like at initial personal inspection that the right side wing planks were not damaged. #3 engine may still be salvageable, I didn't take a look under the cowlings yet. We did not pull the emergency shut-down handles prior to landing. We shut off the fuel and ignition switches on #3 and #4 at 100ft on committal to land, when we touched down, and after the right wing settled, we pulled all four handles. When we stopped pushed the fire bottles. To just shut the #3 and #4 engines down, and not pull the e-handles prior to landing, was also a choice to minimize damage to the right wing. The props would bend and curl up rather than a straight edge absorbing the forces with the change of the props and gear boxes coming off and puncturing the wing planks(which also hold the fuel). The #4 prop and gear box did come of in this situation, but luckily did not puncture the right wing planks. Some damage to the leading edge which is replaceable.
We thought that leaving the gear up would destroy all four props ($100,000) each and damage the fuselage from the shrapnel from #2 and possibly #1 prop, as they turn clockwise, and possibly damage the fuselage grinding down the runway and into the hard packed snow. The aircraft may have settled on the gear pods, but who knows. And for sure the front end of the ship would have been bouncing us around inside quite a bit as we smashed to the ground and plowed into the hard packed snow.
Deceleration forces felt to me, less than if you decided to stop after noticing a yellow light at the last moment in your car.
So hope that info helps a bit.



Food for thought on emergency procedures: Would you do an emergency decent from FL250, at 5000ft/min, high speed, with a sudden cabin depressurization? What caused the depressurization? Where are you? Remote or congested airspace? What damage was there to the plane? If your airspeed is faster what effect will that have?



I confirmed two days ago that no film crew was onboard.

Adiabatic Please don't take my question wrong as we can all have opinions from our arm chair. I am just wondering if you could shed some light on why was #4 not shut down prior to landing. I know nothing about the lectra but i always thought it fly's fine on 3 engines. Like i say please don't take an offence to this it's only a question from someone with no Electra experience.

There does seem to be some controversy over how many souls were on board. Apparently Joe told the media 5 not like the media has never got something wrong and some spokesperson for the GNWT says he witnessed 6 get off the plane. Maybe you can clarify how many were actually on board.

[Jean-Pierre]

The emergency procedure is designed to protect the lives of 100 passenger. It says leave all gear up because it is less likely for a wingtip to dig in the ground and flip the plane. If it's only flight crew or film crew on board and they want to try to save the plane some damage by doing another procedure that is their choice. As for not shutting down the engines sounds like they want to save the fuselage and wing some damage by sacrificing the engines. I don't know the prices so I can't say if it was for the best.

[Adiabatic]

godsrcrazy, I don't take your questions as wrong, I am just trying to provide information from my experience is all. I hope I don't sound like I am being an ass.
The Electra does fly fine on three engines. The procedure when we have an engine out is to use the same landing numbers as if it were four engines. You don't feel much yaw on 3 engines, from what I have felt when we practiced with #1 engine at low power during training. We we a very light aircraft using landing numbers for 75000lbs. If we shut down #4, we would have not had that engine for a go around if necessary. We did however cut the fuel and ignition on #4 and #3 prior to landing, not feathering the prop, at our commit to land point of 100ft AGL. Feathering #4 and # 3 at 100ft AGL commit point prior to landing may have caused more damage to the wing, in theory.
When we cut the fuel and ignition the #3 and #4 props were windmilling and not under power. From what I understand more damage can be caused to an engine if the prop strikes the ground when the engine is producing power. Is that correct? On an axial flow engine?
Theory is, as with talking to other electra pilots on occasion, feathering the prop prior to landing, and the prop edge digging into the runway surface, would tend to rip off the prop and gearbox and go under the wing. Today it sounds like the #4 prop and gearbox did rip off the #4 engine shortly after landing, and get pushed by the wing until we stopped, luckily not damaging the wing so bad.

AB

[Sidebar]

From another thread: "actions committed by reasonable, rational individuals who were acting to achieve an assigned task in what they perceived to be a responsible and
professional manner.” I think the context for this quote eas a little different than this Electra occurrence, but it helps us understand why people did the things they did.

Sounds to me like Adiabatic and the rest of the crew made good use of resources available, including company maintenance, to plan a course of action that minimized damage and prevented injuries. Doing so seems to have required some deviations from SOP emergency procedures (leaving nose & rt main gear down rather than landing gear up), but there were rational reasons for the decisions made.

Well done guys!

[CID]

In my opinion, it's never a good idea to encourage other pilots to make up their own emergency procedures based on what they perceive to be "common sense". I stop short of saying it's NEVER a good idea to deviate because there very well may be a situation or extenuating circumstance or factor that may require some creative decision making.

I don't see that as being the case here. Maybe bellying it in wouldn't have made for good television. I have a feeling that a gear up landing wouldn't have been as hard on that outboard engine.

But then again, it wasn't may rear strapped in so it's just an opinion.

[arctic_slim]

I really like that we get to see one of the pilots from the incident providing information on the decision making. It's pretty unique and interesting.

[Adiabatic]

Hey there!

Here is a good look down the nose and how close those props are near the ground on the Electra. I think an aircraft in operation, i.e. freight or passengers onboard, the inboard props are only 17" from the ground and the outboards are only something like 24" from the ground. Belly up would be pretty ugly i think, but lets keep that for someone else to experience eh? We were fortunate enough to not damage #1 or #2 engines or props, and we removed #1 engine and put it on another electra we have, and flew it today. It was great to get back up in the air and gain confidence in the airplane again.

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Atlantic ... 181a726f0e

[ch135146]

You guys did a great job, but you should have had Joe, Rod,and Mikey drive a vic of cube vans down the active. Then, you could have landed gear-up on them.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Adiabatic

Have the engineers figured out why the gear leg failed to extend ?

[Malcolm Hood]

Can someone please post the registration of this Electra?

Rgds

[Adiabatic]

There is speculation, and then physical evidence I have seen as to what it got jammed on, but no reason why it got there and how it happened.
I am not going to post that information yet, until I know for a fact myself that it is actually what happened.
C-FBAQ, poor ol VH-RMA, the Electra I posted the history about a little while back. Originally with Ansett Airlines of Australia. http://www.adastron.com/lockheed/electra/vh-rma.htm

[Malcolm Hood]

Adiabatic

Thanks for that. I was afraid it might be our old friend RMA. (That's my website you quoted!)

Please make her better

Rgds

[bx737]

First of all well done to all involved in getting the aircraft down safely. I have to be honest and say that I have only gotten to know about Buffalo Airways through the now famous Ice Pilots which we can see over here in Ireland. To be fair to the pilots, the Electras props can do a lot of damage in situations where they contact the ground.

In 1999 a Channel Express Electra came into land at Shannon, and the pilots did not carry out their check lists. The undercarriage was still stowed and the fuselage contacted the ground. The impact tore one engine off (Number 3) and it disintegrated sending shards into Number 4. The blade of Number 2 engine disintegrated and penetrated the fuselage. The aircraft struggled into the air and did a go around and came in for a safe landing. It was declared a write off.

http://aaiu.ie/upload/general/3973-0.pdf

By what is said above the aircraft will be reusable when the engineers in Buffalo repair her, something that would not be possible if the aircraft had come in with the undercarriage retracted.

[bigbert]

Don't know much about the incident put here are some pics

[GrumpyOldFart]

Adiabatic:

Belly up would be pretty ugly i think

You got that right. Please, please tell me you weren't even considering a "belly up" landing??

[FlyGy]

Adiabatic:

Belly up would be pretty ugly i think

You got that right. Please, please tell me you weren't even considering a "belly up" landing??

ROFL, nice catch of the typo, that's funny. They mighta saved all the engines if they'd landed inverted though.

[Adiabatic]

yep, thats my brain at work. Should have been 'belly landing it would be pretty ugly'...
I am always right, 50% of the time, all the time, every time.

[bx737]

I see from Buffalo Air Wear's Facebook updates that C-FBAQ is repaired and back in service. Thats good news.

[Malcolm Hood]

Can anyone please advise the date that C-FBAQ returned to service after this accident?

MTIA

[quasistationary]

BAQ flew to Red Deer gear down maybe a few months after the accident. I haven't seen any indications that it has flown again. They have been using ex-air alantique planes for freight hauling. Reeve plane for a tanker.