Jazz lands on lights in YAM?

[pelmet]

Looks like Jazz hit some more lights in Calgary...

2015-03-20

The Jazz Aviation LP (dba Air Canada Express) Bombardier DHC-8-402, C-GGOF, was operating
as flight JZA8374 from Ft. McMurray, AB (CYMM) to Calgary, AB (CYYC). During touchdown on
Runway 17R, JZA8374 struck the right hand runway edge lights in the vicinity of Taxiway Juliette.
Maintenance found minor damage to the right hand landing gear structure and right hand nacelle.

[Oscar]

deleted -

[old_man]

I don't know is this was posted already but the report is out. I found it interesting.

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... 5o0015.asp

[pdw]

Yes, the report is good. The changing speeds/settings in-and around / approaching the accident point are well documented in this narrative. This assists readers ( ie: those studying for pertinent matching wx history for those moments .. like some serious-changing/intermittent-blinding components in play ) to envision what maintaining thrust/slope/airspeed might have been like in the situation faced at the time of this accident.

[Canoehead]

Yes, the report is good.

Sorry but the report is not even close to good.

Besides the fact that the report focuses way too much on an unstable approach (I'm not marginalizing the importance of the subject), rather than on the loss of visual components, it is missing a few important "need-to-know" items. What were the condition levers set to for example...

There are grammatical errors, and even the layout and the FONT used is so outdated it hurts. (Yeah personal preference but come on... it's 2017).

The report is written for laymen. Private pilots perhaps. No offence to those groups, but for the people involved with flying these machines in these conditions, I think this report is almost laughable. The TSB seems more concerned with relations with the public, news outlets and the official languages than they are with giving us the nuts and bolts. They've gone from once including CVR/ATC transcripts to little snippets of transcripts to nothing at all (I know the CVR wasn't involved here but just pointing it out). Where is the radar plot? Where is the FDR readout? All pertinent in my mind, and especially after 2+ years!

That report should have been released within months as it was published.
I've read the internal company report (that came out long ago). It's better than this report quite honestly.

I know this is budget challenged Canada, and not the US, but have a look at any NTSB report and see what a "good" report looks like.

[av8ts]

Yes, the report is good. The changing speeds/settings in-and around / approaching the accident point are well documented in this narrative. This assists readers ( ie: those studying for pertinent matching wx history for those moments .. like some serious-changing/intermittent-blinding components in play ) to envision what maintaining thrust/slope/airspeed might have been like in the situation faced at the time of this accident.

I'm a pilot and I've flown the Dash-8 yet I have no idea what you just said

[pdw]

Meets a bad-timed updraft / increased-performance-shear before sinks off slope (where the "light" is hit).

[GyvAir]

Meets a bad-timed updraft / increased-performance-shear before sinks off slope (where the "light" is hit).

Well, that's much clearer.

[av8ts]

Oh. Updraft then downdraft. See how easy that is to say

[pdw]

Not likely any "updraft" here as per conventional weather term, so not exactly. Rather, immediately with increased performance shear the aircraft drafts up a bit in airspeed and maybe slope (ie tendency for slope to maybe flatten a bit momentarily and look real good for landing) due to increased lift via that significant relativewind increase of the gust or increase in sustained component.

However, here, the "down" as per your downdraft suggestion would IMO only be the result of the groundspeed reduction during that "increased performance" event being so very closely followed by the resumption of a slower sustained wind, where the AC is left high and dry on airspeed right after the prolonged gust boosting airspeed (and partly because it's a real groundspeed reduction there too), and then simply loses enough lift in that brief process to subsequently sink into the "light". ( So IMO not an actual down draft there but the sudden slowing event brought on abruptly in that manner.)

[Cat Driver]

pdw, have you ever thought about applying to the T.C. flight training department?

You could write their weather training and aerodynamics stuff.

[pdw]

Edited:
Groundspeed hammers-off 20-30kts while near flight idle thru that increased performance shear in gusts up to "34kts" at the surface (just before hitting the "light"). Then immediately this is followed by a 15-20kt hammer-off of the airspeed on account of a 100% headwind-component slowing up by approx that much so-close after the groundspeed has plumetted. IMO the narrative's power-change data makes it easier to match available wx history for showing that was the case (imo causing the sudden sinkrate blinded or not) in this synopsis.

No need to shoot the messenger though ... even if so far from perfect

[Canoehead]

pdw

The ONLY thing the wind had to do with this accident was in dictating the runway in use, and perhaps in helping reduce the visibility by blowing around the snow.

That was it. Seriously. Study and analyze the weather all you want, but really... give it a rest.

[pdw]

downdraft

No evidence of that.

[swordfish]

However there are consequences for "not" missing the approach.

Good one, Cat. I wonder how many people got it.

There's a long way (and a long time) between minimums and the lead-in lights. One of 2 alternatives happens at minimums on a PM approach:

Option 1:

• PNF: Minimums - visual - I have control
  PF: You have control. I'm inside.
  PNF: Landing.
  PF: Fully configured.

Option 2:

• PNF: Minimums - no contact.
  PF: Go around. Max power, flaps [approach, 17...]
  PNF: Flaps at [approach, 17...] Positive rate
  PF: Gear up
  PNF: In transit
  PNF: 400'
  PF: Flaps [zero, up...], climb power [MCP], after takeoff checks

Too simple...?

[Cat Driver]

We were flying the pilot monitored approach in DC3's and DC6's forty five years ago with far less equipment to work with and it worked just fine.

[MCB]

We were flying the pilot monitored approach in DC3's and DC6's forty five years ago with far less equipment to work with and it worked just fine.

Arguable.


It's easy to take a few incidents and paint with a broad brush.

[Cat Driver]

It's easy to take a few incidents and paint with a broad brush.

How am I painting with a broad brush?

[Zaibatsu]

It's easy to take a few incidents and paint with a broad brush.

How am I painting with a broad brush?

You're taking what is a very isolated incident today and implying that you never had any problems back then. YOU may not have had problems, but the DC-3 and DC-6 fleet suffered very badly during the era you reference--even discounting mechanical failures and external causes. It's very doubtful that you'd have nearly instant access to information regarding a plane that stuck obstacles on the other side of country back in that era like we do now with Cadors and Av Herald and this board... and likely there were many incidents not reported.

There are far more pilots today who will be able to say that they've never had an accident than in your day. You should be very proud of your safety record, but it doesn't in any way insinuate that pilots were better or worse back then than they are now.

[Cat Driver]

There are far more pilots today who will be able to say that they've never had an accident than in your day.

Yes one would hope so considering the advances in aircraft reliability and navigation / approach / and landing aids compared to what we had back in the DC3 , DC6 era.

However my comments were directed to the PMA approach and landing if performed correctly dictates a missed approach with lack of or loss of safe visual contact with the runway.

By the way I did manage to experience some of the modern aircraft and the modern aids they have before I retired.