Flair off runway excursion YKF

[FL030]

Any guesses what this may do to flair overall? All these aircraft are leased, are we looking at a write off for this aircraft? Will this result in significant losses for flair? It's no secret they are not creating any kind of operational profit. And havnt for a long time, so what does something like this do to their bottom line?

I doubt this is a write off. The first actual hull loss for Flair will be the end of the airline. I hope the bean counters that set pilot salaries understand this (they never do).

[Chaxterium]

Any guesses what this may do to flair overall? All these aircraft are leased, are we looking at a write off for this aircraft?

The word is that there is very minimal, if any, damage.

[GRK2]

Any guesses what this may do to flair overall? All these aircraft are leased, are we looking at a write off for this aircraft? Will this result in significant losses for flair? It's no secret they are not creating any kind of operational profit. And havnt for a long time, so what does something like this do to their bottom line?

So exactly how do you know this? Are you the CFO? Seriously...give it a rest please.

[Tolip]

Any guesses what this may do to flair overall? All these aircraft are leased, are we looking at a write off for this aircraft? Will this result in significant losses for flair? It's no secret they are not creating any kind of operational profit. And havnt for a long time, so what does something like this do to their bottom line?

So exactly how do you know this? Are you the CFO? Seriously...give it a rest please.

How exactly do I know what? I'm asking a question. The only statement I made was the that flair isnt making a profit. So I have to assume that is the point of your objection. And yes, I know they aren't making a profit. No airline in canada has reported a profit until very recently, and with the size and scope of flairs expansion and the low fares to attract market share. There is no profit. Their business model isnt even planning on being profitable for years. You have to have tbe planes and the bases and the pilots and the customers consistently to be profitable, flair is still in its baby stages ( I know its actually been around forever, but one plane doest really count) and yes, something like a write off to one of their very few aircraft In the midst of a massive expansion. It could absolutely crater the company. Better companies have gone down for alot less. But it sounds like from what I am hearing the damage isnt that bad, very fortunate.

[GRK2]

So exactly how do you know this? Are you the CFO? Seriously...give it a rest please.

How exactly do I know what? I'm asking a question. The only statement I made was the that flair isnt making a profit. So I have to assume that is the point of your objection. And yes, I know they aren't making a profit. No airline in canada has reported a profit until very recently, and with the size and scope of flairs expansion and the low fares to attract market share. There is no profit. Their business model isnt even planning on being profitable for years. You have to have tbe planes and the bases and the pilots and the customers consistently to be profitable, flair is still in its baby stages ( I know its actually been around forever, but one plane doest really count) and yes, something like a write off to one of their very few aircraft In the midst of a massive expansion. It could absolutely crater the company. Better companies have gone down for alot less. But it sounds like from what I am hearing the damage isnt that bad, very fortunate.

Ok, let me rephrase the question. Based on your statement (not the question) that Flair isn't making a profit, the airline, which is privately held, does not have to open the books to the public and state whether it's profitable or not. So back to my question, unless you are the CFO or similar, how do you know anything about the financials of the Company? Or any other privately held airline? Do you know if WS is making any money? Not unless ONEX has opened their books. Stop stating that what you know is fact. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Second question, name an airline that has gone down for "alot (sp) less?" A Canadian airline?

No one in the public domain will know the extent of the damage to that hull until the inspections have been finished and the return to service has been approved by all post holders. Hopefully there was no ingestion of any FOD by either engine when they went off the end.)

[digits_]

Guys, please

learn to quote

a post properly

[/quote]

if you reply to one

[Donald]

With ADS-B data out there, can anyone figure out their profile/speed/touchdown point?

Internet sleuths?

[Eric Janson]

There is an increasing drive to save fuel by landing with a lower flap setting and to use idle reverse - this is usually in the SOPs.

I guess the increased wear on landing gear, tires and brakes is offset - but I've never seen a detailed analysis.

Some airports also want idle reverse except for safety reasons.

What I have never seen published are conditions under which you shouldn't be doing this. I have my own:-

- Not if the runway is wet or contaminated.
- Not with a tailwind.
- Not under Lovis conditions.
- Not if the landing distance required and the runway length are close together.

I won't hesitate to use max reverse if I think it's needed. There's nothing in our SOP about reduced flap landings - I don't do them.

There is another issue that is not taken into account - rubber deposits in the touchdown zone at the far end. It's possible to have minimal braking in the last 1000 - 1500' especially at airports where it doesn't rain much and the runway is wet. Under these conditions I plan to be at taxi speed by this point.

I guess the final report will show if any of the above is relevant.

In the meantime I'm curious what the policy is at other Airlines?

[averageatbest]

Do you know if WS is making any money? Not unless ONEX has opened their books.

Management at WS consistantly says that the company is not making money.

[cdnavater]

There is an increasing drive to save fuel by landing with a lower flap setting and to use idle reverse - this is usually in the SOPs.

I guess the increased wear on landing gear, tires and brakes is offset - but I've never seen a detailed analysis.

Some airports also want idle reverse except for safety reasons.

What I have never seen published are conditions under which you shouldn't be doing this. I have my own:-

- Not if the runway is wet or contaminated.
- Not with a tailwind.
- Not under Lovis conditions.
- Not if the landing distance required and the runway length are close together.

I won't hesitate to use max reverse if I think it's needed. There's nothing in our SOP about reduced flap landings - I don't do them.

There is another issue that is not taken into account - rubber deposits in the touchdown zone at the far end. It's possible to have minimal braking in the last 1000 - 1500' especially at airports where it doesn't rain much and the runway is wet. Under these conditions I plan to be at taxi speed by this point.

I guess the final report will show if any of the above is relevant.

In the meantime I'm curious what the policy is at other Airlines?

Straight from my AOM, I’m surprised to hear there is no guidance in any AOM of an aircraft with reverse thrust.

Idle reverse shall be used for normal operations and must be deployed on every landing when available. The use of reverse thrust above idle may be used based on environmental and operational considerations which include:
• Slippery or contaminated runways
• Landing with a tailwind
• Anticipated high BTMS temperatures after landing
• During any normal/Abnormal/Emergency landing condition where maximum stopping capability is required The intent of using idle reverse for normal operations is primarily to minimize incidents of foreign object damage and reduce fuel consumption. It is not to restrict the use of maximum reverse thrust if required for the safe operation of the aircraft.

[CpnCrunch]

With ADS-B data out there, can anyone figure out their profile/speed/touchdown point?

Internet sleuths?

ADS-B data is here:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FLE ... F/tracklog

The last ADS-B ping shows them 366m from the threshold of 26 at 171ft above the touchdown elevation, travelling at 133kt or 68.4m/s, descending at 750fpm.

So they would have crossed the threshold at 104ft, and presumably flared around 1900ft down the runway. What's that, 50ft high, adding an extra 1000ft to their touchdown point?

[pelmet]

There is an increasing drive to save fuel by landing with a lower flap setting and to use idle reverse - this is usually in the SOPs.

I guess the increased wear on landing gear, tires and brakes is offset - but I've never seen a detailed analysis.

Some airports also want idle reverse except for safety reasons.

What I have never seen published are conditions under which you shouldn't be doing this. I have my own:-

- Not if the runway is wet or contaminated.
- Not with a tailwind.
- Not under Lovis conditions.
- Not if the landing distance required and the runway length are close together.

I won't hesitate to use max reverse if I think it's needed. There's nothing in our SOP about reduced flap landings - I don't do them.

There is another issue that is not taken into account - rubber deposits in the touchdown zone at the far end. It's possible to have minimal braking in the last 1000 - 1500' especially at airports where it doesn't rain much and the runway is wet. Under these conditions I plan to be at taxi speed by this point.

I guess the final report will show if any of the above is relevant.

In the meantime I'm curious what the policy is at other Airlines?

There is an interesting accident report about a QANTAS 747 that overran a runway in Bangkok quite a few years back. They had the policy for minimizing reverse and it was part of the issue resulting in the overrun. Try looking it up, it may have details of what the policy was at that tine for an airline that has been considered to be one of the safest. Even the Rain Man movie had its famous lines of "QANTAS Never Crashed".

[Donald]

With ADS-B data out there, can anyone figure out their profile/speed/touchdown point?

Internet sleuths?

ADS-B data is here:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FLE ... F/tracklog

The last ADS-B ping shows them 366m from the threshold of 26 at 171ft above the touchdown elevation, travelling at 133kt or 68.4m/s, descending at 750fpm.

So they would have crossed the threshold at 104ft, and presumably flared around 1900ft down the runway. What's that, 50ft high, adding an extra 1000ft to their touchdown point?

Not too surprising, most overruns are the result of the long/fast landing.

[CpnCrunch]

With ADS-B data out there, can anyone figure out their profile/speed/touchdown point?

Internet sleuths?

ADS-B data is here:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/FLE ... F/tracklog

The last ADS-B ping shows them 366m from the threshold of 26 at 171ft above the touchdown elevation, travelling at 133kt or 68.4m/s, descending at 750fpm.

So they would have crossed the threshold at 104ft, and presumably flared around 1900ft down the runway. What's that, 50ft high, adding an extra 1000ft to their touchdown point?

Not too surprising, most overruns are the result of the long/fast landing.

Actually, thinking about it more, the ADS-B height data isn't accurate enough to say how far off the glideslope they were. The height is shown in 25ft increments, and is adjusted for the altimeter setting, so it could easily be out by 50ft.

[Tolip]

How exactly do I know what? I'm asking a question. The only statement I made was the that flair isnt making a profit. So I have to assume that is the point of your objection. And yes, I know they aren't making a profit. No airline in canada has reported a profit until very recently, and with the size and scope of flairs expansion and the low fares to attract market share. There is no profit. Their business model isnt even planning on being profitable for years. You have to have tbe planes and the bases and the pilots and the customers consistently to be profitable, flair is still in its baby stages ( I know its actually been around forever, but one plane doest really count) and yes, something like a write off to one of their very few aircraft In the midst of a massive expansion. It could absolutely crater the company. Better companies have gone down for alot less. But it sounds like from what I am hearing the damage isnt that bad, very fortunate.

Ok, let me rephrase the question. Based on your statement (not the question) that Flair isn't making a profit, the airline, which is privately held, does not have to open the books to the public and state whether it's profitable or not. So back to my question, unless you are the CFO or similar, how do you know anything about the financials of the Company? Or any other privately held airline? Do you know if WS is making any money? Not unless ONEX has opened their books. Stop stating that what you know is fact. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Second question, name an airline that has gone down for "alot (sp) less?" A Canadian airline?

No one in the public domain will know the extent of the damage to that hull until the inspections have been finished and the return to service has been approved by all post holders. Hopefully there was no ingestion of any FOD by either engine when they went off the end.)

It's not hard to connect the dots and make an informed inference. Aircanada, largest most powerful established airline in canada didnt report annoverall profit until Q three this year. You compare that to flair who has in the last year ordered 50 brand new aircraft opened a total of 7 bases (I'm aware some were already previously opened) and is in the midst of rapid (expensive) growth. It's pretty obvious that if AC has only just become profitable, WJ too from what I've read. That their is no way flair is making an operational profit, not with all the debt that comes witjh an expansion like theirs. Do I own the company? No. But do I have a brain and can connect some fairly obvious dots. Yes. Learning the qoute function on avcanada however, that is a different beast all together. Digits teach me your ways hah

[pelmet]

C-FFLC, a Flair Airlines Ltd. Boeing 737-800 was conducting flight FLE501 from Vancouver
International Airport (CYVR), BC, to the Region of Waterloo International Airport (CYKF), ON, with
6 crew and 134 passengers on board. Following touchdown on runway 26 the flight crew
encountered some directional control issues, and the aircraft did not decelerate as expected. The
aircraft overran the runway, coming to rest approximately 500 feet from the end of runway. There
were no injuries, no observed damage to the landing gear, and some minor FOD damage
observed on the LH engine. The crew and passengers stayed on the aircraft until airstairs were
made available.

[ogopogo]

Anyone local know if the plane has been flown out?

[fish4life]

Anyone local know if the plane has been flown out?

I’d imagine fod in one engine would require it to be pulled off so it might be a bit

[FICU]

Not too surprising, most overruns are the result of the long/fast landing.

And or a speedbrake that wasn't armed or deployed.

[drone_driver24]

C-FFLC, a Flair Airlines Ltd. Boeing 737-800 was conducting flight FLE501 from Vancouver
International Airport (CYVR), BC, to the Region of Waterloo International Airport (CYKF), ON, with
6 crew and 134 passengers on board. Following touchdown on runway 26 the flight crew
encountered some directional control issues, and the aircraft did not decelerate as expected. The
aircraft overran the runway, coming to rest approximately 500 feet from the end of runway. There
were no injuries, no observed damage to the landing gear, and some minor FOD damage
observed on the LH engine. The crew and passengers stayed on the aircraft until airstairs were
made available.

Thrust reverser issue?

[homesick]

Not too surprising, most overruns are the result of the long/fast landing.

And or a speedbrake that wasn't armed or deployed.

Even if not armed, the speedbrakes will deploy automatically once the wheels spin up and levers positioned for reverse thrust.

If you're going to speculate do it grounded on some facts rather than posting for the sake of posting.

[BTD]

Not too surprising, most overruns are the result of the long/fast landing.

And or a speedbrake that wasn't armed or deployed.

Even if not armed, the speedbrakes will deploy automatically once the wheels spin up and levers positioned for reverse thrust.

If you're going to speculate do it grounded on some facts rather than posting for the sake of posting.

Not so fast there.. I used to be a training captain on the max and was hyper aware of the number of overruns 737s tend to have. And highlighted it to transiting pilots. Often but not always the speed brake was a contributing factor. And the reverse linked system wasn’t enough to prevent the incident.

It is often the case with long and/or fast landings the pilots are distracted and delayed in their deployment of reverse thrust negating that system. Just look at Air France in YYZ. They landed halfway down the runway and it was still 12+ seconds before they got the reversers out. They were too distracted with other things. Southwest in midway also couldn’t get the reverse to unlock for a while because there wasn’t proper wheel spin up.


I have a ready made folder in adobe of speed brake related overruns (not all 737) because they aren’t that uncommon. Here are a few with some excerpts below.

1839.pdf

(600.16 KiB) Downloaded 107 times

1951.pdf

(130.55 KiB) Downloaded 102 times

1942.pdf

(1004.29 KiB) Downloaded 102 times

A clearly distinguishable and intelligible alert that activates when the speedbrakes do not automatically deploy after landing would have provided the pilots with a salient warning that the speedbrakes did not function as expected and would likely have brought the captain‘s attention back to the speedbrakes and resulted in manual speedbrake deployment.

Four seconds later the thrust reversers were deployed and reverse thrust was selected with 80% N1 (engine RPM). At the same time a maximum brake pressure of 3.000 psi7 was recorded. The automatic speed brake handle was only partially extended and reached 40 degrees (in-flight detent).

The airplane touched down within 500 feet of the runway threshold. After touchdown, the captain perceived a lack of braking effectiveness and quickly applied full manual brakes. Speedbrakes did not deploy upon touchdown, nor were thrust reversers deployed. About 16 seconds after touchdown, thrust reversers were manually deployed, which also resulted in speedbrake deployment per system design, when the airplane had about 1,500 feet of runway remaining. As the airplane neared the end of the pavement, the captain attempted to turn onto the connecting taxiway but was unable. The airplane struck a taxiway light and rolled about 200 feet into the grass.

Your risk for overrun in a large jet goes way up when you break multiple excursion laws of stupid.
-Night
-IMC
-wet or contaminated
-tailwind (even slight)

Read the reports and most of the time 3 of the above are involved.

[FICU]

And or a speedbrake that wasn't armed or deployed.

Even if not armed, the speedbrakes will deploy automatically once the wheels spin up and levers positioned for reverse thrust.

If you're going to speculate do it grounded on some facts rather than posting for the sake of posting.

You have to first activate reverse thrust in a timely manner for that system to be effective.

[fish4life]

Is it not habit to just pull the reversers on touchdown all the time? I don’t think I even think about it anymore

[Rooster69]

Is it not habit to just pull the reversers on touchdown all the time? I don’t think I even think about it anymore

You would think that is the habit. But….. many, many, many pilots brief that they will use “idle reverse” on landing for a high percentage of their flight. Many, many of these pilots will either just lift reversers out of gate, or lazily just bring thrust levers to idle. A very poor technique. I have seen the same pilots struggle to lift the thrust levers into reverse, and into max reverse, when reverse thrust is needed. I suppose it is a muscle memory thing. I noticed this technique has become more prevalent over the years as companies try to save fuel by using only idle reverse when conditions warrant. I prefer lifting reverse out of gate and pulling back on trust levers to full reverse, then thrust, before the engines spool up, advance thrust levers to idle reverse.