Cargojet slide off the end of 08L at YVR

[planenuts]

...
I'm not sure if Cargojet uses ACARS for landing data ? If using a QRH (book or ipad) it wouldn't take that long to get a distance, a minute or so at most. But I get it it's the middle of the night and you're tired, so maybe an extra minute or so then.

Using OPT or a similar program would be quick, but even finding the right page in the PI chapter of the QRH can take several minutes, nevermind using a chart you've likely looked at once several years ago, and then having the other guy verify the data. Odds are they either got the data electronically, or just skipped this step.

Any more info on the fact that the plane had gone mud bogging on its previous flight and had major brake work done? I don't imagine an autobrake or anti skid MEL would have helped the situation at all...

It was simply a taxi way excursion of the LH main. They replaced 4 main wheels and the 4 brakes on that side.

What are the odds the crew missed arming the spoilers? the issue came up on the downwind...most likely interrupting the checklist flow. A lot of systems have to fail for nothing to happen on touchdown and no other messages were reported.

In other news she is back on her feet as of early this morning - and yes the nose gear is still there....not collapsed like had been reported.

[Tbayer2021]

...
I'm not sure if Cargojet uses ACARS for landing data ? If using a QRH (book or ipad) it wouldn't take that long to get a distance, a minute or so at most. But I get it it's the middle of the night and you're tired, so maybe an extra minute or so then.

Using OPT or a similar program would be quick, but even finding the right page in the PI chapter of the QRH can take several minutes, nevermind using a chart you've likely looked at once several years ago, and then having the other guy verify the data. Odds are they either got the data electronically, or just skipped this step.

Any more info on the fact that the plane had gone mud bogging on its previous flight and had major brake work done? I don't imagine an autobrake or anti skid MEL would have helped the situation at all...

What are the odds the crew missed arming the spoilers?

IIRC, spoilers should extend even if not armed when reverse is deployed. Saving any potential MEL's that affect this, of course.

[daedalusx]

Remember folks, if you're ever going to overrun a runway, you best have max reverse, max braking and spoilers up through the entire rollout. Otherwise you might have some explaining to do afterwards ...

We've all had times where the spoilers didn't deploy automatically on landing (heavy rain, ground switch failure, etc)

[planenuts]

Using OPT or a similar program would be quick, but even finding the right page in the PI chapter of the QRH can take several minutes, nevermind using a chart you've likely looked at once several years ago, and then having the other guy verify the data. Odds are they either got the data electronically, or just skipped this step.

Any more info on the fact that the plane had gone mud bogging on its previous flight and had major brake work done? I don't imagine an autobrake or anti skid MEL would have helped the situation at all...

What are the odds the crew missed arming the spoilers?

IIRC, spoilers should extend even if not armed when reverse is deployed. Saving any potential MEL's that affect this, of course.

I thought auto speedbrakes was only for aborted takeoffs as the plane is already fully on the ground? The spoilers/speedbrakes do also have the armed setting, to help the aircraft settle on touchdown so you can get the reversers out. Seems kinda iffy to land and just hope they deploy with the auto system - no?

[Victory]

Speedbrakes normally deploy automatically on touchdown as long as the handle is positioned correctly. The PNF ensures they auto deploy on touchdown and the reversers are working.

[Tbayer2021]

What are the odds the crew missed arming the spoilers?

IIRC, spoilers should extend even if not armed when reverse is deployed. Saving any potential MEL's that affect this, of course.

I thought auto speedbrakes was only for aborted takeoffs as the plane is already fully on the ground? The spoilers/speedbrakes do also have the armed setting, to help the aircraft settle on touchdown so you can get the reversers out. Seems kinda iffy to land and just hope they deploy with the auto system - no?

It has been quite a few years since I flew the 67/57. But first thing is first. Under normal operations without any relevant MELs, spoilers will be armed before landing for automatic operation when the air/ground logic tells the computer the aircraft is on the ground and decelerating. They even automatically stow if you increase power since the computer will assume you're going around. It was common practise for the cpt to quickly bring up a throttle leaver and immediately back down to idle to stow them as we were vacating the runway.

There can be certain equipment failures that will render the auto deployment capability of the spoilers inoperative. In this case, they have to be manually extended after touch down. But assuming there are no MELs and nothing fails, spoilers will automatically extend after landing even if they were not armed, once the throttle levers are moved into the reverse position.

[Tbayer2021]

Had time to dig through some old manuals. Here are the relevant parts.

[altiplano]

I don't know CJT SOP but that's probably a PNF call right after touchdown - "Speedbrakes up" or 'No speedbrakes" - "Reserve green" or "No L/R reverse" etc.

The most important thing is to get the speedbrakes up and get weight on wheels for braking. 767 has good brakes.

Maybe air ground switch fail and they couldn't get the spoilers/reverse out right away?

[Tbayer2021]

I don't know CJT SOP but that's probably a PNF call right after touchdown - "Speedbrakes up" or 'No speedbrakes" - "Reserve green" or "No L/R reverse" etc.

The most important thing is to get the speedbrakes up and get weight on wheels for braking. 767 has good brakes.

Maybe air ground switch fail and they couldn't get the spoilers/reverse out right away?

Not familiar with their SOPs either, but yes, thats definitely a PNF call. Also, every picture of the accident I've seen has reversers and spoilers stowed. So maybe something happened there.

[planenuts]

IIRC, spoilers should extend even if not armed when reverse is deployed. Saving any potential MEL's that affect this, of course.

I thought auto speedbrakes was only for aborted takeoffs as the plane is already fully on the ground? The spoilers/speedbrakes do also have the armed setting, to help the aircraft settle on touchdown so you can get the reversers out. Seems kinda iffy to land and just hope they deploy with the auto system - no?

It has been quite a few years since I flew the 67/57. But first thing is first. Under normal operations without any relevant MELs, spoilers will be armed before landing for automatic operation when the air/ground logic tells the computer the aircraft is on the ground and decelerating. They even automatically stow if you increase power since the computer will assume you're going around. It was common practise for the cpt to quickly bring up a throttle leaver and immediately back down to idle to stow them as we were vacating the runway.

There can be certain equipment failures that will render the auto deployment capability of the spoilers inoperative. In this case, they have to be manually extended after touch down. But assuming there are no MELs and nothing fails, spoilers will automatically extend after landing even if they were not armed, once the throttle levers are moved into the reverse position.

OK - good to know. I know about the systems...worked on 767 for years, but I don't know how the crew's employ them.

Thanks for that.

[planenuts]

I don't know CJT SOP but that's probably a PNF call right after touchdown - "Speedbrakes up" or 'No speedbrakes" - "Reserve green" or "No L/R reverse" etc.

The most important thing is to get the speedbrakes up and get weight on wheels for braking. 767 has good brakes.

Maybe air ground switch fail and they couldn't get the spoilers/reverse out right away?

Not familiar with their SOPs either, but yes, thats definitely a PNF call. Also, every picture of the accident I've seen has reversers and spoilers stowed. So maybe something happened there.

The crew did not evacuate right away....in fact they tell ATC they are going through the shutdown checks. It could be they stowed them.

An air/ground fault is possible - but they would have had an EICAS message at the very least...and they never reported anything prior to touchdown.

[Nauclerus]

every picture of the accident I've seen has reversers and spoilers stowed.

In this video starting at 9:31 there is a good head on view of the aircraft. You can see one outboard spoiler on each wing appears to have remained extended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgPiV4WxrI

Presumably the hydraulic pressure bled off on the others ? I can't remember what hydraulic system powered each spoiler or if there are any check valves on the ones that stayed extended ? Not sure why they stayed up ?

Even on the 21st they still appear to have remained partially extended. Good view starting at 10:40 on this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=004HFHdktQY

Also some good images on this video, with a video showing the track from the threshold starting at 14:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj1sMwddgEg

[Tbayer2021]

every picture of the accident I've seen has reversers and spoilers stowed.

In this video starting at 9:31 there is a good head on view of the aircraft. You can see one outboard spoiler on each wing appears to have remained extended.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rgPiV4WxrI

Presumably the hydraulic pressure bled off on the others ? I can't remember what hydraulic system powered each spoiler or if there are any check valves on the ones that stayed extended ? Not sure why they stayed up ?

Even on the 21st they still appear to have remained partially extended. Good view starting at 10:40 on this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=004HFHdktQY

Also some good images on this video, with a video showing the track from the threshold starting at 14:00.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj1sMwddgEg

Yeah I see that there! Looking at the video and other pictures again, I'll have to change my initial statement. Maybe all that mud on top of the wings came from the forward airflow of the reversers. not sure if the nose gear would have kicked up all of that.

[PostmasterGeneral]

One suggestion I would have for ARFF is to try to make radio calls shorter and more to the point. Think about if it is really necessary to make a call at all. Plan your call out before you hit the transmit button.
In this incident the accident aircraft had to wait at least once to make an important radio call because ARFF was making a call.

For example:

RED 14: "North ground this is RED 14 + 1"
GROUND: "RED 14 + 1 go ahead"
RED 14: "North ground this is RED 14 + 1, we are just on the main apron, on Juliet Alpha heading towards our standby location which will be Ummm Quebec, Ahhh, we can enter the runway at any location which is reasonable though, Ahhhh, but requesting Quebec, RED 14+1"

This can all be said with:

RED 14: "North ground, RED 14 + 1 on Juliet Alpha, request standby location on Quebec"

No need for the first 2 transmissions in this situation.



.

That was the most painful part of that whole recording. Who gave those guys their radio licence? Christ they’re yammering away about nothing while Cargojet is in the middle of their landing roll.

[pdw]

This is the ADSB Data I'm seeing. (FlightRadar24, Google Earth)

Time, Altitude, Ground Speed, Distance

09:27:45, 1050 feet, 160 knots, 2.93 nm (from threshold)
09:27:55, 900 feet, 162 knots, 2.49 nm
09:28:04, 750 feet, 165 knots, 2.03 nm
09:28:14, 625 feet, 166 knots, 1.58 nm
09:28:23, 475 feet, 164 knots, 1.15 nm
09:28:32, 325 feet, 166 knots, 0.73 nm
09:28:38, 250 feet, 172 knots, 0.45 nm
09:28:44, 125 feet, 173 knots, 0.17 nm
09:28:54, 25 feet, 169 knots, -8000 feet (from end of runway)
09:29:01, 50 feet, 159 knots, -5967 feet
09:29:09, 50 feet, 147 knots, -4119 feet
09:29:15, 50 feet, 136 knots, -2542 feet
09:29:25, 50 feet, 120 knots, -532 feet
09:29:31, 50 feet, 109 knots, +516 feet (from past end of runway)
09:29:36, 0 feet, 76 knots, +1485 feet
09:29:38, 0 feet, 53 knots, +1661 feet
09:29:41, 0 feet, 27 knots, +1887 feet

How accurate is ADSB data close to the ground?

I don't think i would trust those numbers. I highly doubt a Boeing 767 - with any flaps - could stay airborne and flying below 120 kts.....never mind 109 kts.

At the 120kts & 109kts groundspeed you still have potential for 15kts gusting given in the current metar at the time, which means component right on the beak raising airspeed to 135 kts & 124 kts respectively. Coming up on the runway however (maybe different story?) could be the airspeed still slowing somewhat below the groundspeeds shown above, given the veering potential in the area (from the metar issued immediately following this incident).

[cdnavater]

How accurate is ADSB data close to the ground?

I don't think i would trust those numbers. I highly doubt a Boeing 767 - with any flaps - could stay airborne and flying below 120 kts.....never mind 109 kts.

At the 120kts & 109kts groundspeed you still have potential for 15kts gusting given in the current metar at the time, which means component right on the beak raising airspeed to 135 kts & 124 kts respectively. Coming up on the runway however (maybe different story?) could be the airspeed still slowing somewhat below the groundspeeds shown above, given the veering potential in the area (from the metar issued immediately following this incident).

Who didn’t see this coming, lol!
I’ll give you this pdw, the wind WAS a factor but not very likely to be the route cause, the decision to not accomplish a go around will very likely be a major cause.

[Donald]

I don't think i would trust those numbers. I highly doubt a Boeing 767 - with any flaps - could stay airborne and flying below 120 kts.....never mind 109 kts.

At the 120kts & 109kts groundspeed you still have potential for 15kts gusting given in the current metar at the time, which means component right on the beak raising airspeed to 135 kts & 124 kts respectively. Coming up on the runway however (maybe different story?) could be the airspeed still slowing somewhat below the groundspeeds shown above, given the veering potential in the area (from the metar issued immediately following this incident).

Who didn’t see this coming, lol!
I’ll give you this pdw, the wind WAS a factor but not very likely to be the route cause, the decision to not accomplish a go around will very likely be a major cause.

On the ATC audio the wind given by tower just prior to landing, was 050/7.

Not a factor.

[pdw]

How close to tdz/short final is this tower’s 050/7 anemometer reading, seeing as how the next meter has 340/5 290v10. The west component starts before the next hour reading, the distance of the accident sequence setting up is also over a few miles on the runway’s 100T heading. At this time where the cyclone is nearby to the southwest, it’s strange that the air is pushing in from the nw as shown by the CYVR meters after 1:30am

[lownslow]

They replaced 4 main wheels and the 4 brakes on that side.

Is there something that could have gone wrong here that led to a total brake failure? Maybe a wheel speed sensor that erroneously triggers the anti skid?

[planenuts]

They replaced 4 main wheels and the 4 brakes on that side.

Is there something that could have gone wrong here that led to a total brake failure? Maybe a wheel speed sensor that erroneously triggers the anti skid?

Not very likely short of massive damage to the aircraft and systems. 1 bad wheel sensor will mess up 1 wheel - but will not affect the other 7. The braking system has 3 different systems...Normal, alternate, and reserve. with separate components. In reality there is no real single point failure for the brakes.

[Nauclerus]

How close to tdz/short final is this tower’s 050/7 anemometer reading

Timeline on the LiveATC 0900 UTC Archive

09:24:40 Tower - "wind 040 at 7 knots"
09:26:01 Tower - "wind 050 at 7 knots"
09:27:04 Tower - "Cargojet is 4.0nm final"
09:27:24 Tower - "wind 060 at 5 knots"
09:27:44 Tower - "Cargojet is 2.5nm final"
09:29:17 Cargojet - "Cant stop on the runway"
09:29:25 Tower - "They are just exiting the runway now"
09:30:14 Cargojet - "Mayday Mayday"

So the aircraft exits the end of the runway 2 minutes after the wind was reported at 060 at 5 knots.

The next wind report from the Tower wasn't given again until 10:47:18 as 010 at 10 knots.

[Nauclerus]

Not very likely short of massive damage to the aircraft and systems. 1 bad wheel sensor will mess up 1 wheel - but will not affect the other 7. The braking system has 3 different systems...Normal, alternate, and reserve. with separate components. In reality there is no real single point failure for the brakes.

In the photos/videos you can see what looks like the furthest outboard spoilers on each wing remained extended after the accident. Is there a failure mode or shutdown scenario that would explain why only those 2 were/remained extended ?

[planenuts]

Not very likely short of massive damage to the aircraft and systems. 1 bad wheel sensor will mess up 1 wheel - but will not affect the other 7. The braking system has 3 different systems...Normal, alternate, and reserve. with separate components. In reality there is no real single point failure for the brakes.

In the photos/videos you can see what looks like the furthest outboard spoilers on each wing remained extended after the accident. Is there a failure mode or shutdown scenario that would explain why only those 2 were/remained extended ?

I can't think of one.
Not sure what spoilers actually are up but they would either be powered by the L or R hyd system as a pair. The problem with that is one of the inboard spoilers is also powered by the same L or R system and I dont see any of them out. We also know the center system is working as there was no alternate gear extension - so the rest of them should be somewhat deployed.

[complexintentions]

The recording said leading edge flaps trouble. Could this have affected spoilers/speedbrake deployment?

No, but an air/ground logic issue which someone mentioned, definitely would. If the system erroneously considered the aircraft airborne you'd have no ground spoilers, greatly increasing ground roll - like, 60% more - and no reversers (inhibited in "air" mode). The fact that not all the spoiler panels appear not to have deployed supports this theory. The recent wheel assembly maintenance work also raises a flag, it's been years since I flew the 767 but I dimly recall some weight-on-wheels switches around there.

A slightly deep landing doesn't have you going off the end at 100 knots. On the unlucky day when you're coming in very fast and heavy, thus much longer than normal landing roll, no lift dump + no reverse sure could.

Of course, if I'm correct we wouldn't be able to throw shade at the crew for not going around, so what fun is that?

[altiplano]

The recording said leading edge flaps trouble. Could this have affected spoilers/speedbrake deployment?

No, but an air/ground logic issue which someone mentioned, definitely would. If the system erroneously considered the aircraft airborne you'd have no ground spoilers, greatly increasing ground roll - like, 60% more - and no reversers (inhibited in "air" mode). The fact that not all the spoiler panels appear not to have deployed supports this theory. The recent wheel assembly maintenance work also raises a flag, it's been years since I flew the 767 but I dimly recall some weight-on-wheels switches around there.

A slightly deep landing doesn't have you going off the end at 100 knots. On the unlucky day when you're coming in very fast and heavy, thus much longer than normal landing roll, no lift dump + no reverse sure could.

Of course, if I'm correct we wouldn't be able to throw shade at the crew for not going around, so what fun is that?

There are independent tilt sensors on each main gear truck and a sensor in the nose too for air/ground logic. I don't recall the specifics on the system though.

I also heard that one reverser was MEL'd and they didn't have speedbrakes on landing, either failed to deploy, weren't manually selected, or just didn't work.