Massive transport aircraft clips fence

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Fri May 11, 2007 9:16 am

Massive transport aircraft clips fence

By Luke Hendry
Local News - Friday, May 11, 2007 Updated @ 11:26:06 AM

By Luke Hendry

The Intelligencer

Authorities are investigating after a contracted cargo plane clipped a wire fence at CFB Trenton Thursday night.

Capt. Nicole Meszaros, the base's public affairs officer, said fog is believed to have been a factor in the accident, which damaged a section of fence on the base's eastern limit but did not damage the plane.

"Last night at approximately midnight an IL-76 Ilyushin carrying equipment to Canada from Afghanistan and scheduled to fly equipment out again had its landing gear come in contact with airport's perimeter fence," Meszaros said.

She said the large blue and white plane, which is used regularly for such missions, overshot the runway and hit the fence, then flew to Ottawa to avoid the fog.

"Last night it was foggy and weather was impacting visibility," Meszaros said. "Several fence poles were bent over and part of the fence collapsed. We found out later that some of the barbed wire became entangled in the landing gear of the Ilyushin."

She said "a concerned citizen" alerted military police to the fence damage; the MPs then called Transport Canada.

"After overshooting, the aircraft flew to Ottawa and landed safely there without further incident. Once in landed in Ottawa the aircraft was inspected by Transport Canada, and was deemed to be fit for flight after minor repairs.

"The aircraft consequently landed here this morning at about 9:30," Meszaros said.

"A follow-up investigation is going to be done by Transport Canada, and a parallel investigation is going to be done by the Canadian Forces Director of Flight Safety."

Meszaros said it was unclear whether the crew knew the plane had struck the fence, the damaged portion of which has been replaced by temporary fencing.

The Ilyushin and larger Antonov transports used to carry freight between Canada and overseas bases are based in former Soviet countries. Meszaros said those planes will be used less frequently once Canada's new C-17 Globemaster plans begin arriving later this year.

The Intelligencer

There's fog in Ontario???!!

Commonwealth · Post by **Commonwealth** » Fri May 11, 2007 11:13 am

Does anyone know what the METAR was at the time of the incident? Also, was Approach Ban in effect?

Just asking?

Commonwealth

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri May 11, 2007 12:07 pm

Does the approach ban affect military airports?

Commonwealth · Post by **Commonwealth** » Fri May 11, 2007 12:14 pm

Good question Cat, I hadn't thought of that. Does Approach Ban even exist for the militaries operations is another one I guess.

rfcPilot · Post by **rfcPilot** » Fri May 11, 2007 12:22 pm

The military usually plays by their own rules. Wouldnt be surprised if it doesnt affect them.

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Fri May 11, 2007 12:28 pm

Cat Driver wrote:Does the approach ban affect military airports?

Since it was a foreign registered civilian aircraft I would think they must comply with the CAR's no matter where they operated within Canada since they come under TC's jurisdiction. The military is not regulated by CAR's and they have their own rules to live by, but that applies to military aircraft and military pilots.

This aircraft was on contract to the military, but it is still civilian and therefore subject to Transport Canada regulations.

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Fri May 11, 2007 12:48 pm

So, this guy does an approach in fog and manages to hit the airport boundary fence and that's it? Cut the wire off the gear and you're good to go?

Sounds to me like the a/c was crewed by TC guys - did they trade in the BE90s?

Oh well, its ok because its military and they're Russians and they're probably the low-cost operator and they were only carrying military stuff so what do you expect?

What would be the result if this was Westjet that just hit the boundary fence in fog in Calgary?

Are we happy that these guys are just swanning about in Canada shooting approaches in the fog and touching down who knows where?

Icebound · Post by **Icebound** » Fri May 11, 2007 1:37 pm

Commonwealth wrote:Does anyone know what the METAR was at the time of the incident?

Lack of a decent length of METARs record is one of many things that irk me about the NavCan weather site, and even the Environment Canada "weatheroffice" site.

But you can get back 36 hours at the NWS site at

http://adds.aviationweather.gov/metars/index.php

... and they DO have most Canadian METARs available.

For the time in question, it looked like this:

CYTR 110853Z 26002KT 4SM BR BKN023 RMK SC6
CYTR 110800Z 00000KT 2SM BR FEW100 11/11 A2984 RMK AC1 SLP106
CYTR 110748Z 00000KT 2SM BR SKC RMK FG1
CYTR 110720Z 00000KT 1 1/2SM BR SKC RMK FG2
CYTR 110706Z 00000KT 1SM BR SKC RMK FG3
CYTR 110700Z 00000KT 1/2SM FG SKC 11/11 A2984 RMK FG6 SLP107
CYTR 110651Z 27002KT 1/4SM FG SKC RMK FG7
CYTR 110600Z 23003KT 0SM FG VV000 12/12 A2985 RMK FG8 SLP111
CYTR 110521Z 23006KT 0SM FG VV000 RMK FG8
CYTR 110500Z 20003KT 1/8SM FG VV001 12/12 A2986 RMK FG8 SLP113
CYTR 110437Z 21003KT 1/8SM FG VV001 RMK FG8
CYTR 110416Z 21004KT 3/8SM FG VV003 RMK FG8
CYTR 110400Z 20006KT 1/2SM FG VV005 12/12 A2987 RMK FG8 SLP115
CYTR 110300Z CCA 21006KT 1/2SM FG VV005 12/12 A2986 RMK FG8 SLP114
CYTR 110226Z 23006KT 1/2SM FG VV000 RMK FG8
CYTR 110222Z 23005KT 2SM BR OVC002 RMK FG2ST6

...

Spokes · Post by **Spokes** » Fri May 11, 2007 4:34 pm

Cat Driver wrote:Does the approach ban affect military airports?

No.

Rockie · Post by **Rockie** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:24 pm

Spokes wrote:
Cat Driver wrote:Does the approach ban affect military airports?
No.

Yes...if you are a civilian landing at a military airfield. I diverted to Trenton once and I can assure you I was still expected to abide by the CAR's and not military regulations. If you are civilian registered and licenced it doesn't matter where you are operating from, you are governed by civilian air regulations. I think you're confusing military airfields with military aircraft.

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:25 pm

Correct: military aircraft are not governed by CARs.

Widow · Post by **Widow** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:27 pm

CADORS Number: 2007O0755

User Name: Donaldson, John
Date: 2007/05/11
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: International Aviation
Narrative: The Silk Way Airlines Ilyushin IL-76 aircraft (operating as flight AZQ4992 under contract to the Government of Canada, Department of National Defence) was concluding an IFR charter flight from Keflavik International Airport, Iceland (BIKF) to C.F.B. Trenton (CYTR). At 0330Z, AZQ4992 arrived at C.F.B. Trenton in IFR conditions and set up for an approach to land. However, during the approach, the flight crew elected to reject the approach and initiated a go-around. During the overshoot, the aircraft struck and tore out approximately 150 feet of the airport perimeter fence. The aircraft held in the vicinity of the airport for two (2) hours, at which time the flight crew indicated that they wanted to divert to Ottawa. No emergency was declared and priority was not requested. The aircraft landed without incident at Ottawa (M-CIA) (CYOW) at 0604Z with ARFF services standing by. After landing, remnants of the C.F.B. Trenton airport perimeter fence were removed from the aircraft’s landing gear. Ops. impact - none. NAV CANADA Operations Centre, T.S.B. Duty Investigator and Transport Canada Civil Aviation Contingency Operations Centre all advised. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ À 0330z et dû aux conditions météorologiques à CYTR, AZQ4992 effectue une remontée. Sur la remontée, AZQ4992 arrache environ 150ft de la cloture protégeant le terrain de l'aéroport. AZQ4992 est mis en circuit d'attente jusqu'à 0530z au moment où AZQ4992 avise qu'il désire être réacheminé à CYOW. Aucune urgence ni priorité. AZQ4992 au sol RWY32 à 0604z sans encombre mais avec le CFR présent. Une fois au sol, des débris de la cloture arrachée à CYTR sont observés dans le train d'atterrissage de AZQ4992. Aucun impact. NOC, BST et CACO avisés.

User Name: Donaldson, John
Date: 2007/05/11
Further Action Required: Yes
O.P.I.: International Aviation
Narrative: UPDATE Supplemental information from NAV CANADA A.O.D.R. 79849-V1: AZQ4992 landed on runway 32 at Ottawa (M-CIA) (CYOW) and exited onto taxiway LIMA with ARFF on standby. ARFF staff advised that there was about 20 feet of fence wiring around the left landing gear. Some crew members disembarked from the aircraft, removed the wire and placed it in the aircraft. ARFF staff also advised that there was a 3 to 4 inch hole on the door of the landing gear. AZQ4992 taxied to the Esso Avitat at 0715Z. Ops. impact -- taxiway LIMA was not available for about one (1) hour.

Rudy · Post by **Rudy** » Sat May 12, 2007 7:04 am

Is anyone else embarrassed that we always have to charter these russian aircraft to move our stuff around the world?

Longtimer · Post by **Longtimer** » Sat May 12, 2007 7:53 am

Rudy wrote:Is anyone else embarrassed that we always have to charter these russian aircraft to move our stuff around the world?

Yes but that is why the Conservatives have purchased some heavy lift for the Canadian forces.

C-17 anticipation has pilots flying high

Luke Hendry / The Intelligencer
City - Tuesday, May 01, 2007 @ 10:00

There's nothing like that new plane smell.

On the phone from McChord Air Force Base in Washington State, Maj. John Latulippe laughed as he described the glee with which he and a group of fellow Canadian air force staff checked out an Australian C-17 Globemaster recently.

The heavy-lift transport plane with the 170-foot wingspan was built in the United States and one of the new C-17s bought by Australia's air force.

Latulippe is the senior ranking officer among the 14 Canadian air force staff now working at McChord as they learn to fly and work with the Globemaster.

The Canadians' excitement at seeing the Australian plane there came from knowing they, too, will soon have their own new C-17 - four of them, in fact. The first could arrive at CFB Trenton as early as Aug. 10.

"It's exciting," Latulippe said. "Everybody's pretty pumped up. We're all looking forward to going back home and picking up our shiny new plane."

Most recently, he said, eight Canadian pilots, six loadmasters and a group of maintenance workers completed their initial Globemaster qualifications and others are training in Oklahoma and South Carolina.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat May 12, 2007 7:56 am

I agree Rudy, Canada should buy a few Russian heavy lift airplanes because the Russians sure make some real heavy lift stuff.

SAR_YQQ · Post by **SAR_YQQ** » Sat May 12, 2007 11:02 am

Anyone still have objections to the CF getting their own heavy lift?

drifter · Post by **drifter** » Sat May 12, 2007 11:59 am

Although a civilian aircraft is expected to follow the CARs at a military airport, the military has no obligation to report any violation of the CARs. Anyone that has done a lot of PARs has probably herd the phrase "do you feel comfortable below civil minimums?" from the PAR controller. That and when you tell them you want to hold for the vis to come up because of the ban they ask you "what do you need to get in" and then magically the vis goes up.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm

AAAhhh the good old days when PAR saved the day.

32a · Post by **32a** » Sat May 12, 2007 3:19 pm

Drifter: Canadian PARs are TERP'ed CAT 1 precision limits. How are civil instrument approach limits different?

Most major CF airbases have their own wx techs who can be tasked to make extra observations in extenuating circumstances. I would never expect any CF personnel to "fake" wx reports in any circumstance.

The CF does not have any general approach bans for its own aircraft, however, certain CF units can create their own (more restrictive) limitations depending on the nature of their operations. I wonder if these unique "limits" were applicable to Drifter's scenarios.

TheCheez · Post by **TheCheez** » Sat May 12, 2007 4:01 pm

Rudy wrote:Is anyone else embarrassed that we always have to charter these russian aircraft to move our stuff around the world?

Im embarrassed that we're not just leasing the Antonov's anymore we're getting these smaller things too.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Sat May 12, 2007 4:42 pm

Anyone know if this was VDA or ADB?

C-FABH · Post by **C-FABH** » Sat May 12, 2007 5:01 pm

invertedattitude wrote:Anyone know if this was VDA or ADB?

CADORS report identifies it as "Silk Way Airlines" (ICAO AZQ)

linecrew · Post by **linecrew** » Sat May 12, 2007 5:44 pm

Same aircraft that was involved in the incident.

rfcPilot · Post by **rfcPilot** » Sat May 12, 2007 6:17 pm

Russians always made great heavy lift aircraft. But no other country can really afford to build, maintain, or really operate these.

Sikorsky skycrane
Marine One is Sikorsky
Canada has one of the biggest ones contracted out. The Mi-26 I believe it's called.
Antonov is another one. Same with this one from Trenton. Another good.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat May 12, 2007 6:26 pm

I got to fly a MI8 in Africa and it was an awsome helicopter, built like a concrete mixer.

I don't have a picture of it to link here now as I haven't converted them to a disk yet, but this picture was taken from the MI8 using a Wescam mounted outside the helicopter.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e353/ ... ntains.jpg