WestJet almost puts one in the drink

[Jet Jockey]

@ FishermanIvan...

"There's an RNAV into 10 there.... So low vis isn't really an excuse."

No so fast...

The LNAV approach on RWY 10 calls for a MDA of 700' with a VIS of 3200M (2.0 miles) or a MDA of 770' with a VIS of 3600M (2.2 miles) for a category C aircraft depending on the equipment being used in the aircraft. So if the visibility was indeed 1.5 to 2.0 miles as some are reporting while they were on the approach then I leave it up to you to come up with your own conclusion.

[altiplano]

Re:45 minutes
- one runway, backtracking required often, mix of overseas heavies often have to take off against the active due second segment climb limits into terrain, plus light aircraft... Islanders, Twin Offers etc...

I wonder how much gas they made it back with?

[Jet Jockey]

@ Bacunayagua...

"I agree, lets hang them! We all know pilots shouldn't make mistakes. When they do, even if they properly correct for them, to the hangman I say!"

You can't be serious.

Because they "managed" to save the day, doesn't mean they did not do something wrong at the onset of the approach.

I do not want to "hang" anyone but let us be clear that at a minimum there should an investigation whether internally or/and one in which TC is involved.

If the crew did not follow the company COM or SOP and if they pushed the limits then yes they should be reprimanded but if everything was above board then no problem. It should be easy to pull the data from that flight to get the answers.

[Ancient]

ATC did comment that the decision to go around was very late – Westjet did not respond

Heh, I like to hear the exact wording of that conversation. Sounds like a couple of good ol' boys from the North trying to get 'er done.

But it was a little windy. Maybe they got into some descending air. The island is pretty hilly isn't it?

[Old fella]

@ Old Fella...

When they decided to "Go Around" they were already too low and too far back from the runway to be at that altitude/position which means they were below minimums and in an unstable approach. They were certainly not doing a CDA approach. Furthermore it seems from what is now coming out that the weather prior and during their approach was bad, possibly lower than the minimums and that perhaps they were "pushing it" with the results we now have come to see on pictures and the videos... Maybe they were lucky and turned a bad situation into a good one with a positive outcome.

Trevor from the comment section in Christine N.'s blog adds this:

Trevor says:

"March 11, 2017 at 6:42 am

Let me clear up a few things – I was in SXM listening to ATC all afternoon. American Flight 2219, a Boeing 737 from Miami had just landed before Westjet and reported to the Tower that they only picked up the field at the last minute (I presume that meant before they decided to go around). The Westjet approach was next and lets be clear, ATC did not advise them to go around, it was the pilots decision. ATC did comment that the decision to go around was very late – Westjet did not respond – ATC advised them to climb to 4000 feet and hold at Ivaci – the airport was then closed to arrivals and departures. About 20 minutes into the hold, Westjet was informed that the visibility on approach had improved from 11/2 miles to 2 miles and asked if he wanted the approach. He declined, indicated he had plenty of fuel to hold and would wait for further improvement. KLM Flight 729 then arrived, an Airbus A330 and was told to enter the hold. He indicated he did not have sufficient fuel to hold and wanted to try the approach – ATC complied with his wish and he landed safely – he reported that he picked up the field at 3 miles. Westjet then decided to make the second approach and it was flawless. As an aside, Insel Air was also in the hold, a Dominican Wings A320, and he decided to divert to Guadeloupe."

I am not an airline pilot, never was, not now and certainly never will be and not qualified on their aircraft types so not in a position to make any commentary on what this crew did/ didn't do to get to a point a go around was necessary on this particular approach which was completed to a successful second attempt and an uneventful landing.

[Cat Driver]

The second approach was normal.

However, if they really were within around fifty feet of the water on the first approach why did they get that close?

[flyer 1492]

The second approach was normal.

However, if they really were within around fifty feet of the water on the first approach why did they get that close?

That Cat is the 64,000 question.

Flyer

[BTD]

The second approach was normal.

However, if they really were within around fifty feet of the water on the first approach why did they get that close?

That Cat is the 64,000 question.

Flyer

64000 what. We need units.

['97 Tercel]

[BBQ Chips]

Long Story short these guys fucked it up, realized it and put the airplane back into the proper flight path. It wasn't pretty, it is not where anybody wants to be, but bottom line they didn't try to salvage it, they went around and did it properly. Unfortunately for them there are countless lenses catching every frame.

[phillyfan]

What's the over/under on pilot nerds doing this approach on their Microsoft Flt Sim? Is it any wonder pilots are usually single?

[HansDietrich]

Well, I'm going to give my two cents here as well.

1. There was a mistake. (The plane was low... There's not denial about that)
2. The pilots corrected it by doing a Go-Around

Like others said: "Nobody wants to hang the pilots". We all make mistakes. Shit, the other day in SIM I wasn't very careful and pulled the wrong T-Handle on a V1 Cut. Had this been a real flight, it may not have ended up very pretty (See "Taiwan ATR"). And that's why we TRAIN in simulators.

The whole point of this discussion is to makes sure we find out what happened and we can all learn from it. I hope those two pilots are back at work ASAP and I would have no problem putting my family on their aircraft. WestJet hires top notch pilots. I have many many many friends that work there.

The only troubling thing here is (IF) Westjet does not like to admit mistakes. The spokeswoman's comments were not very professional. It should've said "We're looking into it, so we can't comment on anything until we have ALL the facts."

[B208]

I wonder if this is similar to that Air Canada crash a few years ago out east, (Halifax I think), where the crew started down on the 3 degree GP a few miles too early.

[BTD]

I wonder if this is similar to that Air Canada crash a few years ago out east, (Halifax I think), where the crew started down on the 3 degree GP a few miles too early.

Source?

There is no report yet that I can find. Did I miss it?

[Commonwealth]

The original YouTube video is now restricted. So much for open and transparent.

[Kitzbuhel]

Good thing it was a Canadian crew, I don't want to imagine what could have happened if they were TFWs

[Old fella]

I wonder if this is similar to that Air Canada crash a few years ago out east, (Halifax I think), where the crew started down on the 3 degree GP a few miles too early.

Source?

There is no report yet that I can find. Did I miss it?

Living in the area in question, I haven't seen anything published to date and I am sure the media would have pick it up as there are people who have lawsuits ongoing. Usually the TSB has a media conference to publicly release their report as this accident gained media attention. Finally I haven't seen anything on the TSB site either. Perhaps there is something unofficial floating about, I don't know either

[tincanflyer]

Worked for me.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yNhAYKM-7LQ

Crazy?!? Where's Westjet's comment?!?

Guess it's not a edited picture.

[GyvAir]

Didn't they already comment to the effect that that was >500' ASL?

Somehow, I doubt they will willingly comment publicly on a YouTube video. It will be interesting to see how they handle it publicly from here, if it does turn into a story. So far, it hasn’t being picked up by much of the mainstream media.

[kevenv]

So far, it hasn’t being picked up by much of the mainstream media.

If this was Air Canada, the media would be all over it, there would be calls for an immediate inquiry and people would be demanding the public beheading of the pilots involved.

[Ancient]

If quoted correctly in the article, the ones that didn't do their jobs well are the Westjet spokesperson and the people providing her with her information.

“According to the information I have been given there was nothing unusual about the first approach,” said Lauren Stewart, a spokeswoman for the Calgary-based carrier. Citing FlightAware logs, Stewart said the plane was never lower than 500 feet before the go-around.

The spokesman's response was probably actually very calculated. People tend to remember what they heard first and not the final story. If they heard first that there was nothing unusual about the approach then that's what they will 'know'. Follow-up reports will get less views and attention. Sort of like how when the news drags someone's name through the mud and the says oops and prints a retraction the damage is already done. Except Westjet is doing the opposite and saying it was nothing even though they likely knew it was a close call.

[CpnCrunch]

Except Westjet is doing the opposite and saying it was nothing even though they likely knew it was a close call.

A bit like Air Canada's "hard landing".

[pilotguy2017]

I'm sure there will be a meeting taking place in Calgary about this tomorrow. Damage control mode will set in pretty quick.

[Heliian]

Holy f, calm the h down people. They were low and went around. Sure, debrief and don't do it again. That video was put together by someone with too much time on their hands. However, judging by the umbrellas blowing it looks like they were in a bad moment of weather. Probably got some bad winds and dealt with it. Also, IT IS NEVER TOO LATE TO GO AROUND if you think there is a need, another uneducated observation from some armchair flight sim expert.

[KAG]

I clearly have no idea what happened, but they did the right thing in going around. There are a lot of reason a plane ends up short of the runway on approach, it happens too often with non precision approaches.
There will be valuable lessons learned, one which I hope we all have a good take away. Trust me, its wasn't because of "cowboy" anything, its just not something that happens too often at this level, especially here.
Our planes monitor us and report deviations to the company, and honestly its just not worth the risk.
Again, good job in going around.

As mentioned above its never too late to go around, I literally watched a balked landing yesterday in LGA as a 737 bounced a landing in a crosswind and went around. Good call on them for going around.