Jazz lands YAM with plows on runway

[crazyaviator]

Heard on the Dash 8 in the cockpit on approach for the SOO:

( co-pilot ) Er Captain, I have heard their is snow clearing at the airport but the sunwing flight just landed, shall we continue ?
( Captain) Er co-jo, sounds like a good assumption, lets take a chance.
( co-pilot) I have not heard anything on comm 2 for a coons age and it was acting up when listening to sunwing, do you think all is okay?
( Captain ) Yes, of course all is fine, I have been to this airport MANY times, and when the comms are quiet , all is normal.
(co-pilot) Captain, do ya think we might just do a little breakout and circle or do a MAP to ascertain the runway is clear.
( Captain) Listen, the sunwing flight just landed and the comms are quiet, they went back inside to have a coffee, let's just land, I know what i'm talkin about !!!! And in any case, it's all about risk management , and I know i am managing it well !!

That transmission could have easily been the PWA disaster !

[crazyaviator]

So anytime the weather is below circling minima, and nobody is answering to your call, you divert to your t alternate?

No, What about a MAP and you will be overflying the runway at minimums or less to ascertain runway is clear and safe for landing right ?

[AuxBatOn]

There is a huge difference between a quiet evening with no precip but low ceiling/vis and a busy weather day with. 6" dump of snow within 2 hours. As a pilot, you need to be able to assess a situation and make an informed decision that balances risk and operational efficiency, within the rules. That's what you are paid for. Am I saying the Jazz guys did the right thing? No. it was a busy weather day and when their calls went unanswered, it should have raised questions.

I have been to plenty of uncontrolled airports with not FSS or radio operators where all of my calls went unanswered simply because nobody was there.

But, from what you transpire, you see the world in black and white, no shades of gray. Of course it is difficult for you to see there are more than one correct course if action for a given situation.

Having said all that, when was the last time an aircraft landed on an occupied runway in crummy weather conditions and bent metal?

So anytime the weather is below circling minima, and nobody is answering to your call, you divert to your t alternate?

No, What about a MAP and you will be overflying the runway at minimums or less to ascertain runway is clear and safe for landing right ?

As you hit the MAP, you should initiate a missed approach, changing configuration and climbing at at least 200ft/nm. You will not be overflying the runway at minima or less and you won't have time to look out for traffic on the runway. Besides, during the 10 minutes it takes to shoot the approach again, the situation on the runway may change.

How much flying in such conditions do you have?!

[Donald]

So anytime the weather is below circling minima, and nobody is answering to your call, you divert to your t alternate?

Technically yes.

[AuxBatOn]

So anytime the weather is below circling minima, and nobody is answering to your call, you divert to your t alternate?

Technically yes.

Like I said, the regulations doesn't day how you ascertain that nobody is in the runway and I think it's on purpose. Visually is not the only way. It leaves it open for situations like this.

[Mayor_McCheese]

Having said all that, when was the last time an aircraft landed on an occupied runway in crummy weather conditions and bent metal?

Fair enough. However, in this case it was pure dumb luck that nothing happened. The Plow/Sweeper just happened to be making a turn at the far end of the runway when the Dash landed (threshold of 12 as they landed 30). 1 minute earlier or later and they could have been in a much worse spot on the runway. Or had they opted for the ILS 12 as the previous arrival (Sunwing) had, who knows where the truck would have been and whether or not metal would have been bent.

[crazyaviator]

As you hit the MAP, you should initiate a missed approach, changing configuration and climbing at at least 200ft/nm. You will not be overflying the runway at minima or less and you won't have time to look out for traffic on the runway. Besides, during the 10 minutes it takes to shoot the approach again, the situation on the runway may change.

Isn't a landing from MDA/ DH to 0 ft. over the runway? And isn't a take-off from 0 feet to maybe 100-300 feet Min over the far end of the runway? Is not the MAP predicated upon minimum climbout heights past the runway? and not past the MA Point? What I am trying to say is this: Can the Missed approach commence at the far end of the runway at an altitude that would approximate a normal take-off altitude? Of course, you will have configured and be at or above best rate by that time with full power. On the approach, and overfly, if you cannot see the runway total length, for inspection, you are either in cloud or VV is bad and therefore you are doing a missed and possibly an alternate ? Why the need to circle? You can descend below MDA / DH IF the runway environment is acceptable for landing,,, BUT you cannot land IF you have not ascertained it is free from obstacles if there is no way to ascertain through communications?

[AuxBatOn]

If you want to fly the missed approach, you need to start from the MAP. This where obstacle clearance is calculated from. If you want to descend below MDA/DH, with proper visual references, you better fly a departure procedure (and brief it ahead of time).

Mayor: yup. Luck. But it is still the very rare exception rather than the rule. Is a comppete overhaul of how uncontrolled aerodromes are managed required for this?

[Mayor_McCheese]

Mayor: yup. Luck. But it is still the very rare exception rather than the rule. Is a comppete overhaul of how uncontrolled aerodromes are managed required for this?

I agree it is the very rare exception. And I'm not campaigning for a complete overhaul, just playing Captain Obvious in pointing out that it could have been a completely different ending to this story. Thankfully nothing tragic happened.

[crazyaviator]

If you want to descend below MDA/DH, with proper visual references, you better fly a departure procedure (and brief it ahead of time).

My bad, that is what I meant and not a missed approach !

[AuxBatOn]

If you want to descend below MDA/DH, with proper visual references, you better fly a departure procedure (and brief it ahead of time).

My bad, that is what I meant and not a missed approach !

This is a very unusual maneuver that is likely not in any company SOPs. With good reason. Would you want to be flying half visually in very marginal conditions, low over a runway? This would be horrible risk management.

[crazyaviator]

Its better risk management than just "hoping" that the runway is clear. Anyways, the low and over would be briefed, the configuration would already be for climb-out before reaching the runway environment. The PF would be on instruments at 200 feet/ stabilized , the PM would be looking for obstacles on the runway . This procedure is safer because it does not involve config changes, ( MAP ) circling ( obvious risk ) or actual landing ( change from Instruments to visual )

[crazyaviator]

This is a very unusual maneuver that is likely not in any company SOPs. With good reason. Would you want to be flying half visually in very marginal conditions, low over a runway? This would be horrible risk management.

No wonder pilots would rather land on a runway not knowing whether it is safe than to do something that is
1) Thou shalt abide by all SOP s and never think to have them changed (SOPs are written using gallons and gallons of spilt blood )
2) Thou shalt not do ANYTHING very unusual ( out of the norm) lest people think you are ODD
3) Thou shalt never question anyone when they say it is horrible risk management UNTIL a big accident comes along and changes the SOP s to reflect latest best practices which was considered to be " horrible risk management"

PS: You are NOT flying half visually if it is a 2 pilot crew and they are doing their job,,,,,1 is visual and the other on instruments ,,,,
If you are not picking up much ice or being hit by downbursts/shear, it is NOT in very marginal conditions !

[AuxBatOn]

This is a very unusual maneuver that is likely not in any company SOPs. With good reason. Would you want to be flying half visually in very marginal conditions, low over a runway? This would be horrible risk management.

No wonder pilots would rather land on a runway not knowing whether it is safe than to do something that is
1) Thou shalt abide by all SOP s and never think to have them changed (SOPs are written using gallons and gallons of spilt blood )
2) Thou shalt not do ANYTHING very unusual ( out of the norm) lest people think you are ODD
3) Thou shalt never question anyone when they say it is horrible risk management UNTIL a big accident comes along and changes the SOP s to reflect latest best practices which was considered to be " horrible risk management"

PS: You are NOT flying half visually if it is a 2 pilot crew and they are doing their job,,,,,1 is visual and the other on instruments ,,,,
If you are not picking up much ice or being hit by downbursts/shear, it is NOT in very marginal conditions !

What if a truck pulls up on the runway in the 10 minutes you need to shoot the second approach? Is it any different than doing what I proposed earlier? All that, for what exactly? Get a visual inspection and "hoping" no vehicles get on the runway in the next 10 minutes?

That's why there are radios. And that's why people have to use them when they operate on or in the vicinity of an aerodrome. No need to fly 50 feet above the runway doing something yes, unusual for an airline pilot that, if it was indeed in SOPs, conducts once a year that carries an augmented risk of something not going right. All that for what again? Because you can't take different pieces of information to make an informed decision? You absolutely have to use your eyes to confirm something you can reasonably deduce with other pieces of information?

You seem to have issues with "risk management". If you have a pilot license, you manage risk everytime you fly.

[oldncold]

in 1978 , ok cf oaj bell206 and ok c-foar were tasked to help in the aftermath of pwa into yxc ralph ganong and doug williams did their best to provide support to those efforts. sadly it was a very bad day according to doug.

my only comment is this> the more hours one flys the risk of familiarity creeps into the risk mgt equation . in order to guard against this risk ,it requires the application of an open mind and respect for fellow co pilots opinions . it would seem in this particular circumstances that respect was missing.

[fish4life]

I think I have got an easy solution, install a transponder in all airport vehicles.

[AuxBatOn]

my only comment is this> the more hours one flys the risk of familiarity creeps into the risk mgt equation . in order to guard against this risk ,it requires the application of an open mind and respect for fellow co pilots opinions . it would seem in this particular circumstances that respect was missing.

Sure but this would not be comducted nearly enough to maintain any sort of useful familiarity.

[Maynard]

Crazyaviator, are you even a pilot? Reading your posts sounds like you don't have a clue how th world works. (Do a circling or runway inspection at 3/8sm vv200??? What???? Sounds like a splendid idea...

[Cat Driver]

Crazyaviator, are you even a pilot?

If he/she is then aviation is doomed if that mentality can hold a pilot license.

We can only hope the first part of his / her name is correct and the aviator part was just added to make it look like he / she can post on an aviation forum.

[Rookie50]

I think I have got an easy solution, install a transponder in all airport vehicles.

That is not a bad idea.