DH4 Better do a final door check yourself

[pelmet]

Still happening. No word on SB status of these last two aircraft. Do any DH4 drives go out and check the door handle themselves or is it not realistic to do this.

"C-GWFE, a Bombardier DHC-8-400 aircraft operated by WestJet Encore, was conducting flight
WEN3324 from Vancouver Intl (CYVR), BC to Kelowna (CYLW), BC with 4 crew members and 78
passengers on board. During cruise flight, the flight crew received a FUSELAGE DOOR warning
light. The flight crew actioned the QRH, and continued to CYLW. The pressurization remained
normal, until the aircraft descended through 5000 feet, and subsequently depressurized. The flight
crew declared an emergency and continued to land on Runway 34 without further incident. ARFF
inspected the aircraft after the landing, and then the flight crew taxied to the gate. The aft cargo
door handle was found to be in the extended position."

[pelmet]

Still happening. No word on SB status of these last two aircraft. Do any DH4 drives go out and check the door handle themselves or is it not realistic to do this.

C-GJZK, a Jazz Aviation LP De Havilland DHC-8-400 was conducting flight JZA630 from
Ottawa/MacDonald-Cartier Intl. (CYOW), ON to Halifax Stanfield Intl. (CYHZ), NS. After departure,
flight crew declared a PAN PAN due to an unsafe cargo door indication. The flight returned to
CYOW and landed without incident. After landing the flight crew were informed by ARFF that the
latch on the baggage compartment was popped out.

[pelmet]

There is a Service Bulletin out to rework the door handle that gives you a more visual indication that the handle is properly and fully locked and stowed, and a positive latch engagement. I'm curious if any handles that have been modified have popped open in flight

Been five years and still happening. High speed RTO....

On 10 May 2023, the Westjet Encore De Havilland DHC-8-400 (registration C-GENM, serial
number 4456) began it's takeoff roll for a passenger flight from Edmonton International Airport
(CYEG), Alberta to Fort McMurray Airport (CYMM), Alberta. Onboard were 4 crew members and
66 passengers. During the takeoff roll on Runway 02, at approximately 110 knots, the fuselage
doors warning light illuminated. The crew rejected the takeoff and declared a MAYDAY in
accordance with company standard operating procedures. The MAYDAY was subsequently
cancelled after the fault was identified. The flight crew taxied the aircraft off the runway and
returned to the gate for maintenance.
Maintenance action: The aft baggage door handle was found incorrectly stowed. An operational
check of the handle was carried out with no faults found. The aircraft brakes were also inspected
and no faults were found. The aircraft was returned to service.

[pelmet]

Maybe the best thing to do is to have a procedure at each station where two separate ground workers check that the door is properly latched....

C-GWJK, a WestJet Encore DHC8-402, was conducting flight WEN3242 from Calgary
International Airport (CYYC), AB to Brandon Municipal Airport (CYBR), MB. During the initial take-
off run at CYYC, the flight crew received a baggage door warning indication. The take-off was
aborted, and a MAYDAY call was made with ATS. The aircraft returned to the gate where company
maintenance determined that baggage door handle had been secured incorrectly.
The door handle was inspected, stowed correctly, and the aircraft returned to service.

...from TSB.

[digits_]

Maybe the best thing to do is to have a procedure at each station where two separate ground workers check that the door is properly latched....

C-GWJK, a WestJet Encore DHC8-402, was conducting flight WEN3242 from Calgary
International Airport (CYYC), AB to Brandon Municipal Airport (CYBR), MB. During the initial take-
off run at CYYC, the flight crew received a baggage door warning indication. The take-off was
aborted, and a MAYDAY call was made with ATS. The aircraft returned to the gate where company
maintenance determined that baggage door handle had been secured incorrectly.
The door handle was inspected, stowed correctly, and the aircraft returned to service.

...from TSB.

Do any encore pilots know why your SOPs require a mayday call for an aborted takeoff due to an unlocked door?

[dontcallmeshirley]

Do any encore pilots know why your SOPs require a mayday call for an aborted takeoff due to an unlocked door?

Couldn't tell you why, but I could give you several reasons that I assume might play a part.

Low time new FOs with no prior airline experience.
Keeping all RTOs the same to make sure the stressful parts go smoother.
Heightening the awareness of everyone on frequency to an aircraft that is expected to lift off the runway coming to a stop instead.

[tbayav8er]

Maybe the best thing to do is to have a procedure at each station where two separate ground workers check that the door is properly latched....

C-GWJK, a WestJet Encore DHC8-402, was conducting flight WEN3242 from Calgary
International Airport (CYYC), AB to Brandon Municipal Airport (CYBR), MB. During the initial take-
off run at CYYC, the flight crew received a baggage door warning indication. The take-off was
aborted, and a MAYDAY call was made with ATS. The aircraft returned to the gate where company
maintenance determined that baggage door handle had been secured incorrectly.
The door handle was inspected, stowed correctly, and the aircraft returned to service.

...from TSB.

Do any encore pilots know why your SOPs require a mayday call for an aborted takeoff due to an unlocked door?

Encore's SOP's at least at the time I left, required that you call a mayday upon commencing the rejected takeoff. That mayday can then be cancelled right away upon analyzing the situation further. It didn't matter the reason for the rejected takeoff. As for the door unlocked indications....I have quite a bit of time on the Q, and can tell you those sensors are notoriously unreliable. Snow/frost gets on the sensors in the winter, and even when the doors are fully closed and locked, they would indicate open. We had an MEL that could be applied on cabin door sensors, but not the aft cargo door for faulty sensors. With that MEL applied, you were allowed to fly around with the door-open indication on a specific door, as long as you verified that it was closed and locked from the outside prior to each flight. I also had numerous situations where the door open indication illuminated in flight, but often didn't divert because of it, because obviously if the aircraft is maintaining pressurization, then a door is not actually open. In all cases where it illuminated in flight, it was a sensor problem.

[pelmet]

Do any encore pilots know why your SOPs require a mayday call for an aborted takeoff due to an unlocked door?

Couldn't tell you why, but I could give you several reasons that I assume might play a part.

Low time new FOs with no prior airline experience.
Keeping all RTOs the same to make sure the stressful parts go smoother.
Heightening the awareness of everyone on frequency to an aircraft that is expected to lift off the runway coming to a stop instead.

One would think that TC would not approve this sort of thing. Mayday calls should be reserved for when the crew actually thinks there is a real emergency.

From TSB......

C-FENU, a WestJet Encore de Havilland DHC-8-400, was operating as WEN3433 from Calgary
International Airport (CYYC), AB to Terrace Airport (CYXT), BC. While on the takeoff roll on
Runway 35L, during the “Power Set” call the flight crew heard a single chime. The captain
observed the “OUTBD ANTISKID” caution light, rejected the takeoff at approximately 80 knots and
took control. The first officer declared MAYDAY. During the rejected takeoff, when the power levers
were brought to disc, the caution light extinguished. Upon coming to a stop on the runway, the
flight crew actioned the quick reference handbook and verified that the ANTISKID switch was set to
on. As there were no further applicable checklists to run, the flight crew advised ATC that the
aircraft would return to the gate. There were no injuries.
The company will advise TSB of maintenance findings and follow-up.

[BigQ]

At WG we are trained on the automatic MAYDAY to make everyone on the frequency shut up and pay attention, also because we fly to destinations with chances of questionable ICAO level 4 English. It is a safety tool in an emergency. When in doubt, use it, then cancel or downgrade. You're writing a report anyways...

[digits_]

One would think that TC would not approve this sort of thing. ayday calls should be reserved for when the crew actually thinks there is a real emergency.

That was sort of my concern as well.

It's one thing when you call it and it doesn't end up being necessary as a one off thing. But putting it in SOPs for events that likely are not a life threatening emergency, in an environment where there are eyes on you (on the ground at a controlled airport). It seems a bit weird, and devalues its effect. Both to your crew, other pilots, ATC and rescue workers.

[pelmet]

One would think that TC would not approve this sort of thing. ayday calls should be reserved for when the crew actually thinks there is a real emergency.

That was sort of my concern as well.

It's one thing when you call it and it doesn't end up being necessary as a one off thing. But putting it in SOPs for events that likely are not a life threatening emergency, in an environment where there are eyes on you (on the ground at a controlled airport). It seems a bit weird, and devalues its effect. Both to your crew, other pilots, ATC and rescue workers.

AC seems to be different. Instead of declaring an emergency for every RTO even if it was just something minor, at AC they seem to be bucking the trend and not declaring an emergency when there is an engine shutdown/loss of thrust....

C-GBHO, an Air Canada Rouge LP A319-114 was operating flight ROU1637 from Orlando
International Airport (KMCO), Florida, USA to Montréal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau International (CYUL),
QC. In the vicinity of Norfolk International Airport (KORF), Virginia, USA during cruise at FL370, the
flight crew identified ENG 2 had rolled back un-commanded with an associated slight vibration.
There were no associated ECAMs. The engine power was reduced in an attempt to reset however
the issue persisted. ENG 2 was reduced to idle for the remainder of the flight and descent was
initiated to a lower altitude. A PAN PAN was declared as a precaution. The flight continued to
CYUL with Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting on standby. The aircraft was able to taxi under its own
power to the gate without further incident.

C-FSCY, a Boeing 737-8, operated by Air Canada as flight ACA2350, was on a post maintenance
positioning flight from the Windsor Airport (CYQG), ON to Toronto Lester B. Pearson International
Airport (CYYZ), ON. During the climb out of CYQG the number 2 engine hydraulic EDP light
illuminated, the flight crew carried out the checklist and the light extinguished. While in cruise a
number 2 engine oil bypass message was received, the flight crew carried out the checklist and
carried a precautionary shutdown of the engine. A PAN-PAN was declared and the flight crew was
given priority handling and landed without further incident. Emergency vehicles were on standby for
the landing.

.....Both from TSB.

Maybe we will have scenario where AC is coming in on one engine with heightened alert(Pan-Pan) and Encore does an RTO for a minor issue with emergency declared and AC is instructed to go around close to minimums while Encore crew are stopped on the runway with their parking brake set and doing their procedures for a minor issue......all potentially avoided by AC declaring an emergency and no one being allowed to takeoff for several minutes before their landing.

[digits_]

One would think that TC would not approve this sort of thing. ayday calls should be reserved for when the crew actually thinks there is a real emergency.

That was sort of my concern as well.

It's one thing when you call it and it doesn't end up being necessary as a one off thing. But putting it in SOPs for events that likely are not a life threatening emergency, in an environment where there are eyes on you (on the ground at a controlled airport). It seems a bit weird, and devalues its effect. Both to your crew, other pilots, ATC and rescue workers.

AC seems to be different. Instead of declaring an emergency for every RTO even if it was just something minor, at AC they seem to be bucking the trend and not declaring an emergency when there is an engine shutdown/loss of thrust....

C-GBHO, an Air Canada Rouge LP A319-114 was operating flight ROU1637 from Orlando
International Airport (KMCO), Florida, USA to Montréal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau International (CYUL),
QC. In the vicinity of Norfolk International Airport (KORF), Virginia, USA during cruise at FL370, the
flight crew identified ENG 2 had rolled back un-commanded with an associated slight vibration.
There were no associated ECAMs. The engine power was reduced in an attempt to reset however
the issue persisted. ENG 2 was reduced to idle for the remainder of the flight and descent was
initiated to a lower altitude. A PAN PAN was declared as a precaution. The flight continued to
CYUL with Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting on standby. The aircraft was able to taxi under its own
power to the gate without further incident.

C-FSCY, a Boeing 737-8, operated by Air Canada as flight ACA2350, was on a post maintenance
positioning flight from the Windsor Airport (CYQG), ON to Toronto Lester B. Pearson International
Airport (CYYZ), ON. During the climb out of CYQG the number 2 engine hydraulic EDP light
illuminated, the flight crew carried out the checklist and the light extinguished. While in cruise a
number 2 engine oil bypass message was received, the flight crew carried out the checklist and
carried a precautionary shutdown of the engine. A PAN-PAN was declared and the flight crew was
given priority handling and landed without further incident. Emergency vehicles were on standby for
the landing.

.....Both from TSB.

Maybe we will have scenario where AC is coming in on one engine with heightened alert(Pan-Pan) and Encore does an RTO for a minor issue with emergency declared and AC is instructed to go around close to minimums while Encore crew are stopped on the runway with their parking brake set and doing their procedures for a minor issue......

I don't think a PAN PAN is inappropriate. It's a contained engine failure in a twin.

all potentially avoided by AC declaring an emergency and no one being allowed to takeoff for several minutes before their landing.

Do you have a reference for that?
At least in Canada I've seen a tower just operate as normal with an airplane that did declare an emergency on short final.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Maybe we will have scenario where AC is coming in on one engine with heightened alert(Pan-Pan) and Encore does an RTO for a minor issue with emergency declared and AC is instructed to go around close to minimums while Encore crew are stopped on the runway with their parking brake set and doing their procedures for a minor issue......all potentially avoided by AC declaring an emergency and no one being allowed to takeoff for several minutes before their landing.

Right from ICAO, and in alignment with NavCanada ATC procedures:

"The word MAYDAY at the start of communication identifies a distress message indicating that the aircraft is threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.

The words PAN PAN indicate an urgency message concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or a person on board or within sight, not requiring immediate assistance."

It appears a precautionary single-engine shutdown on a multi-engine jet is more in line with a PAN PAN. If the shutdown was due to say a fire or uncontained failure, that might be more in line with declaring an emergency/MAYDAY.

In both of your examples, the PAN PAN seemed like the appropriate action.

[airway]

That was sort of my concern as well.

It's one thing when you call it and it doesn't end up being necessary as a one off thing. But putting it in SOPs for events that likely are not a life threatening emergency, in an environment where there are eyes on you (on the ground at a controlled airport). It seems a bit weird, and devalues its effect. Both to your crew, other pilots, ATC and rescue workers.

AC seems to be different. Instead of declaring an emergency for every RTO even if it was just something minor, at AC they seem to be bucking the trend and not declaring an emergency when there is an engine shutdown/loss of thrust....

C-GBHO, an Air Canada Rouge LP A319-114 was operating flight ROU1637 from Orlando
International Airport (KMCO), Florida, USA to Montréal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau International (CYUL),
QC. In the vicinity of Norfolk International Airport (KORF), Virginia, USA during cruise at FL370, the
flight crew identified ENG 2 had rolled back un-commanded with an associated slight vibration.
There were no associated ECAMs. The engine power was reduced in an attempt to reset however
the issue persisted. ENG 2 was reduced to idle for the remainder of the flight and descent was
initiated to a lower altitude. A PAN PAN was declared as a precaution. The flight continued to
CYUL with Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting on standby. The aircraft was able to taxi under its own
power to the gate without further incident.

C-FSCY, a Boeing 737-8, operated by Air Canada as flight ACA2350, was on a post maintenance
positioning flight from the Windsor Airport (CYQG), ON to Toronto Lester B. Pearson International
Airport (CYYZ), ON. During the climb out of CYQG the number 2 engine hydraulic EDP light
illuminated, the flight crew carried out the checklist and the light extinguished. While in cruise a
number 2 engine oil bypass message was received, the flight crew carried out the checklist and
carried a precautionary shutdown of the engine. A PAN-PAN was declared and the flight crew was
given priority handling and landed without further incident. Emergency vehicles were on standby for
the landing.

.....Both from TSB.

Maybe we will have scenario where AC is coming in on one engine with heightened alert(Pan-Pan) and Encore does an RTO for a minor issue with emergency declared and AC is instructed to go around close to minimums while Encore crew are stopped on the runway with their parking brake set and doing their procedures for a minor issue......

I don't think a PAN PAN is inappropriate. It's a contained engine failure in a twin.

all potentially avoided by AC declaring an emergency and no one being allowed to takeoff for several minutes before their landing.

Do you have a reference for that?
At least in Canada I've seen a tower just operate as normal with an airplane that did declare an emergency on short final.

I too think it is inapropriate to call Mayday in a situation that does not require immediate assistance. If you have any doubt, go ahead and call a Mayday, but for a low speed reject for a caution light it is not necessary.

I have been flying recently when a aircraft has called a mayday in flight and tower did not operate as normal even though the aircraft was 10 miles away in a hold. Nobody could take off, and they were very careful allowing other aircraft to land. Apparently if they had called pan pan or downgraded to pan pan the tower could have operated more normally.

Maybe an ATC person could fill us in on exactly what happens in these situations.



.

[pelmet]

Maybe we will have scenario where AC is coming in on one engine with heightened alert(Pan-Pan) and Encore does an RTO for a minor issue with emergency declared and AC is instructed to go around close to minimums while Encore crew are stopped on the runway with their parking brake set and doing their procedures for a minor issue......all potentially avoided by AC declaring an emergency and no one being allowed to takeoff for several minutes before their landing.

Right from ICAO, and in alignment with NavCanada ATC procedures:

"The word MAYDAY at the start of communication identifies a distress message indicating that the aircraft is threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and requires immediate assistance.

The words PAN PAN indicate an urgency message concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or a person on board or within sight, not requiring immediate assistance."

It appears a precautionary single-engine shutdown on a multi-engine jet is more in line with a PAN PAN. If the shutdown was due to say a fire or uncontained failure, that might be more in line with declaring an emergency/MAYDAY.

In both of your examples, the PAN PAN seemed like the appropriate action.

One could just declare an emergency(or Mayday for clarity in foreign lands).....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yFJHhHDPA4&t=100s

[DHC-1 Jockey]

One could just declare an emergency(or Mayday for clarity in foreign lands).....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yFJHhHDPA4&t=100s

Yes they could, but in your earlier post you intimated that they should have declared an emergency/MAYDAY. I was just explaining as an ATC that NavCanada and ICAO are in alignment on what constitutes a PAN PAN or a MAYDAY, and your example incidents seem more in line with a PAN PAN.

I've got over 6000 hours as well (mostly multi-turbine and jet) and wouldn't have declared an emergency/MAYDAY for a precautionary engine shutdown.

[pelmet]

One could just declare an emergency(or Mayday for clarity in foreign lands).....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yFJHhHDPA4&t=100s

I've got over 6000 hours as well (mostly multi-turbine and jet) and wouldn't have declared an emergency/MAYDAY for a precautionary engine shutdown.

Many do.

From today’s TSB update via Google Translate…..

“ C-FDIJ, a Boeing 767-39H operated by Cargojet Airways Ltd. under flight code CJT470 had just taken off from Iqaluit Airport (CYFB), NT bound for Macdonald-Cartier International Airport (CYOW), ON when the crew heard a thud followed by a loss of power on the right engine significantly reducing riding performance. Once level at 15,000 feet asl, an emergency was declared and the aircraft returned to CYFB where it landed safely. Maintenance personnel inspected the right engine and confirmed”.

Some of the potential benefits of declaring an emergency declared are that it is less likely that you will be rushed in by ATC, as sometimes happens with vectors, and it is less likely that they will be squeezing in one more departure while you are on short final.

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Some of the potential benefits of declaring an emergency declared are that it is less likely that you will be rushed in by ATC, as sometimes happens with vectors, and it is less likely that they will be squeezing in one more departure while you are on short final.

I can tell you as an ATC, that just because someone declares an emergency, it doesn't mean the airport always stops arrivals or departures. It might, and it might not. Every situation is different.

Your example today quoted a "thud" where the previous examples were simple indication issues. I'd be more likely to declare a Mayday if I actually felt something happening to the airplane as opposed to something like a low oil pressure indication.

Again, all I'm saying is that not declaring a Mayday for a precautionary engine shutdown isn't the worst thing in the world. There are definitions for these terms that are internationally recognized by ATC and we'll act accordingly.

[digits_]

Some of the potential benefits of declaring an emergency declared are that it is less likely that you will be rushed in by ATC, as sometimes happens with vectors, and it is less likely that they will be squeezing in one more departure while you are on short final.

I can tell you as an ATC, that just because someone declares an emergency, it doesn't mean the airport always stops arrivals or departures. It might, and it might not. Every situation is different.

What does it depend on? You have likely less info than the pilots to determine what exactly is going on. So what factors decide if you hold your arrivals or departures? Is it the size of the aircraft? The tone in the voice that calls mayday (not joking)? The amount of people on board?

[DHC-1 Jockey]

Some of the potential benefits of declaring an emergency declared are that it is less likely that you will be rushed in by ATC, as sometimes happens with vectors, and it is less likely that they will be squeezing in one more departure while you are on short final.

I can tell you as an ATC, that just because someone declares an emergency, it doesn't mean the airport always stops arrivals or departures. It might, and it might not. Every situation is different.

What does it depend on? You have likely less info than the pilots to determine what exactly is going on. So what factors decide if you hold your arrivals or departures? Is it the size of the aircraft? The tone in the voice that calls mayday (not joking)? The amount of people on board?

Speaking for me as a tower controller at a smaller airport, there's lots of factors. I'm sure a large-tower airport or IFR controller may have different answers:
- Is there a secondary runway that can be used for other traffic while maintaining the main runway for the incident aircraft?
- Is the emergency declared 5 miles final or does the controller know about it long in advance? If it's declared 5 miles final, of course I'll pause other operations. If I know the aircraft is still 15 minutes away, I can easily get some arrivals or departures out before "sterilizing" the runway for the use of the incident aircraft.
- Is the controller working alone? Are they working single stand (both ground and tower) or are they working split (one controller on ground, one on tower)? Working single stand exponentially increases the workload with now trying to coordinate emergency response in addition to regular traffic.
- What is the current traffic situation? Are there 4 aircraft airborne and in the circuit, or just one 172 waiting to depart on a scenic flight? It might actually be easier to land all of the circuit traffic ahead of the incident aircraft (if there is time) so that the only "active" aircraft to deal with is the incident one. The other option is to keep the circuit traffic airborne but force them to leave the circuit and orbit at the edge of the zone (for example).

Personally, the size of the aircraft isn't a huge factor, aside from maybe a feeling of additional "pressure" simply because it's bigger.

Tone of voice does play a factor. There have been many accidents analyzed where the controller didn't know the extent of the issue because the pilot didn't intimate that the issue was as critical as it actually was. That's why there's the standard ICAO phraseology I mentioned earlier where even if the pilot sounds cool as a cucumber, the specific words PAN PAN or MAYDAY will elicit a different response from the controller. Same goes if the pilot sounds like they're having a helmet fire and chooses NOT to declare a PAN PAN or a MAYDAY (even when asked by the controller). The controller might pre-emptively roll the trucks anyways as a precaution and even if they're not needed.

It's really hard to boil it down to a black and white answer. There's too many small variables that inform a controller's decision, but using PAN PAN or MAYDAY does have a defined level of urgency, which will give a certain level of response. Same with the terms "minimum fuel" and "fuel emergency." Both terms have different levels of urgency and will determine a controller's decisions.