Westjet CYHZ

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako

ehbuddy
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:55 pm
Location: Halifax

Westjet CYHZ

Post by ehbuddy »

Not many details out but from what the news has said it appears the aircraft landed on Runway 14 and did a low energy excursion into the grass at the far end.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Attachments
wj2.jpg
wj2.jpg (188.02 KiB) Viewed 2953 times
wj.jpg
wj.jpg (145.5 KiB) Viewed 2953 times

MortyBubba
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by MortyBubba »

http://avherald.com/h?article=4d192a80&opt=0

Runway 100% wet snow. RVR 4000, Braking action report not known.

Why did they even attempt to land?

No braking action report and contaminated runway is already makes me not even try to attempt to land. I’ve have refused to land in conditions where I had a braking report that was 5 hrs old and it was still snowing, and it snowed all day and I couldn’t get a new one report since it was late at night.

With the report of 100% wet snow added into the mix. It confirms a no brainer of no landing attempt.

Good that no one ended up getting hurt. This could of been a lot worse.
---------- ADS -----------
  

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3132
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by AuxBatOn »

I have gouge for my aircraft. If I don’t see 50 kts with a good decel by the 3 board, I execute a go around, giving me 3,000 ft to get airborne. I feel that once the aircraft touches the ground, crews are sometime mentally committed to landing. There is always a go around option if you know your aircraft well.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

Sharklasers
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by Sharklasers »

Once the reversers are deployed you are committed to landing in most jets.
You can’t just roll it into a touch and go.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Yycjetdriver
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:00 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by Yycjetdriver »

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:13 pm
I have gouge for my aircraft. If I don’t see 50 kts with a good decel by the 3 board, I execute a go around, giving me 3,000 ft to get airborne. I feel that once the aircraft touches the ground, crews are sometime mentally committed to landing. There is always a go around option if you know your aircraft well.
And what aircraft would that be?????...
Can’t tell exactly from the pics but that looks like an -800. Try that at 50kts and at the distance it would take
to land a loaded 800 even on a SKC day on 14/32, there’s no doubt you'd be off the end and in rough shape.
Maybe take a look at t/o&landing distances of a 737-800 before adding your “expertise”.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Hangry
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:05 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by Hangry »

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:13 pm
I have gouge for my aircraft. If I don’t see 50 kts with a good decel by the 3 board, I execute a go around, giving me 3,000 ft to get airborne. I feel that once the aircraft touches the ground, crews are sometime mentally committed to landing. There is always a go around option if you know your aircraft well.
Do you seriously think that applies to a 37?
---------- ADS -----------
  

GoinVertical
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:12 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by GoinVertical »

Hangry wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:07 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:13 pm
I have gouge for my aircraft. If I don’t see 50 kts with a good decel by the 3 board, I execute a go around, giving me 3,000 ft to get airborne. I feel that once the aircraft touches the ground, crews are sometime mentally committed to landing. There is always a go around option if you know your aircraft well.
Do you seriously think that applies to a 37?
Or any transport category aircraft?
---------- ADS -----------
  

Hangry
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:05 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by Hangry »

GoinVertical wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:08 pm
Hangry wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:07 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:13 pm
I have gouge for my aircraft. If I don’t see 50 kts with a good decel by the 3 board, I execute a go around, giving me 3,000 ft to get airborne. I feel that once the aircraft touches the ground, crews are sometime mentally committed to landing. There is always a go around option if you know your aircraft well.
Do you seriously think that applies to a 37?
Or any transport category aircraft?
Of course
---------- ADS -----------
  

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3132
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by AuxBatOn »

Yycjetdriver wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:06 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:13 pm
I have gouge for my aircraft. If I don’t see 50 kts with a good decel by the 3 board, I execute a go around, giving me 3,000 ft to get airborne. I feel that once the aircraft touches the ground, crews are sometime mentally committed to landing. There is always a go around option if you know your aircraft well.
And what aircraft would that be?????...
Can’t tell exactly from the pics but that looks like an -800. Try that at 50kts and at the distance it would take
to land a loaded 800 even on a SKC day on 14/32, there’s no doubt you'd be off the end and in rough shape.
Maybe take a look at t/o&landing distances of a 737-800 before adding your “expertise”.
The gouge I gave is for my own aircraft types. There is a minimum distance any aircraft (with or without thrust reversers) that will be required to takeoff again after decelerating to a certain speed. Whether that distance is practical is another matter. I would challenge anyone to look at the numbers and see if it is practical for them. At least, it is something they could have in their back pockets... FWIW, I use takeoff distance from 0 kts with maximum thrust.

Looking at options in an informed way should not be discouraged.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

indieadventurer
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:59 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by indieadventurer »

Why didn’t they use 05?

Runway 14 had a quartering gusting tailwind that looks like it may have exceeded 10 kts. No recent RSC either.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Sharklasers
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 221
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 5:24 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by Sharklasers »

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:14 pm
Yycjetdriver wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:06 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 2:13 pm
I have gouge for my aircraft. If I don’t see 50 kts with a good decel by the 3 board, I execute a go around, giving me 3,000 ft to get airborne. I feel that once the aircraft touches the ground, crews are sometime mentally committed to landing. There is always a go around option if you know your aircraft well.
And what aircraft would that be?????...
Can’t tell exactly from the pics but that looks like an -800. Try that at 50kts and at the distance it would take
to land a loaded 800 even on a SKC day on 14/32, there’s no doubt you'd be off the end and in rough shape.
Maybe take a look at t/o&landing distances of a 737-800 before adding your “expertise”.
The gouge I gave is for my own aircraft types. There is a minimum distance any aircraft (with or without thrust reversers) that will be required to takeoff again after decelerating to a certain speed. Whether that distance is practical is another matter. I would challenge anyone to look at the numbers and see if it is practical for them. At least, it is something they could have in their back pockets... FWIW, I use takeoff distance from 0 kts with maximum thrust.

Looking at options in an informed way should not be discouraged.
Someone had better let Airbus and Boeing know that AuxBatOn has it all figured out and they should rewrite their Aircraft Operating manuals on this particular issue. These instructions were written in Canadian blood too.


Airbus had published flight operations briefing notes on bounce recovery and rejected landings in May 2005. The briefing notes, in part, emphasized an FCOM statement that the flight crew is committed to a full-stop landing after selecting reverse thrust because of the possibility of system damage when reverse thrust is canceled while the reversers are in transit to the deployed configuration. “The information further states that thrust asymmetry resulting from one thrust reverser failing to restow has led to instances of significantly reduced rates of climb or departure from controlled flight,”


Boeing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific ... Flight_314
---------- ADS -----------
  

GoinVertical
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:12 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by GoinVertical »

No ILS on 05, it was RVR4000 OVC200.

Anyone have performance charts for a 737-800 handy? 100% trace wet snow with 10 knots or so tailwind?

I assume they ran the numbers properly, but I wonder how much wiggle room there was...
---------- ADS -----------
  

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3132
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by AuxBatOn »

Sharklasers wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:31 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:14 pm
Yycjetdriver wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:06 pm


And what aircraft would that be?????...
Can’t tell exactly from the pics but that looks like an -800. Try that at 50kts and at the distance it would take
to land a loaded 800 even on a SKC day on 14/32, there’s no doubt you'd be off the end and in rough shape.
Maybe take a look at t/o&landing distances of a 737-800 before adding your “expertise”.
The gouge I gave is for my own aircraft types. There is a minimum distance any aircraft (with or without thrust reversers) that will be required to takeoff again after decelerating to a certain speed. Whether that distance is practical is another matter. I would challenge anyone to look at the numbers and see if it is practical for them. At least, it is something they could have in their back pockets... FWIW, I use takeoff distance from 0 kts with maximum thrust.

Looking at options in an informed way should not be discouraged.
Someone had better let Airbus and Boeing know that AuxBatOn has it all figured out and they should rewrite their Aircraft Operating manuals on this particular issue. These instructions were written in Canadian blood too.


Airbus had published flight operations briefing notes on bounce recovery and rejected landings in May 2005. The briefing notes, in part, emphasized an FCOM statement that the flight crew is committed to a full-stop landing after selecting reverse thrust because of the possibility of system damage when reverse thrust is canceled while the reversers are in transit to the deployed configuration. “The information further states that thrust asymmetry resulting from one thrust reverser failing to restow has led to instances of significantly reduced rates of climb or departure from controlled flight,”


Boeing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific ... Flight_314
Then if the AFM or other regulatory literature says no then don’t do it. It was more a general comment, yes, in a thread where a 737 had an accident, about a lot of times, people not seeing all options available to them. Perhaps it is not applicable in this case but it may be in other cases.

I didn’t realize that thrust reversers were so unreliable that there was a warning in Airbus’ FCOM about a possible asymmetric configuration when stowing them. The only airplane with thrust reversers I flew, we could deploy them airborne on all engines to steepen the descent. I guess I assumed if they were reliable enough to do this, they would be reliable enough to stow on a go-around.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

GRK2
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 5:04 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by GRK2 »

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:36 pm
Sharklasers wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:31 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:14 pm


The gouge I gave is for my own aircraft types. There is a minimum distance any aircraft (with or without thrust reversers) that will be required to takeoff again after decelerating to a certain speed. Whether that distance is practical is another matter. I would challenge anyone to look at the numbers and see if it is practical for them. At least, it is something they could have in their back pockets... FWIW, I use takeoff distance from 0 kts with maximum thrust.

Looking at options in an informed way should not be discouraged.
Someone had better let Airbus and Boeing know that AuxBatOn has it all figured out and they should rewrite their Aircraft Operating manuals on this particular issue. These instructions were written in Canadian blood too.


Airbus had published flight operations briefing notes on bounce recovery and rejected landings in May 2005. The briefing notes, in part, emphasized an FCOM statement that the flight crew is committed to a full-stop landing after selecting reverse thrust because of the possibility of system damage when reverse thrust is canceled while the reversers are in transit to the deployed configuration. “The information further states that thrust asymmetry resulting from one thrust reverser failing to restow has led to instances of significantly reduced rates of climb or departure from controlled flight,”


Boeing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific ... Flight_314
Then if the AFM or other regulatory literature says no then don’t do it. It was more a general comment, yes, in a thread where a 737 had an accident, about a lot of times, people not seeing all options available to them. Perhaps it is not applicable in this case but it may be in other cases.

I didn’t realize that thrust reversers were so unreliable that there was a warning in Airbus’ FCOM about a possible asymmetric configuration when stowing them. The only airplane with thrust reversers I flew, we could deploy them airborne on all engines to steepen the descent. I guess I assumed if they were reliable enough to do this, they would be reliable enough to stow on a go-around.
So that would be either the B707 or DC 8 50 series right? As far as memory serves those were the only two jets that were allowed to be handled with reversers deployed while airborne. (And only in the descent phase and even then it was only numbers 2 & 3 engines) I also suggest you have a look at the PWA B737 Cranbrook crash to see why once deployed on the ground you STAY on the ground.
---------- ADS -----------
  

iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7945
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by iflyforpie »

The TSB and NTSB have overwhelmingly recommended staying on the ground and accepting a runway overrun rather than attempting a go around from the runway in any high performance aircraft.

Here’s a good example of why you shouldn’t. What’s sad is that the data said they would have left the runway surface at between 23 and 37 knots... coming to a stop within the 1000 feet of grassy runway overrun. Though the aircraft was incorrectly configured for the go around (another risk of doing a quick go around on the runways as precious tarmac is eaten up) the aircraft manufacturer said it wouldn’t have mattered.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... AR1101.pdf

Sometimes the biggest risk isn’t committing to a landing.. but refusing to accept a known but contained bad situation by risking a far worse situation.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3132
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by AuxBatOn »

GRK2 wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:01 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:36 pm
Sharklasers wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 3:31 pm


Someone had better let Airbus and Boeing know that AuxBatOn has it all figured out and they should rewrite their Aircraft Operating manuals on this particular issue. These instructions were written in Canadian blood too.


Airbus had published flight operations briefing notes on bounce recovery and rejected landings in May 2005. The briefing notes, in part, emphasized an FCOM statement that the flight crew is committed to a full-stop landing after selecting reverse thrust because of the possibility of system damage when reverse thrust is canceled while the reversers are in transit to the deployed configuration. “The information further states that thrust asymmetry resulting from one thrust reverser failing to restow has led to instances of significantly reduced rates of climb or departure from controlled flight,”


Boeing
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific ... Flight_314
Then if the AFM or other regulatory literature says no then don’t do it. It was more a general comment, yes, in a thread where a 737 had an accident, about a lot of times, people not seeing all options available to them. Perhaps it is not applicable in this case but it may be in other cases.

I didn’t realize that thrust reversers were so unreliable that there was a warning in Airbus’ FCOM about a possible asymmetric configuration when stowing them. The only airplane with thrust reversers I flew, we could deploy them airborne on all engines to steepen the descent. I guess I assumed if they were reliable enough to do this, they would be reliable enough to stow on a go-around.
So that would be either the B707 or DC 8 50 series right? As far as memory serves those were the only two jets that were allowed to be handled with reversers deployed while airborne. (And only in the descent phase and even then it was only numbers 2 & 3 engines) I also suggest you have a look at the PWA B737 Cranbrook crash to see why once deployed on the ground you STAY on the ground.
C-17.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3132
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by AuxBatOn »

iflyforpie wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:09 pm
The TSB and NTSB have overwhelmingly recommended staying on the ground and accepting a runway overrun rather than attempting a go around from the runway in any high performance aircraft.

Here’s a good example of why you shouldn’t. What’s sad is that the data said they would have left the runway surface at between 23 and 37 knots... coming to a stop within the 1000 feet of grassy runway overrun. Though the aircraft was incorrectly configured for the go around (another risk of doing a quick go around on the runways as precious tarmac is eaten up) the aircraft manufacturer said it wouldn’t have mattered.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... AR1101.pdf

Sometimes the biggest risk isn’t committing to a landing.. but refusing to accept a known but contained bad situation by risking a far worse situation.
I’ll disagree with you (and the NTSB in this case). If your aircraft can takeoff on 5,000 ft from 0 kts and you know you won’t make it at the 6K marker, I would go around in a heart beat, if you can conduct a touch and go from (not necessarily in) the landing config. Next time I have sim time in a transport-category jet aircraft, I’ll give it a try.

At least I learned a couple of things today.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

User avatar
George Taylor
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 123
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:21 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by George Taylor »

Auxbat,I learned you know a lot about nothing and just like to pontificate. No need to respond, you already proved your ignorance in your previous post.
---------- ADS -----------
  

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3132
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by AuxBatOn »

George Taylor wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:31 pm
Auxbat,I learned you know a lot about nothing and just like to pontificate. No need to respond, you already proved your ignorance in your previous post.
Thanks George. I am sorry you feel that way!
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

GoinVertical
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:12 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by GoinVertical »

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:18 pm
iflyforpie wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:09 pm
The TSB and NTSB have overwhelmingly recommended staying on the ground and accepting a runway overrun rather than attempting a go around from the runway in any high performance aircraft.

Here’s a good example of why you shouldn’t. What’s sad is that the data said they would have left the runway surface at between 23 and 37 knots... coming to a stop within the 1000 feet of grassy runway overrun. Though the aircraft was incorrectly configured for the go around (another risk of doing a quick go around on the runways as precious tarmac is eaten up) the aircraft manufacturer said it wouldn’t have mattered.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... AR1101.pdf

Sometimes the biggest risk isn’t committing to a landing.. but refusing to accept a known but contained bad situation by risking a far worse situation.
I’ll disagree with you (and the NTSB in this case). If your aircraft can takeoff on 5,000 ft from 0 kts and you know you won’t make it at the 6K marker, I would go around in a heart beat, if you can conduct a touch and go from (not necessarily in) the landing config. Next time I have sim time in a transport-category jet aircraft, I’ll give it a try.

At least I learned a couple of things today.
Is your takeoff performance published with full landing flaps?

Let's say you can take off in 5000 feet, with full flaps, and you have a 7000 foot runway. You touch down at 1000', and you get on the brakes and reversers deployed by 1500'... you have 500' to make a decision? How long do reverses take to stow? How much distance does that use?

Not to mention that there aren't many non-military airports around with signage showing runway length remaining...

There is a reason that the recommendation is to commit to the landing once you've thrown the anchors out...

CF18 or something with gobs of power is a different story, I'm sure.
---------- ADS -----------
  

co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3588
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by co-joe »

You guys are so quick to make attack personal here. aux gave opinion. He doesn't know what the 738 FCOM or FCTM say. Attack what he says but going after the guy personally, is rude, albeit pretty typical Avcan behaviour.

FYI this is what Boeing says:

"WARNING:
After the reverse thrust levers are moved to the
reverse detent, a full stop landing must be made.
If an engine stays in reverse, safe flight is not
possible."
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by co-joe on Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3132
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by AuxBatOn »

GoinVertical wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:34 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:18 pm
iflyforpie wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:09 pm
The TSB and NTSB have overwhelmingly recommended staying on the ground and accepting a runway overrun rather than attempting a go around from the runway in any high performance aircraft.

Here’s a good example of why you shouldn’t. What’s sad is that the data said they would have left the runway surface at between 23 and 37 knots... coming to a stop within the 1000 feet of grassy runway overrun. Though the aircraft was incorrectly configured for the go around (another risk of doing a quick go around on the runways as precious tarmac is eaten up) the aircraft manufacturer said it wouldn’t have mattered.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... AR1101.pdf

Sometimes the biggest risk isn’t committing to a landing.. but refusing to accept a known but contained bad situation by risking a far worse situation.
I’ll disagree with you (and the NTSB in this case). If your aircraft can takeoff on 5,000 ft from 0 kts and you know you won’t make it at the 6K marker, I would go around in a heart beat, if you can conduct a touch and go from (not necessarily in) the landing config. Next time I have sim time in a transport-category jet aircraft, I’ll give it a try.

At least I learned a couple of things today.
Is your takeoff performance published with full landing flaps?

Let's say you can take off in 5000 feet, with full flaps, and you have a 7000 foot runway. You touch down at 1000', and you get on the brakes and reversers deployed by 1500'... you have 500' to make a decision? How long do reverses take to stow? How much distance does that use?

Not to mention that there aren't many non-military airports around with signage showing runway length remaining...

There is a reason that the recommendation is to commit to the landing once you've thrown the anchors out...

CF18 or something with gobs of power is a different story, I'm sure.
Even if it is not published, you can always throw the flaps to the proper configuration. Admittedly, this is something I assume is not done regularly during currency training so perhaps my biaises are showing... I rehearsed this in sims regularly and measured the distance from 50 kts to airborne in several conditions...

Just a honest question: what do you do if you experience a brake failure after you deploy the thrust reversers? Ride it out?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

GoinVertical
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:12 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by GoinVertical »

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:43 pm
Just a honest question: what do you do if you experience a brake failure after you deploy the thrust reversers? Ride it out?
Apply the emergency / parking brake that uses a different hydraulic system than the regular brakes.
---------- ADS -----------
  

AuxBatOn
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3132
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:13 pm
Location: North America, sometimes

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by AuxBatOn »

GoinVertical wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:48 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:43 pm
Just a honest question: what do you do if you experience a brake failure after you deploy the thrust reversers? Ride it out?
Apply the emergency / parking brake that uses a different hydraulic system than the regular brakes.
I mean, total brake failure. Or is it something with 3+ levels of contingency?
---------- ADS -----------
  
Going for the deck at corner

cjet
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 4:26 pm
Location: yyc

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by cjet »

AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:43 pm
GoinVertical wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:34 pm
AuxBatOn wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 4:18 pm


I’ll disagree with you (and the NTSB in this case). If your aircraft can takeoff on 5,000 ft from 0 kts and you know you won’t make it at the 6K marker, I would go around in a heart beat, if you can conduct a touch and go from (not necessarily in) the landing config. Next time I have sim time in a transport-category jet aircraft, I’ll give it a try.

At least I learned a couple of things today.
Is your takeoff performance published with full landing flaps?

Let's say you can take off in 5000 feet, with full flaps, and you have a 7000 foot runway. You touch down at 1000', and you get on the brakes and reversers deployed by 1500'... you have 500' to make a decision? How long do reverses take to stow? How much distance does that use?

Not to mention that there aren't many non-military airports around with signage showing runway length remaining...

There is a reason that the recommendation is to commit to the landing once you've thrown the anchors out...

CF18 or something with gobs of power is a different story, I'm sure.
Even if it is not published, you can always throw the flaps to the proper configuration. Admittedly, this is something I assume is not done regularly during currency training so perhaps my biaises are showing... I rehearsed this in sims regularly and measured the distance from 50 kts to airborne in several conditions...

Just a honest question: what do you do if you experience a brake failure after you deploy the thrust reversers? Ride it out?
Yes
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”