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

User avatar
brooks
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:33 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by brooks »

Is it just me or does Halifax have a rate of incidences/accidents as of late? I can recall a 747 going off the end on rwy 14 last year or something?
---------- ADS -----------
 
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by altiplano »

YYZatcboy wrote: Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:20 pm
Eric Janson wrote: Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:17 am Just for my curiosity:-

Does dispatch not look at landing distance as part of the pre-departure paperwork?

Is there a requirement to compute landing distance at Canadian carriers?

My company uses the airbus flysmart software - very easy to use. Boeing must have something similar - I was using a laptop for Performance on the 757 in 2001.

Yes Dispatch in Canada (or the PIC) does but remember for landing performance the only numbers are Dry/Wet, unlike for takeoff where we have contamination levels.

Getting updated RSCs can be like pulling teeth at most airports in Canada. We often get the "nothing has changed so there is no requirement to provide an update" speech. Then when we insist the conditions are often markedly worse.
What do you mean the only numbers you have for landing are dry/wet?

Maybe you should tell management to $pring for the tools and data for you to do your jobs safely.

Maybe leak it to CBC anonymously that you aren't provided with data for landing on winter runway conditions if that's indeed what you're saying.
---------- ADS -----------
 
YYZatcboy
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 81
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:12 pm
Location: CYYC

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by YYZatcboy »

altiplano wrote: Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:35 pm
YYZatcboy wrote: Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:20 pm
Eric Janson wrote: Mon Jan 06, 2020 3:17 am Just for my curiosity:-

Does dispatch not look at landing distance as part of the pre-departure paperwork?

Is there a requirement to compute landing distance at Canadian carriers?

My company uses the airbus flysmart software - very easy to use. Boeing must have something similar - I was using a laptop for Performance on the 757 in 2001.

Yes Dispatch in Canada (or the PIC) does but remember for landing performance the only numbers are Dry/Wet, unlike for takeoff where we have contamination levels.

Getting updated RSCs can be like pulling teeth at most airports in Canada. We often get the "nothing has changed so there is no requirement to provide an update" speech. Then when we insist the conditions are often markedly worse.
What do you mean the only numbers you have for landing are dry/wet?

Maybe you should tell management to $pring for the tools and data for you to do your jobs safely.

Maybe leak it to CBC anonymously that you aren't provided with data for landing on winter runway conditions if that's indeed what you're saying.
As I said PRIOR TO DISPATCH (The question was "Does dispatch not look at landing distance as part of the pre-departure paperwork?") the only LEGAL numbers are for DRY/WET. This is the Dispatch Landing Field Length. The Inflight factored landing distance calculation can include contamination levels and different runway contaminants. But that is not the LEGAL dispatch field length prior to takeoff. Good airmanship of course dictates that contamination levels be taken into account prior to dispatch but that is NOT part of the Dispatch landing field length. We provide data in a Takeoff and landing report that has both sets of numbers, but again the legal ones for the Dispatch landing field length is only Dry/Wet.

I will grant that my post could have been clearer above.

Below are the relevant CAR/CASS references:
Dispatch Limitations: Landing at Destination and Alternate Aerodromes
* 705.60 (1) Subject to subsection (3), no person shall dispatch or conduct a take-off in an aeroplane unless
* (a) the weight of the aeroplane on landing at the destination aerodrome will allow a full-stop landing
* (i) in the case of a turbo-jet-powered aeroplane, within 60 per cent of the landing distance available (LDA), or
* (ii) in the case of a propeller-driven aeroplane, within 70 per cent of the landing distance available (LDA); and
* (b) the weight of the aeroplane on landing at the alternate aerodrome will allow a full-stop landing
* (i) in the case of a turbo-jet-powered aeroplane, within 60 per cent of the landing distance available (LDA), and
* (ii) in the case of a propeller-driven aeroplane, within 70 per cent of the landing distance available (LDA).
* (2) In determining whether an aeroplane can be dispatched or a take-off can be conducted in accordance with subsection (1), the following shall be taken into account:
* (a) the pressure-altitude at the destination aerodrome and at the alternate aerodrome;
* (b) not more than 50 per cent of the reported headwind component or not less than 150 per cent of the reported tailwind component; and
* (c) that the aeroplane must be landed on a suitable runway, considering the wind speed and direction, the ground handling characteristics of the aeroplane, and other conditions such as landing aids and terrain.
* (3) Where conditions at the destination aerodrome at the time of take-off do not permit compliance with paragraph (2)(c), an aeroplane may be dispatched and a take-off conducted if the alternate aerodrome designated in the operational flight plan permits, at the time of take-off, compliance with paragraph (1)(b) and subsection (2).
Dispatch Limitations: Wet Runway — Turbo-jet-powered Aeroplanes
* 705.61 (1) Subject to subsection (2), when weather reports or forecasts indicate that the runway may be wet at the estimated time of arrival, no air operator shall dispatch or conduct a take-off in a turbo-jet-powered aeroplane unless the landing distance available (LDA) at the destination aerodrome is at least 115 per cent of the landing distance required pursuant to paragraph 705.60(1)(a).
* (2) The landing distance available on a wet runway may be shorter than that required by subsection (1), but not shorter than that required by section 705.60, if the aircraft flight manual includes specific information about landing distances on wet runways.

745.61 Dispatch Limitations: Wet Runway - Turbo-Jet-Powered Aeroplanes

R745.61(2) - Dispatch Limitations - Wet Runway
A runway is deemed to be wet when there is sufficient moisture on its surface to cause it to be reflective. In this case, additional landing distances, required for dispatch, must be available. Most AFMs do not contain wet runway landing distances. Should an air operator wish relief from the 115% requirement, wet runway landing distances must be demonstrated to Transport Canada in accordance with a test program approved by Transport Canada.
If a flight has been planned to a dry destination and unforeseen precipitation makes the planned runway wet, the flight can continue so long as the aeroplane can stop on the runway available plus 15 percent.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
valleyboy
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 641
Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 4:05 am
Contact:

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by valleyboy »

Jeezus such a long thread with so much dissection to a simple overrun which will boil down to a basic chain of events. Seems that everyone wants to armchair quarterback events when there is an incident no matter how small it is. Decision making and human factors is the weakest link in aviation now. Even the max disasters would have been prevented if the human factor in pilot decision making had made the correct choices. The true tragic factor was the short comings of crew training. It was manageable if they had been given the information and training. Ironically everything falls to the lowest common denominator. Atlas is another example.

We can quote procedures and rules but crew actions at the event horizon still and will always dictate the outcome until aircraft become fully automated.
---------- ADS -----------
 
L39Guy
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 10:04 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by L39Guy »

brooks wrote: Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:49 pm Is it just me or does Halifax have a rate of incidences/accidents as of late? I can recall a 747 going off the end on rwy 14 last year or something?
Yes, Halifax does seem to have an abnormally high number of incidents, some their fault, some not.
- the cargo aircraft that crashed during take-off using the Boeing performance laptop using the wrong figures, not their fault.
- the recent cargo aircraft that ran off the runway with a quartering tailwind; not their fault.
- the AC A320 that landed short, CYHZ and NAV CANADA partially at fault for inadequate runway lighting (the former) and a lack of an ILS (the latter) at an airport with a lot of crappy weather.

This whole thread is really making a mountain out of a molehill. Given the weather conditions, runway conditions, etc that airline pilots have to deal with in this country, having the nosewheel go off the end of a runway at 5 kts is really not a big deal.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ReserveTank
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:32 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by ReserveTank »

Just because the desination is technically dispatchable doesn't mean that you can land there. In an earlier post, someone stated that dispatch is predicated on dry/wet, which is correct. Snow/slush/wet ice is NOT taken into account for the dispatch requirement. It is incumbent on the crew to understand what is going on at the destination field. If there has been no field condition report and it is or has been snowing/sleeting/other, you need to know the clearing status. It needs to be in progress and making positive changes. You also should run numbers, if possible, for the expected conditions.

We ran into this issue preparing for a flight to a different airport, and we were getting the pressure to board and push. The conditions were similar, right down to the length of the suitable runway.

Field length: 7800'
Condition: SN/MEDIUM/3
Dispatch # for wet: 5250'
Calculated: With TR: 6900'/Without TR: 8900'

As you can see, perfectly dispatch-able, but we said no go, because the TR credit still puts us near the end. Any TR issue, and it's an overrun. Plow some more, we said. About 2 hours into a 4 hour delay, we received an ACARS saying that an A319 had just spun 180 while entering the rwy for backtracking, but stayed on the surface. Company dispatch to this airport was halted until a better surface condition report was released.

At the hotel, I talked to a captain of another airline that was supposed to go to YHZ. They declined to go due to lack of good info at the field, then of course, they heard about the Westjet overrun.

The point is this:

Don't allow dispatch to push you out unless you have a good idea of what's going on at the destination. As a general rule in the airline world, weekends are often staffed by the "B team," which means that things are going to happen slower and with a lesser degree of care, snow removal included. You need to be vigilant and understand that dispatch-ability by no means translates to ability to land. It's a tool to get the flight out under the premise that work will be done by the time your flight arrives. But if the work isn't happening then it makes no sense to depart, only to go to your performance alternate. Run the numbers!
---------- ADS -----------
 
BGH
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by BGH »

Not related to the overrun but related to dispatch reliability from an airline captain friend of mine;
He was on his way out in a 737-200 & upon reviewing the dispatch info found that he was 8000 lbs light on fuel & requested the fuel be put on board before he would allow pushback - dispatch told him he was wrong & get going or he was going to lose his job.He told them that he was going to stand on the brakes & let them rip off the nosewheel because he didn’t have the fuel for the trip & it would be his ass;not theirs if he left without enough fuel for the trip.
Long story longer they relented to get the flight out but notified the head of flight operations that they wanted him made an example of for others.
Head of operations meets my buddy at the gate sometime really early in the morning & asks him how he’s feeling & then proceeds to tell him that if he didn’t have a really f’ng reason that he would be looking for a new job.He hands the guy the dispatch calculations & sees that there wasn’t enough fuel on board for the flight - dispatch hounded him at home for days to change his story to save the dispatchers jobs;he kept his job but checked every piece of info they ever gave him after that & found many errors such as an alternate that everyone else was using when heading to Europe in a 767,turns out it hadn’t reported any weather in almost a week.

Daryl
---------- ADS -----------
 
GoinVertical
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:12 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by GoinVertical »

Again, does anyone have 737-800 performance numbers handy?

Even using just the performance charts from the book it would be nice to have a ballpark number given the conditions to see how much wiggle room there was.

Does WestJet have the tablet on board that spits out performance data a la Encore?
---------- ADS -----------
 
A346Dude
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by A346Dude »

BGH wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2020 6:46 pm Not related to the overrun but related to dispatch reliability from an airline captain friend of mine;
He was on his way out in a 737-200 & upon reviewing the dispatch info found that he was 8000 lbs light on fuel & requested the fuel be put on board before he would allow pushback - dispatch told him he was wrong & get going or he was going to lose his job.He told them that he was going to stand on the brakes & let them rip off the nosewheel because he didn’t have the fuel for the trip & it would be his ass;not theirs if he left without enough fuel for the trip.
Long story longer they relented to get the flight out but notified the head of flight operations that they wanted him made an example of for others.
Head of operations meets my buddy at the gate sometime really early in the morning & asks him how he’s feeling & then proceeds to tell him that if he didn’t have a really f’ng reason that he would be looking for a new job.He hands the guy the dispatch calculations & sees that there wasn’t enough fuel on board for the flight - dispatch hounded him at home for days to change his story to save the dispatchers jobs;he kept his job but checked every piece of info they ever gave him after that & found many errors such as an alternate that everyone else was using when heading to Europe in a 767,turns out it hadn’t reported any weather in almost a week.
Sounds like a shoddy operator that probably went out of business long ago. This story is not representative of the relationship between dispatch and crew of any reputable airline in Canada.
---------- ADS -----------
 
indieadventurer
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 274
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 7:59 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by indieadventurer »

WestJet doesn’t use tablet data for takeoff or landing calculations. They utilize AeroData through ACARS.

Regardless of whether it’s done through Boeing OPT on a tablet or through their method is irrelevant as both should provide the same numbers. Do keep in mind OPT will give you the 15% factored numbers, whereas AeroData, I think they do not include that factor.

Anyway, I ran it with good to medium braking and it was close with max auto brake around 7000 ft but had to make numerous assumptions.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4815
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by pelmet »

daedalusx wrote: Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:52 pm Heavy tailwind/gust
Shitty runway surface condition
Shitty visibility and ceiling
On a -800 which doesn’t have the greatest reputation for its braking/landing performance
And they landed on the shortest runway ...

It doesn’t look like they tried to hold and wait, they just went straight for gusto. 15min before them there was an AC321 that diverted back to YUL, they didn’t even try doing the approach - you’d think it would have clued them in.

What the fu.ck where they thinking?
Got this info from another forum...…

From the tower tapes at liveatc.net and FlightRadar24, C-FUJR, a B-738, 172 pax plus 6 crew, no injuries, no visible damage.

Weather around the time of the accident:

CYHZ 051549Z 01016G27KT 1/2SM R14/5000FT/N SN OVC002 M00/M00 A2912 RMK ST8 SLP869

ILS to 14, tower winds 010/14G22, RVR's 3500, then 4500 then 4000



Seems kind of worriesome for a runway excursion both laterally and off the end of the runway. Wet snow.

Remember, those tower winds are averaged over a certain time period.
---------- ADS -----------
 
BGH
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 206
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by BGH »

A346 Dude;

Post was about dispatch giving you as much information as they had - in the earlier days some at dispatch thought they ran the airline.
First incident was PWA in the early 70's,second incident was CAI.
You are right though both have long disappeared.

Daryl
---------- ADS -----------
 
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1850
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by goingnowherefast »

So it's not regulation to account for runway contamination on takeoff or landing? Surprised we're not running planes off the end of runways daily all winter long.

Altitude, temperature, wind and aircraft weight, all good to go. Oh, and there's 2" of slush, lets go flying! Glad TC lives in their own special little world and not reality (sarcasm) :rolleyes:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Capt. Underpants
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 287
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 5:04 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by Capt. Underpants »

No one said that. Sheesh.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Eric Janson
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1019
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by Eric Janson »

Can someone please answer my previous question:-

Is there a requirement at Canadian Airlines to compute the landing distance prior to commencing approach?

This is mandatory under EASA and we have to write both the required and the factored landing distance (115%) on the CFP.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
altiplano
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4163
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:24 pm

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by altiplano »

It's not mandated by TC.

At my airline it's fleet dependant.
Some every landing. Some only under certain conditions ie. strip under 8000', or contam, or tailwind, or, or, etc, etc.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ZBBYLW
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:28 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by ZBBYLW »

On my fleet it’s required anytime the runway is less than 7,000 feet, the pressure altitude is >7,000, runway is contaminated or you have a tailwind. I’ve got in the habit of doing it every leg, but it’s not required.
---------- ADS -----------
 
ReserveTank
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 6:32 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by ReserveTank »

Eric Janson wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:04 am Can someone please answer my previous question:-

Is there a requirement at Canadian Airlines to compute the landing distance prior to commencing approach?

This is mandatory under EASA and we have to write both the required and the factored landing distance (115%) on the CFP.
I was looking for this as well. It may be individually mandated by each company's ops manual. My company requires a calculation by top of descent for actual conditions no matter what.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2182
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by mbav8r »

Eric Janson wrote: Fri Jan 10, 2020 3:04 am Can someone please answer my previous question:-

Is there a requirement at Canadian Airlines to compute the landing distance prior to commencing approach?

This is mandatory under EASA and we have to write both the required and the factored landing distance (115%) on the CFP.
This is from 2005 after the Air France runway overrun, however the current CARS only reference wet runway for dispatch, it appears the recommended updates have been delayed several times since then but should be published with the gazette this year, barring anymore unforeseen delays.

“In summary, when these amendments to the CARs come into force, CAR 705 air operators and their flight crews will be required to determine that sufficient landing distance is available prior to conducting an approach to land, taking into consideration the condition of the runway surface (dry, damp, wet, or contaminated) resulting from deteriorating weather.”

TSB reassessment of Transport Canada's response to Recommendation A07-05 (February 2019)

To date, the following actions have been taken by Transport Canada (TC) to address the safety deficiency identified in Recommendation A07-05, regarding aircraft landing distance considerations in deteriorating weather:

Since 1999, TC has issued 5 Notices of Proposed Amendment addressing aircraft performance on wet and contaminated runways.
In 2018, TC published Civil Aviation Safety Alert (CASA) No. 2018-08, Operation with Aeroplanes Utilizing Take-off and Landing Performance Assessment (TALPA)-Based Performance Information to Calculate Landing Distance. In the short term, this initiative should help raise the awareness of flight crews, flight dispatchers and air operators of hazards associated with operation on contaminated runways.
In addition to the above actions, TC plans to publish, in 2019/2020, two Advisory Circulars on wet and contaminated runways.

However, TC has postponed the pre-publication of the proposed regulatory amendments in the Canada Gazette, Part I, several times. It now anticipates publication in the spring of 2020. Even though the new regulations may, if adopted, reduce the risk associated with the safety deficiency identified in Recommendation A07-05, the Board is very concerned by the protracted delays to enact the proposed regulations.

Since 2010, runway overruns have been part of the TSB Watchlist, which identifies the key safety issues that need to be addressed to make Canada's transportation system even safer. Until the proposed regulatory amendments are in effect, commercial air travellers in Canada continue to be exposed to the risks that gave rise to Recommendation A07-05.

Therefore, the response to Recommendation A07-05 is assessed as Satisfactory Intent.”

This being said, my company procedure is,

     Any tailwind (max. 10 kts). On any runway less than 7000 feet. When directed to by the QRH. Wet or contaminated runway. Any time a QRH Landing Distance Factor is required
---------- ADS -----------
 
"Stand-by, I'm inverted"
User avatar
Gear Jerker
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 12:48 am

Re: Westjet CYHZ

Post by Gear Jerker »

At the teal regional, mandatory using actual conditions every landing, normal or non normal. Primarily using ACARS, can also use TLR data, QRH, and will soon have an all encompassing app on our tablets.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Look, it's f***in Patrick Swayze and Reveen!
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”