Perimeter?

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 7:27 am

While I was in YWG yesterday I caught the preview on a perimeter Dash 8 that got into some trouble, anyone that was there care to fill in the blanks.

Saw on the tidbit of news something about turbulence, on the ground surrounded around by emergency vehicles.

Go Guns · Post by **Go Guns** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:09 am

There's some news online, but you need subscriptions. It sounds like the Dash 8 was on it's way back from Garden Hill and hit some nasty turbulence. Something about seatbelts coming out of their anchors and a few people having to go to the hospital.

Guest295 · Post by **Guest295** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:41 am

http://www.winnipegsun.com/News/Winnipe ... 4-sun.html

http://www.cky.com/

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/manitoba ... bad4b18b43

Plus it was on the Winnipeg local TV news for the past two days.

flyinhigh · Post by **flyinhigh** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:02 pm

Thanks guys, appreciate it

Justwannafly · Post by **Justwannafly** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:45 pm

hit some nasty turbulence. Something about seatbelts coming out of their anchors

WOW now thats some serious turbulence!!!

snowbear · Post by **snowbear** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 12:50 pm

13 Northern Manitoba residents. Each paying an inflated retail ticket price courtesy of the Canadian Taxpayer. This is a very profitable airline.

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Plus if I remember correctly, it's a combi

and most days those 13 are "buffalo", so breaking belts should be no surprise

tripleseven · Post by **tripleseven** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 1:48 pm

I looked at the rating on my seat belt the other day - 1500 lbs. Now assuming each person weighs a modest 200 lbs, that is 7.5 G's to cause a seat belt failure!! Even if they weighed 300 lbs, thats 5.0 G. Assuming there wasn't a defect in the seatbelts, has anyone considered inspecting the aircraft before sending out? Most planes doing skeds that I know of can't withstand more than about 3 G +ve.

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:08 pm

Those are sustained g's. Impact g's are a different ball of wax. Put a g meter in a 172 at your local flight school. Go back in a month and the peak g reading will probably above +8. Don't you love hard landings, and yes that exceeds the limits for a 172, that's probably why they don't have g meters. So yes they probably exceeded the g limitation on the airplane all for about an instant.

Most is not all transport category aircraft have turbulence checks that mechanics can do. Basically they looks for wrinkles in the skin and popped rivets.

300lbs may be a bit light for a couple of them. Although that's only a wild guess, the one I saw yapping on tv last night didn't look like she ever was standard weight.

ski_bum · Post by **ski_bum** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 2:28 pm

I have seen there hauls into YST, 10 people and enough old dutch and coke for the whole reserve...

Sounds like it would have been an interesting ride.

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 5:33 pm

Heard an interview today on CBC with Mark Wherle, Perimeter's ?Ops Manager? From what I understood, it wasn't the actual belts that failed, but their attachment to the seat. He was trying to paint it as a mechanical failure. Stu, S&J, care to comment to set us straight?

grimey · Post by **grimey** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 6:38 pm

ski_bum wrote:I have seen there hauls into YST, 10 people and enough old dutch and coke for the whole reserve...

Sounds like it would have been an interesting ride.

What happens if 5000 lbs worth of coke cans burst during flight?

Chantal · Post by **Chantal** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:21 pm

Not many comments about this, huh?
Snowgoose, I don't know how you missed it but the passenger yapping on tv was in fine shape and Not Injured.
I noticed she said she was praying her rosary. It is amazing how quickly God came to their aid.
I don't think a 200 feet drop is normal turbulence and so it is amazing.
That flight to YST is very turbulent, glad to see Perimeter sends their experienced pilots up there.

mellow_pilot · Post by **mellow_pilot** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:53 pm

Chantal wrote: I noticed she said she was praying her rosary. It is amazing how quickly God came to their aid.

flyinhigh wrote:Saw on the tidbit of news something about turbulence, on the ground surrounded around by emergency vehicles.

I didn't realise God was driving a fire truck these days.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I'm not at all surprised that the anchors failed, imagine the stress they see everyday. I've seen the some of the seats on old HS 748s from up north, and man are they in rough shape!

You have to figure that the fatigue damage would be high on something like that, especially if they were being used to restrain larger people constantly. I'm not sure how the seats on a Dash are, but I'm not at all surprised that one or two got missed or defered till next sched maint.

Disco Stu · Post by **Disco Stu** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:02 pm

Media is actually pretty accurate.

2 belts failed, 5 injuries. Nasty turbulence. Seat belt sign was on. Not much more I can say about it.

For the doubters, this airplane makes money. The Dash-8 is actually incredibly suited to the north, surprised it took us this long to get one.

If the airplane isn't full of passengers, it's full of freight.

Perimeter does not get into things that don't make money.

Look for more of them sporting the green tail soon.

Jerricho · Post by **Jerricho** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 11:33 pm

Please, can they at least be them 300Es so they have some sort of chance at keeping up with the Metros on final

medicineman · Post by **medicineman** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:14 pm

Anyone know the altitude the plane was flying at when they encountered the severe turbulence...just curious!

Redneck_pilot86 · Post by **Redneck_pilot86** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:07 pm

medicineman wrote:Anyone know the altitude the plane was flying at when they encountered the severe turbulence...just curious!

flyinhigh wrote:Saw on the tidbit of news something about turbulence, on the ground surrounded around by emergency vehicles.

They weren't flying

ST

tripleseven · Post by **tripleseven** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 8:13 pm

In any case, Perimeter management have been good so far at deflecting the media attention towards the failed seatbelts.

However, how did an airplane get into turbulance so severe, that 5 people were injured? WX radar not working? Not on? Not looking out the window? I was flying that day, and there was some nasty clouds of vertical development north of Winnipeg.

. ._ · Post by **. ._** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 4:16 am

hey! Chantal's back!

Other than that, I got nothin' on this topic.

-istp

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:15 am

Hey Triple Seven,

How bout this. You're flying in cloud using your radar to fly around CB's. You can't see crap out the windows. You're talking to centre asking them about what they have on radar. Suddenly you're in moderate to severe turbulence with nothing on the radar. Radar only shows you where the water is, nothing else. If something is spawning cb's and you fly through a developing storm, before it produces rain, you can have a nasty ride as well. I know because it happened to me.

Welcome back Chantal, I'm still waiting for the psycho-vac page in the middle of the night. For a while there I though someone else had gotten it.

bobcaygeon · Post by **bobcaygeon** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 7:10 am

When did wx radar start displaying turbulence/windshear???
It's hardly an exact science. Throw in the crappy radar that atc has in canada (relative to south of the border) and it's pretty much a crap shoot. Shit happens!!!

Turbulence doesn't even need cloud to hide in sometimes its just there. There was an incident about a year ago at AC Jazz where on descent thru 8000 the D8 hit CAT (clear air turbulence ) so hard it pinned the Fa to the roof knocking her unconcious, breaking her back, and splitting open her head. This with crew 25 miles back from an airport with light winds and was in sight. The flight crew didn't know what happened til a pax called them and told them their FA was lying in the aisle bleeding. She's still off work.

tripleseven · Post by **tripleseven** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:42 pm

Snowgoose wrote:Hey Triple Seven,

How bout this. You're flying in cloud using your radar to fly around CB's. You can't see crap out the windows. You're talking to centre asking them about what they have on radar. Suddenly you're in moderate to severe turbulence with nothing on the radar. Radar only shows you where the water is, nothing else. If something is spawning cb's and you fly through a developing storm, before it produces rain, you can have a nasty ride as well. I know because it happened to me.

Welcome back Chantal, I'm still waiting for the psycho-vac page in the middle of the night. For a while there I though someone else had gotten it.

You can still have a return with only water and no rain. It's only rain if it hits the ground. Plus. you said "...using your radar to fly around CB's." I've never seen a CB without rain. (Except one winter I saw one with snow.) And if there is no rain, there may be hail (wet), which gives a stronger return than rain drops. I've also never seen a TCU or ACC with no return on WX radar. And by TCU, I mean something at least 5000 feet high. Not to mention, the lightning and static in the radios and ADF's going crazy would be a good indicator that you should go in a different direction.

Also, if your flying around CB's, and can't see out the window, your too close to them. And l think flying through developing CB's before they produce rain is dumb, if you can avoid it.

To summarize, I think your theory is bullshit. You should contact Honeywell. They produce a good booklet for pilots about radar usage.

Snowgoose · Post by **Snowgoose** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 3:19 pm

Have you ever flown in IMC? I can fly around all day in cloud and not have a return. Unless you are flying over a major city and get a nice big magenta return from buildings.

ACC and TCU don't necessary produce returns. In fact I flew around a bunch yesterday. I know there's turbulence in them, just like everyone else (except you maybe). But they don't always produce returns.

bush pilot · Post by **bush pilot** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:43 pm

Snowgoose,

I agree with you, I was flying the other day and got on top of most build ups on a short flight around 15000 and the only return was from one build up off to the side around 20000 that was putting out a little rain. None of the other cb's below that were producing any returns.

That said you also have what is known as cb/acc/tcb imbedded(you are most likely IMC), which is what you have the weather radar for, but if they are not producing enough moisture(rain) to give a adequate return you will not see them or other junior cb's that have a bit of turbulence.

Perimeter?

Perimeter?

Terror on Perimeter Flight 988