Northwestern Airlease accident Nov 27 Fort Smith

[armchair]

Here's one scary accident that no one noticed or talked about here in the past few days, perhaps because it happened way up North and there were only 4 passengers on board... ( from Nov 27 cadors...):

PLR 734, a BAe Jetstream 31 with 6 people on board and operated by Northwestern Air Lease, was landing on Runway 29 at Fort Smith after a flight from Hay River when the left wing hit the runway. Initial information from TSB is that the left main gear was torn off, as was the left wing tip and the left prop was damaged. A fuel spill also resulted. It was reported that this was the crew's second approach to land in foggy conditions. There were no injuries. TSB is currently assessing whether to conduct a Class 3 investigation. TSB reported that the Northwestern Air Lease British Aerospace Jetstream 3112 was on the second approach onto Runway 29 at Fort Smith after an unsuccessful first approach on Runway 11. The aircraft descended out of cloud at about 400 feet AGL in a right wing low attitude. The crew rolled the aircraft to the left and impacted the runway with the left hand main gear and wingtip, collapsing the left hand gear and damaging the wing and left hand propeller. There were no injuries to the 2 crew and 4 passengers.


"Second approach to land in foggy conditions..."
"Second approach onto runway 29 after an unsuccesful first approach on runway 11..."
"impacted the runway with the left hand main gear and wingtip, collapsing the left hand gear and damaging the wing and left hand propeller"...

OK... who's going to comment on this beauty first?

[Flying Nutcracker]

Not me! Wasn't there.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The PC crowd might be offended.

[Doc]

I don't do second approaches unless it's really obvious I'll get in, because I didn't get the first one right. If I miss once, I'm off to my alternate. I'd like to see the stats on accidents that occur after a second approach vs. a first approach.

Not saying these guys did anything wrong. It's just second approaches can jump up and bite you in the ass....

[chancellor]

With respect to the second approach and using the approach on the opposite end, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Sounds like they may have tried a liitle hard to get in and land but there is only two people that know the cicumstances of that.

[Doc]

[quote="chancellor"]With respect to the second approach and using the approach on the opposite end, I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Sounds like they may have tried a liitle hard to get in and land........

That's the "trap" many fall into doing a second approach. They "try" harder. That'll "get" you way too often....

[Donald]

Get-home-itis?

Curious if they use SCDA approach planning for non precision approaches.

Too bad for NWAL, I think it's their second w/o Jetstream in the last couple years? Hopefully the folks involved are ok.

[KAG]

I've done second approaches if I felt the condition was short term or improving. I've also gone home after one attempt. Depends on the situation. There is nothing wrong with flying a second approach to mins as long as you’re not exceeding any limits and you have plenty of gas.
I would be very careful though flying a second approach in MDT icing - you may be in for a nasty surprise in the flare.

[trey kule]

I don't do second approaches unless it's really obvious I'll get in, because I didn't get the first one right. If I miss once, I'm off to my alternate. I'd like to see the stats on accidents that occur after a second approach vs. a first approach

I agree with KAG. Sometimes you miss because you get a little out of profile, or some other reason unrelated to Wx, and I see nothing wrong with a second approach in these circumstances. Having said that, it is also acceptable to go off to the alternate if you feel all was well and the world was not were it was supposed to be at minimums. I simply think this is not a good idea to have a hard rule unless you are never, and I mean not once, going to attempt a second approach.
Once you do the missed you can have a chat about the situation and make a determination.

And this is not a criticism of your one approach philosophy, just an alternate view.

[young grasshopper]

I'll do another approach if I've briefed it in the approach briefing...If we've briefed it already (One approach or two), it means that we've had lots of time to think about our fuel situation, alternate wx, approach minimums for all runways, etc. If it hasn't been discussed in advance; you're taking chances that are unnecessary. Of course there are always exceptions that can be made (ie - SKC weather and then a speci that comes out)...but I think its a good rule to follow. And nope - not trying to guess as to what this crew did or did not do - I know a couple of great guys from NWAL who are very capable and smart folks. Just glad to hear that everyone was OK.

[Flying Low]

If the weather is way down and I see nothing on a properly flown first approach I don't bother trying again. On the other hand...if I see the field in the missed or I know the weather is right around minimums I will often try the approach to the other end (winds permitting of course). I did this the other day in YPL...ceiling was 500' (mins are 506 and 514 I think). I did the approach onto 09 and only saw the field looking straight down as we went over so I did the approach onto 27 and had the field 3-4 miles back.

It's not about trying harder. Fly the approach as published everytime. If you see it...great...otherwise go elsewhere!

[Tim]

It's not about trying harder. Fly the approach as published everytime. If you see it...great...otherwise go elsewhere!

simple yet elegant

+1

[hawkerdriver]

Agree.

[55+]

"Curious if they use SCDA approach planning for non precision approaches..."

well......... if the vis was less that 1 sm on that particular time, the question has been answered as to why the a/c hit the runway

[swordfish]

When the weather is poor at Fort Smith, it is not unusual to be able to get in from an approach on 29 as the weather seems to always be worse to the Northwest. Additionally, the approach on 11 is not lined up with the runway, and requires you to turn about a mile or so back.

However, we would usually try the approach on 11 when approaching from Yellowknife or Hay River as a matter of convenience, and if that didn't pan out, the overshoot would set you up for a full procedure on 29.

Doc, sometimes I wonder about the comments you make:

That's the "trap" many fall into doing a second approach. They "try" harder. That'll "get" you way too often....

The guys who fly in this part of the world are professionals, and follow a procedure with discipline; depending on the circumstances of the first approach, and the briefing, you may elect to do another ...or another...till you get it right, rather than go to your alternate (Fort Chip) where there is no access to the terminal building after hours - in windy and cold conditions, difficulty in refueling, accommodation is 4 miles away, and generally a pig of a place to end up simply because it's your legal alternate.

[Tim]

rather than go to your alternate (Fort Chip) where there is no access to the terminal building after hours - in windy and cold conditions, difficulty in refueling, accommodation is 4 miles away, and generally a pig of a place to end up simply because it's your legal alternate.

That should have absolutly NO bearing on whether or not you try multiple appchs, indeed that is all part of the 'trap'

[raven54]

Just make your own minimums, in my case, the ground...works every time!!!

[armchair]

rather than go to your alternate (Fort Chip) where there is no access to the terminal building after hours - in windy and cold conditions, difficulty in refueling, accommodation is 4 miles away, and generally a pig of a place to end up simply because it's your legal alternate.

That should have absolutly NO bearing on whether or not you try multiple appchs, indeed that is all part of the 'trap'

Very good comment from Tim... that is exactly the mentality that must be erradicated... "I'll keep trying til I get it right because the alternate sucks in terms of convenience." If the alternate is a "pig of a place" and pilots of an operator will do anything they can to avoid it, then you have a major hazard within that operation, and it should be addressed immediately. There are many options to address going to a "pig of place" , and make it an acceptable part of flying up there.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

was on the second approach onto Runway 29 at Fort Smith after an unsuccessful first approach on Runway 11. The aircraft descended out of cloud at about 400 feet AGL in a right wing low attitude. The crew rolled the aircraft to the left and impacted the runway with the left hand main gear and wingtip, collapsing the left hand gear and damaging the wing and left hand propeller.

This was their third approach and if it descended out of cloud at 400 feet could it have been an icing problem that caused it to roll to an attitude that dragged a wing?

Multiple approaches are not dangerous as long as you have sufficient fuel and follow the approach procedures. However icing can change the picture real fast.

[snoopy]

I would be very reluctant to conduct a second approach to the same runway, unless there was something wrong with the way the first approach had been flown. Too easy to induce pressure on the crew to do something stupid like "dip down". Also fuel is a precious commodity in the north and it often seems you can't cram enough in the machine when alternates are few and far between - why waste options.

However, what is wrong with doing a second approach to a different runway if fuel state and conditions at the alternate are no factor? I agree with the statement that often the weather can be different at opposite ends of the approach - often due to terrain features or even ragged ceiling conditions, weather on the approach could potentially be higher at one end versus the other. Also, in some cases, especially where wind is no factor, the published minimums might be better on one approach and not the other.

To be fair in questioning this crew's decision, one would have to ask them "why" they conducted the second approach. Unless icing or some weird mechanical failure was a factor, it sounds like the aircraft simply wasn't under proper control - resulting in ground contact.

It would be interesting to know the minimums on both approaches - anyone got a plate handy?

"The aircraft descended out of cloud at about 400 feet AGL in a right wing low attitude. The crew rolled the aircraft to the left and impacted the runway with the left hand main gear and wingtip...

One wonders how a correction of a right wing low attitude recognized upon breaking out at 400' could result in a left wing impact. Were they really at 400' AGL with runway visual or were they at an abnormally high rate of descent?

Just my two cents...

Cheers,
Snoopy

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Well one thing for sure something went very wrong.

[Liquid Charlie]

Seems to me what happened is indicative of a turn to get back on centre line or a correction for overshooting the centre line - so good to hear all were OK

[MaximumAmazing]

It's an offset approach they were probably turing to gain the center line when they got visual. Soon enough the new approach ban will say North of 70

[55+]

It's an offset approach they were probably turing to gain the center line when they got visual. Soon enough the new approach ban will say North of 70

That approach procedure meets the straight-in alignment as specified in TP-308 - Criteria for the Development of Instrument Approach Procedures, specifically Chapter 4.

[Tim]

Just wanted to clarify my opinion on swordfish's post. I agree with all, up until the point I had quoted and posted. I agree there is NOTHING wrong with multiple appchs, providing all factors are taken in to considerations PRIOR to attempt one (or at the very least attempt 2). I've been on non-precision appches where the wx suddenly drops below mins. In fact one in particular stays with me when I HAD the lights, started the transition to land, got well below MDA and lost the lights. Overshot, came around to the opposite end of the runway for an ILS and made it with plenty of room to spare. Nothing wrong with the go around and coming back for the ILS, providing you fly it by the book. However, the unfortunate hassle (sic?) of an alternate should NOT be factored into the decision about whether or not to go to it. On the runway at a shitty alternate is better than than in the trees at the planned destination.

regarding this incident...glad the worst was a broken airframe, and I try make it a policy to never second guess the decisions made on the fly, as it were. I've made some dumb ones myself.