Incident in YXT

northernpilot · Post by **northernpilot** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:31 am

Glad to hear everyone is ok. Terrace is nasty in a snowstorm at night.

Shouldn't the captain have been flying an approach in these conditions? Not to discredit the FO at all, I am an FO myself. But those are pretty nasty conditions, and I would think you want as much experience possible at the controls.In my company if weather is dodgey like that our SOP's call for a PMA which would have had the captain landing the airplane.

NO flaming please, just constructive comments.

Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: Commercial & Business Aviation
Narrative: Carson Air Flight CA45, a Swearingen SW3 IFR Smithers to Terrace, caught a windrow after landing on Runway 33 and went off the runway. There were no injuries. The extent of the damage is unknown. Airport operations were normal.

Date: 2009/01/27
Further Action Required: No
O.P.I.: Commercial & Business Aviation
Narrative: UPDATE from Airport Manager: Carson Air Flight CA45 (C-FKKR) landed on Runway 33 and departed the runway approximately 1780 ft down the runway on the left (West) side. The aircraft went through a 2 ft high windrow of snow, damaging the propellers on both engines. The aircraft then carried on approximately 700 ft further and about 75 ft outside the edge lights parallel to the runway before coming to a stop. There were no injuries.

User Name: Dewar, Janet
Date: 2009/01/28
Further Action Required: Yes
O.P.I.: Commercial & Business Aviation
Narrative: UPDATE / Add Info from TSB: A09P0013: The Carson Air Swearingen SA226-TC aircraft, C-FKKR, operating as CA45, was landing on runway 33 at Terrace after a flight from Smithers. The runway was snow covered, with snow depth increasing on both sides of the centre line. Visibility was varying between 1/2 to 5/8 mile in falling snow, and the wind was 010/04 knots. The F/O was PF. At touchdown, directional control was lost and the aircraft went off the west side of the runway, striking a windrow with both propellers. The aircraft sustained minor damage to the propellers. The two crew members, the only occupants, were not injured.

flyinthebug · Post by **flyinthebug** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:45 am

Northernpilot.. No flaming here. You ask a valid question.

Im glad to hear the crew is ok. It happens to the best of us in those conditions.

As for your question why would the F/O be flying?.. It was obviously a dead leg. My question back to you is, how does the F/O ever become a proficient captain, until he too has drove down to minimums in REAL life conditions? Im sure had there been 19 onboard, the skipper would have taken the reins if he felt his F/O was outside the scope of his/her abilities.

I understand your companies SOP`s calling for PMA .. It only makes sense in an emergency situation..just look at our new hero "Sully" and that crew coordination. This was simply a "training" flight and who knows why they lost directional control..The skipper and the F/O will be answering that question to their CP this morning no doubt.

It is my belief that the Captain was showing his F/O what its like in real conditions, and in a difficult area on the best of days. Glad it turned out well for all involved.. and Northernpilot, I hope that your Skipper will allow you to fly down to minimums in real life IFR conditions, under the right circumstances and you too will one day teach your F/O etc etc.

Fly safe all.

Anonymous1 · Post by **Anonymous1** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:48 am

I think you're jumping to conclusions here without having all the facts. Maybe the FO was much more experienced than the Captain...you ever think about that? Why do you automatically assume the Captain was the more proficient pilot simply because he was assigned Captain for that leg? I have flown many, many flights where I was the more experienced crew member, however due to training, line indoc, etc., I was the co-pilot.

A company with proper simulator training and check Captains should have the same standard in terms of proficiency for all crew members, regardless of position. In many instances, I find it more beneficial for the FO to handle the aircraft during minimum weather days so that I utilize my skills to monitor, rather than become absorbed in the hands and feet and lose the big picture.

flyinthebug · Post by **flyinthebug** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:56 am

Anonymous.. Whoaaaaa. The pilot just asked a question.. gesh! Cant the younger guys/gals ask questions without having someone always jump down their throats??. When I was a new F/O, I too looked up to my Captains to learn from and even with admiration. To this day, when I look on the flightdeck of a commercial flight, I expect the guy with 4 bars to be the more proficient pilot onboard. Its an assumption that maybe I shouldnt have..because I know better. But in the big picture and as it was structured.. that is how the general public (and new pilots) view the people in the c*ckpit. Sure you and I and alot of the posters on this site know what the real world is like and the bars are worth the shoulders they lay on.. but sometimes its easier to take a min and explain.. then to just jump all over them for such a stupid question.

Grab a coffee and go hold your sweetheart or something and cheer up!

Im not arguing with what you said.. its fact. Its the way you said it that concerns me.

Fly safe all.

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:21 am

flyinthebug wrote:I understand your companies SOP`s calling for PMA .. It only makes sense in an emergency situation..

Sorry you lost me on that one. Most companies operating at the 705 level that I am aware of, specify an approach has to be flown as a PMA when the weather warrants (certain vis and/or ceiling applies), not just in an emergency.

Brown Bear · Post by **Brown Bear** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:26 am

Hey FTB.....go ride your Harley!!

flying4dollars · Post by **flying4dollars** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:35 am

northernpilot wrote:Glad to hear everyone is ok. Terrace is nasty in a snowstorm at night.

Shouldn't the captain have been flying an approach in these conditions? Not to discredit the FO at all, I am an FO myself. But those are pretty nasty conditions, and I would think you want as much experience possible at the controls.In my company if weather is dodgey like that our SOP's call for a PMA which would have had the captain landing the airplane.

Visibility was varying between 1/2 to 5/8 mile in falling snow, and the wind was 010/04 knots. The F/O was PF.

Yep.

Terrace cap vis advisory for the ILS is 1mile. So if it was less than 3/4, the PMA should have been used. If it was down to 1/2 then there are other requirements needing to be met in order to land ie. the ops spec to do it, high intensity centreline lighting and certain RVR values so that you're not restricted by the approach ban.

flying4dollars · Post by **flying4dollars** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:43 am

Anonymous1 wrote:I think you're jumping to conclusions here without having all the facts. Maybe the FO was much more experienced than the Captain...you ever think about that? Why do you automatically assume the Captain was the more proficient pilot simply because he was assigned Captain for that leg? I have flown many, many flights where I was the more experienced crew member, however due to training, line indoc, etc., I was the co-pilot.

A company with proper simulator training and check Captains should have the same standard in terms of proficiency for all crew members, regardless of position. In many instances, I find it more beneficial for the FO to handle the aircraft during minimum weather days so that I utilize my skills to monitor, rather than become absorbed in the hands and feet and lose the big picture.

Are you for real!?!

It wouldn't matter if the F/O had 10,000 hours and the Captain only 2000...the fact is, if the vis was less than 75% of the plate advisory vis, then PMA has to be used. There's no asterisk that says "crews with more experienced f/o's are exempt from this rule". Remember, more experience doesn't necessarily mean more skill and knowledge. Otherwise why would the more "proficient" pilot of the two be sitting in the right seat.

Oh, most companies don't do training in those conditions, so I wouldn't even bother bringing that scenario up.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:45 am

First off flying a PMA approach has nothing to do with what happens after the airplane is on the runway therefore if is not a factor here.

For some reason the airplane went off the runway after it touched down, maybe there was a mechanical reason or maybe it was pilot error.

and the wind was 010/04 knots.

We can exclude the X/wind as a significant factor as it was even within the limits of two Seneca grads.

flyinthebug · Post by **flyinthebug** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:45 am

Donald.. I misread PMA as another acronym. My bad. Im not even sure what PMA stands for?

Brown Bear..??

Flying4dollars.. I wasnt suggesting it was an actual, scheduled, training flight. I suggested that perhaps the Skipper having to reposition back to YXT, thought it was a good opportunity to let the First Officer experience some real life conditions. I think we all can remember our first approach to mins?. I know I can. Either way, its just speculation on all our parts. I agree it wouldnt have likely been an actual "training flight" though.

Fly safe all. Im going to ride my harley in Jan

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:49 am

What does PMA mean in today's lingo as far as who is flying and when?

These arguments get real mean for some reason, who is sitting in what seat really should not be a factor in why an airplane departs a runway.

Brown Bear · Post by **Brown Bear** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:18 pm

Valid point Cat. Since the nose wheel steering (tiller) is on the captain's side only.......

ei ei owe · Post by **ei ei owe** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:27 pm

Brown Bear wrote:Valid point Cat. Since the nose wheel steering (tiller) is on the captain's side only.......

No tiller on the rig that's being talked about here!

Donald · Post by **Donald** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:35 pm

Cat Driver wrote:What does PMA mean in today's lingo as far as who is flying and when?

Well I know I shouldn't reply since Cat does indeed know what PMA stands for, and how the airlines do it. But here goes anyway...

PMA (Pilot Monitored Approach) is when the First Officer flys the approach to mins with the Captain monitoring the instruments. At mins the Captain takes control and lands or calls for a missed approach to be flown by the FO. That's just the basics, and there are some minor variations and calls that the SOP add to it.

Back to the topic at hand. As Cat pointed out, a 4 kt wind shouldn't push one off the side. So I wonder if the actual runway condition had been communicated to the crew prior to or during the approach? The Cador mentions the runway condition, but not if the crew was aware of it.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:42 pm

I don't see any mention of what time it happened, was it in darkness or daylight conditions?

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:53 pm

shitty.

onezerotenthousand · Post by **onezerotenthousand** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:02 pm

Carson Air is a 703 cargo operation in regards to metros so, there wouldn't have been passengers on board. This is the ol bag run flight Smithers, Terrace, Vancouver.
As far as PMA, approach ban and weather they should have been there in the first place, I think the company, and TC can best decide that one.
With the ol Metro, good questions are ... was the NWS armed? What was the crfi, and is reverse used was it even or / classic garret "split"
F/O as PF, = so what? Both are qualified crew members and surely both fly in all operational conditions.
I've seen a metro head for the weeds on a bare and dry blue bird day as well.

Brown Bear · Post by **Brown Bear** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:09 pm

No tiller? Never seen a Metro without a tiller. If they dinged the props, they'll be into a couple of engines, at least. They're very delicate. With that wind, they should have been able to keep it on the runway. Course,

wasn't there....pretty expensive lesson, though...

mattedfred · Post by **mattedfred** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:16 pm

i flew several metro II's for a few years and only one of them had a tiller

Brown Bear · Post by **Brown Bear** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:23 pm

mattedfred wrote:i flew several metro II's for a few years and only one of them had a tiller

I DID not know that. Learn something new every day. I've flown three, and they all had one. Bet they're into 100K for engines, though.

duckfoot · Post by **duckfoot** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:29 pm

I flew metro's for years and never came across a tiller. There are 2's with tillers but it is rare. Most metro's control the NWS through the rudder pedals.

I also know that Carson Air gives left seat rides to FO's that are coming close to an upgrade. That way they can fly from the left seat under the direction of an experienced captain before a shot gun upgrade comes up. Its not as big of a deal now but when the industry was booming last summer I bet there were a few companies that wished they had an FO that could be upgraded overnight.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:41 pm

That way they can fly from the left seat under the direction of an experienced captain before a shot gun upgrade comes up.

What is a shotgun upgrade?

I've seen a metro head for the weeds on a bare and dry blue bird day as well.

Why would any company want to operate an airplane that is that difficult to handle?

flyinthebug · Post by **flyinthebug** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 2:53 pm

Donald.. Thank you for the explanation. I truly did not know what that acronym stood for.

northernpilot · Post by **northernpilot** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:09 pm

Cat Driver wrote:I don't see any mention of what time it happened, was it in darkness or daylight conditions?

you're right...no mention of night....don't know why i read that into the report. still, though, snowy and low vis in YXT is never a cakewalk.

Brown Bear · Post by **Brown Bear** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:11 pm

A "shotgun upgrade" is when you show up at the airport, and you're IT. Either the captain phoned in sick, quit, or was eaten by sharks.

Incident in YXT

Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT

Re: Incident in YXT