Careless

[lost in the north]

O.P.I.: Commercial & Business Aviation

Narrative: Perimeter 416, a Fairchild SA-227-AC aircraft, registration C-FFJM was preparing for takeoff on Runway 01 at the Shamattawa airport with a crew of two and four passengers on board. During the initial take off roll the aircraft began to veer to the left side of the runway and the crew elected to abort the take off. The aircraft continued to veer to the left side of the runway and the left main landing gear struck two runway lights. The crew steered the aircraft back onto the runway and returned to the turn-around bay. The crew then conducted another take off and flew to Thompson without further incident. After landing in Thompson, an inspection of the aircraft revealed damage to one of the blades of the left propeller.

Would you not shut down and check for damage

[crazy_aviator]

Yes, you would IF you were intelligent enough !

[iflyforpie]

Unbelievable...

[grimey]

Well it is Shamattawa. Maybe they were being stoned or shot at?

[Northern Flyer]

Also what constitutes damage? Those aircraft go in and out of gravel strips all day long, was it just a nick in the prop? They are probably all chewed to shit on those machines.

Though, if I knew I possibly hit a runway light I think I'd check it out.

[maDDtraPPer]

You have no option to stop and look for damage. You are legally required to. If this flight crew knew they hit a runway light on take off, and then continued this flight without inspection then they are going to be on the very dirty end of a Transport Canada beating stick. If they are reading this they and haven't made a statement yet they need to stick to the statement they had no idea they hit anything.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/r ... 5g-509.htm

That aircraft would have to have been inspected by an AME and released under and AMO. The only conditions where the flight crew could inspect and then fly the plane would be under very restricted circumstances and NEVER with passengers. It would be a flight straight to the hangar for inspection.

The procedure for this situation should have been taxi back to the terminal, unload the passengers, enter the occurance into the logbook and finally call maintenance.

[lost in the north]

With sms it will go nowhere....

[maDDtraPPer]

SMS won't save them if they knew they hit the lights and took off. That constitutes a deliberate violation of the CARs and you lose your get out of jail free card.

[iflyforpie]

Also what constitutes damage? Those aircraft go in and out of gravel strips all day long, was it just a nick in the prop? They are probably all chewed to shit on those machines.

A chunk missing from a blade or tire chewed to shreds constitutes damage. You don't know until you shut down and have a look at the aircraft...

[maDDtraPPer]

Also according to Harzell anything bigger than 1/32 of an inch (if you can catch a fingernail on it) constitues damage requiring maintenance (prop dressing) and NTD "recommended". Prior to the fall of this year it was not being enforced by TC but times are changing. Welcome to the sue me world of liability.

[Doc]

I'll just toss this out there. I've given up expecting pilots to be bright enough to actually shut down and inspect anything anymore. BUT I had a rabbit go through a prop on a Metro in JFK one dark night. No damage to the prop, but we had to stay in NY for two nights while they changed the whole bloody engine. The engines are very delicate. ANY prop strike with a Garrett can be a big deal.

[boeingboy]

The engines are very delicate. ANY prop strike with a Garrett can be a big deal.

With 15 years experiance on Garrets - that statement is SO not true.

I don't know why they had to change an engine for a bunny strike - maybe they injested some of it??

I also don't know why it took so long to change the engine either. (assuming it didn't take a day and a half to get there with parts and people.)

[maDDtraPPer]

I'll second that. Time to put that old piece of Pratt propaganda to bed. The Garrett is a very robust engine especially the -10 and 12 engines. A better stateent would be that turbine engines are delicate, which they are. They are certainly not designed to injest small mammals no matter what their design and I wouldn't want to fly one that did and didn't get a tear down afterwords.
The other myth is cost. A prop strike on a Garrett is going to cost you a lot less than a PT6 despite the propaganda posted otherwise. Just because it's a "free" turbine doesn't mean your free to smack things with the prop and get away with it. In a prop strike torque translates itself to damage no matter how the engine is geared to deliver it.

[Doc]

The engines are very delicate. ANY prop strike with a Garrett can be a big deal.

With 15 years experiance on Garrets - that statement is SO not true.

I don't know why they had to change an engine for a bunny strike - maybe they injested some of it??

I also don't know why it took so long to change the engine either. (assuming it didn't take a day and a half to get there with parts and people.)

None of the bunny parts were ingested. It did take a day and a half to get the guys and parts down from Montreal. We also did an engine change after a prop struck a snowbank. No visible damage to the prop on that one either. I'm not debating Garrett vs. PT6, though. Not stopping to look for damage after an off runway excursion is the topic here. It's at very least irresponsible. If you actually KNOW you hit runway lights.................. C'Mon Man!

[BEFAN5]

I would remind everyone that this is a CADOR not an incident/accident report and that they are poorly written at the best of times. We have no idea if they shut down and inspected prior to another takeoff. There is no tower there to witness/make this report.

[Doc]

I would remind everyone that this is a CADOR not an incident/accident report and that they are poorly written at the best of times. We have no idea if they shut down and inspected prior to another takeoff. There is no tower there to witness/make this report.

Well, it they shut down and had a look, it becomes a judgement call. I wont make one, since I wasn't there.

[CpnCrunch]

Surely it's not normal to go off the edge of the runway in the first place.

[BTyyj]

The crew steered the aircraft back onto the runway and returned to the turn-around bay

Could they have done an inspection here?

From the look of the airport, at least from google maps, the only turn-around bay appears to be the actual ramp. Could that be CADORS is referring to? It's not very specific.

[trey kule]

Surely it's not normal to go off the edge of the runway in the first place

.

From what I can tell from the last few years, it seems that it is normal depending on the company.

I would think that this CADOR might have generated a visit from TC. I feel for all the other pilots, crew members, and unsuspecting pax when I read about pilots having something like this happen and then try to ignore it....The incident is not the real issue.. Pilots choosing to simply continue the trip afterwards is a huge issue.

[swordfish]

SMS won't save them if they knew they hit the lights and took off. That constitutes a deliberate violation of the CARs and you lose your get out of jail free card.

Yeah...but mercifully, they didn't speed on the way home.

[Les Habitants]

This makes me scratch my head. That's not the story I had heard, though granted I heard it second hand. Although I do know the plane in question's engine had to be changed once it made it home.