Sunwing 601 loss of control

[3 holer]

Well let the games begin. Looks like swg 601 hit some rough air and stalled it out of 390. Ok could have happened to anybody. My question is if you just encountered such an event why would it take two more hours to decide to declare an emergency when arriving into yyz. I mean if the encounter was that severe and you suspect possible structural damage enough to declare an emergency at your destination how prudent is it to keep flying two more hours through an area of active weather when you passed several suitable airports along the way. Its not like you are crossing the ocean. I hope this isn't one of those just get it home deals. If so its pretty bad and screams volumes when the commercial needs of the operation trump the safety of your passengers. Curious though if this was one of the Euro crews and if that had any influence on the decision made in this situation. If so they should be careful given all the controversy surrounding the swg and foreign pilots, working in Canada issue because they are under the microscope of many.

http://avherald.com/h?article=45b41d59&opt=0

[av8tor_assrope]

Hey Tom Brady, I'm open I'm open......pass to me!

Que the armchair quarterbacks......

[hst]

3 holer....I'd say objectivity isn't your thing, at least not based on your opening line or the content of your post. I have no stake in this airline but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt until a verifiable report is published. Anyone find the cadors report yet?

Speaking for the Captain, you said, "you suspect possible structural damage"? Are you privy to information that makes you certain of such a claim?

SWG601 weren't the only one's to encounter this system (or its severe turbulence) and land at their intended destination.
http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45b30208&opt=0 (albeit not to extent to which SWG601 had a loss of control).

Below is a link to the radar plot of this flight. At 17:36z the aircraft was at 38900' @ 453 kts, Hdg 009 and the next sweep at 1738z shows 36575' @ 485kts, Hdg 027.
http://www.flightradar24.com/2012-12-26 ... :24/SWG601

[ea306]

Altitude Loss due to turbulence at the higher levels happens from time to time. You can name a number of companies including Canadian companies if you reflect long enough.

"Let the games begin" you say.

I am very sure that the crew made their decisions based on what they were dealing with.
You are correct in stating that this could happen to anyone. Fair statement.

After that you posed a series of questions in a line of thought preceded by the word: "IF" six times.
Six degrees of "IF" has you wondering about Command Decision Making, Foreign Pilots, Corporate safety culture of the airline, Commercial Needs trumping the Safety of the Operation, Crews being careful due to controversies....

Playing games is pointless. None of us have read any in depth reports.

Obviously I know my long term friends who were making their decisions on that flight and I can say that they both are very professional airmen. If you think about what I have just said I think you can put your mind at ease on most of your "IF"s in your line of thought.

[Takeoff OK]

Is it also common to have the shaker go off in severe turbulence? What was their margin? 20 kts? I'm not being antagonistic here, I'm asking seriously. I've never heard of that before, but that's not to say it doesn't happen.

[whipline]

At that altitude/weight in severe turbulence you can have the high and low margin join. You'd not only get a shaker you'd also get the overspeed clacker. What kind of aircraft are you flying takeoff? If the plane stalled they absolutely would have had the shaker go off, among other things.

[ea306]

No worries...

Yes a shaker can go off in turbulence when G load protection is exceeded. Flying about 4000' feet below optimum opens up the buffet margins significantly and is a good idea when encountering moderate turbulence.

In severe turbulence momentary aircraft control can be lost which is by definition: Severe Turbulence. A post flight inspection of the aircraft is required when it has been exposed to Severe Turbulence. So yes an altitude loss and also a stick shaker warning can be triggered as the aircraft enters low buffet boundary.

I have experienced this once in my career on a B757 at FL390 and a descent to FL350 sorted it all out for us that day. It is not a pleasant experience and one to be avoided. That day we lost so much indicated airspeed/mach that we were feeling the low speed aerodynamic buffet...surprisingly no stick shaker on that event... I think we were very very close to having it in that instance. Obviously if/when it happens, immediate action is needed in order to avoid a complete loss of control.

[The Fish]

Is it also common to have the shaker go off in severe turbulence? What was their margin? 20 kts? I'm not being antagonistic here, I'm asking seriously. I've never heard of that before, but that's not to say it doesn't happen.

Yes,
As G loading increases in Turb the bottom end may move up on you and shaker activation is possible usually momentary, a sudden decrease in headwind or a rapid increase in tailwind can also activate the shaker and the reverse would put you in the clacker. Neither is much fun but it would be expected in severe turb.

I'm sure these guys did all they could to avoid the rough ride and I'm guessing they were each out a pair of underwear too, and possibly a seat cushion, I know I would be!!

Cheers

[Takeoff OK]

I understand the mechanics of the whole thing. I was wondering if it was a common occurrence during severe turbulence to get the shaker. I have personally flown into severe as a result of bad vectoring, but we were down low, and deeply inside our envelope -- so no shaker. Since I have no idea, nor does whipline, what the actual weight of the aircraft was during the event, I was curious how narrowly they may have cut it. I'm wondering if maybe they tried to top the line (not so wisely) rather than go around or find a hole, which most likely was not a real option once they got there. Like you said ea; a few thousand feet can make all the difference. I guess the smart plan would have been to file a longer route around the backside of the line instead of dealing with it in the air. I'm not judging. This is simply a good opportunity for others to learn through discussion.

[Gilles Hudicourt]

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... /index.asp

Go here and search high altitude stall. You will get a few hits.

[3 holer]

The head scratcher for me is not how they could have stalled it at 390 with 191 pax's in severe turbulence but how after almost two hours more of flying after the incident the crew finally decided to declare an emergency. If there was a concern of possible damage due to the encounter of severe turbulence and momentary loss of control that warranted the declaration of an emergency prudent action would be to do so at that time. The reality of the
situation is should the airworthiness of your ship become questionable you owe it to your passengers and crew to land at the nearest suitable airport to check things out. Waiting until your on approach at your destination to declare an emergency for something that occurred two hours ago is really too little too late and does nothing more than look good on the ASR. Lets not forget about American's A300 that lost its tail when suffering structural damage after getting caught in, the wake of another aircraft years ago coming out of JFK.

[ea306]

With all due respect 3 holer, you are speculating. None of us know exactly why an emergency was declared. I suppose once that information is publicly published you can feel free to speculate away....

[60N30W]

. I have personally flown into severe as a result of bad vectoring, but we were down low, and deeply inside our envelope -- .

Takeoff Ok,

Could you share a few more details about this event?

[Scuba_Steve]

I'm sure it will be investigates thoroughly buy professionals and we can read about it in an aviation safety letter a year or so from now. Until then everything is speculation. Props to the crew for getting her on the ground safety....

[Takeoff OK]

. I have personally flown into severe as a result of bad vectoring, but we were down low, and deeply inside our envelope -- .

Takeoff Ok,

Could you share a few more details about this event?

SDF was surrounded by thunderstorms. Louisville approach was delay vectoring everyone. They put us on a heading through some ragged cloud, so we couldn't see what was around us. Based on our radar display, we were well clear of all precip. The ride started to get quite rough and we queried ATC if they could see something we could not. They said all clear up ahead. The ride started to go even more to hell and when we broke out we discovered we were directly below a cb mammatus, and had started rocking all over the place. The autopilot was trying to maintain altitude and we were getting +/- 2500fpm in rapid succession so I kicked it off. It was crazy. We could barely decifer our PFDs because of the bumps. Luckily, we were below 10,000 and had warned the FAs to secure early, so everybody was strapped down tight in the back, otherwise I'm sure there would have been injuries.

Afterward, our rear FA admitted that he had been praying to Allah throughout the whole thing because he thought he was going to die. He'd been flying for 15 years.

We ended up telling ATC we could not accept these vectors anymore and diverted to IND. We deplaned and switched aircraft but half the passengers had left, saying they'd rather rent cars and drive the rest of the way than go back up in the air.

[Doc]

I think 3 holer is just wondering what type of "emergency" the crew felt needed to be declared two hours after the fact? It's an interesting point. I don't fly swept wing jets, so I'm not an authority on upset, but I do find it interesting as well that an emergency was declared at all? I mean, you either suspect there might be damage, or you don't. Obviously, there were factors at play here. If they suspected damage had occurred at the time of the incident, I'm totally with 3 holer. Otherwise, why declare an emergency at all? Just land and have a long chat with your maintenance folks?

[URC]

I pulled up the archives for YYZ Approach off LiveATC on the 26th. You can hear SWG601 check on at 18:48Z, throughout the whole time the aircraft is on approach and tower frequencies there is no reference to any emergency, the flight was not being given priority and there was no mention of emergency vehicles standing by to meet them. There is no CADORS report in the dtabase. I'm wondering what the source is for this report of an emergency being declared ?

[ea306]

Interesting.

[Gino Under]

With loss of control (LOC) and upset recovery training (URT) very much in vogue amongst aviation safety specialists these days, why hasn't this story hit the popular press?
I'm sure the travelling public would like to be informed.
Lessons learned should be disseminated via pilot safety networks.

Sunwing? Do they have an effective safety program or just SMS?

Gino Under

[whipline]

What should hit the media? They encountered severe turbulence. They declared an emergency to get priority decent clearance. Levelled at 35,000 and continued on. If the aircraft did stall at that altitude it would take roughly 5000 feet to recover. Not much here...next.

[BusDriver]

What should hit the media? They encountered severe turbulence. They declared an emergency to get priority decent clearance. Levelled at 35,000 and continued on. If the aircraft did stall at that altitude it would take roughly 5000 feet to recover.
Not much here...next.

Next?

Has the missing fuel been found yet?(saint Martin)

[trey kule]

Still waiting for the OP to let us know the source of who said they declared an emergency.
As far as I know while the media can apparently declare who wins elections before the votes are all counted, they do not yet have the authority to declare emergencies for airplanes.

The "games begin" is a nice touch. Unless I see some proof positive presented, from what I can tell the OP was simply trying to be a clever little fellow with some juicy gossip.

[Gino Under]

Sunwing obviously had an "incident". To what extent, seems unclear.
If we can read about a 37 sliding off the edge of a de-icing ramp then it stands to reason a severe turbulence encounter at high altitude that "might" have lead to LOC or UR(F) event is of greater significance to not only the travelling public but any safety conscious flight crew interested in learning something potentially of value.
Simple question was, why haven't we read about it in the usual media.
Imature finger pointers who like to ha, ha over these things need to grow up.
Safety is the greater concern when things like this happen, IF they happened? A little clarity would be nice.
Better question might be what has Sunwing disseminated to set the record straight?

Gino

[whipline]

Sorry Gino. Thought this was turning into the typical mudslinging thread. Has sunwing disseminated the information? I'm guessing yes, it was sms'd.

What missing fuel out of sxm are you referring to fluck? How does fuel go missing?

[Gilles Hudicourt]

Sorry Gino. Thought this was turning into the typical mudslinging thread. Has sunwing disseminated the information? I'm guessing yes, it was sms'd.

What missing fuel out of sxm are you referring to fluck? How does fuel go missing?

This missing fuel

http://avherald.com/h?article=45b82e1e