Aircraft disabled on ylw runway ...

[cdnavater]

VFR in the valley around CYLW. TCU over the divide I believe. So a good decision to go to Kelowna. Easy single engine miss approach to the south if required but no weather to cause a miss.
...METAR CYLW 030000Z AUTO 26016G24KT 200V320 9SM BKN091 BKN110 08/M10 A2965 RMK SLP053
METAR CYLW 030100Z AUTO 23016G21KT 9SM BKN140 07/M10 A2968 RMK SLP065=
...

Good job on the Q400 folks!

No weather to cause a missed? That wind can easily give moderate turbulence on the approach. A million other things outside of the pilot's control can cause a missed, unstable approach, aircraft or vehicle on the runway, birds... point is, in a 705 aircraft you need to brief and be ready for every possibility. Just saying oh we'll fly the lake to Penticton is all well and good, but you have to be able to meet the missed approach climb gradient single engine, which now means setting up and briefing the possibility of a complex special on one engine. Is it the tightest valley in the world? No of course not.

Yes they did a good job, yes they were stopped by what looks like Bravo in the video, round of applause. Now can we get serious and talk about the decision to land in those winds, on the downhill runway, in a tight mountain valley, with a 9000' missed approach altitude in strong gusty crosswinds?

About the only thing that would force me to land in ylw single engine is an active uncontrollable fire. Just why would you add risk to the situation?

They are in an emergency situation. They don't have to meet any missed approach climb gradients anymore. (Although i am sure they could)

Again, where would you have landed instead?

Can you justify the bolded statement with some level of airline experience, ie; do you have any?
First of all, at Jazz on both the RJ and Q400, for a planned S/E approach you MUST plan and brief aerodata which is our engine out procedure, in mountainous the S/E complex special procedures will be used.
For a normal two engine approach, if the missed approach procedure has an associated climb gradient, you must include the engine out procedure.
On what planet is the climb gradient no longer relevant, if you can’t maintain that, guess what happens, you contact terrain!

[Blowin' In The Wind]

No weather to cause a missed? That wind can easily give moderate turbulence on the approach. A million other things outside of the pilot's control can cause a missed, unstable approach, aircraft or vehicle on the runway, birds... point is, in a 705 aircraft you need to brief and be ready for every possibility. Just saying oh we'll fly the lake to Penticton is all well and good, but you have to be able to meet the missed approach climb gradient single engine, which now means setting up and briefing the possibility of a complex special on one engine. Is it the tightest valley in the world? No of course not.

Yes they did a good job, yes they were stopped by what looks like Bravo in the video, round of applause. Now can we get serious and talk about the decision to land in those winds, on the downhill runway, in a tight mountain valley, with a 9000' missed approach altitude in strong gusty crosswinds?

About the only thing that would force me to land in ylw single engine is an active uncontrollable fire. Just why would you add risk to the situation?

They are in an emergency situation. They don't have to meet any missed approach climb gradients anymore. (Although i am sure they could)

Again, where would you have landed instead?

Can you justify the bolded statement with some level of airline experience, ie; do you have any?
First of all, at Jazz on both the RJ and Q400, for a planned S/E approach you MUST plan and brief aerodata which is our engine out procedure, in mountainous the S/E complex special procedures will be used.
For a normal two engine approach, if the missed approach procedure has an associated climb gradient, you must include the engine out procedure.
On what planet is the climb gradient no longer relevant, if you can’t maintain that, guess what happens, you contact terrain!

Elephant in the… avcanada?

[goldeneagle]

On what planet is the climb gradient no longer relevant, if you can’t maintain that, guess what happens, you contact terrain!

With the weather being 9 thousand broken, and 20 miles of lake just past the runway, climb gradients are not an issue. If you cant avoid hitting terrain in a very wide valley during broad daylight with clouds 9 thousand broken and 9 miles vis, then I would posit you have no place in the front of any airplane, never mind a Q full of paying passengers.

[digits_]

First of all, at Jazz on both the RJ and Q400, for a planned S/E approach you MUST plan and brief aerodata which is our engine out procedure, in mountainous the S/E complex special procedures will be used.

And what if you can't? Are you not going to fly an approach at all and crash into a mountain because you can't meet the SE missed approach requirements, which you most likely won't need anyway?

In an emergency you do what you want/need to do. If that included flying an approach SE for which you can't go-around IFR (or perhaps even VFR). so be it.

Obviously if there's a more suitable airport nearby and you still elect to fly the no-go-around approach, it might not be the most appropriate choice...

For a normal two engine approach, if the missed approach procedure has an associated climb gradient, you must include the engine out procedure.
On what planet is the climb gradient no longer relevant, if you can’t maintain that, guess what happens, you contact terrain!

This wasn't a normal two engine approach now, was it?

Yes you don't flight plan an IFR approach with two engines if you can't maintain the SE missed approach gradient. The idea is that you're always protected if an engine fails at any point during your flight. Once that engine actually fails, you are in an emergency situation and can do whatever you deem necessary to land the plane safely.

Even if in a SE missed approach where you can't meet the climb gradient, it doesn't guarantee you'll fly into a mountain. Perhaps you would if you flew the IFR missed approach, but if you're in VMC you can visually avoid the terrain and be perfectly fine.

[cdnavater]

On what planet is the climb gradient no longer relevant, if you can’t maintain that, guess what happens, you contact terrain!

With the weather being 9 thousand broken, and 20 miles of lake just past the runway, climb gradients are not an issue. If you cant avoid hitting terrain in a very wide valley during broad daylight with clouds 9 thousand broken and 9 miles vis, then I would posit you have no place in the front of any airplane, never mind a Q full of paying passengers.

First of all, my comments were about the requirement to out climb rising terrain on one engine, it is a requirement and if you don’t know that, YOU have no business in airplane never mind commenting on my ability, I have several thousand hours in the front of an airliner, might even teach a little or for several years as well, idiot! I also teach the EFAV1 out of YLW, which I could tell you the entire procedure without referring to the chart, btw with a 9000’ ceiling, it would require a shuttle climb to MEA BPOC.
Second, if I were going to YLW in that weather I would brief a go around, we will maintain visual around the lake for another attempt. Visual approach briefing at my company in that airport still requires covering the complex routing, in case.
However, it alarms me you would commit an aircraft unable to out climb terrain to a single runway airport, wow! So many things could shut down the airport with one runway, maybe if you’re still on fire under Captain’s authority could you justify that.
So, tell me again how not being able to out climb the terrain doesn’t matter, please, I’m on the edge of my seat.

I always, always have a plan b, Thank Christ you are retired.
For the pilots who know what the @#$! they are talking about, the Q400 would be able to climb out of that valley on one

[‘Bob’]

This whole thread is a study in how the new generation of pilots have not been programmed to think, and one day their SOPs will paint them into a corner where the paper runs out and from which there is no escape.

It also speaks to an attitude of risk avoidance rather than risk mitigation and general lack of creativity when solving a problem.

What's ironic is that in spite of those trumpeting their supposed airline experience, this crew most likely followed all of their procedures and landed in YLW anyways.

It probably would have been different if the weather was 500 and 1 mile, and I probably would have picked a different destination as well in those circumstances if the weather was better, but visual in a big wide valley with a well serviced airport only a few minutes away is about as good as it gets.

[‘Bob’]

I also teach the EFAV1 out of YLW, which I could tell you the entire procedure without referring to the chart, btw with a 9000’ ceiling, it would require a shuttle climb to MEA BPOC.

My point made for me.

Why on earth would you ever go back into IMC with a dead engine when you have all of the room in the world to maneuver visually?

[goldeneagle]

Why on earth would you ever go back into IMC with a dead engine when you have all of the room in the world to maneuver visually?

Stunning isn't it Bob ?

[cdnavater]

I also teach the EFAV1 out of YLW, which I could tell you the entire procedure without referring to the chart, btw with a 9000’ ceiling, it would require a shuttle climb to MEA BPOC.

My point made for me.

Why on earth would you ever go back into IMC with a dead engine when you have all of the room in the world to maneuver visually?

Your point, not well received, given you have a reading and comprehension problem.
I clearly stated, that an airport with a single runway, read single point failure could be closed for any number of reasons so to commit to such an airport without being able to climb back out, unless you are on fire, would be ridiculously pour judgment and speak volumes about the decision maker.
The aircraft ahead of you blows a tire and is disabled on the runway, the only runway, now what. The wind exceeds your crosswind limitations, you land anyway? Is that the type of pilot you are? Oh, it’s just the demonstrated limit, with your extreme capabilities I’m sure it’s fine though!
So, as I stated, this aircraft in question would be able to climb back out but would have to shuttle to mea given the 9000’ ceiling.

[cdnavater]

This whole thread is a study in how the new generation of pilots have not been programmed to think, and one day their SOPs will paint them into a corner where the paper runs out and from which there is no escape.

It also speaks to an attitude of risk avoidance rather than risk mitigation and general lack of creativity when solving a problem.

What's ironic is that in spite of those trumpeting their supposed airline experience, this crew most likely followed all of their procedures and landed in YLW anyways.

It probably would have been different if the weather was 500 and 1 mile, and I probably would have picked a different destination as well in those circumstances if the weather was better, but visual in a big wide valley with a well serviced airport only a few minutes away is about as good as it gets.

Nice to know you have limits, although 500 and 1 in YLW is not scary to me, not sure why clouds scare you

[co-joe]

About the only thing that would force me to land in ylw single engine is an active uncontrollable fire. Just why would you add risk to the situation?

So tell us, levelling off at 240 over enderby, as you make the power adjustments one stove dies on you. That was this situation. Where would you go ?

They were over YNY and turned back to YLW? YYC has an ARFF level of 9, YLW has 6 or maybe 7 if they call out the city fire department and it gets there in time. I have no idea how a Q performs on one engine butt hey were maybe 5-10 minutes closer to ylw over yyc by the time you factor in the descent and approach setup.

In the end whatever works is the right answer. We're just talking here for training purposes. As it turns out this was more than just a simple engine failure, once the TSB lets WS touch the plane we'll get a much clearer picture of what happened. ylw may well have been the safest option, I just like to make my own risk analysis and discuss what other options the crew could have considered based on my experience.

[digits_]

I also teach the EFAV1 out of YLW, which I could tell you the entire procedure without referring to the chart, btw with a 9000’ ceiling, it would require a shuttle climb to MEA BPOC.

My point made for me.

Why on earth would you ever go back into IMC with a dead engine when you have all of the room in the world to maneuver visually?

Your point, not well received, given you have a reading and comprehension problem.
I clearly stated, that an airport with a single runway, read single point failure could be closed for any number of reasons so to commit to such an airport without being able to climb back out, unless you are on fire, would be ridiculously pour judgment and speak volumes about the decision maker.
The aircraft ahead of you blows a tire and is disabled on the runway, the only runway, now what. The wind exceeds your crosswind limitations, you land anyway? Is that the type of pilot you are? Oh, it’s just the demonstrated limit, with your extreme capabilities I’m sure it’s fine though!
So, as I stated, this aircraft in question would be able to climb back out but would have to shuttle to mea given the 9000’ ceiling.

You seem to think you have an infinite number of plan B's available. You don't. The time in the air is -at the very least- limited by the fuel you have on board. And then there are considerations such as fire.

Also:

There had been reports that the plane's engine was on fire mid-air, but Elchitz said the plane was not on fire when it landed.

So yeah, don't think they/I would care much about a crosswind limitation at that point...


But let's say they weren't on fire. You're flying Kamloops to Calgary, engine fails. Perhaps you know why, most likely you don't. Keep flying over the mountains for another hour, or land in 15 minutes in Kelowna. You decide Kelowna is best. You are on short final and some gusts or wind direction shift causes the wind to exceed your crosswind limitation. Are you really going to divert SE, enter IMC again, climb over more mountains to avoid a 1kt/2kt/5kt even 10 kt crosswind limitation exceedance?

Seriously?

Again: in an emergency, you do what you need to do to land safely. Limitations are suggestions at that point. Every SOP I've ever read states that the crew can divert from them in emergency situations. That means you're not even breaking SOPs if that's really what you're worried about.

[co-joe]

And how dumb would they look if the other stove died or had low oil pressure during the extra long journey to YYC?

I do think YLW was an ok option, ultimately though, the time they spent circling to the north could have been spent in the cruise, running checklists and ultimately landing in YYC. The chances of your second engine developing problems is infinitesimally small and YXC would cover that base should it arise.

I agree with this statement 100%. They circled before landing and could have just carried on to yyc instead? And yes YXC comes to mind as a far preferable approach to YLW. Wide valley, longer runway, far fewer risks.

[RoAF-Mig21]

Hardly a tough decision, besides any twin engine QRH I’ve flown says land ASAP/ nearest suitable airport etc. if you are uncomfortable doing a possible SE missed in Kelowna it’s time to go back to sim

Exactly. What he said.

Kelowna is more than adequate for that.

[cdnavater]

My point made for me.

Why on earth would you ever go back into IMC with a dead engine when you have all of the room in the world to maneuver visually?

Your point, not well received, given you have a reading and comprehension problem.
I clearly stated, that an airport with a single runway, read single point failure could be closed for any number of reasons so to commit to such an airport without being able to climb back out, unless you are on fire, would be ridiculously pour judgment and speak volumes about the decision maker.
The aircraft ahead of you blows a tire and is disabled on the runway, the only runway, now what. The wind exceeds your crosswind limitations, you land anyway? Is that the type of pilot you are? Oh, it’s just the demonstrated limit, with your extreme capabilities I’m sure it’s fine though!
So, as I stated, this aircraft in question would be able to climb back out but would have to shuttle to mea given the 9000’ ceiling.

You seem to think you have an infinite number of plan B's available. You don't. The time in the air is -at the very least- limited by the fuel you have on board. And then there are considerations such as fire.

Also:

There had been reports that the plane's engine was on fire mid-air, but Elchitz said the plane was not on fire when it landed.

So yeah, don't think they/I would care much about a crosswind limitation at that point...


But let's say they weren't on fire. You're flying Kamloops to Calgary, engine fails. Perhaps you know why, most likely you don't. Keep flying over the mountains for another hour, or land in 15 minutes in Kelowna. You decide Kelowna is best. You are on short final and some gusts or wind direction shift causes the wind to exceed your crosswind limitation. Are you really going to divert SE, enter IMC again, climb over more mountains to avoid a 1kt/2kt/5kt even 10 kt crosswind limitation exceedance?

Seriously?

Again: in an emergency, you do what you need to do to land safely. Limitations are suggestions at that point. Every SOP I've ever read states that the crew can divert from them in emergency situations. That means you're not even breaking SOPs if that's really what you're worried about.

Except you’re now exceeding the crosswind limit because of your decision to go to an airport you can’t climb back out of, if you go back over everything, you said climb gradient does not matter. Some other idiot talked about painting yourself into a corner, that is the very definition.
Your scenario relies on a single runway not being compromised and then flying visually to another airport, I think you idiots need to attend another PIC evaluation, assuming you have passed one already. Doesn’t seem likely.

To be clear, I never once said it was a poor decision to divert there, I said if I did I would want an out and ignoring that is to not consider all possibilities, which is what we do. We make our decisions based on experience, you fucken idiots clearly haven’t had an airport close on you because of a disabled aircraft on the only runway.

[5degrees]

And how dumb would they look if the other stove died or had low oil pressure during the extra long journey to YYC?

I do think YLW was an ok option, ultimately though, the time they spent circling to the north could have been spent in the cruise, running checklists and ultimately landing in YYC. The chances of your second engine developing problems is infinitesimally small and YXC would cover that base should it arise.

I agree with this statement 100%. They circled before landing and could have just carried on to yyc instead? And yes YXC comes to mind as a far preferable approach to YLW. Wide valley, longer runway, far fewer risks.

I believe it was an engine fire indication. If so circling near an airport where if things redevelop and you can land in 10 or less at a known airport is far better than carrying on single engine. Also if icing is encountered the single engine service ceiling is in the mid 14000 (weight dependent). Encore crews are very familiar with YLW. The complex special of 16 is follow the published missed for quite a bit nothing too crazy.
Lastly the FOM states and so does the QRH land immediately at the nearest suitable. Wanna explain to TSB and the lawyers if things go south why you choose to fly past suitable airports along the way?

[RoAF-Mig21]

What's the point of all of us giving opinions?

We weren't there and I'm sure the skipper and F/O, in consultation with their company made the right call.

Eventually a TSB report will be out and we'll find out exactly what happened. In the end, "could've", "should've", "would've" are irrelevant. They landed that plane safely, which is exactly what they were paid to do.

[co-joe]

I believe it was an engine fire indication. If so circling near an airport where if things redevelop and you can land in 10 or less at a known airport is far better than carrying on single engine. Also if icing is encountered the single engine service ceiling is in the mid 14000 (weight dependent). Encore crews are very familiar with YLW. The complex special of 16 is follow the published missed for quite a bit nothing too crazy.
Lastly the FOM states and so does the QRH land immediately at the nearest suitable. Wanna explain to TSB and the lawyers if things go south why you choose to fly past suitable airports along the way?

It was more than just an indication. I'm not saying more though.

As for; am I willing to stand up for my decisions? Yes I am, and I'm also willing to be corrected and learn from them that's what being a professional is all about.

Run any threat based model and compare ylw to virtually any other international airport in western Canada and you can come up with plenty of reasons not to commit to a single runway airport, with a notam both end shortened, downslope runway, with a big crosswind, high missed approach climb gradient, lower ARFF level, and poor ATC radar coverage.

Let me ask you, if you made this decision, lost control and went off the side or the end of this runway and killed 10 people, how would you explain your decision making model to the TSB? What justification would you come up with to defend your decision? "it was the closest runway"?

[co-joe]

What's the point of all of us giving opinions?

...

Training. Educational purposes. It's a discussion not an inquisition.

[Canadaflyer46]

I believe it was an engine fire indication. If so circling near an airport where if things redevelop and you can land in 10 or less at a known airport is far better than carrying on single engine. Also if icing is encountered the single engine service ceiling is in the mid 14000 (weight dependent). Encore crews are very familiar with YLW. The complex special of 16 is follow the published missed for quite a bit nothing too crazy.
Lastly the FOM states and so does the QRH land immediately at the nearest suitable. Wanna explain to TSB and the lawyers if things go south why you choose to fly past suitable airports along the way?

It was more than just an indication. I'm not saying more though.

As for; am I willing to stand up for my decisions? Yes I am, and I'm also willing to be corrected and learn from them that's what being a professional is all about.

Run any threat based model and compare ylw to virtually any other international airport in western Canada and you can come up with plenty of reasons not to commit to a single runway airport, with a notam both end shortened, downslope runway, with a big crosswind, high missed approach climb gradient, lower ARFF level, and poor ATC radar coverage.

Let me ask you, if you made this decision, lost control and went off the side or the end of this runway and killed 10 people, how would you explain your decision making model to the TSB? What justification would you come up with to defend your decision? "it was the closest runway"?

Hahahaha. Yeah ok, your engine is on fucking fire and you’re gonna be considering the slight downslope and 20kt xwind to a runway right below you. What a load of shit. They got the plane landed asap and no one had a scratch. Job well done.

[5degrees]

I believe it was an engine fire indication. If so circling near an airport where if things redevelop and you can land in 10 or less at a known airport is far better than carrying on single engine. Also if icing is encountered the single engine service ceiling is in the mid 14000 (weight dependent). Encore crews are very familiar with YLW. The complex special of 16 is follow the published missed for quite a bit nothing too crazy.
Lastly the FOM states and so does the QRH land immediately at the nearest suitable. Wanna explain to TSB and the lawyers if things go south why you choose to fly past suitable airports along the way?

It was more than just an indication. I'm not saying more though.

As for; am I willing to stand up for my decisions? Yes I am, and I'm also willing to be corrected and learn from them that's what being a professional is all about.

Run any threat based model and compare ylw to virtually any other international airport in western Canada and you can come up with plenty of reasons not to commit to a single runway airport, with a notam both end shortened, downslope runway, with a big crosswind, high missed approach climb gradient, lower ARFF level, and poor ATC radar coverage.

Let me ask you, if you made this decision, lost control and went off the side or the end of this runway and killed 10 people, how would you explain your decision making model to the TSB? What justification would you come up with to defend your decision? "it was the closest runway"?

LOL you serious or trolling? The runway is NOTAM'd longer. The slope is negligible. I don't know any details but the Q can land in a 32 knot x wind. The landing distance was calculated with a massive factor for the single engine approach. And once again every WEN crew can brief the complex off 16 by memory they fly it so often. ARFF is sufficient for 737s it definitely meets the dispatch requirement for the Q.

Why did you ignore my statement about single engine service ceiling with ice accum? Convective weather that day will force you to apply icing penalty.

Why would diverting to an unfamiliar airport like YXC be a better idea?

[‘Bob’]

I also teach the EFAV1 out of YLW, which I could tell you the entire procedure without referring to the chart, btw with a 9000’ ceiling, it would require a shuttle climb to MEA BPOC.

My point made for me.

Why on earth would you ever go back into IMC with a dead engine when you have all of the room in the world to maneuver visually?

Your point, not well received, given you have a reading and comprehension problem.
I clearly stated, that an airport with a single runway, read single point failure could be closed for any number of reasons so to commit to such an airport without being able to climb back out, unless you are on fire, would be ridiculously pour judgment and speak volumes about the decision maker.
The aircraft ahead of you blows a tire and is disabled on the runway, the only runway, now what. The wind exceeds your crosswind limitations, you land anyway? Is that the type of pilot you are? Oh, it’s just the demonstrated limit, with your extreme capabilities I’m sure it’s fine though!
So, as I stated, this aircraft in question would be able to climb back out but would have to shuttle to mea given the 9000’ ceiling.

No… it would not. YYF is just down the valley with a 6000 foot runway and it’s an airport Encore operates into. The highest obstacle enroute is Okanagan Mountain Park at 5500 ASL and 2500 ASL (1500 foot ceiling) will clear all obstacles enroute with 1000 feet to spare you follow the valley.

With 9000 feet ceiling in YLW you can also make it across the Thompson plateau to return to Kamloops and do it at IFR safe altitudes while remaining visual.

Also if the plane has enough fuel to go to Calgary, it has enough fuel to hold visually pending the removal of whatever problem is causing the runway to be unusable. Oh yes.. let’s commit to a trip across the mountains single engine because one cell is causing a crosswind for 5 minutes. Or a Cessna blew a tire and it’s going to be 15 minutes before it’s pushed off the runway.

And if you really REALLY have to get out of Kelowna IFR… do the missed off the NDB B or the SPEC VIS. You telling me that a Q on one engine can’t make a vanilla 200ft/NM climb rate that’s calculated over the airport at 4500 feet (with 6000 feet of clear sky above that altitude)?


So again.. thanks for continuing to prove my point that modern pilots can’t think.

[RoAF-Mig21]

What's the point of all of us giving opinions?

...

Training. Educational purposes. It's a discussion not an inquisition.

Good point, but it's AV-Canada. It ALWAYS ends in "inquisition". On a side note, I've done a few LOFTS that ended in YLW and it was not an issue at all.

[goldeneagle]

They were over YNY and turned back to YLW? YYC has an ARFF level of 9, YLW has 6 or maybe 7 if they call out the city fire department and it gets there in time. I have no idea how a Q performs on one engine butt hey were maybe 5-10 minutes closer to ylw over yyc by the time you factor in the descent and approach setup.

In the end whatever works is the right answer. We're just talking here for training purposes. As it turns out this was more than just a simple engine failure, once the TSB lets WS touch the plane we'll get a much clearer picture of what happened. ylw may well have been the safest option, I just like to make my own risk analysis and discuss what other options the crew could have considered based on my experience.

Lets look at a few things, they were essentially over Enderby leveling off at 240 when the trouble started. Not surprising, if an engine is going to cave, it tends to be when you make power adjustments. quick measure on google maps, to carry on to YYC is just over 220 miles strait ahead, with some very big rocks in the way. Cranbrook is just over 160 miles (strait line) with more big rocks in the way. Kelowna is just off the right wing, around 50 miles with falling terrain the whole way ? Now which is the better choice considering the reports say there was initially a fire ?

I've never flown a Q, question for those that have. Can the Q maintain 16,000 and cabin pressure for an hour with one side caged ? That would be the minimum requirement to carry on to YYC or get to YXC. If it cant hold 16,000 with a pressurized cabin for an hour, then those options have just gone away, and the options left on the table are Kelowna, back to Kamloops, over to Penticton, or off to Vancouver, all of which can be done unpressurized. Ofc the turn back to Vancouver does involve crossing over some big rocks again, just not as high as the ones in front.

A look at the flightaware data shows they made the turn, essentially turned direct for the FAF for a strait in at Kelowna, and started a relatively rapid descent. Ceiling was reported at 9000 broken at Kelowna, realistic to expect that to be similar up and down the valley. They levelled off at 8000, and then turned to do the back and forth dipsey doodle for a while. So they would have been under the ceiling in essentially VMC for that part. The bit I dont understand, is why they didn't carry on with the strait in to Kelowna, they were in a position to make it easily. Were they running checklists for the sake of running checklists ? Or was there some other problem compounding the situation ? My first guess is, they didn't have 3 green lights on the landing gear, which is not a huge surprise if there has been a fire in the nacelle. But this is just a guess, could be a few other reasons to abort the strait in, I just dont know which would apply.

Another question for the inquisition, if they had completed the strait in, so landed 20 minutes sooner, would everybody still be criticizing them ?

As for the folks worried about descending into a place with only one runway, well on the off chance there are two catastrophic failures happening at once, WJ has a stove caged and then YLW has a runway blocked, they still had plenty of options, but it involved looking up from procedures and charts, and actually look out the window. Strait ahead, climb to a thousand, 80 degree left turn as you go by Peachland, then get on the horn and call 20 mile final for Penticton. Weather is good, surely a couple of airline pilots can do a 25 mile jaunt down the lake VFR and land at an airport they have probably used many times in the past. Probably would have added another 10 minutes to the flight, 15 if they had gear issues and left the gear down for that part.

I will be very curious to find out why they did the back and forth north of the airport before landing, but, IMHO, they absolutely chose the correct diversion destination. Heck, even the maintenance folks probably agree, YLW is probably one of the better places in the province to get an engine change done on the Q.

[cdnavater]

My point made for me.

Why on earth would you ever go back into IMC with a dead engine when you have all of the room in the world to maneuver visually?

Your point, not well received, given you have a reading and comprehension problem.
I clearly stated, that an airport with a single runway, read single point failure could be closed for any number of reasons so to commit to such an airport without being able to climb back out, unless you are on fire, would be ridiculously pour judgment and speak volumes about the decision maker.
The aircraft ahead of you blows a tire and is disabled on the runway, the only runway, now what. The wind exceeds your crosswind limitations, you land anyway? Is that the type of pilot you are? Oh, it’s just the demonstrated limit, with your extreme capabilities I’m sure it’s fine though!
So, as I stated, this aircraft in question would be able to climb back out but would have to shuttle to mea given the 9000’ ceiling.

No… it would not. YYF is just down the valley with a 6000 foot runway and it’s an airport Encore operates into. The highest obstacle enroute is Okanagan Mountain Park at 5500 ASL and 2500 ASL (1500 foot ceiling) will clear all obstacles enroute with 1000 feet to spare you follow the valley.

With 9000 feet ceiling in YLW you can also make it across the Thompson plateau to return to Kamloops and do it at IFR safe altitudes while remaining visual.

Also if the plane has enough fuel to go to Calgary, it has enough fuel to hold visually pending the removal of whatever problem is causing the runway to be unusable. Oh yes.. let’s commit to a trip across the mountains single engine because one cell is causing a crosswind for 5 minutes. Or a Cessna blew a tire and it’s going to be 15 minutes before it’s pushed off the runway.

And if you really REALLY have to get out of Kelowna IFR… do the missed off the NDB B or the SPEC VIS. You telling me that a Q on one engine can’t make a vanilla 200ft/NM climb rate that’s calculated over the airport at 4500 feet (with 6000 feet of clear sky above that altitude)?


So again.. thanks for continuing to prove my point that modern pilots can’t think.

First of all, thanks for calling me a modern pilot, since I started flying commercially almost 30 years ago, you must be really old.
You’re talking out your ass at this point, again, proving my point about your reading and comprehension. Again, the Q 4 0 0 C A N C L I M B O U T O F T H I S A I R P O R T O N O N E E N G I N E, did I speak slowly enough for you.