Porter slides off runway in YHZ

[Nauclerus]

"Plane slides off runway in Halifax as snow still causing disruptions across Nova Scotia"

https://www.saltwire.com/nova-scotia/sc ... ther-storm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-sco ... -9.7086214

https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight ... /CYYZ/CYHZ

METAR CYHZ 112300Z 06009G15KT 1/2SM R14/P6000FT/U R23/P6000FT/U SN VV008 M01/M01 A2939
METAR CYHZ 120000Z 05011G16KT 3/4SM R14/P6000FT/U R23/P6000FT/D -SN OVC006 M01/M01 A2936
SPECI CYHZ 120037Z 04010G17KT 2SM -SN OVC008 M01/M02 A2934
METAR CYHZ 120100Z 04012G17KT 3SM -SN OVC007 M02/M02 A2933

LiveATC Audio

https://vocaroo.com/1oHylepEt39j

[rudder]

“Plan to exit at the end” is a common phrase associated with overruns in contaminated runway/reduced friction conditions. And while it is NOT the controllers responsibility to fly the plane, it can become a trap if the pilots are not hyper aware of potential reduced friction hazards on the landing runway, runway not in use, or runway exits.

There are several other incidents similar to this by Canadian operators at Canadian airports. Forewarned is forearmed.

[pelmet]

“Plan to exit at the end” is a common phrase associated with overruns in contaminated runway/reduced friction conditions. And while it is NOT the controllers responsibility to fly the plane, it can become a trap if the pilots are not hyper aware of potential reduced friction hazards on the landing runway, runway not in use, or runway exits.

There are several other incidents similar to this by Canadian operators at Canadian airports. Forewarned is forearmed.

Best to just aim to be slow by a couple of thousand feet before the end of the runway(if possible) and treat the rest like you will be treating the taxiway in such conditions. Happened to an American RJ earlier this winter. Might want to let ATC know in advance about taking extra time to exit. Could get some grief in a place like JFK as it almost seems like the controllers there have their own Youtube channels chastising pilots.

[goingnowherefast]

Use the far end TDZ markings to judge space remaining. One will have to have thought about it ahead of time, and know that there's 7 TDZ markings for 3500ft, and how that relates to your aircraft's capabilities.

Of course, when the runway is potentially contaminated, slippery and 1/2sm in SN, all bets are off. Just get the airplane slowed and exit at the next available taxiway (or as directed by ATC). If ATC stacked someone too close behind you, that's not your problem. I'd rather go around, than watch the plane in front of me slide off the end and I still go around.

[Canoehead]

Landing an E2 on a 7700' runway reported as 2/2/1 (with a direct 10G17 crosswind) seems questionable.

Even if "the numbers" say you can do it, you still have that grey matter between the ears that should always win out.

[Dry Guy]

Tailwind on approach again like the 747 that went off the end?

[Dry Guy]

Wait, why isn't there an ILS for runway 05?

[pelmet]

Tailwind on approach again like the 747 that went off the end?

Tower says wind 070/10 cleared to land runway 14.

However, I was wondering why they were not keeping the long runway open to have a good headwind. That being said, if it turns out to simply be a situation of taxiing faster than necessary, it may not be applicable to this particular incident.

[A346Dude]

The ATC audio says a lot. Yes there should probably be an ILS on 05, but the length of 14 and the crosswind appears to have played no role in this particular incident. They had apparently slowed to taxi speed and gave a braking action report with no stress in their voice.

They just took the turn off the runway a little too fast, and that makes it a runway excursion. It could just as easily have happened 300 feet later on K, where it would be considered a pretty minor event and we probably wouldn't be talking about it here.

The crew was told to exit at the end but they weren't hurried off the runway by the controller. Most likely the reason for this was M had not been plowed. It would appear the 1 at the end of 2/2/1 should have been given a little more respect... easy to say that from my living room.

[Donald]

Wait, why isn't there an ILS for runway 05?

There is an LPV approach with 200' and 1/2 mile limits.

[Cherokee12]

When they are reporting 2/2/1, are landing distance calculations based off the 2 or 1?

[Dry Guy]

Same thing happened to WestJet in 2020. They had a 14 kt tailwind. This is runway excursion 8 or 9 in the last few years at YHZ. Perhaps it's time to upgrade the approach systems.

[Blackdog0301]

Wait, why isn't there an ILS for runway 05?

There is an LPV approach with 200' and 1/2 mile limits.

Just because a runway has an approach with a certain minimum doesn't mean all aircraft can use those minimums. I'm not familiar with Porter's E2s, but I'd say the majority of transport category aircraft in Canada do not have LPV capability.

[cjp]

Same thing happened to WestJet in 2020. They had a 14 kt tailwind. This is runway excursion 8 or 9 in the last few years at YHZ. Perhaps it's time to upgrade the approach systems.

Halifax has very dynamic, like VERY dynamic weather. I would say it has nothing to do with the approaches as they are certified by NAVCANADA and I've flown to minimums on every single one without issue. It has everything to do with runway condition and weather reporting, and that's a much bigger challenge.

I look forward to learning more about this incident when a report comes out with performance details and actual momentary weather.

[pelmet]

Sounds like the runway was worse than reported.

In freezing precipitation conditions, the runway conditions should automatically be expected to be worse than reported and treated as such.

[Donald]

Wait, why isn't there an ILS for runway 05?

There is an LPV approach with 200' and 1/2 mile limits.

Just because a runway has an approach with a certain minimum doesn't mean all aircraft can use those minimums. I'm not familiar with Porter's E2s, but I'd say the majority of transport category aircraft in Canada do not have LPV capability.

Is that a statement or speculation?

[Dronepiper]

There is an LPV approach with 200' and 1/2 mile limits.

Just because a runway has an approach with a certain minimum doesn't mean all aircraft can use those minimums. I'm not familiar with Porter's E2s, but I'd say the majority of transport category aircraft in Canada do not have LPV capability.

Is that a statement or speculation?

I can confirm that Westjet is not authorized for LPV approach mins. They do RNP approaches instead. I am pretty sure Air Transat can't do RNP or LPV. No idea about Porter or AC.

[Grey_Wolf]

Terrible Headline for the news article.

It was a slow speed "oops - I'm in the ditch" from the runway into the taxiway.

SOPs do have guidance on taxi-speed with regards to contaminated/wet.

No anti-skid protection below 10 knots on the E2.

Porter does not have the authorization for LPV (although the airplane can do it). They do have LNAV/VNAV, RNP-AR, and ILS/CAT2.

[Daniel Cooper]

I don't like journalists either but it's hard to deny the headline. It's way off the runway.

[co-joe]

I can confirm that Westjet is not authorized for LPV approach mins. They do RNP approaches instead. I am pretty sure Air Transat can't do RNP or LPV. No idea about Porter or AC.

Canadian North, and Air North are the only airlines in Canada with jets that have LPV capability that I know of. It's way too expensive to be worth the slightly lower minimums at a couple airports to be worth it.

[cdnavater]

I can confirm that Westjet is not authorized for LPV approach mins. They do RNP approaches instead. I am pretty sure Air Transat can't do RNP or LPV. No idea about Porter or AC.

Canadian North, and Air North are the only airlines in Canada with jets that have LPV capability that I know of. It's way too expensive to be worth the slightly lower minimums at a couple airports to be worth it.

Curious, do RJs count as jets? If so, we have LPV on the NGs

[BTD]

Halifax needs to get their sh*t together. I can’t speak to this incident, however, it is not a coincidence that they have issues every year. Probably about 4 or 5 years ago, I was getting ready to depart and they were advertising 23 the active with a 4-5 knot tailwind component, and 1/4 inch slush.

A few aircraft landed 23, but I told the Fo that we aren’t gonna play that game and when we called back for clearance tell them it will be 05. We have to be our own advocates.

History will repeat over and over until we stop accepting this stuff.

[pelmet]

No anti-skid protection below 10 knots on the E2.

This is a good point to remember. It seems that most(if not all) anti-skid systems are only good down to 10 or 15 knots(not sure about the good old Maxarets but they were a mechanical system). Below that, the pilot is the anti-skid.

Minor situation but......I remember being up north in the late winter when the near 24 hour sunlight changes the hard-packed snow from decent traction to quite slippery. I was checking out in a new turboprop and simply taxiing on the ramp(which had a decent slope) over to the paved pad in front of the terminal. The paved pad was 100% bare and dry while the ramp was 100% snow-covered. I wasn't going very fast but once the cockpit was over the paved area, I applied brakes to slow down. Not much happened. Unfortunately, instinct is to apply more and more brake. We simply kept on moving for a few seconds at a couple of miles per hour until the main gear reached the edge of the paved area at which point we came to a sudden stop(that is why one should stay off the brakes in a small aircraft on a paved runway with patchy slippery spots(or occasional bare patches).

I also had an accident long ago, as a baggage handler, on black ice that I thought was bare pavement, approaching the baggage room door(automatic opening with a sensor). I approached it at summer-time speed and I still remember sliding a long with full brake and hitting that door while pressing harder and harder on the brake pedal. I approached it way too fast and got to the point where releasing brake or applying more brake would not alter the inevitable outcome(the good news is that I never damaged an aircraft - some guys like to tow the GPU away while it is still plugged in, among a variety of other methods).

Go slowly when approaching the end of something when slippery. It seems natural on a taxiway but it seems as it pilots have a tendency to behave differently at the end of a slippery runway.

[jpilot77]

Halifax needs to get their sh*t together. I can’t speak to this incident, however, it is not a coincidence that they have issues every year. Probably about 4 or 5 years ago, I was getting ready to depart and they were advertising 23 the active with a 4-5 knot tailwind component, and 1/4 inch slush.

A few aircraft landed 23, but I told the Fo that we aren’t gonna play that game and when we called back for clearance tell them it will be 05. We have to be our own advocates.

History will repeat over and over until we stop accepting this stuff.

100% agree. YYT has worse weather than YHZ and not nearly as many incidents. There’s something about how that airport is run that isn’t up to par.

[rudder]

When you get the RWYCC - whether it is 5/5/5 or 3/3/3 or 2/2/1 - remember it is the runway divided in to thirds. It does not express a value for every square inch of the runway surface.

When exiting at a high speed exit, the runway and RWYCC condition report will likely be accurate. But the ‘trap’ is always the “exit at the end” instruction or choice. Under significantly reduced friction conditions, it will always be the case that the last 50-100m will be the most contaminated.

Good airmanship (and many SOP’s) require GS 10kts or less for a 90 degree turn. And many SOP’s will reduce that further to 5kts for the same manoeuvre on a surface with reduced friction. Experience would likely have a crew come to nearly a complete stop on the runway to validate the braking capability if in fact a 90 degree turn is planned.

A 3 should always get a crews heightened attention and a detailed landing distance calculation if the runway length has the potential to be limiting. A 2 would see significant attention paid to the calculation of landing distance required on any runway. And a 1 would trigger a conversation of feasibility for landing and subsequent ground operations.

Crews will on occasion rely on reports and RSC from prior landers and tower to validate RWYCC and reassess current decision. In this case prior landers did not specifically report the hazard. But they did not weigh what an E2 weighs (inertia) nor have the residual idle thrust of a jet.

The crew will be debriefed and the DFDR/CVR will be read. ATC tapes will be reviewed. Nobody plans for this result but everybody can learn from it.