Fort St John Accident topic #2

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

w squared
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2040
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:32 pm
Location: Somewhere in the patch

Re: Fort St John Accident

Post by w squared »

crazy8 wrote: The crash occurred during blizzard conditions, with eye witnesses saying it was the worst snow storm in years.
First and foremost, I am glad that there was no loss of life, and so far it looks like there were no serious injuries.

The media was obviously pumping these particular eye witnesses for tasty sounds bites. The worst snow storm in years? This isn't even the worst snow storm so far this winter, and it's only January. While I can't speak to the specific conditions that were taking place at the airport when the aircraft was arriving (as I was in the process of driving from Chetwynd to FSJ at the time), the weather today is nothing out of the ordinary for NE BC in January. As a matter of fact, conditions were far worse on Sunday night (Jan 7th) NE of Dawson Creek.

I know, I know, that's a lot of ranting about weather, but I personally detest the inevitable media attempts to sensationalize everything they touch.

Besides which, since when was a jetstream either a "commuter jet" or a "twin engine turbojet". Last time I was a passenger on a Peace Air Jetstream, I was pretty sure that I saw those spinny propellor type thingies on the front.

A message to the news media: If you can't be bothered to find out actual facts and then report them, then do us all a favour and shut up. Thanks. :D
---------- ADS -----------
 
Image

Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

What are reasonable Wx conditions for attempting to land up there?
---------- ADS -----------
 
merlin
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 403
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:36 am
Location: Canada

Post by merlin »

I wonder if the new approach ban will fit into this at all?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Raybanman
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 3:05 pm
Location: Not in Florida Damnit

Post by Raybanman »

the_professor wrote:What are reasonable Wx conditions for attempting to land up there?
I believe that there's an ILS there 29?, so 1/2 mile is reasonable, or 3/8 according to the new approach ban...

Glad everyone's ok.

Cheers,
PP
---------- ADS -----------
 
Some people are like slinkies: Not much good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

Did they land short?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
bcflyer
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1359
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:35 am
Location: Canada

Post by bcflyer »

Kinda sounds like it although reading the media's version makes it a little hard to figure out. The ILS is for 29 so if they touched down before the southeast end of the runway that would put them in short. With regards to the approach ban, I don't know what the vis was at the time but you would need 3/8 or 1600 RVR as was mentioned earlier. Everything aside, I'm glad no one was hurt.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
twinpratts
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1625
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:38 am
Location: The Wild Wild West.
Contact:

Post by twinpratts »

Glad everybody's ok...
---------- ADS -----------
 
I want to die like my grandfather did, peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming in terror like his passengers...
rotorfloat
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 6:38 am

Post by rotorfloat »

16 replies, and no one asking for pics? :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
W8XC3XQN
Rank 0
Rank 0
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 7:36 am

Post by W8XC3XQN »

To W squared - just because the engine has a prop on the front of the engine doesn't necessarily make it a piston engine aircraft. The plane is regularily used by airlines as a commuter or feeder aircraft. The press wasn't stretching either definition here.

I agree that the press like to make mountains out of molehills. Last week they reported a HUGE avalanche in Colorado - 50 yards wide! I don't know about you guys, but if it was any shorter than 3 luxury power boats put nose to tail (150 feet) would many of people even thought it was worth even mentioning? But for some reason they thought it was HUGE. From what I've seen of avalanche footage this one seems like pretty small potatoes....
---------- ADS -----------
 
w squared
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2040
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:32 pm
Location: Somewhere in the patch

Post by w squared »

Buddy, I didn't say anything about piston engines. If the reporter can't tell the difference between a turboprop and a turbojet, they have no business reporting on anything involving aviation. They simply don't have the basic knowledge necessary to put the information in context.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Image

Please don't tell my mother that I work in the Oilpatch...she still thinks that I'm the piano player at a whorehouse.
electraguy
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 10:33 pm

ft st john accident

Post by electraguy »

Hey gang,

Well its easy to speculate on the cause, but I think until the pilot's story is heard, no one really knows. Thank goodness everyone is OK. As for the media, they are just after the hype, I agree that they don't have the aviation knowledge, but if you think of the variety of storys that they have to report on, they would need an army of reporters educated in every subject. Perhaps running there storys past an aviation "expert" wouldn't be a bad idea. Either way, everyone is OK and I hope the crew is back in air soon.! If the weather there was anything like it is here in Red Deer today, yikes that musy have been a scary approach!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Son, Your gonna have to make your mind up about growing up and becoming a pilot.. You can't do both!!
xsbank
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5655
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: "The Coast"

Post by xsbank »

You can't use the 'plane again=bad landing.

Look for the reason, that's more interesting. Maybe gusting to 40 with 1/4 mile in snow...Lawn darts aren't exactly bush machines...when exactly would you say "enough?" or "alternate?" Interesting to know how he would taxi in across a 40 knot wind on a slippery ramp. 45 knots is enough to ground loop a CL604 - ask me how I know (course a Dart doesn't have much tail).

I don't know what happened here, MEN, but don't ever forget the number one butt-saver: "Go around, check thrust, flaps, positive rate, gear up."
---------- ADS -----------
 
"What's it doing now?"
"Fly low and slow and throttle back in the turns."
Mach1
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:04 am

Post by Mach1 »

Devil’s advocate question here – What qualifies one as an expert in their field?
---------- ADS -----------
 
I'm going to knock this up a notch with my spice weasle. Bam!
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

The Vancouver Province said it landed about 100 to 150 meters short of the runway.

Were they doing an ILS with glide slope?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
the_professor
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Thu Sep 21, 2006 3:03 pm

Post by the_professor »

Raybanman wrote:
the_professor wrote:What are reasonable Wx conditions for attempting to land up there?
I believe that there's an ILS there 29?, so 1/2 mile is reasonable, or 3/8 according to the new approach ban...

Glad everyone's ok.

Cheers,
PP
A 40 degree 40kt crosswind on an ILS to minimums? Is anyone surprised when attempting an approach in those conditions occassionally ends up with someone in the snow? I'm not.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Donald
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2451
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:34 am
Location: Canada

Post by Donald »

the_professor wrote:A 40 degree 40kt crosswind on an ILS to minimums? Is anyone surprised when attempting an approach in those conditions occassionally ends up with someone in the snow? I'm not.
Okay, so a headwind of about 31kts and a crosswind component of about 26kts. Challenging, but not impossible, just ask anyone who operates out of YYT in the winter for example.

However, that doesn't tell us the whole story does it? What about windshear, turbulence, and the runway condition? Anyone know these factors?
---------- ADS -----------
 
co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4774
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Post by co-joe »

One one hand Peace Air is basically the last company left in AB (that I know of) where a pilot can come close to putting 1200 hours per year in their log book. Unfortunately they have to treat their people like shit to do it. It's one of those good/ bad things...Good place to get hours, bad place to have a career.

As for the Incident/ Accident, I'll wait till the TSB report before I monday morning quarter back this one. Glad all are okay.

CJ
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
fogghorn
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 442
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:56 pm
Location: Californiurp

Post by fogghorn »

Cat Driver wrote:The Vancouver Province said it landed about 100 to 150 meters short of the runway.

Were they doing an ILS with glide slope?

That is my understanding, so how do you end up that short of the runway while following the GS??? Very strange..
---------- ADS -----------
 
You will never live long enough to know it all, so quit being anal about it..
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

" That is my understanding, so how do you end up that short of the runway while following the GS??? Very strange.."
_________________

Yeh, my thoughts exactly.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Boundary Layer
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:39 am

Glide Slope?

Post by Boundary Layer »

Initial findings are pointing to low level wind shear.

Anyone have the FD's from that day to compare with the ground wind?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Hapless
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 2:54 pm

Post by Hapless »

JET A-1, don't been an ass, have some respect and simpathy for you brethren. You were not there, and yes the WX went down hill there very quickly. They were not expecting the WX to be that bad, as shown by the fact that the taf was amended. As Boundary Layer said, findings are pointing to low level wind shear. In fact, two of our A/C were on route at the time of the accident as the taf and metars only an hour earlier were not that bad...one was next inline to Peace Air. We should let the process run its course before jumping to conclusions. I always watch what I say, Karma can bite you in the ass.
---------- ADS -----------
 
g5
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:07 am

Post by g5 »

You will find that TC does in fact require simulator training on single engine turbine aircraft when used for commercial operations in IFR.


tc link

Anyways, shit can happen to anyone so stop speculating and typing bullshit.
---------- ADS -----------
 
SKYTRAILS
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:47 pm

Post by SKYTRAILS »

Only the initial training is done on a SIM. Recurrent training is not done on a sim. First Officers do not do SIM, and the 3 hrs of training (which I did on reposition legs) was a bit of a joke. Sending everyone for sim training is a huge expense, and despite the huge safety advantage, most 703 companies probably wont send their guys unless mandated by transport.

Did anyone else notice the media release that Peace Air sent out regarding the mishap in YXJ? see http://peaceair.net/jan_9.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 9 Incident

Dear Customers:

On January 9th, 2007 one of Peace Air Ltd. aircraft was involved in an incident at the Fort St. John Airport. Over the next couple of weeks we will be conducting both an internal and several external Safety Audits to ensure all the contributing factors are accounted for. The goal as always will be to provide you with the highest standard of safety in the industry. In the interim it is important to review some of the preliminary results of our investigation and the steps taken to date.

The weather forecast for January 9th, 2007 was poor. Our Captain on the flight inspected the weather before departing Grande Prairie on a scheduled flight to Fort St John. At the time the weather did not indicate any changes from his first briefing. However, on approach into Fort St. John the weather had significantly changed since his departure. The visibility had deteriorated to ¼ mile and the winds were gusty. Having the legal weather criteria for an approach and having experienced this type of weather before the crew elected to continue the approach.

The preliminary report indicates that the gusty conditions likely created a low level wind shear. Wind shear occurs where there is a rapid change in wind direction and/or speed. This will cause the aircraft to descend very quickly with no prior warning to the crew. Given the poor visibility and the wind shear at the same time caused the aircraft to touchdown prior to the runway.

Although the early touchdown caused some damage to the aircraft, no one on board was injured. The aircraft did come to a stop on the runway and they waited for emergency vehicles to arrive before exiting the aircraft. All passengers were medically examined upon arrival to the terminal.

At this time we have no reason to believe the crew was complacent in there duties or that the aircraft experienced any malfunction. All Peace Air Ltd. personnel have been trained to deal with this type of situation and in this case everyone responded promptly and professionally.

We will continue to complete this investigation using our Safety Management System, and work closely with Transport Canada as well as an external Safety Auditing company. If there are any concerns with Peace Air Ltd’s operations or further questions please call me at our toll free number.

Sincerely,

Bill Vasquez,
Operations Manager,
Peace Air Ltd. 1-800-563-3060
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

" If there are any concerns with Peace Air Ltd’s operations or further questions please call me at our toll free number. "
Why?
---------- ADS -----------
 
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Boundary Layer
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 8:39 am

Post by Boundary Layer »

The Jetstream....again, sim is mandatory as required by TC


That's what I was referring to. Thanks for the clarity g5.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”