And again, more headlines from Jetsgo.

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:39 pm

Runway debris prompts safety probe
Planes still landed, took off at Pearson after Jetsgo mishap left metal on ground
By KEITH MCARTHUR AND BRENT JANG

Tuesday, March 8, 2005
Updated at 9:34 AM EST

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is looking into why seven aircraft used a runway scattered with potentially deadly debris Friday afternoon, after a Jetsgo Boeing MD83 lost one of its two engines at Toronto's Pearson International Airport.

Pilots of the Vancouver-bound flight aborted takeoff at 3:18 p.m. after an engine blew and debris spilled onto the runway.

"The aircraft notified that it had a problem, but did not indicate at the time that there might have been a risk of debris or oil on the runway," said Louis Garneau, a spokesman for Nav Canada, which runs the country's air traffic control system.

Over the next 20 minutes, seven aircraft took off and landed on the runway before Jetsgo advised traffic controllers that it may have spilled oil or debris. Only then did Nav Canada close the runway. Airport officials found an exhaust cone and several small pieces of metal on the runway.

Debris on runways can have tragic consequences. In 2000, a Air France Concorde jet plunged after takeoff from Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport. All 109 people aboard were killed when a sliver of metal from another aircraft punctured one of the Concorde's tires, which exploded and tore through the plane's wing, puncturing a fuel tank.

Jetsgo spokesman Brad Cicero said maintenance had been performed relatively recently on the Jetsgo aircraft's Pratt &Whitney engine.

On Friday, he said, "there were indications of a No. 1 engine malfunction during its takeoff role on the tarmac. Once that happened, the pilot notified the tower of the malfunction and taxied back to the gate."

He said the 66 passengers and six crew members aboard Flight 174 transferred to a different aircraft to resume the flight to Vancouver more than two hours later.

He said the pilot would not have been able to see whether there was debris on the runway because the Boeing MD-83 is a rear-engine aircraft.

Mr. Garneau said air-traffic controllers will shut down a runway if they notice debris, but he added that the tower is 2.4 kilometres from the runway and that controllers did not notice anything unusual after the aborted Jetsgo flight.

Transportation Safety Board spokesman John Cottreau said federal investigators are assessing the Jetsgo case to determine whether it warrants a deeper probe.

Transport Canada spokeswoman Lucie Vignola said the federal department is aware of the incident. Normally, a pilot would "advise the tower" about any engine problems, she said.

Friday's incident is one in a series of problems plaguing Jetsgo Corp., a privately owned company based in Montreal.

"I think that Jetsgo should be grounded temporarily," said Dianne Fraser of Toronto who was aboard another Jetsgo aircraft on Saturday that made an unscheduled stop in South Carolina in an unrelated incident. She said passengers were told that "one of the engines was leaking oil and had to be shut down."

Ms. Fraser said her family went through a "harrowing experience," made worse when "one of the flight attendants at the rear of the plane was praying out loud and crying." The passengers made it safely to Toronto Sunday on a different Jetsgo plane.

In late January, a Jetsgo plane landing at Calgary International Airport skidded partly off the runway and hit a sign, prompting a safety board investigation.

And last month, Transport Canada revoked an operating certificate, forcing Jetsgo to run its flights at lower altitude, which is less efficient for fuel consumption. That certificate has yet to be reinstated.

Just before Christmas, Jetsgo faced thousands of angry passengers left stranded amid flight cancellations in a Toronto winter storm.

The federal Air Travel Complaints Program received 160 complaints in 2004 about the airline, more than triple the number lodged in 2003.

tryme · Post by **tryme** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:41 pm

I always thought that a mandatory runway inspection was required after ANY aborted takeoff. I would like to know why Jetsgo is going through so many engines though.

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:42 pm

A little slow today, Blastor! Oh wait! You never post anything negative about SG!

What upsets me about what is reported to have happened, is the crew failed to mention to tower they had a catastrophic failure of their engine on the runway, and by doing so, risking the lives of people onboard 7 OTHER friggin planes!

Low speed rejects happen all the time in YYZ so tower wouldn't think to do a runway inspection unless given a good reason... they were not given any reason.

WS739 · Post by **WS739** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:37 pm

In the interest of safety for any airline i think it is now time to have a deeper peek at the maintnance practises.

Fly Safe

pimper · Post by **pimper** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:14 pm

Canus, they did a low speed reject because of erractic engine instruments. They taxied off the runway, shut down the engine as a precaution on the way to the gate. Once at the gate the mechanics saw what happened right away and ATC was notified. For all the crew knew it was a faulty reading.

Second ATC should have asked what the nature of the problem was and taken it from there or asked for an inspection all by themselves.

I am sure if the crew knew they had just spewed hunks of metal down the runway they would have advised someone.

Canus Chinookus · Post by **Canus Chinookus** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:44 pm

I certainly do hope you're right...

CanadaEH · Post by **CanadaEH** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 9:15 pm

Sure, and next week's "jetsgo incident of the week" article will be the same old song and dance too.

I know nothing about Jetsgo's maintenance or reliability aside from the things I read in the paper. Given the rise in reported incidents, I'd say where there's smoke, there's fire. I'd hate to see the next article reading "Jetsgo crashes..."

DA900 · Post by **DA900** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 11:17 pm

apparently I'm not suppose to discuss it. Sorry I should have not mentioned it.

Typhoon pilot · Post by **Typhoon pilot** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

Its OK DA 900 ain't this what the site is for. I was actually interested,simply because I hadn't heard anything.

wingnhut · Post by **wingnhut** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:34 am

Care to expand on that?? What are you referring to??

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:02 pm

I sometimes have to wonder just how many people on here have any experience, or even a licence.

So jetsgos' engine burps and the guys pull off the runway. If anyone has ever flown an MD80 or DC-9, they can tell you that the engines are barely audible to the crew. So they obviously had an indication and aborted but how were they to know if there was debris on the runway?

Did the Continental DC10 departing Paris know that he had left debris on the runway? No.

Pearson is the second most expensive piece of real estate in the world to land an airplane on. Second to Narita in Japan. You would think for that kind of money, they could inspect the *&%#$%ing runway!

North of You · Post by **North of You** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 4:36 pm

Ohhhh damn, there is that thing that smart ars pilots hate the most...logic.

Pajock · Post by **Pajock** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:41 pm

Sure, the pilots couldn't hear the engines, but the flight attendants seated at the back, in between the engines surely could! If parts fell off the engine, it must have made some noise. In the news reports, the Jetsgo spokesman said that because the engines were tail mounted, the pilots could not see them, so could not see damage. True enough! But then again, I don't know too many jet aircraft where you can see the engines. That's why it's nice to have F/A's on board. "What did you hear, can you see anything??" My 2 cents.

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:19 am

Pajoc

What if the aircraft was a 727 freighter with no F/A's? My point being that is not the responsibility of the crew to make sure that the GTAA is doing their job. Anywhere else in the world, a runway inspection would have been done.

Have you ever been taught in your training that when you reject a takeoff, you must inform the airport authority that there may or may not be any debris on the runway?

An aircraft could reject due to some reason other than an engine failure and blow tires. If it is a multiple bogey aircraft such as a 747, the crew may not even know they have blown a tire. Are they required to instruct the tower to do a runway inspection? Absolutely not, it is not the crews' job. They should only be concerned about the passenger, crew and aircraft safety and well being. They are not airport operators. That is what the GTAA is supposed to be and they fail miserably at it.

Expatriated · Post by **Expatriated** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:47 am

Well i'm in no way going to defend Jetsgo here as they definately don't deserve it from past experience.

However, the GTAA should have shut down the runway for an inspection. Period.

Just my 2 cents.

Pajock · Post by **Pajock** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:58 pm

Jaques, Tin Can, I agree, the GTAA should have done a runway inspection, but in their defence, what did the pilots tell them happened? Who knows. "We have an engine indication problem?" I don't know. As for flying cargo planes Jaques, your absolutely correct. But I would certainly hope the pilots would say something to the effect that there is the possibilty of something on the runway(oil, hydraulic fluid, parts). In the end, I suspect there will be blame on both parties, and we're all going to have to read an extra NOTAM in YYZ!!

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:44 pm

Ahhh yes more NOTAMS! I agree with you pajock, it is very good airmanship to pass along information to the tower that may twig them to think of a runway inspection.

If you rejected in Sao Paulo Brazil or Taiwan, you can be assured that your good airmanship will not be understood. That is why in a reject situation in a foreign country you should use "PAN" or "MAYDAY" as they only understand "aviation" english. This stops another 747 being launched up your ass when the RVR is down and you are still looking for the exit.

The controller has no idea what the words "debris" or "hydraulic fluid" mean. That is why the "industry standard" is to inspect the runway after a reject.

Frogsky · Post by **Frogsky** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:18 pm

Except.....the crew DID tell ATC after taxing off and shutting it down (just off the runway) due to low oil pressure and QTY that there might be oil on the runway (from the horses mouth)!! They did not know that there had been parts strewn on the runway and the fact that they did not know is not a suprise as there was no other cockpit indication.