LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9 Posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
The Transportation Safety Board has released it's official report in regard to the December 18, 2000 incident in which an Antonov Airlines An-124 ran off the end of Rwy 25 at YQG.
At approximately 23:30 (EST) that night, the An-124 chartered by Air Foyle to deliver some 40 tons of auto parts from YQG (Windsor, Ontario) to OST (Ostend, Belgium), touched down on Rwy 25, that was at the time 7850 feet (2394 meters) long. Unable to stop, the a/c skidded for 340 feet past the edge of the runway, coming to a stop about 20 feet from the airport's fence. Immideatly behind the fence is a rail line, and right behind that are a bunch of private homes. The a/c was not damaged, although it did destroy an ILS antenna. It spent a couple of days in the snow before it could be extracted.
In short, the report distributes that blame between the a/c's crew, and the air traffic controllers (YQG's tower is closed between 22:30 and 06:30 local time, at that time a/c are advised by London RCO). Most of the runway was covered with snow and ice at the time, a fact that according to the report, the air traffic controlers failed to relay sufficiently to the 124's crew and/or the crew failed to understand due to the use of "non-standard" terms by the controllers to describe runway conditions, as well as the crew not being briefed as to the Canadian friction rating system. According to the latest runway tests performed before the 124's arrival, the runway was rated as ".30", a fact that the controllers failed to mention to the crew. In addition, it appears that it took the controller 30 seconds to realize that the mishap had occured and to alert emergency services.
The 124 came in too high on it's approach, and 6 knots faster than it's normal landing speed (151 instead of 145 knots), touching down 3400' (!!!) past the rwy's threshold, which left them 4450' of runway, more than enough for an empty An-124 on a dry runway, but not in those conditions, with a tail wind of 4 knots. One has to wonder why the a/c was landing on rwy 25 if it had a tail wind, instead of landing the other way (07) into the wind. The only possible explanation would have to be the fact that there are houses on the other edge of the runway. Still, I'm sure the residents would rather have the a/c fly overhead than be woken up by the roaring thrust reversers of an Antonov 124 heading straight for their house!
Needless to say, the residents got really pissed off (they probably didn't realize that they were buying a house that is located 500' from the edge of a runway ) and re-started whining about how they want the "big airplanes" gone etc. (I don't hear them complaining about the trains that routinely pass through their back yard, possibly carrying hazardous materials). If I had any money, I'd be more than happy to buy the houses from those losers, I'd build an observation deck or something...
Unfortunately, the city listened, and the 124's haven't been back since (don't know about the Il-76's). Now that the report has been published (and rwy 07-25 has been lengthened to 9000'), Alan Graham, the airport's manager has requested the city to lift the idiotic ban.
The TSB is unlikely to take any disciplinary action against any of the involved.
Captaingomes From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 6413 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (12 years 10 months 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1391 times:
Hey, that's an interesting bit of information. It's such a shame that politicians still listen to the people who live around the airport, who 99% of the time moved after the airport was built, then after the fact they complain, and still get their way. There are plenty of other places to live!!! But of course, why would they have residential areas around an airport?
Anyways, that's too much to argue right now. Thanks for the article.
"it's kind of like an Airbus, it's an engineering marvel, but there's no sense of passion" -- J. Clarkson re: Coxster
LY744 From Canada, joined Feb 2001, 5536 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (12 years 10 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1346 times:
Those folks don't care about the economy, they are certain that if and when the "big planes" return to YQG, they will do all in their power to crash right into their houses!
Even if there was any kind of danger associated with heavy freighters operating from that runway due to the proximity to residential areas (which there isn't), it would make much more sense to remove the half dozen houses rather than the airport!
RoyalDutch From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 917 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (12 years 10 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1342 times:
Great post LY744! I really enjoyed it. And I don't see why people gripe about aircraft noise...I love it!!! Just get really good insulation in your house....what I wouldn't give to live at the end of a runway....!