Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Canada Flight 621: Reasons For The Go-around?  
User currently offlineHappy-flier From Canada, joined Dec 1999, 299 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4983 times:

Back in July, the story of the ill-fated Air Canada flight #621 that crashed on a go-around from YYZ 34 years ago made the news. As I read through the details of this sad incident, I remained puzzled by one thing: Why did the captain choose to execute a go-around after the aircraft hit the ground so hard following spoiler deployment by the FO some 60 feet above the runway?

The transcript is online at http://aviation-safety.net/cvr/cvr_ac621.shtml.

In a previous discussion, someone pointed out that ATC may not have had a view of the DC-8-63 when it hit hard and lost engine #4, so the crew might not have realized what happened right away. But I would think that with such a hard drop onto the runway, the impact itself would have been cause for not going around. And the other thing that puzzles me is the suggestion that there wasn't enough runway to stop the aircraft following impact. Arriving from Montreal, wouldn't the aircraft have been relatively under-fuelled? And besides, runway 32 is over 11,000 ft. in length. Did the DC-8 hit the runway at the halfway mark?

There are lots of things that I can't reconcile when trying to create an image of those critical moments. I'd appreciate any additional thoughts/input.

(BTW, a book is apparently going to be released next year, on the 35th anniversary of the accident. If anyone knows the release date, publisher, etc., please reply. Thanks.)

[Edited 2004-08-18 22:26:39]


May the wind be always at your back . . . except during takeoff & landing.
5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4915 posts, RR: 43
Reply 1, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 4920 times:

When the first officer (in error) deployed the spoilers, the captain pushed the throttles to go around thrust to arrest the sink rate. This also restowed the spoilers.

The aircraft hit the ground at the 400 ft mark of the 10500 ft runway and bounced back into the air with the engines at go-around thrust. Climbing away from the runway, the captain elected to go around, and called for go-around flaps.

This decision was not wrong, in fact, the investigators even commented in the final analysis, that the decision was not wrong, however once the decision was made, the outcome was irreversible.

FYI, engine number 4 did not hit the ground, it was "flicked" off the wing with the impact, and took a piece of tank 4A with it, now spilling fuel. The engine still running, (yes!) actually flew through the spilling fuel and ignited it, causing the results.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineHappy-flier From Canada, joined Dec 1999, 299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4884 times:

Thanks for the explanation LongHauler. I didn't think about arresting the sink rate as being a factor. I wonder, if the captain had not done that, whether the aircraft would have broken up on initial impact? It very well may have.


May the wind be always at your back . . . except during takeoff & landing.
User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4915 posts, RR: 43
Reply 3, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4882 times:

It said in the report, that had the FO deployed the spoilers 0.5 seconds earlier or later, then the result would have been quite different.

0.5 seconds earlier, then the Captain would have been able to reduce the sink rate enough to have a safe landing. 0.5 seconds later, and the plane would have crashed on the runway, but would likely have been a surviveable crash.

Also, had it been a DC-8-61 vs a DC-8-63, as was the original plan, then also, the crash likely would not have happened. The aircraft were switched at the last minute. AC805 YUL-YYZ-YEG was switched with AC621 YUL-YYZ-LAX. They departed 30 minutes apart.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineHappy-flier From Canada, joined Dec 1999, 299 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4875 times:

Also, had it been a DC-8-61 vs a DC-8-63, as was the original plan, then also, the crash likely would not have happened.

Would this be because of the difference in pylon design? Just casually observing the two types seems to me to suggest so. The -62/-63 series pylons are hung from the underside of the wing, while the -61 pylons seem to overlap right over the wing surface a bit.



May the wind be always at your back . . . except during takeoff & landing.
User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4915 posts, RR: 43
Reply 5, posted (9 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4873 times:

Two reasons actually.

The DC-8-62 and -63 pylon design was in question after the accident, as it was deemed less sturdy then the DC-8-10 to -40, or the -50/61 design. However unlucky, the pylon design was not deemed to be unsafe. (Although, when breaking away, it should not have taken a part of the fuel tank with it!)

Also, in the earlier versions of the DC-8, the spoilers were far less likely to deploy in the air. In fact, it was the mistrust of the DC-8-62/63 system that caused the pilots to not follow Air Canada SOPs.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Air Canada Flight 621: Reasons For The Go-around?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Canada's DC-8s: What Were The Interiors Like? posted Mon Dec 6 2004 22:53:01 by Happy-flier
Go-around Costs For An Airline? posted Wed Jun 14 2006 06:36:33 by FLY2HMO
Have You Had To Go Around For A Police Helicopter? posted Sun Oct 30 2005 11:18:42 by Julesmusician
Cause For Go-Around? posted Mon Jul 8 2002 01:26:15 by Sleekjet
Flap Retract Schedule On Go Around posted Sun Oct 29 2006 10:17:30 by Speedracer1407
Airbus Go Around ... Myths And Reality? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 23:46:46 by Kaitak
747 Flight Engineer, Who Makes The Job Now? posted Fri Sep 1 2006 17:51:25 by F.pier
Question For The Aeronautical Engineers ... posted Sat Jul 15 2006 01:03:42 by Sesd97
Flight Tracking Software For A Mac posted Sun May 28 2006 23:22:06 by Okelleynyc
Max Distance For The Concorde? posted Tue Mar 28 2006 17:39:51 by 747LUVR

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format