Air Canada Landing Accident At Halifax

kl911 · Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:08 pm

Why are only portside slide deployed? There was no fire was there?

cylw · Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:09 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 48):
That article is implying that the airplane landed short and struck power lines before touching the ground. That is not a runway overrun. If the ILS is working properly, I wonder what would cause an airplane to land short other than winds and an unstable approach.

Runway 05 only has a LOC approach. No Glideslope.

SaschaYHZ · Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:10 pm

Quoting kl911 (Reply 50):
Why are only portside slide deployed? There was no fire was there?

Perhaps the angle of the aircraft...perhaps only one of the landing gear collapsed thus the aircraft was tilted and the slides were only needed on one side. [edit] Ok looking at the pics maybe not...sorry!

[Edited 2015-03-29 06:10:53]

cylw · Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:11 pm

Winds were gusting up to 54kts at 0400Z

SPECI CYHZ 290313Z 35020G26KT 1/2SM R14/3500V4500FT/N SN DRSN VV003
M06/M07 A2963 RMK SN8 SLP040

CYHZ 290400Z 34019G54KT 3/4SM R14/5000VP6000FT/D -SN DRSN
BKN007 OVC010 M06/M07 A2964 RMK SF7SC1 SLP045

roseflyer · Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:23 pm

Quoting cylw (Reply 51):

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 48):
That article is implying that the airplane landed short and struck power lines before touching the ground. That is not a runway overrun. If the ILS is working properly, I wonder what would cause an airplane to land short other than winds and an unstable approach.

Runway 05 only has a LOC approach. No Glideslope.

Thanks for the clarification. I am sure there will be quite a bit of investigating and reporting on The challenges associated with a LOC approach in those conditions.

BestWestern · Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:26 pm

This is a serious accident, rather than AC speak of an aircraft 'exiting' the runway.

AV Herald has a concise para on the accident

An Air Canada Airbus A320-200, registration C-FTJP performing flight AC-624 (dep Mar 28th) from Toronto,ON to Halifax,NS (Canada) with 133 passengers and 5 crew, was on approach to Halifax's runway 05 at about 00:07L (03:07Z) when the aircraft touched down short of and below the runway threshold, clipped a powerline and approach light about 250 meters short of the runway, climbed the embankment up to the runway level and came to a stop past the threshold of the runway near taxiway B about 300 meters down the runway. The aircraft was evacuated. 23 people received injuries and were taken to a hospital, the aircraft sustained substantial damage (collapsed gear, engine separated, wing damage, horizontal stabilizer damage).

http://avherald.com/h?article=483e7337&opt=0

It is a miracle that more people weren't seriously injured.

The photos on AVherald show an aircraft in bad bad condition.

osiris30 · Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:38 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 55):
when the aircraft touched down short of and below the runway threshold, clipped a powerline and approach light about 250 meters short of the runway, climbed the embankment up to the runway level and came to a stop past the threshold of the runway near taxiway B about 300 meters down the runway.

If correct that's a crash landing not an overshoot or an existed runway or whatever the title of the thread is. I really think the thread title should be changed back.

Aesma · Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:38 pm

Wow that's bad.

They're very fortunate that the runway surroundings allowed to crashland it like that before the threshold, elsewhere it could mean a much worse outcome.

Interesting to see the fuselage is still in one piece.

Vio · Sun Mar 29, 2015 1:40 pm

That's not good news at all. I heard of this last night after I landed in Ottawa. That aircraft looks pretty damaged, but it doesn't take much to destroy a plane. The're pretty fragile when they hit something. Glad that everyone's okay. Metal can be replaced.

[Edited 2015-03-29 07:28:51]

ltbewr · Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:03 pm

This crash kinda reminds me of Asiana 214.which initially made contact short of a runway threshold.

So now time for the 'armchair investigators' to put the points in. Possible factors here:
Weather including gusting winds
Misjudgment of altitude and speed on final approach. That could be pilot error, incorrect info into the autopilot, not compensating for the weather.
Icing on wings. That could have reduced lift at a critical time.
Pitot tubes icing/blocked - thus incorrect speed inputs to autopilot.
Incorrect flap setting (I presume set by the autopilot)
Pilots under time pressure, weather possibly to get worse, didn't want to divert, tired/fatigued.

markalot · Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:19 pm

I think wind shear during the final approach is the most likely answer? Maybe a severe downdraft at just the wrong time?

GE9X · Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:34 pm

It was a crash landing, not a runway overrun, the title should be changed. Here are more photos from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada : http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsbcanada/sets/72157651565742766/

KarelXWB · Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:39 pm

Daylight photos have been released:

Right side view of aircraft, daytime by TSBCanada, on Flickr

Front & right side view of aircraft, daytime by TSBCanada, on Flickr

Left side view of aircraft, daytime by TSBCanada, on Flickr

garpd · Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:43 pm

Ooooft. Guardian angels working overtime for the occupants of that plane that night!

osiris30 · Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:45 pm

Quoting GE9X (Reply 61):
It was a crash landing, not a runway overrun, the title should be changed.

Said that last night... The minute I heard about contact with static structures like power lines I knew it wasn't just and overrun.

Quoting GE9X (Reply 61):
Here are more photos from the Transportation Safety Board of Canada : http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsbcanada/sets/72157651565742766/

Luckily it seems everyone was belted in for a change or there might have been some very serious injuries. That's not a lightly damaged aircraft.

CyberEntomology · Sun Mar 29, 2015 2:56 pm

Oof, that's a little more than a 'hard landing'. It was a 'good landing' in that everyone walked away from it, but not a 'great landing' in that there's no way they will be reusing that a/c for anything but parts.

Interesting that the CBC article made no mention whatsoever of the fact that this was an Airbus 320, presumably to prevent the sort of mad speculation that Airbii might not be safe airplanes. Random act of journalism? May also be why they're not calling it a 'crash' in the news. Two A320 crashes in a week could freak the flying public a bit, especially those with a tenuous grasp on statistical probability, which is pretty much everyone these days.

gdg9 · Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:05 pm

Looks to be C-FTJP

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/AC624

Kaiarahi · Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:09 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 48):
If the ILS is working properly

LOC back course in a blizzard - apparently after circling for 30 minutes. Wonder what the alternate was, weather at alternate, and fuel situation.

GSPSPOT · Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:12 pm

I just can't believe this is a fault of the equipment. I'm not always objective about being a Boeing fanboi, but if this was caused by a fault in design or manufacture, deductive logic says that we would be seeing more of this sort of thing with this model, IMO.

[Edited 2015-03-29 08:15:45]

cylw · Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:13 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 67):
LOC back course in a blizzard - apparently after circling for 30 minutes. Wonder what the alternate was, weather at alternate, and fuel situation.

Well, the YQM weather was quite nice.

CYQM 290400Z 32010KT 15SM OVC052 M05/M10 A2980 RMK SC8 SLP095

CYQM 290300Z 33006KT 15SM SCT058 OVC067 M05/M10 A2979 RMK
SC4AC4 SLP092

GSPSPOT · Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:17 pm

Quoting markalot (Reply 60):
I think wind shear during the final approach is the most likely answer? Maybe a severe downdraft at just the wrong time?

Do cold weather systems have downdrafts like thunderstorms do?

Armodeen · Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:23 pm

Wow. Doesn't seem to have made the news at all over here in the UK... amazing really.

Miami · Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:24 pm

Look at that wing...

Close up up view of right wing by TSBCanada, on Flickr

aerolimani · Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:31 pm

Photo of the YHZ localizer antenna at the threshold of runway 05. Photo from Transport Canada's investigation of the MK Airlines crash in 2004.

That looks a lot like a piece of the localizer array embedded in the nose of C-FTJP. Also, we can now see engine 1 in the background, most definitely separated from the aircraft.

[Edited 2015-03-29 08:34:48]

yfbflyer · Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:37 pm

Some associated press video of the "hard landing" aftermath.
Appears to show some damaged power lines from the accident around 38s and some possibly separated landing gear

https://youtu.be/y7GIDycRZcM

sixtyseven · Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:41 pm

These things get torn up pretty quickly when they go off road. You look at AF in YYZ and everyone walked off you would have thought that looking at the burnt out hulk. Looking at the aircraft afterwards is not what an investigator will do to classify the severity of the incident.

I think it's semantics debating hard landing/overrun/crash.

It was an accident is how TSB will classify it. Depending on injuries it could be a serious one. I'm not sure if it's classified as a hull loss with no deaths? Not sure there. Obviously this aircraft is a write off.

Was not a LOC(BC). They have been decommissioned in Canada for sometime. RNAV or NDB depending on a/c equipment. With this frame I don't think an RNAV was an option.

The big thing is people got out. All are okay. Wait for the report to come out. Learn from it. Make sure it never happens again.

B747forever · Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:56 pm

Quoting sixtyseven (Reply 75):
Wait for the report to come out. Learn from it. Make sure it never happens again.

I am very eager to know what caused this serious accident. The A320 looks pretty beat up.

cylw · Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:00 pm

Quoting sixtyseven (Reply 75):
Was not a LOC(BC). They have been decommissioned in Canada for sometime. RNAV or NDB depending on a/c equipment. With this frame I don't think an RNAV was an option.

Runway 05 has a LOC approach.

CPDC10-30 · Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:03 pm

You have to admire the A320, it really took a beating and still stayed intact.

Glad to hear there's no serious injuries.

Bambel · Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:05 pm

Quoting kl911 (Reply 50):

Why are only portside slide deployed? There was no fire was there?

On the first pic in #62 you can see that the right hand overwing slide is deployed.

b.

sixtyseven · Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:18 pm

LOC(BC) approaches have been decommissioned I don't think I mentioned LOC approaches.

sixtyseven · Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:21 pm

As for the slides. CFR may have removed the windward slides immediately after evacuation. In those winds they could have been buffeting and causing hazard. Gusts to 52kts.

frmrCapCadet · Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:26 pm

I think the old term, crash landing, is likely descriptive of what happened. The pilots did land successfully, and all souls aboard are still alive, and evidently not critically injured. Pilots did crash the plane and it seems ruined. And a great illustration that modern jet lines can take a lot of punishment and still protect passengers and crew.

Kaiarahi · Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:28 pm

Quoting sixtyseven (Reply 80):
LOC(BC) approaches have been decommissioned I don't think I mentioned LOC approaches.

Duhh - I wasn't thinking when I first wrote BC.

bennett123 · Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:37 pm

Is the runway currently blocked.

If so, then doubtless the airport will drag it clear as soon as they get the OK.

bleudefrance · Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:44 pm

No serious injuries, that's the most important thing in the end of the day.

zeke · Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:49 pm

kinda reminds me of a Lear accident that landed short when the crew forgot to set the QNH, hope they made the adjustments for temp.

Acey · Sun Mar 29, 2015 4:58 pm

Runway 5/23 currently NOTAM closed until Tuesday morning, and the ILS for 23 showing as U/S until Friday night.

RogerMurdock · Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:01 pm

Anyone see the landing gear in the photos? Looks like clean shearing off, as designed, to protect occupants. 1 of 2 engines too.

bmacleod · Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:07 pm

I'd be very surprised if the heavy snow was a factor. Modern aircraft like the A320 have advanced navigation systems designed to overcome any visibility factor.

The runways continue to be plowed even during a snowstorm so I doubt heavy snow on the runway was a factor.......

DDR · Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:12 pm

Very glad that there was no loss of life. For everything it went through, that A320 protected everyone onboard.

It's always sad when a plane reaches the end of its lifetime especially when it is unexpected. Looks like the crew did a fantastic job in getting the passengers out and keeping them safe.

YYZAMS · Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:19 pm

Quoting DDR (Reply 91):

Very glad that there was no loss of life. For everything it went through, that A320 protected everyone onboard.

It's always sad when a plane reaches the end of its lifetime especially when it is unexpected.

Agreed! Modern engineering should be recognized here instead of focusing on the negative!

EMAman · Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:31 pm

It never rains it pours, 3rd A320 in as many months!! I am pleased this one ended with no casualties. Good luck to all on board.

lostsound · Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:38 pm

Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 32):
Are you an aircraft engineer?

Are you serious?

Lets review:
- One wings completely mangled and destroyed
- Belly of plane damaged
- Nose of plane heavily damaged
- One engine has ripped off and has been destroyed
- Landing gear ripped off and collapsed
- Aircraft 24 years old and was likely going to be replaced in 2018 by 737MAX
- Air Canada has been adding A320s to their fleet to build capacity already, it should be easier for them to acquire a new leased A320 then give an old A320 a whole new wing...

[Edited 2015-03-29 10:39:43]

737tdi · Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:42 pm

Just a note, if you hit structures prior to landing/touchdown, that is a crash. There seems to be some defensiveness over this. No one is saying anything bad about Air Canada. I can remember the posts here when one of our aircraft overran at MDW, people are being much nicer on this post?? Glad everyone is OK.

coolian2 · Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:48 pm

I think the technical term is 'they got bloody lucky'.

awthompson · Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:53 pm

Rather reminds me of Asiana 214 and BA38.

It's worth remembering that seven crew members lost their lives when MK Airlines 747-200F 9G-MKJ hit this same Berm at Halifax on 14th October 2004. It was going the opposite direction of course and hit the Berm on take off. Used wrong weight and consequently calculated wrong speeds failing to gain altitude. Now this same localiser antenna is wrecked again. Maybe the time has come to to re profile the ground in this area!

I hate to say it, but I observe that aviation accidents seem to come in threes in quick succession, that's two

awthompson · Sun Mar 29, 2015 5:58 pm

Quoting EMAman (Reply 92):

It never rains it pours, 3rd A320 in as many months!! I am pleased this one ended with no casualties. Good luck to all on board.

Ok, then this one is number three, I wasn't counting back as far as the Air Asia but you're right! (see final point of my last post for context).

ozark1 · Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:10 pm

Quoting sudden (Reply 38):
Due to recent tragedy earlier this week I bet media will now question if the A320, or even the whole Airbus family, is a safe plane and all that BS that they usually come up with just to be able to have something to gossip about for days.

I immediately thought the same thing. I wonder how many times that AF demo flight accident will be shown. But then again perhaps the recent tragedy might make the media go easier on them.

bmacleod · Sun Mar 29, 2015 6:10 pm

Quoting Lostsound (Reply 93):
- Belly of plane damaged

But hopefully the cargo and baggage can be recovered?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net