Airliners.net

Quoting speedbird707 (Reply 149): does AC have anything spare to replace this frame?

Air Canada has been adding A320s and A321s for the fleet short term until the 737MAXs arrive in 2018. This will just put a dent in their fleet expansion plans but likely won't hurt them at their current capacity.

I agree that it seems illogical to have power lines up in the air in the (short) final approach path to an airport. I mean, in theory, they are - as far as the airport is concerned - functioning as unwanted Navy arresting wires with no good function and only bad. Sure, the chance is so low of an accident, but once impact happens lives are in play. Why not make a few "shovel-ready" jobs and underground them?

[Edited 2015-03-29 20:22:17]

Question: it has been a while now and seems AC has no intention of painting the tail and logo white like other airlines do. Is that the case?

It looks like some extra sections have been operating to clear the traffic. AC has a 763 scheduled tomorrow from YUL at 0630.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 55): 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 AVHerald's description of the accident doesn't seem to fit the condition of the aircraft. AVHerald states the plane touched down, then clipped a powerline and approach light 250 meters (about 820 feet) before the runway. The road looks closer than 820 feet from the runway edge. Moreover, touching the ground, then hitting the power line would mean the plane would have hit the ground before the road, traveled across the perimeter road, through a fence and then up the embankment to the light structure and then 300 meters or so down the runway. I don't see how that could have happened given the condition of the plane. It appears the plane clipped the wires, just made it over the road and struck either the top of the embankment or the light structure, then skidded down the runway. Perhaps it hit the ground before the road, became airborne again, clipped the wires and hit the light structure.

It will be interesting to see the official report. Hitting the ground even a few feet earlier could have resulted in a catastrophic situation.

Quoting speedbird707 (Reply 149): As far as write offs go...what happened the the Dash 8 at Edmonton a few months ago...what that repaired or scrapped...also, does AC have anything spare to replace this frame?...desert maybe

Looks like it's being repaired

Images from a reddit thread

In terms of the shortage of a frame, I think in another thread someone mentioned AC taking delivery of two ex AF frames recently. They have a sizable A32X fleet, I'm sure they have the lift to operate short a frame.




[Edited 2015-03-29 21:01:34]

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 70): Do cold weather systems have downdrafts like thunderstorms do?

I don't see why not as blizzard is really not that different from a thunderstorm its created by the same systems warm and cold mixing its just that the base temperature is much lower. Also Thundersnow while rare can happen.

Quoting CO953 (Reply 151): I agree that it seems illogical to have power lines up in the air in the (short) final approach path to an airport. I mean, in theory, they are - as far as the airport is concerned - functioning as unwanted Navy arresting wires with no good function and only bad. Sure, the chance is so low of an accident, but once impact happens lives are in play. Why not make a few "shovel-ready" jobs and underground them?

Were these high voltage transmission lines or utility poles?

I am betting it is the latter and instead of burying them perhaps lower them down to the height of the fence as there is not going to build around there.

I have driven around YYZ and in every location in near the runways such as the 427, Dixie rd, Airport rd, Derry rd. etc. all have low street lights and traffic lights no higher than the fence. Even the 401 has standard truss streetlights under the flighpaths where high-mast lighting is present anywhere else on the highway.

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

Since AC has gone to 1 FA per 50 pax there is no one to man the R2 door....

Maybe our wonderful transport minister will wake up and review this policy!!!

[Edited 2015-03-29 22:51:54]

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 156): I don't see why not as blizzard is really not that different from a thunderstorm its created by the same systems warm and cold mixing its just that the base temperature is much lower.

The differential between the cold air at the top and warm air at the bottom is much smaller. There are probably still downdrafts but I can't imagine they'd be the same intensity. On the other hand, blizzards often have very strong crosswinds, stronger and more consistent (less gusty) than most thunderstorms.

Quoting whiteguy (Reply 157): Since AC has gone to 1 FA per 50 pax there is no one to man the R2 door.... Maybe our wonderful transport minister will wake up and review this policy!!!

No fire, no rush. Cockpit and or passengers can open the door if it is time critical. 1FA/50pax is basically the international standard.

Quoting exfss (Reply 103): From the new here, (in french) people seem to have stayed 50 minutes outside, on the runway, beside the crashed airplane, waiting for help. People coming back from south, with summer clothes on only, some with no shoes ... 50 minute for intervention is quiet long.

Careful with eyewitness reports and interpretations thereof. I'm quite sure that the emergency response was not that long. That pax perhaps had to be outside in the cold for 50min before being brought to the terminal, seems a more likely interpretation. Oh well, just don't travel in flip flops next time.

Quoting whiteguy (Reply 157): Since AC has gone to 1 FA per 50 pax there is no one to man the R2 door....

50 is the international standard. And only half the slides are needed for evacuation. And without fire, there was no hurry or need to open more doors. So nothing abnormal here.

What is the height difference between the touch down point and the localizer antenna?

Glad no one was killed. This aircraft makes the Delta MD88 that went off the runway in LGA look to be in excellent condition lol. Those pilots really did a number on that A320, even the horizontal stabilizers are broke off.

This is really closer to a crash than a crashed landing but even CNN is calling it a "hard landing"...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/americ...canada-halifax-incident/index.html

Wow, i just sat down and scanned through all the 'aftermath' photos from this incident. Can't believe how badly damaged the plane is. This is a much more serious accident than i thought from the news reports.... Glad everyone made it out.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 161): What is the height difference between the touch down point and the localizer antenna?

I get 125m elevation for the localiser and 449m for 05 rwy threshold. A difference of 324m.

This could very easily have had an outcome similar to the UPS crash at BHM.

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 165): I get 125m elevation for the localiser and 449m for 05 rwy threshold. A difference of 324m.

Something's not right with your numbers, That would be a nearly 60-degree slope up to the runway. Field elevation is 145m/477'

According to Google Earth's elevation model, RWY05 threshold is 449', and the base of the localizer berm is 411'. There's an upslope there, but not the cliff you're describing.

The current localizer berm is located almost exactly where the MK flight came to rest in 2004, after a runway extension was built around 2012.

Quoting GE9X (Reply 61):

Wow!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tsbcanada/16771055337

There's even damage to the horizontal stabilizers. The right stab looks half sheared off. Both engines have been displaced. I'm quite amazed by the amount of damage while leaving the fuselage wholly intact.

Let's say for sake of argument that this plane were 1 year old. What would the argument be for repairing the damage and putting it back in the air?

[Edited 2015-03-30 07:12:39]

Quoting r2rho (Reply 160): Oh well, just don't travel in flip flops next time.

And be sure to grab your coat from the overhead while evacuating?

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 154): AVHerald states the plane touched down, then clipped a powerline and approach light 250 meters (about 820 feet) before the runway.

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 163): This is really closer to a crash than a crashed landing

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 163): This is a much more serious accident than i thought from the news reports

It's strange to me how the press seemed to be down-playing this accident.

FlightGlobal's first report from mid-day Sunday said:

Air Canada A320 comes off runway on landing at Halifax

yet at the time we knew here the issue wasn't that it "came off the runway" but that it contacted power lines and antennas long before it "came off the runway".

And today their reporting is refocused:

Air Canada A320 landed over 1,000ft short

It is interesting. I'd like to know if the aircraft stalled or something else happened during the landing - you just dont land short of a runway this far.

Looks very similar to the TK accident at AMS. It makes me wonder what would the aftermath be if the TK aircraft in that accident was an A320 instead of a B738.

[Edited 2015-03-30 07:45:55]

Quoting hivue (Reply 168): And be sure to grab your coat from the overhead while evacuating?

Was thinking the same thing. How cold was it that night with the wind chill?

SOP is to leave everything, coats included, on the plane. For someone who is frail, 50 minutes in severe cold could be rather dangerous. However, there is a difference between being uncomfortably cold and being dangerously cold. We got a lot of frostbite advisories in BOS this winter (wind chills below -20F, which is a 30-minute frostbite time). It was pretty nasty out there even while wearing heavy winter clothing and boots.

FWIW, I'm going to keep my coat under the seat when flying in the winter. At least I have a chance of grabbing it on the way out if it comes to that. Do commercial airplanes carry emergency blankets?

Quoting ChaosTheory (Reply 165): I get 125m elevation for the localiser and 449m for 05 rwy threshold. A difference of 324m.

I doubt that. On wikipedia it is said the airport's elevation is 477 ft / 145 m. On the aerodrome chart provided by AvHerald, it shows runway 05 being at 449 ft.

When using Google Map, if I go to road 212 level, the runway seems about 10-15 ft higher. When looking at the terrain where the aircraft first touched the ground, it looks at more or less the same height as the road.

If the Airbus did stay on the ground, it's no wonder why it stopped in such a short distance with so much damaged/ripped off parts.

Any pictures from the inside?

Quoting Northstar80 (Reply 170): Looks very similar to the TK accident at AMS. It makes me wonder what would the aftermath be if the TK aircraft in that accident was an A320 instead of a B738.

It would be interesting if it turns out there was some sort of power issue and the airplane refused to allow a stall while the crew tried to make the runway.

Quoting threeifbyair (Reply 171): Quoting hivue (Reply 168):And be sure to grab your coat from the overhead while evacuating? Was thinking the same thing. How cold was it that night with the wind chill?

My point may have been a bit too subtle. If the #1 anet bitch & moan is about how bad the main stream media are when it comes to reporting aviation accidents, #2 is about all the morons who stop to collect personal belongings during emergency evacuations. In that situation I think I'm taking time to collect my coat and hat.

Quoting hivue (Reply 174): If the #1 anet bitch & moan is about how bad the main stream media are when it comes to reporting aviation accidents, #2 is about all the morons who stop to collect personal belongings during emergency evacuations.

I think it's a bit gloom and doom to always prepare yourself for the worst case scenario. Thinking along those lines, one should then assume the brace position for each and every landing. Of course, a jacket under the seat in front of you is probably never a bad idea. However, I do think people might deserve the moniker of "moron" when they don't put their shoes on before landing. In the news reports for this accident, there was mention of people outside in stocking feet, no shoes. No jacket is forgivable, understandable, and perhaps even appropriate in an emergency evacuation scenario. Not having your shoes on before landing? That is just plain foolish.

As to the accident, I'd like to know where the plane was when it collided with the localizer array. Given that you can see pieces of the array embedded in the nose and the wing… how high/low would the plane have to be for that to happen? Airborne? On the ground, but on its gear? Or, on the ground, gear collapsed? How tall is that array?

Quoting spl (Reply 173):

And who would be taking pictures from the inside?

Quoting r2rho (Reply 160): Careful with eyewitness reports and interpretations thereof. I'm quite sure that the emergency response was not that long.

Actually , in newspaper (french), here what they say;

12 h 35

Les 133 passagers et 5 membres de l’équipage se précipitent à l’extérieur par les sorties de secours. Les génératrices, qui sont censées se mettre en marche en quelques secondes en cas de panne de courant, n’ont pas pris le relais.
translation: the 135 passenger and 5 crew mwmber rushed outside by emergency exit.
Airport generator did not start as supposed to.

1 h 25

Après 50 minutes d’attente dans le froid et la neige, un autobus passe finalement prendre les passagers pour les transporter jusqu’à un hangar sans lumière, où ils poireautent à nouveau durant 30 minutes.

After 50 minutes waiting in the cold, a bus finally take the passengers into a hangar in the dark .(no power)

1 h 55

Un second autobus vient récupérer les passagers pour les amener jusqu’à l’aéroport.
a second bus come to the hangar to carry passengers in the airport facilities.

Something worth saying, is that all the passenger had just congratulation for the work of the FA on board.
Proudly they are montreal based employees,so i congratulate them as well for their work.

Quoting Northstar80 (Reply 170): that accident was an A320 instead of a B738.

That got me thinking...what if this was a 738 instead of an A320? Could it have been worse bc the 738 is lower to the ground?

Some detailed images: http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Canada/NS/ID/2661535809/

Quoting aerolimani (Reply 175): As to the accident, I'd like to know where the plane was when it collided with the localizer array. Given that you can see pieces of the array embedded in the nose and the wing… how high/low would the plane have to be for that to happen? Airborne? On the ground, but on its gear? Or, on the ground, gear collapsed? How tall is that array?

This image shows the remains of the localizer array. To the right is a steep embankment down to a road, to the left is the runway.

Quoting 777X (Reply 178): That got me thinking...what if this was a 738 instead of an A320? Could it have been worse bc the 738 is lower to the ground?

Could have turned out better since the landing gear are shorter.  

Quoting cyberentomology (Reply 166): The current localizer berm is located almost exactly where the MK flight came to rest in 2004, after a runway extension was built around 2012.

Not quite... the empennage of MK came to rest in this approximate location, but the balance of the aircraft came down across the road, in the woods beyond the power lines that were downed in the current incident. There is still a very large treeless scar in the woods due to the fire and remedial excavation to clean up the spilled fuel from MK.

As the previous photo shows, while it is not a "cliff," there is a steep upslope from the road up to the localizer array and the end of the runway. Based on a channel through the snow adjacent to the wrecked portion of the localizer array, it appears a portion of the fuselage plowed through the snow on top of the berm.

As for the power line, if I recall correctly, it is higher voltage than a typical neighborhood distribution line, but it is mounted on roadside utility poles rather than transmission towers.

-Al
YQBexYHZBGM

Looking at the damage in the footage that Aerolimani shared, it's amazing that everyone got out alive; in particular, the No2 engine ... when it began to disintegrate, wouldn't parts of the fan blades (which rotate at quite a high speed) have started disintegrating and flying in all directions?

And the right horizontal stabiliser! Struck something, or struck by something else (a section of flap, for example) coming off the rest of the aircraft?

After seeing the localizer array and the damage to the plane, this is a crash landing.

Call it what you want, but it's surely a lot more than "departing the runway." (Did it even make it to the runway?)

Either that, or we start calling hurricanes a "light tropical breeze with rain showers."

Quoting birdbrainz (Reply 184): Did it even make it to the runway?

Yes, see #44 above.

It shows that this was known Sunday morning, yet it still took a long time for the press to stop calling it a "runway overrun". If anything, it was a "runway underrun" with the a/c coming to rest on the runway itself.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 185): yet it still took a long time for the press to stop calling it a "runway overrun

Well TSB also called it a "runway excursion".

Quoting TSB: TSB deploys a team to a runway excursion involving an Air Canada aircraft that occurred at the Halifax International Airport in Nova Scotia

Although in the latest update they call it a collision with terrain.

Quoting TSB: Collision with terrain involving an Air Canada Airbus A320 at Stanfield International Airport, Halifax, Nova Scotia

So perhaps it isn't that strange that media calls it an overrun/etc if TSB initially also calls it an excursion?

It is too bad the A320 is getting all this bad publicity lately. Since the airline I work for only flies the A320 and A319 I am very eager to find out what went wrong in the flightdeck of this Air Canada aircraft.

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 186): Well TSB also called it a "runway excursion".

Huh?

Perhaps this was an early report, lets not assign it too much value. But really, anybody with any information from the site would have seen this as incorrect.

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 186): Although in the latest update they call it a collision with terrain.

Now, there's an euphemism if we are searching for one.

Given that the pictures appear to show track from the embankment (upslope from the road) I think the aircraft came perilously close to a total loss of the plane and its occupants. A hit to the embankment any further down would have made the aircraft crush; going through the antennas and sliding on ground reduced speed and allowed the hull to be relatively intact.

Lucky people.

It will be interesting to see what happened. Wind shear? Power loss? Control problems? Wrong altitude/slope settings? Pilots asleep? There are many possibilities.

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 186): So perhaps it isn't that strange that media calls it an overrun/etc if TSB initially also calls it an excursion?

I thought the media wasn't supposed to take everything the government said as fact?

Practically all of the horizontal stabilizer is missing. Is there any information about where the debris from that was found?

My guess would be that it was torn off by the localizer structure or the power lines. If so, then it means that the plane made an uncontrolled trajectory from first impact onto the runway.

With more daylight photos coming this accident looks more and more like a near carbon copy of the Tu-154 accident in Smolensk five years ago, taking all 89 souls on board.

For unknowns reason this A320 was 150 or 200 feet too low. Had it been ten feet lower, then it is unlikely that there would have been any survivors.

It's a miracle that it ended with only 25 broken noses and such.

Quoting MVAair (Reply 176): And who would be taking pictures from the inside?

Literally everyone on the plane under 30.

Quoting YQBexYHZBGM (Reply 182): Quoting cyberentomology (Reply 166): The current localizer berm is located almost exactly where the MK flight came to rest in 2004, after a runway extension was built around 2012. Not quite... the empennage of MK came to rest in this approximate location, but the balance of the aircraft came down across the road, in the woods beyond the power lines that were downed in the current incident. There is still a very large treeless scar in the woods due to the fire and remedial excavation to clean up the spilled fuel from MK.

A picture of the crash site. The surrounding area was different since the runway wasn't extended yet.

http://aviation-safety.net/photos/di...oto.php?id=20041014-0&vnr=2&kind=C

Quoting SocalApproach (Reply 187): It is too bad the A320 is getting all this bad publicity lately.

So fat, there is nothing factual that points at an A320 flaw. Yes the type was involved in two accidents during the same week, but that's it.

Quoting D L X (Reply 167): Let's say for sake of argument that this plane were 1 year old. What would the argument be for repairing the damage and putting it back in the air?

Even if brand new it would be a hull loss.

Quoting cyberentomology (Reply 166): Something's not right with your numbers, That would be a nearly 60-degree slope up to the runway. Field elevation is 145m/477' According to Google Earth's elevation model, RWY05 threshold is 449', and the base of the localizer berm is 411'. There's an upslope there, but not the cliff you're describing.

Quoting SpaceshipDC10 (Reply 172): I doubt that. On wikipedia it is said the airport's elevation is 477 ft / 145 m. On the aerodrome chart provided by AvHerald, it shows runway 05 being at 449 ft.

Oops.

You're both right.

Not sure why I misread the rwy 05 threshold elevation as 449m.

Thanks for the correction chaps.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 190): For unknowns reason this A320 was 150 or 200 feet too low. Had it been ten feet lower, then it is unlikely that there would have been any survivors.

It might have only needed one foot, IMHO.

I wonder how much fuel they had left? Heard on local radio here they were circling for a long time and had to get down due to low fuel situation. Also does not seem to be any fuel spillage and certainly no post crash fire. If the fuel tanks were not ruptured, that is one tough bird.

Quoting thunderboltdrgn (Reply 186): Well TSB also called it a "runway excursion".

Runway Incursion?

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 190): For unknowns reason this A320 was 150 or 200 feet too low.

Frankly, I'm interested to know those reasons.

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 196): I wonder how much fuel they had left? Heard on local radio here they were circling for a long time and had to get down due to low fuel situation

They had to have had fuel left for their alternate after this attempt or they would have deviated to the alternate before hand. They obviously had taken on extra fuel expecting weather issues before they departed.

The real issue is how they got so far below a 3° approach angle from DA.
If they could see the PAPI then it would have been 4 red.
They were in a go around situation and give it another try or alternate long before they started hitting objects.

The CVR will be interesting as to what the pilots verbalized as to what they were able to see.
Possibly more interesting might be the conversations during the hold if there was some over riding pressure to attempt to land instead of deviate.
05 LOC in bad weather is probably not on the top rung of choices I would suspect when better options existed.

Okie