AC Express Incident At YEG

rikkus67 · Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:12 am

https://twitter.com/daveheath83/status/530575302225719296

https://twitter.com/inqing_mind/status/530591045151510530/photo/1

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20141106-0

http://www.jacdec.de/2014/11/07/2014...ndercarriage-collapse-at-edmonton/

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...monton+airport/10360461/story.html

AC Flight #8481, YYC (Calgary, AB.) to YQU (Grand Prairie, AB).

Blown tire on take-off from YYC. Aircraft was diverted to YEG (Edmonton, AB) for Emergency landing due to strong winds @ YYC. Right hand gear collapse upon landing at YEG. Three people injured, no details on injuries.

Clydenairways · Fri Nov 07, 2014 10:19 am

Further Information here

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20141106-0

drgmobile · Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:12 pm

I have to admit that I think about the gear, every time I land in a Q400 -- they land pretty hard sometimes. Recognizing of course that a proper accident investigation will take place, does this at first blush resemble the landing gear issues with the Q400 we had in Europe a few years back?

Kaiarahi · Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:59 pm

Quoting drgmobile (Reply 2):
does this at first blush resemble the landing gear issues with the Q400 we had in Europe a few years back?

It shouldn't - there was an AD / fix for that issue which has long since been implemented.

Aquila3 · Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:54 pm

Does this mean that they never retracted the gear?
Because if they did, and in the impossibility of safely returning to YYC , it could have made sense to continue to destination. Unless there are maintenance / weather /runaway / Emergency services issues at destination, is not like you need the MLG to fly.

INFINITI329 · Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:53 pm

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 4):
Does this mean that they never retracted the gear?
Because if they did, and in the impossibility of safely returning to YYC , it could have made sense to continue to destination. Unless there are maintenance / weather /runaway / Emergency services issues at destination, is not like you need the MLG to fly.

More resources in YYC

How did the crew know they had a blown tire?

Aquila3 · Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:05 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 5):
More resources in YYC

But they did NOT divert to YYC (that would have made sense, just after takeoff).
And of wich kind of resources are you talking about?
You have to remember that if you do not arrive to destination, you have probably to provide for the stranded passengers

Boeing744 · Fri Nov 07, 2014 7:37 pm

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 4):
Does this mean that they never retracted the gear?
Because if they did, and in the impossibility of safely returning to YYC , it could have made sense to continue to destination. Unless there are maintenance / weather /runaway / Emergency services issues at destination, is not like you need the MLG to fly.

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 5):
More resources in YYC

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 6):
But they did NOT divert to YYC (that would have made sense, just after takeoff).
And of wich kind of resources are you talking about?
You have to remember that if you do not arrive to destination, you have probably to provide for the stranded passengers

The longest runway at YQU (Grande Prairie) is 6,500ft, whereas YEG has a 11,000ft runway. That is probably a big reason, plus the greater availability of emergency medical services in a city like Edmonton. Makes a lot of sense to divert there.

cyeg66 · Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:06 pm

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 5):
How did the crew know they had a blown tire?

Probably because of the large, tire-sized chunks of rubber left behind on departure on YYC's 35L necessitating its temporary closure.

ac7e7 · Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:42 pm

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 6):
But they did NOT divert to YYC (that would have made sense, just after takeoff).
And of wich kind of resources are you talking about?
You have to remember that if you do not arrive to destination, you have probably to provide for the stranded passengers

They did not return to Calgary due to high winds.

Providing for stranded passengers is immaterial in these circumstances. A replacement aircraft can easily be flown in to fly the passengers to their destination.

INFINITI329 · Fri Nov 07, 2014 9:07 pm

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 6):
But they did NOT divert to YYC (that would have made sense, just after takeoff).
And of wich kind of resources are you talking about?
You have to remember that if you do not arrive to destination, you have probably to provide for the stranded passengers

They attempted to return to YYC but the winds were to strong so they diverted to YEG. Its not that big of a deal when the passengers are going to YYC or YEG. Both cities have a very large AC presence so they would have been airborne fairly quickly (YYC as hub and YEG as focus city).

Quoting Cyeg66 (Reply 8):
Probably because of the large, tire-sized chunks of rubber left behind on departure on YYC's 35L necessitating its temporary closure.

Thanks Captain Obvious... On the takeoff roll or rotation how would the crew have been alerted to the blow out? (ie sensor,light) I really doubt you could hear it over the engines and it was night so Im assuming ATC could not have seen it either.

Viscount724 · Sun Nov 09, 2014 3:55 am

Quoting infiniti329 (Reply 10):
Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 6):
But they did NOT divert to YYC (that would have made sense, just after takeoff).
And of wich kind of resources are you talking about?
You have to remember that if you do not arrive to destination, you have probably to provide for the stranded passengers

They attempted to return to YYC but the winds were to strong so they diverted to YEG.

They probably would have returned to YYC but the crosswind runway 11-29 was closed, I believe for maintenance or construction. A Kelowna Flightcraft DC-10-30 freighter from YHM overshot and diverted to YVR about the same time due to crosswinds in excess of their limits. It also declared minimum fuel on approach to YVR.

KarelXWB · Sun Nov 09, 2014 6:33 pm

I find it shocking that the propeller has pierced the fuselage, luckily nobody was sitting in that seat.

http://twitter.com/ctvedmonton/status/531239636136636416/

Quantos · Sun Nov 09, 2014 8:47 pm

I'm curious how a tire blowout would incapacitate the gear enough that it collapses upon landing. As for the prop, I guess it is unlucky, but still reasonably logical that upon gear failure the propeller could shear off and bounce into the cabin. The fact no fatalities occurred is amazing.

Viscount724 · Mon Nov 10, 2014 1:35 am

Quoting Quantos (Reply 13):
As for the prop, I guess it is unlucky, but still reasonably logical that upon gear failure the propeller could shear off and bounce into the cabin. The fact no fatalities occurred is amazing.

The flight was almost full, 71 passengers per news reports, meaning only 3 empty seats.

KarelXWB · Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:32 pm

Quoting Quantos (Reply 13):
The fact no fatalities occurred is amazing.

This.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
The flight was almost full, 71 passengers per news reports, meaning only 3 empty seats.

Extremely lucky.

ac7e7 · Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:35 pm

Are the props supposed to bend in the event of an accident?

xero9 · Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:59 pm

As someone who flies quite a bit with Porter, I usually try to avoid the seats right next to the propeller. Now more than ever will I avoid them.

rikkus67 · Mon Nov 10, 2014 7:16 pm

Quoting Quantos (Reply 13):
I'm curious how a tire blowout would incapacitate the gear enough that it collapses upon landing.

If both tires had failed, I'm sure that the forces on the struts would easily be great enough to snap the gear.

(Surmising scenario) If the gear had held, it might have dug into the pavement, and caused the aircraft to swing violently to the right. This could have caused more serious injuries, and even more substancial damage to the aircraft.

KarelXWB · Mon Nov 10, 2014 9:04 pm

A quote from one of the passengers:

Quote:
Kurylo was one of five Grande Prairie radio station employees on the plane. She was sitting in row seven when part of one of the plane's propellers smashed through the window, narrowly missing her face.

"All of a sudden I got hit in the head," she said. "It was pretty confusing for me. It's bits and pieces for me after that."

"The propeller, obviously that didn't hit her, but the whole inside wall of the plane blew out so she had fibreglass and everything all embedded in her skin," said her co-worker Melissa Menard who was also on the plane.

Source
http://gawker.com/passenger-injured-...canada-propeller-flying-1656697761

aerokiwi · Tue Nov 11, 2014 2:24 am

So, I posted this too in the general forum, which subsequently got deleted. Shouldn't something this significant be there for broader discussion?

AC Express Incident At YEG

AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

RE: AC Express Incident At YEG

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net