YEG_SE4Life

Shoelace in the escalator?

acysb87

Just booked a r/t to YWG, been years since I transited that airport.

As this is the "Somewhat scary one near Winnipeg" thread, should I be scared?

yyznomad

expert7700

What *IS* scary is the fact that the tire, wheel, and any related metal mounts/lugnuts were undetected for 7-10 hours. They could have potentially contaminated a busy runway/taxiway in YUL. Amazing that nobody noticed an out-of-place wheel until after the flight landed in LHR.

The reason we can not fly supersonic on a Concorde anymore is because of runway contamination... A metal part fell off plane right before the Air France concorde... They ran over it at high speed which kicked it up, rupturing a fuel tank.

Stranger

While the description of what happened at CDG is correct, I do not believe that is why Concorde flights were eventually cancelled. This was just the last nail in the coffin.

Wpgjetse

I agree. Fuel burn and age killed the Concorde in the end.

BlueMilk

Not quite correct. The FOD ruptured the tyre, the tyre debris hit the underside of the wing, causing a shock wave which ruptured a fuel tank....

http://www.concordesst.com/accident/report.html

Transpacificflyer

Your comment is not a fair representation of the event and contains an inaccurate reference to the Concorde incident.

- At trial, it was shown that the punctured Concorde fuel tanks were caused by a known design deficiency of the Concorde. You cannot fly on the Concorde aircraft anymore because they were never profitable and were defective in design. Read the trial documents to learn more.

- You assume that there was debris on the Montreal runway. There was no debris on the runway. NONE.

- Typically, when a wheel detaches as was the case here, it rolls or bounces away.

- Major Canadian airports usually have a physical inspection of runways every 6 hours or less on the busier runways. (This standard may have changed, but the point being that runways are regularly visually inspected.) Other aircraft using the runway will report any and all possible debris if they see it.

- 6R is not a busy runway and handles less than 25% of departures. This is the runway that lines up with Lac St. Louis.

- The flight was on the runway and taxiing for departure at approximately 20:00 hours. Night conditions were in effect. This means reduced visibility.

- You claim that there was no inspection for 7-10 hours. Not true. The missing tire was discovered upon landing in the UK. Trudeau International received a near immediate alert and a runway alert was in effect shortly thereafter (reported as under 6 hours).

- The wheel was found at the side of the runway at the end, in the dirt.
This was consistent with the rolling/bouncing characteristics of a tire that falls off an airplane.

- This incident is not different than any other aircraft that can lose a piece of equipment, and that goes undetected until the aircraft is inspected. It happens at every major airport on every single day of operation.

- It is not "amazing" that no one noticed a missing wheel. This is part of the design of the aircraft and reflects the fact that certain warning indications are either not operational during takeoff and landing or that the redundancy of the equipment does not make the loss of a tire a critical issue.

No need to get excited over this common incident.

tracon

AC6 diverts to YVR for a medical emergency.

4/24/2017

jaysona

Uhm, how do you arrive at that conclusion? I spent years staring out at 06R/24L, it was quite busy and I saw a lot more that 25% of flights taking off. I have spent hours plane spotting at the part just off 06R watching the departures. The bulk of my departures are off 06R/24L and just about every FBO departure will be from 06R/24L.

So, I'm really curious to know where you got your 25% departure rate for 06R/24L from......

I'm not sure what you mean by the lines up with Lac St. Louis though, as both 06/24 runways line up with the lake.


Agreed! +1

Transpacificflyer

I stated, "6R is not a busy runway and handles less than 25% of departures."

You disagree with the number and state that you are "curious" because based upon your hours of plane spotting and having sat on airplanes, you are of the belief that the number is higher.

Yes, indeed I was somewhat inaccurate. Know why? Because the number is even lower than what I stated, at 21.98%. For the period of time when the flight departed, it is the start of reduced flight activity at the airport leading into the noise abatement period where flights are curtailed and the activity of 45,000 kg +equipment restriction is in effect.
However, I'll put that aside and just use the annual numbers because I don't want to it to distract from the annual numbers.
The data is available from Transport Canada with the annual year end activity released by June of every year. The ADM also uses the number in its annual report. Please read the attached table closely.

Now, if I wanted to be even more specific, an argument could easily be made that the departure activity on the date in question probably was much lower, and closer to 10% because there is a Noise Abatement Plan in effect from 00:00 hrs to 07:00 hours. More specifically, at night, Trudeau's runway activity is reported as follows;

-Southwesterly/westerly winds (70% of the time): Runway 24L for takeoffs and 24R for landings
-Easterly/northeasterly winds (30% of the time): Runway 06L or 06R for takeoffs and landings

And yes I am aware of the 6R- 24L linkage. It doesn't change the values in respect to 6R.
The insinuation was that the tire was a risk and my point was that it was not a risk in respect to where it bounced/rolled off of 6R.

I trust that this explanation resolves your bewilderment and that you now understand the basis of my statement.

canadiancow

@Transpacificflyer, you said 6R handles less than 25%. That is true. It handles 21.98%.

However, @jaysona said "The bulk of my departures are off 06R/24L". Which is also true. That slab of pavement handles 21.98+57.46=79.44% of departures.

But then this is exactly what I've come to expect on FT.

Alice says "X is true."
Bob says "You're wrong, Y is false."

And then you end up with this, where two people are arguing with each other, trying to prove two different (but correct) points, yet thinking the other person is saying something they're not.

tcook052

Let's end the argument here and return to the thread topic which is AC incidents and not the AF Concorde crash or prevailing winds over YUL.

tcook052
AC forum Mod.

echino

http://avherald.com/h?article=4a820367&opt=0

Incident: Canada Rouge B763 over Pacific Ocean on Apr 22nd 2017, smoking galley

By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Apr 25th 2017 19:08Z, last updated Tuesday, Apr 25th 2017 19:08Z
An Air Canada Rouge Boeing 767-300, registration C-GBZR performing flight RV-1831 from Vancouver,BC (Canada) to Honolulu,HI (USA) with 290 people on board, was enroute at FL350 over the Pacific Ocean about 560nm southwest of Vancouver when smoke emanated from a forward galley. Responding cabin crew identified a utility light as source of the smoke, a halon fire extinguisher was discharged and the related circuit breaker was deactivated. The flight crew in the meantime declared PAN, turned around and diverted to Portland,OR (USA) for a safe landing about 70 minutes later.

The Canadian TSB reported the airline included the occurrence in their safety management system and is investigating the occurrence.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/R...105Z/CYVR/KPDX

Wings100

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa...hrow-1.4092745