"Somewhat scary one near Winnipeg" - The AC Master Incidents Thread
May 3, 2011, 1:36 pm
#796
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,451
http://avherald.com/h?article=43bf76e5
The crew of an Air Canada Jazz de Havilland Dash 8-100, registration C-FGRY performing flight QK-7725 from Toronto,ON to London,ON (Canada) with 40 people on board, was expecting turbulence enroute and had advised the flight attendant to take her seat with seat belt fastened throughout the flight. Shortly after departure the aircraft began maneouvering around several thunderstorm cells. The aircraft was enroute at 6000 feet around 25nm from London when the airplane experienced turbulence increasing from moderate to severe. Due to the proximity of the destination the crew decided to continue the flight, descended to 3000 feet and was cleared for the approach to London's runway 07. The turbulence increased further, the flight attendant reported several passengers started to feel ill. The crew aborted the approach to London and returned to Toronto in a still turbulent flight, the aircraft landed safely in Toronto with emergency services on stand by about 30 minutes after the decision to return.
The Canadian TSB reported that the heavy turbulence inspection found multiple dents and skin wrinkles between the #1 engine nacelle and the fuselage and less damage on the right wing at the same location. Maintenance referenced the structural repair manual (SRM) and determined that the damage was within the limits of the SRM manual and returned the aircraft to service. The flight data recorder was downloaded and revealed the aircraft was exposed to vertical accelerations between +2.5G and -1.0G, the maximum value before more extensive inspections would have been required.
The crew of an Air Canada Jazz de Havilland Dash 8-100, registration C-FGRY performing flight QK-7725 from Toronto,ON to London,ON (Canada) with 40 people on board, was expecting turbulence enroute and had advised the flight attendant to take her seat with seat belt fastened throughout the flight. Shortly after departure the aircraft began maneouvering around several thunderstorm cells. The aircraft was enroute at 6000 feet around 25nm from London when the airplane experienced turbulence increasing from moderate to severe. Due to the proximity of the destination the crew decided to continue the flight, descended to 3000 feet and was cleared for the approach to London's runway 07. The turbulence increased further, the flight attendant reported several passengers started to feel ill. The crew aborted the approach to London and returned to Toronto in a still turbulent flight, the aircraft landed safely in Toronto with emergency services on stand by about 30 minutes after the decision to return.
The Canadian TSB reported that the heavy turbulence inspection found multiple dents and skin wrinkles between the #1 engine nacelle and the fuselage and less damage on the right wing at the same location. Maintenance referenced the structural repair manual (SRM) and determined that the damage was within the limits of the SRM manual and returned the aircraft to service. The flight data recorder was downloaded and revealed the aircraft was exposed to vertical accelerations between +2.5G and -1.0G, the maximum value before more extensive inspections would have been required.
May 3, 2011, 6:48 pm
#797
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Mississauga Ontario
Posts: 4,105
I've been flying 30+ years, 1 million miles AC and another million likely CP. Lots of go-rounds and missed approaches. Been through lots of flights where the captain is dodging cells.
Yet I was on YYZ-ATL today, and we had a go-round.
But it was kind of odd. We were headed right into the squall line; a real wall of water that just hit the plane like a curtain, maybe about 1 mile out.
I saw the plane on my left on the parallel approach bail out and initiate a go-round while we kept going. We kept going for 30 seconds, and I'm thinking - "he's bailed out, we have not, and this is not quite right...."
I was in J, and I swore as we were about 200 feet above the ground the squawk box in the cabin was calling "shear shear shear."
We did our go around, right over the terminal it seemed. After that, it was less dramatic, and we landed.
Is this likely the result of an over-excited imagination, or was this a bit of an unusual flight? i.e. does the squawk box call shear, or stall? (It could have been the latter maybe...)
Yet I was on YYZ-ATL today, and we had a go-round.
But it was kind of odd. We were headed right into the squall line; a real wall of water that just hit the plane like a curtain, maybe about 1 mile out.
I saw the plane on my left on the parallel approach bail out and initiate a go-round while we kept going. We kept going for 30 seconds, and I'm thinking - "he's bailed out, we have not, and this is not quite right...."
I was in J, and I swore as we were about 200 feet above the ground the squawk box in the cabin was calling "shear shear shear."
We did our go around, right over the terminal it seemed. After that, it was less dramatic, and we landed.
Is this likely the result of an over-excited imagination, or was this a bit of an unusual flight? i.e. does the squawk box call shear, or stall? (It could have been the latter maybe...)
May 3, 2011, 10:58 pm
#798
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: YOW
Programs: Marriot Silver Elite
Posts: 440
I was in J, and I swore as we were about 200 feet above the ground the squawk box in the cabin was calling "shear shear shear."
We did our go around, right over the terminal it seemed. After that, it was less dramatic, and we landed.
Is this likely the result of an over-excited imagination, or was this a bit of an unusual flight? i.e. does the squawk box call shear, or stall? (It could have been the latter maybe...)
We did our go around, right over the terminal it seemed. After that, it was less dramatic, and we landed.
Is this likely the result of an over-excited imagination, or was this a bit of an unusual flight? i.e. does the squawk box call shear, or stall? (It could have been the latter maybe...)
May 4, 2011, 7:07 am
#799
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: YVR
Programs: TK*G
Posts: 312
Air Canada flight gets stuck in bog on island
"Air Canada flight gets stuck in bog on island"
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...TorontoNewHome
"Passengers on an Air Canada flight flying out of its new home at Toronto's Billy Bishop airport suffered delays after their aircraft got stuck in a bog on Tuesday night.
Peter Fitzpatrick, a company spokesperson, said the aircraft had left its gate at the Toronto Island-based airport when it slipped off the paved area into the soggy grass on a sharp turn.
Rather than forcing the wheel out, he said officials decided to wait and lift the plane out so as not to damage the wheel.
Passengers were asked to exit the plane and put on the next flight more than an hour later.
Fitzpatrick said if the ground had been dry the plane, which he said was manned by an experienced pilot, wouldn't have sunk into the grass.
Air Canada began to fly out of the Billy Bishop on Sunday.
The airline said it will schedule about 15 flights from Toronto to Montreal everyday. The flights will take 70 minutes, which is the same amount of time as flying from Toronto's Pearson International airport.
The downtown-located airport has been dominated by Porter Airlines since their launch in 2006."
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...TorontoNewHome
"Passengers on an Air Canada flight flying out of its new home at Toronto's Billy Bishop airport suffered delays after their aircraft got stuck in a bog on Tuesday night.
Peter Fitzpatrick, a company spokesperson, said the aircraft had left its gate at the Toronto Island-based airport when it slipped off the paved area into the soggy grass on a sharp turn.
Rather than forcing the wheel out, he said officials decided to wait and lift the plane out so as not to damage the wheel.
Passengers were asked to exit the plane and put on the next flight more than an hour later.
Fitzpatrick said if the ground had been dry the plane, which he said was manned by an experienced pilot, wouldn't have sunk into the grass.
Air Canada began to fly out of the Billy Bishop on Sunday.
The airline said it will schedule about 15 flights from Toronto to Montreal everyday. The flights will take 70 minutes, which is the same amount of time as flying from Toronto's Pearson International airport.
The downtown-located airport has been dominated by Porter Airlines since their launch in 2006."
May 4, 2011, 12:31 pm
#801
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: YWG
Programs: AC P,PC Plat,HH*G, Marriott Rewards
Posts: 152
I've been flying 30+ years, 1 million miles AC and another million likely CP. Lots of go-rounds and missed approaches. Been through lots of flights where the captain is dodging cells.
Yet I was on YYZ-ATL today, and we had a go-round.
But it was kind of odd. We were headed right into the squall line; a real wall of water that just hit the plane like a curtain, maybe about 1 mile out.
I saw the plane on my left on the parallel approach bail out and initiate a go-round while we kept going. We kept going for 30 seconds, and I'm thinking - "he's bailed out, we have not, and this is not quite right...."
I was in J, and I swore as we were about 200 feet above the ground the squawk box in the cabin was calling "shear shear shear."
We did our go around, right over the terminal it seemed. After that, it was less dramatic, and we landed.
Is this likely the result of an over-excited imagination, or was this a bit of an unusual flight? i.e. does the squawk box call shear, or stall? (It could have been the latter maybe...)
Yet I was on YYZ-ATL today, and we had a go-round.
But it was kind of odd. We were headed right into the squall line; a real wall of water that just hit the plane like a curtain, maybe about 1 mile out.
I saw the plane on my left on the parallel approach bail out and initiate a go-round while we kept going. We kept going for 30 seconds, and I'm thinking - "he's bailed out, we have not, and this is not quite right...."
I was in J, and I swore as we were about 200 feet above the ground the squawk box in the cabin was calling "shear shear shear."
We did our go around, right over the terminal it seemed. After that, it was less dramatic, and we landed.
Is this likely the result of an over-excited imagination, or was this a bit of an unusual flight? i.e. does the squawk box call shear, or stall? (It could have been the latter maybe...)
May 4, 2011, 1:08 pm
#802
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: YOW
Programs: 2MM, Lifetime E75K, Lifetime Hilton Diamond
Posts: 211
I agree with flyboy99 that it was a wind shear alert - the aircraft weather instrumentation onboard most likely detected a microburst (verticle wind shear) condition.
May 5, 2011, 9:51 am
#803
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YYZ
Posts: 622
To those of you who were on this flight... any luck getting the YUL-BDA segment credited to your Aeroplan account? I got the BDA-BGI portion, but after a few calls, faxing in the boarding passes, and filling out the missing credit, can't get that first segment credited.
They told me today that I need to wait another 4-8 weeks.
They told me today that I need to wait another 4-8 weeks.
May 5, 2011, 2:56 pm
#804
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: YOW
Programs: AC SE, CO Silver, Delta Silver, Hilton Diamond, Sheraton Plat
Posts: 93
I got mine credited, I "believe" by emailing the SE desk. I just submitted for the rest of my family yesterday, I'm interested to see if it will ever come or if I will need to ask again.
May 6, 2011, 2:12 pm
#805
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,451
http://avherald.com/h?article=43c23cb1
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190, registration C-FMYV performing flight AC-104 from Edmonton,AB to Ottawa,ON (Canada) with 83 people on board, was enroute at FL370 about 210nm northwest of Winnipeg,MB (Canada) when the crew received a failure indication for the #1 hydraulic system. The crew decided to divert to Winnipeg where the aircraft landed safely about 35 minutes later.
The Canadian TSB reported maintenance replaced the #3 spoiler actuator and returned the aircraft to service.
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190, registration C-FMYV performing flight AC-104 from Edmonton,AB to Ottawa,ON (Canada) with 83 people on board, was enroute at FL370 about 210nm northwest of Winnipeg,MB (Canada) when the crew received a failure indication for the #1 hydraulic system. The crew decided to divert to Winnipeg where the aircraft landed safely about 35 minutes later.
The Canadian TSB reported maintenance replaced the #3 spoiler actuator and returned the aircraft to service.
May 11, 2011, 11:00 am
#806
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 20,550
Incident: Air Canada E190 near Vancouver on May 6th 2011, uncommanded engine shut down in flight
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190, registration C-FNAI performing flight AC-562 from Vancouver,BC (Canada) to San Francisco,CA (USA), was climbing through 1000 feet out of Vancouver's runway 08R when the crew reported the left hand engine (CF34) had failed, levelled off at 5000 feet and returned to Vancouver for a safe landing on runway 08L about 25 minutes after departure.
The Canadian TSB reported that the engine performed an uncommanded shut down due to a dual channel failure of the FADEC. The FADEC was replaced, additional wiring checks performed. The failed FADEC has been sent to the manufacturer for further analysis.
The Aviation Herald
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190, registration C-FNAI performing flight AC-562 from Vancouver,BC (Canada) to San Francisco,CA (USA), was climbing through 1000 feet out of Vancouver's runway 08R when the crew reported the left hand engine (CF34) had failed, levelled off at 5000 feet and returned to Vancouver for a safe landing on runway 08L about 25 minutes after departure.
The Canadian TSB reported that the engine performed an uncommanded shut down due to a dual channel failure of the FADEC. The FADEC was replaced, additional wiring checks performed. The failed FADEC has been sent to the manufacturer for further analysis.
The Aviation Herald
May 11, 2011, 3:34 pm
#807
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,451
http://avherald.com/h?article=43c67540
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-175, registration C-FEKD performing flight AC-301 from Washington National,DC (USA) to Toronto,ON (Canada) with 83 people on board, was on approach to Toronto when the crew aborted the approach to runway 24R due to a flaps failure. After actioning the relevant checklists the crew declared PAN anticipating hot brakes and performed a safe flapless landing on runway 24R at a higher than normal speed.
The Canadian TSB reported both slat harnesses on the right wing were replaced.
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-175, registration C-FEKD performing flight AC-301 from Washington National,DC (USA) to Toronto,ON (Canada) with 83 people on board, was on approach to Toronto when the crew aborted the approach to runway 24R due to a flaps failure. After actioning the relevant checklists the crew declared PAN anticipating hot brakes and performed a safe flapless landing on runway 24R at a higher than normal speed.
The Canadian TSB reported both slat harnesses on the right wing were replaced.
May 12, 2011, 3:29 pm
#808
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,451
http://avherald.com/h?article=43c7558a
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-175, registration C-FEJL performing flight AC-678 from Ottawa,ON to Halifax,NS (Canada), was climbing through FL200 out of Ottawa when the crew received a "SLAT FAIL" message but decided to continue the flight as the slats were not in transit. During the descent towards Halifax the crew declared PAN and requested emergency services on standby for possible hot brakes. The flaps were selected to position 2, the maximum position with slats at less than 15 degrees. The aircraft landed safely at a higher than normal speed. Emergency services checking the brakes on request by the crew did not find any anomaly with the brakes.
The Canadian TSB reported the left wing outboard slat harness was defective and replaced the harness.
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-175, registration C-FEJL performing flight AC-678 from Ottawa,ON to Halifax,NS (Canada), was climbing through FL200 out of Ottawa when the crew received a "SLAT FAIL" message but decided to continue the flight as the slats were not in transit. During the descent towards Halifax the crew declared PAN and requested emergency services on standby for possible hot brakes. The flaps were selected to position 2, the maximum position with slats at less than 15 degrees. The aircraft landed safely at a higher than normal speed. Emergency services checking the brakes on request by the crew did not find any anomaly with the brakes.
The Canadian TSB reported the left wing outboard slat harness was defective and replaced the harness.
May 12, 2011, 5:20 pm
#809
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YEG
Posts: 3,717
http://avherald.com/h?article=43c7558a
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-175, registration C-FEJL performing flight AC-678 from Ottawa,ON to Halifax,NS (Canada), was climbing through FL200 out of Ottawa when the crew received a "SLAT FAIL" message but decided to continue the flight as the slats were not in transit. During the descent towards Halifax the crew declared PAN and requested emergency services on standby for possible hot brakes. The flaps were selected to position 2, the maximum position with slats at less than 15 degrees. The aircraft landed safely at a higher than normal speed. Emergency services checking the brakes on request by the crew did not find any anomaly with the brakes.
The Canadian TSB reported the left wing outboard slat harness was defective and replaced the harness.
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-175, registration C-FEJL performing flight AC-678 from Ottawa,ON to Halifax,NS (Canada), was climbing through FL200 out of Ottawa when the crew received a "SLAT FAIL" message but decided to continue the flight as the slats were not in transit. During the descent towards Halifax the crew declared PAN and requested emergency services on standby for possible hot brakes. The flaps were selected to position 2, the maximum position with slats at less than 15 degrees. The aircraft landed safely at a higher than normal speed. Emergency services checking the brakes on request by the crew did not find any anomaly with the brakes.
The Canadian TSB reported the left wing outboard slat harness was defective and replaced the harness.
May 12, 2011, 6:03 pm
#810
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Closer to YTZ
Programs: Fairmont Platinum | AC Gate Lice Status | VIPorter
Posts: 2,554
Incident: Air Canada E190 near Vancouver on May 6th 2011, uncommanded engine shut down in flight
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190, registration C-FNAI performing flight AC-562 from Vancouver,BC (Canada) to San Francisco,CA (USA), was climbing through 1000 feet out of Vancouver's runway 08R when the crew reported the left hand engine (CF34) had failed, levelled off at 5000 feet and returned to Vancouver for a safe landing on runway 08L about 25 minutes after departure.
The Canadian TSB reported that the engine performed an uncommanded shut down due to a dual channel failure of the FADEC. The FADEC was replaced, additional wiring checks performed. The failed FADEC has been sent to the manufacturer for further analysis.
The Aviation Herald
An Air Canada Embraer ERJ-190, registration C-FNAI performing flight AC-562 from Vancouver,BC (Canada) to San Francisco,CA (USA), was climbing through 1000 feet out of Vancouver's runway 08R when the crew reported the left hand engine (CF34) had failed, levelled off at 5000 feet and returned to Vancouver for a safe landing on runway 08L about 25 minutes after departure.
The Canadian TSB reported that the engine performed an uncommanded shut down due to a dual channel failure of the FADEC. The FADEC was replaced, additional wiring checks performed. The failed FADEC has been sent to the manufacturer for further analysis.
The Aviation Herald
