"Somewhat scary one near Winnipeg" - The AC Master Incidents Thread
Dec 19, 2017, 4:24 pm
#3211
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,232
!
Dec 19, 2017, 4:36 pm
#3213
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,232
But had to coach some FOTSGs on what to expect when the crew timed out (4 hour delay on the tarmac and then a rejected takeoff). Told them that the first cold beer on the beach tomorrow was going to taste extra good after this 'adventure'!
Dec 19, 2017, 4:41 pm
#3214
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,449
Passengers on an Air Canada flight had a rough landing after a mechanical problem with the tires brought it to a sudden halt after touching down in Winnipeg Tuesday afternoon.
The plane was coming from Vancouver and landed at the James Armstrong Richardson International Airport shortly after 3 p.m.
Dec 19, 2017, 5:46 pm
#3215
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Without an official investigation, I don't feel like we should accept your observation of that aircraft having blown tires, even if you are a qualified armchair critic.
Dec 20, 2017, 10:24 am
#3216
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 12,068
AC1722 aborted take off
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/air-canada-flight-forced-to-abort-takeoff-due-to-snow-1.3728940
Fascinating to watch.
5 hours on the ground??
Fascinating to watch.
5 hours on the ground??
Dec 20, 2017, 10:30 am
#3217
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE 2MM; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy LT Titanium Elite; Radisson; Avis PC
Posts: 35,255
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/air-canada-flight-forced-to-abort-takeoff-due-to-snow-1.3728940
Fascinating to watch.
5 hours on the ground??
Fascinating to watch.
5 hours on the ground??
Dec 20, 2017, 10:58 am
#3218
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Why? Why? Zed! / Why? You? Elle! / Gee! Are You!
Programs: Irrelevant
Posts: 3,543
https://bc.ctvnews.ca/air-canada-flight-forced-to-abort-takeoff-due-to-snow-1.3728940
Fascinating to watch.
5 hours on the ground??
Fascinating to watch.
5 hours on the ground??
Dec 20, 2017, 11:32 am
#3219
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,804
Dec 20, 2017, 11:42 am
#3220
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
For 99.8% of the TV viewers, and likely a similar proportion of FT readers, that term tells them what they need to know, regardless of the lack of strict adherence to technical accuracy. No matter the topic, there will always be a tiny fringe of subject matter specialists eager to express their superior knowledge and/or belittle the media for adjusting their terminology to present to a very generalist audience.
Dec 20, 2017, 12:39 pm
#3221
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Why? Why? Zed! / Why? You? Elle! / Gee! Are You!
Programs: Irrelevant
Posts: 3,543
Obviously incorrect, which led even one of the more knowledgeable among us to come up with an incorrect assumption.
There does not appear to have been any flame out and it appears more likely that there was a compressor stall due to the ingestion of FOD (foreign-object-debris), chunks of slush in this case. IMHO the runway in question should have been closed for clearing and then re-opened. Excessive slush has cause problems for aircraft before as well.
Accuracy is important, and I have a great disdain for people that try to appear as though they know more about a topic than they really do. Journalists hold a special position in our society, and they need to report on events and stories in a accurate manner, IMHO, a more appropriate phrase would have been something along the lines of "the slush causing the engine to malfunction or not operate properly which is probably the reason for the flash seen in the video."
The same intent is conveyed without the publication (and adoption by some) of incorrect and inaccurate terminology.
I am in no way eager to express my superior knowledge about all things aviation related. If that were the case I would be a far more prolific poster, as this forum is just riddled with so much misinformation, there are days I am actually sorry for looking at the AC FT forum and wish I could un-read what I have read.
There does not appear to have been any flame out and it appears more likely that there was a compressor stall due to the ingestion of FOD (foreign-object-debris), chunks of slush in this case. IMHO the runway in question should have been closed for clearing and then re-opened. Excessive slush has cause problems for aircraft before as well.
For 99.8% of the TV viewers, and likely a similar proportion of FT readers, that term tells them what they need to know, regardless of the lack of strict adherence to technical accuracy. No matter the topic, there will always be a tiny fringe of subject matter specialists eager to express their superior knowledge and/or belittle the media for adjusting their terminology to present to a very generalist audience.
The same intent is conveyed without the publication (and adoption by some) of incorrect and inaccurate terminology.
I am in no way eager to express my superior knowledge about all things aviation related. If that were the case I would be a far more prolific poster, as this forum is just riddled with so much misinformation, there are days I am actually sorry for looking at the AC FT forum and wish I could un-read what I have read.
Last edited by jaysona; Dec 20, 2017 at 2:35 pm Reason: fat thumbs and iPhone keyboards are like oil & water.
Dec 20, 2017, 1:44 pm
#3222
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by jaysona
IMHO the runway in question should have been closed for clearing and then re-opened. Excessive slush has cause problems for aircraft before as well.
I personally would have difficulties expressing my public opinion, in hindsight, that implied fault or negligence upon the airport, the airline, the aircraft type, or any other variable conjured up from behind a computer screen on the other side of the country.
Last edited by CZAMFlyer; Dec 21, 2017 at 10:49 am Reason: rwy
Dec 20, 2017, 2:02 pm
#3223
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Why? Why? Zed! / Why? You? Elle! / Gee! Are You!
Programs: Irrelevant
Posts: 3,543
I never mentioned any conclusion that I had a belief that the runway wasn't previously cleared, I'm really unclear on how you came to that opinion based on my very limited text.
I figured the bold part of my original post (that you quoted) was more than clear enough.
The elapsed time for the snow-clearing echelon at YVR to make a complete circuit of the airfield is one hour, meaning the runway had last been cleared within that timeframe. Given that YVR received 7cm total precipitation yesterday, the amount of slush contaminant at any given time could not have been more than one inch (likely much less), which in theory should pose little difficulty to most departing aircraft. Indeed, most departing aircraft experienced no troubles at all.
I would imagine that pilots based in, say, Montreal, might not concur with your assessment of the accumulation being "excessive". Perhaps you can sift through archived runway surface condition reports on the Nav Canada notam site to determine the reported state of the runway at or near the departure time of the Rouge flight in question.
I personally would have difficulties expressing my public opinion, in hindsight, that implied fault or negligence upon the airport, the airline, the aircraft type, or any other variable conjured up from behind a computer screen on the other side of the country.
I never implied anything related to fault or negligence, not sure where you're getting that opinion either. I merely said it was my belief that the runway in question was in need of clearing. Given the video, that belief seems justifiable, since runway contaminant - slush in this case - reached the engine, and apparently caused degraded performance whereas a similar amount of water would not have had that same impact.
FYI,
TCCA Aviation Safety Letter 4-2003.
Last edited by jaysona; Dec 20, 2017 at 2:34 pm Reason: fat thumbs and iPhone keyboards are like oil & water.
Dec 20, 2017, 3:32 pm
#3224
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Oh here we go, soon some wag will post a 12 Angry Men meme, amid accusations the forum has degraded to pot shots.
Anyway, I mentioned you implied fault or negligence because you stated the runway should have been closed and reopened after clearing. It was a strange comment, considering that's standard practice during winter ops at any large airport.
The information I had that the slush present posed little difficulty to most departing aircraft was gleaned from watching most departing aircraft depart with little difficulty.
Finally, I meant NOTAM, not METAR. Runway surface condition reports are not included in METARs; they are included on the local Aerodrome section within the AWWS NOTAM page and are submitted by the airport operator following every routine, or special, runway inspection. They detail each runway's coverage of contaminant (or lack thereof) in percentage and include depths of slush, snow or gull droppings as the case may be.
OK, maybe not the last one, not even at YVR.
The information I had that the slush present posed little difficulty to most departing aircraft was gleaned from watching most departing aircraft depart with little difficulty.
Finally, I meant NOTAM, not METAR. Runway surface condition reports are not included in METARs; they are included on the local Aerodrome section within the AWWS NOTAM page and are submitted by the airport operator following every routine, or special, runway inspection. They detail each runway's coverage of contaminant (or lack thereof) in percentage and include depths of slush, snow or gull droppings as the case may be.
OK, maybe not the last one, not even at YVR.
Dec 20, 2017, 6:31 pm
#3225
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Toronto, ON
Programs: AC 75K
Posts: 6,363
May I ask what you based your opinion upon in regards to your belief the runway (08L in this instance) should have been closed, and what leads you to the conclusion the runway wasn't recently cleared? The elapsed time for the snow-clearing echelon at YVR to make a complete circuit of the airfield is one hour, meaning the runway had last been cleared within that timeframe. Given that YVR received 7cm total precipitation yesterday, the amount of slush contaminant at any given time could not have been more than one inch (likely much less), which in theory should pose little difficulty to most departing aircraft.