Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Canada flight crashes on runway in Halifax

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Air Canada flight crashes on runway in Halifax

    Air Canada flight 624 is believed to have crashed on a runway at Halifax Stanfield International Airport in Canada, according to numerous social media reports. The plane reportedly hit power lines and sustained extensive damage upon crash-landing.

    Fortunately, no injuries.

    Air Canada flight 624 has crashed on a runway at Halifax Stanfield International Airport in Canada, the airline has confirmed. The plane reportedly hit power lines and sustained extensive damage upon crash-landing. No passengers were killed.
    Last edited by ErezS; 2015-03-29, 04:55. Reason: Fortunately, no injuries.

  • #2
    Originally posted by ErezS View Post
    Air Canada flight 624 is believed to have crashed on a runway at Halifax Stanfield International Airport in Canada, according to numerous social media reports. The plane reportedly hit power lines and sustained extensive damage upon crash-landing.

    http://rt.com/news/244953-air-canada-crash-halifax/
    Official Air Canada tweet:

    Confirms AC624, YYZ-YHZ exited runway upon landing at Halifax. All passengers have deplaned, going to terminal. More updates to come.

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #3
      Looks like a decent snow storm at the time.

      Comment


      • #4


        Comment


        • #5
          Is there room to stuff another file in the 'failed to abandon unstable approach' folder? I know it's getting pretty full...

          I'm sure the 'decended below MDA/DH without sighting runway' folder is too full already.

          Maybe there's room in the 'failed to properly manage power and monitor airspeed during period of extended idle on descent' folder, although that one is pretty stuffed too.

          Two A320 W/O in one week. Thankfully, no fatalies on this one.

          Comment


          • #6


            Sounds like they circled waiting for better visibility, got some, and rushed in. Obviously in a hurry to land. It also sounds like they clipped power lines on the way down, and bounced on the runway before sliding.

            I can't believe it took an hour for the bus to pick up the passengers who sad in the blizzard freezing. I suppose they might have been worried about power lines. I think I would have started walking back to the terminal myself assuming I could see where it was. I suppose the power was out and it would have been dark.

            Spurway said the plane was flying in a southerly direction when it landed on the airport’s main runway, adding that it is up to pilots to decide whether it is safe to land in bad weather based on information relayed from ground crews to the tower.

            Dominic Stettler, 31, of Wolfville, N.S., said people on board the plane responded with level heads.

            “I think we hit a power cable, there was a lot of sparks,” he said. “We hit the ground, we came up and then we slid on the runway for quite a long time. We just kicked the doors out and jumped onto the wing and then ran because we just wanted to get away from the airplane in case of explosions or anything.”

            Stettler said people were helping each other after they got off the plane.

            “A woman offered me her jacket because I was shivering and pulled me into a tight warm hug and we just sat there for a while. It was kind of special actually,” he said.

            The flight crew told the passengers that conditions at the airport weren’t good and they would circle for an hour to see if things improved, he said. If they didn’t, Stettler said the flight was going to head to Moncton, N.B.

            “And then there was a window of visibility and we went for it,” said Stettler, 31, the father of two boys and a girl.

            The landing didn’t feel right when the plane touched down, he said.

            “I actually didn’t know we (were) on the runway. I thought we might be on a field and that at any point we could run into a tree or some obstacle. While we were sliding, I just thought about my boys and my family,” he said.

            Once he was off the plane, he ran to get safely away from the aircraft.

            “I tripped over a big metal object, which must have been one of the components,” Stettler recalled. “It was just completely surreal. Parts of the plane were scattered across. I don’t really want to say too much because I don’t want to terrify people. But yeah, it was surreal. It was very surreal.”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Some dude on the AvHerald Comment Section
              I wish I could fly
              By Hubert Brunner on Monday, Mar 30th 2015 17:44Z

              More of this will happen, as the children of the magenta line of(f) course also depend on vertical guidance which might not be necessary there with a loc approach. Maybe his smartphone was low bat that he could apply the 3 degree rule for descent/distance. Suicidal pilots, discalculative pilots where is this going to end. I think I shall take the train in the future. Having been line and check pilot in the past it is amazing what kind of people show up in cockpits lately. And when you tell them to learn the basics before they grab a side stick they are insulted and go crying to Mummy or on Facebook.
              No need for basics. Just follow the procedure.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #8
                CYHZ 290400Z 34019G54KT 3/4SM R14/5000VP6000FT/D -SN DRSN BKN007 OVC010 M06/M07 A2964 RMK SF7SC1 SLP045

                CYHZ 290313Z 35020G26KT 1/2SM R14/3500V4500FT/N SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2963 RMKSN8 SLP040

                LOC 05 approach minimums are MDA 740 msl and visibility 1 mile.

                Both metar's clearly below minimums

                Comment


                • #9
                  ...and, while there's no other evidence besides some holding, I wonder if low-fuel was a contributing factor to the decision?
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    Obvious need for basics, but follow the stabilized approach criteria.
                    Repaired.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      ...and, while there's no other evidence besides some holding, I wonder if low-fuel was a contributing factor to the decision?
                      No fuel emergency declared. If you have to in and bust minimums, wouldn't you at least declare a fuel emergency?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        No fuel emergency declared. If you have to in and bust minimums, wouldn't you at least declare a fuel emergency?
                        Did I read correctly that they already had a crash and had the "better" runway closed?

                        RDO: "Approach, our fuels getting low, we'd like to try the approach and see if we can get in"

                        APCH: "624, do you need to declare an emergency?"

                        RDO: "Not at this point"

                        CAM: "Ok, if we go missed then we do have an emergency, keep your eyes peeled for any ground contact.

                        ...seems plausible that ATC might not get their panties in a wad and let them take a peek...

                        In spite of regs, what's wrong with properly executing an approach and then executing missed approach with the field already below minimums? Why is that more dangerous than initiating an approach legally, having the visibility go below minimums and executing a missed approach at minimums?

                        I note the one METAR reported 700 broken...While the visibility was illegal, if you saw something you recognized in between the clouds and had worries that your alternate would cut you real close and also had tough weather...Seems like it was worthwhile to take a look?

                        Just my ass-hat parlour opinion.
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          Did I read correctly that they already had a crash and had the "better" runway closed?

                          RDO: "Approach, our fuels getting low, we'd like to try the approach and see if we can get in"

                          APCH: "624, do you need to declare an emergency?"

                          RDO: "Not at this point"

                          CAM: "Ok, if we go missed then we do have an emergency, keep your eyes peeled for any ground contact.

                          ...seems plausible that ATC might not get their panties in a wad and let them take a peek...

                          In spite of regs, what's wrong with properly executing an approach and then executing missed approach with the field already below minimums? Why is that more dangerous than initiating an approach legally, having the visibility go below minimums and executing a missed approach at minimums?

                          I note the one METAR reported 700 broken...While the visibility was illegal, if you saw something you recognized in between the clouds and had worries that your alternate would cut you real close and also had tough weather...Seems like it was worthwhile to take a look?

                          Just my ass-hat parlour opinion.
                          Taking a look is fine, continuing into the ground 1000ft + short of the runway is not.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
                            Taking a look is fine, continuing into the ground 1000ft + short of the runway is not.
                            Indeed. You probably should declare an emergency to do that.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post

                              Did I read correctly that they already had a crash and had the "better" runway closed?
                              There was a statement that RWY 05/23 was closed AFTER the crash, that's all I read.
                              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                              I note the one METAR reported 700 broken...While the visibility was illegal, if you saw something you recognized in between the clouds and had worries that your alternate would cut you real close and also had tough weather...Seems like it was worthwhile to take a look?
                              If getting in were that critical I would opt for the ILS on 14. They might have been following the backcourse for 23 because... they certainly nailed the LOC...

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X