HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Transportation & Infrastructure


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1001  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2018, 4:51 PM
ScovaNotian ScovaNotian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Halifax
Posts: 229
One thing that all three incidents have in common is that they occurred late at night or early in the morning, and crew fatigue was a major factor at least in the MK Airlines crash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1002  
Old Posted Nov 10, 2018, 7:04 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,315
After the AC crash I seem to recall reading that HIAA is lacking some of the more up to date tech in terms of navigational and landing aids? I am not expert enough to know what those would be. Sounds like a major miss in terms of investment by those in charge.

Also, listen to the audio of this most recent incident. While the ATC seems OK, the ground emergency crew sounds absolutely clueless.

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1003  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 1:25 AM
Takeo Takeo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Halifax
Posts: 595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
After the AC crash I seem to recall reading that HIAA is lacking some of the more up to date tech in terms of navigational and landing aids? I am not expert enough to know what those would be. Sounds like a major miss in terms of investment by those in charge.

Also, listen to the audio of this most recent incident. While the ATC seems OK, the ground emergency crew sounds absolutely clueless.

Video Link
Halifax has Cat II ILS on both runways. Perfectly fine. Cat III just allows for a lower decision height (under 100 feet). I suspect the TSB will find it was related to the tailwind / crosswind. You always take off and land INTO the wind. That’s flying 101 ever since the Wright Brothers. However I just read on the YouTube comments that then ILS on 23 (the longer runway 90 degrees to 14) was out. And conditions were shit. So they wouldn’t want to land without ILS. That would have given them a strong headwind though (good thing) and less crosswind.

Last edited by Takeo; Nov 11, 2018 at 1:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1004  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 2:03 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 3,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
After all, if YHZ develops a reputation for being a hazardous airport for landings, operators may think twice about operating from the facility. I'm not talking about scheduled passenger operations, I'm thinking more of cargo flights and perhaps charter operations. There are alternative airports in the region with better safety profiles and fewer days where flight ops are compromised by weather conditions.
This might be the most ridiculous uninformed statement you've ever made.

This was just a runway excursion that will likely be attributed to pilot/error fatigue. Operators won't be "thinking twice" about YHZ, the airport has been operating since 1960 with minimal problems.

Let me set something straight. These literal "Fly-by-night" leased cargo airlines with small fleets and international crew members are not up to the same safety standards of the major North American airlines. This crew likely live on these aircraft and are not paid enough and are overworked, leading to fatigue and poor judgement. Let's stop blaming the runway. You (the pilot) do not land if the weather conditions are not safe. Period.

This runway excursion could have easily happened in Moncton, it's just that Moncton has so few jet aircraft that need a long runway the likelihood of this type of event is reduced.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1005  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 3:47 PM
stephan.richard's Avatar
stephan.richard stephan.richard is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Saint Antoine
Posts: 492
For Sky Lease Cargo their past incident was on June 7 2006 where it had an engine failure. To criticize the operator before seeing all the facts on the incident. One thing that i am trying to figure out is to see if the flight crew was in-experienced in short runway landings with a 747-400 cargo in heavy configuration, was the aircraft properly trimmed for landing. and the fact that they landed on a 7700' runway 14/32 vs landing on the 10500' runway 05/23 all those questions will be answered as part of the investigation.
The following cargo operator is located on North Carolina and has 3 MD 11 and they had 1 747-400 before it over ran the runway in Halifax.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1006  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 4:00 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 3,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan.richard View Post
To criticize the operator before seeing all the facts on the incident.
I am being critical based on the preliminary facts. Read the facts that we are aware of from the TSB:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-in...5/a18a0085.asp

Also here is the TSB report on the 2004 MK Airlines Flight 1602 crash.

Quote:
3.0 Conclusions
3.1 Findings as to Causes and Contributing Factors
1. The Bradley take-off weight was likely used to generate the Halifax take-off
performance data, which resulted in incorrect V speeds and thrust setting being
transcribed to the take-off data card.
2. The incorrect V speeds and thrust setting were too low to enable the aircraft to take
off safely for the actual weight of the aircraft.
3. It is likely that the flight crew member who used the Boeing Laptop Tool (BLT) to
generate take-off performance data did not recognize that the data were incorrect for
the planned take-off weight in Halifax. It is most likely that the crew did not adhere
to the operator's procedures for an independent check of the take-off data card.
4. The pilots of MKA1602 did not carry out the gross error check in accordance with the
company's standard operating procedures (SOPs), and the incorrect take-off
performance data were not detected.
5. Crew fatigue likely increased the probability of error during calculation of the
take-off performance data, and degraded the flight crew's ability to detect this error.

6. Crew fatigue, combined with the dark take-off environment, likely contributed to a
loss of situational awareness during the take-off roll. Consequently, the crew did not
recognize the inadequate take-off performance until the aircraft was beyond the point
where the take-off could be safely conducted or safely abandoned.
7. The aircraft's lower aft fuselage struck a berm supporting a localizer antenna,
resulting in the tail separating from the aircraft, rendering the aircraft uncontrollable.
8. The company did not have a formal training and testing program on the BLT, and it
is likely that the user of the BLT in this occurrence was not fully conversant with the
software.
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-re...4/a04h0004.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1007  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 4:08 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 28,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by q12 View Post
This might be the most ridiculous uninformed statement you've ever made.
An honest question has been asked. Why have there been three major air crashes at YHZ since 2004? Name me any other airport in North America where this has happened?

Quote:
Originally Posted by q12 View Post
was just a runway excursion that will likely be attributed to pilot/error fatigue. Operators won't be "thinking twice" about YHZ, the airport has been operating since 1960 with minimal problems.
A runway "excursion"......

I recall the Air Canada incident the other year was called a "hard landing". Hilarious!!!

No matter how you spin it, there is something going on here. Two 747 crashes!! Where else on Earth has this happened!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by q12 View Post
runway excursion could have easily happened in Moncton, it's just that Moncton has so few jet aircraft that need a long runway the likelihood of this type of event is reduced.
A fair point, but it should be noted that large jets are rare in Halifax too, and to lose two 747's is unheard of.

Moncton is a busy airport, and with the flight college, there are actually more flight movements at YQM than YHZ. On the 2017 list, Moncton is #16 at 111,817 movements. Halifax didn't even crack the top 20 in Canada.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...orts_in_Canada

What's wrong with asking an honest question? What's wrong with holding an enquiry?

Maybe there's a deeper truth here (airport location, local topography, inherent meteorological conditions such as fog or crosswinds, runway orientation).

Questions need to be asked.........
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1008  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 4:09 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 3,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan.richard View Post
For Sky Lease Cargo their past incident was on June 7 2006 where it had an engine failure.
Video Link


Tradewinds Airlines was renamed Sky Lease Cargo in 2011 and also changed its IATA and ICAO codes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1009  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 4:22 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 3,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post

Questions need to be asked.........
That's why we have the TSB.

If you bothered to read what I just posted from the TSB report you might have read that the first 747 crash had nothing to do with Halifax and everything to do with the operator and crew.

There is no need to get Hysterical. You sound like you're drooling over the fact that Halifax's airport has had more accident's than Moncton's airport and therefore Moncton would benefit from this. Ridiculous.

Halifax Stanfield see's a ton of transatlantic jumbo jet diversions that choose Halifax over Moncton to land in the case of emergencys. Halifax Stanfield has a great reputation because of this, and let's not forget this:



Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
An honest question has been asked. Why have there been three major air crashes at YHZ since 2004? Name me any other airport in North America where this has happened?
New York LaGuardia Airport

On January 15, 2009, US Airways Flight 1549, an Airbus A320 departing for Charlotte/Douglas International Airport ditched in the Hudson River after losing both engines as a result of multiple bird strikes at an altitude of 3,000 feet (910 m); all 150 passengers and 5 crew members successfully evacuated.

On July 22, 2013, Southwest Airlines Flight 345, a Boeing 737-700 registration N753SW, from Nashville performed a hard landing that collapsed the nose gear of the aircraft. Nine people were injured and the plane was written off as a total loss.

On March 5, 2015, Delta Air Lines Flight 1086 from Atlanta skidded off the runway on landing in snowy weather. The McDonnell Douglas MD-88 operating the flight, N909DL, was severely damaged. Twenty-four people sustained minor injuries during evacuation via the emergency chutes.

On October 27, 2016, a Boeing 737-700 operated by the new Eastern Air Lines as flight 3452—carrying Mike Pence, then the Republican Vice Presidential nominee and the Governor of Indiana—skidded off Runway 22 after landing. The aircraft was ultimately stopped by the EMAS bed just before the Grand Central Parkway. No one was injured in the incident.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1010  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 4:28 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 28,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by q12 View Post
Halifax Stanfield see's a ton of transatlantic jumbo jet diversions that choose Halifax over Moncton to land in the case of emergencys. Halifax Stanfield has a great reputation because of this, and let's not forget this:

Lets not forget that YQM also saw about 10 large trans Atlantic jets diverted on 911 too, and both YQM & YHZ take second place on that fateful day to Gander NL.

YQM also receives flight diversions fairly routinely as well for medical emergencies. It all depends on which airport is closer and more convenient at the time.

And no, Moncton isn't hoping to benefit from Halifax's misfortune. I just pointed out that options exist.........
__________________
Go 'Cats Go

Last edited by MonctonRad; Nov 11, 2018 at 4:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1011  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 4:48 PM
q12's Avatar
q12 q12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Halifax
Posts: 3,966
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
Lets not forget that YQM also saw about 10 large trans Atlantic jets diverted on 911 too, and both YQM & YHZ take second place on that fateful day to Gander NL.
40 aircraft carrying some 8,000 passengers were diverted to Halifax.

38 aircraft carrying 6,600 passengers were diverted to Gander.

Quote:
Gander International received more flights than any other Canadian airport involved in the operation apart from Halifax. The 6,595 passengers and crew accounted for the third highest total of passengers that landed at a Canadian airport involved in the operation, behind Vancouver and Halifax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gander...tional_Airport
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1012  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 5:29 PM
Marty_Mcfly's Avatar
Marty_Mcfly Marty_Mcfly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 6,307
Was wondering why this thread was so active, thought maybe a big expansion was announced or something.

This incident was more than a runway excursion, this was complete loss of a plane. It's a serious incident, but I suspect the final report will place the fault here on the pilots. There has to be better decision making in the cockpit when put in this situation. The main runway is shut down and you're trying to land a 747 on a wet, shorter runway. You have a tailwind on your approach to runway 14 to contend with as well. The first thought should have been to request landing on runway 32 where you will be landing with a headwind. This probably didn't happen since runway 32 doesn't have an ILS, which would have been preferred in bad weather. With all this going against them, they should have diverted to their designated 2nd airport, whether that be Moncton or Saint John or somewhere else. I get that pilots sometimes take unnecessary risks to keep on schedule and to keep their bosses happy, but you have to know when the deck is stacked against you.

It's probably coincidental that these incidents keep happening at Halifax. That being said, it's interesting to hear from pilots how antiquated and problematic the facilities and non-ILS approaches are coming into the regions most important airport. In an area prone to poor weather, you would think it would be priority number one to help the pilots out as much as possible.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1013  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 6:43 PM
teddifax's Avatar
teddifax teddifax is offline
Halifax Promoter!
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Halifax
Posts: 1,016
I am glad you posted that about Halifax. I always am amazed when they downplay Halifax's role in the 911 disaster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1014  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 7:03 PM
MonctonRad's Avatar
MonctonRad MonctonRad is online now
Wildcats Rule!!
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Moncton NB
Posts: 28,278
Quote:
Originally Posted by teddifax View Post
I am glad you posted that about Halifax. I always am amazed when they downplay Halifax's role in the 911 disaster.
I think everyone remembers Gander so much better because they received almost as many planes as Halifax, yet they are a town of only about 15,000 people.

They rose to the challenge however, and the story became the stuff of legends.
__________________
Go 'Cats Go
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1015  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 7:12 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by MonctonRad View Post
An honest question has been asked. Why have there been three major air crashes at YHZ since 2004? Name me any other airport in North America where this has happened?

No matter how you spin it, there is something going on here. Two 747 crashes!! Where else on Earth has this happened!!

What's wrong with asking an honest question? What's wrong with holding an enquiry?

Maybe there's a deeper truth here (airport location, local topography, inherent meteorological conditions such as fog or crosswinds, runway orientation).

Questions need to be asked.........

It does seem to be more than just bad luck, as some would like to characterize it.

Of course if HIAA had their ILS working on the longer runaway, this would need not have occurred.

Why was it out of commission? I have not heard anyone ask that question.

I am also confused why the pilots would not have been instructed to land in the opposite direction if they were forced to use the shorter runway, in order to avoid the tailwind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1016  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 7:16 PM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly View Post
That being said, it's interesting to hear from pilots how antiquated and problematic the facilities and non-ILS approaches are coming into the regions most important airport. In an area prone to poor weather, you would think it would be priority number one to help the pilots out as much as possible.
Could you expand on that? Those comments are similar to ones I recall reading after the Air Canada crash a few years ago. They seem contrary to those posted here earlier saying that HIAA has "perfectly fine" navigational aids.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1017  
Old Posted Nov 11, 2018, 8:38 PM
Marty_Mcfly's Avatar
Marty_Mcfly Marty_Mcfly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: St. John's, NL
Posts: 6,307
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith P. View Post
Could you expand on that? Those comments are similar to ones I recall reading after the Air Canada crash a few years ago. They seem contrary to those posted here earlier saying that HIAA has "perfectly fine" navigational aids.
I don't know much about non-ILS landing systems so I can't speak much on it, but it would appear that the approach options for runways 05 and 32 aren't pilots favourites.

You have to wonder why the major regional airport only has ILS capabilities on 2 of its 4 runways. Not every airport is going to have ILS systems for each runway (that would be insane), but for the busiest and most important airport in the region, which is also plagued by less than stellar weather during some times of the year, maybe another wouldn't go astray. It was just an unfortunate series of events which led to this crash: maybe 95% of the time the ILS system on runway 14 would have been fine, but the wind direction in this situation doomed the landing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1018  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2018, 10:38 PM
RoshanMcG RoshanMcG is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Halifax
Posts: 485
Drove by this morning to see it on my way to the airport. These were taken directly behind a fence on Old Guysborough Road and it was insane how close the plane actually was to the fence.









Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1019  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2018, 6:30 AM
alps's Avatar
alps alps is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,536
HIAA Receives Funding for Halifax Stanfield Air Cargo Logistics Park

Quote:
Halifax International Airport Authority (HIAA) is extremely pleased that the Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport, today announced an investment for the development of the Halifax Stanfield Air Cargo Logistics Park.

Halifax International Airport Authority (HIAA) submitted a revised, unsolicited application to the federal government for the Air Cargo Logistics Park in June 2018. In addition to the federal government’s $18 million in funding for this project, the Province of Nova Scotia is providing $5 million and HIAA will invest the remaining $13 million, with plans to engage tenants and other partners in the cargo logistics chain moving forward.

The funding will allow HIAA to develop the Halifax Stanfield Air Cargo Logistics Park to connect commercial and logistics businesses in Atlantic Canada to air cargo opportunities spanning the globe. It will enhance transportation infrastructure, increase trade, foster export capacity and create jobs, all to the benefit of our province and our region.

The Air Cargo Logistics Park will entail developing new cargo facilities on lands at Halifax Stanfield that are currently vacant. The lands must be cleared and brought to grade to allow for the construction of a new cargo apron area, buildings for cargo handling, and aircraft de-icing facility and associated operational areas both airside and groundside.

As part of our application process, HIAA requested and received the support of all levels of government, private businesses in the cargo logistics chain and partner agencies for the Air Cargo Logistics Park. We thank everyone for their support and look forward to working with our stakeholders as the Air Cargo Logistics Park starts to take shape in 2019 and becomes a reality in late 2020/early 2021.

HIAA is extremely grateful to both the federal and provincial government for investing in Halifax Stanfield, our province and our region.
(Source: HIAA)

Here is a presentation showing the plan as prepared for the previous, unsuccessful bid for federal funding. Not sure if it's the exact same as the current plan but I guess it wouldn't be much different:

https://www.halifax.ca/sites/default...rc1414pres.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1020  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2018, 11:51 AM
Keith P.'s Avatar
Keith P. Keith P. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,315
Carter said on TV their original proposal was turned down, they received a debrief, and then submitted an unsolicited new proposal which was approved.

I guess after the application by the port was turned down after being torpedoed by Fillmore, they kissed Brison's ring and were granted this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Atlantic Provinces > Halifax > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:34 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.