Cargojet 727 Overrun at CYQM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: On a survey line somewhere...
Age: 42
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cargojet 727 Overrun at CYQM
Happened about 0310 local time on the morning of Mar 24, 2010:
CADORS - Welcome Page | SCREAQ - Page d'accueil
CADORS #: 2010A0244
Narrative: At 06:10Z, CJT620, Boeing 727-200 cargo aircraft, enroute from Hamilton (CYHM) to Moncton (CYQM), hydroplaned off the end of Runway 06 at Moncton. There was no fire. The three crewmembers were not injured. The airport Crash Fire Rescue (CFR) was not available so the Dieppe fire department was called, arriving at approximately 06:30Z. The aircraft is stuck in the mud and will take some time to remove but there does not appear to be any damage to the aircraft. Runway 06 is NOTAM’ed closed until 13:00Z. TSB Evaluating.
CYQM 240700Z 07017KT 15SM -RA BKN006 BKN008 OVC013 02/01 A2947 RERA RMK SF5SF2SC1 PRESFR SLP982
CYQM 240600Z 07008G17KT 4SM +RA BR BKN006 OVC009 02/01 A2954 RMK SF6SF2 /R17/ SLP008
CYQM 240500Z 06015G25KT 5SM -RA BR BKN006 OVC010 01/01 A2956 RERA RMK SF6SF2 PRESFR SLP015
Taken 25 Mar 2010:
CADORS - Welcome Page | SCREAQ - Page d'accueil
CADORS #: 2010A0244
Narrative: At 06:10Z, CJT620, Boeing 727-200 cargo aircraft, enroute from Hamilton (CYHM) to Moncton (CYQM), hydroplaned off the end of Runway 06 at Moncton. There was no fire. The three crewmembers were not injured. The airport Crash Fire Rescue (CFR) was not available so the Dieppe fire department was called, arriving at approximately 06:30Z. The aircraft is stuck in the mud and will take some time to remove but there does not appear to be any damage to the aircraft. Runway 06 is NOTAM’ed closed until 13:00Z. TSB Evaluating.
CYQM 240700Z 07017KT 15SM -RA BKN006 BKN008 OVC013 02/01 A2947 RERA RMK SF5SF2SC1 PRESFR SLP982
CYQM 240600Z 07008G17KT 4SM +RA BR BKN006 OVC009 02/01 A2954 RMK SF6SF2 /R17/ SLP008
CYQM 240500Z 06015G25KT 5SM -RA BR BKN006 OVC010 01/01 A2956 RERA RMK SF6SF2 PRESFR SLP015
Taken 25 Mar 2010:
Re "no damage", if that's official then I would suspect the right-wing-low attitude the aircraft appears to be resting at is the result of a combination of slight downhill gradient (although in another photo there doesn't appear to be that much gradient), the fact that the airplane is pointed slightly left and that the right gear may be sunk a bit more than the left. The right wing appears very close to the ground. The nosegear appears to be on the surface of the overrun area. I see by the windsock there is still a strong north-ish wind, 15-20+kts.
Yes indeed, great photos - I would wish for such superb photography of every accident site so we could get a "lay of the land" so to speak.
Yes indeed, great photos - I would wish for such superb photography of every accident site so we could get a "lay of the land" so to speak.
The choice of landing runway appears to have been the shorter, but into-wind option. However, given the forecast gusts, the likely approach and landing speeds could have been higher than normal.
The investigation report could be interesting following recent research.
An overview of the issues is given in ‘Slippery When Wet’.
Re runway grooving; is runway 06 grooved? Is it a concrete surface, does it drain well?
The underlying Transport Canada research is in Joint Winter Runway Friction Measurement Program.
The specific trials on wet runways - Aircraft landing operations on wet runways, has some interesting conclusions:-
“… using the braking coefficients obtained during the tests on wet surfaces, indicates that the current operational dispatch factor of 1.92 for turbojet aircraft does not provide an adequate safety margin for landings on wet runways, particularly those with low texture or rubber contamination.”[/i]
"… current operational dispatch factor of 1.43 for turbopropeller aircraft does not provide an adequate safety margin for landings on wet runways.”[i]
Has anyone been able to locate an on-line copy of the latest TC report - “Risk and Benefit-Cost Analyses of Procedures for Accounting for Wet Runway on Landing”?
The investigation report could be interesting following recent research.
An overview of the issues is given in ‘Slippery When Wet’.
Re runway grooving; is runway 06 grooved? Is it a concrete surface, does it drain well?
The underlying Transport Canada research is in Joint Winter Runway Friction Measurement Program.
The specific trials on wet runways - Aircraft landing operations on wet runways, has some interesting conclusions:-
“… using the braking coefficients obtained during the tests on wet surfaces, indicates that the current operational dispatch factor of 1.92 for turbojet aircraft does not provide an adequate safety margin for landings on wet runways, particularly those with low texture or rubber contamination.”[/i]
"… current operational dispatch factor of 1.43 for turbopropeller aircraft does not provide an adequate safety margin for landings on wet runways.”[i]
Has anyone been able to locate an on-line copy of the latest TC report - “Risk and Benefit-Cost Analyses of Procedures for Accounting for Wet Runway on Landing”?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: On a survey line somewhere...
Age: 42
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello all,
Thanks on the photos - most were discarded - was difficult to hold a steady shot.
I'm not qualified to comment on most of the rest, but I was at the fence by the terminal within a few minutes of the overrun, and listening on the YQM ground frequency. Rain was pretty heavy, gusty, low cloud...
For the emergency services on airport, per the CFS, avail 0945-0345Z only.
As for the choice of runway, not really qualified to comment, but it does bear mentioning that 06 has an ILS and 11 has NDB and RNAV approaches only. Also, only 10 deg xwind difference between the two at the time (var 20 deg W).
Cheers,
Colin
Thanks on the photos - most were discarded - was difficult to hold a steady shot.
I'm not qualified to comment on most of the rest, but I was at the fence by the terminal within a few minutes of the overrun, and listening on the YQM ground frequency. Rain was pretty heavy, gusty, low cloud...
For the emergency services on airport, per the CFS, avail 0945-0345Z only.
As for the choice of runway, not really qualified to comment, but it does bear mentioning that 06 has an ILS and 11 has NDB and RNAV approaches only. Also, only 10 deg xwind difference between the two at the time (var 20 deg W).
Cheers,
Colin
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: On a survey line somewhere...
Age: 42
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T18 - it was an American Champion 8KCAB Super Decathlon. Just in the process of finishing a taildragger checkout before heading West/North looking for that first flying job. More likely to be a ramp/dock job though, unfortunately.
Cheers,
Colin
Cheers,
Colin
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: A quiet backwater
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airplanes with tail mounted engines have an interesting characteristic. Just when you are having fun keeping the nose straight in a crosswind on a slippery runway, going into reverse can blank out the rudder. Slow down or go off the side? The MD-80 is particularly cute in this regard.
I am still interested in runway grooving; is runway 06 grooved? Is it a concrete surface, does it drain well?
The type of runway surface is not clearly defined in the photos, but if the lengthwise marks are bitumen in-fill between blocks, then water could easily accumulate between ridges.
A recent warming spell could have thawed out (expanded) the surface, raising the in-fill forming a dam, so that with heavy rain some significant accumulation could occur.
The ATC / crew problem is then to determine the difference between a wet runway and a significant depth of water (flooded) which significantly reduces braking performance.
As a thought, who would check and report on the runway surface? If this is usually done by CFR, in their absence who determines the surface condition?
The type of runway surface is not clearly defined in the photos, but if the lengthwise marks are bitumen in-fill between blocks, then water could easily accumulate between ridges.
A recent warming spell could have thawed out (expanded) the surface, raising the in-fill forming a dam, so that with heavy rain some significant accumulation could occur.
The ATC / crew problem is then to determine the difference between a wet runway and a significant depth of water (flooded) which significantly reduces braking performance.
As a thought, who would check and report on the runway surface? If this is usually done by CFR, in their absence who determines the surface condition?
If the airport FSS was as reported "not available" does this not render the airport closed as FSS would be zero?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: On a survey line somewhere...
Age: 42
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not grooved.
Taxied past the airplane, sitting on the apron plugged into a ground power cart with maintenance folks and trucks all around it. Sitting level on its gear, right wing and all its bits certainly looked intact from what I saw. I think it may have been doing engine runs later yesterday afternoon.... Certainly sounded like it!
Taxied past the airplane, sitting on the apron plugged into a ground power cart with maintenance folks and trucks all around it. Sitting level on its gear, right wing and all its bits certainly looked intact from what I saw. I think it may have been doing engine runs later yesterday afternoon.... Certainly sounded like it!