B744F off the runway in YHZ
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
ILS 23 was previously Notam'ed out of service:
YHZ 11/021 YHZ CYHZ ILS 23 U/S 1811062155-1811082100
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Paradise
Age: 73
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently from Sept2018 it had ""Having Fish Every Year" in large Chinese titles on its left side. Maybe that's where the impression of Chinese ownership came from.
Boeing 747-412F - Sky Lease Cargo Aviation Photo #5272303 Airliners.net
According to FR24 in the last seven days it has operated twice from Halifax to Changsha via Anchorage and return via ANC and ORD. Maybe earlier history would indicate a longterm regular contract to Changsha perhaps carrying fish?
Boeing 747-412F - Sky Lease Cargo Aviation Photo #5272303 Airliners.net
According to FR24 in the last seven days it has operated twice from Halifax to Changsha via Anchorage and return via ANC and ORD. Maybe earlier history would indicate a longterm regular contract to Changsha perhaps carrying fish?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: CANADA
Age: 73
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a Halifax Stanfield Airport press release dated August of this year:
"First Catch, a Chinese-owned seafood freight forwarding company based at Halifax Stanfield, is currently offering two flights per week from Halifax to Changsha, the capital of Hunan province. The flights are operated by SkyLease Cargo utilizing a Boeing 747-400 freighter aircraft, which has the capacity to carry up to 120 tonnes of Nova Scotia seafood to China."
"First Catch, a Chinese-owned seafood freight forwarding company based at Halifax Stanfield, is currently offering two flights per week from Halifax to Changsha, the capital of Hunan province. The flights are operated by SkyLease Cargo utilizing a Boeing 747-400 freighter aircraft, which has the capacity to carry up to 120 tonnes of Nova Scotia seafood to China."
SkyGod
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Palm Coast, Florida, USA
Age: 66
Posts: 1,534
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, China contract but the airplanes and crews are based in MIA at the corrosion corner of the airport.
A lot of the experienced pilots have left causing a brain drain.
A lot of the experienced pilots have left causing a brain drain.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Those weren't taken with an iPhone. Great pictures of a sad event.
I'm guessing that they didn't have GPS for the RNAV 23 as CanadianAirbusPilot said and thought they needed the ILS to get under the 500 broken layer on the 9Z weather. They were empty and viz was good but the runway was short, wet, not grooved and had a gusty tailwind.
But, that is just a guess...
I'm guessing that they didn't have GPS for the RNAV 23 as CanadianAirbusPilot said and thought they needed the ILS to get under the 500 broken layer on the 9Z weather. They were empty and viz was good but the runway was short, wet, not grooved and had a gusty tailwind.
But, that is just a guess...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
But yes, the outcome could have been much worse for the crew.
I notice that the spoilers are down, were they caught on the evac checklist? Or, do they quickly bleed down when the hydraulics are shut off?
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And yes, it probably ends the company as well...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
:Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tailwind and gusty wind? Wet runway? The shortest runway? The safety margin was strongly reduced! Not the best choice to go for rwy 14...
Let's talk seriously now...What about landing performance calculations? Were they really within limits with the usual 15% recommanded increment? The margin should have been so tight!
Now if the ceiling was 500 ft AGL or above, why not try GPS or NDB 23?
Let's talk seriously now...What about landing performance calculations? Were they really within limits with the usual 15% recommanded increment? The margin should have been so tight!
Now if the ceiling was 500 ft AGL or above, why not try GPS or NDB 23?
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Constructively, ATC were trying to help, perhaps they could be more clear and calculate the tailwind component and press their concerns by matter of factly asking again, 'are you sure you want to land with a 21kt tailwind?'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks again for more great pictures Mudman. Do you shoot in RAW and edit in LR?
I hope the TSB finds those fan blades. Most probably not related to the cause of the mishap in this case, however. Part of a CF6 disk was found nearly 3000 feet from the plane in the AA383 abort at ORD a couple of years ago.
I've never seen ATC calculate a tailwind component for me. I did have a couple of colleagues violated by the FAA years ago after an inspector in the cockpit of another aircraft observed them doing a tailwind takeoff in excess of the ten knot limit on that aircraft.
Just for clarity, while the quartering tailwind was gusting to 21 knots, the tailwind component was less due to the direction.
From the JACDEC transcript I posted earlier:
I get a 16 knot tailwind component for this wind gust on runway 14.
With this final wind check the tailwind component is 10 knots in the gust as the reported direction swings more to a crosswind.
I hope the TSB finds those fan blades. Most probably not related to the cause of the mishap in this case, however. Part of a CF6 disk was found nearly 3000 feet from the plane in the AA383 abort at ORD a couple of years ago.
Just for clarity, while the quartering tailwind was gusting to 21 knots, the tailwind component was less due to the direction.
From the JACDEC transcript I posted earlier:
Tower: „SkyCube 4854, tailwind now 280 at 16 confirm gusting 21, confirm runway 14 still acceptable ?“
GG 4854: „Confirm..ah, still for 14.“
GG 4854: „Confirm..ah, still for 14.“
Tower: „SkyCube 4854 heavy, tower roger, wind 260 at 16 gusting 21 cleared to land on 14.“
GG 4854: „Cleared to land..ah.. affir..clear to land on 14, SkyCube 4854 heavy“
Tower: „Roger.“
GG 4854: „Cleared to land..ah.. affir..clear to land on 14, SkyCube 4854 heavy“
Tower: „Roger.“
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,045
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tbh, i didn't calculate it precisely so you got me there, but either way, it is most of it when there is in fact a runway in the reciprocal direction (ceiling providing) and an alternate that I'm sure was just fine and dandy.
I'm sure they have never had to tell you that info and thankfully i've never been in that situation they've needed to tell me, but obviously the controller thought this was a bad idea. I don't fly the 747 but is a 2300m wet runway going to work in a tailwind at a reasonable weight, let alone a 16kt one? Whilst I know it isn't his job to try to persuade the guy not to take it, obviously he was concerned that it might be out of limits and that perhaps giving the tailwind to a pilot that doesn't seem to be internalising the information given (a bloody strong tailwind), stating the obvious might have been useful in this instance to snap him out of it. I'm not sure of the name of the CRM model but there is one that tries to empower individuals to basically bark cold hard information with as much clarity as possible to stop someone from doing something stupid (RAISE model?), although I don't know how this would fit in to a controllers role as a service provider. I cant remember the exact details but there was a similar case in florida (i think?!) recently with a light twin, the pilot was told about a tailwind in excess of 20kts, he was just given the direction and perhaps was overloaded at that time that he didn't have the capacity to calculate the component. Perhaps someone more familiar with the 747 would suggest what a sensible RLD/FLD for a 16kt tailwind?
I'm sure they have never had to tell you that info and thankfully i've never been in that situation they've needed to tell me, but obviously the controller thought this was a bad idea. I don't fly the 747 but is a 2300m wet runway going to work in a tailwind at a reasonable weight, let alone a 16kt one? Whilst I know it isn't his job to try to persuade the guy not to take it, obviously he was concerned that it might be out of limits and that perhaps giving the tailwind to a pilot that doesn't seem to be internalising the information given (a bloody strong tailwind), stating the obvious might have been useful in this instance to snap him out of it. I'm not sure of the name of the CRM model but there is one that tries to empower individuals to basically bark cold hard information with as much clarity as possible to stop someone from doing something stupid (RAISE model?), although I don't know how this would fit in to a controllers role as a service provider. I cant remember the exact details but there was a similar case in florida (i think?!) recently with a light twin, the pilot was told about a tailwind in excess of 20kts, he was just given the direction and perhaps was overloaded at that time that he didn't have the capacity to calculate the component. Perhaps someone more familiar with the 747 would suggest what a sensible RLD/FLD for a 16kt tailwind?
