|
B744F off the runway in YHZ
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...-747-1.4895103
Apparently its N908AR of Skylease Cargo, Great news no one is injured but the aircraft is clearly dead. |
|
Some clear photos here.
|
Short vid of final resting place here:
|
Originally Posted by STN Ramp Rat
(Post 10304287)
...but the aircraft is clearly dead.
|
Heheh! Should be cheap lobster in Toronto this weekend! There's always a silver lining in these things.
|
Take off or landing? This may also break the back of the company, they are running on fumes financially. |
Originally Posted by TowerDog
(Post 10304396)
Take off or landing? This may also break the back of the company, they are running on fumes financially. And yes, it probably ends the company as well... |
Landed on rnwy 14. 2347 meters long. |
Originally Posted by SigWit
(Post 10304399)
Landing.
And yes, it probably ends the company as well... |
Thats why you have insurance.
|
Originally Posted by reverserunlocked
(Post 10304464)
Sad end to a Queen and even sadder for it spell the end of the whole airline. It must focus the mind somewhat if you’re flying for a carrier with only a couple of aircraft that even a minor prang rendering the aircraft U/S for a period of time might be enough to put the whole company under. Then from the ashes rose SkyLease 1 and only pilots who were not “Troublemakers” were recalled. That would include those who were active in organization a union, including Yours Truly. SkyLease have been struggling lately with pilot’s pay checks been missing in action or a few weeks late, as well as problems paying for fuel, cash only in some instances. This incidence were unfortunate, but they all are. Tailwind Landing.....What else, heavy rain, hydro planning, lost all brakes and all reverse, not on speed? |
View from the air...
|
A couple of recent pics I took of the aircraft departing YHZ in October.
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1ca45ae93d.jpg https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4e9e3263c9.jpg |
Anyone know why they chose the short runway at Halifax? |
why is it being reported as a "Chinese SkyLease Cargo 747", when it has an "N" Registration ? Are Skylease chinese owned ?
|
Originally Posted by TylerMonkey
(Post 10304460)
Landed on rnwy 14. 2347 meters long. |
ATC transcript and comments from JACDEC.com :
GG 4854: „Halifax Tower, ay.. good evening SkyCube 4854 heavy, for the ILS 14.“ Tower: „SkyCube 4854 heavy, Halifax Tower Good evening runway 14, wind 260 at 15 (knots), altimeter 2967 information Tango, number one.“ GG 4854: „Roger that, we have it..“ … Tower: „SkyCube 4854, tailwind now 280 at 16 confirm gusting 21, confirm runway 14 still acceptable ?“ 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.“ … Tower: „SkyCube 4854 do you read ?“ GG 4854: „Halifax Tower, SkyCube 5854 is off the runway. Requesting full emergency assistance.“ Tower: „SkyCube 4854 Roger, emergency has been activated.“ At about 04:40L, about 30 minutes before the accident landing, Cargojet B757F (CJT626) landed on runway 14. At about 04:50L, about 25 minutes before the accident landing, Morningstar (FDX) B757F (MAL8062) landed on runway 23. At about 04:52L, about 23 minutes before the accident landing, a Learjet 35A landed on runway 23. 2018-11-07 Sky Lease Cargo B747-400F overrun at Halifax Airport » JACDEC |
Is there a good reason for selecting runway 14 ?.
Do both runways have, for example, a working ILS ? |
Runway 14 and 23 have an ILS. Runway 23 however has been notamed u/s due construction. Ceiling and vis seemed okay for a NPA if they wanted to land into wind (if they had GPS). Without GPS there is no approach onto 32, only place I have circled in a transport category jet aircraft close to minimums.
|
Originally Posted by The Ancient Geek
(Post 10304655)
Is there a good reason for selecting runway 14 ?.
Do both runways have, for example, a working ILS ? ILS 23 was previously Notam'ed out of service: YHZ 11/021 YHZ CYHZ ILS 23 U/S 1811062155-1811082100 |
Originally Posted by hailstone
(Post 10304607)
why is it being reported as a "Chinese SkyLease Cargo 747", when it has an "N" Registration ? Are Skylease chinese owned ?
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10304671)
No obvious Chinese connection AFAIK.
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? |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10304671)
No obvious Chinese connection AFAIK.
"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." |
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. |
Sad ending to a great airplane. Curious to why... |
Originally Posted by Mudman
(Post 10304980)
Took some photos on the way home from work.
Originally Posted by TowerDog
(Post 10304984)
Sad ending to a great airplane. Curious to why... 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... |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10305004)
Those weren't taken with an iPhone. Great pictures of a sad event.
|
Miracle that there was no fire, given that they must have had enough fuel for quite a diversion if needed.
|
Originally Posted by McGinty
(Post 10305019)
Miracle that there was no fire, given that they must have had enough fuel for quite a diversion if needed.
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? |
And yes, it probably ends the company as well... |
|
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? |
With the gust I get a 16 knot tailwind component, does the B-744F even have numbers for this?
|
My googlefu says max tailwind limit is 15 knots.
|
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6f402e8c2c.jpg
Some more photos... Interesting to see the bits of the fan blades along the fence line. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b8337d5582.jpg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....16e5538dc5.jpg https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....555e7257a4.jpg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....fc77354d67.jpg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5ad9e8b4ef.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....8131e99a30.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3f8ddaea4a.jpg https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....672eff2f2c.jpg https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....dc804dcaf6.jpg https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c344bc49c4.jpg |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10305045)
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?' |
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.
Originally Posted by giggitygiggity
(Post 10308622)
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?'
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.“ 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.“ |
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? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:09. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.