CYYZ Airport Ops last night in the ice.

[Ontariotech]

I thought this kinda funny. Was listening to CYYZ Tower last night during the storm, and heard this exchange between a BA pilot, and Toronto Tower.
Speedbird 95 sitting at the gate, waiting for the weather to improve. Pilot comes onto to tower freq. and asks when the last flight departed. ATC responds "90 minutes ago".

Keep in mind, that it's been freezing rain for the better part of 3 hours, on top of 4 inches of snow, and the winds were 090 at 20 gusting 30 with rwy conditions reported as 60% bare and wet, 40% ice.

The BA pilot then says..."We have some clever passengers complaining that they see other aircraft departing, and were just sitting here at the gate." ATC then responds, "those other aircraft are either going for gas, going to maintenance, or just getting off the gate to head to the lineup at the de-icing pad." Where there was already 6 on the pad and 3 waiting to get on.

Now I am not a pilot. Obviously. But is it a requirement for passengers to switch their brains off when they enter the plane for their flight? And ask such dumb questions, or question the flight crew as to why they are sitting at the gate in such adverse weather? Weather they probably would not drive in? All based on looking out their frosted, icy window at the ice and snow covered ramp, watching other aircraft taxi around the apron?

[Captain Smithy]

Ah, that's normal everywhere I'm afraid, you should've seen the moaning that was going on when Heathrow was blanketed by fog just before Christmas, if I had been there I think I would've ended up hitting some of the ignorant/thick buggers.:rolleyes:

[The Many Tentacles]

Apparently, it's the fault of he airlines when it's foggy and they can't fly. The general public seem to think that the pilots are just wimping out of flying when they can't see.

I heard one guy saying that if the planes can fly at night when they can't see why can't they fly in fog - form an orderly queue to slap him

[Jerricho]

It was the same across the country yesterday, by the sounds.

Winnipeg's weather turned to sh*t about 1300 local, and the runways were dire. Unfortunately, WAA's snow clearing/de-icing mob were on lunch at the time. :ugh:

[Ontariotech]

While I do have sympathize with those stuck on that Jet Blue flight for 8 hours at JFK, I think passengers who whine about delays, when it comes to flying are not being realistic.

They obviously never heard of the saying, "it's better to be on the ground wishing you were up in the air, then being in the air wishing you were on the ground."

Should be a slogan in large bold letters on the back of every ticket sold. And in red neon lights on the the seat back in front of them.

[canadairguy]

I have a question. As a pilot I have been told that a runway or a taxiway was closed but never that an airport was closed due to weather. I was a passenger trying to leave DFW last weekend on a scheduled flight. We were informed that the "airport was closed" due to high winds. It remained "closed" for several hours. Do you think that the airline had been denied permission to operate or that they (prudently) opted not to operate?

[Ontariotech]

Not up to the airline, it's up to the crew. And I think the Airport operator has some say in that as well. And don't take me as being gospel. I ain't a pilot, so I can be overruled at any time. If the Airport Operator wants to close every runway on the field due too ice, snow, birds, then nothing comes in or out. But I think the pilots are free to make their own decisions as to wether they fly or not, given the weather conditions.

Over the years that I have been listening to Toronto Airport, I routinely here things like "Do you want to give it a try?" "Is that acceptable to you?"

I know this night in question, they were spitting out CRFI numbers, runway conditions, and JBI numbers every 15 inutes or so after a runway was plowed, swept and inspected. El Al was not able to take off with a specific CRFI number, and the crosswinds the way they were. So, they sat, and waited. Then taxied all the way from 06L to the north side of the field to use 05 as the CRFI improved after a plow, sweep and chemical application.

[Scott Voigt]

Actually DFW did close for a short time due to 45 knot cross winds, even for the cross wind runways. It was a very strange west wind that was blowing and giving us one heck of a dust storm... The airport authority in the US has the ability to close an airport. ATC does NOT have that ability, we can't even close runways... We can have a fouled runway that isn't closed but not useable, with that we will use other runways and send folks around that were destined to the one that is fouled...

regards

Scott

[canadairguy]

By closing the DFW airport, was the airport authority actually turning anyone away or had departures and arrivals already stopped on their own?

[Scott Voigt]

They had stopped on their own...

[Zeffy]

They had stopped on their own...

Following this incident?

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070228X00237&key=1

NTSB Identification: DFW07IA077
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier (D.B.A. American Eagle)
Incident occurred Saturday, February 24, 2007 in Dallas, TX
Aircraft: Embraer EMB-145LR, registration: N648AE
Injuries: 26 Uninjured.


This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On February 24, 2007, about 1255 central standard time, a twin-fan jet Embraer EMB-145LR airplane, N648AE, operated by American Eagle as Flight 3400, sustained minor damaged when it departed the right side of runway 31R during the landing roll at the Dallas Love Field (DAL), near Dallas, Texas. There were no reported injuries to the 3 crewmembers and the 23 passengers. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the scheduled revenue domestic flight that departed from San Antonio International Airport (SAT), near San Antonio, Texas at 1216 CST. Flight 3400 was conducted under an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121.

An initial statement by the 4,274-hour airline transport pilot (ATP), reported that after the aircraft touched down on the 7,752-foot long, by 150-foot wide runway, and lowered the nose "the aircraft started to move to the right." The captain stated that he was unable to regain directional control of the aircraft and the aircraft departed the right side of the runway. The aircraft came to rest in a grassy area between taxiways Alpha 2 and Alpha 3, and passengers were deplaned.

An inspection of the aircraft revealed two dents to the underside of the fuselage and minor damage to each of the nose landing gear doors.

A review of the Operator's aircraft operations manual reveals that the maximum demonstrated crosswind component for the Embraer 145 is 30 knots.

At 1253, the automated weather observing system at DAL, reported the wind from 250 degrees at 26 knots, gusting to 36 knots, 10 statute miles visibility, scattered clouds at 10,000 feet, temperature 69 degrees Fahrenheit, dew point 14 degrees Fahrenheit, and an altimeter setting of 29.55 inches of Mercury.

[West Coast]

My guess and my guess alone would be no. 60 degress off at 26G36 isn't that bad.

[Scott Voigt]

Wonder how close it is to the aircrafts maximum demonstrated cross wind component????

[West Coast]

I don't know, however demonstrated X winds are not limiting

[vector4fun]

West Coast,

We received several of the diverts from DFW during said dust storm, and I was chatting with several of their crews during slack traffic. My understanding from a couple NWA crews was that the airlines set max x-wind limits in thier ops-specs, and the max limit lowers as visibility comes down for low-vis approaches. I don't know what the RVR was at DFW at the time, but I remember hearing the vis was down to 1 1/2 mi or less for a time. I think the A319 crew said their limit was 29 knots in good vis.

V4F

[West Coast]

Company limitations are one thing and may very well be true for NWA as you mention. Demo X winds are just that, demonstrated X wind landings by the builder and in of themselves are not limiting unless the operator chooses to make them limiting.