Porter Incident in CYAM
Thread Starter
Porter Incident in CYAM
Good Afternoon All:
Just read this on today's T.S.B. Daily Notifications.
Does anyone know what the weather conditions were for this? Does runway 30 have VASI? Anything else of interest for CYAM?
Thanks
Aircraft Information:
Registration : C-GLQO Operator : PORTER AIRLINES INC. Manufacturer : DE HAVILLAND Operator Type: COMMERCIAL Model : DHC-8-400 CARs Info: 705 - AIRLINER Injuries: Fatal : 0 Serious : 0 Minor : 0 None : 63 Unknown : 0
Occurrence Summary :
A13O0098: Porter Airlines flight 689, a de Havilland DHC-8-400 aircraft (C-GLQO), was on a visual short final approach to Sault Ste. Marie's Airport (CYAM) Runway 30 when power was reduced to correct the descent profile. The aircraft's descent rate quickly increased and was not arrested with power application. The aircraft landed hard and during the landing flair the pitch angle increased such that the tail of the aircraft contacted the runway surface. There was significant damage to the aircraft skin and structure where it contacted the ground. The aircraft taxied to the gate without further incident. There were no reported injuries.
Just read this on today's T.S.B. Daily Notifications.
Does anyone know what the weather conditions were for this? Does runway 30 have VASI? Anything else of interest for CYAM?
Thanks
Aircraft Information:
Registration : C-GLQO Operator : PORTER AIRLINES INC. Manufacturer : DE HAVILLAND Operator Type: COMMERCIAL Model : DHC-8-400 CARs Info: 705 - AIRLINER Injuries: Fatal : 0 Serious : 0 Minor : 0 None : 63 Unknown : 0
Occurrence Summary :
A13O0098: Porter Airlines flight 689, a de Havilland DHC-8-400 aircraft (C-GLQO), was on a visual short final approach to Sault Ste. Marie's Airport (CYAM) Runway 30 when power was reduced to correct the descent profile. The aircraft's descent rate quickly increased and was not arrested with power application. The aircraft landed hard and during the landing flair the pitch angle increased such that the tail of the aircraft contacted the runway surface. There was significant damage to the aircraft skin and structure where it contacted the ground. The aircraft taxied to the gate without further incident. There were no reported injuries.
That's four tail strikes for PD. I have no idea as to what happened in this case, but I'm told by a friend who currently flies them that flap 15 landings are often the cause of Q400 tail strikes.
He said that some maintenance folks claim it reduces wear and tear on the flap assemblies. I wonder if they still feel that a little more flap maintenance is less desirable than losing an airframe for a couple of months for a major repair. 
He told me that his company doesn't permit it during normal operations because the tail is simply too close to the ground in that configuration.
He told me that his company doesn't permit it during normal operations because the tail is simply too close to the ground in that configuration.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wherever I go, there I am
Age: 43
Posts: 814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've recently been told that Porter and Jazz don't like using Flap 35 because of the large pitch change that is accompanied...something about its being poor consideration for passenger comfort.
The Dash does have a decent pitch change between 15 and 35, primarily because it happens so damn quick, and it can be uncomfortable when sitting at the back of the bus. However, I've been told the same thing in the past as J.O, about the wear on the flap assembly when I was flying 100's. I agree though, an extra inspection and a bit more grease is less expensive in time and money than this tail strike inspection will be...plus, it keeps you out of the media!
The 100 and 300 lands slightly better than a shopping cart with flap 35, and I would assume the same is said for the 400. However, the only time it is required is when using the gravel supplement, so I'm sure there are many dash pilots who only ever use flap 35 in the sim. Too bad...I always find it fun to try and counteract the pitch change so no one notices it!
The Dash does have a decent pitch change between 15 and 35, primarily because it happens so damn quick, and it can be uncomfortable when sitting at the back of the bus. However, I've been told the same thing in the past as J.O, about the wear on the flap assembly when I was flying 100's. I agree though, an extra inspection and a bit more grease is less expensive in time and money than this tail strike inspection will be...plus, it keeps you out of the media!
The 100 and 300 lands slightly better than a shopping cart with flap 35, and I would assume the same is said for the 400. However, the only time it is required is when using the gravel supplement, so I'm sure there are many dash pilots who only ever use flap 35 in the sim. Too bad...I always find it fun to try and counteract the pitch change so no one notices it!
Thread Starter
J.O. +TSRA
Thank you for your postings
A question or two for you both is the pitch change more noticeable at max flap extension or when slowed down for next flap extension?
Is a speed booklet used to determine min flap extension speeds? How much is the performance for MLW v flap 15 or flap 35?
Thank you for your postings
A question or two for you both is the pitch change more noticeable at max flap extension or when slowed down for next flap extension?
Is a speed booklet used to determine min flap extension speeds? How much is the performance for MLW v flap 15 or flap 35?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question or two for you both is the pitch change more noticeable at max flap extension or when slowed down for next flap extension?
