Jetsgo loses engine at YYZ: prompts safety probe
 

GLOBEANDMAIL.COM

Runway debris prompts safety probe

Planes still landed, took off at Pearson after Jetsgo mishap left metal on ground

By KEITH MCARTHUR AND BRENT JANG

Tuesday, March 8, 2005
Updated at 12:18 PM EST

The Transportation Safety Board of Canada is looking into why seven aircraft used a runway scattered with potentially deadly debris Friday afternoon, after a Jetsgo Boeing MD83 lost one of its two engines at Toronto's Pearson International Airport.

Pilots of the Vancouver-bound flight aborted takeoff at 3:18 p.m. after an engine blew and debris spilled onto the runway.

"The aircraft notified that it had a problem, but did not indicate at the time that there might have been a risk of debris or oil on the runway," said Louis Garneau, a spokesman for Nav Canada, which runs the country's air traffic control system.

Over the next 20 minutes, seven aircraft took off and landed on the runway before Jetsgo advised traffic controllers that it may have spilled oil or debris. Only then did Nav Canada close the runway. Airport officials found an exhaust cone and several small pieces of metal on the runway.

Debris on runways can have tragic consequences. In 2000, a Air France Concorde jet plunged after takeoff from Paris's Charles de Gaulle airport. All 109 people aboard were killed when a sliver of metal from another aircraft punctured one of the Concorde's tires, which exploded and tore through the plane's wing, puncturing a fuel tank.

Jetsgo spokesman Brad Cicero said maintenance had been performed relatively recently on the Jetsgo aircraft's Pratt &Whitney engine.

On Friday, he said, "there were indications of a No. 1 engine malfunction during its takeoff role on the tarmac. Once that happened, the pilot notified the tower of the malfunction and taxied back to the gate."

He said the 66 passengers and six crew members aboard Flight 174 transferred to a different aircraft to resume the flight to Vancouver more than two hours later.

He said the pilot would not have been able to see whether there was debris on the runway because the Boeing MD-83 is a rear-engine aircraft.

Mr. Garneau said air-traffic controllers will shut down a runway if they notice debris, but he added that the tower is 2.4 kilometres from the runway and that controllers did not notice anything unusual after the aborted Jetsgo flight.

Transportation Safety Board spokesman John Cottreau said federal investigators are assessing the Jetsgo case to determine whether it warrants a deeper probe.

Transport Canada spokeswoman Lucie Vignola said the federal department is aware of the incident. Normally, a pilot would "advise the tower" about any engine problems, she said.

Friday's incident is one in a series of problems plaguing Jetsgo Corp., a privately owned company based in Montreal.

"I think that Jetsgo should be grounded temporarily," said Dianne Fraser of Toronto who was aboard another Jetsgo aircraft on Saturday that made an unscheduled stop in South Carolina in an unrelated incident. She said passengers were told that "one of the engines was leaking oil and had to be shut down."

Ms. Fraser said her family went through a "harrowing experience," made worse when "one of the flight attendants at the rear of the plane was praying out loud and crying." The passengers made it safely to Toronto Sunday on a different Jetsgo plane.

In late January, a Jetsgo plane landing at Calgary International Airport skidded partly off the runway and hit a sign, prompting a safety board investigation.

And last month, Transport Canada revoked an operating certificate, forcing Jetsgo to run its flights at lower altitude, which is less efficient for fuel consumption. That certificate has yet to be reinstated.

Just before Christmas, Jetsgo faced thousands of angry passengers left stranded amid flight cancellations in a Toronto winter storm.

The federal Air Travel Complaints Program received 160 complaints in 2004 about the airline, more than triple the number lodged in 2003.

Boy, what the press will do to develop a story.

It's not the pilots job to assess what he may have left on a runway. The pilot fulfills his resonsibilitie when he aviates, navigates and finally communicates. he seems to have performed all these functions.

It's the towers job to notify the airport authorities of the communications, and the airports job to check the runway accordingly. I sure hope that airport managers don't cop out on their responsibilities and end up with another serious accident like the Concorde.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but how would the pilot be able to see engine debris on the runway whether it's a rear engine mounted MD83 or a wing mounted 737?

Lom .... you missed this bit .....
:{

Point is?A stressed out FA losing it in the rear of the plane because one engine is developing a problem? Point is GTAA should be doing their job. If there is reported engine failure on take off the GTAA should have someone out there immediately to check for debris.

I wonder what kind of a/c where the pilot *would* see debris on the runway - a backward facing cockpit?

The fault here is GTAA's and the article should have concentrated on that. However, is the 83 having the same issues with engines that JAS had with the 87s, or have they had engine work done since?

1. I believe that this is a reference to a different aircraft "that made an unscheduled stop in South Carolina in an unrelated incident. "

2. I think that this is one of those incidents where speculation isn’t going to serve us very well (certainly not the fear-mongering speculation in the press, but that’s not my point). I think we can all conceive of a situation where NOBODY (pilots, ATC, airport authority) has good reason to believe that the runway may be contaminated with engine parts when something like this happens. To quote from the article, "there were indications of a No. 1 engine malfunction during its takeoff role on the tarmac. Once that happened, the pilot notified the tower of the malfunction and taxied back to the gate." This is certainly not the first time that an aircraft has rejected a takeoff for an engine problem. If neither the driver nor ATC have reason to believe that the aircraft has shed parts, then nobody is going to call for a FOD check. I’ve seen a lot of RTOs in my day, and leaving hardware on the runway has been the exception in these events rather than the rule.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that the only way to avoid this problem is to do a runway check every time an aircraft has a mechanical problem on the runway, and I don’t know that that’s a practical approach (assuming there’s not a reg in place requiring it in Canada). What’s more, I’d be curious to learn, in comparison, how many aircraft shed parts without ANY indication (not knowing something dropped-off until hours or days later)?

I’m just making a plea for patience. Although the aircrew appears blameless, I’m not certain the time is ripe to pin it on ATC or the airport authority either.

Dave

Typical journo k@k.... Man oh man...... Mr. CAA, can we also get an AOC for highlevels? Please.....Mr. Caa...:E :E := :=

Another great story....Oh well.......

Hey M C even though the article is wrong in its letter, it's true in spirit and Jetsgo's Op spec for operating in high level airspace was revoked subject to more investigation. This airline's safety record is a ticking time bomb and TC must address it, its poor safety record is known to all others in the industry. The main point of the article is strengthing case that Jetsgo's safety record will soon force TC to ground this airline in the interests of public safety.:cool:

Subject: JGO174/04MARCH


We've all read about the Jetsgo MD-83 "landing" incident in Calgary last January 21st, but now we have a story that is much closer to home.

This past Friday, March 4th, (date is under dispute---one report says it happend on Saturday) Jetsgo flight 174 (C-GKLE) departed the gate at T3 and was airborne at 1517hrs for Vancouver. After taking off on RW23 he returned to the airport for a landing and was back on a gate by 1547hrs.

The pilot advised Apron upon arriving at the gate that there may be an oil leak. Then a couple of minutes later "maybe you should check for parts". The maintenance crews went out to the runway only to discover several pieces of debris from 1 inch to a foot long! Apparently the MD83 had blown an engine on takeoff and the pilot didn't bother to tell anyone. He climbed to 3 or 4 thousand feet and then asked ATC to return to the airport, but didn't bother to say why, or that he had shutdown an engine.

Therefore, there was no "1C" declared and no fire trucks standing by. In the meantime 5 or 6 other aircraft used that runway (do we remember the AF Concorde crash at Paris??). Only after a period of time did the full extent of this incident come to light. The aircraft was towed to a hangar for an engine change and meanwhile maintenance people were still in the process of cleaning the runway and cleaning up oil spills at various locations.

Transport Canada Airworthiness people have been advised and the CASB so stay tuned for further.

R8TED THRUST,

Whoever told you that story is mistaken.

Here are some facts regarding this event.

The aircraft never got airborne. The aircraft did a low speed reject due to high temps. The engine never actually failed but the crew did elect to shut it down while taxiing in as a precaution. Upon arrival at the gate an oil leak was noted. Shortly after engineering advised the pilots that parts of the engine were missing. All information regarding the oil leak and the missing parts was relayed without delay.

These are the facts.

I would have thought it was in any airport operator's SOP to do a runway (indeed, taxiway too) inspection if an aircraft reports they have had a mechanical problem. Anyone knowledgeable will be aware that if you have such a problem there is a reasonable chance of at least lubricant being deposited, and indeed debris as well.

I'll bet if you report any engine problem on the runway at CDG nowadays they will be straight out to have a look.

R8TED ,

Poisoned posts such as yours should frankly be deleted by the administrators. Rumours and speculation is one thing but posting in the manner that you did (i.e. making it appear to be fact when it is anything but) is well below the belt. You obviously have a personal grudge against JETSGO.

If planes take off after a runway incident involving others ahead of them, can pilots expect to see objects left on the tarmac as they go and are they required to report the fact after becoming airborne?

Makes you wonder how easy it is to become a Journalist nowadays. Think that the last few comments were just fillers, cause I didn't think they really added anything important to the news story.

Umm, would it be that the airport closed because of winter storm... customers had better talk to god rather than Jetsgo.

Watching the news channels after the tsunami event was extremely painful. Lots of talking, but not alot of information, and it was amazing how all the story being reported was different, but each presented it as fact.

Sit the FO on the nosewheel and backtrack?

R1

I know that accidents can happen to anyone, and their for the grace of god go most, BUT these lot are a bunch of utter cowboys, having had the mishap of experiencing the Jetsgo "experience" first hand, I wouldn't trust them with an airfix kit. They seem to be having a disporportionate amount of incidents in Canada and it is about time that their whole outfit was examined, thoroughly and the only way that can be accomplised is by grounding them. There have been some woeful demonstrations of their competence, customer service, professionalism................

Lets just hope that someone sees sense and pulls the plug before they end up hurting people as these lot are far too reminiscent of Valujet..........:(

Perhaps all posters who have alluded to Jetsgo's safety record would like to post exactly what that record is!

For those that do please post the airline you work for and we can begin comparing records.

Interesting to see the thread starter has vanished with no further posts. I sense a journo on this one :rolleyes:

AVMAN,

A bit sensitive today are we? For those that have flown in Canada for a while know that anything that 'Mike the White' touches turns to CR&*! There were safety issues at Intair , there major safety issues at Royal and guess what.......
You can't change his philosophy on how to run an airline but you can sure choose not to fly on his airline!