Airline Pilot Forums

United Express flight 3363 from Chicago slipped off the runway at the Ottawa Airport at about 3:30 p.m. Sunday as it landed during heavy rain.

The 44 people on board were uninjured, according to airport spokesman Paul Benoit.

Police and firefighters were at the site of the crash.

Rhonda Purvis, who was waiting for her son to arrive on the flight, said that after waiting nearly 45 minutes she began to worry. An airport official rounded up family and friends waiting for passengers to arrive and told them there had been a problem landing but everyone on board was OK.

The airport sent an OC Transpo bus to bring the passengers inside the airport but they were forced to leave all their possessions on the plane. Purvis said it could be a few hours before they would be able to get their things off the plane and through customs.

Just before 5 p.m., Benoit said the passengers were being debriefed.

People who were watching the flight land from inside the airport’s third-floor window, said the plane disappeared into a sheath of rain and pivoted 180 degrees, landing off the runway.

More to come .....



Read more: Plane slides off runway while landing in Ottawa (http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Plane+slides+runway+while+landing+Ottawa/5352890/story.html#ixzz1X1QMe9TY)

We were almost done with Canadian ops...damn non-grooved runways

Wonder what happened?

:(

This is the 3rd incident of a regional carrier in the last week. Why won't the media jump all over this and blow it out of proportion like they did with the controller falling asleep. No one was anyway near harm when the controllers were napping but we are having Jets slide of the runways and gears not working!!! I know stop happens but 3 different incidents with 3 different regional carriers. Hope none of these incidents were crews fault and glad to see everyone walk away.

For those curious about rest issues...
This was the last turn for the crew on a 3-day trip. Day 1 was 7 hours duty, 9:51 layover in YYZ, day 2 8:55 duty and 13 hours rest, day 3 is when trip swaps from late shows to 07:20am show, 13:46 duty!

This is scheduled times.. Could have changed due to delays off course.

REALLY? Come on guys, this is getting embarrassing. What runway did they land on? METAR at the time?

For those curious about rest issues...
This was the last turn for the crew on a 3-day trip. Day 1 was 7 hours duty, 9:51 layover in YYZ, day 2 8:55 duty and 13 hours rest, day 3 is when trip swaps from late shows to 07:20am show, 13:46 duty!

This is scheduled times.. Could have changed due to delays off course.

Wow! I woud say fatigue might pay a part of in this. Also, as mentioned, heavy rain, low vis, and non-grooved runways doesn't help. Here's the METAR around the time of the incident (which from my understanding happened at approx. 1930z):

CYOW 041945Z 30012G18KT 15SM -SHRA OVC030 21/ RERA RMK SC8 CVCTV CLD EMBD
CYOW 041935Z 27013G25KT 1 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 22/ RMK TCU8
CYOW 041927Z 30010KT 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 23/ RMK TCU8

I guess 840 is taking early retirement. That or she's gonna be "Ops checked good" sometime next week :D

Stupid media using stupid old pictures.

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20110904/450_ott_plane_runway_110902.jpg

I guess 847 is taking early retirement. That or she's gonna be "Ops checked good" sometime next week :D

It was 840 today. Some of the pics on that website are from the accident last year, but they have captions like they're from today.

Anybody know which runway?

It was 840 today. Some of the pics on that website are from the accident last year, but they have captions like they're from today.

https://lost100pounds.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/simpsons-the-doh-4900579.jpg

Fooled by the media once again :o

The runway was 32. It cannot be good when the local press has file photos of your overruns. The is the third Trans States (call sign: Waterski, how appropriate) overrun at CYOW. The report on the one in 2004 was kind of ugly, poor, unstabilized approach, long landing, etc.

Lack of grooved surfaces, hell, lack of piloting.

GF

The runway was 32. It cannot be good when the local press has file photos of your overruns. The is the third Trans States (call sign: Waterski, how appropriate) overrun at CYOW. The report on the one in 2004 was kind of ugly, poor, unstabilized approach, long landing, etc.

Lack of grooved surfaces, hell, lack of piloting.

GF

I really hope that you work for the NTSB and have collected all of the FACTS about this incident if you are going to claim that this was caused by lack of piloting. If that is not the case, I think you need to take a step back and try thinking before you speak. The real problem here is that Canada has decided not to groove runways and an airline has jet aircraft with no thrust reversers equipped on them.

Accidents happen to good pilots and not so good ones. No Monday morning QB's needed here. Until the facts come out, lets just be thankful that no one was hurt. Airplanes are easier to fix than people are. Hopefully more info will be available soon, guess I ain't flying 840 on this trip.

Fooled by the media once again :o

HAHA...those crafty bastards.

The runway was 32. It cannot be good when the local press has file photos of your overruns. The is the third Trans States (call sign: Waterski, how appropriate) overrun at CYOW. The report on the one in 2004 was kind of ugly, poor, unstabilized approach, long landing, etc.

Lack of grooved surfaces, hell, lack of piloting.

GF


Yea. What Herbie said...and I suppose you're god's gift to the cockpit? Step back and let the facts come out before you speculate and/or burn this crew at the cross.

The is the third Trans States (call sign: Waterski, how appropriate) overrun at CYOW


Speaking of appropriate....this comment. You're a class act.

http://kbosweeney.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/sarcasm.jpg

Lack of grooved surfaces, hell, lack of piloting.

I pray you never have an accident... because if you do, I will hurl the mighty "lack of piloting" rock right into your glass house :mad: Keep your ignorant comments to yourself.

The runway was 32. It cannot be good when the local press has file photos of your overruns. The is the third Trans States (call sign: Waterski, how appropriate) overrun at CYOW. The report on the one in 2004 was kind of ugly, poor, unstabilized approach, long landing, etc.

Lack of grooved surfaces, hell, lack of piloting.

GF

So just to be clear....you think that this has happened at the same airport and in the same nonthrust reverser aircraft and it is obviously the pilots fault?

Wow thanks for withholding judgment until the facts are all in. I was the FO on the second overrun incident and I am not sure how I would have dealt with a post like this. My first reaction is anger, but then when I think about it the problem is your insecurity. I can honestly say that I hope nothing like this ever happens to you and your passengers, but I do hope that in the future you will wait more the 12 hours to start blaming the pilots (your counterparts!).

So just to be clear....you think that this has happened at the same airport and in the same nonthrust reverser aircraft and it is obviously the pilots fault?

Wow thanks for withholding judgment until the facts are all in. I was the FO on the second overrun incident and I am not sure how I would have dealt with a post like this. My first reaction is anger, but then when I think about it the problem is your insecurity. I can honestly say that I hope nothing like this ever happens to you and your passengers, but I do hope that in the future you will wait more the 12 hours to start blaming the pilots (your counterparts!).

+1. (filler)

Lack of grooved surfaces, hell, lack of piloting.

GF

Position: Capt-GLEX, CL605

The day I get lectured by someone who MAYBE gets 15 landings every three months about piloting abilities is the day I'll seriously consider going into the Adult entertainment industry.

As a "CA" flying two long range airplanes I would have imagined you've been around a while...but your post hints at something else.

In fact...I'mma keep it real....I bet I have more landings the past 5 days than you've accumulated in the last 6 months.

Strong vocalization from your rectal opening is strong.

http://i39.tinypic.com/1rw8qq.jpg

Strong vocalization from your rectal opening is strong.

http://i.imgur.com/5v8a2.gif

Read the Canadian TSB report that I was referring to, FIRST, then you can make more informed comments. I was referring to the TSA's record of overruns at CYOW.

Saluki pilot, you are the one making judgements without facts, the presence or absence of grooving may have been a factor at all. 35 years, 5 types rating, 3 military types and 12,000 hours, want to trade jobs?

Apologies would be in order, if I was making reference to conclusions on THIS incident, I wasn't.

Always fun, winding up the young and impressionable

GF

http://theideaslab.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/blg_blame_canada.jpg

Always fun, winding up the young and impressionable

Even more fun knowing I'll outlive you :D

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lovjthKN7z1qeomywo1_400.jpg

Read the Canadian TSB report that I was referring to, FIRST, then you can make more informed comments. I was referring to the TSA's record of overruns at CYOW.

Sir, I swears I lern to read n write if you's jus post dis report mistuh.

(sarcasm and smart-assness (sp) aside, I've been looking for that report for a LONG time... My information came from the CA of said flight)

Saluki pilot, you are the one making judgements without facts, the presence or absence of grooving may have been a factor at all. 35 years, 5 types rating, 3 military types and 12,000 hours, want to trade jobs?

http://images.angusrobertson.com.au/images/ar/DVHAMI/DVHAMI/180/270/plain/the-high-and-the-mighty-special-collectors-edition.jpg

35 years and you still haven't learned to not talk excrement when a fellow aviator has an accident.

Apologies would be in order, if I was making reference to conclusions on THIS incident, I wasn't.

We'll wait.

Always fun, winding up the young and impressionable

GF

http://troll.me/images/srs-xzibit/oh-no-he-diint.jpg

Read the Canadian TSB report that I was referring to, FIRST, then you can make more informed comments. I was referring to the TSA's record of overruns at CYOW.

Saluki pilot, you are the one making judgements without facts, the presence or absence of grooving may have been a factor at all. 35 years, 5 types rating, 3 military types and 12,000 hours, want to trade jobs?

Apologies would be in order, if I was making reference to conclusions on THIS incident, I wasn't.

Always fun, winding up the young and impressionable

GF

Do not follow sentence

Do not follow sentence

It would seem to sum it up, the whole statement is "I have a lot of hours in a few different airplanes, so therefore I am a much better pilot than all of you and in turn, am fully capable of determining whose fault an incident is without the facts and can assign blame at my own will." Might have missed a few items, but that is the gist that I get.

It cannot be good when the local press has file photos of your overruns. The is the third Trans States (call sign: Waterski, how appropriate)

Lack of grooved surfaces, hell, lack of piloting.

GF


http://theurbandater.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/jerk-store.jpg


way to insult an ENTIRE airline's pilot group.

Read the report, FIRST,

TSA Overrun at CYOW (http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2009/bst-tsb/TU3-5-04-31E.pdf)

ok...i read it...now what? you got a quiz for me or somthing? you make it sound like it was total negligence on the part of the crew. not quite the way the report makes it sound.

you make it sound like it was total negligence on the part of the crew. not quite the way the report makes it sound.

pages 8-9 outline contributing factors. it was mostly crew. the report even states had they landed where they were supposed to they, of course this is not guaranteed, shouldve kept they plane on the runway. you have to admit, at the least, they didnt do a good job. there is a reason they tried to erase the cvr.

Lack of grooved surfaces, hell, lack of piloting.

probably a way to say this without sounding like an a$$h0le. that you chose this way speaks to your character. fyi..the crew in the 2nd incident was found at no fault whatsoever, and did a hell of a job with putting that aircraft in the safest spot possible on the runoff.


i think all of us that have flown the 145 know how effective the tr's are. and we are all of the belief that at least the 1st 2, and im sure now the 3rd occurrence couldve been prevented with tr's and/or grooved runways. and yes, thats even with how $hiHy the 1st occurrence was flown.

The runway was 32. It cannot be good when the local press has file photos of your overruns. The is the third Trans States (call sign: Waterski, how appropriate) overrun at CYOW. The report on the one in 2004 was kind of ugly, poor, unstabilized approach, long landing, etc.
*---Right here---
Lack of grooved surfaces, hell, lack of piloting.

GF

Here's the problem* with your post, galaxy: Your first paragraph makes sense and I even find some humor in the Waterski quip. However, when you start the second paragraph, we assume (rightly so) that you are making a comment on the current topic. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you were making the "lack of piloting" statement in relation to the accident that happened in 2004. And after reading the report, I tend to agree that the "piloting" could have been better. Just future reference, try to make it clear exactly what you're saying.

So, now that we've cleared that up...

CaptainCarl

Agreed, we got that cleared up.

BTW, I love all the sanctimonious palaver about judging pilots--please review the GoJet thread where such gems as the following can be found.

for the record...i still believe all GJ pilots suck. its just a tiresome argument that nobody else gives a sh!t about anyway. i can ramble on about why they suck, but those who choose to go there will justify themselves however they choose to. rather unfortunate...

Thanks, expectholding for a generous description of GoJet pilots and character.

I refused an offer at UAL in '85, walked the pickets at EAL in the '89 strike, , walked away and never looked back, so I know quite enough about judging pilots, union politics and character.

GF

I know quite enough about judging pilots, union politics and character.

GF

....ssssooooooooooooo what's your excuse for tonight's escapade?

Do it for the lulz perhaps?

Easy guys... It is very easy to fall into Monday morning quarter back mode. Let's all put away our sticks and stones and settle down. As much as our feelings are hurt by some ones perceived judgmental remarks, feeding the troll doesn't help anything!

Let's just wait until the facts are revealed. Thankfully everyone is unharmed, that is what the most important thing is.

Maybe we will learn some new information tomorrow.

United Plane Skids off Ottawa Runway


http://a.abcnews.com/images/Site/byline_ap.gif


OTTAWA, Ontario September 5, 2011 (AP)


Authorities say a United Express plane carrying 44 people has skidded off the runway at Ottawa International Airport.
Emergency and airport officials said Sunday all the passengers traveling from Chicago got off the plane safely and were taken into the terminal on city buses.
Airport spokeswoman Krista Kealey says there were no injuries and everyone is fine.


United Express is a brand name under which regional airlines operate feeder flights for United Airlines.
Ottawa police said in a news release that the plane skidded onto a grassy area.
Ottawa fire service spokesman Marc Messier posted on Twitter that fire crews were working to contain a fuel spill from the damage.
United Airlines did not have any immediate information on the mishap.





Another Express Flight bruises the brand of mainline.

Why doesn't the press ever publish the name of the actual carrier in large bold print in the headlines?

GOT SCOPE??

Note: no implication is being made as to the experience or qualifications of the crew or any extenuating circumstances that may have led to the overrun. Just that the accident aircraft is not flown by United pilots but UniCon has it's image tarnished in the public eye by a subcontractor.

..........

Another Express Flight bruises the brand of mainline.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You mainline folks do a fine job of bruising your own brand. Shall we start naming incidents and accidents where mainline guys have bruised their own brand?

Why doesn't the press ever publish the name of the actual carrier in large bold print in the headlines?

I have seen two articles so far that named Trans States as the carrier involved in the accident. And the reason we aren't in the headlines is because people don't recognize us. But United on the other hand, that's a brand they know.

GOT SCOPE??

Yeah, get on it. We are patiently waiting.

Note: no implication is being made as to the experience or qualifications of the crew or any extenuating circumstances that may have led to the overrun. Just that the accident aircraft is not flown by United pilots but UniCon has it's image tarnished in the public eye by a subcontractor.

And UniCon has subcontractors because... oh that's right, y'all don't have scope. And who relaxed the scope clause to include 50+ and 70+ seat jets? :rolleyes:

I'd love to see the landing data for no thrust reverser, un-grooved runway, standing water, low-vis. It just SOUNDS bad!
How does trans-states get landing data?

The ERJ has super special carbon breaks, not steel, that's why TRs are optional. Just throwing it out there because many wonder why there are no TRs to begin with.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. You mainline folks do a fine job of bruising your own brand. Shall we start naming incidents and accidents where mainline guys have bruised their own brand?

I have seen two articles so far that named Trans States as the carrier involved in the accident. And the reason we aren't in the headlines is because people don't recognize us. But United on the other hand, that's a brand they know.

Yeah, get on it. We are patiently waiting.

And UniCon has subcontractors because... oh that's right, y'all don't have scope. And who relaxed the scope clause to include 50+ and 70+ seat jets? :rolleyes:

I'm just starting not to care about this profession as a career anymore.

You are right it is all our fault for giving you the flying and making you work for reasonable rates and good contracts. Management carries no blame, and certainly pilots at regional airlines willing to undercut each other for what used to be mainline flying are not responsible either.

I'm beginning to think we should just give up the 90-120 seat range as well. Then you can fly those for your 70 seat rates just for the growth and quick upgrade.

You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Which are you?

I'm just starting not to care about this profession as a career anymore.

You are right it is all our fault for giving you the flying and making you work for reasonable rates and good contracts. Management carries no blame, and certainly pilots at regional airlines willing to undercut each other for what used to be mainline flying are not responsible either.

I'm beginning to think we should just give up the 90-120 seat range as well. Then you can fly those for your 70 seat rates just for the growth and quick upgrade.

You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Which are you?
Another Express Flight bruises the brand of mainline.

Why doesn't the press ever publish the name of the actual carrier in large bold print in the headlines?

GOT SCOPE??

Note: no implication is being made as to the experience or qualifications of the crew or any extenuating circumstances that may have led to the overrun. Just that the accident aircraft is not flown by United pilots but UniCon has it's image tarnished in the public eye by a subcontractor.

+1. This is NOT United Airlines

I'm just starting not to care about this profession as a career anymore.

You are right it is all our fault for giving you the flying and making you work for reasonable rates and good contracts. Management carries no blame, and certainly pilots at regional airlines willing to undercut each other for what used to be mainline flying are not responsible either.

I'm beginning to think we should just give up the 90-120 seat range as well. Then you can fly those for your 70 seat rates just for the growth and quick upgrade.

You are either part of the problem or part of the solution. Which are you?

Sounds like you are part of the problem.

This is the game we have to play. I'm not about to sit around and flight instruct for umpteen years while mainline tries to get its scope in order.

I agree that management is to blame for most of the crap that has taken place in the industry since about 1978. But unfortunately for us, there's only so much we can do with the Railway Labor Act in place.

So what do you recommend I do? Quit my job and wait for mainline to hire me with all my magic SIC time?

Sounds like you are part of the problem.

This is the game we have to play. I'm not about to sit around and flight instruct for umpteen years while mainline tries to get its scope in order.

I agree that management is to blame for most of the crap that has taken place in the industry since about 1978. But unfortunately for us, there's only so much we can do with the Railway Labor Act in place.

So what do you recommend I do? Quit my job and wait for mainline to hire me with all my magic SIC time?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's always somebody elses fault. You guys can't do anything about it because of the RLA.. But we can? We operate under the same RLA, and more importantly, BK rules. It's ok, because from what I understand from my reps, we won't sign a deal that has the 70's survive at the regionals past their contract date.

Personally, I LOVE that the media calls it "United". Same with the Colgan crash being called "Continental". Management wants to have it both ways - they want a seemless product so that passengers don't know that they are flying with less experienced crews, where some FO's would get a pay raise as a Burger King employee. Yet when something goes wrong, they instantly want to change that to: "Oh it wasnt us, it was Colgan". BS. You want the cheap stuff, you should have to deal with the consequences. You get what you pay for, co-worker Jeff

Anyway,

Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's always somebody elses fault. You guys can't do anything about it because of the RLA.. But we can? We operate under the same RLA, and more importantly, BK rules. It's ok, because from what I understand from my reps, we won't sign a deal that has the 70's survive at the regionals past their contract date.

When I said "us," I was talking about ALL airline pilots. Y'all want your flying back? Get your scope in order. I'll happily hit the street so a mainline guy can get his job back. But we ain't gonna just up and quit so an Embry Ritalin wonder kid can take our spot.

And what about your fellow UAL pilots who went to GoJet, essentially outsourcing themselves and perpetuating the regional takeover of domestic mainline flying? Those guys always use some BS excuse like, "ALPA said it was okay," or, "I'm just trying to stay current." Since when did anyone need to stay current on furlough? I was furloughed for two years and didn't touch an airplane in that time. Got recalled, recurrent, and I'm right back at it.

Since when did anyone need to stay current on furlough? I was furloughed for two years and didn't touch an airplane in that time. Got recalled, recurrent, and I'm right back at it.

Captain Carl..were you a captain at TSA? Because if you didn't have any PIC, being current wasn't going to matter for you. All of us at UAL have all the PIC we need, but currency was the only way we were going to be able to move on to something better.

The ERJ has super special carbon breaks, not steel, that's why TRs are optional. Just throwing it out there because many wonder why there are no TRs to begin with.

9 x the square root of the tire psi.

Dynamic, Viscous, Reverted Rubber...Super special breaks, even with anti-skid, aren't always enough...

I am just really curious how we turn and incident into an opportunity to point the finger at one another about scope and contracts and experience and every other thing.

FACT: An airplane went off the runway in YOW yesterday.
FACT: Everyone escaped the experience un-injured.
FACT: We don't know what the cause of this was.

Thats really all there is to this right now. Put your guns down everyone.

Some brotherhood we have here.

Captain Carl..were you a captain at TSA? Because if you didn't have any PIC, being current wasn't going to matter for you. All of us at UAL have all the PIC we need, but currency was the only way we were going to be able to move on to something better.

Whatever man, you know your situation better than I do. Do whatever you think is best. Hope you enjoyed your time at GoJet.

I am just really curious how we turn and incident into an opportunity to point the finger at one another about scope and contracts and experience and every other thing.

FACT: An airplane went off the runway in YOW yesterday.
FACT: Everyone escaped the experience un-injured.
FACT: We don't know what the cause of this was.

Thats really all there is to this right now. Put your guns down everyone.

Some brotherhood we have here.

+1. Everyone chill.

Everybody does know that Landing Field Length is computed with no credit for thrust reverse?

GF

Everybody does know that Landing Field Length is computed with no credit for thrust reverse?

GF

Yes, probably none more so than said pilots who fly said airplane for said airline.

Everybody does know that Landing Field Length is computed with no credit for thrust reverse?

GF

yes. but i doubt very much its computed on an ungrooved runway where you are hydroplaning until you get to that whole "9 times the square root of the tire pressure" stuff.

Sounds like you are part of the problem.

This is the game we have to play. I'm not about to sit around and flight instruct for umpteen years while mainline tries to get its scope in order.

I agree that management is to blame for most of the crap that has taken place in the industry since about 1978. But unfortunately for us, there's only so much we can do with the Railway Labor Act in place.

So what do you recommend I do? Quit my job and wait for mainline to hire me with all my magic SIC time?


How do you figure I'm part of the problem?

I'm furloughed and refuse to take a jet for job opportunity at one of the participating regionals. I will not outsource myself to regional wages, so am sitting out of the game on my a$$ waiting.

Sounds like you need to go look in a mirror.

How do you figure I'm part of the problem?

I'm furloughed and refuse to take a jet for job opportunity at one of the participating regionals. I will not outsource myself to regional wages, so am sitting out of the game on my a$$ waiting.

Sounds like you need to go look in a mirror.

Easy there killer, my comment was drenched with sarcasm, as was yours.

Believe or not, we are of the same mindset. If I were in your shoes, I wouldn't take a Jets for Jobs opportunity either because I can see it for what it really is, a steaming pile. But I'm not in your shoes. I'm in my shoes and I am making my way in this world the only way I know how. It's not like my airline is undercutting the majors. Management at just about every big airline outsourced labor to regionals for one reason or another. And since that's happened, those of us just starting out have very few options when it comes to getting to a major airline. Basically you can go regionals, corporate, or military. And it used to be the fastest way of those three is easily the regionals (sometimes still is).

Anyway, I hope UniCon, Delta, and AA all get their scope clauses in order and take back the flying that was rightly theirs to begin with. If you guys can figure out a way for those of us at a regional to help, then by all means let us know.

And back on topic, Ottawa needs to spend some money on grooving their runways and all airlines operating into CYOW need to make sure they are sending thrust reverser-equipped aircraft up there until said grooving is completed.

expect holding

AC 25-7, the certification flight test guide, does call for an ungrooved, well-soaked runway for wet performance testing. The standard is Engineering Scientific Data Unit Category C runway runway surface which is ungrooved, but about a normal asphalt surface roughness. Surface A is very smooth, D is grooved.

CaptainCarl

If you were of dosbo's mindset, you would have waited until scope clause changes did take back mainline flying from the regionals. Which ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Or later, for that matter. The companies have won the battle on regionals and there is no going back. When the commuter "side letters" first started, it was about Piper Navajo operators connecting to mainline cities, now the sme routes are being flown by 70-seater jets. The trend line is toward more "outsourcing", not less. The 95 seaters are the next battle--company has the carrot (mainline pay increases after many years of going backwards) and the penalty (95 seaters at the regionals), who wins that one? I'm betting the 50-year old mainline guys will take the pay raise and hand over the 95 seaters in the end. I've watched this rodeo for 35 years, old age and experience tells.

I dearly wish it weren't so, but do you really believe mainline guys will walk (as in strike) away from a large pay raise, so regionals don't fly 95 seaters? Do you really think mainline management wants to fly 95 seaters at mainline costs? AA tried that with the Fokker 100, not so good.

Lastly, do you think the mainlines will take back the present regional flying and, one for one, crew it like the regionals do now? It will be a reduction in crew employment by, at least, half. That is, one 737 will replace 2 regional jets. If at all.

GF

Everybody does know that Landing Field Length is computed with no credit for thrust reverse?

GF

Landing field length is computed? Its just a bunch of pavement...

I'm confused at the last incident report from the first overrun in 2004. It seems to me that, yes the crew was partially blamed. However, there were other unexplained factors that happened. Even though there was no evidence of hydro planning, there was no indication of brake pressure applied for some time after touch down. Even with the PF touching down 3,900 feet down the runway, there should have been much more than enough landing distance to stop the plane. They attributed this to some intermittent brake problem that was never found even when they replaced the BCU. I just call into doubt the ability to find evidence of hydro planning. If an aircraft was experiencing hydro planning, then I would guess that TRs would be much better than nothing. I would think at least there should be a difference between grooved vs ungrooved runways. And I can't think of any other regional out there that provides 121 service without TRs... am I right? I'm not guessing the right or wrong of this particular incident that happened yesterday. I'm just wondering about the history of incidents at this airport.

I'm confused at the last incident report from the first overrun in 2004. It seems to me that, yes the crew was partially blamed. However, there were other unexplained factors that happened. Even though there was no evidence of hydro planning, there was no indication of brake pressure applied for some time after touch down. Even with the PF touching down 3,900 feet down the runway, there should have been much more than enough landing distance to stop the plane. They attributed this to some intermittent brake problem that was never found even when they replaced the BCU. I just call into doubt the ability to find evidence of hydro planning. If an aircraft was experiencing hydro planning, then I would guess that TRs would be much better than nothing. I would think at least there should be a difference between grooved vs ungrooved runways. And I can't think of any other regional out there that provides 121 service without TRs... am I right? I'm not guessing the right or wrong of this particular incident that happened yesterday. I'm just wondering about the history of incidents at this airport.

I can give a couple FACTS about hydorplaning a 145 down a non-grooved runway cause I've done it twice. I was lucky because I was able to get it stopped on the runway both times.

1st time it had stopped raining, but the entire runway was really shiny. We were on speed and flaps 45 and hit PRIOR to the 500 ft markers. It took almost 9000 feet to slow from ref to 90 kts. At 90 kts we broke through the water and were able to get the plane stopped in about 500 feet. We had under 1000 feet of runway ahead of us when we got off and it was a 11,000 ft runway if I remember. The entire time from REF to 90 both the Capt and myself were on the brakes so hard that each of our butts were literally off of our seats. We were STANDING on the brakes and they were doing NOTHING.

2nd time. It had stopped raining some time prior to us getting to YOW actually and this time the runway was covered about 20% or so with puddles. The puddles were unevenly spaced down the runway so one side was in a puddle and one side was not. Every time a puddle was hit the side with the puddle would hydroplane while the side without a puddle would continue having braking action. It was a HANDFUL to keep the thing from going off of the side that day.

Ever since the 2nd time I have had a personal limit of about 25% puddle coverage or less on non grooved runways or I'm off to the alternate.

I also do not know the tire pressure of the 145, but after the 1st time I was informed by someone that the hydoplane speed of a 145 is 92 kts...which makes sense with what I saw.

Ok, AZWildcat, LFL is computed, in either the FMS or QRH with AFM data based on certification testing. The actual landing distance must not exceed 60% of Landing Distance Available (LDA). CYOW Runway 32 is 10,005' by 200', btw.

GF

expect holding

AC 25-7, the certification flight test guide, does call for an ungrooved, well-soaked runway for wet performance testing. The standard is Engineering Scientific Data Unit Category C runway runway surface which is ungrooved, but about a normal asphalt surface roughness. Surface A is very smooth, D is grooved.

GF

ive looked thru this document. im willing to accept and admit when im wrong, and it would appear that i am. thanks for doin that research for me. in the landing performance section of this doc, I do not see the runway conditions you mention. I do see exactly what you mention in the accelerate/stop distance computation requirements under the t/o performance section. i can only assume, unless you can point out specifically where it states it, that they use those same parameters for landing.

i looked in the AFM while flying today, and based on the conditions i calculated it should take about 5500 ft to stop based on the conditions in these occurences. obviously, thats enough based on the runway length. but also obviously, there is some underlying issue here. the crew last yr was relieved of all fault. you read the above "diary" of what another pilot experienced. i experienced a similar issue in yul. while we can sit here and go back and forth about how its certified and whats required, yada yada, i believe it is undeniable that tr's and grooved runways would have prevented these occurrences.

that very document states the following: "Properly designed, constructed, and maintained grooved and PFC runways can offer significant improvements in wet runway braking capability."

and those of us that have flown the 145 know the effectiveness of the tr's. again, im not stating they are requirements, but there is some sort of issue here, and these 2 things arent helping us stay on runways apparently.

Expectholding

Well, if 5500' was the actual landing distance, then the factored distance, including wet allowance, would have been perilously close to 10,000'. This is truly appalling performance for a jet weighing in the 50,000 pound class. Yes, T/R's and better anti-skid is in order. F-100 (North American, not Fokker) was better, well, just as bad and it landed at 166 knots.

GF

When I said "us," I was talking about ALL airline pilots. Y'all want your flying back? Get your scope in order. I'll happily hit the street so a mainline guy can get his job back. But we ain't gonna just up and quit so an Embry Ritalin wonder kid can take our spot.

And what about your fellow UAL pilots who went to GoJet, essentially outsourcing themselves and perpetuating the regional takeover of domestic mainline flying? Those guys always use some BS excuse like, "ALPA said it was okay," or, "I'm just trying to stay current." Since when did anyone need to stay current on furlough? I was furloughed for two years and didn't touch an airplane in that time. Got recalled, recurrent, and I'm right back at it.

What a SUPRISE that a thread regarding Trans States, a thread having nothing to do with GoJet, turns into a GoJet bash thread...you'll bash GoJet any chance you get huh :rolleyes:

...you will have reached retirement age before scope clause changes did take back mainline flying from the regionals.

There, fixed it for ya ;)

What a SUPRISE that a thread regarding Trans States, a thread having nothing to do with GoJet, turns into a GoJet bash thread...you'll bash GoJet any chance you get huh :rolleyes:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_mgI9X6VuOBs/TBwOZLGTsDI/AAAAAAAADJ0/7OfkESPtmiU/s1600/jules-winffield-large1.jpg

Just because I used GoJet in my sentence doesn't mean I was bashing them. Go back and read it again.

Back to the topic...

I've had a landing at that airport myself where I thought we were going to go off the side. It's a beautiful place and one of my favorite overnights, but I've got to say the lack of grooves on runways up there is a bad idea.

Expectholding

Well, if 5500' was the actual landing distance, then the factored distance, including wet allowance, would have been perilously close to 10,000'. This is truly appalling performance for a jet weighing in the 50,000 pound class. Yes, T/R's and better anti-skid is in order. F-100 (North American, not Fokker) was better, well, just as bad and it landed at 166 knots.

GF

Sorry for not being specific, that was factored landing distance...

'Confusion' reigned after Ottawa plane mishap - Ottawa - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/09/05/ott-airplane-accident-passengers.html)


Watch the video...note the images (about the :48 and 1:04 marks)that appear to have been taken from the runway looking north towards the plane in the grass...anyone else notice how it appears that the runway is a DAMN LAKE???? That's a lot of water...

'Confusion' reigned after Ottawa plane mishap - Ottawa - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/09/05/ott-airplane-accident-passengers.html)


Watch the video...note the images (about the :48 and 1:04 marks)that appear to have been taken from the runway looking north towards the plane in the grass...anyone else notice how it appears that the runway is a DAMN LAKE???? That's a lot of water...

Yup...

I've never really trusted pax descriptions but when they said it felt like the airplane "sped up"...that's exactly what hydroplaning feels like.

Not a big fan of our fancy BCU and lack of TRs when landing on runways without grooves or crowns.

When I said "us," I was talking about ALL airline pilots. Y'all want your flying back? Get your scope in order. I'll happily hit the street so a mainline guy can get his job back. But we ain't gonna just up and quit so an Embry Ritalin wonder kid can take our spot.

And what about your fellow UAL pilots who went to GoJet, essentially outsourcing themselves and perpetuating the regional takeover of domestic mainline flying? Those guys always use some BS excuse like, "ALPA said it was okay," or, "I'm just trying to stay current." Since when did anyone need to stay current on furlough? I was furloughed for two years and didn't touch an airplane in that time. Got recalled, recurrent, and I'm right back at it.

Hopefully you'll get your wish soon enough, and all the RJ's will be gone. If management would lose the fee-for-departure contracts, they would be exposed for what they really are: money losers at present and future oil prices

expect holding



If you were of dosbo's mindset, you would have waited until scope clause changes did take back mainline flying from the regionals. Which ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Or later, for that matter. The companies have won the battle on regionals and there is no going back. When the commuter "side letters" first started, it was about Piper Navajo operators connecting to mainline cities, now the sme routes are being flown by 70-seater jets. The trend line is toward more "outsourcing", not less. The 95 seaters are the next battle--company has the carrot (mainline pay increases after many years of going backwards) and the penalty (95 seaters at the regionals), who wins that one? I'm betting the 50-year old mainline guys will take the pay raise and hand over the 95 seaters in the end. I've watched this rodeo for 35 years, old age and experience tells.

I dearly wish it weren't so, but do you really believe mainline guys will walk (as in strike) away from a large pay raise, so regionals don't fly 95 seaters? Do you really think mainline management wants to fly 95 seaters at mainline costs? AA tried that with the Fokker 100, not so good.

Lastly, do you think the mainlines will take back the present regional flying and, one for one, crew it like the regionals do now? It will be a reduction in crew employment by, at least, half. That is, one 737 will replace 2 regional jets. If at all.

GF

You don't talk to many Mainline pilots, do you? Your estimation of what we think and care about is way WAY off.

'Confusion' reigned after Ottawa plane mishap - Ottawa - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/09/05/ott-airplane-accident-passengers.html)


Watch the video...note the images (about the :48 and 1:04 marks)that appear to have been taken from the runway looking north towards the plane in the grass...anyone else notice how it appears that the runway is a DAMN LAKE???? That's a lot of water...

"Trans States Airlines, parent company of United Express..."

hahaha...you gotta love the media...

Gettinbumped

Actually, I do talk to them, work with several furloughed UA guys and know dozens thru the Reserves.

Besides, there are far, FAR too many examples of ALPA selling out for a pay raise or the seniority benefit of the top captains, especially in the present case of regionals. The top third of the lists just want to get their retirements guaranteed, to heck with the bottom third. Excuse me for being cynical, but regarding airline politics, cynicism is never out of style.

GF

Back to the topic...

I've had a landing at that airport myself where I thought we were going to go off the side. It's a beautiful place and one of my favorite overnights, but I've got to say the lack of grooves on runways up there is a bad idea.

Agreed! What a gorgeous city with so much to do and so much to see/eat/drink/enjoy. I'll miss going there.

Also, this thread makes my head hurt. The square root of anything should never be mentioned on these boards.

You don't talk to many Mainline pilots, do you? Your estimation of what we think and care about is way WAY off.

With all due respect gettingbumped, I'd say it's all over the board. Whether it's the mainline pilot on my jumpseat when the standard chit chat of the state of the industry starts on a longer flight, or when I'm on an mainline JS and the standard chit chat of the state of the airline starts on a longer flight. There are guys that are pretty plugged in and in tune with what's going on, and there are those who are pretty clueless and completely disconnected.

One shining example is the 70 seat CRJ's that went to IAH earlier this year. Not many guys were that knowledgeable of that whole thing. Not only that J-Lo wanted to do it, to the fact that they did show up. Like I said, that's just an example. Not many guys know that CAL is now flying flights out of UAL hubs, not that UAL is flying out of CAL hubs, etc.

When they say that "pilots are their own worst enemies", part of that is those that simply don't pay attention to what's going on, etc. Which takes it into this point.....Gettinbumped

Actually, I do talk to them, work with several furloughed UA guys and know dozens thru the Reserves.

Besides, there are far, FAR too many examples of ALPA selling out for a pay raise or the seniority benefit of the top captains, especially in the present case of regionals. The top third of the lists just want to get their retirements guaranteed, to heck with the bottom third. Excuse me for being cynical, but regarding airline politics, cynicism is never out of style.

GF

Nope, it'll always be en vogue. Besides, there's a fine fine line between cynicism and reality.

Can someone verify for me that TSA's GOM states that landing in +RA is prohited?

CYOW 041935Z 27013G25KT 1 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 22/ RMK TCU8
CYOW 041927Z 30010KT 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 23/ RMK TCU8






If I am wrong feel free to delete.

Can someone verify for me that TSA's GOM states that landing in +RA is prohited?

CYOW 041935Z 27013G25KT 1 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 22/ RMK TCU8
CYOW 041927Z 30010KT 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 23/ RMK TCU8

If I am wrong feel free to delete.

There's a good chance the crew didn't have this specific METAR. They most likely picked up the ATIS from ACARS which would have had the weather from the time that the ATIS report was generated.

Good point, looking back those two METARS came out within 8 minutes of each other. The next previous one was 27 minutes prior so it seems like it all came down out of nowhere and fast. Its a good possibility they started the approach before the next two METARS were issued.


CYOW 041935Z 27013G25KT 1 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 22/ RMK TCU8
CYOW 041927Z 30010KT 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 23/ RMK TCU8
CYOW 041900Z 25009KT 15SM BKN044 OVC120 26/19 A2970 RMK CU6AC2 SLP055

Can someone verify for me that TSA's GOM states that landing in +RA is prohited?

CYOW 041935Z 27013G25KT 1 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 22/ RMK TCU8
CYOW 041927Z 30010KT 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 23/ RMK TCU8






If I am wrong feel free to delete.

TSA does NOT have a restriction for landing in +RA. Lots of other stuff, but not +RA.

Can someone verify for me that TSA's GOM states that landing in +RA is prohited?

CYOW 041935Z 27013G25KT 1 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 22/ RMK TCU8
CYOW 041927Z 30010KT 1/2SM +SHRA OVC030TCU 23/ RMK TCU8






If I am wrong feel free to delete.

good question. however, the +ra didnt wasnt there til they were landing....like...almost in the flare. not that that info is coming from that, even if you watch the above video...the pax say a wall of water basically came at them and met them at landing.

One of those METARs might have been issued, post-event. It is a requirement to take an observation when a significant event occurs.

GF

So, I heard 840 is being considered a total loss... Anybody hear otherwise?

Someone on the lounge (maybe you?) said it was being trucked out of YOW to an unknown location...

Someone on the lounge (maybe you?) said it was being trucked out of YOW to an unknown location...

Wait, what? :confused: The Lounge still exists? And I have no idea...

I'm on a truck!

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/9/7/3/1983379.jpg

I can't see all the damage but seriously...that looks like it'll buff right out.

Wait, what? :confused: The Lounge still exists? And I have no idea...


Ch'yea brosef. Come on over...its free now.

Call me crazy, but that doesn't look right sitting on that truck...I mean the way it sitting looks like it could put some serious stress on the fuselage 'specially resting on it's belly like that...

Call me crazy, but that doesn't look right sitting on that truck...I mean the way it sitting looks like it could put some serious stress on the fuselage 'specially resting on it's belly like that...

Well when it is in the air, the weight of the aircraft is supported by the wing spars that go through that part of the fuselage.

Yea I realize that, it just looks strange sitting on its belly with the nose off like that...seems like the nose should be supported somehow.

Yea I realize that, it just looks strange sitting on its belly with the nose off like that...seems like the nose should be supported somehow.

They are almost certainly going to scrap it anyway. 50-seaters are only worth a couple mil used, probably cost more than that to fix.

That's what I thought too. They were thinking that it doesn't matter how they get it out bc it's totalled anyways...