Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




flynd94
03-04-2019, 09:36 AM
https://www.wabi.tv/content/news/Presque-Isle-International-Airport-506661611.html

C5 E145 flying as UA4933 off the runway in Presque Isle, ME


Varsity
03-04-2019, 10:27 AM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D01aYz1X0AA4La8.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D01ZfkIW0AM2xBg.jpg

DownInPetaluma
03-04-2019, 10:57 AM
Landing gear, meet Engine


dera
03-04-2019, 11:08 AM
I wonder if that will be reported as FOD ingestion to the engine lease company.

"The aircraft is damaged and will remain on the runway until the FAA investigates."

I think the problem is that it did NOT remain on the runway...

Looks like a survivable incident. Hope everyone is ok.

drywhitetoast
03-04-2019, 11:09 AM
Got a few hours in that a/c when it was new over at xjt. Hope to see her flying again soon.

whataclub
03-04-2019, 11:13 AM
Thatíll buff right out

DENpilot
03-04-2019, 12:40 PM
Hope to see her flying again soon.

Did the pictures not load for you?

DownInPetaluma
03-04-2019, 12:54 PM
According to pax (Iím paraphrasing), the first approach was discontinued at some point followed by a second approach and Ďhardí landing with multiple bounces, finally coming to rest well off the rwy.

3/4sm -SN ,1500í ovc; RCAMs 3/3/3 from what Iíve read. Should have had an ILS available to them from what I can tell.

drywhitetoast
03-04-2019, 01:04 PM
Did the pictures not load for you?

Nope they loaded just fine. You'd be amazed at what they can get flying again.

DENpilot
03-04-2019, 01:24 PM
Nope they loaded just fine. You'd be amazed at what they can get flying again.

Oh I agree this could be repaired, but this is a 15 year old 145. Replacement of all 3 landing gear, fwd pressure bulkhead, est 5-7 foot gash, belly damage, flaps, possible wing spar damage.

If United really wanted a replacement 50 seater, there is a desert full of them.

dera
03-04-2019, 01:27 PM
Oh I agree this could be repaired, but this is a 15 year old 145. Replacement of all 3 landing gear, fwd pressure bulkhead, est 5-7 foot gash, belly damage, flaps, possible wing spar damage.

If United really wanted a replacement 50 seater, there is a desert full of them.

Most value in 50 seaters are in the engines, and at least nr1 is toast on this one.

FlyingKat
03-04-2019, 01:32 PM
Oh I agree this could be repaired, but this is a 15 year old 145. Replacement of all 3 landing gear, fwd pressure bulkhead, est 5-7 foot gash, belly damage, flaps, possible wing spar damage.

If United really wanted a replacement 50 seater, there is a desert full of them.

Correction it is a 145 XR. Not very many of those around and UAL is flying all of them, around 90 total. UAL wants to keep all the XRs flying.

Grodt
03-04-2019, 01:47 PM
According to pax (Iím paraphrasing), the first approach was discontinued at some point followed by a second approach and Ďhardí landing with multiple bounces, finally coming to rest well off the rwy.

3/4sm -SN ,1500í ovc; RCAMs 3/3/3 from what Iíve read. Should have had an ILS available to them from what I can tell.

I think ils is/was notam'd ots

DownInPetaluma
03-04-2019, 01:54 PM
The ILS gets notamed OTS after an accident/incident until it can be checked by the feds

intrepidcv11
03-04-2019, 02:05 PM
Oh I agree this could be repaired, but this is a 15 year old 145. Replacement of all 3 landing gear, fwd pressure bulkhead, est 5-7 foot gash, belly damage, flaps, possible wing spar damage.

If United really wanted a replacement 50 seater, there is a desert full of them.

Ready to at last meet beer can destiny...

Blackhawk
03-04-2019, 03:17 PM
According to pax (Iím paraphrasing), the first approach was discontinued at some point followed by a second approach and Ďhardí landing with multiple bounces, finally coming to rest well off the rwy.

3/4sm -SN ,1500í ovc; RCAMs 3/3/3 from what Iíve read. Should have had an ILS available to them from what I can tell.

Bounces are an indication of excess energy. Looking at where the nose gear ended up, probably tried to force it on.

MySaabStory
03-04-2019, 03:34 PM
This is the best reason to look for a regional with a flowthrough agreement.

DownInPetaluma
03-04-2019, 04:02 PM
Thatís a main wheel bogey up in tha motor. And a flow-through does what?

Blackhawk
03-04-2019, 04:28 PM
Thatís a main wheel bogey up in tha motor. And a flow-through does what?

Thanks. I did not look closely and wrongly assumed a nose gear.
Still... not where itís supposed to be.

MySaabStory
03-04-2019, 04:32 PM
Thatís a main wheel bogey up in tha motor. And a flow-through does what?

Well....As long as they keep their jobs they still have a chance of making it to the majors via a flow. Otherwise this ďdingĒ will make it very difficult to go anywhere.

dera
03-04-2019, 04:35 PM
Well....As long as they keep their jobs they still have a chance of making it to the majors via a flow. Otherwise this ďdingĒ will make it very difficult to go anywhere.

Except that they work for CommutAir, and they have no flow.

Excargodog
03-04-2019, 04:50 PM
Well....As long as they keep their jobs they still have a chance of making it to the majors via a flow. Otherwise this “ding” will make it very difficult to go anywhere.

Don’t prejudge the mishap board but if one or both are assigned blame, I doubt that a flow agreement would save them. Everything, AA flow, United CPP, Delta DGI, or anyone’s pinky promise, all of them are written in smoke if the major really decides they don’t want THAT applicant.

100LL
03-04-2019, 04:51 PM
Here we go again

MySaabStory
03-04-2019, 05:31 PM
Donít prejudge the mishap board but if one or both are assigned blame, I doubt that a flow agreement would save them. Everything, AA flow, United CPP, Delta DGI, or anyoneís pinky promise, all of them are written in smoke if the major really decides they donít want THAT applicant.

Actually. Thatís exactly what the flow does...it flows. No smoke and mirrors. As far as blame...none given.

DarkSideMoon
03-05-2019, 02:38 AM
Actually. Thatís exactly what the flow does...it flows. No smoke and mirrors. As far as blame...none given.

There are always ways to force out an undesirable candidate while theyíre on probation.

Melit
03-05-2019, 03:08 AM
Correction it is a 145 XR. Not very many of those around and UAL is flying all of them, around 90 total. UAL wants to keep all the XRs flying.

Arenít you getting more from Xjet?

v1valarob
03-05-2019, 05:25 AM
From the United 2018 Annual Report, which was put out on Feb 22nd, 2019.

Total 145s (XR, LR, ER)

Total Under CPA: 176
Owned by UAL: 82
Leased by UAL: 90
Owned or Leased by Regional Carrier: 4

Expressjet: 105
TransStates: 40
Commutair: 31

"In addition to the aircraft presented in the tables above, United owned the following aircraft listed below as of December 31, 2018: Three Embraer ERJ 145s, which are temporarily grounded."

"During the third quarter of 2018, United entered into an agreement with the lessor of 54 Embraer ERJ 145 aircraft to purchase those aircraft in 2019. The provisions of such agreement resulted in a change in accounting classification of the applicable leases from operating leases to capital leases up until the applicable purchase date"

jacburn
03-05-2019, 05:52 AM
Correction it is a 145 XR. Not very many of those around and UAL is flying all of them, around 90 total. UAL wants to keep all the XRs flying.

Tail numbers for the Continental Airlines XR production ran from 101 to 204. That's 103 of them.

And United does not have all the XR's that were made.

https://www.planespotters.net/photo/search?type=ERJ-145&codeId=xwkOhg75AQ
https://cdn.planespotters.net/photo/649000/original/n286fm-intel-air-shuttle-aircraft-embraer-erj-145xr_PlanespottersNet_649325_fe20542d41.jpg

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/Intel-Air-Shuttle-Aircraft

rickair7777
03-05-2019, 06:03 AM
Well....As long as they keep their jobs they still have a chance of making it to the majors via a flow. Otherwise this “ding” will make it very difficult to go anywhere.

I would argue that a better strategy to get to the majors would be to carefully run performance numbers, and land in the zone out of stabilized approaches.

As opposed to wrecking planes, hoping you don't get fired, and that the flow will somehow maybe still work.

Flow works for a GED, a checkride bust, and maybe a DUI. Doubt it would work for this, even if they had it. Good news is the truck driving schools are also paying bonuses right now.

MySaabStory
03-05-2019, 06:39 AM
There are only certain provision in the flow for new hire pilots. This would not be one.

Iím just saying itís a good insurance policy to have. Everyone here could find themselves in a similar situation. No one wants to check that box on an application. The computer system might even toss out Sullys app.

popcopy
03-05-2019, 06:57 AM
Except that they work for CommutAir, and they have no flow.

Theyíll have a flow when PDT, PSA or Envoy hire them tomorrow. :rolleyes:

Excargodog
03-05-2019, 07:04 AM
There are only certain provision in the flow for new hire pilots. This would not be one.

Again, there will be a full investigation. I have no idea what the result of that will be. I hope it totally exonerates the crew. But if it assesses fault to one or both pilots, it is naive IN THE EXTREME to believe that flow would save their careers, even at their current level, far less at the level they might wish to flow to.

Iím just saying itís a good insurance policy to have. You certainly are entitled to your opinion, but it is one I do not share. Everything is volatile in this business. Even long promised pensions can disappear in a bankruptcy. Just ask the Delta pilots.

Everyone here could find themselves in a similar situation. No one wants to check that box on an application. The computer system might even toss out Sullys app.

Absolutely, which doesnít mean that flow would/will save you if you screw up, which Iím still hoping these pilots did not do. But letís wait for the mishap board results and not preemptively say that if only Commutair had flow these guys would be fine. These guys might be fine regardless if the mishap investigation doesnít fault them or totally screwed regardless if it does. Letís not prejudge the investigation.

ninerdriver
03-05-2019, 07:47 AM
The computer system might even toss out Sullys app.

"I successfully ditched an aircraft on a river after we lost both engines on climb out" vs. "we lost an engine when I put the landing gear in it."

Huh.

SonicFlyer
03-05-2019, 08:12 AM
Huh."Have you ever been involved in an accident or incident or the subject of an investigation?"

The fear is that by answering "yes" to this question the computer scores you lower, or perhaps even disqualifies you automatically regardless of the details.

If a company has thousands of applications with 90% of them being incident/accident free, why waste time on those that have accidents or incidents?


Think about it from a HR perspective.

ninerdriver
03-05-2019, 11:15 AM
"Have you ever been involved in an accident or incident or the subject of an investigation?"

The fear is that by answering "yes" to this question the computer scores you lower, or perhaps even disqualifies you automatically regardless of the details.

If a company has thousands of applications with 90% of them being incident/accident free, why waste time on those that have accidents or incidents?


Think about it from a HR perspective.

The HR perspective...

Sully calls. You don't care what the computer says. You hire him.

Throwing out a Sully comparison here is stretching it.

Melit
03-05-2019, 11:38 AM
Sounds like they totally missed the runway??

https://thecounty.me/2019/03/04/news/plane-lands-off-runway-closing-airport-in-presque-isle/

Coneydog
03-05-2019, 01:44 PM
Not good...

Melit
03-05-2019, 02:11 PM
Not good...

The last photo states it landed off the runway. Thatís a crash

TheRaven
03-05-2019, 02:24 PM
Got a few hours in that a/c when it was new over at xjt. Hope to see her flying again soon.

Barring a miracle, it will be a hull loss....

DownInPetaluma
03-05-2019, 02:56 PM
The weather wasnít *that* bad. It looks less like an over-run and more like a wreck imo.

rickair7777
03-05-2019, 03:02 PM
The weather wasnít *that* bad. It looks less like an over-run and more like a wreck imo.

I did have a CA line up on the dirt in similar conditions once. The runway lights were obscured and barely visible so he referenced the vasi... but on the wrong side. He was old, fortunately I was young then with good vision.

Hou757
03-05-2019, 04:29 PM
If they landed off the runway then this is VERY bad for Commutair.

SonicFlyer
03-05-2019, 05:36 PM
The HR perspective...

Sully calls. You don't care what the computer says. You hire him. Except that Sully can't get through to HR because they don't take unsolicited phone calls, they only look at their pile of apps which have already been sorted and rated.

flynd94
03-05-2019, 05:37 PM
If they landed off the runway then this is VERY bad for Commutair.


Itís very bad for all of aviation. We had many good things come out of Colgan/Buffalo but this.....

Ni hao
03-05-2019, 05:38 PM
Oh it's bad.



If they landed off the runway then this is VERY bad for Commutair.

MySaabStory
03-05-2019, 06:21 PM
Except that Sully can't get through to HR because they don't take unsolicited phone calls, they only look at their pile of apps which have already been sorted and rated.

Exactly. I donít know why people donít understand that the flow works. Itís not magic, itís not smoke and mirrors, itís just a great insurance policy. Should you stop applying and working on getting into a major...NO. Will it take a while if you wait for the flow...absolutely.

I for one never wanted to be stuck at a regional or low cost carrier if I hit a runway light or bumped a tug. Itís just good to know that, worst case, you can end your career in a 787 ... not an Embraer.

Cubatticus
03-05-2019, 06:31 PM
If they landed off the runway then this is VERY bad for Commutair.

Iím new to this so please forgive my ignorance but how exactly could this affect the pilot group at Commutair moving forward? Or the industry as a whole?

Hobbit64
03-05-2019, 06:39 PM
I would argue that a better strategy to get to the majors would be to carefully run performance numbers, and land in the zone out of stabilized approaches.

As opposed to wrecking planes, hoping you don't get fired, and that the flow will somehow maybe still work.

Flow works for a GED, a checkride bust, and maybe a DUI. Doubt it would work for this, even if they had it. Good news is the truck driving schools are also paying bonuses right now.

What data do you have to support this? Are you on the NTSB go team?

John Carr
03-05-2019, 06:53 PM
The last photo states it landed off the runway. Thatís a crash

Then technically, when DAL/CAL/AS and whomever else has landed on a TAXI WAY, they crashed also? When AA put it down 1000í (IIRC) short in an MD80 but still taxied to the gate, did they crash?

I mean, itís ďoff the runwayĒ and all.....

TrojanCMH
03-05-2019, 07:00 PM
I for one never wanted to be stuck at a regional or low cost carrier if I hit a runway light or bumped a tug. Itís just good to know that, worst case, you can end your career in a 787 ... not an Embraer.


If these guys screwed up they will lose their jobs, last I checked the flow agreement stops when you get fired. If you smash into a tug in your Embraer because of negligence on your part youíre probably going to lose your job...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

livetofly2123
03-05-2019, 07:25 PM
I'm confused at why so much speculation is occurring? No-one hear knows what happened so why dont we just wait to find out. There isn't a reason to point fingers and lay blame with our current knowledge.I'm also sure if it was the pilots fault that there not happy it happened and anyone here saying o **** you messed up isn't helping.

Hobbit64
03-05-2019, 08:28 PM
I'm confused at why so much speculation is occurring? No-one hear knows what happened so why dont we just wait to find out. There isn't a reason to point fingers and lay blame with our current knowledge.I'm also sure if it was the pilots fault that there not happy it happened and anyone here saying o **** you messed up isn't helping.

Amen.
Until the NTSB has a report, S.T.F.U.

Silver02ex
03-05-2019, 08:49 PM
Iím new to this so please forgive my ignorance but how exactly could this affect the pilot group at Commutair moving forward? Or the industry as a whole?

I was part of the Pinnacle when Colgan 3407 happened. I thought Pinnacle/Colgan was getting shut down not long after, part of our training was changed because of it. Same goes for Pinnacle 3701. There was a much higher rate of Type ride bust after the crash.

DirkDiggler
03-05-2019, 09:06 PM
No disrespect, but I've noticed every time I hear C5 on the radio, either the crew is confused, transmitting with a barely intelligible heavy accent, getting yelled at by ATC, or it sounds like it's the FO's first day...what gives. Just my observations over the past 8 years in Newark. I know I'm not the only one noticing this.

Flyboy68
03-05-2019, 09:16 PM
Anyone know anything about the crew? How long has he been CA? Was the CA or FO flying?

Melit
03-06-2019, 02:22 AM
Then technically, when DAL/CAL/AS and whomever else has landed on a TAXI WAY, they crashed also? When AA put it down 1000í (IIRC) short in an MD80 but still taxied to the gate, did they crash?

I mean, itís ďoff the runwayĒ and all.....

Where there injuries? A total hull loss?

TheRaven
03-06-2019, 03:54 AM
I talked to a local asset in PQI who claims the plane never arrived on the runway...entire incident occurred off pavement, and it came to rest so far from the runway the first thing they needed were snowplows to access the crash site.

Hrkdrivr
03-06-2019, 04:16 AM
"Have you ever been involved in an accident or incident or the subject of an investigation?"

The fear is that by answering "yes" to this question the computer scores you lower, or perhaps even disqualifies you automatically regardless of the details.

If a company has thousands of applications with 90% of them being incident/accident free, why waste time on those that have accidents or incidents?


Think about it from a HR perspective.

This is a valid concern. I donít know about other companies, but Delta doesnít use a computer to screen applications before a human looks at them. If an app is pulled, a human reads and scores it.

Certainly a wreck wonít help, nor checkride busts or traffic tickets. But at least at Delta you wonít be eliminated from consideration by a computer if you mark ďyesĒ to any of the questions asking about negative aspects of your career (which most of us have in our past by the time weíre competitive for the majors).

rickair7777
03-06-2019, 05:24 AM
Except that Sully can't get through to HR because they don't take unsolicited phone calls, they only look at their pile of apps which have already been sorted and rated.

He was a zoo grad and fighter pilot, he'd still get an interview or at least a human review.

rickair7777
03-06-2019, 05:35 AM
What data do you have to support this? Are you on the NTSB go team?

I'm saying the flow is not 100% reliable, if you get on their radar in a big way they will find a way to not flow you. Especially if we are talking AA... Has nothing to do with NTSB, they're not involved in hiring in any way, has more to do with what's on the six o'clock news.

But I do agree that flow is generally a good thing to have as a backup, unless you it's going to cost you a lot of money or QOL. If you hang out and wait to flow, as opposed to to trying to get out early, that will cost you a lot of money. Plus you never when flow might get cancelled, that's only happened two or three times before.

For clarity, I'm talking about flow and major hiring in general, not this particular accident specifically since they don't even have flow, ie not speculating. Flow is not an absolute in all cases, still better try to keep your nose clean. And get out early in case something happens to the flow.

rickair7777
03-06-2019, 05:39 AM
This is a valid concern. I donít know about other companies, but Delta doesnít use a computer to screen applications before a human looks at them. If an app is pulled, a human reads and scores it.

Certainly a wreck wonít help, nor checkride busts or traffic tickets. But at least at Delta you wonít be eliminated from consideration by a computer if you mark ďyesĒ to any of the questions asking about negative aspects of your career (which most of us have in our past by the time weíre competitive for the majors).

If you know someone there (any pilot), they will pull your app manually at his request.

If you don't know anyone, the apps get manually reviewed when your score gets high enough relative to all the other applicants in the pile. So yes there's always a manual review, but you also need to score high enough to get looked at. Unless they've changed it recently. Or unless you have a buddy there.

John Carr
03-06-2019, 07:05 AM
Where there injuries? A total hull loss?

Weíre they off the runway?

SpringLanding
03-06-2019, 08:18 AM
He was a zoo grad and fighter pilot, he'd still get an interview or at least a human review.

Mishaps will not affect your chances of being hired if a federal board determined that it was not your fault. Having one may actually be a great story to tell at an interview, and be a chance to demonstrate your pilot skills in response to an emergency, act of god, or someone else's error.

Upntheair27
03-06-2019, 08:39 AM
IF indeed there were several bounces (as stated by pax) on a 7500ft runway covered in snow and a go around was not executed, I can't see how blame won't go on the crew.

Melit
03-06-2019, 08:40 AM
Weíre off the runway?

Yes!! You are

Fr8Thrust
03-06-2019, 08:46 AM
Anyone know anything about the crew? How long has he been CA? Was the CA or FO flying?

I answered this question, but the mods removed it. Just ask around; Itís exactly what you think. Minus the gender pronouns.

drywhitetoast
03-06-2019, 08:50 AM
I answered this question, but the mods removed it. Just ask around; Itís exactly what you think. Minus the gender pronouns.




Well nowadays gender pronouns are now zee and vee or whatever else the hell the SJW's are using. Was zee or vee or them flying the aircraft?

Excargodog
03-06-2019, 08:59 AM
Weíre they off the runway?


Depends on who you read if it was a runway excursion or a landing on dirt. Pay your penny and take your pick:

https://www.reuters.com/article/commutair-accident/commutair-plane-lands-on-grass-in-presque-isle-injuring-pilot-3-passengers-idUSL3N20R4I2

Accident: Commutair E145 at Presque Isle on Mar 4th 2019, runway excursion, hard landing and gear collapse (http://avherald.com/h?article=4c4f9a68)

rickair7777
03-06-2019, 09:10 AM
Depends on who you read if it was a runway excursion or a landing on dirt. Pay your penny and take your pick:

https://www.reuters.com/article/commutair-accident/commutair-plane-lands-on-grass-in-presque-isle-injuring-pilot-3-passengers-idUSL3N20R4I2

Accident: Commutair E145 at Presque Isle on Mar 4th 2019, runway excursion, hard landing and gear collapse (http://avherald.com/h?article=4c4f9a68)

Reuters says they landed on the grass.

AVherald quotes the FAA as saying the same thing.

Personally I think it's far more likely it was excursion off the pavement, but like I said before I did see a guy try to land in the grass once.

Flyboy68
03-06-2019, 09:53 AM
I answered this question, but the mods removed it. Just ask around; It’s exactly what you think. Minus the gender pronouns.That's ridiculous, no one was saying anything disparaging about the gender of the pilots.

All I asked is whether the CA was flying or the FO.

PotatoChip
03-06-2019, 10:58 AM
Reuters says they landed on the grass.

AVherald quotes the FAA as saying the same thing.

Personally I think it's far more likely it was excursion off the pavement, but like I said before I did see a guy try to land in the grass once.

Maybe you haven’t seen the pictures...
They were just posted to Pro Pilots on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/45547021971/posts/10157145494791972/

John Carr
03-06-2019, 11:26 AM
Where there injuries? A total hull loss?

Weíre they off the runway?

Yes!! You are

But where weíre the injuries?

Hobbit64
03-06-2019, 11:29 AM
I'm saying the flow is not 100% reliable, if you get on their radar in a big way they will find a way to not flow you. Especially if we are talking AA... Has nothing to do with NTSB, they're not involved in hiring in any way, has more to do with what's on the six o'clock news.

But I do agree that flow is generally a good thing to have as a backup, unless you it's going to cost you a lot of money or QOL. If you hang out and wait to flow, as opposed to to trying to get out early, that will cost you a lot of money. Plus you never when flow might get cancelled, that's only happened two or three times before.

For clarity, I'm talking about flow and major hiring in general, not this particular accident specifically since they don't even have flow, ie not speculating. Flow is not an absolute in all cases, still better try to keep your nose clean. And get out early in case something happens to the flow.

Rick, I missed your point then. As I read your response, you were assigning blame to the crew prior to any official conclusions. Thanks for the clarification.

ninerdriver
03-06-2019, 01:00 PM
Depends on who you read if it was a runway excursion or a landing on dirt. Pay your penny and take your pick:

https://www.reuters.com/article/commutair-accident/commutair-plane-lands-on-grass-in-presque-isle-injuring-pilot-3-passengers-idUSL3N20R4I2

Accident: Commutair E145 at Presque Isle on Mar 4th 2019, runway excursion, hard landing and gear collapse (http://avherald.com/h?article=4c4f9a68)

Reuters originally reported that the plane had skidded off the runway. They've apparently revised the report since then to say it landed in the grass.

rickair7777
03-06-2019, 01:24 PM
Maybe you haven’t seen the pictures...
They were just posted to Pro Pilots on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/45547021971/posts/10157145494791972/

Yeah, they're off the pavement but we already knew that. Don't know if they started on the pavement and subsequently departed, or just skipped the pavement entirely. Not familiar with the airport so don't know what all pavement is in that immediate area.

dera
03-06-2019, 01:28 PM
Yeah, they're off the pavement but we already knew that. Don't know if they started on the pavement and subsequently departed, or just skipped the pavement entirely. Not familiar with the airport so don't know what all pavement is in that immediate area.

Looking at the tracks, it's hard to imagine a trajectory that would've started from the runway.
Looks like it runs paraller to the runway all the way from the touchdown zone.

PotatoChip
03-06-2019, 01:40 PM
Yeah, they're off the pavement but we already knew that. Don't know if they started on the pavement and subsequently departed, or just skipped the pavement entirely. Not familiar with the airport so don't know what all pavement is in that immediate area.

I'm not sure we're looking at the same photos...
I'm no investigator, but looking at those, there is no way they bounced off the runway to land over there, created those tracks, for that far, in that direction.... if they did, it was one heck of bounce.
You can see the initial impact in the photos, a bounce, and then the track to where it came to rest.

FlyJay
03-06-2019, 01:45 PM
I'm not sure we're looking at the same photos...
I'm no investigator, but looking at those, there is no way they bounced off the runway to land over there, created those tracks, for that far, in that direction.... if they did, it was one heck of bounce.
You can see the initial impact in the photos, a bounce, and then the track to where it came to rest.

Not to mention what appears to be the right main landing gear sitting on the ground in the snow where the initial bounce probably occurred.

dera
03-06-2019, 01:48 PM
I'm not sure we're looking at the same photos...
I'm no investigator, but looking at those, there is no way they bounced off the runway to land over there, created those tracks, for that far, in that direction.... if they did, it was one heck of bounce.
You can see the initial impact in the photos, a bounce, and then the track to where it came to rest.

Only imaginable way would be if they touched down and bounced 45 degrees off the runway and caught a snowbank. But I'd say Occam's Razor applies here.

Excargodog
03-06-2019, 01:49 PM
I'm not sure we're looking at the same photos...
I'm no investigator, but looking at those, there is no way they bounced off the runway to land over there, created those tracks, for that far, in that direction.... if they did, it was one heck of bounce.
You can see the initial impact in the photos, a bounce, and then the track to where it came to rest.


This is what Iím looking at:

longlongtimeago
03-06-2019, 02:03 PM
Iím new to this so please forgive my ignorance but how exactly could this affect the pilot group at Commutair moving forward? Or the industry as a whole?

As am I. So, I'm also curious how this affects the pilot group at Commutair moving forward? Where everyone walked away from the accident, does it still put it in the same category as Colgan and Pinnacle?

Definitely glad everyone is alright.

rickair7777
03-06-2019, 02:14 PM
Looking at the tracks, it's hard to imagine a trajectory that would've started from the runway.
Looks like it runs paraller to the runway all the way from the touchdown zone.

I'm not sure we're looking at the same photos...
I'm no investigator, but looking at those, there is no way they bounced off the runway to land over there, created those tracks, for that far, in that direction.... if they did, it was one heck of bounce.
You can see the initial impact in the photos, a bounce, and then the track to where it came to rest.

Anyone know which runway that is? Says they were trying to land on 01.

dera
03-06-2019, 02:15 PM
Anyone know which runway that is? Says they were trying to land on 01.

That's 1. 10-28 crosses close to the threshold, you can see the sign in the pic.

I'd say they "parked" pretty close to the segmented circle/windsock.

rickair7777
03-06-2019, 02:17 PM
As am I. So, I'm also curious how this affects the pilot group at Commutair moving forward? Where everyone walked away from the accident, does it still put it in the same category as Colgan and Pinnacle?

Historically, no, the industry tends to sweep this sort of thing under the rug if they don't have 50+ corpses to explain away.

But if UAL already wasn't happy with their performance, this would almost certainly give them a contractual out. If they're cheap and reliable, they might get a pass.

rickair7777
03-06-2019, 02:19 PM
That's 1. 10-28 crosses close to the threshold, you can see the sign in the pic.

A little hard to tell from the angle which way the sign was aligned. 10/28 must not have been plowed.

In that case it does look like they landed to the side of the runway. As I said, I saw someone try it once. Is there a VASI on the right side of 01?

FollowMe
03-06-2019, 02:21 PM
Historically, no, the industry tends to sweep this sort of thing under the rug if they don't have 50+ corpses to explain away.

But if UAL already wasn't happy with their performance, this would almost certainly give them a contractual out. If they're cheap and reliable, they might get a pass.

UAL owns 40%, it would be a bottom line hit if they pulled the plug, plus they need someone ready to staff 31 145s for them. XJT and TSA donít have the capacity to do it in the short term. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

dera
03-06-2019, 02:23 PM
A little hard to tell from the angle which way the sign was aligned. 10/28 must not have been plowed.

In that case it does look like they landed to the side of the runway. As I said, I saw someone try it once. Is there a VASI on the right side of 01?

Don't know about the VASI. Based on Airnav, it has none. But it has an ILS. Someone somewhere said the weather was 3/4SM visibility and OVC015, so I'd assume they were shooting the approach.

cursesRedBaron
03-06-2019, 02:59 PM
Uh...from memory...looked this up right after it happened:
The ILS is to runway 01.
There is a full MALSR.
I think the PAPI for runway 19 was NOTAM'd OAS..? Don't remember.
If you pull the 'historical' WX from NWS page, right about the time of their arrival, the vis went down to 1/2 mi.

dera
03-06-2019, 03:07 PM
Uh...from memory...looked this up right after it happened:
The ILS is to runway 01.
There is a full MALSR.
I think the PAPI was NOTAM'd OAS..? Don't remember.
If you pull the 'historical' WX from NWS page, right about the time of their arrival, the vis went down to 1/2 mi.

This is really what I'm struggling to understand.

In "whiteout" conditions, flying a visual approach, I would almost understand how you land off runway like that.
But from an ILS with low visibility?

cursesRedBaron
03-06-2019, 03:12 PM
Maybe the lights timed out right as they were on final?
Just brainstorming...but, an unmonitored airport would likely have pilot controlled lighting...might 'time out' right about the end of a second approach?

With the lights off...I could see flat light conditions with all the snow.

dera
03-06-2019, 03:22 PM
Maybe the lights timed out right as they were on final?
Just brainstorming...but, an unmonitored airport would likely have pilot controlled lighting...might 'time out' right about the end of a second approach?

With the lights off...I could see flat light conditions with all the snow.

It's the transition I don't understand. With 1/2mi visibility, it's hard to imagine the kind of maneuver that gets you that far off the runway from that close in without some pretty serious maneuvering.

KSCessnaDriver
03-06-2019, 03:26 PM
It's the transition I don't understand. With 1/2mi visibility, it's hard to imagine the kind of maneuver that gets you that far off the runway from that close in without some pretty serious maneuvering.

Or seeing something that looks like runway lights but isn't, and you don't realize it until the very end. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

TJBrass
03-06-2019, 03:31 PM
"UAL owns 40%, it would be a bottom line hit if they pulled the plug, plus they need someone ready to staff 31 145s for them. XJT and TSA donít have the capacity to do it in the short term. Not impossible, but highly unlikely."

Depends how it plays out in the media. Remember the congressional hearings after the Colgan crash? When asked about their relationship to Colgan, the Execs looked at each other quizzically and shrugged their shoulders. "Colgan? never hear of them, we'll have to get back to you".

CanWeGetTheLeft
03-06-2019, 03:32 PM
Maybe the lights timed out right as they were on final?
Just brainstorming...but, an unmonitored airport would likely have pilot controlled lighting...might 'time out' right about the end of a second approach?

With the lights off...I could see flat light conditions with all the snow.

The tower is manned from 0600-1900. This happened around 1130.

dera
03-06-2019, 03:37 PM
Or seeing something that looks like runway lights but isn't, and you don't realize it until the very end. Wouldn't be the first time that's happened.

But you'd have to see something 1/2 miles away when already at full scale deflection off the localizer.
Bad situation for everyone involved, but this had potential to be a disaster.

Flyboy68
03-06-2019, 03:40 PM
Maybe you havenít seen the pictures...
They were just posted to Pro Pilots on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/45547021971/posts/10157145494791972/
Somebody posted the gif of this in the comments. :D

http://memecrunch.com/meme/3OLIF/just-a-bit-outside/image.jpg

Melit
03-06-2019, 03:57 PM
Somebody posted the gif of this in the comments. :D

http://memecrunch.com/meme/3OLIF/just-a-bit-outside/image.jpg

It looks like the right gear sheared off where they touched down. Its way behind the airplane in the pic..

DownInPetaluma
03-06-2019, 04:43 PM
I can see this in a mega crosswind. Often, the runway appears at the 10-2 oíclock position if the wind is strong, IMO. Reports are that of a crosswind of 4-6 knots. Winds aloft would be interesting to know

ninerdriver
03-06-2019, 04:50 PM
Somebody posted the gif of this in the comments. :D

http://memecrunch.com/meme/3OLIF/just-a-bit-outside/image.jpg

The most positive development to arise from this incident...

Cirrusly
03-06-2019, 05:01 PM
The tower is manned from 0600-1900. This happened around 1130.

Whatís the tower frequency at an uncontrolled airport again???

Cirrusly
03-06-2019, 05:14 PM
This is really what I'm struggling to understand.

In "whiteout" conditions, flying a visual approach, I would almost understand how you land off runway like that.
But from an ILS with low visibility?Ē
ILS RWY 01 was OTS

dera
03-06-2019, 05:16 PM
Ē
ILS RWY 01 was OTS

Was it OTS before, or was it OTS'd after the accident as is the standard procedure?

That's even more serious, because the weather was way below the minimums for the GPS RNAV 01.

Cirrusly
03-06-2019, 05:29 PM
Yeah looks like they OTS the ils at 1734 on the 4th

CanWeGetTheLeft
03-06-2019, 05:47 PM
Whatís the tower frequency at an uncontrolled airport again???

As I was.

Donít believe everything you read on the internet, kids.

cursesRedBaron
03-06-2019, 05:59 PM
Think the ILS NOTAM was after the fact.
FAA routinely does that to test it for issues.

ninerdriver
03-06-2019, 06:02 PM
Think the ILS NOTAM was after the fact.
FAA routinely does that to test it for issues.

It was after the fact. From the NOTAM times, the airport was closed an hour before the ILS went OTS.

dera
03-06-2019, 06:10 PM
The ILS was not NOTAM'd OTS before the incident. And it was the only approach that was legal to shoot at that weather. I think a reasonable conclusion is, that they were shooting the ILS 01.

JoePatroni
03-06-2019, 06:48 PM
The ILS was not NOTAM'd OTS before the incident. And it was the only approach that was legal to shoot at that weather. I think a reasonable conclusion is, that they were shooting the ILS 01.


They were, first try was a go around.


http://pilots.ualforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=16501&stc=1

TJBrass
03-06-2019, 06:49 PM
Way off the LOC when they broke out.

dera
03-06-2019, 06:58 PM
Way off the LOC when they broke out.

Full deflection even slightly above mins.

Excargodog
03-06-2019, 07:40 PM
This is off the FlightAware radar track, not that those are reliable enough for anything but orientation:

OpMidClimax
03-07-2019, 07:18 AM
My company has had a lot of issues with the the localizers indicating on centerline at mins and yet we're over 100 feet displaced from the centerline.

Let's wait for the ntsb report to come out before we throw daggers at our fellow brother and sisters flying the lawn dart and be thankful everyone survived with only minor injuries.

rickair7777
03-07-2019, 07:39 AM
My company has had a lot of issues with the the localizers indicating on centerline at mins and yet we're over 100 feet displaced from the centerline.


Steam or glass?

sobo
03-07-2019, 07:51 AM
Steam or glass?

Same airplane, the 145. OP works for PDT.

v1valarob
03-07-2019, 08:14 AM
My company has had a lot of issues with the the localizers indicating on centerline at mins and yet we're over 100 feet displaced from the centerline.

Let's wait for the ntsb report to come out before we throw daggers at our fellow brother and sisters flying the lawn dart and be thankful everyone survived with only minor injuries.

Quite often Iíll elect to do an RNAV approach over an ILS. Any sort of crosswind and the plane just canít figure it out.

pangolin
03-07-2019, 08:21 AM
Quite often Iíll elect to do an RNAV approach over an ILS. Any sort of crosswind and the plane just canít figure it out.

Is it the AP or the instruments? Can you do better hand flying the ILS? In the CRJ I can do a better job than the AP tracking a localizer.

OpMidClimax
03-07-2019, 08:47 AM
Is it the AP or the instruments? Can you do better hand flying the ILS? In the CRJ I can do a better job than the AP tracking a localizer.

It's an error in the receiver of the 145 localizer when exposed to module.

flynd94
03-07-2019, 08:48 AM
It's an error in the receiver of the 145 localizer when exposed to module.


I have been on the plane for over 10 years and rarely see that issue.

MySaabStory
03-07-2019, 08:56 AM
I have been on the plane for over 10 years and rarely see that issue.

Agreed. 10+ years and have never seen whatís been described.

sobo
03-07-2019, 09:08 AM
Agreed. 10+ years and have never seen whatís been described.

Our airplanes track the localizer very erratically. Within the service volume you can get 15-20 degree turns commanded by the FD.

If you look closely itís the localizer deflecting a degree or two in either direction erratically. Almost as if someone is in the critical area.

Iíd say in probably 5/10 of the aircraft I fly at piedmont have this issue. Some pilots prefer to fly in 195RA to tighten the system up to cat II tolerance (if thatís even a thing). I normally just intercept and fly to 3 miles outside the FAF in pink needles before switching to conventional nav.

That being said, this could be entirely apples to oranges. Who knows how our maintenance is at PDT compared to C5

John Carr
03-07-2019, 10:03 AM
Iíd say in probably 5/10 of the aircraft I fly at piedmont have this issue. Some pilots prefer to fly in 195RA to tighten the system up to cat II tolerance (if thatís even a thing).

It's been a long lonnnnnnnnng time and 2 airplanes ago, so forgive me;

But if I'm not mistaken, that requires a flap 22 setting as well as an RA less than 200' to trigger all that fancy CAT2 tolerance crap? Because, if you get the CATII annunciator and put in flaps 45, it'll make that go away wont it?

Not that it matters, buuuuuuut in certain cases where flaps 45 is desirable for landing performance, etc it could be self defeating.

Like I said, 2 airplanes and years ago flying it. So if I'm wrong and off base, disregard. I'll take that, because it means I was FINALLY able to purge that 145 crap effectively :D:p

sobo
03-07-2019, 10:06 AM
It's been a long lonnnnnnnnng time and 2 airplanes ago, so forgive me;

But if I'm not mistaken, that requires a flap 22 setting as well as an RA less than 200' to trigger all that fancy CAT2 tolerance crap? Because, if you get the CATII annunciator and put in flaps 45, it'll make that go away wont it?

Not that it matters, buuuuuuut in certain cases where flaps 45 is desirable for landing performance, etc it could be self defeating.

Like I said, 2 airplanes and years ago flying it. So if I'm wrong and off base, disregard. I'll take that, because it means I was FINALLY able to purge that 145 crap effectively :D:p

Not sure. Like I said, I don’t mess with it because it’s not an approved way to do anything at our company.

At any rate, I doubt that an erratic ILS could have caused this. I don’t think a trained crew would start the approach if something was acting up so severely that it caused them to land off the runway, amongst other things.

I’m not really willing to speculate too much on this whole thing. I’m gonna give the crew the benefit of the doubt on this, and wait for the NTSB to do their thing.

Glad nobody was seriously hurt.

John Carr
03-07-2019, 10:30 AM
Not sure. Like I said, I donít mess with it because itís not an approved way to do anything at our company.

At any rate, I doubt that an erratic ILS could have caused this. I donít think a trained crew would start the approach if something was acting up so severely that it caused them to land off the runway, amongst other things.

Iím not really willing to speculate too much on this whole thing. Iím gonna give the crew the benefit of the doubt on this, and wait for the NTSB to do their thing.

Glad nobody was seriously hurt.

Agree, I was simply asking/wondering about that whole CATII sensitivity thinghy. Because I used to hear it all the time.

And my time on the plane, it wasnt frequent, but the whole FD/AP set up on it could suck at times. I remember being on an ILS and having the loc flip flop around.

rickair7777
03-07-2019, 06:29 PM
It's an error in the receiver of the 145 localizer when exposed to module.

Exposed to what?

Maybe cell phone use in the back?

dera
03-07-2019, 06:53 PM
Exposed to what?

Maybe cell phone use in the back?

No. Doesn't modulate like that.

Hou757
03-07-2019, 07:29 PM
From the metar it was not hard IFR. 1500 overcast light snow. Should be able to differentiate between runway and field well before touchdown. Will be interesting to see NTSB report but this looks very bad!

Melit
03-08-2019, 02:25 AM
I would love to listen to the CVR

Phoenix21
03-08-2019, 03:32 AM
Exposed to what?

Maybe cell phone use in the back?

Moisture...

sobo
03-08-2019, 03:54 AM
Exposed to what?

Maybe cell phone use in the back?

He meant moisture

Excargodog
03-08-2019, 08:40 AM
From the metar it was not hard IFR. 1500 overcast light snow. Should be able to differentiate between runway and field well before touchdown.

My understanding (which might well be wrong) was that the ASOS went down to 1/2 mile vis with heavier brief flurries reported on the ground. White runway surrounded by white snow with inadequate snow removal. Good runway because it's left over from a USAF base closed in the 60s, but the town itself is less than 10,000 population served because it's Essential Air Service. They have neither the personnel nor the equipment to keep a runway cleared to the extent a busier field would.

flynd94
03-08-2019, 09:21 AM
My understanding (which might well be wrong) was that the ASOS went down to 1/2 mile vis with heavier brief flurries reported on the ground. White runway surrounded by white snow with inadequate snow removal. Good runway because it's left over from a USAF base closed in the 60s, but the town itself is less than 10,000 population served because it's Essential Air Service. They have neither the personnel nor the equipment to keep a runway cleared to the extent a busier field would.


And many of us have flown into as or more challenging airports in worse conditions. I am not judging but, they werenít anywhere close to a runway.

If the runway was that bad there is a great alternate 100 miles or so to the south, Bangor, ME. Time to use that command decision as the CA and do whatís safe.

JoePatroni
03-08-2019, 10:41 AM
My understanding (which might well be wrong) was that the ASOS went down to 1/2 mile vis with heavier brief flurries reported on the ground. White runway surrounded by white snow with inadequate snow removal. Good runway because it's left over from a USAF base closed in the 60s, but the town itself is less than 10,000 population served because it's Essential Air Service. They have neither the personnel nor the equipment to keep a runway cleared to the extent a busier field would.

If you’re thinking of Loring AFB, that closed in the late eighties or early nineties and is a separate field.

flynd94
03-08-2019, 10:47 AM
If youíre thinking of Loring AFB, that closed in the late eighties or early nineties and is a separate field.

It was an old Air Defense Base. Shutdown in the 50/60ís

Ni hao
03-08-2019, 10:49 AM
..................

JoePatroni
03-08-2019, 11:14 AM
It was an old Air Defense Base. Shutdown in the 50/60ís

I never knew that. I used to go there all the time and the runway was always in good shape although it was packed snow pretty much all winter.

dera
03-08-2019, 11:32 AM
..................

Just... Wow.

Melit
03-08-2019, 11:39 AM
Looks like the nose hit first!

cursesRedBaron
03-08-2019, 11:43 AM
THAT's not going to look good on the 'ol resume.

Excargodog
03-08-2019, 11:46 AM
It was an old Air Defense Base. Shutdown in the 50/60ís

It was also briefly (less than a year) a cruise missile base:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presque_Isle_Air_Force_Base

Ala5ka
03-08-2019, 04:56 PM
touchdown zone adjacent ..................

sailingfun
03-08-2019, 05:20 PM
..................

That pretty much solves the argument!

ninerdriver
03-08-2019, 06:04 PM
I'm still surprised by how few people are calling this a plane crash. United must be working some major Delta-style PR magic right now. Maybe United finally learned its PR lesson?

Coneydog
03-08-2019, 07:11 PM
Wow that picture. Yea, thatís a crash. Thank God everyone walked away from this. If the CVR is a tough listen, the crew is fried. Hope they come out ok.

Whoop
03-09-2019, 11:42 AM
My wife (not a pilot) looked at that picture (I'm a former C5 pilot) and she made a very good comment...

Thank goodness there was a lot of snow to cushion- it could've been way worse!

Glad everyone was able to walk away and hope for better days ahead at C5.

HercDiver
03-09-2019, 11:46 AM
My wife (not a pilot) looked at that picture (I'm a former C5 pilot) and she made a very good comment...

Thank goodness there was a lot of snow to cushion- it could've been way worse!

Glad everyone was able to walk away and hope for better days ahead at C5.

Itís possible that the snow is key factor in why it happened to begin with.

Blackhawk
03-09-2019, 02:02 PM
Itís possible that the snow is key factor in why it happened to begin with.

Meh. Pilots obviously did not comply with the FARs if the pictures are to be believed.

ninerdriver
03-09-2019, 03:42 PM
Meh. Pilots obviously did not comply with the FARs if the pictures are to be believed.

This. Snow alone shouldn't make that happen. If it did, then places like MSP and YYZ would look like minefields.

Excargodog
03-09-2019, 04:23 PM
Filler....

Gone Flying
03-09-2019, 06:00 PM
This. Snow alone shouldn't make that happen. If it did, then places like MSP and YYZ would look like minefields.

MSP and (im assuming) YYZ have great snow removal, that probably played a key factor. If the runway was covered in 1in of snow I could see using the loc to help identify the runway, if what the other posters say is true and the 145 would show the loc offset by 100' that could have been the recipe that led to this. glad everyone is ok and hope the cvr makes the crew look good

v1valarob
03-09-2019, 07:45 PM
Iím crying looking at that picture. Poor girl. I flew her less than a week prior.

FollowMe
03-09-2019, 07:47 PM
MSP and (im assuming) YYZ have great snow removal, that probably played a key factor. If the runway was covered in 1in of snow I could see using the loc to help identify the runway, if what the other posters say is true and the 145 would show the loc offset by 100' that could have been the recipe that led to this. glad everyone is ok and hope the cvr makes the crew look good

Doesnít look like itís snow covered to me, seems to be a distinct gray amongst the otherwise white background...

https://avherald.com/img/commutair_e145_n14171_preseque_isle_190304_2.jpg

Excargodog
03-09-2019, 08:01 PM
My company has had a lot of issues with the the localizers indicating on centerline at mins and yet we're over 100 feet displaced from the centerline.




...if what the other posters say is true and the 145 would show the loc offset by 100' that could have been the recipe that led to this. glad everyone is ok and hope the cvr makes the crew look good

Full scale deflection of a CDI all the way to its maximum range should only be AT MAXIMUM three degrees to the right or left of centerline. At the reported half mile visibility this aircraft should have been AT MOST 136 feet off the centerline. At the MDA for a localizer approach at PQI being 70 feet to either side of the centerline of the 150 foot wide runway ought to have given a full scale needle deflection.

If anyone is seriously saying that they ROUTINELY experience a lateral deviation of 100 feet at the mins they are either full scale deviation and ought to be going around or they are flying an aircraft that has instrumentation that is seriously out of tolerances and needs to be written up.

greenroute
03-09-2019, 08:25 PM
Iíve landed on snow covered runways that were conpletely white on a completely white background. You still know itís the runway because there are lights on both sides. If you donít see the pavement OR the lights on both sides then you donít have the runway in sight and you should be going around.

The strangest part of landing on an unplowed runway is the flare because you have no depth perception. Itís like landing at night with no landing light.

cursesRedBaron
03-09-2019, 09:48 PM
Iíve landed on snow covered runways that were conpletely white on a completely white background. You still know itís the runway because there are lights on both sides. If you donít see the pavement OR the lights on both sides then you donít have the runway in sight and you should be going around.

The strangest part of landing on an unplowed runway is the flare because you have no depth perception. Itís like landing at night with no landing light.

Agreed. Depth perception is all off.
You basically rely on your reference to the lights on both sides of you.

tonsterboy5
03-09-2019, 10:06 PM
Does the 145 have a false capture problem like the crj200?

Blackhawk
03-10-2019, 07:11 AM
Localizer and glideslope donít matter for the last 100í unless you are shooting a Cat II/III.
91.175
ď(3) Except for a Category II or Category III approach where any necessary visual reference requirements are specified by the Administrator, at least one of the following visual references for the intended runway is distinctly visible and identifiable to the pilot:

(i) The approach light system, except that the pilot may not descend below 100 feet above the touchdown zone elevation using the approach lights as a reference unless the red terminating bars or the red side row bars are also distinctly visible and identifiable.

(ii) The threshold.

(iii) The threshold markings.

(iv) The threshold lights.

(v) The runway end identifier lights.

(vi) The visual glideslope indicator.

(vii) The touchdown zone or touchdown zone markings.

(viii) The touchdown zone lights.

(ix) The runway or runway markings.

(x) The runway lights.Ē

I believe there is only a Cat I approach to this airport. No see runway, go around. Itís that simple.

BeechPilot33
03-10-2019, 07:40 AM
No see runway, go around. Itís that simple.

thanks for pointing that out we all didn't know that. Glad you are 20/20 sitting in your desk with your hot coffee.

Blackhawk
03-10-2019, 08:11 AM
thanks for pointing that out we all didn't know that. Glad you are 20/20 sitting in your desk with your hot coffee.

If you canít learn from the mistakes of the past you are doomed to repeat them.
Iím not sure if this accident counts as a ďrunway excursionĒ as they donít seem to have touched the runway, but there have been quite a number of runway excursions over the last few years. They donít seem to get the national publicity as to date the last fatality was the SWA over run at MDW, but if we keep this up there may well be another.

This is a really easy job. Until it isnít.

PhantomHawk
03-10-2019, 09:18 AM
Iím with Blackhawk. We should all try to give the benefit of the doubt, to the extent that itís REASONABLE. Unless that plane was out of fuel, on fire, or both crewmembers were impaired in some way......thereís just no excuse. Once a fellow pilot reaches this point, itís not a matter of ďstanding by our ownĒ. For me, itís more a question of protecting the rest of our careers, and the public at large. Anybody who would take it to this level is a liability.......to ALL of us.

But hey.....Ēkudos to the crewĒ........right?!
:rolleyes:

Coneydog
03-10-2019, 05:37 PM
Does the 145 have a false capture problem like the crj200?

It does happen occasionally. I wouldnít classify it as a problem. A false capture, however, wouldnít cause an airline crew to land in the snow.

Melit
03-10-2019, 06:03 PM
If you canít learn from the mistakes of the past you are doomed to repeat them.
Iím not sure if this accident counts as a ďrunway excursionĒ as they donít seem to have touched the runway, but there have been quite a number of runway excursions over the last few years. They donít seem to get the national publicity as to date the last fatality was the SWA over run at MDW, but if we keep this up there may well be another.

This is a really easy job. Until it isnít.

You land in the dirt, total the airplane with injuries is a crash!

OpMidClimax
03-11-2019, 05:22 AM
Full scale deflection of a CDI all the way to its maximum range should only be AT MAXIMUM three degrees to the right or left of centerline. At the reported half mile visibility this aircraft should have been AT MOST 136 feet off the centerline. At the MDA for a localizer approach at PQI being 70 feet to either side of the centerline of the 150 foot wide runway ought to have given a full scale needle deflection.

If anyone is seriously saying that they ROUTINELY experience a lateral deviation of 100 feet at the mins they are either full scale deviation and ought to be going around or they are flying an aircraft that has instrumentation that is seriously out of tolerances and needs to be written up.

Of course it's a write up and an asap after the underwear is cleaned. And yes no the error that had been seen on our fleet is loc has zero deflection and we are breaking out not aligned... I can't speak for c5s fleet. This is being investigated for us. Wr also have a problem where the loc cdi swings right and left full scale throughout the approach.

wrxpilot
03-11-2019, 06:19 AM
Does the 145 have a false capture problem like the crj200?

Having flown the CRJ as an FO and CA for several years, what are you taking about? It would act a bit flakey on the LOC sometimes, but I never had a false GS capture, nor have I ever heard of this on the CRJ.

Coneydog
03-11-2019, 07:44 AM
Having flown the CRJ as an FO and CA for several years, what are you taking about? It would act a bit flakey on the LOC sometimes, but I never had a false GS capture, nor have I ever heard of this on the CRJ.

I think he meant false capture on the LOC. To clarify, Iíve never seen a false capture on a full ILS in the 145. Generally speaking, the 145 AP does a good job when holding both the LOC and the GS. If youíre seeing more than 1/2 dot deviation inside 500 ft while coupled to AP, then thereís a problem and a GA should be initiated. Like I said, this wouldnít have anything to do with actually putting the airplane down the in the snow. The TD zone needs to be indentified before landing.

da42pilot
03-11-2019, 08:32 AM
You land in the dirt, total the airplane with injuries is a crash!

According to Sully, he performed a water landing.

PotatoChip
03-11-2019, 09:13 AM
Having flown the CRJ as an FO and CA for several years, what are you taking about? It would act a bit flakey on the LOC sometimes, but I never had a false GS capture, nor have I ever heard of this on the CRJ.

With 4000 hours on the CRJ, I’ve had it several times. Both LOC and GS. I’ve seen the airplane abruptly pitch 10į nose down to catch a false glideslope. I’ve seen it track the localizer inbound when I was still 4 miles away from the localizer course many times.

Just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.

PhantomHawk
03-11-2019, 09:29 AM
Just because it happened to you....on a plane that isnít relevant to the situation.....doesnít mean it justifies plowing a field with an airplane instead of going around.

PotatoChip
03-11-2019, 09:35 AM
Just because it happened to you....on a plane that isnít relevant to the situation.....doesnít mean it justifies plowing a field with an airplane instead of going around.

Who said that?
:confused:

NovemberBravo
03-11-2019, 09:50 AM
Having flown the CRJ as an FO and CA for several years, what are you taking about? It would act a bit flakey on the LOC sometimes, but I never had a false GS capture, nor have I ever heard of this on the CRJ.

It happens on the CRJ sometimes with parallel runways. Specifically in IAD if you are landing on a center runway and arm the approach before passing the outside runway the aircraft will start turning towards the wrong runway.

With that said wether IMC or VMC your situational awareness should let you know if your aircraft is turning the wrong direction.

pangolin
03-11-2019, 10:09 AM
And many of us have flown into as or more challenging airports in worse conditions. I am not judging but, they werenít anywhere close to a runway.

If the runway was that bad there is a great alternate 100 miles or so to the south, Bangor, ME. Time to use that command decision as the CA and do whatís safe.

Pax reported a bounce. They may have initially hit on the RWY and then bounced off.

PhantomHawk
03-11-2019, 10:15 AM
Who said that?
:confused:

My bad. I figured your comment was adding to the list of people coming up with excuse after excuse for why this happened. I must have misread your intent.

PotatoChip
03-11-2019, 10:20 AM
My bad. I figured your comment was adding to the list of people coming up with excuse after excuse for why this happened. I must have misread your intent.

I was responding to the person I quoted. Thatís it.

pangolin
03-11-2019, 10:20 AM
Of course it's a write up and an asap after the underwear is cleaned. And yes no the error that had been seen on our fleet is loc has zero deflection and we are breaking out not aligned... I can't speak for c5s fleet. This is being investigated for us. Wr also have a problem where the loc cdi swings right and left full scale throughout the approach.

Seriously? Abandon the approach and do a RNAV. To low? Divert.

dera
03-11-2019, 10:52 AM
Pax reported a bounce. They may have initially hit on the RWY and then bounced off.

No. That's not what happened.

Just think what kind of trajectory it takes to land on the runway, then bounce sideways 100+++ feet without moving forward at all.
The initial touchdown was roughly on the "touchdown zone" and running parallel to the runway, just way off the runway. Plane would've had to move 200 or so feet directly sideways because of that bounce.

Not possible.

John Carr
03-11-2019, 01:44 PM
Pax reported a bounce. They may have initially hit on the RWY and then bounced off.

Look at post #134

jacburn
03-11-2019, 01:46 PM
Look at post #134

The pic in that post does not show the initial touch down spot. Only the second touch down spot after the intersecting runway.

John Carr
03-11-2019, 02:08 PM
The pic in that post does not show the initial touch down spot. Only the second touch down spot after the intersecting runway.

Agreed, but......

No. That's not what happened.

Just think what kind of trajectory it takes to land on the runway, then bounce sideways 100+++ feet without moving forward at all.
The initial touchdown was roughly on the "touchdown zone" and running parallel to the runway, just way off the runway. Plane would've had to move 200 or so feet directly sideways because of that bounce.

Not possible.

......to think it slammed ON the runway, THEN flew to the right of the runway, and THEN tracked parallel, well, you think that’s what happened? In your opinion, did it bounce off the pavement so hard there seems to be no other sign of skipping before it stayed on the ground?

Guess when the report comes out we’ll know.

Flyboy68
03-11-2019, 05:13 PM
Iím crying looking at that picture. Poor girl. I flew her less than a week prior.
https://media.giphy.com/media/yGpWyolOIhHO0/giphy.gif

BeechedJet
03-12-2019, 07:56 PM
Maybe, just maybe this is a case of like that old joke about the pilots landing on the 200í long runway thatís a mile wide. Has anyone ruled that out when they said the bounced off a runway?

If the tracks in the snow from the photos are the only ground markings and that plane initially hit pavement, then itís got some magic bullet physics going on.

GravellyPointer
03-12-2019, 08:04 PM
Perhaps the crew mistook the right runway edge for the left runway edge, and the ďbounceĒ was from crossing the intersecting runway. If the runway was completely snowed over at the time of approach, couldíve been possible.
Once upon a time I saw an FO in training at 1:22 AM line up a Beech 1900 over the runway edge lights (he thought they were centerline lights) to land out of an NDB. Just before flare height my Instructor (group lesson, swapping seats) calmed said ďgo aroundĒ. Edge-lander got sent home and I got a reality check.

dera
03-12-2019, 10:55 PM
Maybe, just maybe this is a case of like that old joke about the pilots landing on the 200í long runway thatís a mile wide. Has anyone ruled that out when they said the bounced off a runway?

If the tracks in the snow from the photos are the only ground markings and that plane initially hit pavement, then itís got some magic bullet physics going on.

That's one heck of a 90 degree turn.

Condor73
03-14-2019, 06:14 PM
No disrespect, but I've noticed every time I hear C5 on the radio, either the crew is confused, transmitting with a barely intelligible heavy accent, getting yelled at by ATC, or it sounds like it's the FO's first day...what gives. Just my observations over the past 8 years in Newark. I know I'm not the only one noticing this.

ridiculous observation , nothing to do with this accident.

mking84
03-15-2019, 11:32 PM
ridiculous observation , nothing to do with this accident.

Iíll never forget ďpan pan panĒ from
CommutAir in a heavy accent in Newark. In tears laughing.

SP238882
03-16-2019, 08:05 AM
...because it was used inappropriately? Or because of an accent?

RickGassko
03-22-2019, 01:47 PM
So I guess itís official...

dead meat
03-22-2019, 02:01 PM
So I guess itís official...

:confused:

Upntheair27
03-22-2019, 02:06 PM
https://weather.com/news/news/2019-03-22-united-express-jet-missed-runway-snow-ntsb

PhantomHawk
03-22-2019, 05:27 PM
So I guess itís official...

Any reasonable person came to this realization a few weeks ago.

cursesRedBaron
03-22-2019, 05:33 PM
Well, now that it's in the news....it must be true!!

Okay, I see it was the NTSB doing the reporting.
Yeah, think those lines in the snow sort of spoke for themselves.

Getting harder to explain to the CP.

Excargodog
03-22-2019, 05:39 PM
Well, now that it's in the news....it must be true!!

Okay, I see it was the NTSB doing the reporting.
Yeah, think those lines in the snow sort of spoke for themselves.

Getting harder to explain to the CP.

If the CP didnít realize it from seeing the same pictures everyone else saw they have even bigger problems.

JonGoodsell764
03-22-2019, 05:41 PM
Well, now that it's in the news....it must be true!!

Okay, I see it was the NTSB doing the reporting.
Yeah, think those lines in the snow sort of spoke for themselves.

Getting harder to explain to the CP.

Are these two still on property?

PhantomHawk
03-22-2019, 06:04 PM
Are these two still on property?

Nobody is going to answer that.

SonicFlyer
03-22-2019, 10:28 PM
https://weather.com/news/news/2019-03-22-united-express-jet-missed-runway-snow-ntsb

LOL at the Weather Channel for still trying to name winter storms :rolleyes:

Can't believe they are still pushing gimmick

SonicFlyer
03-22-2019, 10:34 PM
Here is the official NTSB link:



https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20190304X65511&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA

Blackhawk
03-23-2019, 01:47 AM
Our industry got very, very lucky with this accident. It should be a wake up call, but nothing will change.

jacburn
03-23-2019, 02:12 AM
"Radar track data show that the airplane was aligned right of runway 1 during both approaches."

stabapch
03-23-2019, 03:37 AM
Our industry got very, very lucky with this accident. It should be a wake up call, but nothing will change.

The regional model continues to thrive after the Colgan accident, which should have been the defining event. The big wigs at mainline pull the strings in congress and the FAA, while continuing to reap the profits of B-scale operations without acquiring the legal/safety consequences. Nothing will change.

PhantomHawk
03-23-2019, 06:24 AM
"Radar track data show that the airplane was aligned right of runway 1 during both approaches."

.....which means there should have been a second missed approach, followed by a diversion. Your opinion differs?

pangolin
03-23-2019, 08:28 AM
.....which means there should have been a second missed approach, followed by a diversion. Your opinion differs?

Prob but if the LOC received or ILS transmitter was having trouble itís explainable - not excusable.

PhantomHawk
03-23-2019, 08:48 AM
Prob but if the LOC received or ILS transmitter was having trouble itís explainable - not excusable.

Problems with the LOC/ILS made their altimeter malfunction? Descending past decision height and the LOC/ILS transmitter being unreliable arenít related.

Excargodog
03-23-2019, 08:52 AM
"Radar track data show that the airplane was aligned right of runway 1 during both approaches."

Consistency is good, but accuracy is better....

Blackhawk
03-23-2019, 11:53 AM
Loc is irrelevant.
FAR 91.176
ď3) Visibility and visual reference requirements. No pilot operating under this section or ßß121.651, 125.381, or 135.225 of this chapter may continue an approach below the authorized DA/DH and land unless:
...
(A) The pilot must identify the runway threshold using at least one of the following visual referencesó

(1) The beginning of the runway landing surface;

(2) The threshold lights; or

(3) The runway end identifier lights.

(B) The pilot must identify the touchdown zone using at least one of the following visual referencesó

(1) The runway touchdown zone landing surface;

(2) The touchdown zone lights;

(3) The touchdown zone markings; or

(4) The runway lights.ď

I think itís safe to say these parameters were not met.

ninerdriver
03-23-2019, 03:35 PM
Prob but if the LOC received or ILS transmitter was having trouble itís explainable - not excusable.

No, it's not, unless this is a normal set of callouts at the bottom of an ILS:

"Minimums."
"Runway in sight, 10 o'clock."
"Landing."

John Carr
03-23-2019, 10:52 PM
The pic in that post does not show the initial touch down spot. Only the second touch down spot after the intersecting runway.

"Radar track data show that the airplane was aligned right of runway 1 during both approaches."

Any more questions or doubts?

Or as Phantomhawk said, reasonable people knew what happened weeks ago...

No, it's not, unless this is a normal set of callouts at the bottom of an ILS:

"Minimums."
"Runway in sight, 10 o'clock."
"Landing."

And then having the runway at 9 o’clock...

pangolin
03-24-2019, 07:09 AM
No, it's not, unless this is a normal set of callouts at the bottom of an ILS:

"Minimums."
"Runway in sight, 10 o'clock."
"Landing."

You guys reading my messages? I said itís inexcusable.

JonGoodsell764
03-24-2019, 07:19 AM
Nobody is going to answer that.

Post was made in jest, I think we all know the answer to that.

Melit
03-25-2019, 07:23 AM
What does United think about this crash?

Excargodog
03-25-2019, 07:35 AM
What does United think about this crash?

At a guess? I doubt they are STRONGLY in favor. What would you expect?

Nice that no one was badly hurt though.

Blackhawk
03-25-2019, 01:57 PM
What does United think about this crash?

Not one of THEIR airplanes.
Plausible deniability.

JonGoodsell764
03-25-2019, 07:39 PM
What does United think about this crash?

Was it United 3407 or Colgan 3407? At the end of the day when the dust settles, the legacies will throw their contractors to the wolves in a heartbeat while doing everything in their power to distance themselves from any sort of culpability.

Prettywhacked1
03-27-2019, 04:43 AM
Was it United 3407 or Colgan 3407? At the end of the day when the dust settles, the legacies will throw their contractors to the wolves in a heartbeat while doing everything in their power to distance themselves from any sort of culpability.

Continental......ahhh Millennials........:eek:

havick206
06-08-2019, 07:02 PM
What was the end result for this crew?

PhantomHawk
06-09-2019, 12:57 PM
What was the end result for this crew?

Nobody is going to answer that here.

poopplop
06-09-2019, 02:40 PM
What was the end result for this crew?I can tell you exactly what happened. They survived.

And I'm sure they appreciate your concern!

PhantomHawk
06-09-2019, 05:50 PM
I can tell you exactly what happened. They survived.

And I'm sure they appreciate your concern!

Most of us are concerned BY them, not FOR them.

Wildflyin
06-10-2019, 06:27 AM
Most of us are concerned BY them, not FOR them.Any true aviator is concerned FOR them. Anyone of us could have a truly horrible day, it is just double unfortunate if bad luck has it that both pilots have that bad day at once. Anyone of us flying long enough have had a fellow pilot stop us from committing an egregious error at least once in our careers, and we have at least once stopped a fellow aviator from doing the same. Try some empathy, it will serve you well.

PhantomHawk
06-10-2019, 10:16 AM
Any true aviator is concerned FOR them. Anyone of us could have a truly horrible day, it is just double unfortunate if bad luck has it that both pilots have that bad day at once. Anyone of us flying long enough have had a fellow pilot stop us from committing an egregious error at least once in our careers, and we have at least once stopped a fellow aviator from doing the same. Try some empathy, it will serve you well.
In most circumstances, I completely agree with you. At some point, the responsibility to the people behind us who trust us with their lives outweighs any empathy I have. I feel bad for them, but I think they should never fly passengers again. Those sentiments are not mutually exclusive.

Wildflyin
06-10-2019, 02:30 PM
In most circumstances, I completely agree with you. At some point, the responsibility to the people behind us who trust us with their lives outweighs any empathy I have. I feel bad for them, but I think they should never fly passengers again. Those sentiments are not mutually exclusive.I hear what you are saying, but there are people whose job it is to make that determination, it is not ours to make. Other people read these boards that are not pilots in the industry, passing judgment here doesn't help anybody.



Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1