# Minor Air Canada crash in Halifax



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Toronto-Halifax flight AC 624, an Airbus A320, crashed this morning in Halifax. It's a minor crash and everyone survived, but the plane is wrecked:

http://www.aircanada.com/en/news/150329.html
http://rt.com/news/244953-air-canada-crash-halifax/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...e-says-weather-conditions-were-safe-1.3013979


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

james4beach said:


> Toronto-Halifax flight AC 624, an Airbus A320, crashed this morning in Halifax. It's a minor crash and everyone survived, but the plane is wrecked:


Minor crash! The plane can be considered totalled! 
The left wing (looking at other pictures of it from the front) hit a hydro pole that delivered power to the airpor, t and the power went off as the plane snapped off the hydro pole and its wing snapped off. The engine was left behind , as it skidded causing major damage to the other wing, engine and landing gear. 

Not sure if they can still fix this one, but I certainly wouldn't want to take a chance on that plane again..bad karma with these
A320 recently. 

Fortunately, this time (unlike the other incidents) pretty much most of the 133 passengers walked away, only a couple of passengers had to be taken to the hospital by ambulance. 

This time it appears to be bad weather/runway conditions ....not the copilot.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Yeah looking at those photos, it looks like the plane suffered very serious damage. The wing is _gone_

This is a happy story overall. The plane got wrecked, yet the cabin and seatbelts protected everyone. No fire or explosion. Everyone is (more or less) fine ... this is really good news!


----------



## wendi1 (Oct 2, 2013)

Really good news, indeed - looking at the pictures, I find it hard to believe that only a couple of people had serious injuries, and no one died.

Air Canada has to watch its words, though. "Hard landing" my eye. 

There's something to be said for telling it like it obviously is. Once the engine falls out, and a wing is snapped off, we call that a "crash landing".


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ No casualty is very good news although some with minor injuries ... would appears it was the bad weather that caused the hard/bad-axx landing. 

Now if I'm reading correctly, some passengers were still in their shorts/flipflops and had to wait an hour on the tarmac before the emergency crew could transport them to inside the airport ... talk about getting frostbites, if not a concussion already.


----------



## Ag Driver (Dec 13, 2012)

wendi1 said:


> Air Canada has to watch its words, though. "Hard landing" my eye.
> 
> There's something to be said for telling it like it obviously is. Once the engine falls out, and a wing is snapped off, we call that a "crash landing".


Here is my professional opinion: This was a a hard landing, it was also a reportable accident and here is why.

*Transportation Safety Board Regulation's Definition of an Accident* 


> a. in the case of an accident
> 
> i. a person is killed or sustains a serious injury as a result of
> 
> ...


Most other things are considered an incident or an occurrence

Ref: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/incidents-occurrence/aviation/


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Yes I think that the plane's flight characteristics might be adversely affected. Good news that no one was seriously hurt. One little rule I have when flying is 'shoes on until cruising altitude and for descent and landing'.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

uptoolate said:


> One little rule I have when flying is 'shoes on until cruising altitude and for descent and landing'.


Do you take your seat belt off during cruise as well? I notice most people do when the light comes off (that's not what the light means..) And yet many people report they hit their head during this crash landing (seat belt too loose maybe?)

It's like the life jacket.. they announce every flight not to inflate it inside the airplane.. what do you think everyone does as soon as they put it on?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

uptoolate said:


> Yes I think that the plane's flight characteristics might be adversely affected. Good news that no one was seriously hurt. One little rule I have when flying is 'shoes on until cruising altitude and for descent and landing'.


Latest from AC is that the plane hit an antennae array (just before touching down on the strip), that cause the landing gear to come off...



> Air Canada plane that crashed at the Halifax airport early Sunday hit an antenna array before landing on the runway.
> 
> The regional manager of air investigations, says the landing gear on AC624 came off and it skidded on a runway for nearly 340 metres before it came to a stop.





> The RCMP said a power line south of the runway outside airport property was damaged.


That would cause it to skid out of control and depending on which landing gear got ripped off, it could have landed on that side of the wing cause the engine on that side to shear off as well and the nose
cone got ripped off.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Yes I tend to leave my seat belt on during the flight. Not a hard and fast rule. The smaller the plane, the more likely it is to stay on and be relatively snug. Back in the old days when it was not too unusual to get 3, 4 or even 5 seats to lay down on, I would still keep it fastened loosely enough to lie down. Those empty seats don't happen very often these days.


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

On the CBC app there is a video of an excruciating interview with an Air Canada spokesman who makes every effort to CYA by avoiding calling it a crash landing until he is backed into a corner and has to admit that it was. 

Then there is a clip of interviews with four passengers, who are calm and pull no punches.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

The euphemisms shouldn't be a big surprise. The US economy crashed and every official lied and called it a "soft landing"... hard landing would have been closer to the truth. Crash is what it was.

So when you hear "hard landing" --> crash


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

james4beach said:


> The euphemisms shouldn't be a big surprise. The US economy crashed and every official lied and called it a "soft landing"... hard landing would have been closer to the truth. Crash is what it was.
> 
> *So when you hear "hard landing" --> crash*


No, they still call it a "hard landing'..the plane was coming in on it's descent trajectory, the planes computers had "everything under control", the human pilots switched off the auto pilot, and started their descent on the projected "tractor beam" issued by the ATC. ( instrument landing). 

The pilots finally relaxed, and expected while it was an unusual type of landing in a snowstorm with cross winds blowing all over the place,
they had just about enough circling around the airport for an hour, fuel was low, so they made the decision (rock.paper/sissors?) to go ahead with the landing.

*Fly on the wall:* somewhere in the cockpit..er..sorry that is not a PC term anymore...substitute "flight deck".

*Captain*: Yawn! , it's after midnight folks, and we've been circling and circling and we all are getting tired by now, 
so we are finally coming in on our final approach into Standfield Int'l Airport.

Engines roar as plane loses altitude, flaps down..more engine noise as rpm of turbinesbeing sped up, plane swaying all over the place.....

*Captain:* Folks; the "fasten seat belt" light has come on...you will also note another Air Canada passenger safety bonus.."*the hard landing light*" 
has come on at the front of the flight deck to let us know that it could be a ..er..." a little rough" on our approach into the airport..but don't worry, we will get you there!

BANG!.....(RIGHT WING LANDING GEAR SHEARED OFF) WHEN THE PLANE HITS AN OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL WIRE....

Plane drops to the right, but still coming in on approach as normal, but with the flaps falling off, (not much lift on that wing). 

BANG!..the right engine is sheared off as the plane dips, then hits an antenna array... just before the beginning of the tarmac on the runway,

Plane comes down HARD,,and skids on its belly, and remaining engine, also gets torn off , as the plane violently skids down the runway out of control, 
shearing off the front steering wheel)s) and the remaining landing gear on the other damaged wing...black plastic radar dome falls off..

....plane slides down the snow covered runaway, which cushions the belly of the plane preventing sparks from igniting the remaining fuel.

*Captain*: " Welcome to Halifax Standfield In'tl folks....I hope you've had a pleasant trip...thank you for choosing Air Canada!


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> ... *Captain*: " Welcome to Standfield In'tl folks....*I hope you've had a pleasant trip*...thank you for *choosing Air Canada*!


 ... I think you missed a part - "don't forget to book the next flight with us" in English and French. What an oxymoron here.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... I think you missed a part - "don't forget to book the next flight with us" in English and French. What an oxymoron here.


Well they did land, and fortunately there were no causalities, so you have to give AC credit for that...but 
with no mechanical problems with the plane up to the point of landing..I would have to say in this case (from
what I've read)..it may be contributed to "pilot error". 
AC and everyone on board were extremely lucky in this incident that the plane did not go out of control when it clipped the hydro line which broke off the landing gear.

My reasons:

1. They were trying to land in a middle of a blinding snow storm at night on ILS (Instrument Landing System).
Maybe they were blinded as well by the driving snow, no being to see the end of the runway and the lights that would give them a reference point. 

2. The ILS appears to have a margin for error, as the last few hundred feet at whatever the critical altitude (say 100 feet at sea level), cannot be determined by instruments alone..pilots have to make the decision whether to make corrections for the landing (air speed/flaps etc), 
or abort the landing..which means full flaps and engine power to gain altitude before the landing gear comes down to hit the ground at impacts that it is not designed for...after all these AC320 are considered "Heavies".

3. Had they played it safe and diverted to another airport (Moncton) this wouldn't have happened, although
the passengers would have been very angry at AC for dropping them off 231 kilometers from Halifax 
(over 2 hr driving time, maybe more in the winter), although the passengers could have spent the rest of the night at the Moncton airport rather than wait for buses to arrive in the middle of the night, to drive them back to Halifax with their luggage.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I phoned a friend in Halifax immediately when I heard of the accident. He said the snowfall was pretty normal at the time and did not see any particularly bad weather.

Also -- why are there electrical lines that can be hit, so close to a runway approach? How is that even possible? Surely they don't put such lines or obstacles within a sensible cone from the approach paths?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I phoned a friend in Halifax immediately when I heard of the accident. He said the snowfall was pretty normal at the time and did not see any particularly bad weather.
> 
> Also -- *why are there electrical lines that can be hit, so close to a runway approach*? How is that even possible? Surely they don't put such lines or obstacles within a sensible cone from the approach paths?


From the TSB measurements, it looks like it touched down ("landed") 335 metres short of the runway.

That is about 1105 feet from where the runway starts so there would be ILS antennas, and stuff like that that would be close to the runway normally, 
but having a power line that close to the end of the runway probably was a good idea on somebody's part.
However, lots of big AC jumbos have landed there in the past without incident, even with the power line that close. They may probably have to relocate the power line after this. 

I doubt that the airplanes internal "fly-by-wire" navigation system would have been in control, as they were trying to land but the TSB report (when it is released), will reveal what happened. Also there may be more information when the black boxes are examined and a report is released to the media. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-...335-metres-short-of-runway-tsb-says-1.3013979


Looks like somebody has already launched a class action lawsuit for the passengers.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... why are there electrical lines that can be hit, so close to a runway approach? How is that even possible? Surely they don't put such lines or obstacles within a sensible cone from the approach paths?


Bad planning?

I seem to recall for a US news show covering some airline issue a US airport in the MidWest where the main landing path has the planes fly about fifty feet over a tall parking garage. As I recall it was referred to as a spot the pilots had to pay close attention.

If it ain't broke, wait for the accident? :biggrin:


Cheers


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Eclectic12 said:


> Bad planning?
> 
> I seem to recall for a US news show covering some airline issue a US airport in the MidWest where the main landing path has the planes fly about fifty feet over a tall parking garage. As I recall it was referred to as a spot the pilots had to pay close attention.
> 
> ...


I remember watching a tv show called "Mayday" about events leading up to airplane crashes. In an interview on this show, a TSB/NTSB investigator mentioned that there are many reasons for an airplane crash, not just one. That statement applies to pretty much most of the crashes.

In this case, the weather and time of arrival played a very significant part, why it came down outside the actual runway.
Somebody misjudged some landing parameter, or perhaps unfamiliar with the approach terrain to the runway, and that's all it took. Not enough power to maintain lift at that very low altitude under 100ft where only
sheer engine power with full flaps keeps you moving forward. 

I remember another incident in San Francisco last year where a big "heavy" Asiana Boeing 777, touched a sea wall on approach to the runway and crashed (or "hard landing" as the current PC term is these days).



> crashed short of runway 28L's threshold. The landing gear and then the tail struck the seawall that projects into San Francisco Bay.] Both engines and the tail section separated from the aircraft. The NTSB noted that the main landing gear, the first part of the aircraft to hit the seawall, "separated cleanly from [the] aircraft as designed". The vertical and both horizontal stabilizers fell on the runway before the threshold.


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Bad planning?
> 
> I seem to recall for a US news show covering some airline issue a US airport in the MidWest where the main landing path has the planes fly about fifty feet over a tall parking garage. As I recall it was referred to as a spot the pilots had to pay close attention.
> 
> ...


That's San Diego.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> Well they did land, and* fortunately there were no causalities*, so you have to give AC credit for that...but
> with no mechanical problems with the plane up to the point of landing..I would have to say in this case (from
> what I've read)..it may be contributed to "pilot error".
> ...
> ...


 ... even there may have been a pilot's miscalculation, I would still give kudos to the pilots for landing the plane as safely as possible. 

I think the 3rd option of re-routing of the plane may have been a better (or cheaper) solution - however, inconvenience for the passengers. But who makes the decision on route-diversions in such situations, AC's HQ, the control tower, or the pilots?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... even there may have been a pilot's miscalculation, I would still give kudos to the pilots for landing the plane as safely as possible.


or...maybe a sudden downdraft, due to the snowstorm that was unexpected. that would push the plane down faster than expected as they were close to the ground, so "ground effects" and cross winds would be at play at the time. 



> I think the 3rd option of re-routing of the plane may have been a better (or cheaper) solution - however, inconvenience for the passengers. But who makes the decision on route-diversions in such situations, AC's HQ, the control tower, or the pilots?



The captain of the plane would make the final decision whether to land or divert to another airport. I don't know if that means declaring some kind of emergency..maybe so. In retrospect, it would have been a lot cheaper for AC to do that considering the loss of a fully serviceable aircraft around 88 million in 2012 USD...
today in 2014....



> Current Price $ 99 million U.S.*


 ...converted to Canadian..close to $125 million CAD


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Looks more and more like pilot error..he came in the back end of the runway.



> The pilot who crash-landed Air Canada Flight AC624 in Halifax early Sunday had to bring the aircraft in without benefit of an instrument landing system on the ground, a retired Transport Canada aviation inspector says.





> Halifax does have ISL, but it's only on one end of the runway that was in use Sunday. Given the weather and wind direction, the pilot used the other end of the runway.


https://ca.news.yahoo.com/air-canada-ac624-runway-wont-121025659.html


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

> Halifax does have ISL, but it's only on one end of the runway that was in use Sunday. Given the weather and wind direction, the* pilot used the other end of the runway*.


.... a little oops there?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

By ISL, I think they meant ILS..



Beaver101 said:


> I think the 3rd option of re-routing of the plane may have been a better (or cheaper) solution - however, inconvenience for the passengers. But who makes the decision on route-diversions in such situations, AC's HQ, the control tower, or the pilots?


Without an ILS approach, the pilot needs better weather to land VFR. The pilot has to request or accept cancel IFR from ATC, which implies responsibility for maintaining visibility to land safely. ATC cannot tell the pilot to land VFR when they have IFR services available. AC HQ cannot tell the pilot to land VFR, but they may discourage the decision to divert.



Beaver101 said:


> .... a little oops there?


Depends on the winds


----------



## Ethan (Aug 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> .... a little oops there?


He likely chose the runway based on the prevailing wind direction.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> In retrospect, it would have been a lot cheaper for AC to do that considering the loss of a fully serviceable aircraft around 88 million in 2012 USD...
> today in 2014....
> 
> ...converted to Canadian..close to $125 million CAD


Would they not have insurance against these kind of things?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Ethan said:


> Would they not have insurance against these kind of things?


I'm sure they do for the airplanes and for passenger liability lawsuits...but depending on the TSB findings,
the Captain pilot may be out of a job, once they release who is responsible..and the ultimate responsibility
lies with the more experienced captain.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

carverman said:


> I remember watching a tv show called "Mayday" about events leading up to airplane crashes. In an interview on this show, a TSB/NTSB investigator mentioned that there are many reasons for an airplane crash, not just one. That statement applies to pretty much most of the crashes.


Yes I love this show... it's really well made, and very interesting stories.

It's also the reason I'm skeptical about the Lufthansa (subsidiary Germanwings) story in the main stream media. These crashes normally take months if not years to investigate. But everyone has already decided the cause and blame in the Lufthansa crash? Way too premature IMO. These investigations take lots of time.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

You've watched the show's re-enactments of analysis of black box recording and have difficulty believing that the recording could record key pieces such as the pilot asking the co-pilot to take over and hammering on the cockpit door?

I'd have said the opposite.


Cheers


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Last night on This hour has 22 minutes satire show on CBC, Marc Critch had a field day satarizing the "hard landing" at Halifax. He went on to say, that the reason for the hard landing was because not enough Air Canada passengers paid the* extra soft landing fee.*:highly_amused:

You can watch it on Youtube 22 Minutes: Air Canada Hard Landing

While most air crashes are tragic with a total or partial loss of life, this one, where there were only minor injuries will go down in Canadian commercial aviation history as "hard landing."


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

carverman said:


> Last night on This hour has 22 minutes satire show on CBC, Marc Critch had a field day satarizing the "hard landing" at Halifax. He went on to say, that the reason for the hard landing was because not enough Air Canada passengers paid the* extra soft landing fee.*:highly_amused:


 ... may not be a joke there if AC have it their way, any and which way to charge extras.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ... may not be a joke there if AC have it their way, any and which way to charge extras.


The PI lawyers are in a feeding frenzy like a bunch of sharks on this one. The second class action lawsuit has been filed.



> A second lawyer, Ray Wagner, says his firm is considering a class action lawsuit as well





> MacGillivray Injury and Insurance Law say they have consulted with passengers on a lawsuit which would likely target Air Canada, the Halifax Stanfield International Airport, and Nav Canada, which owns and operates Canada's civil air navigation system.





> Vancouver aviation lawyer J.J. Camp told CTV News Channel Tuesday that airlines generally don't have a cap on the amount a passenger can receive in a liability claim, adding there are potential psychological damages that can arise after the crash that could be taken into consideration.
> 
> "That's not the end of the story," Camp said. "*The post-traumatic stress symptoms and the PTSD fallout can be much, much more severe than the physical injuries*."


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/air-ca...engers-seeking-class-action-lawsuit-1.2305388


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> ... That's not the end of the story," Camp said. "*The post-traumatic stress symptoms and the PTSD fallout can be much, much more severe than the physical injuries*."


... no kidding and as if these ambulance-chasing lawyers don't add more stress, particularly with a more or less useless classaction lawsuit. The only winners will be the lawyers.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Beaver101 said:


> ^ ... no kidding and as if these ambulance-chasing lawyers don't add more stress, particularly with a more or less useless classaction lawsuit. *The only winners will be the lawyers.*


Latest is that AC is offering each passenger on the flight, checks for $5000, as immediate compensation for their ordeal..luggage and other expenses.

The lawyers right away are advising each passenger not to cash those checks but to join or stay in the class action suit..(two legal firms have launched separate class action suits) and hold out for more...MILLIONS MORE......the lawyers are handling the cases on a contingency fee basis.

We have gone the same way as the US now....PI (personal injury) lawyers are setting up to sue the insurance companies and everyone they can. 
Car insurance premiums will no doubt, be raised on the "personal injury portion" of the insurance policy.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^


> ... MILLIONS MORE......the lawyers are handling the cases on a contingency fee basis.


 ... millions more alright FOR THE LAWYERS ... even on a contingency basis - they'll find ways of sucking up the money faster than AC can pay. At the end of the day, how much will the passengers see, or get? 10c on the buck?



> We have gone the same way as the US now....PI (personal injury) lawyers are setting up to sue the insurance companies and everyone they can.


 ... seems so, very lucrative FOR LAWYERs. But I don't think Canadian class-action suit has the same resulting successes as that of the US... and by resulting successes = more payment for the victims or plaintiffs.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

For the elderly lady I am sure her care will be much more than her $5000 offer ,I think it depends on individual circumstances if they cash the cheque.I am sure some of these people will have problems ever getting in a airplane again which in itself may cost them financially.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

marina628 said:


> For the elderly lady I am sure her care will be much more than her $5000 offer ,I think it depends on individual circumstances if they cash the cheque.I am sure some of these people will have problems ever getting in a airplane again which in itself may cost them financially.


Yes, that would be the PTSD issue with some passengers..that's why the lawyers are involved, I would think...PTSD, whiplash and other types of injiuries that could come out later..but at least there was no fire or explosion..that was very lucky thing for the passengers and crew.

Apparently, there were some minor injuries (25 passengers?) had to taken to hospital, and I haven't heard any serious injuries yet, bumps and bruises mostly, and maybe frostbite for some wearing only sandals on the plane, standing on the tarmac for an hour before the buses arrived. 
Question: (if the flight was from Toronto to Halifax, why would people wear sandals on the plane?..it's still winter there. 
Also the air terminal apparently lost power and communications because of the power line hit so that may have delayed the crash team to the
rescue.

On the local CBC news a couple of days ago, they mentioned that this would never happen in Ottawa or any major airport, because they are organized better.
Apparently, Stanfield Intl is a fair distance away from the city itself.


----------

