I’m sorry for the delay in getting back to you; your questions certainly deserve a response and I encourage dialogue. Let’s use your CADORs report as a starting point.

The Porter aircraft experienced a performance-enhancing wind sheer at 400-500 ft. This is not a hazardous situation as the aircraft is quite controllable – but it would have an impact on their eventual touchdown point. The sudden increase in airspeed (or, more correctly, energy) would have caused the aircraft to land further down the runway then planned. The long touchdown is the unsafe condition, which the pilot(s) simply avoid by applying power, going around, and trying again. On the second attempt they may have anticipated the phenomena by flying a slightly lower approach or reducing speed sooner then before.

Such wind sheers can occur anywhere. The Air France crash at Toronto International is a good example of what can go wrong when avoidance action is not taken. Even when the aircrew realized they would “land long”, they continued the approach. When high and fast on the approach, they could have safely gone-around (like the Porter crew did). Instead, they chose to continue and landed far too long.

Your second question – Reporting long landings at Toronto International. If I’m not mistaken, we were comparing stats between the two airports.

Porter’s aircraft are likely aiming to be firmly on the ground in the first 500-750 ft of the runway at the TCCA. If they might go long, they overshoot (which results in a CADORs report). This may seem incredibly precise to the uninitiated, but keep in mind the commercial licence flight test standard is +100’/-50’ of the planned touchdown point. Wind sheer, traffic, a late descent from ATC, or even calm winds can leave them high and struggling to get down.

At Toronto International, unless told to exit at a certain taxiway, there is no need for such accuracy (other than professional pride). A Jazz Dash-8 pilot can encounter wind sheer, gain 20- or even 30-kts, and still accept a long touchdown 1000-2000 feet down the runway. Because of the excess runway available, no one would ever think to produce a CADORs report.

Thus my conclusion that we are unable to judge the safety significance of Porter Dash-8s landing long when other, possibly equal or worse situations would never be reported at CYYZ.

Frankly, I think the CADORs report you’ve quoted should read, “Porter Airlines…crew demonstrated sound pilot decision making and avoided a hazardous situation at Toronto City Centre Airport due to wind shear 400-500 AGL, + 20 knots.”

You’re quite right in calling it a semantic nightmare. Gaining 20kts is not in itself dangerous, but landing too far down the runway can be. Or another example, not seeing the runway at the missed approach point is not dangerous, but descending below minimums certainly is.

Those pilots are choosing to AVOID dangerous situations so they don’t end up IN them.

Peter Jay