CAIR press release on Close call / Runway Safety
For immediate release: Close Call at Island Airport Illustrates Dangers of Short Runway
On March 1, Porter flight POE125 from Toronto’s Island Airport to Newark, with 30 people on board, declared an emergency as a result of a hydraulic leak in the landing gear system.
While it initially intended to return to the Island Airport, it became apparent that the runway was too short to handle the emergency landing, and the flight was diverted to Pearson, where it landed safely, with emergency crews standing by.
The story, from the March 9, 2010 Aviation Herald, is attached, along with the Transport Canada report of the incident.
From Transport Canada’s report:
"Maintenance staff suggested that the aircraft return to the [Island] airport. The flight crew were returning the aircraft to the airport and configured the aircraft for landing by lowering the landing gear. … A review of the QRH procedures for a #2 hydraulic system failure indicated that a 1.85 Landing Distance Factor was to be added to the landing distance required. Based on this information, the aircraft was diverted to Toronto (Lester B. Pearson) International Airport and an emergency was declared [our emphasis].
While we are thankful there was no injury or worse, if this had not been caught when it was, and a landing attempted at the Island Airport, the results could have been very different.
The Island Airport has one runway usable by Porter’s Q400. It is substantially shorter than the recommended minimum for Q400 aircraft, according to its manufacturer. While Porter has chosen to fly at less than full capacity in an effort to address this issue, the available margin of safety is certainly reduced further.
The runway end safety areas for that runway only 91 metres in the east and only 85 metres in the west.
890 Yonge St, Suite 700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W 3P4
The Air France flight 358 crash at Pearson in 2005 departed the end of the runway at a groundspeed of approximately 80 knots and came to rest in a ravine.
If that had occurred at the Island Airport, the aircraft would have plunged into water deep enough to result in numerous fatalities.
As noted in today’s Globe report,
Major runways at Canadian airports are still too short – increasing the risk of planes overshooting the runway like the Air France jet that crashed and burned five years ago at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, the Transportation Safety Board is warning.
In a blast against government inaction, the independent federal body said its recommendation for the creation of 300-metre safety areas at the end of major runways has been ignored by Ottawa and the country's big airports.
Even worse, the board said, the government is only consulting the aviation industry on the addition of a 150-metre safety area, or half of the length determined to be necessary after the 2005 Air France crash in Toronto.
In an interview, Transportation Safety Board chair Wendy Tadros said the process is “taking too long” seeing as how planes that overshoot runways represent one of the biggest problems facing the aviation industry.
“Somewhere in the world, about once a month, a large aircraft will run off the end of a runway in bad weather. It's a persistent problem,” Ms. Tadros said.
For further information:
Aviation Herald story, "Incident: Porter DH8D near Toronto on Mar 1st 2010, hydraulics leak":
http://avherald.com/h?article=4286ab02
The March 1 flight of POE 125 is documented at:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/POE125/history/20100301/1513Z/CYTZ/KEWR
The following is from Transport Canada’s Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS) :
Cadors Number:
2010O0410
Reporting Region:
Ontario
Occurrence Information
Occurrence Type:
Incident
Occurrence Date:
2010-03-01
Occurrence Time:
1605 Z
Day Or Night:
day-time
Fatalities:
0
Injuries:
0
Occurrence Location:
en-route from CYTZ to KEWR
Province:
Ontario
Country:
CANADA
Reported By:
NAV CANADA
AOR Number:
116622-V1
TSB Class Of Investigation:
5
TSB Occurrence No:
A10O0036
Flight #:
POE125
Aircraft Category:
Aeroplane
Country of Registration:
CANADA
Make:
DEHAVILLAND - CAN
Model:
DHC 8 402
Year Built:
2006
Engine Make:
PRATT & WHITNEY-CAN
Engine Model:
PW150A
Engine Type:
Turbo prop
Gear Type:
Land
Phase of Flight:
Cruise
Damage:
Unknown
Owner:
PORTER AIRLINES INC.
Operator:
PORTER AIRLINES INC. (15266)
Operator Type:
Commercial
Event Information
Declared emergency/priority
Diversion
Hydraulic problem
Other operational incident
Detail Information
User Name:
Donaldson, John
Date:
2010-03-02
890 Yonge St, Suite 700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W 3P4
Further Action Required:
No
O.P.I.:
Commercial & Business Aviation
Narrative:
The Porter Airlines Inc. de Havilland DHC-8-402 aircraft (operating as flight POE125) had departed on a scheduled IFR flight from Toronto (Billy Bishop) Toronto City Airport (CYTZ) to Newark (Liberty) International Airport, NJ (U.S.A.) (KEWR). The aircraft was en-route when the flight crew declared an emergency due to hydraulic problems. The aircraft diverted to Toronto (LBPIA) (CYYZ) where it landed on runway 33L at 1627Z without incident. ARFF services responded for the landing. Ops. impact -- unknown.
User Name:
Donaldson, John
Date:
2010-03-10
O.P.I.:
Commercial & Business Aviation
Narrative:
UPDATE Supplemental information received from T.S.B. Daily Notification [#A10O0036]: The Porter Airlines Inc. Bombardier DHC-8-402 aircraft (C-GLQC, operating as flight POE125) was climbing through 7,000 feet ASL when the flight crew was approached by the cabin Flight Attendant who reported a strange sound in the cabin. The Flight Attendant identified the sound as a motor that was constantly operating. The flight crew assumed it was the Power Transfer Unit (PTU) and continued with the flight. Shortly thereafter, the #2 hydraulic pressure dropped down to 25% of its normal operating value. The flight crew contacted company maintenance and asked for assistance in the evaluation of the fault. Maintenance staff suggested that the aircraft return to the airport. The flight crew were returning the aircraft to the airport and configured the aircraft for landing by lowering the landing gear. The flight crew received a down and locked indication but also noticed that the #2 hydraulic fluid quantity was indicating 0%. A review of the QRH procedures for a #2 hydraulic system failure indicated that a 1.85 Landing Distance Factor was to be added to the landing distance required. Based on this information, the aircraft was diverted to Toronto (Lester B. Pearson) International Airport and an emergency was declared. The aircraft performed an uneventful landing on runway 33R with ARFF standing by. Due to the lack of the #2 hydraulics, the flight crew steered the aircraft by using differential brake pressure and engine power. Maintenance staff determined that the Power Transfer Unit (PTU) was draining fluid from the PTU drive drain and depleting fluid in the #2 hydraulic system. Maintenance staff replaced the PTU and performed the functional tests as per the AMM. They also replaced the filters and flushed the system. A successful flight test was conducted and the aircraft was returned to service. No further hydraulic faults have been reported.
On March 1, Porter flight POE125 from Toronto’s Island Airport to Newark, with 30 people on board, declared an emergency as a result of a hydraulic leak in the landing gear system.
While it initially intended to return to the Island Airport, it became apparent that the runway was too short to handle the emergency landing, and the flight was diverted to Pearson, where it landed safely, with emergency crews standing by.
The story, from the March 9, 2010 Aviation Herald, is attached, along with the Transport Canada report of the incident.
From Transport Canada’s report:
"Maintenance staff suggested that the aircraft return to the [Island] airport. The flight crew were returning the aircraft to the airport and configured the aircraft for landing by lowering the landing gear. … A review of the QRH procedures for a #2 hydraulic system failure indicated that a 1.85 Landing Distance Factor was to be added to the landing distance required. Based on this information, the aircraft was diverted to Toronto (Lester B. Pearson) International Airport and an emergency was declared [our emphasis].
While we are thankful there was no injury or worse, if this had not been caught when it was, and a landing attempted at the Island Airport, the results could have been very different.
The Island Airport has one runway usable by Porter’s Q400. It is substantially shorter than the recommended minimum for Q400 aircraft, according to its manufacturer. While Porter has chosen to fly at less than full capacity in an effort to address this issue, the available margin of safety is certainly reduced further.
The runway end safety areas for that runway only 91 metres in the east and only 85 metres in the west.
890 Yonge St, Suite 700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W 3P4
The Air France flight 358 crash at Pearson in 2005 departed the end of the runway at a groundspeed of approximately 80 knots and came to rest in a ravine.
If that had occurred at the Island Airport, the aircraft would have plunged into water deep enough to result in numerous fatalities.
As noted in today’s Globe report,
Major runways at Canadian airports are still too short – increasing the risk of planes overshooting the runway like the Air France jet that crashed and burned five years ago at Toronto's Pearson International Airport, the Transportation Safety Board is warning.
In a blast against government inaction, the independent federal body said its recommendation for the creation of 300-metre safety areas at the end of major runways has been ignored by Ottawa and the country's big airports.
Even worse, the board said, the government is only consulting the aviation industry on the addition of a 150-metre safety area, or half of the length determined to be necessary after the 2005 Air France crash in Toronto.
In an interview, Transportation Safety Board chair Wendy Tadros said the process is “taking too long” seeing as how planes that overshoot runways represent one of the biggest problems facing the aviation industry.
“Somewhere in the world, about once a month, a large aircraft will run off the end of a runway in bad weather. It's a persistent problem,” Ms. Tadros said.
For further information:
Aviation Herald story, "Incident: Porter DH8D near Toronto on Mar 1st 2010, hydraulics leak":
http://avherald.com/h?article=4286ab02
The March 1 flight of POE 125 is documented at:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/POE125/history/20100301/1513Z/CYTZ/KEWR
The following is from Transport Canada’s Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System (CADORS) :
Cadors Number:
2010O0410
Reporting Region:
Ontario
Occurrence Information
Occurrence Type:
Incident
Occurrence Date:
2010-03-01
Occurrence Time:
1605 Z
Day Or Night:
day-time
Fatalities:
0
Injuries:
0
Occurrence Location:
en-route from CYTZ to KEWR
Province:
Ontario
Country:
CANADA
Reported By:
NAV CANADA
AOR Number:
116622-V1
TSB Class Of Investigation:
5
TSB Occurrence No:
A10O0036
Flight #:
POE125
Aircraft Category:
Aeroplane
Country of Registration:
CANADA
Make:
DEHAVILLAND - CAN
Model:
DHC 8 402
Year Built:
2006
Engine Make:
PRATT & WHITNEY-CAN
Engine Model:
PW150A
Engine Type:
Turbo prop
Gear Type:
Land
Phase of Flight:
Cruise
Damage:
Unknown
Owner:
PORTER AIRLINES INC.
Operator:
PORTER AIRLINES INC. (15266)
Operator Type:
Commercial
Event Information
Declared emergency/priority
Diversion
Hydraulic problem
Other operational incident
Detail Information
User Name:
Donaldson, John
Date:
2010-03-02
890 Yonge St, Suite 700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4W 3P4
Further Action Required:
No
O.P.I.:
Commercial & Business Aviation
Narrative:
The Porter Airlines Inc. de Havilland DHC-8-402 aircraft (operating as flight POE125) had departed on a scheduled IFR flight from Toronto (Billy Bishop) Toronto City Airport (CYTZ) to Newark (Liberty) International Airport, NJ (U.S.A.) (KEWR). The aircraft was en-route when the flight crew declared an emergency due to hydraulic problems. The aircraft diverted to Toronto (LBPIA) (CYYZ) where it landed on runway 33L at 1627Z without incident. ARFF services responded for the landing. Ops. impact -- unknown.
User Name:
Donaldson, John
Date:
2010-03-10
O.P.I.:
Commercial & Business Aviation
Narrative:
UPDATE Supplemental information received from T.S.B. Daily Notification [#A10O0036]: The Porter Airlines Inc. Bombardier DHC-8-402 aircraft (C-GLQC, operating as flight POE125) was climbing through 7,000 feet ASL when the flight crew was approached by the cabin Flight Attendant who reported a strange sound in the cabin. The Flight Attendant identified the sound as a motor that was constantly operating. The flight crew assumed it was the Power Transfer Unit (PTU) and continued with the flight. Shortly thereafter, the #2 hydraulic pressure dropped down to 25% of its normal operating value. The flight crew contacted company maintenance and asked for assistance in the evaluation of the fault. Maintenance staff suggested that the aircraft return to the airport. The flight crew were returning the aircraft to the airport and configured the aircraft for landing by lowering the landing gear. The flight crew received a down and locked indication but also noticed that the #2 hydraulic fluid quantity was indicating 0%. A review of the QRH procedures for a #2 hydraulic system failure indicated that a 1.85 Landing Distance Factor was to be added to the landing distance required. Based on this information, the aircraft was diverted to Toronto (Lester B. Pearson) International Airport and an emergency was declared. The aircraft performed an uneventful landing on runway 33R with ARFF standing by. Due to the lack of the #2 hydraulics, the flight crew steered the aircraft by using differential brake pressure and engine power. Maintenance staff determined that the Power Transfer Unit (PTU) was draining fluid from the PTU drive drain and depleting fluid in the #2 hydraulic system. Maintenance staff replaced the PTU and performed the functional tests as per the AMM. They also replaced the filters and flushed the system. A successful flight test was conducted and the aircraft was returned to service. No further hydraulic faults have been reported.
Comments