nm

[RedMileDJ]

nm

[T@T]

By the look at that pic they are lucky there wasn't a fire

[Acey]

This is all alleged by a passenger and things get blown out of proportion after you've just been in a plane crash, but stories are starting to line up and it's looking AC and Halifax Airport better get ready to bend over.

"This is a completely erroneous attempt by Air Canada and The Halifax Airport Authority to put a spin on a plane crash (I know....I was in the thing) and minimize litigation for both parties as not only did Air Canada attempt a landing they never should have, but the Airport Authority was not ready to respond to the crash as we had to "huddle" in a crowd to keep warm 1.5 kilometers from the airport for almost an hour. Apparently they had to bring in buses from Halifax in a snowstorm rather than having transportation on hand and ready to respond to such an incident (which I think would be the law?...or at least the law of common sense). We came in low, clipped a power pole or power line as sparks flew all over the left wing, and then crashed hard into the runway and skidded for an unknown distance. We then evacuated the plane via the emergency chutes and helped all the injured people to cover (Oh did I forget to mention that we had to walk past the dislodged engine and airplane fuel to get to safety?). Eventually after 5 or so minutes a fire truck showed up and we got the most injured into the fire truck and out of the weather and the rest of us huddled together for warmth. After another 45 minutes of standing in the snow and cold (some people with no shoes and in t-shirts only) the bus from Halifax finally arrived up and brought us to the terminal (where there was no power because we took out the power pole upon descent). After that we were basically huddled like cattle into a room to wait for the police to make sure we had all been identified and Air Canada did not even offer to take care of our acommodations for the night or transportation. "

As far as "attempt a landing they never should have" - it looks like weather might have been below minimums for the approach they attempted, and even if it was at minimums, no question it was pure crap and they should have been seriously considering going to their alternate, but I don't know for sure. The controllers and the crew sorta know, but passengers should probably refrain from definitively saying they never should have attempted the approach.

[EldrickOnIce]

There is enough truth to some parts of the story that can be confirmed. Almost an hour to get people shelter is terrible response to what is in fact an emergency situation.
But yeah, 'should they or shouldn't they have landed' is best left for some else to figure out.
Wow...

[RedMileDJ]

nm

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by RedMileDJ

Acey, do you have a link to that quote?

"Bob Cole" in the CBC comments section.

I'd take it with a massive grain of salt until the investigation is done by professionals.

[InSutterWeTrust]

A couple more pics.

[Bigtime]

Link to the Aviation Herald story on this:

http://avherald.com/h?article=483e7337&opt=1

An Air Canada Airbus A320-200, registration C-FTJP performing flight AC-624 (dep Mar 28th) from Toronto,ON to Halifax,NS (Canada) with 133 passengers and 5 crew, was on approach to Halifax's runway 05 at about 00:07L (03:07Z) when the aircraft touched down short of and below the runway threshold, clipped a powerline and approach light about 250 meters short of the runway, climbed the embankment up to the runway level and came to a stop past the threshold of the runway near taxiway B about 300 meters down the runway. The aircraft was evacuated. 23 people received injuries and were taken to a hospital, the aircraft sustained substantial damage (collapsed gear, engine separated, wing damage, horizontal stabilizer damage).

Transportation Safety Board of Canada Flickr page, with pics of the accident:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/tsbcanada/

[RedMileDJ]

nm

[wooohooo]

Jeez. This has been a poor year for flying. Thankfully no on died

Also... Wouldn't the airport have some sort of backup generator?

[Peanut]

Lol @ the 'hard landing' attempted spin. That's a crash landing.

Glad there are no serious injuries.

[sharkov]

Air Canada got extremely there with no casualties

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Lol @ the 'hard landing' attempted spin. That's a crash landing.

Glad there are no serious injuries.

lol agreed. that plane crashed. thankfully no deaths. remarkable

[Acey]

Originally Posted by wooohooo

Jeez. This has been a poor year for flying.

Not really. By this time last year MH370 was already lost (which alone is more than all lives lost so far this year combined). It's highly unlikely that this year will reach 2014's fatality count, which was the worst since 1996 when they had 300+ die in a midair, TWA 800 exploding, and the Ethiopian hijacking.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

lol agreed. that plane crashed. thankfully no deaths. remarkable

The TSB hasn't made their determination yet.

[Acey]

Regardless of what TSB calls it, the plane hit power lines and a significant antenna structure and this accident therefore fits the very definition of the word "crash" given that objects were impacted prior to the runway. The plane has devastating damage, leaked a significantly quantity of fuel, and is no doubt a write off - traits not normally associated with a "hard landing".

[transplant99]

I think the difference between "hard" and "crash" landing is whether or not the aircraft is under control when it makes impact...which in this case it was and therefor is considered a hard landing.

I can't get over those freaking out that there weren't busses standing by to shuttle them at 1 in the morning...i would have been entirely shocked if there were any standing by and ready to roll at that time of day. I understand the passengers would have liked to be scooped up and out of the elements immediately, but it's just not a realistic expectation IMO. It may have taken a few minutes longer than it should have, but if there is no way to transport them right away, setting up tents so they could escape the elements is an acceptable trade off.

Lots of finger pointing going with this that seems really dumb to me.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I can't get over those freaking out that there weren't busses standing by to shuttle them at 1 in the morning...i would have been entirely shocked if there were any standing by and ready to roll at that time of day. I understand the passengers would have liked to be scooped up and out of the elements immediately, but it's just not a realistic expectation IMO. It may have taken a few minutes longer than it should have, but if there is no way to transport them right away, setting up tents so they could escape the elements is an acceptable trade off.

Lots of finger pointing going with this that seems really dumb to me.

Why would time of day matter?

Are their planes landing? If so emergency response should be no where near 1 hour. If no emergency response is available in that weather, divert elsewhere.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Why would time of day matter?

Are their planes landing? If so emergency response should be no where near 1 hour. If no emergency response is available in that weather, divert elsewhere.

Emergency response was 90 seconds. Transportation was an hour. I'm not saying I agree with Transplant, but there is still a difference.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I think the difference between "hard" and "crash" landing is whether or not the aircraft is under control when it makes impact...which in this case it was and therefor is considered a hard landing.

Even that is a grey area. Did they hit shear and momentarily lose control? Because I doubt they intentionally directed the airplane into the power lines. American 1420 was fully under control and nothing more than a hard landing, until they hit the walkway and 11 people died. The aircraft is under control until it's not.