PVD closed: Aircraft slid off runway

[zasca]

Well in Sioux City they dropped the wing into a corn field and was rolling/yawing out of control.

 

[Crossky]

Considering that the NTSB nor AWAC has said anything, I find it hard to believe any numbers and/or stories that anyone comes up with...Except for my one friend that is a senior check airman at mainline...

I think the following counts as the NTSB saying something, don't you? Or are you referring to other speculation and rumors?

NTSB Identification: DCA08FA018
Scheduled 14 CFR Part 121: Air Carrier operation of AIR WISCONSIN AIRLINES CORPORATION
Accident occurred Sunday, December 16, 2007 in Providence, RI
Aircraft: Bombardier CL600-2B19, registration: N470ZW
Injuries: 34 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On December 16, 2007, at 1648 eastern standard time, a Bombardier CRJ-200 (CL600-2B19), registration N470ZW, operated by Air Wisconsin as flight 758A, departed the runway after a hard landing at the Theodore Francis Greene State Airport, Providence, RI. The flight was a regularly scheduled passenger flight which departed Philadelphia at 1600 EST. The 3 crew members and 31 passengers were not injured, and exited the airplane via the normal airstair door. Initial information indicates that the airplane touched down hard at approximately 1000-1200 feet from the threshold of runway 5. The airplane porpoised after touchdown and exited the left side of the runway. Fiberglass parts consistent with the main gear door were found nearby broken runway edge lights about 2500 feet from the threshold. At approximately 3000 feet from the threshold the left main gear entered the snow and grass area, and by 3200 feet, both main gear had exited the runway. The airplane came to a stop on a magnetic heading of approximately 320 degrees at about 3700 feet from the threshold. Runway 5 is 7,166 feet long by 150 feet wide, and is a CAT II instrument runway.

The left main gear collapsed, the drag brace or trunnion was seen fractured, and the wheel punctured the flap and left upper wing skin. Wing tip damage was also observed. There was no fuel spill.

Weather conditions were reported as wind 050 at 3 knots, overcast 300 feet, visibility 1 ½ miles in light rain and mist, temperature 3, dewpoint 2, barometric pressure 29.87 and pressure falling rapidly. Approximately 4 minutes prior to the accident, an arriving B737 reported braking action good. The runway condition was reported as wet at the time of the event.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Ouch. Off an ILS? You've gotta work at getting that result. Oh well, that's what management wants. Cheap labor that flies like it, with an accident every now and again. It's cheaper in the long run!!!

 

[1973Arrow]

I think the following counts as the NTSB saying something, don't you? Or are you referring to other speculation and rumors?

NTSB Identification: DCA08FA018

Thats all preliminiary data. And it doesn't say anything towards the cause of the accident. To sum up what it said, an airplane slid off the side of the runway. It doesn't give a single reason why.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

They broke the left main landing gear. They slid off the left side of the runway. Are you dumb or just a regional pilot.

 

[PBRstreetgang]

Hard landing, "porpoised after touchdown and exited the left side of the runway"
Those are some SWEET PILOT SKILLS! Bet they are good with numchuks, and/or bowstaff too.
PBR

 

[BoilerUP]

I'm sure glad Skywest has never run an airplane off a runway. Or Pinnacle. Or Mesa. Or Eagle. Or RAH. Or Expressjet. Or Southwest. I'm glad to report ASA pilots seem to have a clean landing record according to the NTSB, but probably because they're all still waiting for a gate in ATL.

Sure glad Comair pilots always take off on the right runway.

And Northwest pilots always use flaps for takeoff.

And FedEx pilots always actually land on the runway.

And American pilots always avoid terrain while on approach.

Sh!t happens to everybody folks; bad weather and low-experience pilots at the regionals only exacerbate the situation. What we do is risky and mistakes are sometimes made, which is all the more reason to do your job with a SAFETY FIRST attitude. Be careful out there folks...

 

[MusicMan]

The scary thing is, these 300 hr FOs have to become Captain at some point.

So thats fine, don't let them fly. Then you'll have a Captain whos never shot an approach down to minimums.

Hmmmm.....

As I said, discretion will be required. No, I don't think a 300 hr newhire f/o's first approach needs to be down to minimums on an icy runway. There is a learning curve. The new guys are typically great until they turn the autopilot off at 300 ft and then it's a wild ride down. That's in VMC. Once they learn to handle that, then they can step up to flying approaches in the clag. They can learn to fly the aircraft and then handle the inclement conditions next. They will have plenty of different experiences once they upgrade. No need to hog a leg from an f/o with 2000 hrs in type just because he's and f/o. Clearly discretion is required though.

 

[FastJP4]

Sucks for the crew. But as the wx shows - fairly benign conditions. That said, IF it was a low time FO - this is probably not an approach he should be shooting. Like with everything else, you have to work your way down with practice and experience. Most importantly to me as a CA is IF it was an unstable approach, the CA should have taken the controls and bugged out to shoot another one. Bad approach leads to bad results, go missed so the FO can learn from the experience and the a/c remains airworthy for its next leg.

 

[WSurf]

Note: Remember Captains that these 300hr guys are flying under YOUR CERTIFICATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Note: Remember Captains that these 300hr guys are flying under YOUR CERTIFICATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What he said!

The cockpit isn't a democracy. It is all well and good for an FO to learn how to handle dicey conditions, but never be afraid to let them just watch. I personally feel no temptation to let things get even remotely scary for the sake of training. Captain's authority has been eroded enough without us feeling we are obligated to allow the FO's to fly in conditions they may or may not be prepared for.

NOT THAT I AM SAYING THIS HAPPEND HERE! I am speaking only generally. None of us were in the cockpit of that CRJ that night, and I don't have the faintest idea what really occurred. I am just happy everyone got away unscathed. Good luck to the crew invovled and I hope they keep thier heads up... This can happen to anyone, so be careful!

 

[WSurf]

Sucks for the crew. But as the wx shows - fairly benign conditions. That said, IF it was a low time FO - this is probably not an approach he should be shooting. Like with everything else, you have to work your way down with practice and experience. Most importantly to me as a CA is IF it was an unstable approach, the CA should have taken the controls and bugged out to shoot another one. Bad approach leads to bad results, go missed so the FO can learn from the experience and the a/c remains airworthy for its next leg.

Hell, just hit App Mode on the Autopilot and let that bably fly the ILS to 200ft. You can then jocky the power and act like your doing something. It would be so much more easier for you new guys.

 

[LearLove]

my following comment is not refering to the awac incident on this thread per say:

I see many of you guys commenting on not letting low time guy shoot the approach to min or when the wx is down. in my exp from the left seat I havent had a problem with this but the opposite - not that I'm perfect but I can't seem to get an FO that can shoot a decient VISUAL approach (curving base to final or some fashion there-of). Sometimes it is downright scary. These guys that can't shut off the AP/FD/AT and fly a visual need to rent a 150 or 172 and do some laps around the local field.

Like i said, no ref to AWAC and I don't want to sound like Mr. sky-king prefecto CA, but just what I've seen from the left seat as of late. Inst stuff=great, visual stuff=need improvement. and now that I said that all my vis apps for the next month will blow.

 

[BoilerUP]

LearLove, I think what you mentioned is true of most folks that haven't been flying professionally, not just low-timers.

Instrument procedures are repetitively drilled during all levels of training, especially at 121 carriers. I think this is partially because even the best simulator visual can't accurately reproduce the nuances of a true visual approach, especially a complicated one like the Expressway Visual at LGA or the River Visual at DCA. Because of this, many don't know the limitations of the airplane (or themselves) during a slam-dunk or simple things like the 3:1 rule for visual descents.

Even with previous turbine experience I freely admit in my first couple hundred hours in the CRJ I was hesitant to turn off the FD and "fly the damn airplane" on a visual approach, but after I got through that brief learning curve I preferred to turn everything off away from the airport. Not because I have hands of gold (a few AWACers are nodding their heads in agreement with that statement) but because I knew "doing some of that pilot sh!t" would keep my skills from atrophying any further.

Captains, please encourage your FOs (even those low-time ones) to hand-fly the farking airplane on decent weather days, and even *gasp* hand-fly a raw data approach when the wx isn't too low. Give them feedback and advice on maneuvering in the pattern on a visual approach if you can tell they need it. To a few it may be annoying, but IMO you'll be doing 99% of them a favor in the long run.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Have you guys flown with the FO who tries to fly a visual with the autopilot? That's one hell of a mess. Then the AP comes out and it's all downhill from there. No idea how to get the airplane on the ground without triggering the GPWS and becoming unstable (sometimes wildly).

So, there you are, oscillating up and down toward the runway. Can you just imagine what will happen now:

1. You call for a go-around. Chances are if they can't handle the airplane on an approach, the go-around is going to be a huge disaster.

2. You take the controls and go around yourself. Don't expect any callouts, thrust setting, FCP changes, gear or flap operation. Just expect a stunned lump of meat already fuming from their ego being crushed.

Nice options, eh?

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Have you guys flown with the FO who tries to fly a visual with the autopilot? That's one hell of a mess. Then the AP comes out and it's all downhill from there. No idea how to get the airplane on the ground without triggering the GPWS and becoming unstable (sometimes wildly).

So, there you are, oscillating up and down toward the runway. Can you just imagine what will happen now:

1. You call for a go-around. Chances are if they can't handle the airplane on an approach, the go-around is going to be a huge disaster.

2. You take the controls and go around yourself. Don't expect any callouts, thrust setting, FCP changes, gear or flap operation. Just expect a stunned lump of meat already fuming from their ego being crushed.

Nice options, eh?

Been there! Even in the Dash, I have seen many-a-new guy try to do visuals on the autopilot. Not a good idea. Thier brains just don't work fast enough yet to figure out the right rates of decent and so forth.

The Expressway at LGA and the River Visual in DC examples given by BoilerUp are spot on. With the new guys I try to show them two things:

1. You gotta plan it... REALLY PLAN IT... Before you fly it (i.e. I want to be at X altitude at Y point configured at Z speed etc.).

2. You can fly looking outside! It is amazing, but true! Sure, use the flight instruments to verify the aircraft's performance (especially at night!) but get your head up and out of the airplane. Make the airplane fly the track through the sky that you planned to begin with.

Oakum mentioned that some of this might be hard on the new guy's ego. That's ok. I remember my first airline job, and the knocks I recieved there have served me very well (and I needed them, too). Better hurt the ego now than inhibit the ability to stay alive later.

 

[FastJP4]

The 3-1 rule and that fancy gadget called a VSI work wonders when utilized.

 

[Kaman]

Funny that you mentioned it, but I just rode in the jumpseat of an airplane into PVD and the F/O used the AP for a visual approach! Hey, could be their SOP to use it to a certain altitude/distance. I don't know for sure, but it seems like more trouble than it's worth.
As for the weather...You have got to be kidding me if anyone thinks thats anything but typical for PVD this time of the year! 300/1 is freaking VFR for a 121/35 operation or at least it shouldn't be a big problem. I won't even comment on what happened until the NTSB report is out.
Best way to learn how to do a visual approach is to leave the AP off in good weather and learn to hand-fly! Simple enough if you fly the 1900 anyway.

Regards,

ex-Navy Rotorhead

 

[AWACoff]

I have flown a few go arounds in my time at AWAC that were single pilot due to a lump of meat in the right seat. It's not a big deal to do a single pilot go around. What is a big deal is talking about the situation over a few cold ones on the overnight when everything has calmed down. We ALL messed up when we were new. Instead of Great Lakes, Colgan, etc... AWAC (and other jet regionals) is now the first gig for a lot of low time newhires. Show them the ropes. Most will come around eventually.

 

[Kaman]

Hello,
Very good points raised by LowlyPropCapt! It is very important to the overall skill set of any pilot to fly by purely ground reference. Just like when I was an instructor, it is the same with these newly minted, low-time F/Os. Often they fixate on particular instruments and don't look outside AT ALL! I have tried to teach the principles of relative motion, descent/approach planning and visualizing your flightpath. This is especially important on the LGA XWAY 31 visual. The 3-1 rule is also an important concept that really pays big dividends when it is utilized correctly. Another great too is using groundspeed to get a good approximation of what your rate of descent should be to hold the 3:1.
Me? I am NO expert by any means...Just have the experience and have also flown over 3500 hours in helicopters very close to the ground in mountainous terrain on top of my 4000+ of fixed wing time. Unfortunately, many of our neophytes in the right seat aren't given the skill set needed to fly under anything, but a certain set of parameters. Then they are immediatly thrust into the 121 world and there we are today...Relying more on luck than skill...
99% of these folks that are new, and no different than you and I, but they don't have the benefit of instructing, military, 135 single-pilot cargo, etc...that many of you have.
It is my hope that this mishap will lead to a good solid set of lessons learned for all of us.

Regards,

ex-Navy Rotorhead

 

[SkiDawg]

All interesting points mentioned here. In the last few I am hearing a "I am so cool because I am The CAPT" attitude.
Like someone mentioned earlier, this could happen to ANY of us, regardless of seat. I am in the CRJ too, an FO, and I have flown with CAs with thousands of hours in the airplane and can't land on the centerline or on a short runway, or in a crosswind or fly a nice visual. I flew with a CA who set off the GPWS on a visual and it was "clear and a million!" Its about ability, or lack thereof. And just because you are a CA doesn't make you God's gift!
I do agree that CAs need to be heads up and exercise authority when necessary, hell, that's the job description! But leg hoggin won't help. How else does one gain experience, except by doing it! And if these newbies with 300 hrs got through the training program, than that should say something! They do need line experience and time in the airplane, but more than likely they have some ability. Face it guys, its a different cycle, and guys/gals are getting hired without the 2500+/1000 PIC turbine you got hired with. DEAL WITH IT!

 

[rtmcfi]

And if these newbies with 300 hrs got through the training program, than that should say something! Face it guys, its a different cycle, and guys/gals are getting hired without the 2500+/1000 PIC turbine you got hired with. DEAL WITH IT!

Yes, they got through training. Because airlines are desperate for fresh suckers. Standards are relaxed. Pilots are trained to pass a test, nothing more. Captains now get to deal with babysitting as well as flying.

 

[BoilerUP]

Standards are relaxed.

If your company is relaxing their standards at the same time as lowering their minimums, YOU need to be making noise to your training department.

Lower minimums are one thing; lower standards are completely another.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

You can make all the noise you want. What the company will turn around and say is-

"So, Captain Obvious, we've heard you don't feel safe flying with some of our FO's. We've decided to give you a couple line checks and simulator checks to see if you're the problem. After all, our quality FO's meet minimum FAA and company standards, so it must be you who is the problem. Thanks for bringing it to our attention."

 

[BoilerUP]

You can make all the noise you want. What the company will turn around and say is-

"So, Captain Obvious, we've heard you don't feel safe flying with some of our FO's. We've decided to give you a couple line checks and simulator checks to see if you're the problem. After all, our quality FO's meet minimum FAA and company standards, so it must be you who is the problem. Thanks for bringing it to our attention."

Ehhhhhhhhhh I don't really think so...especially if those "minimum company standards" have recently become flexible to get warm bodies through training.

Maybe at some places you'll get attitude from management, but I bet most Training/Standards folks (even those in management) know the score...

 

[Crossky]

I do agree that CAs need to be heads up and exercise authority when necessary, hell, that's the job description! But leg hoggin won't help. How else does one gain experience, except by doing it! And if these newbies with 300 hrs got through the training program, than that should say something! They do need line experience and time in the airplane, but more than likely they have some ability. Face it guys, its a different cycle, and guys/gals are getting hired without the 2500+/1000 PIC turbine you got hired with. DEAL WITH IT!

I AM cool because I'm the CAPT! Although it's +1F in Iowa here, that might have something to do with it too. ;o

(Co. pilots will be peeved with me but I'm calling a spade a spade. At least I'm going to leave out the details.) It seems the accident crew had problems with a stabilized approach and adhering to SOP's. This is from reading between the lines from our recent internal memos. Unfortunately, due to what the company is putting on us now, the CAPT might have to 'hog legs' in the future.

I was looking at some accident reports, in the 90's after Airtran had a couple accidents they limited their FO's to 300 OVC and 3/4 mi vis approach minimums. I wouldn't be surprised if similar restrictions were put on us.

Pilots at the 300-700 hour level can pass the training, but they don't have the experience needed to make them a lower risk than high timers, period. The failure rate for newbies with less than 1000 hours is higher also. That's the facts, SkiDawg.

We ARE dealing with it. Sit on your hands now. Stop reading that Maxim magazine in front of the passengers.

 

[WSurf]

We still have a high wash out rate at PDT with these lower time folks. Problem with these guys is it just takes more time to get it.

Nice day, VFR with low work load they are fine. The problem is when the work load increases there capacity to handle things decreases. And then you become a single pilot. Its just the process of learning.

For me its all about attitude also. I flew with a guy that told me, "Listen, I got 350 hours and I suck" if you can give me any pointers on this trip then thanks". It was a pleasure to fly and show him stuff.

Then you got the 300hr. Chuck Yeager that knows everything about aviation. These are the guys that will screw up your ticket. Watch them and look out for key works like. 1. Yea, Okay... I got it (which means I am high as hell and look out) 2. yea, yea I know (which means I was about to screw up before you caught me) 3. Well, Actually (when they are trying to give you some screwed up 300hr. knowlege about aviation)
Sometimes these butt holes are so into themselves that you have to let things go so they screw up. If you tell them too early, you get the "I know, I know"
Eventually these guys step on there own dicks.

Attitude goes a long way!!!

 

[TOOL CRIB]

If someone passed the training and checkride that means they did only the required maneuvers correctly that one time (and once or twice in the training that leads up to it). That doesn't mean they will do ALL maneuvers correctly 100% of the time once they are released to the line. That applies to all pilots, but yes definitely low-timers.

 

[MusicMan]

Along those same lines, there are stories about newhires who crash on 50% of their V1 cuts throughout training and then they get the last few and pass their rides. Should never happen if you have a multi-engine ticket and you are a competent, experienced multi-engine pilot.

 

[Oakum_Boy]

Maybe at some places you'll get attitude from management, but I bet most Training/Standards folks (even those in management) know the score...

Only if they haven't stolen a play from the Swiss playbook:

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=161&sid=5936602&cKey=1121156982000