United Express off the runway - CYOW Ottawa

P

Prodrive555

Well-Known Member
http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100616/OTT_Plane_100616/20100616/?hub=OttawaHome

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2010/06/16/ott-plan-off-runway.html

A pilot and co-pilot were injured when a United Express airplane arriving from Washington slid off the runway at the Ottawa International Airport this afternoon.
Ottawa paramedics say the 48-year-old male pilot suffered minor neck injuries. His co-pilot, a 31-year-old male, was treated for a leg injury, said spokesperson J.P. Trottier.
The plane overshot the runway by about 200 metres, coming to a stop about 100 feet from the fence enclosing the airport, said Trottier.
About 30 passengers were onboard when flight 8050 slid off the runway. None of them were injured. However, two passengers were assessed for minor complaints.
Trottier said there was extensive damage to the nose of the airplane and the belly of the plane was on the ground.
Crews were called to the scene at about 2:45 p.m. Wednesday. A bus has since taken the passengers from the scene to the terminal.
The Ottawa International Airport Authority will brief the media at 4 p.m.
Click to expand...
 
600_ott_United_Express_airplane_100616.jpg
 
Some of those Non-Grooved canadian runways can be slick as canadian geese turds. Wonder if this was a 145 with no reversers also.
 
This particular one did NOT have reversers, like most of our fleet. In an effort to save weight/money etc, the company ordered a lot from the factory with no TRs. CA and FO are in the hospital, and our go team is enroute. I guess the nose gear is gone and everyone is saying it was hydroplaning. At that particular spot on YOWs runway, I seem to remember a lot of ponding of water...
 
JumpWake said:
This particular one did NOT have reversers, like most of our fleet. In an effort to save weight/money etc, the company ordered a lot from the factory with no TRs. CA and FO are in the hospital, and our go team is enroute. I guess the nose gear is gone and everyone is saying it was hydroplaning. At that particular spot on YOWs runway, I seem to remember a lot of ponding of water...
Click to expand...

The ones CHQ had came from some Europe Defunct companies. They also did not have TRs due to weight cost per landing in Europe...THe 145s also had the brake assembly of a 135 on these models...Im assumiung this was 7-25 in YOW...A long landing, nothing worth a crap to stop with, standing water...yeah it could happen.
 
Kingairer said:
The ones CHQ had came from some Europe Defunct companies. They also did not have TRs due to weight cost per landing in Europe...THe 145s also had the brake assembly of a 135 on these models...Im assumiung this was 7-25 in YOW...A long landing, nothing worth a crap to stop with, standing water...yeah it could happen.
Click to expand...

In Brazil, I met a pilot of one of the European carriers, an English one if I remember correctly.

We were talking about the no-reverse models, and he said the same thing about weight savings. Then he said they had to add the weight anyway for ballast CG.
 
As said on the other site, you can thank good old Uncle Hulas for the lack of TR's. I was cracking up when I saw that. Even though I'm not an airline pilot, I know of his schemes and feel bad for all you TSA guys. Cheapskate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top