[REAL ATC] SkyLease Boeing B747 OVERRUNS THE RUNWAY at Halifax!

, , 100 Comments


 

100 Responses

  1. ziggy 2shus

    November 10, 2018 6:27 am

    Las Vegas ATC becomes incapacitated while on duty. Apparently, she was the sole ATC on duty at the time, about 11:30 pm Nov 8.
    It makes no sense that a high volume international airport such as Las Vegas Int. wouldn't have two controllers on duty at all times.

    Reply
  2. David Stewart

    November 10, 2018 6:31 am

    Some people really don't know how to talk on a radio. They talk too fast, mumble, slur words, run words together, really piss-poor enunciation when emergency situations dictate clear and concise communications be prevalent.

    Reply
  3. TheGr8stManEvr

    November 10, 2018 6:45 am

    There were injuries, but no fatalities. the injuries were described as minor.

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-airport-landing-747-1.4895103

    "The crew of four on board were removed by fire crews and taken to hospital to be treated for minor injuries."

    Reply
  4. Giovanni Betti

    November 10, 2018 7:09 am

    What's wrong with runway 23? Too proud to used it?
    "Better waste one minute of your life than your life in one minute". My 2 cents

    Reply
  5. slimpilgrim1981

    November 10, 2018 8:09 am

    Interesting fact, in June 2006, a skylease 747-200f lost an engine on a take off run in medillin…overran the runway. In August 2018, this aircraft's sister plane, N904AR landed at Hawaii…guess what…overran the runway. Now a few months later, another skylease 747 has also overran the runway. Does Skylease maybe have a 747 pilot with a little too much faith in thrust reverses, and trust issues with autobrakes?

    Reply
  6. DEEREMEYER1

    November 10, 2018 9:11 am

    ] gotta think trying to get a 747F into a 7700-fuckinng-foot runway with that much tail and crosswind and a slick surface is pure fucking stupidity since that 7700 feet in ideal conditions is more like 6500 at the absolute max for that aircraft with even a competent pilot so this confused clown had about as much chance as sticking that landing as he does of ever flying a 747 again unless he finds an even more clueless collection of clowns at another "airline" to let him take one for a spin. "Consider" the fact that the plane didn't didn't "overrun the runway". The loose nut behind the wheel fucking ran out of runway and not by just a "little bit". And was the fucking gear even down? How in the fuck do you "fold back" every fucking landing gear assembly on a fucking 7474F running off the end of a runway and still end up looking like you belly-flopped it "perfectly"? I know the gear isn't made for "off-roading" but it also doesn't fold back period so if were all DOWN AND LOCKED that plane should be noticeably tore up from the floor up and its almost impossible EVERY GEAR ASSEMBLY "PERFECTLY" FAILED CATASTROPHICALLY SIMULTANEOUSLY AND THAT THING DIDN'T TRY TO "GROUND LOOP" OR OTHERWISE GET WAY OUT OF SHAPE AS THE GEAR ASSEMBLIES "FOLDED BACK" CHAOTICALLY.

    Reply
  7. Federico Perez

    November 10, 2018 11:06 am

    Someone is going to have to explain why a multi million dollars piece of machinery lies wrecked on the junkyard.

    Reply
  8. Martin Zhang

    November 10, 2018 5:07 pm

    Landing a 747-400F on a 7700ft runway with tailwind and wet surface. I think that is amost at if not below the lower limit that the handbook allows

    Reply
  9. Ordigamer

    November 10, 2018 7:52 pm

    There seemed to by some sort of alarm going in the Tower. Do controllers have some sort of emergency button that alerts all airport services and triggers the alarm?

    Reply
  10. Brady Margeson

    November 10, 2018 8:50 pm

    Soooooo Stupid! I went to the airport the same day this happened to check it out and from the wind reported at the time, 250/14G21 or whatever it was, why didn't they just use runway 23? 23 would have been perfect for the 74. In my opinion, completely pilot error, they knew the length of 14 and the wet runway aswell as the winds…. could've easily set up for 23 no problem. What a shame, they put that Queen to rest. LilJ's comment below mine makes sense too now that I think of it

    Reply
  11. Emil Serafino

    November 10, 2018 9:10 pm

    7700ft is More than enough for B744 even with a 5kts tail wind. Given that there was inop lighting and inop ILS on 23, 14 was the best option. Theres always a chain of events that lead to a crash. Could've been a floated landing, autobrake not functioning, and failure to react with manual braking, late deployment of reverse. Could be endless factors that contribute to accidents like this. I will say the crew sound incoherent even before they landed. So who knows. Human factors always play a role as well. We'll have to wait and see for the investigation.

    Reply
  12. JACKIE WANG

    November 10, 2018 9:30 pm

    It’s absolutely better to change the runway. The other runway is on the wind direction and much longer. I my mind a B747 shouldn’t take off or land at a runway less than 3200m. It’s so sorry to see the destroyed airplane. Fortunately no people died.

    Reply
  13. BratSimpson

    November 10, 2018 11:12 pm

    What the hell is up with this crew? Captain seems confused or distracted. Why even put the jumbo down on the short runway?

    Reply
  14. P B

    November 11, 2018 2:21 am

    Are the idiots at ATC listening to the goddamn pilot? I can hear him perfectly clear for this recording. But they're like, repeat, what? Pay attention. I know when an emergency goes over my radio, we're glued to it.

    Reply
  15. Wizbang FL

    November 11, 2018 3:40 am

    The pilot also seemed very uncertain. Not sure if it was aural comprehension, or if he was green, but the confusion seems apparent. It also seems like their emergency crews may hold multiple roles and were taken off guard by the incident.

    Reply
  16. EV

    November 11, 2018 7:09 am

    So these pilots are fucked right? They'll get fired and never fly again. And other airlines don't hire people with major safety incidents right?

    Reply
  17. runningkirk walk

    November 11, 2018 8:44 am

    I was a crewmember on this plane. I am the flight engineer. We screwed up. We had been in colorado for the day. We all were so blazed from the local dispensaries. We thought the runway was longer. It happens

    Reply
  18. juzzlookin

    November 11, 2018 10:14 am

    Jeez,that's the louziess response I've heard on these videos. They all sound pissed, or on something. Even the plot was incoherent. Would hate to trust my life to that lot.

    Reply
  19. SkinnyCow

    November 11, 2018 12:29 pm

    The tower gives the wind speed as 15kts. A little misleading to the crew if the real wind was more like 30kts?

    Reply
  20. Jerguš Lapin ml.

    November 11, 2018 2:21 pm

    RED2 is he "chem-trailed" or was he just sleeping and woken up, or what… ?! Actually, I wanted to know if the bird will ever fly again?! Probably not, or..?! Does the accident have smth to do with the SkyCube 4854 pilot´s indian dialect..?! Was he "tandoree- trained" pilot, or just a co pilot?! 😛

    Reply
  21. Catsby Collins

    November 11, 2018 3:04 pm

    There is no tailwind component as stated (0:53). Given a heading of 140 (Rwy -143) deg: Winds from 260 deg produce both a headwind and crosswind component. Reference the chart at 1:49 – Rwy 23 (230 deg) plus 30 deg (26015G21) and a little trig = winds no big deal.
    Unless there was a mechanical failure of some sort this appears to be a pilot procedure error – touchdown long, incorrect autobrake setting, late thrust reverse application, etc. I think the weather was, if anything, a minor factor.

    Reply
  22. Samuel Carvalho

    November 11, 2018 8:07 pm

    It sounded like the emergency vehicles were on the roll within seconds of them sliding off the end of the runway, from the background of the ATC's first contact with them after they rolled off the end. Do we know if this actually the emergency crew for that incident or just sounds for another issue? Just seems crazy how quick it is!

    Reply
  23. The AvAddict

    November 11, 2018 8:54 pm

    Looking at the closed inboard slats the thrust reversers were deployed and the speedbrakes also. (Speedbrakes are closed in picture because of no hydraulic pressure). My best guess for the cause of the accident would be the aircraft floating for too long because of the gusty wind, and touching down too late. Combined with a wet and relatively short runway there is almost no margin for error.

    Reply
  24. First Last

    November 12, 2018 12:18 am

    Landing on a 2300 metre runway with a very strong crosswind because your main 3200 metre runway has ILS and lighting issues would be a VERY good reason to divert. 800 metres is HUGE in terms of usable runway. Pilots have a saying that runway behind them is useless. It would stand to argue the same for having 800 metre less would it not?

    Hindsight is always 20/20 but the main runway is usually that long for a reason. Crosswind runways tend to be shorter in most airports. YVR for example has a shorter crosswind runway at 2250 metres and I can not remember ever seeing a 747 land on that runway when there was a brutal crosswind for the main runways.

    Reply
  25. Bruh

    November 12, 2018 7:36 am

    any idea if the landing gear was down for landing or if the gear collapsed? i doubt someone in a 747 would forget the landing gear, but you never know.

    Reply
  26. Dixie Normous

    November 12, 2018 12:05 pm

    Sounds like everyone just woke up from a lobster hangover, including the pilots. Why would they proceed with the approach on a shorter runway, crosswind and quartering tailwind in IFR conditions on a wet runway? The control tower even asked (was politely suggesting) the crew if they wanted another runway and they declined. Was totally preventable.

    Reply
  27. wouldnt you like to know

    November 12, 2018 12:19 pm

    Here is a B737 full on landing on grass field. Now granted that the B747 is considerably heavier, but still – are you telling me that a B747 which has already landed and has had 2000+ meters to slow down and thus is presumably going pretty slowly by that point, cant drive around on a little grass with out tearing itself to shreds??? https://youtu.be/4ivH7tLiFLY?t=137

    Reply
  28. Blair Christian

    November 12, 2018 1:08 pm

    One minute and 44 seconds after the crash alarm was activated, ARFF personnel are in bunker gear, out the door and on scene  putting out small fires before the rest of the aircraft is engulfed. I'd say that was a very good response. For those that like to criticize the radio banter; I would say that they probably never ran towards ANY emergency in their lives.

    Reply
  29. Alexis Maldonado

    November 12, 2018 5:39 pm

    Did everyone ran from the fire station to the aircraft?? Like 1800s style with buckets of water and ladders lol

    Reply
  30. 87KIDCROSBY

    November 13, 2018 2:15 pm

    RED2 needs to go join a real fire department for a few years and learn how to react to emergency situations. If this would have been a mass casualty incident, he would have curled up into the fetal position and sobbed.

    Reply
  31. Veev M

    November 13, 2018 4:47 pm

    A lot of stupid comments about the way they were talking. Think about it – 5:00 a.m. at a quiet, isolated airport – yet from when that plane left the runway until the emergency vehicles were rolling was 60 seconds. Any surprise they sound out of breath? I have nothing but accolades for these responders, especially considering that the last 747 freighter accident they witnessed, all on board were killed.

    Reply
  32. Aviation2002

    November 13, 2018 8:59 pm

    Why tf were they landing on runway 14 with a 120° difference in wind when they could’ve used runway 23 which is 1000m longer

    Reply
  33. Mike Crake

    November 13, 2018 11:58 pm

    It's true most sound heavily fatigued and or stoned. If the longer runway was not available, divert. CCC climb, conserve, confess.

    Reply
  34. Bartonovich52

    November 14, 2018 5:07 pm

    It’s “staff 52” not “south 52”.

    “Fuel onboard and any dangerous goods”. Standard considerations and should have been included along with souls onboard when the emergency was declared.

    I know…. Canadian is hard to understand.

    Reply
  35. Ernesto Gino Tome

    November 15, 2018 4:06 am

    If winds from 250, why not give runway 23? Also runway 23 is larger. Please someone explain because I don't unserstand why they were told to land on runway 14…

    Reply
  36. Stephen Parkin

    November 16, 2018 2:48 am

    Contrary to the summary, all 4 crew members were taken to hospital and treated for minor injuries.

    http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/saf-sec-sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?occdtefrom%3d2018-11-05%26occdteto%3d2018-11-11%26srchfldcd%3d1%26txt%3dCyhz%26srchtype%3d1%26rt%3dWS%26hypl%3dy%26cnum%3d2018A1201

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-airport-landing-747-1.4895103

    Also, although Canada went metric decades ago, aviation in Canada uses imperial units for everything, except for the fuel load of the Gimli Glider.

    Reply
  37. vasco silva

    December 2, 2018 3:55 am

    Am i the only on thinking about why a B747 landed on a runway with 2300m??????? They have a bigger one!

    Reply
  38. biobomb2011

    December 6, 2018 6:50 am

    I work for the company (Also the one involved with the 2004 747 crash) that the aircraft was coming to pickup cargo for. From what I heard the the ILS was out of service and the the aircraft wasn't equipped for an RNAV approach. Both CargoJet and FedEx landed on that runway very recently before Skylease, it also downpoured heavily about five minutes before they touched down. This plane in particular got stuck in Chicago for maintenance very frequently so maybe that had something to do with it. Skylease has had an incredibly sketchy past, and the glass door reviews are terrible. The aircraft was carrying 40 tons of fuel when it crashed so the crew is lucky they didn't end up like the last 747 to crash here.

    Reply

Leave a Reply