Air Transat YOW

[complexintentions]

At the time they departed Brussels, they did not foresee having to divert. (That's what the "un" in front of "foreseeable" means). The diversion necessitated extending their duty day to complete the flight to destination. Which they did. Which was legal. No interpretation required, just a boringly normal use of the reg.

Hope that's simple enough for you. I tried to keep it concise.

[justwork]

16 hour duty day?...when in the 6 hours did it become unforeseen? Interesting interpretation of that rule...

They didn't foresee breaking their 14 hour duty day when they took off 15.5 hours into their duty day.

That's not how it works.

[digits_]

Oh, and blow a slide without authorization on my plane simply because you're miffed and hangry and I'll do everything in my power to make make sure you not only never fly on the airline, but get charged with criminal misconduct. The potential for injury on any slide evac is high, it's not a freakin' bouncy castle intended for people to get off the plane because they're hot and bored. If someone thinks it's worth breaking some little old lady's ankle because they're frustrated I will make sure they answer for it.

How about you don't keep your passengers on board for 6 hours for no reason in an airplane that you ran out of fuel. What's next, wait untill everybody is sitting in the dark at night? How long should they wait before revolting? 6 hours? 12 ? 24? You'll get the respect from your passengers that you deserve.

By the time someone pulls the slide in such a case, there is absolutely nothing you can do anymore. You've lost all authority, and frankly, rightfully so. The company can try to recover the costs and sue the passenger, and by that time I hope all the other passengers chip in and get a great lawyer for the chute pulling guy/gal.

There is no reason to justify holding people against their will on a non-functioning airplane for 6 hours. None. Their are always alternatives.

[MyWave]

It's how Transat rolls...
First, it was "The Mexican Game", now "The Ottawa Game".

They are 0 for 2 at this point, and winter is coming...

[Jean-Pierre]

16 hour duty day?...when in the 6 hours did it become unforeseen? Interesting interpretation of that rule...

They didn't foresee breaking their 14 hour duty day when they took off 15.5 hours into their duty day.

That's not how it works.

How does it work then? I really didn't think you could depart on a new flight if you had already gone over your 14 hour. Maybe you could argue it if you were on glacier in antarctica and if you don't go today you aren't going for 6 month. But they are in Ottawa. Just park it and let them get a new crew while the passenger are in the hotel.

[ant_321]

They didn't foresee breaking their 14 hour duty day when they took off 15.5 hours into their duty day.

That's not how it works.

How does it work then? I really didn't think you could depart on a new flight if you had already gone over your 14 hour. Maybe you could argue it if you were on glacier in antarctica and if you don't go today you aren't going for 6 month. But they are in Ottawa. Just park it and let them get a new crew while the passenger are in the hotel.

The "unforseen" rules are very vague. Airplanes take off everyday after already passing the 14 hour mark and TC doesn't seem too concerned. I worked at a place where it happened a fair bit. Show up in the morning, have a wx delay, leave for the first leg knowing 8 legs later you would blow 14 hrs. Take off on the last leg 14.5 hrs in to your day and land 15 hrs+ into your day. I personally didn't do it. I spent a few nights in a hotel a 20 min flight away from home but many guys would do it routinely.

[goingnowherefast]

Here part of the TC interpretation. Relates to flight time, not duty time, but it's still unforeseen operational circumstances

Unforeseen operational circumstances (UOC) may be used to allow a pilot to complete a “block” or “cycle” with an extension to the flight time limitations for either the seven, 30 or 90 day periods. For example, a pilot on a 7-day block accumulates 3 additional flight hours during the first 6 days due to UOC. The pilot may still fly a trip on day 7 which takes him/her to a maximum of 43 hours in 7 days. In all cases, the maximum extension allowed is three consecutive hours.

Taken from the TC website:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/ ... tm#s740.17

This is a pretty clear definition, taken from the same guidance material:

UOC relates solely to operational circumstances, which result in delays to a planned schedule. In other words, these circumstances must be crew, weather, aircraft mechanical, ATC or emergency related and must directly affect the operation of the aircraft. Delaying the departure of a flight to wait for a delayed passenger may have an operational effect on the schedule, but it is not an UOC.

Just because its legal, doesn't make it smart. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "nope, get me a hotel room". Had I been stuck in a hot, stinky, stressful cockpit for 6 hours while waiting to fly through some crap weather to my intended destination, I'd have likely said no.

[rookiepilot]

https://www.google.be/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4230048

Let's try this again. Ottawa airport disputes Air Transats account. Interesting as every other diverted plane quickly serviced and departed. No AC either sounds pleasant.

Yes, it definitely merits calling 911 and having paramedics attend. Please refer to my avatar. Perhaps they should ask Air Transat to provide grief counsellors and post-traumatic treatment?

make me think some people need to spend a little more time outside their First World comfort zone to appreciate what true suffering is. n't deny this was an unpleasant situation. I am highly confident the most vulnerable (elderly, children) were prioritized.

Oh, and blow a slide without authorization on my plane simply because you're miffed and hangry and I'll do everything in my power to make make sure you not only never fly on the airline, but get charged with criminal misconduct. The potential for injury on any slide evac is high, it's not a freakin' bouncy castle intended for people to get off the plane because they're hot and bored. If someone thinks it's worth breaking some little old lady's ankle because they're frustrated I will make sure they answer for it.

Read the news carefully. AT was not providing water, to kids or anyone else. Calling 911 after being on plane with no airflow for hours and no water, and likely no reassurance from the airline, isn't that crazy. Sorry you disagree. Try to see it from a parents view with a puking small child. And personally, as a captain you should never, ever let things go that far. Do your job which includes taking care of pax, or yes people will call 911.

To your last point: I don't agree with ever pulling a slide and causing panic. But to counter your last comment, what if someone died on that plane due to heatstroke or dehydration? Should the captain be charged if he/she stood by for many hours and did nothing to ensure health of the pax?

So there you go.

[Old fella]

https://www.google.be/amp/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4230048

Let's try this again. Ottawa airport disputes Air Transats account. Interesting as every other diverted plane quickly serviced and departed. No AC either sounds pleasant.

Yes, it definitely merits calling 911 and having paramedics attend. Please refer to my avatar. Perhaps they should ask Air Transat to provide grief counsellors and post-traumatic treatment?

make me think some people need to spend a little more time outside their First World comfort zone to appreciate what true suffering is. n't deny this was an unpleasant situation. I am highly confident the most vulnerable (elderly, children) were prioritized.

Oh, and blow a slide without authorization on my plane simply because you're miffed and hangry and I'll do everything in my power to make make sure you not only never fly on the airline, but get charged with criminal misconduct. The potential for injury on any slide evac is high, it's not a freakin' bouncy castle intended for people to get off the plane because they're hot and bored. If someone thinks it's worth breaking some little old lady's ankle because they're frustrated I will make sure they answer for it.

Read the news carefully. AT was not providing water, to kids or anyone else. Calling 911 after being on plane with no airflow for hours and no water, and likely no reassurance from the airline, isn't that crazy. Sorry you disagree. Try to see it from a parents view with a puking small child. And personally, as a captain you should never, ever let things go that far. Do your job which includes taking care of pax, or yes people will call 911.

To your last point: I don't agree with ever pulling a slide and causing panic. But to counter your last comment, what if someone died on that plane due to heatstroke or dehydration? Should the captain be charged if he/she stood by for many hours and did nothing to ensure health of the pax?

So there you go.

Maybe AT's legal department has taken a keen interest in dispensing some good advice to the top MGT as per your last paragraph.

[av8ts]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/otta ... -1.4234647

Canadian Transportation Agency is now investigating. As per their tariff, which I believe applies to all Canadian airlines, Transat passengers must be given the option to get of the aircraft after 90 minutes

[FICU]

Hard to believe this continues to happen with the amount of pax mistreatment we have seen in the media over the past several months. You would think airlines would be more vigilant in ensuring they don't have their name smeared in the media with incidents like this.

[The Hammer]

Here's what is coming in the new regulations regarding UOC: (It's in Gazette 1 already)
Seems pretty clear from the regulator. (see bold text)

If it happens once the duty period has begun it's unforeseen. If it happened prior to the duty period starting it's not unforeseen and the Operator has to comply with CAR 700.52 Delayed Reporting Time.
Don't shoot the messenger but at least it's a little clearer than the existing regulation CAR 700.17.

Unforeseen Operational Circumstances — Flight Duty
Period and Rest Period

700.63 (1) If the pilot-in-command is of the opinion
that an unforeseen operational circumstance that occurs
after the beginning of the flight duty period could lead to a
level of fatigue that may adversely affect the safety of the
flight, the pilot-in-command may, after consulting with all
crew members on their level of fatigue,

(a) reduce a flight crew member’s flight duty period;

(b) extend a flight crew member’s flight duty period by
the following number of hours in excess of the maximum
flight duty period set out in section 700.28 by

(i) one hour for a single-pilot operation,

(ii) two hours, if the flight crew is not augmented,

(iii) three hours, if the flight crew is augmented and
the scheduled flight duty period consists of one
flight, and

(iv) two hours, if the flight crew is augmented and
the scheduled flight duty period consists of two or
three flights; or

(c) extend a flight crew member’s rest period.

(2) If a further unforeseen operational circumstance
arises after take-off on the final flight for which the maximum
flight duty period was extended under subsection
(1), the pilot-in-command may, despite that subsection,
continue the flight to the destination aerodrome or to
an alternate aerodrome.

(3) An air operator shall extend the rest period after a
flight duty period is extended under this section by an
amount of time that is at least equal to the extension of the
flight duty period.

(4) At the end of a flight duty period, the pilot-incommand
shall notify the air operator of any change to a
flight duty period made under this section.

[co-joe]

The only thing that bugs me is how poorly airlines seem to handle accepting responsibility.

The airline said it was "sincerely sorry for the inconvenience" and that the situation was "beyond our control."

Nothing here sounds like we messed up and we will take steps to be better in the future. AT is not alone in this. It seems to me that WJ took no responsibility for pilot M, or for the low/late go around in the Caribbean, AC takes no responsibility for the lateral error in SFO, or Halifax for that matter, Sunwing takes no responsibility for one drunk pilot. Where's the integrity in the industry these days?

[duro195]

I'm not suggesting in any way crews should be expected to know the airline's Tariff because I wouldn't want to memorize it myself and I think there's already a lot to go through as a crew member, but it seems the captain had the authority to allow deplaning as per that document. Section 4.3 d) of the international Tariff for Transat states:

"[...]If the delay occurs while onboard, the Carrier will offer drinks and snacks, where it is safe to do so. If the delay exceeds 90 minutes and if the aircraft commander permits, the Carrier will offer passengers the option of disembarking until it is time to depart."

Now, wether or not he was being pressured from someone up above in the food chain to keep everyone on board is another story. I don't think the crew are the only ones to share a part of the blame.

[FICU]

Just pretend your Grandma or a TC inspector is in the back every flight and you'll make the right choices.

[navajo_jay]

http://www.985fm.ca/actualites/nouvelle ... 48818.html


click on Play and you'll hear most of conversation with YOW ground...it starts at 3:30 in the audio.

[Donald]

Who is Air Transat's ground service handler in Ottawa?

[FICU]

http://www.985fm.ca/actualites/nouvelle ... 48818.html


click on Play and you'll hear most of conversation with YOW ground...it starts at 3:30 in the audio.

In French FYI

[complexintentions]

Read the news carefully. AT was not providing water, to kids or anyone else. Calling 911 after being on plane with no airflow for hours and no water, and likely no reassurance from the airline, isn't that crazy. Sorry you disagree. Try to see it from a parents view with a puking small child. And personally, as a captain you should never, ever let things go that far. Do your job which includes taking care of pax, or yes people will call 911.

To your last point: I don't agree with ever pulling a slide and causing panic. But to counter your last comment, what if someone died on that plane due to heatstroke or dehydration? Should the captain be charged if he/she stood by for many hours and did nothing to ensure health of the pax?

So there you go.

Uh, no. Calling 911 IS crazy. Unless the puking child is actually in critical need of more than sleep and hydration, you are not in an emergency situation. Discomfort - even extreme - is not the same as being near death. There IS a difference, no matter how special a parent may feel "their" child is. Sorry.

I did read the news carefully. I had to pick through a lot of tweeted bitching, but as I said I'm under no illusion that it was a fun situation. But I must have missed the part about the passengers who were close to dying - oh wait, that just more inflated rhetoric to try and make your argument sound valid. Of course if things were that dire then your comments would be valid, and no doubt then ALL efforts would be made to assist the person in need. Except, there was nothing to indicate it was anywhere near THAT critical. Also according to that report, they had opened doors, so there must have been some airflow, if not cool. It was a hot, sticky, hungry situation. Not a Somalian refugee camp. Thanks for the lecture on what I should do as a captain, all this time I had no idea.

Unfortunately you also make all kinds of unfounded assumptions such as "likely no reassurance from the airline" (based on what? ESP? Pretty much all they HAD to offer was reassurance). And to suggest that the captain did, or would have "stood by for many hours and did nothing to ensure health of the pax" only indicates you have ZERO knowledge of which you speak. I have never - ever - met any PIC who didn't take it highly personally when their pax were legitimately inconvenienced, uncomfortable, miserable, whatever - and wouldn't do absolutely everything in his/her power to correct it. Do you think the captain was hoarding bottles of water in his/her flight bag or something? Do you think a crew is pleased because a child is vomiting? Honestly I think a lot of people really believe that pilots and flight attendants take pleasure from the misery of their passengers. Nothing could be further from the truth. That crew would have been stressed to the max, caught in the middle between the resources they were denied and the passengers who ONLY care about No. 1 and are never shy about expressing their impatience and displeasure. There's no way the captain would be held liable, they would simply demonstrate they had been doing everything possible to make things work, and it wouldn't be hard to prove. The company? Possibly a different story.

Tell us, exactly, what you feel the captain should have or could have done? Specifics, not "do your job" bullshit. There are things we can control, and things we cannot. It's fine to say "deplane them", but did they even have the option - access to stairs or a bridge? I mean, they couldn't get fuel, so it seems reasonable to assume other ground resources were insufficient. I have been in exactly the same situation as this many times. I've been on the radio, on the phone, pleading, negotiating, threatening, bribing, you name it to try and get the operation moving forward and my crew and passengers looked after. But guess what - there are things that flight crew can control, and things we cannot. And sometimes there is just not enough to go around, at least in a timely manner. We cannot just walk away from the aircraft and head over to 7-11 to grab you some water, or food, or to punch the guy in the fuelling truck. Tempting as that all might be.

Calling 911 for bottled water or blowing a slide only makes you part of the problem, not the solution.

[rookiepilot]

Complex,

I'll use small words. Maybe that will help.

As a wise man said, "you're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts".

Fact: Water and airstairs were available, but AT chose not to access them. How do I know this? Simply, Ottawa airport authority says so. And they are 100% credible to me. AT is not, in this situation.
How do you think the paramedics accessed the aircraft?

It's hard to discuss this rationally when someone simply doesn't accept factual information, such as airlines occasionally lie, and occasionally put saving money over properly actions. That is factual, too.

And to close, yes as Captain, just do your job. Get the company to authorize whatever needs to be authorized, or do it yourself anyway, if conditions warrant. I don't want to hear your excuses.

Lastly, if I'm on an airplane,, and I assess conditions warrant calling 911, and the crew isn't handling the situation as I assess is warranted, I will darn well call 911. I would say things would have to be pretty darn bad for me to do so. And I've already said I wouldn't pull a slide. Totally different.

But how hot does it get in an aircraft with near 300 people and no AC, for an extended period? Dehydration is a serious business for small children -- which is why drivers who leave children in a locked car can be charged.

Interfere with me on calling emergency services, and we would have words, Captain. I do not need your help or advice in making that decision.

You allow it to get to that point, where multiple people feel compelled to call 911, kids are vomiting from the heat and dehydration, you've lost your authority on that aircraft. Should lose your job.

You act like you were there, and know the conditions on board weren't beyond slightly uncomfortable.

You weren't, Captain. And BTW I've visited slums. Camps. Somehow I doubt you ever have. Bad example.

Trust that's clear and the last word.