Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako
I'm out. Noise abatement is an unnecessary risk that leads to incidents and accidents, according to the experts. Sorry for the anticlimax boys and girls. Cheers from confusedalot, and cheerfully, I remain confused,...alot.Cat Driver wrote:This is gripping drama and I can't wait for tomorrow to see how this evolves.
What did we do for entertainment before we had the internet?
See ya all tomorrow.
The NTSB final report will settle it.pelmet wrote:I guess that twitter post shows the level of arguments I have to deal with here. I back mine up with a link on this subject to the Flight Safety Foundation versus someone backing theirs up with a link to.........Bill Murray.
Back to SFO I suppose.
This link shows a time lapse of the arrival in SFO and you can see some of the taxiway aircraft turning on brighter lights.
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5969 ... ost9867575
'97 Tercel wrote:I'm sure you guys could drum up 24 more pages...
Yep, that PPrune site certainly popular and needless to say, lots of individuals with plenty of knowledge on all subjects. However the 49 pages on this subject has much speculation with the usual " may have, 'tis possible, could be , whatever, would be, should have, didn't do etc., etc". I am not a member(never was) and have no interest posting thereCat Driver wrote:Well Pprune may not be a Canadian site but it sure has a lot of posters and non members who read it.
Air Canada is sort of in a " hard place " as far as this event goes publicity wise because it just does not seem to be going away.
But silence on their part is understandable because they are waiting for the final report to come out, so are a lot of people in aviation.
For me personally the part I can not understand it how they could not see any of the aircraft on the taxiway during the approach and go around.......
...assuming the reports that they claimed they did not see them are factual.
The parallel Runway 28L was closed at the time of the incident with its lights turned off and a flashing yellow “X” in place near the approach end. ATIS information “Quebec” included an advisory at the time that Runway 28 Left was closed and that its approach lighting system was out of service. Lights for taxiway Charlie were turned on to a default setting that included green centerline lights along its length and blue edge lights.
During the post-incident interviews, both Air Canada pilots said they believed the lighted runway on their left was Runway 28L and that they were lined up for Runway 28R. They also stated that they did not recall seeing aircraft on taxiway Charlie, but that something did not look right to them.
I am thinking that I will take a train or bus or drive because aviation is just getting to risky to take the chance of flying.An earlier FAA memo reported that near landings on the wrong runway, or on a taxiway, normally average about 24 per year. The memo said that number increased to more than 60 in 2016.
In the aviation blogs, yes AC did get and still getting bad publicity no doubt about that. Not convinced though it is still carrying on amongst general travelling public as the "what if" incidents like this do fade in short order. Just my observation.Cat Driver wrote:Old fella.
My comment about Pprune was only meant to point out that Air Canada has gotten a lot of bad publicity from the ongoing discussion.
I am not suggesting you join Pprune.
For me it is where I go to read comments on most subjects that involve commercial aviation.
I guess we all are prone to lean towards the culture we are most familiar with.
It as been a long time since I had anything to do with aviation in Canada so I just naturally read Pprune .
Cat Driver wrote: that crew should have been fired
How would that make aviation safer?Cat Driver wrote:The poster has a point.
If this was the same story, but an Asian crew, Asian airline, many posts here would be singing a totally different tune.Cat Driver wrote:Old fella it is not my intention to suggest you are in any way inferior to those of us who ended up flying internationally.
Flying an airplane is not brain surgery, any person with normal reflexes and normal IQ can learn to fly any aircraft.
One of the posters today is of the opinion that there is to much coddling of pilots who screw up and that crew should have been fired, using the logic they were responsible for the safety of the flight and let it get that close to a major accident.....and then claimed they could not see the airplanes or the flashing yellow X.
The poster has a point.
FIRE them. Did you see what happened to the drivers from the 777 crash at Dubai..FIRED.
Did you see that the NTSB report showed the driver of the Cogan disaster repeatedly failed, yet was still driving. FIRE THEM.
No sir, no offence taken, none at all. Just a tact admission there are pilots out there who know a hell of a lot more than me. I will put you in that category, do I consider myself inferior to you no, certainly not. Do you , because of your international experience consider yourself superior to me, probably not.Cat Driver wrote:Old fella it is not my intention to suggest you are in any way inferior to those of us who ended up flying internationally.
Flying an airplane is not brain surgery, any person with normal reflexes and normal IQ can learn to fly any aircraft.
One of the posters today is of the opinion that there is to much coddling of pilots who screw up and that crew should have been fired, using the logic they were responsible for the safety of the flight and let it get that close to a major accident.....and then claimed they could not see the airplanes or the flashing yellow X.
The poster has a point.
Well there are not very many reasons why, it was either a flaw in the airplane systems, a flaw in the airport systems or pilot error. Or a combination of all of them.How and why is beyond my scope.
Well, I will leave it to the NTSB. My commentary on this incident is all but exhausted, so time for me to wind it up.Cat Driver wrote:Well there are not very many reasons why, it was either a flaw in the airplane systems, a flaw in the airport systems or pilot error. Or a combination of all of them.How and why is beyond my scope.
Pilot error can also be failing to catch the system error if one existed.
Remember this was a two crew major airline operation and the approach was a VFR approach, is it possible in 2017 VFR approaches to a major airport are to difficult and should not be approved?
It's possible. Especially when you consider down in the US once you say you're visual they might just roll a guy onto final 2 miles ahead of you without the courtesy of telling you. It's happened to me several times and it pisses them off when you ruin whatever crazy plan they had by flying through. Visuals down there, especially at night, are when you really need to be at the top of your game because anything unexpected can happen and often does. If they're pressing you to accept a visual it's usually because they're overloaded.Cat Driver wrote:Well there are not very many reasons why, it was either a flaw in the airplane systems, a flaw in the airport systems or pilot error. Or a combination of all of them.How and why is beyond my scope.
Pilot error can also be failing to catch the system error if one existed.
Remember this was a two crew major airline operation and the approach was a VFR approach, is it possible in 2017 VFR approaches to a major airport are to difficult and should not be approved?
So much wrong here....crazyaviator wrote:With no-fault investigations COMBINED with unions doing everything in their part to PROTECT and DEFEND a GUILTY and DANGEROUS pilot AFTER the fact, we have set ourselves up to Colgan crashes and MANY more,,,,,,, The industry knows QUITE WELL that MANY pilots who should NOT be in the cockpit are there for "political" reasons and this MUST STOP !!!
|
|
Use AvCanada's information at your own risk!
We reserve the right to remove any messages that we deem unacceptable.
When you post a message, your IP is logged and may be provided to concerned parties where unethical or illegal
behavior is apparent.
All rights reserved.
