NavAir off the runway in YYC!

ice ice baby · Post by **ice ice baby** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:29 am

okay so I tried to post this a few minutes ago and got some "debug" error.......

Hey Leftcoaster, I believe back when Navair flew single pilot IFR they did hire a female pilot (maybe you should look a bit closer, just because they don't have a lady on staff [as a pilot] doesn't mean they never did.) Everyone has a different side to the story and the grass always looks greener on the other side. Do woman ever get on at Air Canada (or any large corporation that is male dominated in one area.) with equal or less qualifications than the same male? I'm sure they'll gladly hire some male FA's to look politically correct. Do some places mainly hire woment into a certain (non-flying) that often leads to a flying position? Navair isn't the only company in canada doing bag runs, and other companies may gladly offer similar opportunities (even to woman.)

ZBB118.10 · Post by **ZBB118.10** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:59 am

It has been speculated that this incident involved a "direct entry" captain from Regency

For the record, the only guy that I know of from RX who was direct entry, is a fine captain with more experience than a lot of people on this forum. To suggest that he over-shot a huge runway at YYC is tantamount to stupidity.

ice ice baby · Post by **ice ice baby** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:26 am

What the hell is going on? there seem to be posts I can only read in the "Topic Review" when I hit reply, for some reason they are not showing in the main forum.

ice ice baby · Post by **ice ice baby** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:44 am

ZBB, I'm curious to know what has changed at RX. Did management decide to change there ways after getting find another 5000$ in May when.....

Corporation:
Regency Express Flight Operations

Date: 2002/05/14
Count(s): 2
Violation: CAR 703.19
Penalty:$2 500
Location: Victoria International Airport, Victoria, B.C.

Date: 2002/05/14
Count(s): 2
Violation: CAR 605.06
Penalty:$2 500
Location: Victoria International Airport, Victoria, B.C.

On two occasions, the Company permitted an aircraft to take-off when it had not been maintained in accordance with the air operator’s maintenance control system.

On two occasions, the Company permitted an aircraft to take-off where the required equipment failed to meet the applicable standards of airworthiness and be serviceable.

YYC the place to be · Post by **YYC the place to be** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:17 am

Navair's navajo with brown and orange pin strips was the bird that went off the end of the runway. What happened was they where landing on 25 which is 6200ft long, the only problem is that there is not 6200ft passed the intersection of 34, 16 and 25, 07. They touched down after that intersection and then locked it up, started to turn sideways and went of the end of the runway sidways. The fire truck went racing after the navajo, and the navajo taxied off the grass and onto the taxi way as if nothing happened. I sure wish someone from Navair would get on this forum and tell use what really happened. I don't want to piss anyone off but some people are being a little harsh to Navair concidering what happened to them not too long ago. This could have been much worse than it really was. What might have been the problem was they didn't have 3 in the green and landed passed the intersection so if their gear collapsed they wouldn't block 34,16, just a theory. Another theory is that tower told them no delay through the intersection so someone could land 34, 16. Maybe it was a pilot who thought he was Mr. Hot Dog and landed long because he didn't want to taxi for a long time. Maybe bad judgement. Who knows

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 8:23 am

What's your point??

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 8:29 am

What's your point?

What don't you understand about the concept that if they hired crews of separate sexes, their room costs would double, and they are no longer competitive. The way around it, I suppose, would be to crew women with women, but there's another logistical problem.

JigglyBus · Post by **JigglyBus** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:26 am

deleted

swede · Post by **swede** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 9:32 am

There is some problem with posting, a debugging error message comes up, seems that you can ignore it as it posts anyway.

Ludacris · Post by **Ludacris** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:06 am

Isn't there something in the CARS that states each pilot has to have a seperate bedroom provided during rest periods? I'm not going to try to look it up, but I do remember a fax coming across for us to lease an aircraft which stated each crew member was required to have seperate hotel rooms as per the CARS. And if not, how can Transport or the company ensure you are getting the required rest if you have to share a bedroom with somebody who might be the complete opposite in personality from you?

lawndart · Post by **lawndart** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:32 am

CAR 700.16

(5) Where flight duty time includes a rest period, flight duty time may be extended beyond the maximum flight duty time referred to in subsection (1) by one-half the length of the rest period referred to in paragraph (b), to a maximum of 3 hours, if

(a) the air operator provides the flight crew member with advance notice of the extension of flight duty time;

(b) the air operator provides the flight crew member with a rest period of at least 4 consecutive hours in suitable accommodation; and

(c) the flight crew member's rest is not interrupted by the air operator during the rest period.

CAR 101.01

"suitable accommodation" - means a single-occupancy bedroom that is subject to a minimal level of noise, is well ventilated and has facilities to control the levels of temperature and light or, where such a bedroom is not available, an accommodation that is suitable for the site and season, is subject to a minimal level of noise and provides adequate comfort and protection from the elements

scabber · Post by **scabber** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:39 am

I feel sorry for the Navair guys, as they are being taken advantage of. Just as I was taken advantage of by Regency at one point.

That doesn't change the fact, that transport canada should look into the new arrival of navair east of the rockies. They are unsafe. Anyone who tries to argue that, has little to no experience, and is still in the process of getting a clue.

SkyKing · Post by **SkyKing** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:20 pm

There are 3 female Navair pilots that I know of in YVR.

cockpit_cowboy · Post by **cockpit_cowboy** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:35 pm

DA900 · Post by **DA900** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:55 pm

scabber to make a comment like that shows you have" little to no experience, and is still in the process of getting a clue."
No one here needs the likes of you to put words in their mouths. They can make their own judgements based on the facts and their own experience.

To say that there unsafe is to brush all those pilots that they are also unsafe. If you have flown at Regency you know its the airports and the approaches, or lack of that can make it unsafe. Yes there are pilots who will push the limits, but that is a few in a group of many.

So thank you, but if you don't mind I will make my own opinion on what I think.

not_a_chance · Post by **not_a_chance** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:19 pm

cockpit_cowboy wrote:
SkyKing wrote:There are 3 female Navair pilots that I know of in YVR.
Chief Pilot, Operations Manager, and........can't think of the other one.

So what happened to "Wyatt Whitcomb, Chief Pilot - Local #202 and Mr. Ross Dyson, Operations Manager", as listed on the potentially outdated Pilot Career Center site? Or do you know something personal about these two that you'd care to share with the rest of us?

cockpit_cowboy · Post by **cockpit_cowboy** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:31 pm

I think you caugth my drift.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 3:14 pm

cockpit_cowboy · Post by **cockpit_cowboy** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 5:40 pm

xsbank · Post by **xsbank** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:56 pm

I got it CC - sarcasm is my fave! Those who miss subtlety tend to call others idiots, haven't you noticed?

The problem with this lousy industry is that there aren't enough women in it. Perhaps with some more femininity the whole process would be more civilized.

Isn't there something in the CARS about having to tell someone about skidding off the runway sideways?

There. Killed that thread.

swede · Post by **swede** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 6:59 pm

Seems like YYC is becoming a location of choice for runway excursions, jetsgo, under completely different circumstances did quite a number last winter through the infield and then lauched again - good one guys..

DA900 · Post by **DA900** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 7:21 pm

swede do you have some kind of hard on for that jetsgo crew? You already posted a smart-ass comment about them on page 1 now incase anyone forgot you do it again.
We get it you did not approve of the go around even though you don't have any facts on their reason or decision to do so.
Maybe you can slam the Air Canada crew who crashed the DC-8 when the FO put out the spoilers. I can only guess you have insight on that too.

greenwich · Post by **greenwich** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 11:06 pm

low n over wrote:Well you cant say Dynamic ever did that.

Didn't ALTA have some fun in the grass a few years ago??

G

PPP · Post by **PPP** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:11 am

You all have a little too much time on your hands, and from what I was reading it's getting out of hand. People make mistakes, sometimes it’s forgivable and others are not. People do stupid things when something big happens to them and don't realize what right and wrong is after. No matter what time you have or how good you think you are or where you get your time, things will happen. Every one knows about Nav air and Regency, there’s nothing new there. When I was there things where getting done and the odd hot shot. But I can’t speak for now, since it has been years from being there. But lets wait for the facts before the blame game.

ils09 · Post by **ils09** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:43 am