AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[Cat Driver]

It's interesting you would equate flying your turboprop to transport category jets. Is there anything you're not an expert on?

I was unaware one had to be an expert on these subjects to comment on them atphat.

I never stated I was an expert, however I did work with Airbus Industries for several years and was given in depth training in the A320 simulator at the factory and checking my records on this training I had six different instructors during the training so I do have some idea of how they fly / operate.

That and over fifty years as a professional pilot should allow me to at least make comments as long as they are not libelous.

I assume you are an expert?

By the way I just heard a news report on CKNW that the NTSB has released another report on that incident and the news person said they were only one hundred feet above the 787 holding on the taxiway.

If that is true what is your expert opinion on the level of lack of situational awareness before they did the missed approach, was it just a slight mistake and there is nothing to be learned from this?

[rookiepilot]

"Now --- it is not AC's (or others) role to independently investigate anything with the purpose of providing a PR statement that distracts from what regulators may say."

Can you provide a direct example of the above where you think that actually happened.

Absolutely: let's look at YHZ.

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2017-05 ... ch-29-2015

Within:

"The report found runway lighting to be a cause and contributing factor and Air Canada has since worked with the Halifax International Airport Authority to upgrade lighting at the airport."

No other references to causes in the actual TSB report --, are highlighted in the news release.

Why Old Fella are those other causes and factors to risk, not mentioned?

[mbav8r]

Rookiepilot, you sure get bent out of shape over Air Canada, what do you think a PR department is for?
It's about damage control and deflecting to reduce the impact on The bottom line, hypothetically if your business had some bad press due to something your employees did, would you publicly accept responsibility even if it meant you would suffer major losses or hire a PR firm to spin it and save your business?
FYI, there is another Canadian airline who's PR department is very good at deflecting or spin.

[rookiepilot]

Rookiepilot, you sure get bent out of shape over Air Canada, what do you think a PR department is for?
It's about damage control and deflecting to reduce the impact on The bottom line, hypothetically if your business had some bad press due to something your employees did, would you publicly accept responsibility even if it meant you would suffer major losses or hire a PR firm to spin it and save your business?
FYI, there is another Canadian airline who's PR department is very good at deflecting or spin.

That's easy.
I would immediately accept responsibility as the leader of the business, and a small business demands that. Zero excuses.

That is what great organizations do, I can say from many years experience. They publicly take complete responsibility, starting from the leader on down, even if others are partially at fault. They spend far more energy finding ways to deliver excellence, and communicating that, than "spinning" every time something goes wrong.

I ask, gentle readers -- what is wrong with doing it this way?

That it takes both real integrity and real guts,which of course seem to be rather rare.

BTW I was even harder on United. Why? The CEO blamed the passenger -- which I thought was abhorrent. Horrible leadership from that CEO.

So here's another question. AC has publicly apologized for passengers DELAYED hours on a flight. But not a far more serious incident. Why not?

[Old fella]

"Now --- it is not AC's (or others) role to independently investigate anything with the purpose of providing a PR statement that distracts from what regulators may say."

Can you provide a direct example of the above where you think that actually happened.

Absolutely: let's look at YHZ.

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2017-05 ... ch-29-2015

Within:

"The report found runway lighting to be a cause and contributing factor and Air Canada has since worked with the Halifax International Airport Authority to upgrade lighting at the airport."

No other references to causes in the actual TSB report --, are highlighted in the news release.



Why Old Fella are those other causes and factors to risk, not mentioned?

Ok fair enough, I can see your point. Having said that all major corporations have PR and utilize such to ease concerns(they believe) the general public may have on issue s pertaining to safe operations or business issues. That is the only observation I can see.

[Rockie]

I never stated I was an expert, however I did work with Airbus Industries for several years and was given in depth training in the A320 simulator at the factory and checking my records on this training I had six different instructors during the training so I do have some idea of how they fly / operate.

Some small idea Cat, far from any kind of expert or even current qualification on the bus and not at all related to the question I asked. You suggested banning visual approaches which got me wondering if you remembered how major airports in the US need to operate. If you did remember you wouldn't raise such an impossible idea.

"The report found runway lighting to be a cause and contributing factor and Air Canada has since worked with the Halifax International Airport Authority to upgrade lighting at the airport."

"A" cause rookiepilot, not "the" cause. You also didn't quote the rest of the press release which clearly does not distract, detract or contradict in any way the TSB report. It merely details some of the measures Air Canada is taking to prevent a recurrence. You would prefer they stayed silent and made everybody guess?

[Black_Tusk]

"Now --- it is not AC's (or others) role to independently investigate anything with the purpose of providing a PR statement that distracts from what regulators may say."

Can you provide a direct example of the above where you think that actually happened.

Absolutely: let's look at YHZ.

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2017-05 ... ch-29-2015

Within:

"The report found runway lighting to be a cause and contributing factor and Air Canada has since worked with the Halifax International Airport Authority to upgrade lighting at the airport."

No other references to causes in the actual TSB report --, are highlighted in the news release.

Why Old Fella are those other causes and factors to risk, not mentioned?

Well since you don't work for AC or an AC Express, you wouldn't know what was put into place in the company due to this incident. And it's not your right, or anyone elses to know unless the company feels like they need to release that info.

[rookiepilot]

"Now --- it is not AC's (or others) role to independently investigate anything with the purpose of providing a PR statement that distracts from what regulators may say."

Can you provide a direct example of the above where you think that actually happened.

Absolutely: let's look at YHZ.

https://aircanada.mediaroom.com/2017-05 ... ch-29-2015

Within:

"The report found runway lighting to be a cause and contributing factor and Air Canada has since worked with the Halifax International Airport Authority to upgrade lighting at the airport."

No other references to causes in the actual TSB report --, are highlighted in the news release.

Why Old Fella are those other causes and factors to risk, not mentioned?

Well since you don't work for AC or an AC Express, you wouldn't know what was put into place in the company due to this incident. And it's not your right, or anyone elses to know unless the company feels like they need to release that info.

That's true.

However,

Then why should any press release carry the slightest bit of credibility of being a complete, full disclosure of the facts?

Can't on one hand, laud the company's PR dept for disclosing, "this is what we are doing to enhance safety",

While on the other hand, "you don't have a right to know what the company learned, and is doing"

Can't have it both ways, Black Tusk, even if legally it's NP....

[photofly]

Then why should any press release carry the slightest bit of credibility of being a complete, full disclosure of the facts?

When was a press release *ever* one of those??

[Rockie]

Then why should any press release carry the slightest bit of credibility of being a complete, full disclosure of the facts?

When was a press release *ever* one of those??

A lesson in life, whenever an entity be it a corporation, individual or political issues a self-written statement it is designed to put themselves in the best possible light. Why would anyone expect otherwise? The skill one has to have is determining how much of it is actually truthful and complete. Some rare entities are completely truthful and fulsome in their information, but others offer nothing but 100% nonstop bullshit like you know who down south.

It's just the way it is.

You'll get fooled a lot less if you view everything with a jaundiced eye.

[Cat Driver]

At the Air Canada flight’s lowest point of 81 feet — and headed straight for the third plane on the ground, United Airlines flight 863 — it was only 26 feet above the top of that airplane’s tail, Trescott said. A Boeing 787 is 55 feet tall.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/17/n ... g-landing/

Good thing this is just fake news huh Rockie?

You should thank Donald for letting the public know not to believe the news media, weird how things go in life isn't it, who would have thought Rockie and the Donald would have something in common.

................26 feet is still a miss so no big deal.

[Rockie]

What are you on about Cat?

Did I mistakingly say the press reports were or were not fake? Did I mistakingly give an opinion good, bad or indifferent on this incident? If so please point it out.

[Cat Driver]

Some small idea Cat, far from any kind of expert or even current qualification on the bus and not at all related to the question I asked.

Well my small idea about flight safety and how the safety limits are comes from comparing something I do understand which is the minimum vertical limits were allowed in the air show business in Europe.

It was two hundred feet above the runway and it was enforced by radar during the flying, if any part of the airplane went below two hundred feet we got an immediate voice warning on the radio, if we went outside the limit the second time the display was stopped and we had to leave the air display area and when we returned and landed our airdisplay license could be suspended or revoked.

Of course flying in the airdisplay business is no where as demanding as flying a A320 into San Francisco on the dreaded visual approach to 28R .

I never learn do I Rockie, I just keep making dumb comments about things I have no idea of.

You suggested banning visual approaches which got me wondering if you remembered how major airports in the US need to operate. If you did remember you wouldn't raise such an impossible idea.
You suggested banning visual approaches which got me wondering if you remembered how major airports in the US need to operate. If you did remember you wouldn't raise such an impossible idea.

The suggestion was tongue in cheek to provoke you and of course I was successful.

[Rockie]

Well my small idea about flight safety and how the safety limits are comes from comparing something I do understand which is the minimum vertical limits were allowed in the air show business in Europe.

It was two hundred feet above the runway and it was enforced by radar during the flying, if any part of the airplane went below two hundred feet we got an immediate voice warning on the radio, if we went outside the limit the second time the display was stopped and we had to leave the air display area and when we returned and landed our airdisplay license could be suspended or revoked.

What does this have to do with anything besides yet another plug about your airshow flying days? Past glory ., give it the rest it deserves and cherish the memories.

The suggestion was tongue in cheek to provoke you and of course I was successful.

Yeah...sure it was...

[Cat Driver]

What does this have to do with anything besides yet another plug about your airshow flying days?

It should point out that even though I don't fly for Air Canada I do understand that when a crew do not have situational awareness during any approach be it IMC or VFR and they come that close to other airplanes lined up on a taxi way I personally think those people in the back were put at great risk and no amount of P.R B.S. will change my mind.

Eventually the public will get a fairly clear picture of what happened because it happened in the USA and the NTSB are fairly good at getting to the bottom of these issues...if it had happened in canada it could be years before a sanitized report became public.

Anyhow this is like screwing to get virginity back.

[Rockie]

It should point out that even though I don't fly for Air Canada I do understand that when a crew do not have situational awareness during any approach be it IMC or VFR and they come that close to other airplanes lined up on a taxi way I personally think those people in the back were put at great risk and no amount of P.R B.S. will change my mind.

In the first place nobody has given any PRBS yet, so your condemnation of it is somewhat premature. Secondly, while the bold part of this statement is self-evident to anyone with a brain, the unnecessary and irrelevant comparison to airshow flying was shall we say...gratuitous? Thirdly, how about we find out why the situational awareness broke down so we can prevent a recurrence rather than just call it a one off due to incompetent crew?

[Jet Jockey]

So it turns out the incident is far worse than first reported according to the latest details from the NTSB (if correct and/or factual).

The aircraft actually made it all the way down to 81' AGL before starting it's climb. It actually overflew the first two aircrafts on taxiway C just missing the second aircraft and clearing the second United flight, a B787 by only 26' vertically as it started to climb. Also according to this story, the AC pilots only initiated the go around after the tower told them to do so.

If these facts are correct, I simply don't understand how these two pilots allowed themselves to get into that position. I cannot believe they did not see the four aircrafts lined up just below them and continued the landing procedure.

I will wait for an actual report from the proper/official sources before passing judgement but if all correct, these guys are in deep poo poo.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/17/n ... g-landing/

[Rockie]

I cannot believe they did not see the four aircrafts lined up just below them and continued the landing procedure.

So you believe they did see those airplanes and continued to land anyway? There's a double negative there and I may misunderstand exactly what you're trying to say.

[photofly]

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/17/n ... g-landing/

a now-infamous near-disaster

They're not pulling any punches, are they?

[CpnCrunch]

It is somewhat inexplicable, based on the current information. But I'm not sure what you guys think you're going to get out of Rockie. I'm surprised he even bothers replying to all this crap here, but perhaps it's somewhat entertaining.

[rookiepilot]

What a ridiculous world. For the uneducated, safety issues like this arise every day, multiple times a day. It was a go around due to an unstable approach. No one crashed, I don't even think a drink was spilled, get over it.

Are we all still supposed to be here, then?

[FICU]

How any of the "professionals" here believe they would have actually landed on the taxiway is beyond comprehension. If they were going to land they wouldn't have been 100 feet above the surface 1/4 mile down... they would have been about 50 feet over the threshold and I'm sure there would have been a lot more chatter from the aircraft on the taxiway.

So much sensationalist BS from the media.

[Jet Jockey]

I cannot believe they did not see the four aircrafts lined up just below them and continued the landing procedure.

So you believe they did see those airplanes and continued to land anyway? There's a double negative there and I may misunderstand exactly what you're trying to say.

Sorry for my "double negative", English not being my first language.

Like I said I will wait for an actual official report (FAA, NTSB, TSB) before passing judgement. However if what is reported is correct or factual and they indeed overflew two aircrafts on taxiway C and were only 81' AGL prior to the GO Around, then I have to believe they were indeed ready to land on the taxiway even with the traffic taxiing on it.

[FICU]

Like I said I will wait for an actual official report (FAA, NTSB, TSB) before passing judgement. However if what is reported is correct or factual and they indeed overflew two aircrafts on taxiway C and were only 81' AGL prior to the GO Around, then I have to believe they were indeed ready to land on the taxiway even with the traffic taxiing on it.

So you figure they were going to land on the taxiway when they were 100 feet AFE 1/4 mile down it?

If they were at 81 feet and descending when the go-around was initiated they would have descended further before starting to climb so what was the lowest they got to? Why isn't the media reporting that?

How about they were in the go-around already and it bottomed out at 81 feet?

[Rockie]

Sorry for my "double negative", English not being my first language.

No problem, sorry for the misunderstanding.

But I must ask why you would "judge" this crew for making a mistake? We all make mistakes and herculean effort is devoted to minimizing those mistakes recognizing that they will still be made, but even then continuing to fight to bring things back into the green. Deliberate negligence I can get onboard with judging...but "mistakes"?

Uh uh. I make too many of them myself.

Before anybody loses their minds, that isn't to say corrective action or further training is not required if it proves necessary (among many other possible causes), but hanging the crew is not an option unless what they did was deliberate.