It's time to buzz the tower

[JeppsOnFire]

Rockie (et al) logic - Airbus accidental low level maneuver at night in San Fran taxiway - Safe. Intentional wimpy left bank day VFR - Dangerous.

This is the world we live in kids.

[rookiepilot]

Rockie (et al) logic - Airbus accidental low level maneuver at night in San Fran taxiway - Safe. Intentional wimpy left bank day VFR - Dangerous.

This is the world we live in kids.

Simple.

Airbus maneuver was a good ol' Canadian carrier, left bank was a scary foreign carrier.

Home team bias.....

[Rockie]

Don't be ridiculous.

1) SFO was a mistake nobody is defending, they are taking steps to ensure it never happens again. If you only knew...
2) The flypast was deliberate.

Get a grip.

[altiplano]

I'll agree with Rockie there.

2 different things.

[rookiepilot]

Well, on that SFO thread I read numerous comments that said, in essence, "ridiculous comments, , nothing to see here, move on, was a routine go around / missed approach that happens every day, etc etc.....

But ok. Now it's no one is defending that. Musta changed. All good...

[altiplano]

They made a mistake and went around...

[Rockie]

"ridiculous comments, , nothing to see here, move on, was a routine go around / missed approach that happens every day, etc etc.....

Post some examples and show us that they come from Air Canada pilots.

[rookiepilot]

Don't be ridiculous.

1) SFO was a mistake nobody is defending,

Get a grip.

I don't see this quote limited to AC pilots. I read "nobody defended this mistake".

Is that your position Rockie?

Nor in some comments do I even see "they made a mistake".

I do read the characterization that it was in essence, a "Routine go around -- nothing to see here"

I've simply, and consistently, challenged that assertion -- and call it what it is.

Home team bias.

I'm not going to quote individual comments, there is absolutely zero point.

[Rockie]

"Routine go around -- nothing to see here"

The go-around they did was routine and according to training. What happened before was not and is not considered so by anybody. You don't see that part though. Again, show me where any Air Canada pilot or the company considers this a non-event.

[rookiepilot]

"Routine go around -- nothing to see here"

The go-around they did was routine and according to training. What happened before was not and is not considered so by anybody. You don't see that part though. Again, show me where any Air Canada pilot or the company considers this a non-event.

Is it your opinion the NTSB considers this event a "routine" go around event Rockie?

Look I'm not trying to hang these guys. Not the point. But there is no purpose in calling a serious incident, how serious is up for debate -- a total "non event" because it makes some extremely uncomfortable how close calls can happen to the "home team".

The same guys giving this a pass, spend a whole thread describing a Middle East carrier as an extremely dangerous carrier due to a messy crosswind landing. Makes no sense to me.

But carry on...

[Rockie]

ou said "Nobody" defended this mistake. Not "no AC pilots".

Ok you got me. No AC pilots or the company are defending this mistake. So, if you want to go after some non-AC pilots for doing so be my guest.

Is it your opinion the NTSB considers this event a "routine" go around event Rockie?

Nope. But you seem inordinately focused on that phrase.

[rookiepilot]

ou said "Nobody" defended this mistake. Not "no AC pilots".

Ok you got me. No AC pilots or the company are defending this mistake. So, if you want to go after some non-AC pilots for doing so be my guest.

Is it your opinion the NTSB considers this event a "routine" go around event Rockie?

Nope. But you seem inordinately focused on that phrase.

You think I know, track, or remotely care, which posters are AC pilots? What, AC pilots offer the only valid opinions on safety?

I believe you called it "routine". I doubt NTSB will consider any part of it "routine".

Does your view supersede theirs?

[altiplano]

Nice hijack rookiepilot... right back onto your AC hater script.

[Rockie]

I believe you called it "routine". I doubt NTSB will consider any part of it "routine".

Does your view supersede theirs?

I'm sure their go-around was text book. When the TSB issues their report on the effectiveness and proficiency in the go-around we'll see what they think. Me personally, I think they'll be more interested in what transpired before that.

[rookiepilot]

Nice hijack rookiepilot... right back onto your AC hater script.

Hater.

That is the dumbest single phase one ever sees. It means, "I have no answer for an analytical comment, so I'll shut down debate by calling the poster a "hater". Illogical.

I don't particularly care for the Wynne government. I question some of their decisions. So I'm a "hater"? Bizzare. I don't have to agree with everything.

I also dislike strawberry ice cream. I must be a "hater". LOL.

It's further illogical to "hate" a company --- and I don't. I fly on AC -- they are a fine airline.

It would be equivalent if I asked you, Alt, "do you work for AC / Jazz"? "Cheerleader".

My entire point -- for any individual pilot -- or a company -- is the belief "it can't happen to me".

That's all.....

[confusedalot]

So...said the psychiatrist, you hate strawberry ice cream?

I prefer rum raisin myself.

[JeppsOnFire]

I figured that's the wave my post would ride.

My point was San Fran was defended as safe and the flyby was criticized as dangerous.

Whereas I see it was the other way around. I've made no comment on whether or not I think the people involved in the flyby made a bad decision. I haven't any idea whether or not it was sanctioned or not, pre-planned by all parties or not, or if it was just another attempt by the Trump administration to communicate with the Russians.

[Cat Driver]

My point was San Fran was defended as safe and the flyby was criticized as dangerous.

Whereas I see it was the other way around. I've made no comment on whether or not I think the people involved in the flyby made a bad decision. I haven't any idea whether or not it was sanctioned or not, pre-planned by all parties or not, or if it was just another attempt by the Trump administration to communicate with the Russians.

Most of the people in aviation understand the difference in the two incidents you are referring to Jepp's.

Where the problem arises is the few who try and white wash the San Fran episode, possibly because they are embarrassed by what their colleagues did and just how close it came to a real disaster.

[Rockie]

Ok we’ll do this again .. Show me where Air Canada pilots or Air Canada the company has tried to whitewash this incident.

Put up or shut up.

[Cat Driver]

Rockie you just do not seem to understand that some of us allow our thoughts to be contaminated by getting the impression that there " seems " to be an attempt to white wash what happened.

So instead of putting up or shutting up, which by the way I don't really have to I will wait and see what the final conclusions will be in Air Canada's examination of that event.

Then I will comment on what I personally think of their conclusions.

( By the way I loved the " Hard Landing " description on the Halifax accident. ) so I anxiously wait for this one

So once again I plan to ignore you at least until the final report from A C is released to the public, assuming of course they do release it to the public.

[Rockie]

Good job ignoring me so far .. And me and pretty much everybody else at AC would welcome you reserving your comments until the report comes out. Try and actually do that. When it does come out try to remember that you have extremely limited expertise in this arena to inform your opinion in this incident.

[complexintentions]

Points of order, y'honours. Hard to make a viewpoint clear when a) it's buried in arguments about um, various phobias (interesting, but...?) and b) comments are mis-quoted and misconstrued.

- I do not consider these two events remotely similar. SFO was a mistake, DUS was a decision. I give neither a "pass".

- I do consider the responses to both to be completely, illogically, foolishly and hilariously over the top. Reaction utterly out of proportion to the actual result of both events. Which was...nothing. In that regard I DO consider them the same.

The same guys giving this a pass, spend a whole thread describing a Middle East carrier as an extremely dangerous carrier due to a messy crosswind landing. Makes no sense to me.

It probably makes no sense, because you have it completely backwards. Not sure how you managed to reverse cause and effect, but whatever. Incidentally it's nearly impossible to give credibility to an opinion that doesn't even attempt to hide the blatant anti-AC bias anymore.

The carrier in question is not "dangerous due to a messy crosswind landing". It is doing things like messy crosswind landings (and crashing a B777, trolling below MSA in Moscow, etc) because I (and many, many others) would submit that it is becoming more dangerous. Not "dangerous" to the point of being unwilling to travel on them - in fact I will be doing so next month - but rapidly eroding the margins as evidenced by some pretty obvious and troubling trends.

Do not twist my words, please.

And now, back to the fascinating discussion. Group hug everyone, before I head to LAX? It's gonna be 38C there tomorrow apparently!

[rookiepilot]

Incidentally it's nearly impossible to give credibility to an opinion that doesn't even attempt to hide the blatant anti-AC bias anymore.

The carrier in question is not "dangerous due to a messy crosswind landing". It is doing things like messy crosswind landings (and crashing a B777, trolling below MSA in Moscow, etc) because I (and many, many others) would submit that it is becoming more dangerous.

You need to learn to read. I wrote don't have an anti - anyone bias, only a bias against inconsistent logic.

A "home team" bias is clear, and dangerous, IMO, at least as written here. My (sole) point is no one, and no carrier, is immune from a potential incident.

The second you think you've got it all together, and nothing to worry about, you are vulnerable to get bitten in the ass. Risk doesn't care about the colour on the tail. If recent incidents here close to home don't convince you of that, I suppose nothing will.

[trey kule]

Well things generally come in threes, we had Halifax then San Francisco so lets see what AC does next.[

Well, it seems we did not have to wait long...

Yes there are differences. One was an ATC approved fly past, and the other, it appears in the latest AC SFO incident a crew ignoring ATC instructions, not seeing a red light.....but heck....all ended well.

Maybe the CVR wont get erased this time.....

[rookiepilot]

The part I'm missing is in all of these threads:

AC: (Always) "Wait for the report" "nothing to see" "routine" " don't hang the crew"

Emerites: (Moscow,). "hang em' high, Clint".