Does Rouge Have Pilot Issues?

[DEFCON]

I have withdrawn the post. I acknowledge, I launched my question from a poorly constructed platform and apologize for any offense.

[Vsplat]

Why would you post such prejudicial stuff here without verifying first?

[conehead]

I haven't heard of these damage incidents, and I probably would if they were true.

[boestar]

Written Off????? Do you have any idea what kind of damage can be sustained on an aircraft and it still be considered economically repairable? Someone is gushing BS and you are eating it up.

There would be reports galore if a 767 flew throug a CB and sustained that type of damage. Let alone a diversion which would be all over the news with cell phone footage and all.

[J.O.]

This thread should be deleted. Unsubstantiated statements of this magnitude are very inflammatory.

[dagger]

Let me get this straight: One quarter of Rouge's 767 fleet suffered substantial damage, and was repaired - presumably took weeks or months - and put back into service. Yet there was no schedule impact. AC didn't lease in replacements, no people were injured, CUPE didn't put out a press release attacking the very existence of Rouge, and AC had no extraordinary item for the repairs buried in the fine print of the Q3 results (or sooner). Oh, and no cell phone video from any affected passenger, this in the age when passengers take pictures of their dinner to complain about the smallest inconvenience.

Sounds like someone has an axe to grind.

[Don Hudson]

Understand the need to confirm or flush out the grinders of axes etc, but the sources here are mostly anonymous so aren't really "sources" in something like this and no one with their name is going to post this stuff first-hand. Point to the CADORS or the AvHerald links. Without substantiation, true or not I think it is irresponsible to drift this stuff out about any carrier.

[Zan Vetter]

rouge pilots are AC pilots, the positions in each operating company are awarded from the same group of pilots. Same sims, same syllabus albeit delivered in a different order, same line indoc. Same same. If there is a rouge pilot problem there is an AC pilot problem. The main difference on a day to day basis is the scheduling rules. And not to cast aspersions within our very safe operation but AC have made mistakes in the past as well. It sounds incredibly ignorant and/or willfully obtuse for a "senior captain" to deduce that there is a rouge pilot problem. For some people that red tie might as well be a matador's cape, it seems.

[Homerun]

A very senior Captain is hardly a reliable source. I'm generalizing here, but the more senior one gets, the more detached and isolated they get from the operation and what goes on within it. Especially, what happens in the narrow body and Rouge world.

[mrlupin]

The mishaps of any day to day operation can be blown out of proportion by misinformation...

This forum is read by all types of people. Most have some aviation experience and can have some sort of critical analysis of what is written here. I doubt that the flight crews, AMEs, ATC controllers are unfamiliar with aircraft occurences but the same cannot be said of someone outside the aviation world. Airlines work hard to brighten their images (see Christmas commercials for example) and to try to promote their brand as flawless. Yet they all have incidents. Some are random, some errors, some are flawed processes...

At all airlines, hard landings, overweight landings, off runway excursions and similar mishaps happen. No one is immune to them. In the big scheme of things, they are risks that albeit unlikely, do happen. When they do occur, the aircraft manufacturers have inspections that need to be carried. The airline maintenance team mobilizes and the aircraft are usually returned to service within a short period of time.

In maintenance, we get front row seats to see the results of all those mishaps. Trying to focus on AC rouge issues "that were heard from a senior pilot" is just targeting that particular airline. From my experience, most airlines have incidents that could be cherry picked to make them appear as unsafe if presented with such an objective. It really doesn't matter which airline you are looking at if your aim is to paint it with that particular brush.

[Homerun]

Blues deville for sure I will be in that category. I am way more out of the loop now than I was 15 years ago. When I was a widebody f/o, the majority of the Captains that I flew with (very senior in the AC world) were absolutely clueless as to what was going on with the airline at large and certainly the narrowbody ops. The worst of them were stuck in a time warp back to the 70's when AC hired them. Any info they had on the goings on eleswhere in the airline would certainly have been second or thirdhand gossip.

So When someone says their source is a senior Captain I would certainly discount the info much more than if it came from a junior guy.

[J.O.]

In fact, the experience levels at Rouge are quite typical of most of the carriers in Canada. In general, AC mainline has people with more years of service than the industry average. Maybe because you work at mainline, your perspective is skewed. I know a good number of the pilots at Rouge and would happily send my loved ones on one of their airplanes any day. They are highly experienced and qualified, they fly AC aircraft to AC SOPs and have AC training.

I still believe this thread is a huge disservice to the company and our industry in general. We should also remember that non-industry people visit here and the last thing we need are wildly unsubstanitated stories being spread as fact.

[GDR]

Just a thought Defcon. You believe that your source of information is reliable. What do you know about his source of information and so on through who knows how many sources. For example in the one instance that we all knew about anyway the sink rate was exaggerated as you have already agreed is the case. How exaggerated are the rest of the instances if they happened at all. I don't know but neither do you. I agree with those that say a public forum is not the place to attempt to resolve unsubstantiated rumours such as these. JMHO

Greg

[frankly]

I think we're just being baited here. Last time the forum was quiet, he started a thread about how child pornography is the girls fault. Seems like trolling to me.

[AMEfirst]

DEFCON

Your question is valid and should not be misconstrued as trolling.

Having worked for more than 15 years in Air Canada's MOC in technical and administrative roles I find your "incident" reports quite humorous.

The first one, NLG heavy damage could mean anything, maybe even a deflated tire? The B767 with the blown out flaps and slats, wings pissing fuel. Very creative, surprised I never saw this on the CBC news. BOOM! The flaps and slats are blown out!

The third one, excessive sink rate happens more than you would suspect. Nice touch with the 3.5 +g fishing lure.

Read Conehead's and Mr Lupin's posts as they sound like AMEs that have been there or are still there and would have access to AOG aircraft reports or have performed the MIM inspections. Some of the other posts are good as well.

Your post is rather disappointing.

Happy Holidays

AMEfirst

[boestar]

Defcon:

You CANNOT hide a 767 that had a SEVERE weather incident inside a CB that caused it to "Piss Fuel" from anyone including Transport Canada. That is a MAJOR INCIDENT that requires a MAJOR REPAIR. every point of that is a reportable incident and failure to report would possible result in either a large fine or if 25% of the fleet was in the same boat, revocation of the OC.

Hard Landing, big deal. Happens relatively frequently as far as aircraft incidents go. lightening strikes are reportable incidents. So you dont think bending an aircraft would be out there in internet land somewhere.

Sorry no proof no story.

[Rookie]

No 767s have been involved in any incidents or accidents at rouge.

There was a hard landing in MBJ with an A319. The captain WAS NOT a manager, nor was the FO brand new. The airplane was ferried to MIA where it passed the Phase 1 hard landing inspection, and besides a sheared nut (which was suffering corrosion/fatigue) there was no other damage that necessitated repair.

You need a new source DEFCON.

[AAS]

http://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/403598-rouge-a319-fin263/?fromsearch=1

There's the thread about the 319 hard landing.

[inchman]

How does one prove a non-event? Why are we not asking for proof from the person who posted the hearsay in the first place?

We don't make people who make unsubstantiated claims responsible for proof often enough, IMO. That's how rumours turn into "truth" and "fact" and probably how this got beyond the single 319 hard landing.

[blues deville]

http://theairlinewebsite.com/topic/403598-rouge-a319-fin263/?fromsearch=1

There's the thread about the 319 hard landing.

Yes. We need Kip's "dead horse" sketch inserted here.

[Seeker]

So perhaps a flight safety officer or line maintenance manager who knows exactly what has happened in their fleet and can put this whole discussion to rest.

It's unlikely that any "titled" person will post incident details (if there was any incident to begin with) to a public forum for a bunch of anonymous people to read.

[AMEfirst]

Maybe it's time to lighten up a little? We also know DEFCON's source was not entirely wrong. Perhaps a slight error in G force measurement. .25, .5, apparently well above the acceptable limit. It did happen and the A319 hard landing in MBJ is public knowledge and has been documented. The description to part of landing gear structure included the word "destroyed". I don't know if the other 767 incidents are factual. But if one of the mentioned incidents is factual, it lends me to believe there may be some truth to the others. The details may have been slightly exaggerated too, who knows? Crap happens all the time and some pilots love nothing more than relaying stories of others mistakes. I know a group of retired AC pilots who meet regularly to chat and reminisce. The main topic is usually the screw ups. Sometimes their own....sometimes others. All usually quite funny.

Rookie, regarding the 767 events (or non-events), what is your source to prove otherwise?

l

I believe the point that the majority of the posters on this thread are making is that DEFCON's incident reports are greatly exaggerated or and possibly fabricated.

A Slat/Flap over speed becomes "wiped out slats/flaps & the wings were pissing fuel"?

The guy posted an inflammatory and provocative story to what purpose? Not the first time.

Not worth defending as it has little merit.

Happy New Year and keep posting

[Vsplat]

The comment that those in the know will not post the details here is, of course, accurate. It's not just because of personal preferences. The cost of gaining access to coal-face data is the required signing and compliance with confidentiality agreements.

It is always this way in aviation (and a number of other industries, health care comes to mind), and that is why rumour persists where fact does not. It doesn't make the rumour true, but it does give it a chance to sink in and get spread far enough that some will apply the 'where there is smoke there must be fire" approach.

Sometimes it is just smoke.

Vs

[blues deville]

It's unlikely that any "titled" person will post incident details (if there was any incident to begin with) to a public forum for a bunch of anonymous people to read.

Of course not. But there are several "untitled" here that seem to know for a fact that it didn't happen.

[Thebean]

Yup. That's my goal in life. I want everyone to know what's in my bank account. Congratulations to Defcon for being the first to figure it out. Well done!

All those who did well by investing in John Leckie or Michel Leblanc airline ventures, raise their hands.