seeker

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    5,778
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    135

seeker last won the day on October 29

seeker had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

889 Excellent

2 Followers

About seeker

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Somewhere; (only the shadow knows)

Recent Profile Visitors

4,632 profile views
  1. seeker

    747 at YHZ

    So, standard caveats; I never flew a 747, we don't know all the facts, etc, etc. The information, as I understand it, is that the aircraft was empty, that it had flown in from ORD and that the wind when they were arriving in the YHZ area was a direct crosswind and that it swung to a slight tailwind late in the approach. What's the landing distance for an empty 747 on a wet runway at sea-level? I don't know but I looked at a few online sources and 7700' should be long enough. The crew thought it was long enough. My feeling is that it will come down to; the tailwind component was stronger than anticipated and/or not accounted for correctly in the landing distance calculation, there was some mechanical fault either pre-existing or which presented itself during the landing or poor technique. The more interesting question for me is not why the aircraft overran the runway but why the crew chose to do that approach rather than an RNAV 23. Was the aircraft equipped for RNAV approaches, were the databases up to date, was the crew properly trained for RNAV approaches? The issue of the displaced threshold is significant. Flying an RNAV approach to a displaced threshold, at night, with no vertical guidance is not a trivial matter. Yes, a properly trained crew should be able to do this and other crews did it just before the accident. Personally, I think the ultimate "cause" of the accident will be whatever it was that prevented the crew from doing the RNAV 23; aircraft not properly equipped, crew not properly trained, company not having procedures for conducting a visual landing without vertical guidance. Some combination of these factors made the crew choose an ILS to a shorter, wet runway with a tailwind as being the better option.
  2. seeker

    747 at YHZ

    Well, it was a quartering TW for runway 14. The crew decided that a slight quartering TW on the shorter, wet, runway with an ILS was a better option than dealing with an RNAV approach to a displaced threshold on the longer, into wind runway.
  3. What surprises me, actually two things; that Westjet didn't have better procedures to audit the processes and that the this person would think they could get away with it. How could a corporation have a system that allows an employee to refund/rebate travel credit without a corresponding audit procedure? Huge error in allowing this. Also, what kind of moron would think that they could get away with this? Eventually, it would come out.
  4. seeker

    Calgary Olympic bid or not

    Well, obviously the "official" airline has to be Air Canada - they have "Canada" right there in their name!
  5. Come on people - have we learned nothing from the thousands of other times this has happened (by "this" I mean some passenger with an agenda spouting off to the media about how they did nothing wrong and are being cruelly mistreated by the airline)? Look, this is Westjet we're talking about, not some backwater airline from Uzbekistan. Westjet employs highly trained, conscientious staff and is quite focused on customer service. Sure, an individual can make a mistake but are we to believe that the FAs, the pilot and the gate staff (in consultation with their operations staff) all made the same mistake and off-loaded the guy for falling asleep? I have no doubt that some crucial piece of information is being withheld by the passenger as he tries to get some cash. Even if, in the long investigation afterwards, we find that the passenger actually could have flown safely the crew had 10 minutes to decide on the most conservative course of action and did so. We've been discussing it for a week here on the forum and still haven't figured it out to a satisfactory conclusion. Now, the question of whether he should be refunded the cash he lost because of the deplanement is another matter. I guess it would depend on whether he was forthright with his pre-existing medical condition and whether that would have been allowed to travel if he had disclosed everything. But, IMO, there's no point in armchair quarterbacking a fellow airline crew.
  6. OK, everybody pick a side. Once we get the teams organized we'll square off!
  7. Odd that we haven't heard from Gabor Lukacs yet. Usually he weasels his way into getting his face into the news right from the start.
  8. Malcolm, take that little piece of advice from CanadaEH (the very same piece of advice I've given to you many times over the years) - when you post random, non-sequitur or otherwise unrelated stuff into a thread about something else - it annoys people. Yeah, I know, you see it as a thread about Westjet and therefore any Westjet related article is fine but the rest of us see it as a thread about this one particular incident at Westjet. Also, the title, unfair and not representative of the subject of the first news item.
  9. Yup. Embraer - the aircraft that saved Air Canada.
  10. Price paid for the Embraers was $25 million.
  11. seeker

    Lion Air Down

    You said; "Recovery from unreliable airspeed is a drill in every aircraft I have flown for at least the past 20 years" and "we had better HOPE that airline crews don't have to come here to learn that." So, yes, you didn't actually say this crew in particular should have been able to handle it , just airline crews in general. Am I stretching the meaning of what you did say? Well, I leave that to the jury. IMO, BTW, I think you're right, the crew should have been able to handle it. You know, of course, based on the little info we have. Look, let's back up. conehead said (paraphrasing) - maybe the maintenance was done right? I said - maybe it was done wrong. conehead says - we should wait for the facts. I typically call people out when I detect self-serving contradiction. He now explains that he wasn't saying that at all but rather saying we don't know what happened. OK, well, in that case, that's what my post means too. maybe it was done right (conehead), which means - we don't know what happened maybe it was done wrong (seeker), which means - we don't know what happened. So, I called him on, what I perceived to be a, contradiction - posting about what might have happened but telling others they should wait for the facts before posting about what might have happened. This is where you come in. Over the next couple of posts you list 5 things that might have happened, or might not, and then say that you listed these things simply to underscore what it not known and chastising me to go back and re-read your post and saying that the meaning should have been clear. Oh yeah, and I should "dial back". I'm frustrated and I guess that comes across - you seem to be holding me to different standard than you apply to yourself. Edit: Let me just add; I agree that spouting random guesses at what might have happened in public to uninformed people is wrong and should be avoided. We are in agreement on that. I guess I just see this little corner of the world as being different. We all know that until the final report is published our analysis is incomplete and may be entirely wrong. As you say, I hope no pilot needs to hear on this forum about the importance of knowing their aircraft's drill for unreliable airspeed but that doesn't mean there's no value in being reminded or in hearing someone else's opinion or re-telling of some account pertaining to it.
  12. seeker

    AEF Slowing Down ??

    All back to normal for me.
  13. seeker

    Lion Air Down

    Yes, that's true, I overstated that. You simply mentioned the possibility that everything was done correctly while I mentioned that maybe they weren't. You're right, we don't know much, but we do know a few things; the airplane crashed and on the previous flight it had some sort of avionics/instrument problem. I think it's pretty unlikely that the crash was not in some way connected to the previous problem but, as you say, we don't know for sure.
  14. seeker

    Lion Air Down

    OK, first of all, I didn't "go after" anyone. Conehead posted; Yeah, I doubt that. It’s not always improper. How about, “System re-set accomplished and tested serviceable I.A.W. AMM 34-10-00”. Sometimes that’s all that’s necessary. I posted; Pitot static test? Sure, fine, if they did it. More than likely it was a PD/PU and a cursory check for an active fault. NFF? Alrighty then, carry on, good to go! Then conehead posted; Neither you nor I have any idea what went on regarding maintenance prior to that flight. How about we just wait until the facts come out, instead of slamming the Maintenance people involved, or the pilots that couldn’t seem to fly an airplane in clear weather? So it's ok for him to post the opinion that the AME did everything correctly but when I post about the possibility that things weren't done correctly I get slammed with; "how about we wait for the facts?" Same goes for you Vsplat; you tell me it's cruel to post about possible factors but then casually throw out that the crew should have been able to handle the scenario and maybe the aircraft lost all instruments, had an AP failure, had a control malfunction, broke up in flight or ended up in an unrecoverable state - you just mentioned 5 possible scenarios while telling me I shouldn't be cruel and should wait for the facts. Good one.
  15. seeker

    Lion Air Down

    You don't see any real learning? What are you looking at because I see a lot of learning happening. Someone mentions the importance knowing the recovery for unreliable airspeed and their technique, Kip mentions the insidious nature of low-level flight over calm water, someone else mentions the possibility that the maintenance personnel might not have been thorough as they could have been. There are lessons to be learned from considering all of those points. Is that not learning? I value these discussions amongst experts; those who have flown, maintained, controlled, dispatched, designed, built and flight-tested these aircraft. Experts who have flown or maintained similar aircraft in similar situations talking between themselves about what might have happened and considering possible causal factors is not cruel - going on the morning news and spouting a bunch of unsubstantiated gossip would be cruel - I see a difference.