Vsplat

Donating Member
  • Content count

    1,373
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Vsplat last won the day on September 30

Vsplat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

293 Excellent

1 Follower

About Vsplat

  • Rank
    5

Recent Profile Visitors

2,644 profile views
  1. Will Boeing Give a Damn?

    So Dagger, what does this do to the US Commerce Department tariff attack? Boeing could now be accused of trying to kill good American jobs. Vs
  2. Coalition of Canadian Airlines

    You may be exactly right Malcolm. The current climate is a hangover from the last government, who basically forbid pilots from taking any labour action. I don't believe there is a legal avenue now to do as you say. An industry wide shutdown like one might see in Europe would take solidarity that is currently absent, reference the commentary above. Will be an interesting few months ahead. Vs
  3. Coalition of Canadian Airlines

    I don't know anyone who successfully drives down the road looking only in the rear view mirror. Sadly, when it comes to working together, way too many pilots (who should know a thing or two about forward motion), do exactly this. That guy in that union did or said that, so they can all rot in hell. And that is music to the ears of ATAC, NATA, NACC or this Coalition. They can say just about anything they want, and the response is very loud white noise from groups that can't see past their divisions to see what they need to have in common. All of that said, the Minister does not work for the lobbiests, though I'm not sure they know that. They are there because public interest demands oversight. The passengers are the common ground here. We pilots just want to get through our career safely. We know, down to the cellular level, that if we stay safe, everyone attached to the airplane along with us will be safe as well. (And of course this is the essential ingredient that remotely flown airliners would lack) So it pretty much goes without saying that pilots tend strongly toward making choices that they believe will improve the outcome of a flight. I'm not saying those choices are always right, especially if the crew is tired, distracted or poorly trained. Indeed the entire fatigue discussion hinges on how it affects the ability to choose and execute correctly. The companies on the other hand can't seem to see past the price of safety - it's like they have a balance sheet with only one column of numbers on it. Funny thing though. I am willing to bet that if the electrician wiring one of these CEO's houses cut corners like some of the Coalition members are notorious for, that CEO would want the electrician's head on a pike. We are seeing pilots being fired for mistakes made while exhausted in some cases, but 'we don't have a fatigue problem'. Riiiigggght. You can only download blame so far and for so long. You can't discipline and fire your way to safety. The whole notion of 'accountable executive' was borne out of public reaction to accidents caused by blame shuffling and profit taking instead of actually acknowledging and managing threats. Regardless of the union politics and lobby lies, it is only a matter of time before fatigue gets dealt with. The only question is going to be at what cost. Will it be dollars and cents now, or more dollars and cents, and lives lost, later? all IMO Vs
  4. Coalition of Canadian Airlines

    Malcom, some of those small operators ran their pilots like slave traders because the owner was always on the verge of bankruptcy. I have stood at the graves of several friends who tried to survive that experience so they could get the next job. Canada has to stop thinking like every flight is transporting a heart to a transplant recipient. There is a stupid level of risk being justified based on trumped up statements and, frankly, false math. Will there be costs? Yes. but there were costs to equipping workers with hard hats, steel toed boots and putting railings in over blast furnaces. How is this any different? Vs
  5. Coalition of Canadian Airlines

    Malcom, DEFCON has already summed it up. To me, what really drives this nail into my temple is that the lobbyiests would push this crap DESPITE all of the gimmees and latitude thrown in to dilute things along the way. At this point, quite frankly, captive unions like ACPA have lost their footing, It's as if they believe that asking for anything, and I mean ANYTHING is going to bring the whole house of cards down. This is where the regulator has relevance, but quite frankly I have little faith that they can recognize their duty any more. Far easier to believe the company management line, makes for a much easier time at the ATAC annual wine and cheese... With apologies for the outbreak of cynicism... Vs
  6. These lobby groups seem to be self-procreating. And before someone jumps on this, no, I am not telling them to go and self-procreate.... That said, as we are fully into the post-fact era, it seems anyone can say anything they want, true or otherwise, in an attempt to sway opinion. IMO, it is rather odd that the same individuals and companies that made working conditions in the industry so bad that the appetite for pursuing the pilot trade dried up as a result, now want to solve their problem by driving the survivors even harder. I don't know if the authors of this tripe are simply incapable of doing the math or truly believe whatever comes out of their head is true. Denying the obvious fatigue related accidents and near accidents takes some brass. It's like narcissism has become a communicable disease. https://www.airlinescanada.ca/ All just my opinion Vs
  7. I've never flown the 380. The 340-500 did, however, have a tendency to take its time after control input(particularly rotation on takeoff), and more than once I saw the results of the correct input, followed in short order by an impatience-induced increased input, then, of course, the chickens would come home to roost. Yeeha. Not saying that is what is going on here, but perhaps someone more familiar with the type can comment if putting the boots to the rudder is ever done because of concern the aircraft won't respond in time, or because it didn't respond to a gentler input. FWIW Vs
  8. WRT rudder loads, some of what we are seeing is not aerodynamic, but rotation about the gear during each touchdown. While this might be good news for the rudder, I would be curious about the gear. I imagine a few tires were harmed in the making of that video.... Vs
  9. uber air

    sorta. Ride sharing was allowed more easily under the old Air Regs and ANOs. The Aeronautics Act and CARs were amended to preclude a lot of 'chisel charter' stuff. From the Act: hire or reward means any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft; (rémunération) commercial air service means any use of aircraft for hire or reward; (service aérien commercial) So Jettly is taking remuneration connected to the ride sharing program. That is benefit indirectly charged. It's a commercial air service. That application is not selective, so the booking agent cannot be found to be running a commercial service and the pilot involved not. Everyone gets caught in the net. I see a lot of US seats available. In the States, the notion of fractional ownership blurs the lines in ways the Canadian regs do not. If Transport Canada misses this, it is time to hang up their skates. Vs
  10. DEFCON, I believe you are referring to the ICAO agreement. The influence of local rules can only go so far. If a carrier is in the airspace of an ICAO signatory, provided they meet the applicable ICAO Standard and the country has not filed a difference to the standard in question, then there is little the local country can do. One exception to this is ATC. The carrier has to follow the more restrictive of the ATC requirements in force where they are, or those of their home country. Age 60/65 is one example of how ICAO requirements affect Canadian operators. Canada abolished age 60 as a licence requirement more than a decade before ICAO did. As a result, Canadian pilots wishing to operate commercially to Europe had to be under 60, but could operate without restriction here. ICAO flight and duty requirements are extremely vague, really just requiring a country to have some. So Canada complies with the letter, if not exactly the spirit, of ICAO, and so gets immunity from local, more stringent, rules. NAFTA, on the other hand, is a whole other ball game. Vs
  11. Rich and Bobcaygeon Your comments on the confusing message sent by ACPA are in line with those expressed by ACPA members on another thread, concerning the new deal. I believe many who actually fly the line and don't spend the bulk of their month behind a desk would agree that the union leadership threw their own members under the bus. All of that said, passenger safety should not be vulnerable to poor negotiations. Flight and Duty times are about more than pay. Indeed, if the science were to be implemented as designed, a number of our pilots would stand to lose pay. We are our own worst enemy at times, I have flown with guys who, if given the chance, would cluster their flying without regard to performance, in order to get a block of days off. There are others that tell crew sked it's OK to call them in the middle of their designated rest period if it means they will get a more productive pairing on reserve. And crew sked will call if invited during those silent hours. All of it is like walking through a crazy kitchen. At some point, we have to stop dragging the dysfunction of labour and commercial agreements into what should be a safety discussion. That is truly the role of the regulator - to establish a safety framework that mitigates risk to the aircraft occupants without grounding the whole operation. Where it is clear that industry cannot effectively police itself, regulation makes sense. The issue I see in all of this, in an SMS world, is that Transport Canada has fewer and fewer trusted advisors within their walls with recent industry experience, and ever lowering respect for those who fly the line. The lobbiests control both the near and medium term agenda. Not only do they put specific asks into play above the regulatory process, out of sight of CARAC controls, but they have also been very effective at leveraging union errors to ensure the credibility of ALPA and ACPA are as close to zero as possible. Yes, I am aware that many of those errors are unforced, like the recent ACPA agreement. Increasingly, TSB is becoming the voice of regulation in Canada. And we should find that alarming, because there is only one way the TSB gets a seat at the table. Vs
  12. Will Boeing Give a Damn?

    I was wondering the same thing. For sure, the over-the-top increase in the tariff amount smacks of white house intervention. Vs
  13. Swoop??

    As we learned from the painful Jetsgo experience, these projects do nothing but reset the public expectation of airfares cheaper than train fares. I bet, if I walked up to a future Swoop customer and asked them to sell me their nearly new car for 40% under market they would tell me to get stuffed. They couldn't afford it. Yet here we see this gravity defying logic in ticketing. To my eye, Swoop is nothing more than a fighting brand. I hope the competition bureau takes a hard look at where the money is coming from. And no, I would not object to them looking at rouge at the same time. If swoop is truly coming in 40% under rouge when WJ prime can't, while flying the same aircraft with the same fuel burn, then where is the money being transfused from? Vs
  14. Thanks for clarifying. Absolutely! Cheers John
  15. Near Miss for UAL

    So can someone tell me why an article about a United aircraft in Chicago features two bolded, highlighted hyperlinks about Air Canada in SFO? Sheesh. Vs