Vsplat

Donating Member
  • Content count

    1,276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Vsplat last won the day on May 7

Vsplat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

246 Excellent

1 Follower

About Vsplat

  • Rank
    5

Recent Profile Visitors

2,127 profile views
  1. Kip, I did a bit of looking. I don't know the mod status of the aircraft involved. Indeed, AP auito disconnect at MDA-50 feet is not fitted on all serial numbers or modes. It may be, and again with deference to the TSB, that in the absence of FINAL APP mode, an aircraft already in an FPA descent with AP on could continue in descent below MDA without the autopilot kicking off. Some aircraft will flash an FMA warning, others will simply carry on silently. Not sure this clears it up, again, not sure what the mod status of that aircraft was. Vs
  2. Kip, AP disconnects 50' below MDA . Not sure about the rest of your calculations. Edited to correct, checking Airbus FCOMs, the auto-disconnect of the AP is not on all serial numbers or approach modes. Without knowing specifics, it may be that this particular serial number, when flying selected FPA mode, did not have auto-disconnect enabled. Vs
  3. DEFCON, that post is below your usual standard. I don't know why you are so obsessed with the FO, but if you think that your read through of a sanitized report gives you insight beyond that of a two year investigation by professionals with unfettered access to information none of us have, then rather than calling our intellect into question, please feel tree to provide something more substantial than corrosive innuendo and extrapolation. Vs
  4. Kip, the AP disconnect rules I referenced come straight out of the FCOM/AOM. Can't post them verbatim here. The MDA is not pulled from a database, it is a crew entry, so would reflect the additive. (BTW I think the TSB got that wrong, normally it is MDA + 50 feet then correct it all for temp) I really can't answer for the TSB or what they said about autpilot engagement. If it remained engaged more than 50 feet below the value set in the MCDU as MDA, that would require some further explanation. More likely to me is that this is unclear wording from the TSB. As far as I can read, they don't reference the actual altitude where the autopilot disconnected, nor would they have that precisely, as there is some lag between data samples on the FDR. 50 feet in descent would be hard to pinpoint unless you got lucky with the sample rate. FWIW Vs
  5. Several things that really stand out for me in this report: 1) Halifax's terrible weather has been known forever. The opposite end of this same runway has a CAT II. 2) The lighting system was weak, and this too has been known forever. Yet everyone allowed it to continue. Classic normalization. 3) Below charted minima. Canada's shame. Hang this on the lobbyists and the TC mandarins that ceded power to them. 4) NAV CAN's SMS allowed a controller to be multi-tasking in ridiculous weather and workload circumstances such that they forgot to set the lights appropriately 5) The regulator allowed all of this. Ref 3) above, shame. The autopilot disconnect is inconsequential. It self cancels at 50' below MDA, which for this airline, is set 50' above published minimum to ensure the aircraft doesn't descend below MDA in the event of a go around. So, based on my few read throughs, the AP would have cancelled right at charted MDA. Ditto the above comments on crew performance. They flew it as instructed. WRT this speculation over the FO... I'm not sure the extrapolation of hours over time is a valid approach. Things like parental leave, short term disability due to an injury or some rather innocuous medical procedures can chew up months without flying. Not saying it is the case here, but when pilots are posted to supervisory roles, flight deck hours can often drop below 35 per month on average. At AC, hours alone as a measure doesn't really mean much. A 777 pilot can put in 60 hours a month and get two approaches, both in YYZ. whereas, a 320 pilot can put in 20 hours a month and get 10-15 LGA or ORD arrivals or departures, or play in the fog down east with YHZ-YYT legs and CAT IIs at both ends. There are pretty strict currency rules in place, tracked automatically. Those are the better measures IMO. Vs
  6. Judging from the orientation of the truck and assuming it was not spun around in some strange way during impact, it looks to me that it would have crossed in front of the aircraft from left to right (cockpit view) prior to impact. How much time would that truck have been in view of the flight deck and what speeds were involved in taxi or the truck? Looks like the aircraft took 30-50 feet to stop after contact. Not for sure who was moving and should not have been, but it seems to me that, at a lot of major US airports, there is this chronic game of chicken with the ramp vehicles weaving around moving aircraft. ORD really sticks out in my mind as an example. Vs
  7. seeker, I have been asked, by aforementioned PM on another forum, by individuals who knew the names. The issue with stuff like this is that there is no knowing how various dots get connected. kip, the fact that you would post that you received this information from other air canada personnel underscores the problem. That this information has been released is no longer private, is it? Vs
  8. Kip, you don't know me, nor do you know what I feel or think unless I say so here. A PM is not a forum post, but it is public disclosure, just as surely as emailing the details would be. This is not a question of succeeding on your personal gauge of tact. It is a professional and legal boundary. If I have to choose between meeting someone's expectations on a forum or respecting the privacy of a fellow pilot, I believe the correct choice to be obvious. Your mileage may differ. Best wishes for a good weekend to you as well. Vs
  9. Kip, with respect, whether the pilots involved are returned to active duty or held out IS personal. It's an HR aspect of their employment and as such not for public release. You will recall this from your time in the company, immediately after an event, the employee details are sequestered, even from other active employees. So yes, this is very much personal. The dignity question was about granting them the courtesy of some privacy after so long in the investigation poking and prodding mode. IMO they deserve any privacy we can afford them. Vs
  10. kip, three things: 1) It is important to address anything that touched the flight and determine whether or not it needs to change. Otherwise operators, anxious to stop a recurrence, may fix something that is not broken and make matters worse. 2) From a pilot's perspective, it is all about preventing the accident, so naturally that is where our interest lies. For the TSB, the event is not over until everyone affected is secure. The investigation covered the entire incident, to its completion, in accordance with the TSB mandate, as it should. 3) I believe those who know the pilots involved are respecting their privacy. A small dignity considering all that they have been through. Vs.
  11. Hmmmm. I guess whether this has been a worthy endeavour or not is in individual belief. In my opinion, were it not for the space programs, organizations like NASA would not have made the contributions they have. It's just one example, but I would argue that NASA plays a major role in real world solutions today, with a tool kit that would not have been justified if not for its need in space. (Edited to add, I had not seen your post blues when I wrote mine, but clearly agree) Simple little things - One of the very first 'PC' sized computers was made by TRW. TRW was a satellite manufacturer, who took the knowledge from the need to shrink and lighten electronics, while managing heat dissipation in a constrained environment, and built something that could sit on a desk. I still remember standing an a room the size of a small city block, with an IBM 360 taking most of the room, and this thing sitting on a desk with about 80% of the same power. Of course, now my iPhone would blow both platforms away. I strongly believe that, without something to ignite and focus our imagination on, we risk becoming unimaginitive. That, to me, would be a very bad thing, because this world continues to pose challenges that we need to think about creatively. Not all of those problems are of our making. But, it is just my opinion. Vs.
  12. av8tor, you make an interesting point about the "last' seat. Maybe if this is truly an issue of managing expectations, airlines who overbook, and wish to continue to do so, say for routes with high no-show factors, should (and technically have the data already to) advise customers when the seat they are looking at is an oversell, along with some sort of indicator, based on historical experience or other measure (pick one) that gives some sense of the probability of getting bumped. Of course, such a stat would be a ready weapon in the hands of any regulator. Once the probability of getting bumped passed some agreed on level, a regulator could simply say, 'stop overselling to that level'. Just a Sunday musing as dinner cooks. For those in the business lucky enough to be with family today and not some far flung hotel, Best wishes for the evening! Vs
  13. I think we will all be long retired, or worse, before this story line is. Rant alert. The trouble I see is that it is not one thing alone, it is a culture of so many interwoven factors that improvements are elusive. For example. Overbooking. Why is this done? Because margins are so thin that flying with empty seats often means losing money on the route. Why not charge more so you can be sustainably profitable with 10% open seats? We know why, because your passengers will simply abandon you for the competitor who charges 10% less - and overbooks. How about charge the same money and adjust cost structures so you can fly with 10% open seats and be profitable? The holy grail. The problem is, see #1. As soon as someone figures out how to do it cheaper, they don't fly with open seats, they just continue to overbook and bank the extra 10% proflt. Or worse, increase their cost structure, dividends, whatever so that they now consume the savings on the spot. As for obese passengers. I've been in the middle row between two individual, both requiring seat extensions, both requesting that the armrests be raised for their comfort, then doing the typical leg splay such that their knees would have been touching in front of me if they were not crushing my legs between them. Neither fellow seemed to care about body space, armrest or no, I was simply gonna get squished and pushed whenever either moved an arm or anything else. I had to move or deplane. it was a 6 hour flight ahead and there was no way, No one wants to be disadvantaged, and it seems that more and more travellers identify themselves as part of a special interest group that they feel gives them preferential consideration over others. This creates a new disadvantaged group, those that require no special accommodations, so get no accommodation at all. I think it is long past time for frank discussions. You don't like the seat pitch or width, then don't buy the fare. You don't want to have the risk of gate seat assignment, ditto. You want to pay 50% of the going rate by travelling in a high density cabin, then understand your 60 kg roll aboard is not rolling aboard with you. I fully get that some of the passengers that have been displaced lately did pay a full fare, we can assume for argument sake that they had all of the protections promised but denied. Being punted off an airplane in those circumstances is wrong, unfair and should be illegal. I fully agree, airlines can and should be held accountable for denying the product they sold to their customers, but this is not a one way problem, and it sure as heck is not going to be a one way solution. And given that these policies are almost all driven by passenger expectations set by chasing a price point, the solution is going to wait until passengers learn that you can't fly for less than a bus ticket and expect something more. Sorry for the rant.... Vs
  14. Revenue, yes, profit, no. I am no financial guru, but someone a bit more qualified did mention that there can be accounting flexibility as to when certain costs are declared. As this appears to be a cost, vs revenue story, I wonder if that is the case. Again, someone more savvy can say for sure. IF any costs have been optionally loaded onto this quarter, I have to wonder if the open contract negotiations will be affected by the 'need to control costs and here is the proof' approach. That has certainly worked in the past, followed by pretty good results once the ink was dry... But to the question of expansion, I would say that exercise is just beginning. And apart from negotiating tactics, I think it IS true that some of the markets are thin enough that cost control is going to have to be pristine right out of the box. FWIW Vs
  15. I have to ask when is this densification going to hit its limit? There are very real health effects already. The trouble is, the passenger population chases price point. So when this launches, passengers will demand the same price on carriers that don't use the same seating. On this trend line, at some point (and not saying this is it), an airline is going to have to make a decision between something known to be harmful to its passengers and meeting their price expectations. Vs