Vsplat

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    1,492
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

Vsplat last won the day on October 14

Vsplat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

364 Excellent

1 Follower

About Vsplat

  • Rank
    5

Recent Profile Visitors

3,335 profile views
  1. Vsplat

    747 at YHZ

    I think it did make for an interesting report recently, when the lights never quite made it to strength 5 as advertised.... Something is definitely up at YHZ.... Vs
  2. Vsplat

    Who Knew?

    Hmmmmm. I guess I'll have to look up my definition of 'North America'. Either it's taken on the confines of the great lakes on the south and the 407 on the North, or things have really slid a long way elsewhere. Vs
  3. The E190 has a pretty simple flight control system. Something must have really gone wrong with that maintenance exercise. I hope we get to read the report. Glad they made it. Test flight or no, no one should experience a ride like that. Vs
  4. Vsplat

    Lion Air Down

    The conversation was more, he had never seen an intercept from above done visually, without an autopilot capturing an ILS glideslope. The notion of referencing the runway and PAPI and removing automation rather than fight it was still foreign. Admittedly, that is an artifact of the sim world, where everything is geared toward understanding the automation. Line indoc may or may not offer an opportunity to see a manual intercept. It's the luck of the draw. Vs
  5. Vsplat

    Lion Air Down

    That's a good story. And a good point. Stable approaches are a major focus right now. Interesting, how many times a crew that gets slam dunked tries to recover through automation when they are way outside the effective realm of that mode. What would be simple in a low or no automation state morphs into this hair-on-fire flurry of hands and fingers and sucks the crews SA down the drain. My own funny story. On approach the other day, we expected a tailwind from around 4000 feet till 500 feet or so. I was PF, down early, on speed, but no tailwind materialized. Hmmm. Nice low altitude tour of the boonies! Grinding our way onto the glideslope, as soon as we pitched over, the wind made its appearance and our speed shot up with a trend arrow past our max speed for our flap selection. I took the easy road - AP off, shallow the descent, get the speed trending where I wanted it as we got the gear down and worked our way back into the slot (visual conditions) reference the PAPI and keeping the vertical speed somewhere sensible. While we met all of the gates, my partner (new-ish), mentioned on the taxi in, 'I thought we were going around. I have never seen what you did, done". I was concerned, did I miss something, were we not stable? 'Oh no, everything was bang on. I just have never actually seen that done. Neat!". Well, now he has.... Vs
  6. Vsplat

    Lion Air Down

    Kip, I think there is a general move toward lower automation segments in sim sessions industry wide, that's more being driven by the go around decision and started before this. That said, understanding what is happening at the root of an undesired aircraft state seems important no matter what the conditions. While we assume 'looking out the window' would have helped, there is no reason to think a crew would not remain in manual flight after departing IFR. Many of the olde guard still believe in doing this on a regular basis. If I read this right, that manual flight and AOA disagree on this aircraft can result in this bad situation, then the crew is going to have to deal with it in IFR as well as VFR, potentially at a very low altitude. It is an interesting thing - every time we add layer to this cake, no matter how well intentioned, there are side effects and risk of the new layer playing badly with the old. Sometimes the side effects can be worse than the original issue. Vs
  7. Vsplat

    747 at YHZ

    I see the localiser antenna is toast. Going to be a very interesting sked in there the next while.... Vs
  8. I just want to circle back to this 'pricing themselves out of the market' comment. Things like that get slid into conversations and flow forward as though they were fact. When I look at CEO compensation, for example, it doesn't appear to me as though 'pricing out of the market' really is what this is about. It's about power and setting a tone of who's calling the shots. Compared to so many other costs, paying and crewing pilots appropriately is not the tipping point the ATACs of the world would like to promote it as. But it is part of a larger business model. The overpowering of the pilot community in Canada has been so inbred for so long that, in 2018, we still have young pilots flying to their deaths, exhausted, flying broken aircraft into places they have no business going, because they think it will get them that next rung on the ladder. For those that survive and hit the 'big leagues' - surprise! You're expected to remain unconcious until the phone rings and be ready to go, fully awake, wherever crew sked wants to send you. Or get drafted to operate just one more leg 'to protect the operation' having been up all night working a redeye. Or do other things that it takes a foreign government to call BS on. And the Minister of TC thinks this is science. It's not. It's just business. And that business model isn't really about a pilot's paycheck, it is about maintaining a compliant workforce who will get the mission done and continue to 'take one for the team' so we can buy that aircraft and pay that CEO. Bottom line: if the economics of an aircraft hinge on pilots sacrificing pay or working conditions, then the company needs to hire someone better at math, not someone who can squeeze more juice out of its pilots. Rant over. Vs fixed a couple of typos (sadly never all of them)
  9. DEFCON, all good questions, yet difficult to sift out without triggering the victim-blaming landmine, so often are those defences abused in legitimate cases. Can these questions even be asked without blowback? All of this just underscores how much of this is about power and leverage. While there are true cases of assault and abuse and these clearly must dealt with fully, it's the opportunistic abuse of just processes that ultimately ruin them. I see today a couple of Kavanaugh accusers now facing charges. What's the truth there? I can think of so many examples, not just involving criminal activity. Perhaps OT, but if our social safety network of sick leave, disability insurance and even health insurance were ever to collapse, I'd look to a similar source of rot as the cause. Vs
  10. Another cautionary tale of unwitnessed interactions. It seems now that, unless you have a gopro embedded somewhere, you're vulnerable to whatever undeclared agenda the other person has. Perhaps the other person wishes to assault you and is waiting for an opportunity. Perhaps you see an opportunity to make an accusation and gain something from it. The next day, there is no way, absent hard evidence, to know which version actually took place. So whoever in the situation stands to lose the most, loses the most. Gains, well, the stats are more varied. Welcome to the 'facts optional' epoch. This vector had better be a short one. Vs
  11. I don't think there is much dispute here about what would make sense. That's often way different from what passengers sometimes expect. I have to say, during my DH yesterday, I was seated at an emergency exit and the fellow beside me was out cold within seconds after the door closed. Next time I heard from him was top of descent. Not a word from the cabin staff. So..... Vs
  12. I did read that AC, probably a similar search. The definition of 'adversely affect' does not include wakefulness after the briefing. I think it is assumed the individual would wake up if required. Now we are on a whole line of assumption here. In the cases I have seen where a passenger WAS found to be unable to remain in an exit row, the solution then was to switch them with another passenger, not punt them. Somehow there's a big part of this story that I think we are missing. Vs
  13. Hmmm. Do you have a reference for that? I have never read anything requiring this. The only requirement I am aware of is that the passenger must not have a disability that would interfere with their ability to assist, and must receive and be able to understand the briefing. After that, nothing. I've seen more than a few cases where an airline policy was somehow thought to be from Transport Canada when it wasn't. Could this be such a case? Vs
  14. Ya, I guess the onboard ads, 'got the munchies?' have taken on a more 70's meaning.... Vs
  15. Hmmm. Pretty strong response there, both initially and in this thread. Falling asleep on its own is not a removable offence. I'm not aware of anything in any passenger briefing requiring all passengers to be awake for takeoff. Of course it makes sense, especially if one is seated near an emergency exit or on an aisle seat, say, but even when sitting at an exit, I have never been advised that I have any such obligation. If the concern was that the passenger was having a medical event because they were hard to rouse, once they were awake, the matter should have been settled. But, since they had taken a sleeping pill, I wonder how awake they truly appeared to the flight attendant. Maybe they were drifting in and out. That might have played a factor. Hard to see for those not there and we know passenger accounts can vary widely from those of the crew. If impairment was a concern, I wonder at the precedent. I've had more than a few passengers removed at the gate because they boarded hammered. Others where it was marginal. Would they have had their 'stuff' together in an evacuation? So, tough circumstances all around, but the discussion is an important one. I don't think we have heard the last of this issue, especially as edibles start to come on board, or become a pre-flight snack in the boarding lounge. (OT - will we need new policies to deal with multiple passengers whose cruising FL is above the aircraft??) Vs