Jump to content

Vsplat

Donating Member
  • Posts

    1,603
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    53

Vsplat last won the day on May 31

Vsplat had the most liked content!

Reputation

428 Excellent

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

5,273 profile views
  1. Certainly different. I don't know how electric motors like severe cold. Is there a warm up period to prevent all those amps from cracking some ceramic something or other?
  2. First lightning strike should be instructive.... Might also be interesting to see how protracted ground delays between the departure gate and takeoff are handled - like a trip through the CDF. I wonder if we will see a ground towing arrangement with auxiliary power. Vs
  3. There is a long history on the fight over the frequency band that is now causing concern. For those whose moods need downward correction, it makes for interesting reading on just what public safety means in the back room. FWIW 5G operates on more than one band, the problematic range does not have to be active for the tech to work, but of course more bandwidth is better. And ditto to the abuse of cell phones in flight. IMO that will continue until a passenger's behaviour can be directly blamed for a go around and the bill to them for negligence is both high and public. Vs
  4. or bio-break, or.... IMO this is 'art of the deal' territory for companies to take to their unions. 'OK, ok. no single pilot ops. Tell you what. we've proven there's no TECHNICAL reason to have more than one of those expensive meat bodies in cruise. So what's it worth to your membership for us to forget about this (until the next negotiations that is)' We'll see.
  5. If you insist on misquoting and misinterpreting stuff as you have, this discussion is not going to succeed. I have not made such a claim. ILS installations do improve approach safety. My statement was that 'an ILS is not a silver bullet'. Landing excursions often involve factors unrelated to the approach aid in use. You keep referring to the 747 overrun. The reports I have read indicate it was runway 14 with the ILS in use. The winds favored 23, which as we already know had an ILS. Having an ILS on 05 would not have made a lick of difference in that case as 05 would have over tailwind limits. Here is the associated comment from the TSB. "according to METAR issued 7 minutes after arrival, the winds were 230 degrees, 11 gusting 18 knots. The ceiling was 1200 feet above ground and visibility was 8 miles" It appears you still have not read the report on that 767 event. I won't waste any further time debating opinion with you. As you seem interested in landing excursions, I suggest you do some legwork on why these events occur. There is a body of study on the topic. Some here have read much of that material and remain active contributors in excursion mitigation within the safety community. Vs
  6. I suggest you research a lot more and slag a lot less. The way you are throwing terms like 'failed in their duty' around, sooner or later you're gonna end up on the wrong side of something official. You didn't mention Nav Canada, but in your rush to judgement, you should have. You wanted to lay blame for the lack of an ILS. Who exactly do you think determines where ILS, or any navaids go, or who owns them? The airport authorities I have dealt with (and that's a few) generally want the highest precision approach Nav Can will spring for. Diversions don't pay landing fees. As you mention AC 624, you might have taken the time to read that report. It lays out how, specifically, YHZ 05 ended up without an ILS. While it's frustrating as pilots to have to shoot a NPA to a runway, misplaced blame and allegations are really not helpful. Here's the quote from the TSB. "1.18.12 Runway 05 landing system - Halifax International Airport Authority (HIAA) has not received a request to perform a risk assessment from its stakeholders (NAV CANADA, air carriers, and pilots), nor has it received any information indicating that the safety of the runway is compromised with the type of landing system currently installed. Performing a risk assessment of the types of landing systems installed on runways is the responsibility of NAV CANADA, as it is the owner and operator of these sy st ems. In 1998, NAV CANADA conducted a feasibility analysis for the installation of an ILS on Runway 05 at CYHZ. The results indicated high installation costs for both localizer and glidepath equipment, with very little improvement in airport accessibility (less than 0.75%). In January 1999, the analysis results were presented at the Air Navigation System National Advisory Committee (ANSNAC), which stated that an ILS would be installed on a cost-recovery basis. However, no further action was taken because there was no agreement from customers to proceed on a cost-r eco ver y basis.NAV CANADA has indicated that risk is managed to an acceptable level for any approach type based on criteria such as•the design, installation, and maintenance of all underlying navigation systems; •the use of approved criteria in the design and maintenance of the procedures; and•the associated aircraft and crew systems authorized to use the approach. " Finally, The 767 event was nowhere near the ramp. The event happened on the runway itself. Here is the TSB investigation. https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/aviation/2019/a19a0012/a19a0012.html. Kip, good on you for your good natured reply... Vs.
  7. Well, when things go wrong, there is usually plenty of blame to go around. IMO it's no better laying all the blame on Nav Can than it is on the crew. The approach aids and runway lighting are known in advance. The crew needs to decide, for each approach, if they have a good option or not. Some days it's easy. Comparing the Canadian model to the US may evoke envy, but there are a lot of things that have to be considered when comparing. Besides, given the runway conditions so often present in YHZ, I think having an ILS is not a silver bullet. Wasn't there a 767 excursion landing on 23 there? That's a CAT II runway. Vs
  8. I dunno. Does leaving a smear on the ground equate to a greaser?
  9. Weelll sorta. A bit too much emphasis on what the monitoring pilot 'merely' did. What wasn't mentioned was that they 'merely' maintained full liability for anything that went wrong. If that experiment had ended in an accident, I am pretty sure the company would not have been so quick to hand all the 'credit' to their automation. Would a lot of 'merely' have been used to describe the AI role in that case? Nice paint job and there is progress, but the oversales is, well, overselling. Just my opnion. Vs
  10. I believe there is another thread on here were a pilot wrapped themselves in a larger cause and connected it to a legal issue. Human nature has its pros and cons. Among the cons is the need to dominate using any means possible. As well meaning and well founded as the direction to be more inclusive is, we as a society have not yet figured out how to prevent the abuse or gaming of corrective measures by those seeking unfair leverage. If there is going to be a widening of hiring criteria to include things not tied to skill, knowledge and experience, then the checking criteria and check pilots will need enhanced protection. Otherwise it is a matter of when, not if, a checker observes a failure and the candidate decides to reframe the event as something sinister. This is not speculation. I've personally seen it in the sim following merger(s) of groups, where the checker and candidate were not from the same original airline. Just my opinion. Vs
  11. The more I learn the worse it looks. Perhaps I really am into the jurassic nostalgia phase of life, but after successfully handling an abnormal (and who hasn't had a few), I usually felt a confidence boost that the aircraft and procedures worked. Even if everything did not exactly line up with the checklist, there was enough there to work with and make an effective plan. PTSD from a successful event that we have beaten into us at every sim? I keep looking for more to this story. How did this pilot's partner fare? No mention I could find of a CRM aspect. Vs
  12. I think I am mostly sad for this individual. If they think that is what ended their career, despite all of redundancy aboard the aircraft and the numerous simulator sessions practicing engine out, then there is probably another issue going unaddressed. Can't imagine what CBs and heavy turbs must have been like for them. Vs
  13. I think we have underestimated this thing at every step. Maybe I'm jaded at this point but it seems too early to say anything beyond this week - as in - it's good news that things are in decline, this week. Maybe what is going on in India is short term immunity to COVID 1. Maybe that immunity lasts, maybe it doesn't, maybe the next strain breaks through like influenza does. Maybe we end up needing an annual shot or booster, maybe not. That's a lot of maybes. I bet someone who really knows what they are talking about could add a lot more. Play safe.... Vs
  14. The last line is the most important. COVID has punished complacency with relentless consistency. The numbers way well be lower now, but that is cold comfort to the families losing loved ones every day. While the numbers show measures are working and perhaps lend some strength to our collective resolve, there is little there to tell me we can relax, not yet. Vs
  15. I have liked some of what Mr. Carney has done in the past but this is a profile grab at the expense of hundreds of thousands of livelihoods. I assume that Mr. Carney's next business trip will be by foot. If not, then stop suggesting extortion as a tool of policy. Vs
×
×
  • Create New...