Jump to content

HST

Members
  • Posts

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by HST

  1. BigJet TV might be amusing for the uninformed but it’s just fluff TV to those with a real operating perspective into LHR or anywhere else. The only windy bit was the diatribe from the yahoo occupying the audio feed. 

  2. Quote
    Quote

    (HST, I see the splash you are referring to however no object is seen - looks to me like the crest of several waves interacting with each other

    I think left rudder was applied to miss the object in the water. The theory of interacting waves (similar to a speedboat doing tight circles on a lake) just doesn’t “hold water” in my opinion. Sorry couldn’t resist ?

  3. The explanation appears logical. In the longer video Seeker posted (accident begins at :40 secs) after the object is hit and raises the hull, there is a splash behind the aircraft as the object resurfaces. 

  4. http://avherald.com/h?article=4bcefedb&opt=0

    Of note:

    On Aug 29th 2018 The Aviation Herald received information from a multitude of sources stating that the aircraft touched down on Macau's runway 34 at 7.7 degrees nose up, 123 KIAS and 2.4G, bounced, touched down a second time at 15.1 degrees nose up between 133 and 144 KIAS and 3.4G. The aircraft bounced again, touched down a third time at 7.7 degrees nose down (nose gear first), both wheels and part of the nose gear structure separated, debris was ingested by the left hand engine, debris destroyed the VHF1 antenna (causing temporary loss of communication), the damage to the nose gear also prompted the nose gear to permanently indicate being on the ground preventing gear retraction. About 5 seconds after the third bounce the go around was initiated.

     

  5. 10 hours ago, blues deville said:

    Do you think a fuel/weight issue or just a screw up? With that many items missing I’d guess an entire container (or two) didn’t make your flight. Golf bags and your luggage. Whether it departed for an alternative destination or sat parked somewhere during your trip only AC knows. And it sounds like the “not give a sh!t meter” is pegged on high. 

    Wait times for baggage on inbound AC flights at YYZ are getting excessive. And frequently  gate arrivals are also delayed due to lack of ground crews. 

    So maybe a manpower issue or just a screw up with container labels?

    And finally, can you rent a nice set of Titleist clubs in BDA? :)

    I initially figured it was a missing container but running into folks with similar stories on other AC flights was too much to ignore.

    I brought carry on and didn’t have to play in dress shoes and jeans a few hours after arrival. Others who hadn’t “planned on incompetence” were as lucky.

    It’s a TaylorMade island. What a shame! ;)

     

     

    • Haha 1
  6. Great AC service YYZ-BDA Nov. 1 until arriving at baggage claim. 11 guys on our annual golf trip and only 2 sets of clubs and their bags arrive. BDA staff were pleasant enough but used computer print out paper to hand collect data. The BDA staff hadn’t any answers except call the 1800 “we don’t give a sh!t” number and sit on hold for 1:30 mins only to be connected to a data collector. No communication from AC during our entire stay. 

    Our luggage/clubs were sent on the day of our departure (yyz-bda) then turned around and sent back for collection in YYZ.

    An AC friend put us onto the Service Plus program to recoup expenses but the “get back to you in 2 business days” has been 8 days and counting. Filed general claim via Accc-prod.microsoftcrmportals.com as well as consulting airpassengerrights.ca.

    It was a great trip despite the set back but AC failed miserably in the communication department. 

    It’s been 20 years since I’ve operated there, incidentally on the A320, but is there a load issue of fuel versus bags on the A320 into BDA? I ask because we ran into more than a few AC customers with sports equipment and baggage woes (including Canadian rugby team) while there.

     

     

  7. 6 hours ago, Say Again, Over! said:
    • EVA015, after take-off 07R, was given a heading  of 180.  The crew made a mistake in reading back a left turn where a right turn would have been quicker;
    • The controller did not catch the bad read-back and therefore lost her opportunity to correct the error.

    According to this article http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jumbo-jets-low-turn-wrong-course-startles-los-angeles-neighborhood/ the FAA is quoted as saying “The air-traffic controller at the approach control who was handling EVA instructed the pilot to make a left turn to a 180-degree heading,” FAA spokesman Gregor said.

     

  8. 7 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

    They maintained an erroneous heading for far too much time, probably debating the controllers instructions and finally came out of the 'fog' when the voice from EVA changed.

    I'd think all would agree their SA (with respect to terrain and other aircraft) was lacking but the "erroneous heading" was trying to adhere to ATC transmissions which were a series of clearances attempting to correct ATC's initial left turn and EVA's slow reversal of this initial error. I'd submit that the quickest way might well have been to disengage the AP and manually get the aircraft turning to the right considering ATC's use of the term expedite. However,  that's a big ask for this crew, who most likely engaged the AP at 400' and might have been in the midst of a configuration change and or level off. I see your point on cardinal headings and have experienced it first hand at some major US airports. When one is received it usually requires a brief explanation with ESL FO's. Not sure cardinal headings helped here.

    A good discussion. 

  9. 6 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

    The link you posted certainly proves the bias some have with reference to the controller, (read some of the ignorant the comments). This is a much better link , (below), and I think it shows that EVA was very slow to get turned around. As far as "terminology" goes, I would consider any pilot who does not know what direction is referred to when someone says "south-bound" ought not be flying. As far as the controller's comment "What are you doing??"  I have heard similar comments going into many high density areas, especially when the addressee does not immediately respond to directions.

    I would put the blame for this incident as 90% on the EVA pilots and 10% on the controller for using the term "southbound".

    Check this link...much clearer as to the lack of action by EVA,,,,,,pilots slow to react

    Wouldn't agree on your % of blame. The controller % goes up IMO when the ATC audio is further reviewed. This is assuming the audio is complete without blocked or missed transmissions 

    The initial controller error of a left turn (habit from normal westerly departures?) should have generated a query by the crew for 2 reasons. It was a 270 degree turn and a turn into parallel departures. That didn't happen. Next, ATC then corrects with "right turn, right turn heading 180" which was acknowledged "copy, right turn heading 180". Seconds later ATC instructs "expedite your right turn" which was responded with "roger, we are passing heading 010 continue right turn heading". In the next transmission to the EVA crew ATC instructs "stop your climb" and moments later "turn left, left turn heading 29..correction 270" and EVA responded with "left heading 270". As though ATC forgets her last instruction of left heading 270, the controller (clearly agitated) says "what are you doing? turn southbound now, southbound now, stop your climb" which generates EVA to say "Confirm heading left...right 0..background voice presumably of PF". Getting no response EVA again requests "confirm the heading?" and ATC responds "turn southbound, turn southbound now" to which EVA acknowledges "Roger, turn southbound now". Had the crew turned the shortest distance to southbound (left turn) it would have been appropriate (with confirmation of course) as ATC never gave specific instructions. The crew is then being admonished for appearing northbound when in fact a right turn from heading 270 can only pass through a northerly heading. ATC using the repetitive term "southbound" with no direction (L or R) to EVA veorsus a specific heading (which incidentally all other aircraft received) certainly wasn't the quickest way to get this crew heading in the correct direction. There are many non-standard ATC clearances but IMO many of those occur in non ESL countries. Your blame of 90% on the crew? Was it that they didn't correct ATC's initial error? IMO, EVA followed all ATC's instructions. In the final analysis, ATC should get a good portion of the blame and I'd hazard a guess you will not hear cardinal headings issued as ATC clearances in SoCal airspace. 

     

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...