Jump to content

Canoehead

Members
  • Posts

    377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Canoehead

  1. +1 The Bear photos are almost chilling. We are at the point where many of the "newer" and younger enterants into the aviation business don't realize how significant this history is. I flew with an FO not long ago who didn't know what an L1011 was....
  2. That's getting kind of scary. Especially since it wasn't even charging. Samsung must be losing their minds over this.
  3. Good thing that the passengers reported hearing the loud noise! Flight may have ended much worse. Do "Editors" actually read before sending to print/internet?
  4. Of course...CBC is generally "anti-AC"... And a quick search of CTV News? Nothing.
  5. Sad news. I can't imagine the desperation that a person must feel in their life to end it like that. I've heard of a few suicides recently (including in our own profession). It's troubling.
  6. 4th pic down (the one over Toronto) looks pretty easy to make out. Guelph on the left, and Georgetown just south of the lightning. And YYZ in the easiest form of recognition: the dark void in an otherwise sea of lights... Hopefully this guy can keep doing this kind of thing. Unfortunately at some companies (including mine), taking any pictures on the flightdeck is now prohibited. Who knew that snapping shots from an operating seat on short final then posting to Facebook before you even get to the gate could get a person into trouble!? (And no, not me...!)
  7. For us "young-uns" who never got to participate in the art of oceanic navigation in the 70's and 80's (or ever ), what was 123.45 used for Don? (I know... air to air or "kindergarten") PS- I love these stories... don't ever think it's not soaked up!
  8. I wasn't aware that firefighters are trained in handling mechanical issues in the flight deck. Amazing....
  9. I couldn't get past the first 2 sentences of his second paragraph. That was enough for me.
  10. Not to defend their lack of attention to detail, but taxiing outbound for departure of YYZ 23 is normally A and H. It's possible that the non-standard taxi routing may have played a role in my mind. "A" ends at "H". "B" crosses it, and also crosses 05-23.
  11. Hi DEFCON In fact the Captain pulled back through 3 stick pushes! I can tell you that at Jazz the Q400 pilots are all trained to perform recoveries at the onset of the shaker, and also get to take it through to the pusher to see what it does and recover from that point. This is typically demonstrated in conjunction with a high altitude stall; I can't recall it specifically being done in the stalls in the landing configuration- perhaps it should be. There is no doubt when the pusher (electrically powered so no limit on pushes) activates; it almost could pull the column from your hands. Unfortunately the Captain of 3407 had a different idea that night. Word from an extremely respected Q400 trainer, who knows the airplane better than anyone (and is very familiar with the accident) is that if he had simply let go of the control column they almost certainly would have flown out of it. Sorry for the thread drift kinda....
  12. Is it just me or is Richard Quest's correspondence more like nails on a chalkboard? "Emergency go-around fuel"? Good grief. Could you sensationalize this any more? Sorry- can't stand (most) journalists lately...
  13. Watched a "Newleaf" flight, operated by Flair Airlines (according to the announcement made in the boarding lounge) depart YQM yesterday. It was actually a Canadian North 737. So is that a subcharter of a subcharter?
  14. This never gets old... along the lines of what Seeker said above. Louis CK- Everything is Amazing
  15. Unbelievable that they made all this happen with less computing power than my iPhone has. Or at least I tell my kids that Brilliant minds.
  16. No motion, no turbulence, no crosswind. No dice.
  17. At what point do you think 'yeah, might be time to try this again...' ? About 800' high at 220kts and 1800fpm by the FAF going into Grindstone? You've got to be kidding me. Respectfully, that's just some of the ugliest flying I've ever heard of. Brings a whole new meaning to unstable approaches. Totally preventable. (Assuming there really was no mechanical failures of course)
  18. Didn't AC also land a DC9 accidently at Sanderson Field (American Sault) many years ago? I'm sure we were told that in college. Maybe it was this -200 you're talking about Blues.
  19. British Airtours 28M immediately comes to mind (and others). There must have been a very compelling reason for this crew not to have evacuated. Surely there must. Or am I missing something? (Because at first glance, somebody has got some 'splainin to do)
  20. Not really. It was just so ugly the earth repelled it. It only "flew" in ground effect (15' and below). According to Wikipedia, it's not considered an airplane, or a boat. It's known as a 'ground effect vehicle". Imagine the fuel burn on that thing!?!
  21. The Soviets/Russians sure know (knew) how to make some ugly looking hardware! They even have the ability to effectively copy a western design, and make it ugly in the process. Weird. (My personal opinion of course)
  22. In defence of BD, I believe he has stated he wasn't calling out the crew on their decisions, but was after a valid, non-bs answer from WJ as to why the flight was cx'd. He (and the rest of the pax) was given a pretty lame excuse by the sounds of it, instead of stating the facts. Didn't even really need to be all the gory details, but to simply say "the captain decided not to land" is pretty weak, and so is "the captain saw fog over Summerside". We know there was a valid reason why "The Owners" didn't land in YYG. I think BD ultimately just wants to know why. I would too.
  23. Possibly an MEL restriction of some type, or a crew issue ('green' Capt. with some limitation?). It is hard to watch other airlines come and go while you're told 'we can't do it'. I've seen it before when a certain operator from YTZ went in and out of YSB for 3 days while the weather was below limits. We followed the rules and looked like the amateurs to the pax, while the other guys looked like heros. Not at all saying this is the same type of scenario (limit exceedence or violating), just that there may be, and likely is, more to it. Unfortunately it appears the revenue wasn't adequately informed of the why (especially those who fly for a living). SIDENOTE: why is the -800 such a poor landing performer versus other machines- is there a particular design shortcoming?
×
×
  • Create New...