UpperDeck

Donating Member
  • Content count

    1,344
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

UpperDeck last won the day on August 5

UpperDeck had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

299 Excellent

About UpperDeck

  • Rank
    5

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Boating; golf; research

Recent Profile Visitors

2,451 profile views
  1. SFO Incident

    I posted the " rules" above. I think that post is on page 7. In any event, according to a recent news report, both the FAA and Air Canada asserted that the event was not a " reportable incident" and hence, the NTSB was not notified until almost 24 hours later. If the event had in fact been " reportable", the CRV would have been preserved and available for review.
  2. Admin

    Just a thought but have you given any consideration to simply deleting the initial post? Look at all the "views" of participants asking themselves; " Now what?" ( LOL).
  3. SFO Incident

    mo32a..... We know that the NTSB is conducting an investigation. It is my understanding that NTSB field operations have access to a lot of information regarding airport operations. It is possible that the NTSB " self-initiated" the investigation. It is possible that it was reported voluntarily by the operator or an investigation was requested by the FAA. The relevance of a mandatory report is that it is made FORTHWITH and the CVR must be preserved together with all other potential evidence.
  4. SFO Incident

    https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=36418957aeb9385b90ae9a44f4a8d1cd&mc=true&node=pt49.7.830&rgn=div5#se49.7.830_15 I think this link will work. It is the portion of the Federal Code regarding reporting of accidents and incidents. Again, there is no reference to any obligation of a controller to report to the NTSB but regardless, if the event being discussed did not mandate a report by the operator then I doubt there would be a statutory obligation upon a controller to report.
  5. SFO Incident

    I may very well be wrong but what I read is that the operator is required to report to the NTSB an "incident" forthwith. In the definition of " incident", there is specific reference to actually landing on a taxiway. That would exclude an approach that did NOT result in a landing. That is why I suggested that AC did not have an obligation to report. I did not read any reference to any obligation upon a controller to report to the NTSB. I would expect the controller to advise a supervisor and it would proceed within the FAA. I understand that a controller can report to a 3rd party for self-protection. My point was simply that the pilots and AC were not required to report this event to the NTSB.
  6. SFO Incident

    I did a little--- a VERY little---- study of the statutes and regulations, a fairly complex maze. The controllers are part of the FAA as all know. An aircraft operator reports to the NTSB forthwith upon the happening of any incident or accident and must preserve any evidence including any CVR. The situation at SFO was NOT a reportable occurrence requiring AC or any employee to notify the NTSB or preserve the CRV. I am merely guessing that either the FAA reported the matter to the NTSB some time later or AC did so voluntarily. The Canadian statutes and regs have a broader definition of a reportable occurrence but the time within which to report the "event" is not "forthwith" and certainly not within a time that would have prevented an overwrite of the CVR. In Canada, the CVR is " privileged". There is a CADORS for the Westjet low approach into St.Maarten and go round that was discussed on this forum. That " incident" was reported. Given the over-riding importance of using any negative event as a " learning moment", perhaps the discussion should be focused on 1) the definition of an "incident".....is there too much emphasis on an actual accident and damage or injury?; and, 2) the limited use of the CVR to assist in the understanding of processes that may lead to negative results whether that be undue deference in the cockpit or mutual reinforcement despite objective data. Aviators and the general public will never know what was being said in that cockpit as the aircraft approached SFO. Collectively, we are left with the recall of the pilots themselves and memories are fragile. Personally, I believe that a considerable benefit would be generated were procedures in place to preserve the CVR whenever anything occurred in flight that had some potential to result in loss. I know....I know....take off would satisfy that criterion. Obviously, " anything etc." would have to be defined.
  7. Are Pilotless Planes in Our Future?

    From left field.....I don't think that "we" can adequately synthesize the impact upon every aspect of our lives of robotic engineering and quantum computing. A robot with human features will be available in the not too distant future that can be "synched" to the aircraft and detect and respond appropriately to incoming data that would overwhelm a mere mortal. Of course we're not there yet but if humanity survives long enough, I have no doubt whatsoever that if it is even necessary to move people from A to B mechanically, it will be accomplished without human "servers". It may not be necessary. With VR, meetings can be held wherever one desires and attended by any number of participants with no one ever actually leaving their cubicle. And tourism? VR will enable you to go places and interact with "locals" economically and without any fear of an over-booked flight!
  8. SFO Incident

    Apologies since the thread appears to now be back on track and I am disinclined to interrupt. I waited awhile to respond to the above post which was the last before the thread was " reviewed". In my opinion, suggestions of defamation and prosecution are thinly veiled attempts to inhibit discussion and should be avoided. It is clear that no Air Canada employee was " slandered" ( defamed) nor was there ever a statement that any person committed an offense. Let us be clear on that. To the extent that anyone requires an advocate to present their "defense", those advocates whether self-appointed or otherwise should be guided by the rules of civility required of ALL advocates. Hurling epithets such as "troll" is inconsistent with that standard as are accusations of "slander" and " innuendo". Enough on that subject. I previously asked but didn't get a response; is the recording time on the 320 CVR 30 minutes or 120? If only 30, I think it reasonable to conclude it would have been overwritten. I understand that this occurrence would NOT be within the definition of a reportable " incident" in the US. However, based upon an earlier post, it appears that it would be reportable based on Canadian requirements but would that report be " forthwith" to the Canadian authorities and then " in due course" to the FAA? US counsel advises that an " incident" as defined must be reported to the NTSB but US pilots are advised to NOT report unless it is clear there was an " incident" as defined. Overflying a taxiway does not appear to be within that definition.
  9. SFO

    Actually, this particular subject should be of interest to ALL forum participants. Assume the forum owners ( Admin??) are associated with Air Canada ( just for discussion). Assume that the discussion about the over-write of the CVR touched upon matters that could potentially lead to further inquiry and, as a result, there was a " request" to Admin conveyed to " pull the plug". Would that be something of concern to anyone? (Emphasis....I am just postulating!!) Or.....one of the forum contributors is a moderator and has the delegated authority to delete a thread where he/ she is "offended" by expressed opinions with which he/ she disagrees. Is that something forum participants might find objectionable? Or ( finally).....what if a forum contributor has some special status....perhaps a friend of the Admin or a moderator or someone in a relative position of authority and as a gesture of loyalty, a moderator or the Admin deleted a thread at the request of that contributor? Forget the word " objectionable"....is that possibility one that should give rise to concern? Marshall has fairly stated...participants have no " right" to question any moderator. Obviously, they have no right to question the Admin. Basically, you are permitted to express an opinion ( subject to express limitations) but that is at sufferance; it is NOT a " right". I guess it can be fairly stated--- be careful what you say and about whom for you tread upon eggshells that may not be apparent to the casual observer.
  10. SFO

    Hey! Just a sec. I read a LOT about QUIET BRIDGE on that forum and apart from a few strident voices, there seemed to be a relatively restrained exchange of opinions both from aviators and others. Rumours....quiet mumblings oft-repeated that are borne by the winds of discontent or.....sometimes.....by a wish to sow seeds of truth. ( Note: original thought of UD). We are talking about Pprune(???), right? G'night, mates.
  11. SFO

    For the record ( testing; testing)....I simply asked what happened to the thread and was "told" that it was " under review". It was accessible last night and gone this am. I know nothing more....nothing!! I have no idea who might have objected to any posts nor an inkling as to who is conducting a review. Now speculation....that's an entirely different story. I can speculate with the best of them!! Defcon.....what have you done? ( LOL!!!!)
  12. SFO

    Vsplat... What in the name of......are you talking about!!! Get over yourself!! It was a joking reference; hence "lol"....laugh out loud. Innuendo....personal invective? I have to shake my head. On the now deleted thread, you suggested I would do others a favour by not making some observations. Others then posted agreeing with my observations. Your silence was deafening. Frankly...I don't give a hoot who you are or what you do but I gather from your remarks that you sit comfortably in the left seat of a widebody. I will read your remarks on subjects within the field of your expertise and accord them the consideration I would give to the input of others with similar knowledge and experience. You are entitled to no less....nor any more. But...once again...lighten up!
  13. SFO

    Being more than a little paranoid, I of course concluded I had done something wrong but checked the "rules" and could not discern any offence. I did however disagree with Vsplat very near in time to the disappearance and the last time I did that the thread also disappeared. Is it possible........???? (Lol)
  14. SFO

    I inquired an was advised that the thread was under review. As a very general note, I found it of considerable interest that on a different forum ( to which I was directed by a very helpful AEF denizen), the chain of comments were very similar to those on this forum including the questions regarding the CVR. There was a lot of discussion regarding the possibility of fatigue as a factor which was referenced very early on this forum by Defcon. That got me thinking and I read a little bit...not too much....and I learned of sleep inertia and the relevance of the maximum 40 minute "rest". Fatigue is not something new and its impact upon flight operations has been investigated extensively. Given an impetus to test for alcohol and drug impairment, why wouldn't there be some means of trsting a pilot on check-in for fatigue or sleep impairment? There is no suggestion of fault in any way since since one can obviously be fatigued but diligent in efforts to address the issue well before the scheduled flight. NB...this is NOT a post about SFO!!!!
  15. AC and Lot at YYZ Touch Wings.

    I'm having trouble visualizing this. The LOT aircraft is stationary and boarding pax. The other airplane is in the process of approaching the gate. Surely it must have completed its turn and is going straight in? That suggests there eas insufficient room---- and that can't be correct. And where is the " wing walker"?