Maverick Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Nice try SB, but layoff the BS (kinda catchy the way those initials just flip around like that). If this is in relation to the night SG had its event, there was plenty of snow and snow banks around YYC. So it is possible. You Wj'ers sure like the one way street. edit for sp. At least you are consistent. Nice try indeed AIP, since this whole thread is about unsubstantiated crap and you continue to insinuate coverups. The WJ'ers may like the one way street but how does that differ from you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AIP Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Nice try indeed AIP, since this whole thread is about unsubstantiated crap and you continue to insinuate coverups. The WJ'ers may like the one way street but how does that differ from you? No insinuations whatsoever, just pointing out for the umpteenth time that you clowns love to harp about all the others around, but when someone brings up one of your own, it is easily dismissed as crap and hearsay and so on. Why not, for a very pleasant change just shut the hell up about everybody else and just worry about yourselves. P.S. Tell CB the very same thing, nobody other than those who work there want to hear anything from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinnaker Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Why not, for a very pleasant change just shut the hell up about everybody else and just worry about yourselves. Ain't that the pot calling the kettle black.... If only you would though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambucca Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 The ground controller then said , "I've consulted with the on-duty supervisor and we can not release you to Tower until you have your wings inspected". They did, returned for a spray and all was good. My point I'm making is this is suppose to be a common thing when talking to some ground controllers. Maybe not to the extreme of actually having ground "suggest" a spray. But put it this way, in January a friend was on the recurrent CRJ ground school with two TC inspectors that are aware of this as well. This sounds like a total fabrication to me. In 25 years of flying I have never heard ATC get involved with a spray/no spray decision. Any more fairy tales out there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlazer Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 You Wj'ers sure like the one way street. At least you are consistent. Yeah thats it AIP, we are consistent on profit, excellent customer service, OTP and deep company loyalty. Yeah you got it right, AIP (Anatomically impotent Person) yeah your right funny how those acromnyms work. As for the "one way street" Nope some of our cabin employees I am sure go both ways....lol. SB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinnaker Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 BTW. WestJet also has athority to depart with Fuel Frost 'on top of the wing'. I guess just maybe Transport trusted us enough to modify the clean wing concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Spinnaker, that fuel frost let is a very limited approval, only for the 737 NG aircraft, and only within limited margins, and even then with a specific frost type. And neither the FAA nor SAE are particularly comfortable with how it is going. Apparently at least one operator has applied it to -200's and outside the particular margins for which the approval is designed. And there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding frost depth. So, I'd be a bit careful on this one. Don't confuse a limited approval with some acknowledgement of superiority. The FAA has backpedalled on supporting this approval, last I checked. We will see how long it survives with TC. While I'm posting, let me caution ALL the posters here that, historically, aviation humbles the most arrogant. Whoever here thinks they are so clean that they can judge another has the best chance of generating the next statistic, that is, if history has any relevance. The sad fact is that avation is being driven to cut corners and everyone is doing it. Instead of this infantile game, maybe we should realise that one day this will catch up to one of us, or our families in the back. We can be part of the problem, or actually realise that as technical professionals, we should all be on the same side. So, who wants to be next? PLAY NICE. Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 Guess I have to say it again to make myself clear. This is not trolling or slamming WJ. I didn't make any comments to the effect that WJ is unsafe etc (and I don't believe them to be unsafe). In fact, I said the opposite---crap happens. My sole point is that it happens to EVERY airline but some WJers just cannot seem to wrap their mind around that. Let me put it another way: "Your eat, sleep and crap just like the rest of us!!!!" For those calling me a troll--do a search and find ONE negative thing I have ever said about WJ! You won't find one because I don't have anything negatiove to say. It's a good company with good people--just the odd guy who can't keep his yap shut and like to criticize the rest of us. Jumpy--you could be right. Like I said I heard this from a TC guy and he may not have all the facts. CPDUDE--read both my post--there is NO intention to harm but rather to point to the minority WJers that they too have incidents and its all part of the job. Spinnaker--same point as above. No bomb here. Facts may be skewed bacause I made a mistake or the guy telling me did. Skyblazer--it wasn't an attempt to deflect the bad press. You had your bad press we have ours Besides old Be'dover' retreated from the position that started teh bad press. Databus--moron alert. FADEC--ahh, now how to I respond to such a well thought response as yours? I don't have to worry about the $30 grand and wouldn't anyway. Jetsgo will be here for a long time putting a nice dent in your profit sharing cheque. Finally, I'll say it again just to make myself clear. We're all the same when it comes to our job and our profession. If the odd WJer, and I say odd because we all know it is a minority, can't keep their mouth shut and attack another pilot/company the vengance some did don't expect me or others to sit back and take it. For the good guys here---I'll buy the beer, you choose the bar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.70 mach Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Sambucca, I was hesitant about writing the above for the very same reason I find myself in, defending what actually happened. I have only written one other post with a negative side regarding WS, having parents bags go missing but that happens to every airline. If you want I could possibly find out who I was flying that day as he was a former Winnipegger that went to school with a controller that was on-duty if that will settle your curiosity. Our puzzlement about controllers crossing the line and actually get involved and stand up and say something came like this in the conversation my Captain had with his friend. " 99.9999% of the time if a spray is required a spray is completed. The odd time we have some that want to temp fate, is it our job to sit back and let the consequences unfold ."............ For the record I have seen it down in Boston a controller make a slight remark to a Delta plane of the snow bank on the wing. If you truly think this still is a fabrication then I would be more than happy to look into it and post my finding with names so as I don't have a "25 year" veteran questioning my integrity. .70 mach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handyman Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Guess I have to say it again to make myself clear. This is not trolling or slamming WJ. I didn't make any comments to the effect that WJ is unsafe etc (and I don't believe them to be unsafe). In fact, I said the opposite---crap happens. My sole point is that it happens to EVERY airline but some WJers just cannot seem to wrap their mind around that. Let me put it another way: "Your eat, sleep and crap just like the rest of us!!!!" For those calling me a troll--do a search and find ONE negative thing I have ever said about WJ! You won't find one because I don't have anything negatiove to say. It's a good company with good people--just the odd guy who can't keep his yap shut and like to criticize the rest of us. Jumpy--you could be right. Like I said I heard this from a TC guy and he may not have all the facts. CPDUDE--read both my post--there is NO intention to harm but rather to point to the minority WJers that they too have incidents and its all part of the job. Spinnaker--same point as above. No bomb here. Facts may be skewed bacause I made a mistake or the guy telling me did. Skyblazer--it wasn't an attempt to deflect the bad press. You had your bad press we have ours Besides old Be'dover' retreated from the position that started teh bad press. Databus--moron alert. FADEC--ahh, now how to I respond to such a well thought response as yours? I don't have to worry about the $30 grand and wouldn't anyway. Jetsgo will be here for a long time putting a nice dent in your profit sharing cheque. Finally, I'll say it again just to make myself clear. We're all the same when it comes to our job and our profession. If the odd WJer, and I say odd because we all know it is a minority, can't keep their mouth shut and attack another pilot/company the vengance some did don't expect me or others to sit back and take it. For the good guys here---I'll buy the beer, you choose the bar. I don't mean to single you out Trader as I am referring to everyone in this thread but...what is wrong with you clowns? Yes, I mean all of you. This fighting back and forth making accusation to elevate your own standing...well it's not working kids. We and especially I have been very critical of incidents in aviation. Why, because I have lost too many friends due to stupid or simple mistakes made by themselves or someone sitting next to them. I like to critique errors to determine the why or how it happened and just maybe someone can learn from it. Certainly I don't bash individuals or airlines just to knock a competitor down. That would be childish and very foolish of me. So please stop this and if there is an incident to discuss, lets start a thread specific to it and discuss it...OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 CP..agreed....it was bourne of frustation with a few individuals that grew over time. There was probably a better way to deal with them but sometimes you blow... and voila! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjsa Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 1 & 2 never happened. 4 happened once about 5 years ago. 3 never heard of, more BS. I could fill up a page with Air Canada stuff too but why? It's all public stuff in the reports and like I said about SG, lets just see what the final report says. As I said to a fellow Westjetter a few days ago, lets just hope that someday its not us taking the heat for some incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 If all of this is "public record", why doesn't somebody post a link? Trader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 BTW. WestJet also has athority to depart with Fuel Frost 'on top of the wing'. I guess just maybe Transport trusted us enough to modify the clean wing concept. I can't believe TC has issued an allowance for this. "Fuel frost" is insidious. You can't predict how much or how extensive it will be, nor how fast it will accumulate given humidity, temperature and sun conditions. Not to mention assymetry. Any link to a CBAAC? I would not want to be in the DGCA's position the day any accident investigation even hints at something like this being a contributing factor. Astounding. Reminds me of the decision many years ago to not turn on white anti-collision lights until cleared for takeoff. Even if sitting in position at night. "Don't want to distract those waiting in the lineup behind you" was the rationale. Then came the San Diego crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 The only exemption I can find on the TC site for fuel or hoar frost is for aircraft with "rear" mounted engines. Does anyone have a goto to the Westjet exemption???? The Clean Aircraft Concept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I can't imagine that anyone would ever "approve" any contamination on the upper surface of the wings. The recent CL60 accidents (maybe including yesterday's in Newark?) should be proof enough of how dangerous it is. FWIW, the A320 FCOM has the following statement guidance material regarding contaminants: All surfaces of the aircraft (critical surfaces: leading edges and upper surfaces of wings, vertical and horizontal stabilizers, all control surfaces, slats and flaps) must be clear of snow, frost and ice for takeoff. Thin hoarfrost is acceptable on the upper surface of the fuselage. Note : Thin hoarfrost is typically a white crystalline deposit which usually develops uniformly on exposed surfaces on cold and cloudless nights ; it is so thin that a person can distinguish surface features (lines or markings) beneath it. On the underside of the wing tank area, a maximum layer of 3 mm (1/8 inch) of frost will not penalize takeoff performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I heard a while ago that Westjet was hoping to get approval to operate without deicing for fuel frost on the bottom of the wing not on the top as is being discussed here. My source would not neccessarily know this to be true though so I don't really know. seeker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 I heard a while ago that Westjet was hoping to get approval to operate without deicing for fuel frost on the bottom of the wing not on the top as is being discussed here. My source would not neccessarily know this to be true though so I don't really know. seeker Incorrect, the exemption is FAA, Boeing, WJ and TC approved and is limited to a specific area on the top of the wing that is marked with a black stripe. If you've ever seen a 747 in YVR in the middle of summer after it lands from Asia you will realise that fuel frost on the bottom of the wing is very common and can be extremely thick. I'll be damned if I can find a link but someone will come up with it soon, I'm sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverboy Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Incorrect, the exemption is FAA, Boeing, WJ and TC approved and is limited to a specific area on the top of the wing that is marked with a black stripe. If you've ever seen a 747 in YVR in the middle of summer after it lands from Asia you will realise that fuel frost on the bottom of the wing is very common and can be extremely thick. I'll be damned if I can find a link but someone will come up with it soon, I'm sure. There are lines painted on the top of the wings. The frost must fall inside these lines and be no more the 1/16 of an inch. The area is basically from just outside the nacelle to the fuselage. The FAA gave it the ok after Boeing did extensive testing and showed that performance actually decreased after a "light spray" to remove this very small amount of frost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 'FAA approved' Well, not quite. The FAA approved the supplement for the AFM, but it is not legal for use in the US. FYI Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 .....Boeing did extensive testing and showed that performance actually decreased after a "light spray" to remove this very small amount of frost. How could performance decrease after removing contamination from the wing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flapsforty Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Deicing fluid is also considered a contaminant. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverboy Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Deicing fluid is also considered a contaminant. Cheers You are 100% correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flapsforty Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Thank you.... is there a prize? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaverboy Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Thank you.... is there a prize? Cheers Yes, all the money we get to save on deicing fluid will go right back into your pocket in May and November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.