blues deville Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Woewee...so many armchair quarterbacks and speculators Of prime importance is the fact that no one was hurt/killed but hey.... let's not factor in that piece of information , lets just try to ...well maybe...blame someone...anyone. Jeeeese, it was a truly unfortunate accident but let's let the experts come up with the answer....I'm willing to bet that there is even someone, somewhere who is rubbing their hands in glee saying..."finally, Westjet went in the rhubarb..heh-heh". How very sad. It seems that we should all be thankful that it was not more of a tragedy and have some sympathy for the "front end", who must feel like crap right about now, whether it was their error or the aircraft's mech error................it coulda happened to anyone...flying is full of "luck" and "risks". Glad everyone is safe. Well I don't think that is the case here and I believe we are free to discuss what might have happened during this landing. Any reported news event these days generally has a team of un-informed reporters sticking microphones wherever they can to get a comment or point of view. At least some of us who contribite to this forum fly similar types of aircraft and are familiar enough with YOW to talk about the incident. If I want to be censored I'll move back to Quebec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Only 'other' airlines do that At least according to our overly credible media. Iceman Cue the: http://www.radans.net/jens/planestory.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flapsforty Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Belive it or not most of us WS pilots say "there but for the grace of god go I" even if it's an AC incident or any other airline. Most of us do not rub or hands in glee over anyones misfortune. We're all curious as to what happened, yes, hopefully we can learn from it. Nobody got hurt, that's the most important thing. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 BD =If I want to be censored I'll move back to Quebec. And I indicated that the subject should be censored.....................where?? Discuss it to death...but first I think posters would want too show a little compassion. Seeker = if there is anyone saying this it's only because Westjet employees were often overheard, in their first years of operation, spouting off about how they never, ever had an incident. Pretty sad though, when we are talking about our profession....all doing the best job they can...wearing a different uniform. Seeker=Personally, I would never think, or say, such a thing because I know from personal I agree wholeheartedly...there but for the grace of.......my heart goes out to the crew.....they are not in an enviable position....at this time and we can only guess at how bad they must feel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 The second half of the runway slopes slightly downhill.......doesn't help either. Question...........Has it been established that the aircraft was landing on 07?? and if so .................as I don't have an approach chart...I seem to remember that it was runway 07, landing to the NE where the runway sloped down ...toward the fence and road near the button of RW 25????? Anyone got a chart??? PS.....DND had a 707 go off the end of 07(button of 25), in the same place...(Rejected a T/O too late) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAT3DUAL Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 "But for the grace of god, go I" Every time something like this happens, I take stock and remember how quickly things can go wrong. I've been flying for 30 years and I've never pranged one, I don't know if that was good management or good luck. Mind you I've come close, and it's a sick feeling. My thoughts are with the Captain and the crew who are all thinking the same thing, Thank God! know one got hurt and that's all that counts. WestJet management will circle the wagons around the crew, mean while at AC, they would have some keaner MLO calling you up asking for resignation letters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 mean while at AC, they would have some keaner MLO calling you up asking for resignation letters. This is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Question...........Has it been established that the aircraft was landing on 07?? and if so .................as I don't have an approach chart...I seem to remember that it was runway 07, landing to the NE where the runway sloped down ...toward the fence and road near the button of RW 25????? Anyone got a chart??? PS.....DND had a 707 go off the end of 07(button of 25), in the same place...(Rejected a T/O too late) If you sit on the threshold of 25 you cannot see the far end of the runway. However, someone has stated the WS aircraft landed on 07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 If you sit on the threshold of 25 you cannot see the far end of the runway. ergo...there is a hump in the middle.?..chart anyone?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arctic Ace Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 No speculation intended here so note I am writing in general terms. It seems that CRFI reports are quite often well over 2 hours old even though precipitation has continued to occur since the last report at many including major airports in Canada. During adverse conditions reports over 20 or 30 minutes old are pretty much useless IMHO. I think many missed the point of the poster who indicated runway 25 in YOW is a non precision approach. He or she was not suggesting the flight in question had landed runway 25 but simply trying to point out that the most often used runway in Canada's capitol isn't even a precision approach. The inside of the terminal sure looks nice though. I think its time to put some of that AIF money where its most needed - runway preparation and reporting under adverse conditions- IMHO. That would be constructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blues deville Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 ergo...there is a hump in the middle.?..chart anyone?? CYOW Airport Elev: 374' RW25 Threshold Elev: 361' RW07 Threshold Elev: 368' Source: Jeppesen So there is a hump about half way down........glad we got that sorted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFL Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 mean while at AC, they would have some keaner MLO calling you up asking for resignation letters. I do not agree with your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFL Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 No speculation intended here so note I am writing in general terms. It seems that CRFI reports are quite often well over 2 hours old even though precipitation has continued to occur since the last report at many including major airports in Canada. During adverse conditions reports over 20 or 30 minutes old are pretty much useless IMHO. I think many missed the point of the poster who indicated runway 25 in YOW is a non precision approach. He or she was not suggesting the flight in question had landed runway 25 but simply trying to point out that the most often used runway in Canada's capitol isn't even a precision approach. The inside of the terminal sure looks nice though. I think its time to put some of that AIF money where its most needed - runway preparation and reporting under adverse conditions- IMHO. That would be constructive. Thanks AA. Nice canoe in the terminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 From the YOW airport website: Airport Improvement Fee -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Airport Improvement Fee (AIF) was introduced on September 1st, 1999 in anticipation of the Airport Expansion Program (AEP). Passengers departing Ottawa Macdonald-Cartier International Airport have been contributing a $10 fee, which is added to the price of their ticket by the airlines, since September 1, 1999. The fee was increased to $15 on January 1, 2003. All collected revenues are allocated to AEP activities. Therefore, AIF revenues will only be used to fund major capital projects, including associated financing costs, which are related to the primary functions of the airport. We are prohibited from using AIF revenues to pay for operating and maintenance costs. The AIF will be discontinued when AIF-funded projects have been completed and the associated debt retired. As a non-share capital corporation, the Authority funds its operating requirements, including debt service, through operating revenues and AIF revenue. The Authority manages its operations to ensure that AIF revenue is not used to fund the regular ongoing expense of operations. AIF revenue is used to fund debt service costs and other expenses related to the AEP. The Authority funds major infrastructure expenditures by borrowing in the capital markets and against bank credit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaEH Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 We are prohibited from using AIF revenues to pay for operating and maintenance costs. What a crock of "Naughty Word". They can pay millions to make the airport look all pretty and fancy but they can't maintain the airport?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 If you take a look at their annual report, AIF fees make up almost 1/3 of their annual revenue (2006). So it appears that without those fees, the airport would be in a debt spiral. http://www.ottawa-airport.ca/Newsroom/annu...eport2006-e.pdf The original intent of AIFs was to fund Capital Projects (associated with the operation of the airport) but most airports now use the money for cosmetic improvements and for the installation of additional commercial (revenue producing) space. Perhaps time for someone to look into this money grab and start to ask some serious questions: - why do airports need to look pretty - who cares if art is or is not displayed at airports - why are runway extension (safe run off for example) not placed ahead of airport cosmetics? etc. etc. Calgary Airport says: How will the Collected Fees be Used? The Airport Improvement Fee is not a tax. Although The Calgary Airport Authority is required to pay rent (totaling $300M 1992 through 2007) to the Government of Canada under the terms of the ‘Canada Lease’, the AIF fee is not being sent on to any level of government. It is dedicated to improvements and expansion of Calgary International Airport, necessary to keep pace with the air transportation infrastructure needs of our growing city and province. AIF funded expansion and improvement projects are subject to a consultation process with the airlines. The capital expansion program is updated annually and has received unanimous endorsement from the airlines with each annual review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 What a crock of "Naughty Word". They can pay millions to make the airport look all pretty and fancy but they can't maintain the airport?? Operations and maintenance funds come from landing fees, terminal charges, tenant rents etc. It is proper that AIF fees should only be used for capital projects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 But installation of new infrastructure, like an ILS for RWY 25, would come under the heading of a capital project, not an operating expense. Maintenance and upkeep on the equipment, one installed, would be an operating expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arctic Ace Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 From the YOW airport website: So, change it. I'm sure the public would rather have their funds directed toward safety enhancements rather than canoes in terminals. Call it the Runway Improvement Program of Frequent Flyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakelad Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Anyone got a chart??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thebean Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 If you take a look at their annual report, AIF fees make up almost 1/3 of their annual revenue (2006). So it appears that without those fees, the airport would be in a debt spiral. http://www.ottawa-airport.ca/Newsroom/annu...eport2006-e.pdf The original intent of AIFs was to fund Capital Projects (associated with the operation of the airport) but most airports now use the money for cosmetic improvements and for the installation of additional commercial (revenue producing) space. Perhaps time for someone to look into this money grab and start to ask some serious questions: - why do airports need to look pretty - who cares if art is or is not displayed at airports - why are runway extension (safe run off for example) not placed ahead of airport cosmetics? etc. etc. Calgary Airport says: ...and why are the airlines, whose operations generate 90% of airport revenues, not allowed to have representation of Local Airport Authority Boards? Without the airline's customers, there is virtually no revenue for airports to fritter away on stainless steel palm trees, wind up round abouts, virtual museums of natural history and other ridiculous monuments to egos. Short of cash? Raise the tax!!! It's impossible for airports not to create operating profits. To call airport authorities a "business" is a joke of epic proportions. The system is insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rattler Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 We may be beating the wrong horse. It appears, at least from the following, that NavCanada is responsible for ILS etc. and not the local airport operating authority or am I reading it wrongly? NAV CANADA will help its customers to meet these requirements by: • applying Safety Management System (SMS) principles to evaluate any proposed change in services or products. Refer to Figure 1.1; • developing requirements for services, products, procedures and systems that are consistent with customers’ goals; • reviewing priorities to maintain the focus on customers’ goals; • seeking to increase airspace capacity to reduce delays and disruptions that affect schedule; • designing instrument approach procedures that increase airport accessibility via lower minima; • planning and managing airspace effectively to meet customer needs; • coordinating efforts with customers to match aircraft and ANS technology solutions; • coordinating operations and planning with airport operators to maximize airport operating efficiencies and minimize costs to air operators; • accommodating customer-preferred routes to the maximum extent possible; • improving internal productivity; and, • coordinating planning on a regional and global basis to ensure interoperability with the air navigation systems in other States. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACSideStick Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Cat111Dual, Slanderous Crap! In the last 20 years of incidents at AC, not 1 MLO or previous incarnation has asked for resignations. AC pilots involved in incidents are given full support by AC, and their careers proceed. This is a WestJet incident, by a WestJet crew. Keep AC out of it. Take your post off, you are breaking forum rules with such tripe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 Lakelad.. Thank you.. I thought there may be a gradient chart on there but no such luck..............my memory always had a downslope from the button of 07 to the button of 25 but 7 feet difference is not much of a slope over 8000 feet Think I would know better as I flew out of there for 4 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted February 18, 2008 Share Posted February 18, 2008 There is 17 feet difference on the other runway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.