Halifax report coming May 18,2017

[DEFCON]

 

cancelled

[J.O.]

1 hour ago, Kip Powick said:

Have read the completed report...much too long and certainly full of information that is not relevant to the accident....unless TC is going to send copies to everyone who flies with any airline in any aircraft type.

What is the point of lecturing readers on what to wear and how to "brace".??.......no wonder the report took so long....everyone wanted to get an "oar" in.

The TSB mandate is protection of the travelling public. Survivability factors are quite relevant.

[Kip Powick]

2 hours ago, J.O. said:

The TSB mandate is protection of the travelling public. Survivability factors are quite relevant.

It may be their mandate but one has to sift through all the non relevant information to ascertain what actually happened. I really don't care that the Captain had OSA nor do I care about what other countries mandate. The fact that the Captain had OSA is not relevant to this accident, there is no history of problems with his performance because of OSA , at least not in the report.....That whole section looks like an attempt to 'deflect" from the root cause of the accident...

Do you really think the report from Kelowna of the mini-jet spiraling in will be filled with non relevant medical issues??

As I said before......this long winded report with medical issues would only be relevant if it was  a contributing cause of the accident  ....or.....mandatory reading for the travelling public....same as the section about "What you should wear on an airplane...really ??.

Perhaps the TSB should change its mandate, (in the aviation world), to ensure the timely but thorough examination of any aircraft accident and make the findings and recommendations as fast as possible to the operators.

Your kidding yourself if you think  the TSB feels all this information in this report  is necessary and is  going to make the flying public more aware of the survivability factor if one is in an aircraft accident.The public just wants to know what happened and 85% of those readers won't understand the complexity of a non-precision approach using "the bird" and what really happened anyway.

But Jeff, that is just my opinion.................

.PS,,I see no one came up with an answer to my previous post (Posted Wednesday at 07:47 PM). Did I touch a nerve or do AC pilots really not know what happens in cases such as these???

[Vsplat]

kip, three things:

1) It is important to address anything that touched the flight and determine whether or not it needs to change.  Otherwise operators, anxious to stop a recurrence, may fix something that is not broken and make matters worse.

2) From a pilot's perspective, it is all about preventing the accident, so naturally that is where our interest lies.  For the TSB, the event is not over until everyone affected is secure.  The investigation covered the entire incident, to its completion,  in accordance with the TSB mandate,  as it should.

3) I believe those who know the pilots involved are respecting their privacy. A small dignity considering all that they have been through.

Vs.

[rudder]

2 hours ago, DEFCON said:

"The "holes in the cheese" analogy is one of the most common references in the wake of an accident but the real focus should be on how the cheese got there in the first place."

I admit to being out of the loop for awhile now, but I've never heard that analogy?

In my experience the pathway to the crash was described as a chain and its links referred to as 'causal factors'. Frequently, the final insult to safe flight is something that ties the causal factors together and ends in a crash, it is the 'master link'.

 

 

Swiss cheese. Stack several together and the randomness of the holes on each slice means no path through. But every once and a while the holes line up.....

[conehead]

2 hours ago, DEFCON said:

 

"1.5.1.2 First officer

The FO had 15 years of experience at Air Canada and had flown as an FO on the A320 since being hired."

This factoid strikes me as odd and raises a couple of questions the report doesn't address?

 

 

Maybe the guy was just happy as a F/O, and had no desire to be a Captain?

[conehead]

2 hours ago, DEFCON said:

 

"1.5.1.2 First officer

The FO had 15 years of experience at Air Canada and had flown as an FO on the A320 since being hired."

This factoid strikes me as odd and raises a couple of questions the report doesn't address?

 

 

Maybe the guy was just happy as a F/O, and had no desire to be a Captain?

[conehead]

2 hours ago, DEFCON said:

 

"1.5.1.2 First officer

The FO had 15 years of experience at Air Canada and had flown as an FO on the A320 since being hired."

This factoid strikes me as odd and raises a couple of questions the report doesn't address?

 

 

Maybe the guy was just happy as a F/O, and had no desire to be a Captain?

[conehead]

2 hours ago, DEFCON said:

 

"1.5.1.2 First officer

The FO had 15 years of experience at Air Canada and had flown as an FO on the A320 since being hired."

This factoid strikes me as odd and raises a couple of questions the report doesn't address?

 

 

Maybe the guy was just happy as a F/O, and had no desire to be a Captain?

[Kip Powick]

28 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

kip, three things:

1) 2) 

3) I believe those who know the pilots involved are respecting their privacy. A small dignity considering all that they have been through.

Vs.

????? Is this with respect to me asking if the pilots are able to fly during or only after the report. I did not infer that I wanted any personal details. There is no privacy  issue here nor was any inferred in my question. What does my question have to do with their dignity..

[conehead]

Sorry for the finger problems folks...

[Kip Powick]

4 minutes ago, conehead said:

Maybe the guy was just happy as a F/O, and had no desire to be a Captain?

There is an echo in this forum

 

Click Options.....DELETE

[Vsplat]

11 minutes ago, Kip Powick said:

????? Is this with respect to me asking if the pilots are able to fly during or only after the report. I did not infer that I wanted any personal details. There is no privacy  issue here nor was any inferred in my question. What does my question have to do with their dignity..

Kip, with respect, whether the pilots involved are returned to active duty or held out IS personal.  It's an HR aspect of their employment and as such not for public release.  You will recall this from your time in the company, immediately after an event, the employee details are sequestered, even from other active employees.  So yes, this is very much personal.

The dignity question was about granting them the courtesy of some privacy after so long in the investigation poking and prodding mode.  IMO they deserve any privacy we can afford them. 

Vs

[J.O.]

Kip, I respectfully disagree. I get that you're accustomed to the military way that typically banged out a final report in a few months - even for major accidents. This isn't the RCAF, it's a major airline that caries millions of Canadians every year, often on the aircraft type involved into very similar airports and conditions to the night in question. The TSB wouldn't be fulfilling their mandate if they didn't identify all risk factors - even those that didn't directly contribute to the accident (or the aftermath) in question. 

Maybe it's because I'm a details guy, but I find this report much more thorough (and useful) than some others that have been published by the TSB in the past few years. If only they'd have identified as many obvious holes in the system after Air France had the over-run, maybe we wouldn't still have major airports that see plenty of thunderstorm action but aren't equipped with low level wind shear detection systems, or that have airplane swallowing over-runs on one end and unprotected major highways on the other, but no EMASS to reduce the risk.

[Kip Powick]

2 hours ago, Vsplat said:

Kip, with respect, whether the pilots involved are returned to active duty or held out IS personal.  It's an HR aspect of their employment and as such not for public release.  You will recall this from your time in the company, immediately after an event, the employee details are sequestered, even from other active employees.  So yes, this is very much personal.

The dignity question was about granting them the courtesy of some privacy after so long in the investigation poking and prodding mode.  IMO they deserve any privacy we can afford them. 

Vs

Then I take it you are worried that if you answered the question, on this forum, it would be come public knowledge......fair enough.

However there is a thing called PM on this forum..

While you, and perhaps many more, feel I am rather opinionated  and oft times shoot from the hip on many subjects, you fail to credit me with any tact and I find that very disappointing, seeing I spent my entire life in the aviation industry, both Military and Civil, and still hold information / facts  that are not for public dissemination.

Have a nice week-end.

 

[Kip Powick]

40 minutes ago, J.O. said:

Kip, I respectfully disagree. I get that you're accustomed to the military way that typically banged out a final report in a few months - even for major accidents. This isn't the RCAF, it's a major airline that caries millions of Canadians every year, often on the aircraft type involved into very similar airports and conditions to the night in question. The TSB wouldn't be fulfilling their mandate if they didn't identify all risk factors - even those that didn't directly contribute to the accident (or the aftermath) in question. 

Maybe it's because I'm a details guy, but I find this report much more thorough (and useful) than some others that have been published by the TSB in the past few years. If only they'd have identified as many obvious holes in the system after Air France had the over-run, maybe we wouldn't still have major airports that see plenty of thunderstorm action but aren't equipped with low level wind shear detection systems, or that have airplane swallowing over-runs on one end and unprotected major highways on the other, but no EMASS to reduce the risk.

Hi Jeff..

No problems with you being a details guy.......lucky we are all different. Let's agree to disagree..I think a salient point is that you, and others point to the TSB mandate and I can see that point but I, personally feel the mandate should be adjusted so that any aircraft accident is investigated as soon as possible and recommendations to procedures, or whatever, are promulgated as soon as possible ....to all operators of the same equipment.

It took over two years to publish this report and I think we can agree that most of us, in the aviation community, had a pretty good idea of what was the problem within a few months. The question I have is that if another accident like this happened prior to this report being published, would the TSB be held accountable for failing to produce a report, interim or not...or did the TSB , during the course of the investigation, send out notices  to Canadian operators of the A320  or perhaps all A320 operators concerning early findings for this type of approach...information we are  not privy to.

Yes, when it comes to aircraft accidents, the organization that is investigating the accident needs to be more expedient with critical information, especially with the operators  

.As a member of three AIBs in the RCAF  I can safely say our job was to investigate,. assess, present findings,  and recommendations, based on the evidence, and that information was put out as soon as possible so that those flying the same missions did not end up repeating what we investigated.

JMO but as as an accident report, there is just too much extraneous information, not relevant to the actual accident and investigation.......but then there is that "mandate".

[Johnboy]

Is this section of the report the impetus for the lawsuit undertaken by AC towards Airbus?

1.18.2 Flight path angle guidance mode

"The Airbus FCOM does not offer guidance on how to make adjustments to the FPA; for example, it does not indicate how large the adjustment should be or for how long the adjustment should be made in order to return an aircraft to the selected flight path. For a flight in FPA guidance mode, Air Canada's practice was that, once the aircraft was past the FAF, the flight crews were not required to monitor the aircraft's altitude and distance from the threshold, nor to make any adjustments to the FPA."

 

I recall an extensive discussion on this forum about cold temp correction but headwind played a significant role as well in placing the aircraft where it should not have been.  It would appear that the "cold temp correction" was not an Airbus procedure but one discovered by TC in 2009.

 

"In 2009, while working with Air Canada, TC identified a discrepancy involving all Airbus A320, A330, and A340 series aircraft when a non-precision approach was carried out in cold temperatures. "

In my humble opinion the bulk of the holes in the Swiss cheese align with this FPA procedure and how it is used and was implemented into SOP. 

Worth some discussion I believe.

[DEFCON]

There are but two important aspects to this crash imho.

1. Descent below the MDA without the proper visual references.

2. The crew's 'reliance' on technology to fly the aircraft and keep it safe.

Competency may be a core issue here too, but it seems that the discussion of 'all' possible contributing factors falls into the pc realm, an apparent no go zone?

Further, to be flying np approaches like this one in the year 2017 without VASI is just wrong & as shown, quite dangerous.

 

[DEFCON]

Duplicate ... could not delete?

 

[DEFCON]

Conehead

Yes, he may just like the position, but the chance that's the reason he's in the seat is as remote a possibility as seeing a spotted tiger.

[DEFCON]

"when it comes to aircraft accidents, the organization that is investigating the accident needs to be more expedient with critical information, especially with the operators  

JMO but as as an accident report, there is just too much extraneous information, not relevant to the actual accident and investigation.......but then there is that "mandate"."

My opinion as well; this report certainly does not justify the delay.

 

 Like this

[Vsplat]

8 hours ago, Kip Powick said:

Then I take it you are worried that if you answered the question, on this forum, it would be come public knowledge......fair enough.

However there is a thing called PM on this forum..

While you, and perhaps many more, feel I am rather opinionated  and oft times shoot from the hip on many subjects, you fail to credit me with any tact

Kip, you don't know me, nor do you know what I feel or think unless I say so here.

A  PM is not a forum post, but it is public disclosure, just as surely as emailing the details would be.  This is not a question of succeeding on your personal gauge of tact.  It is a professional and legal boundary.

If I have to choose between meeting someone's expectations on a forum or respecting the privacy of a fellow pilot, I believe the correct choice to be obvious.  Your mileage may differ.

Best wishes for a good weekend to you as well.

Vs

 

[Kip Powick]

14 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

Best wishes for a good weekend to you as well.

Vs

 

Not to worry....It appears that a few AC pilots opinion  differ from yours concerning my question..I have the answer, all by PMs,

PM  which I thought meant Private Message...(not  for Public Disclosure), but this would not be the first time I have been wrong.

[Seeker]

10 minutes ago, Vsplat said:

Kip, you don't know me, nor do you know what I feel or think unless I say so here.

A  PM is not a forum post, but it is public disclosure, just as surely as emailing the details would be.  This is not a question of succeeding on your personal gauge of tact.  It is a professional and legal boundary.

If I have to choose between meeting someone's expectations on a forum or respecting the privacy of a fellow pilot, I believe the correct choice to be obvious.  Your mileage may differ.

 

Come on.  There's a reasonable limit to respecting privacy.  None of us know their names so asking whether they have returned to flying is not a question that crosses the line, IMO, of course.

[Vsplat]

seeker, I have been asked, by aforementioned PM on another forum, by individuals who knew the names.

The issue with stuff like this is that there is no knowing how various dots get connected.

kip, the fact that you would post that you received this information from other air canada personnel underscores the problem.  That this information has been released is no longer private, is it?

Vs