Guest Simcoe Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Is this what they mean by "Air Canada Operations Approved" tag line in the advertising? Doesn't it seem like AC's operations are becoming unhinged these days? 'Lost' Air Canada plane nearly hits B.C. Cessna Impeded by fires, Airbus approaches too-short airstrip Tom Blackwell National Post ADVERTISEMENT Officials are trying to determine why an Air Canada jetliner with 87 passengers on board appeared on the verge of landing at the wrong airport, head-on toward another plane, after becoming "lost" over mountainous British Columbia terrain recently. A small Cessna was attempting to touch down at the opposite end of the same runway at tiny Vernon airport and veered out of the way, in an incident one aviation insider called a "huge embarrassment." Had the Airbus A319 from Toronto landed, it would have faced major problems, because the strip is too short for such planes. The Air Canada pilots, who were making a visual approach because of restrictions imposed by nearby forest fires, finally pulled back up. After air traffic controllers informed them they were in the wrong place, the pilots flew 60 kilometres south to Kelowna, the correct destination, and landed safely. "The pilots descended low enough that, for all intents and purposes, they appeared to be lost, and that's a concern," said Bill Yearwood, regional manager of the Transportation Safety Board. "It is important for aircraft and pilots and operations to always know where they are and where they're going." The safety board has launched an investigation into the incident, which occurred just before 7 p.m. on Aug. 23, concerned about how and why the plane got so low that it lost sight of its intended destination. Mr. Yearwood said it is unlikely the incident could have resulted in an accident, because visibility was good and the crew would have been able to avoid any obstacles, even if they were lost. They also would have eventually noticed they were at the wrong airport and avoided landing at Vernon, he said. But one airline industry source called the episode unheard of for pilots of a modern plane with cutting-edge navigational systems. "It's a huge embarrassment," said the source, a pilot who asked not to be identified. "My guess is the guys just had their heads out the window and weren't aware of where they were ... Truth is, this could have been very serious." The flight management system aboard an Airbus has a "moving map" display that shows the plane's position relative to airports. It should have made it clear Air Canada Flight 183 was in the wrong spot, the pilot said. Runway 23 at Vernon is 3,360 feet long, less than the minimum of about 3,800 feet needed to land such a plane, a discrepancy that could have led to an over-run of the strip, the source said. Laura Cooke, an Air Canada spokeswoman, said she could offer few comments about the incident while it is under investigation, except that the plane made one approach, did a "go around," meaning the approach was aborted, then landed safely. The raging forest fires in the region helped set up the incident. The flight carrying 87 passengers and a crew of five would normally have landed at Kelowna using instruments. But using instruments could have led the plane into restricted airspace, where water bombers and firefighting helicopters need to fly unimpeded, Mr. Yearwood said. For that reason, the Air Canada crew was told to make a visual approach. While airlines have pre-set procedures for visual landings at different airports, Air Canada has no such guidelines for approaching Kelowna runway 15 in that direction. The crew had to come up with its own plan. For reasons yet to be determined, the pilots descended so low, to about 2,100 feet eventually, that they lost sight of Kelowna airport, Mr. Yearwood said. They were soon "lined up" with the runway at Vernon airport, and pilots at that airfield reported the Air Canada jet appeared on the approach to land there, he said. However, the board has not determined whether the crew did try to touch down at the wrong airport. An occurrence report filed with Transport Canada by air traffic controllers said they got a call moments later from the pilot of a Cessna 152 who said he had been preparing to land at one end of Vernon runway 23 when he saw the Airbus coming in from the other direction. The Cessna pilot with Okanagan Aviation Services "gave way and observed the aircraft in the missed approach," the report said. Mr. Yearwood said it is unclear how close the aircraft were to each other. "Certainly it would make a big impression on a little pilot that doesn't normally see big airplanes in the area, coming at him from the other side," he said. The Cessna pilot declined to comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Sensationalist crap. "a huge embarrassment" for the pilots perhaps, not to the airline. The emphasis on exaggeration and inflation in the first part of the article is sickening. Our honcho's may be unhinged, but this is hardly evidence of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Simcoe Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 I wonder how many jets the "discount" airline operated into YLW that day that didn't try to land in Vernon? Typical AC response. "We did nothing wrong. We're Air Canada, the Gods of Aviation in Canada". Remember YFC when the Airport Authority had the audacity to plant trees where an AC RJ was rightfully annoited to land? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Simcoe?... If the guy cleaning the toilet on a bus accidentally plugs it up and the toilet overflows, is it the bus company that did something wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PortTack Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 I'll argue the other way here. Why not spin this? It's bad for business to accept the blame. Lets be reminded about a Jazz whoopsy when two qualified pilots landed at the wrong airport. The CRM team broke it down in the TEMP format which showed just how many uncontrolled issues lead up to the event. This could be a big boo-boo but I'll wait to see the report with all the facts before hanging the fellow aviators out to dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChicoChico Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Mitch, Much as I admire you trying to engage in a responsible dialogue I think Mr. Simcoe's mind is made up. Try as we might to avoid them, incidents do happen in aviation. What matters now is; do we learn something and not repeat the event. The sheer glee that some take in posting these type of articles, shows you something. The intent is not up to debate but simply slag as usual. The title chosen by Simcoe says much about his intent. Chico ( a pilot who asks not to be identified - good grief REALLY???) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vsplat Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Is it YFC that you are laughing about? I'd suggest you have a chat with the folks involved before you draw your humour there. Any incident should make us all pause. Given the right circumstances, no one is immune. Poking fun like this is in the poorest taste. Or are you simply whistling past the graveyard? Just my opinion Vs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkavafian Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Mitch, Yes, it's the bus company that did something wrong. The bus company is responsible for the actions of all its employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAS Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Why not tell the world about the Cessna that landed YYZ last week 06R without talking to anyone while 06L was active. That was more of an oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 I guess I have to give you that, don't I. Still, surely it's not the sad reflection of the bus company that Simcoe seems to see. There are things wrong with this company, but one of them is not that it's people are human and make human errors from time to time... What counts, as others have said, is how the company decides to deal with those errors. BTW, while you're on the line... I chatted with a friend in the appropriate department, and he agreed with your assesment of our 747's, and said they're attempting to rectify that... I think doing so is made difficult by access to funds for cosmetic stuff. But I thought you might at least be happy to hear your view was shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 G'day Chico, Don't worry man I'll never tell. ( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Both serious incidents, but the Cessna guy found the correct airport at least, correct? The Cessna most likely was not a professional pilot, correct as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest qb Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Your airline had a 319 with two supposedly qualified pilots actually get lost. Blame the media, blame Westjet if you think you can, accuse everyone of picking on poor, effed up air canada, do whatever you want, but what happened is serious and deserving of as much sensation as the media cares to give it. It means there are problems in the system, which could be poor training or lack of qualification in the seat, to name two possibilities. Whatever it is needs to get fixed and media attention helps drive the fix sometimes. Wake up, you're going to get every single faux pas in the news because people hate air canada. And guess what? air canada deserves it. qb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rphydro Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Re: the Cessna guy landing at YYZ. I believe he was flying, noticed he was running low on fuel and decided to land at the first airport he saw, he didn't know it was even YYZ. Considering we don't know exactly how low on fuel he was, an oops may be debatable. As far as the pilot not getting the right frequency until he was already on the ground.. well.. different story. hydro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Clumsy Lover Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 What a unbelievable comment to make. I truly hope that you are not a pilot as your attitude sucks. This type of incident is not new to the aviation world. Other major carriers have had similar incidents throughout North America, as well there have been wrong landings in Canada in the last few years from other professional groups. Human error knows no company boundries nor does it discriminate against the cost of the ticket in the back. While we can all agree that the crew made an error, to sit and comment about the YFC incident is in very poor taste. I can think of incidents at Jazz, Air Ontario, PWA, CP, Wardair, NWT air to name a few. To discuss them so people can learn is one thing but to critisize in bitterness is another. We all get distracted by external threats and make crew errors at some point... whether one mitigates them or exacerbates them is what it is all about. CL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Clumsy Lover Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 What a unbelievable comment to make. I truly hope that you are not a pilot as your attitude sucks. This type of incident is not new to the aviation world. Other major carriers have had similar incidents throughout North America, as well there have been wrong landings in Canada in the last few years from other professional groups. Human error knows no company boundries nor does it discriminate against the cost of the ticket in the back. While we can all agree that the crew made an error, to sit and comment about the YFC incident is in very poor taste. I can think of incidents at Jazz, Air Ontario, PWA, CP, Wardair, NWT air to name a few. To discuss them so people can learn is one thing but to critisize in bitterness is another. We all get distracted by external threats and make crew errors at some point... whether one mitigates them or exacerbates them is what it is all about. CL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Clumsy Lover Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Mr. Simcoe... I can't believe what I just read from you.. I truly hope that you are not a pilot because your attitude sucks. This type of incedent has happened before to other carriers in North America as well it has happened in Canada before in the past few years. I can think of incidents at Jazz, PWA, CP, NWT Air and Wardair from the top of my head... perhaps you'd like to critisize all crew errors with the same bitterness. Human factors knows no company boundries nor does it discriminate by the cost of the ticket in the back. We can all agree that a crew error was made.. but until the full report comes out with all the other external errors adn threats we should all keep our opinions to ourselves. It will be treated with the seriousness that it deserves I'm sure and hopefully someone else will be able to learn from it as with all incidents. CL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Clumsy Lover Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Mr. Simcoe... I can't believe what I just read from you.. I truly hope that you are not a pilot because your attitude sucks. This type of incedent has happened before to other carriers in North America as well it has happened in Canada before in the past few years. I can think of incidents at Jazz, PWA, CP, NWT Air and Wardair from the top of my head... perhaps you'd like to critisize all crew errors with the same bitterness. Human factors knows no company boundries nor does it discriminate by the cost of the ticket in the back. We can all agree that a crew error was made.. but until the full report comes out with all the other external errors adn threats we should all keep our opinions to ourselves. It will be treated with the seriousness that it deserves I'm sure and hopefully someone else will be able to learn from it as with all incidents. CL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 mad about something?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkavafian Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest labtec Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 This really isn't sensationalist crap. This was a very serious incident that could have had tragic consequences under conditions of poor visibility. In the mountains you had better know where you are at all times and any sort of complacency will get you into a very serious situation in a big hurry. Airline pilots are very good at going from ILS to ILS and the company, with its procedures, does a fair bit of hand holding as a result. The trip into YLW requires an airport check out at AC and for good reason. The report on this incident will be very interesting. The Airbus is a very automated airplane and the pilots of the Airbus do not do a lot of hand flying or visual manouvering. Hell, they don't even work the thrust levers to manage speed computers do it for them. Manouvering in the mountains visually in conditions of reduced or marginal visibility requires a fair degree of real flying skill unfortunately in the highly structured environement of airline flying these skills seldom get used and can atrophy. Labtec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
60N30W Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 He may be a little angry but he does raise an interesting point...how do two qualified pilots flying a modern airliner almost land at the wrong airport? Was it a case of "simple" pilot error, or is there a major procedural problem in the system? I will wait to judge until I hear what the TSBC has to say, hope everyone else can do the same. Don't forget the nav. technology on the 737NG and the A320 family are about the same and this could have happend or might happen one day to another operator. On thing I do have to say is I hate the way the media shares our procedures incorrectly with the general public. I for one still use my instruements when cleared for a visual approach, they make it sound like we turn off the nav. equipment and revert to basic VFR flying. My little rant about the lack of responsible journalism in regard to aviation! Regards 60N30W Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoomerPete Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 >>> The report on this incident will be very interesting. The Airbus is a very automated airplane and the pilots of the Airbus do not do a lot of hand flying or visual manouvering. Hell, they don't even work the thrust levers to manage speed computers do it for them. Manouvering in the mountains visually in conditions of reduced or marginal visibility requires a fair degree of real flying skill unfortunately in the highly structured environement of airline flying these skills seldom get used and can atrophy. <<< Are you for real? Trying to somehow suggest that cause for this incident may lie with the pilot's dependence on the autoflight systems of Airbus aircraft has about as much credibility as blaming Air Canada for the fact that the massive power failure in Ontario last month caused travel delays. If anything, the flight control laws and autothrust systems of Airbus aircraft make it easier rather than harder to execute the sort visual flying maneuver that the circumstances in YLW required. In comparison to someone flying an older generation aircraft such as a B737 or B727 an Airbus pilot can put a greater focus on following the outside picture while maneuvering visually and hence improve the chances of executing a safe and successful visual approach. If your point is that pilots working at major carriers do not experience visual maneuvering procedures as frequently, and consequently are not as sharp at them, as pilots for carriers who are based in places where such maneuvering is a part of everyday life, then that is undoubtedly true. However, that fact has the square root of diddley-squat to do with the type of aircraft the guys were flying at the time of this incident. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wilber Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 I have been in this industry as gofer, clerk, storeman, AME and pilot for 35 years. One thing I have learned is that when it comes to the technical or operational aspect of aviation, if you can believe 1/4 of what you read or hear in the daily media you are doing well. The last thing I would want to do is be forced to base an argument about anything concerning aviation on a newspaper article As a pilot, unless I know the people involved in an incident personaly, I am really only interested in what actually happened and how it can be prevented from happening again. That is, until the investigation is complete and the report is out, nothing I hear means a hell of a lot. Simcoe. I find it hard to believe that you are a professional pilot when your main interest in an incident like this amounts to little more than "payback time". You may be as infallible as you seem to think you are, but somehow I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Labtec Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 I didn't think I blamed the airbus as a piece of technology. However, Boomer, you have to admit that the Airbus and its technology do require less of a pilot than a conventional aircraft. There is a big difference between flying the approach into Terrace BC or for that matter LGA hand flying the Rockdale 9 in a 737 Steam Driven in marginal conditions than an A320. The steam driven aircraft requires more of a pilot than the highly automated NG aircraft. That was a goal of the design at Airbus industries. What I did assert was that as a result of the highly automated environment and our reliance upon it we tend to let our "flying skills" atrophy and instead rely heavily on the automation. When the automation gets turned off, ie. when visually manouvering in the mountains, your average airline pilot may lack the requisite skill to safely complete the manouver. At first glance AC 183 seems to be such a case. The answer in my view is to deal with these scenarios in training. Air Canada has a great training department and my guess is that we will see this scenario built into our simulator scripts and it probably won't happen again. Air Canada runs a first rate flight ops department and this issue, I have every confidence, will be dealt with fleet wide in the next few weeks and months to come. Labtec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.