Maybe they should have taken a snooze in the cockpit which is allowed. I doubt they were any more fatigued than the guys departing at midnight from their home base for a 12 hour overseas flight to SFO or guys flying the midnight flights from west to east at AC, especially if you were on standby. Then again, we end up with stupid rules like insisting that the crew be awakened right in the middle of their sleep after about thirty minutes because some previous guy at the same airline woke up, thought a star was another aircraft and almost caused a midair collision. Stupid rules caused by stupid actions.
I realize everyone is different when it comes to sleep patterns but I just had another nice one hour snooze in the flight deck yesterday(after being initially bothered twice). The snooze ensured that I was wide awake for the landing.
Hangry wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:15 am
M.G should resign in disgrace. His inaction and ineptitude are inexcusable. At lease he'll be called out by a real agency. The FAA.
Since this incident AC has replaced its Director of Flight Operations, Director of Safety and Training and the Airbus 320 Chief Pilot. The flight ops directory, outside of crew manning, looks almost entirely different.
Hangry wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:15 am
M.G should resign in disgrace. His inaction and ineptitude are inexcusable. At lease he'll be called out by a real agency. The FAA.
Since this incident AC has replaced its Director of Flight Operations, Director of Safety and Training and the Airbus 320 Chief Pilot. The flight ops directory, outside of crew manning, looks almost entirely different.
And?? Has AC instituted its own science based fatigue rules? You know. The rules that cost more money? Change the guard all you want. If you’re working within the same system big deal. I was talking about our illustrious transport minister.
Hangry wrote: ↑Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:15 am
M.G should resign in disgrace. His inaction and ineptitude are inexcusable. At lease he'll be called out by a real agency. The FAA.
Since this incident AC has replaced its Director of Flight Operations, Director of Safety and Training and the Airbus 320 Chief Pilot. The flight ops directory, outside of crew manning, looks almost entirely different.
And?? Has AC instituted its own science based fatigue rules? You know. The rules that cost more money? Change the guard all you want. If you’re working within the same system big deal. I was talking about our illustrious transport minister.
My mistake, I thought you were referring to a different MG.
Board chair Robert Sumwalt said the majority of that information was just “garbage” and “written in a language only a computer programmer would really understand.
Finally some attention is being paid to the endless reams of information we're supposed to decipher. Enough with the ticker tape bullshit. NOTAMS should be CLEAR and EASY to read!!
TheStig wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:55 am
Since this incident AC has replaced its Director of Flight Operations, Director of Safety and Training and the Airbus 320 Chief Pilot. The flight ops directory, outside of crew manning, looks almost entirely different.
Interesting...what about line training guys? Anyways....An AC guy did tell me perhaps half a year ago that TC was all over them.
Although not confirmed, I have heard that they have also significantly extended the Airbus initial training curriculum. Apparently they were rushing people through with the inevitable results of a lot of incidents. I wonder who mandated the increased training?
I know an ex-AC guy that used to train Airbus guys at AC. He quit in frustration years ago back in the darker days when everyone thought they were going out of business and the pension could be under threat and took a job where no pension threat would ever exist. He said that during his day, AC kept on cutting back and cutting back on training so much so that he couldn't get all the required training in. I wonder if he has had any influence in convincing AC to extend their training.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by pelmet on Wed Sep 26, 2018 4:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We could not have gotten literally or figuratively any closer to having a major disaster," said the safety board's vice chairman, Bruce Landsberg, during a hearing Tuesday in Washington."
According to the home gamers it was a "non event, nothing to see here -- why even investigate".
Check the comments at the beginning of this thread.
Difference between US and Canada. One wants to simply cover their eyes.
Mr. North wrote: ↑Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:26 am
Finally some attention is being paid to the endless reams of information we're supposed to decipher. Enough with the ticker tape bullshit. NOTAMS should be CLEAR and EASY to read!!
They should be, but as of right now, we have to deal with what we've got. Which is....taking the time to read through them. At minimum, that can be done during the nice long cruise time to SFO.
The Ukraine notams leading up to the shootdown of MAS were the worst example of notams not written loud and clear although plenty of airlines seemed to be quite happy to save gas by "safely flying" 1000 feet above a war zone. I know some people that were very close to that aircraft on that exact day. Funny how the route to Europe change the very next day.
Less information was available before, more information is available now.
I'll get you a "feelings" blanket.
Blame the notams. Blame the fatigue regs. Blame the visual approach (which the pilots accepted) Blame the fact it actually gets dark at night. In YHZ, blame (and sue) the airport. Blame the NTSB for "overreacting" and embarrassing Canada with an investigation. Blame Trump.
Can’t speak for airline nor A320 SFO operations because I done neither but certainly can speaking for my industry time being assigned to Air Ambulance ops and the many 15-20 hr duty times and fighting sleep on the final approaches last leg. I was extremely lucky in those long ago far away days that nothing seriously happened. Flying tired and fatigue creeping up on you isn’t fun at all, I considered it the most serious issue in my ho- hum career in this business of aviation.
A few weeks ago I was once again able to feel proud as a Canadian in SFO as we did the slow taxi toward 1L/1R and saw two RCAF C130J aircraft lined up in echelon formation on 1L and subsequently cleared for takeoff. Have no idea why they were in town. But.....looks like we are in the bad books again with SFO ATC.
"C-FSDB, a Boeing 737 Max 8 aircraft operated by Air Canada, was conducting flight ACA780 from San Francisco Intl, CA (KSFO) to Montréal/Pierre Elliott Trudeau Intl, QC (CYUL) with 6 crew members and 137 passengers on board. Prior to taxiing for departure off Runway 28L at KSFO, ATC instructed the flight crew to taxi via Foxtrot, across Runway 1L and hold short of Runway 1R. The flight crew heard and read back "Taxi Alpha, Foxtrot", and ATC did not correct the flight crew on the incorrect read back. As the aircraft was taxied across Runway 1R, ATC instructed ACA780 to stop, and issued an alternate taxi instruction. The aircraft taxied for departure on Runway 28L with no further issues. Neither Runways 1L and 1R were active at the time of the occurrence."
Oh well. Maybe they might want to review what sort of clearance you need to cross a runway and proper readbacks. Best to not cross a runway unless you have actually read back that you are cleared to cross that runway. I personally write stuff like that down as the taxi clearance is being issued but have noticed that a lot of people don't.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by pelmet on Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:58 am, edited 3 times in total.