Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by cdnpilot77 »

Jazz Aviation LP, was conducting flight JZA8585 from Saskatoon/John G. Diefenbaker Intl, SK (CYXE) to Calgary Intl, AB (CYYC) with 4 crew members and 78 passengers on board.
Doesn’t the ACPA scope clause limit regionals to 76pax or less?
---------- ADS -----------
 
skypirate88
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:46 am

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by skypirate88 »

cdnpilot77 wrote: Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:15 pm
Jazz Aviation LP, was conducting flight JZA8585 from Saskatoon/John G. Diefenbaker Intl, SK (CYXE) to Calgary Intl, AB (CYYC) with 4 crew members and 78 passengers on board.
Doesn’t the ACPA scope clause limit regionals to 76pax or less?
Not on the props. I assume this flight was a Q.
---------- ADS -----------
 
A mile of road will take you a mile, but a mile of runway can take you anywhere
User avatar
cdnpilot77
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2467
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:24 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by cdnpilot77 »

Ah got ya....sorry to derail
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

Speaking of bad info....

"C-FIQR, an ATR 42-300 aircraft operated by First Air, was flying FAB802 according to the instrument flight rules from Iqaluit, NU (CYFB) to Igloolik, NU (CYGT)
with 3 crew members and 7 passengers on board. While the aircraft was in cruise flight at FL200, the flight attendant reported to the flight crew an abnormal smell in the cabin. The flight crew reported the presence of smoke in the air traffic service and asked for a return to CYFB, where the aircraft landed without problems. No urgency has been declared, and no one was hurt. Following an audit by the operator's maintenance staff, no discrepancies was found. During the subsequent embarkation of the passengers, it was noted that the smell came from the boots of one of the passengers, who had previously dipped in a solvent. The aircraft has been put back into service"

It is very nice that a few here have blind faith in their cabin crew but as I said.....trust but verify. Some might be of the opinion that they should immediately take action and divert for any report of an unusual smell but as far as I'm concerned, there is no need to need to just go land in Midway Island through the birds on final(its kind of short to with PAPI's notammed) or Shemya on a winter storm day for a pair of smelly boots. But that’s just my opinion.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

"C-FLAP, a float-equipped de Havilland DHC-3T aircraft operated by Harbour Air, was conducting flight HES412 from Ganges, BC (CAX6) to Vancouver Harbour, BC (CYHC) with 1 pilot and 6 passengers on board. Shortly after the departure, the pilot turned on the bleed air for cabin heat when passengers advised that smoke was rising from the cabin floor. The aircraft returned to CAX6 and landed without further incident. The operator’s maintenance inspected the aircraft, however no defects were found. It is suspected that the smoke could have been dust from the cabin heat ducts, which had not been used throughout the summer."
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by 7ECA »

I really don't see what you're looking to accomplish here, by cherrypicking the random occurrences in which a pax (or crew) report of fire/smoke or some other possibly serious incident - which luckily turns out to be a non-event, is?

You've called FAs ditzes with no aviation experience, so in pelmet's world you can't trust anything they say when it comes to reports of smoke/fire (even if multiple FAs report seeing the event)... So only proper pilots can confirm these events, although I don't imagine many pilots are particularly keen to take a leisurely stroll through the cabin when the back end is reporting fire...

How about in the Harbour Air case then, you're flying a single pilot machine - you can't take that stroll. You turn around to take a look, but there's a bit of cabin back there and maybe you can't see or smell anything amiss, but the pax are pretty friggin' sure they've seen and smelt smoke. Probably nothing, but since when do we treat potential smoke/fire as a nonevent? :roll:

How about a situation in which you're flying some sort of a twin, lets call it a member of the King Air family, and a passenger reports seeing oil streaking down the cowling, what would you do, ignore it?
---------- ADS -----------
 
jakeandelwood
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by jakeandelwood »

pelmet wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:36 pm
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:19 pm I'm not getting the point.
My only real point is.......to give an example of the quality of information one might get from the cabin and to consider that before assessing.

There is no comment on what the flight deck crew did which seems quite reasonable although your suggestion of a pilot taking a look is an option.

Just be aware of trusting the info you are given, including by a flight crew member in the back. It may be very exaggerated and extremely exaggerated from a passenger.

How many times do we hear endless, repeated OMG's associated with panic mode from some people in certain situations kind of like in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJyJrS_YToo
I'm guessing that guy in that video has a mental handicap of some sort, kinda sad someone would actually record him. Any info from a flight attendant should be taken seriously, Helios 522 comes to mind, I don't know the workings of a 737 but if a flight attendant had informed the pilots the passenger oxygen masks had deployed maybe the pilots would have caught on to the real problem in time?
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

jakeandelwood wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:00 am Any info from a flight attendant should be taken seriously, Helios 522 comes to mind, I don't know the workings of a 737 but if a flight attendant had informed the pilots the passenger oxygen masks had deployed maybe the pilots would have caught on to the real problem in time?
What you say is very correct about taking information seriously and one should not think that I would suggest otherwise. All I am saying is that there are cases where bad information is given. Each situation is different. In the Helios case, if one got information about O2 masks deploying, it might be time to take appropriate action(such as donning an O2 ask, levelling off with terrain considerations in mind and analyzing the problem of why the horn that you though was the takeoff configuration horn is sounding.
7ECA wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:56 am I really don't see what you're looking to accomplish here, by cherrypicking the random occurrences in which a pax (or crew) report of fire/smoke or some other possibly serious incident - which luckily turns out to be a non-event, is?
I am simply pointing to another example of what the title of the thread says.....Another example of the bad info pilots can be given. Diversions due to smelly boots, dust from ducts, etc. You are correct that it is random but it obviously happens on occasion. I will continue to post examples as I come across them as a reminder.
7ECA wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:56 am You've called FAs ditzes with no aviation experience,
No...now you are giving bad info. I said some are ditzes(I used the term 'occasional' actually), which includes ones with very little and in some cases a fair amount of experience. Sorry, the truth is not very nice sometimes. Some prefer to hide it, I prefer to just acknowledge reality.
7ECA wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:56 am So only proper pilots can confirm these events, although I don't imagine many pilots are particularly keen to take a leisurely stroll through the cabin when the back end is reporting fire...
Depending on the situation, you may want to at least ask more detailed questions. When the word smoke is used and you ask what colour it is(or some other appropriate question) and discover that it is really some fumes, you might realize that it is not smoke and might be something else(like the smelly boots in the ATR example).
7ECA wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:56 am How about in the Harbour Air case then, you're flying a single pilot machine - you can't take that stroll. You turn around to take a look, but there's a bit of cabin back there and maybe you can't see or smell anything amiss, but the pax are pretty friggin' sure they've seen and smelt smoke. Probably nothing, but since when do we treat potential smoke/fire as a nonevent?
Probably no big deal for the DHC-3 driver going back to land on the water. Some aircraft have oceanic diversion airports as far away locations and are not the kind of places you really want to go, even when the weather is good. Actually, the same can frequently be said over land as well. In the case of the DHC-3, if the pilot smelled smoke, he has confirmed what the passengers said and it would be reasonable to land. However, I guarantee you he did not smell or see any smoke.
7ECA wrote: Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:56 am How about a situation in which you're flying some sort of a twin, lets call it a member of the King Air family, and a passenger reports seeing oil streaking down the cowling, what would you do, ignore it?
Hmmm....how about doing what I suggest...go back and take a look(or just look out the cockpit window) if there is no other indication for corroboration. Would hate to divert to some marginal airport for PT-6 exhaust stack soot("sorry captain, I was sure that the black stuff was oil. By the way captain, how realistic is that Airplane movie starring Leslie Nielson?").

I have seen oil running back on the cowl many times on the old 737-200 while riding in the back. I knew it was normal and never said anything but I bet other pax have over the years. Some on this thread might panic and divert to the nearest so-called suitable airport....just in case(because the pax were "pretty friggin' sure" that there is a massive oil leak).

This pic is actually less oil leaking than I have frequently seen.
https://www.google.ca/search?biw=1280&b ... bLfxyDBnlM:

As an interesting aside..... as a pax, I did report a fuel leak to the pilots of a Beech 99 many years ago while on the ground. It started from the nacelle tank after the right prop came out of feather(King Air and 99 pilots should check for this on every flight anyways). I actually had to report it twice before they shut down to look into it further. Eventually the cap was replaced. I guess I gave the pilots good info that night.
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by 7ECA »

I'll just leave this little quote here, from an article titled "The Lasting Legacy of the Swissair 111 Investigation";
The industry in collaboration with the airline pilot associations developed international guidance on more effective smoke and fire checklist procedures. When smoke from an unknown source is detected, crews are trained to quickly start planning for immediate landing until they are assured there is no fire threat to the aircraft or occupants.
But hey, let's assume it isn't actually a fire unless pelmet says it is - actually, can we get your number on speed dial, a sort of Medlink for smoke system?
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

7ECA wrote: Fri Oct 26, 2018 7:44 pm I'll just leave this little quote here, from an article titled "The Lasting Legacy of the Swissair 111 Investigation";
The industry in collaboration with the airline pilot associations developed international guidance on more effective smoke and fire checklist procedures. When smoke from an unknown source is detected, crews are trained to quickly start planning for immediate landing until they are assured there is no fire threat to the aircraft or occupants.
But hey, let's assume it isn't actually a fire unless pelmet says it is - actually, can we get your number on speed dial, a sort of Medlink for smoke system?
Thanks for the info. My recollection from reading that report was that there was KNOWN AND CONFIRMED smoke/fire on board and the crew initiated a significant delay in landing. The pilots smelled something and four minutes later there was visible smoke in the flight deck after which they planned for an approximate 15-30 minute fuel dump procedure. As the statement above says, one should start PLANNING for an immediate landing when smoke from an unknown source is actually detected. It is up to you to decide what is a reasonable detector.

In reality, it is up to the PIC to decide what is reliable. You have made it clear that you would land for the examples I gave above. I am not saying that this is a wrong decision. What I am saying is.....Bad advice is sometimes given to the pilot(in terms of what has actually been detected). With that in mind, I will leave it to the pilots who read this thread to decide what is the appropriate course of action. But you may want to consider confirming for yourself a situation like this f when there is no other evidence and confirmation can be easily done.

As an update, the first call from Swissair 111 was "Swissair 111 Heavy is declaring a Pan Pan Pan. We have smoke in the cockpit. Requesting immediate return to a convenient place. I guess Boston". Surely you are able to see the difference between smoke in the cockpit and someone in the back reporting a fire on an engine with no warning from the aircraft. Check it out over 30 second time period before landing somewhere possibly dangerous, that you normally wouldn't consider as a place to land.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pelmet on Thu May 16, 2019 11:33 am, edited 4 times in total.
jakeandelwood
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 453
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:45 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by jakeandelwood »

I don't know about others but a fire on an airplane is my biggest fear while flying, getting that plane on the ground ASAP would be my biggest priority.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

jakeandelwood wrote: Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:47 am I don't know about others but a fire on an airplane is my biggest fear while flying, getting that plane on the ground ASAP would be my biggest priority.
If there is a fire onboard, that seems like a reasonable idea.
---------- ADS -----------
 
swordfish
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 745
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 12:18 am
Location: CYZF

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by swordfish »

Doesn't sound like "bad" information to me. Sounds like good information. If flames come out the exhaust (burning cat, burning coat, "burning man"...there won't be any evidence of that after you land, as the exhaust is at the rear of a Q$ engine.

Same thing happened to me many tears ago with a Beech 99. On takeoff Fort Smith, aeradio (at the time) called us twice to say the right engine was on fire. Nothing wrong inside, anyway we rejected, taxi in, everything is normal except we had flame tracks all down the side of the plane fuselage. What aeradio could see was behind the wing.

Fuel has accumulated in the combustion chamber of the janitrol, and the air pressure door had not opened (frozen I believe). So when the combustion fan started going (at a certain speed), all the fuel caught fire and started coming out the janitrol exhaust. Origin of the fire was concealed from aeradio by the engine, so they concluded the engine was on fire.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

I wouldn't say that this was a case of bad info but it certainly was interesting one. Think I'll bring my own food next time.

C-GWCY, a Boeing 737-600 aircraft operated by WestJet, was conducting flight WJA137 from Calgary Intl (CYYC), AB to Vancouver Intl (CYVR), BC with 5 crew members and 99 passengers on board. Approximately 5 minutes prior to the top of descent, the lead flight attendant informed the pilots that a sulphur like smell was observed in the overhead bins, in the vicinity of Row 2. The flight crew declared a PAN PAN, and landed without further incident. Once at the gate, a fire crew proceeded on board and identified a smell from a WestJet commissary cooler bag in the overhead bin, above Row 2. The bag was removed and searched with no heat source identified. The aircraft was returned to service.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
EPR
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 520
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:38 am
Location: South of 60, finally!

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by EPR »

pelmet wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:36 pm
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:19 pm I'm not getting the point.
My only real point is.......to give an example of the quality of information one might get from the cabin and to consider that before assessing.

There is no comment on what the flight deck crew did which seems quite reasonable although your suggestion of a pilot taking a look is an option.

Just be aware of trusting the info you are given, including by a flight crew member in the back. It may be very exaggerated and extremely exaggerated from a passenger.

Pelmet, I would hope that your pre-flight "crew briefing" is "inclusive" and can be as simple as stating "any flames from the exhaust is not normal', and that should remove all doubt from the "back end"!
Do yourself a favor, and remove all doubt..(KISS)... keep it simple stupid!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Keep the dirty side down.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

The above post appears to attribute some information as being quoted by me when it was not.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

Here is an example of bad info from ATC.

In this incident, the pilots had already created a bad situation for themselves with damage caused by a bounced landing resulting in one engine having a significant loss of power when...…..

…...ATC says they have an engine fire. But there is no indication in the cockpit of an engine fire. A sequence of events is initiated anyways, which leads to a near stall with one engine at 50% power due to earlier damage and the other engine at idle.

Pages 19-20 have the details....

https://www.aacm.gov.mo/images/download ... 035642.pdf

Some on this thread seem to want us to automatically assume that any message of a fire should automatically be immediately acted upon even if it is in an area where there fire detection but nothing actually detected. It can lead to a near disaster like this. Perhaps these pilots believed the majority in this thread and accepted any report at 'face value'.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by pelmet »

Once again, an incident that seems well handled by the pilots but also proves again that......

...bad info can be given to the pilots. Something to think about if the info you are getting may lead to a decision with serious potential consequences.

"C-GYUA, a Mitsubishi MU-2B-60 aircraft, operated by Thunder Airlines Limited, was conducting
flight THU890 from Fort Frances Muni (CYAG), ON to Red Lake (CYRL), ON. At approximately 15
nautical miles North of CYAG, climbing through 7000 feet, the right hand fire warning light
illuminated. The flight crew stopped the climb and carried out the engine fire checklist. The flight
crew did not observe fire or smoke from the engine and a decided to return to CYAG with both
engines operating. During the descent, the fire warning light extinguished and a flight medic
reported smoke from the right hand engine. An emergency was declared and the right hand engine
was shutdown. The aircraft landed safely in CYAG.

The operator's maintenance inspected the aircraft in CYAG and a ferry flight was subsequently
completed to Thunder Bay (CYQT), ON. The operator's maintenance then replaced the right hand
fire detector control unit."
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by 7ECA »

Pardon the "ignorance", but what the hell is the issue?

The crew had a fire warning light come on - they ran the checklist, saw no visible signs of fire, and decided to RTB. Seems like a prudent enough decision.

While on the short jaunt back to the departure airport the medic saw smoke coming from the engine (after the light shut off, seems like an indication something could be FUBAR with the detection system - at least in my uniformed view), so the crew shut it down and landed safely.

Gosh, it just boggles the mind how this could have turned out any better than it did...
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Another example of the bad info pilots can be given

Post by digits_ »

7ECA wrote: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:51 pm Pardon the "ignorance", but what the hell is the issue?

The crew had a fire warning light come on - they ran the checklist, saw no visible signs of fire, and decided to RTB. Seems like a prudent enough decision.

While on the short jaunt back to the departure airport the medic saw smoke coming from the engine (after the light shut off, seems like an indication something could be FUBAR with the detection system - at least in my uniformed view), so the crew shut it down and landed safely.

Gosh, it just boggles the mind how this could have turned out any better than it did...
I think his point was that the medic thought there was smoke coming from the engine, but in reality there was none, or at least nothing abnormal.

Either that, or somebody got REALLY creative with their ferry permit :wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”