WestJet at YHZ

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:13 am

nite_owl wrote:hmmmm. It was an incident not an accident. No one was hurt, and there was no excursion from the runway. What if this, and what if that happened?.... It didn't. Gentlemen some of you are building mountains from molehills. Nothing more than a scrape to some tin occurred. Unfortunate, yes. Could it have been avoided? Possibly. I doubt very much there'll be much need for the lawyers in on this one though.

Gee next you’re going to be telling us that the “evil empire” had something to do with it after all two Jazz RJ's did land without incident prior to the WJ attempt..

There must be a sale on that WJ Kool-Aid that you jetsetters all drink..

WF9F · Post by **WF9F** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:57 am

Rebel wrote:
tonysoprano wrote:Wx in the maritimes is very peculiar as many of you know. It is possible to have strong winds in near zero vis. Any of you had this experience? quote]

The only place I know of is Torbay, the rest pale by comparison. Maritime flying can be taxing and very unforgiving.

WJ seems to be having various incidents of late, this one is going to be hard to keep out of the media..

Rebel, if you think YHZ weather is so much better than Torbay then guess again.YHZ has the same conditions as YYT.Only most people don't want to admit it.They have the same if not more fog days at the airport than YYT.

WF9F

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:15 pm

I have to agree. The wx can be just as bad in yhz. Maybe not as frequent but just as bad. It may not have anything to do with wind/turbulence. Maybe just bad vis. Is the 737 capable of autoland? This might have helped.

Flightlevels · Post by **Flightlevels** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:17 pm

Rebel wrote:
nite_owl wrote:hmmmm. It was an incident not an accident. No one was hurt, and there was no excursion from the runway. What if this, and what if that happened?.... It didn't. Gentlemen some of you are building mountains from molehills. Nothing more than a scrape to some tin occurred. Unfortunate, yes. Could it have been avoided? Possibly. I doubt very much there'll be much need for the lawyers in on this one though.
Gee next you’re going to be telling us that the “evil empire” had something to do with it after all two Jazz RJ's did land without incident prior to the WJ attempt..

There must be a sale on that WJ Kool-Aid that you jetsetters all drink..

how original....

I personally like how after the freddie crash AC painted the side of the A/C covering the almighty aircanada then tarped it and hid it on the side of the terminal then offered some cash right away(I think it was a few grand if I'm not mistaken) to the victims and a waiver letter to sign....oh I remember flying in there that night myself...we didn't go off the runway...don't throw stones my friend you are in a glass house...koolaid or not....again I'm glad nobody was hurt..get my point. and the 430 thing wasn't us according to flt ops managers for what it is worth. BTW the 700 can go to 450 without pax. Sorry fellas can't provide a link for the gear leg episode because it was kept quite hush...it was the airport buddies that do the maintenance that told me and I remember reading a small quip on it on a forum. nonetheless it was substantial enough to replace the gearleg. I don't mean to turn this into a 1 vs 1 blog....crap happens to everyone and hopefully there is something learned after this that will help everyone.

xkbal · Post by **xkbal** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:26 pm

Rebel wrote:Be very careful AC doesn’t make any attempt to cover up any of its incidents on the other hand WJ well what can I say..430?

Please provide the details on the suppose gear leg change the Inquire would like to know..

I agree, I've been hearing about this 430 incident for a while here, please provide details.

Flightlevels · Post by **Flightlevels** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:27 pm

tonysoprano wrote:I have to agree. The wx can be just as bad in yhz. Maybe not as frequent but just as bad. It may not have anything to do with wind/turbulence. Maybe just bad vis. Is the 737 capable of autoland? This might have helped.

it does have the autoland but it is limited to the wind component....not sure what that was tony..the fellow flying was a guy that had been on it for sometime and an A checker whom I have huge respect for, the fo hasn't been around that long, don't know him.

tonysoprano · Post by **tonysoprano** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:11 pm

It can happen to anyone. Just glad no-one got hurt. Airplane can be fixed.

double-j · Post by **double-j** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 1:15 pm

Rebel wrote: Be very careful AC doesn’t make any attempt to cover up any of its incidents on the other hand WJ well what can I say..430?

Please provide the details on the suppose gear leg change the Inquire would like to know..

Perhaps you can do the same rebel?

jj

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:01 pm

WF9F wrote:
Rebel wrote:[quote"] WF9F
Rebel, if you think YHZ weather is so much better than Torbay then guess again.YHZ has the same conditions as YYT.Only most people don't want to admit it.They have the same if not more fog days at the airport than YYT.

WF9F

Sorry I have to disagree I’ve seen Torbay WXO in a gale; Halifax can get a little rough in high wind conditions but good visibility breaking out. Landing on 14 can be tricky in foggy conditions especially so after preceding landing traffic could possibility cause a stir thus either reducing or improving visibility. I’ve seen it both ways..

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:06 pm

jazzy-j wrote:
Rebel wrote: Perhaps you can do the same rebel?

jj

Well why don't you ask your CP or one of the techies? The rumor didn't appear out of thin air.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:31 pm

Flightlevels wrote:
Rebel wrote:
nite_owl wrote:quote]
how original.... I personally like how after the freddie crash AC painted the side of the A/C covering the almighty aircanada then tarped it and hid it on the side of the terminal then offered some cash right away(I think it was a few grand if I'm not mistaken) to the victims and a waiver letter to sign....oh I remember flying in there that night myself...we didn't go off the runway...don't throw stones my friend you are in a glass house...koolaid or not....again I'm glad nobody was hurt..get my point. and the 430 thing wasn't us according to flt ops managers for what it is worth. BTW the 700 can go to 450 without pax. Sorry fellas can't provide a link for the gear leg episode because it was kept quite hush...it was the airport buddies that do the maintenance that told me and I remember reading a small quip on it on a forum. nonetheless it was substantial enough to replace the gearleg. I don't mean to turn this into a 1 vs 1 blog....crap happens to everyone and hopefully there is something learned after this that will help everyone.

Shit happens to everyone in this business but you WJ folks slammed AC and JG at every opportunity telling us how much better an operation WJ was. Well what goes round comes round. The lack of accountability on every issue is fast becoming a WJ trademark.

xkbal · Post by **xkbal** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:42 pm

Rebel wrote:
jazzy-j wrote:
Rebel wrote: Perhaps you can do the same rebel?

jj
Well why don't you ask your CP or one of the techies? The rumor didn't appear out of thin air.

As near as I can tell it did appear out of thin air. I've not seen one mention of it anywhere other than on rumor mills like this. It could be something as simple as someone in watching the flight progress on the seat back tv's and seeing the higher altitude there. Those altitudes are based off different info than what the aircraft is flown to so could easily be out from what the aircraft altimeter is showing.

xkbal · Post by **xkbal** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:44 pm

Rebel wrote:Shit happens to everyone in this business but you WJ folks slammed AC and JG at every opportunity telling us how much better an operation WJ was. Well what goes round comes round. The lack of accountability on every issue is fast becoming a WJ trademark.

Yes, it does happen to everyone in this business. It seems to me I've seen just as many AC fellows flinging mud at Westjet as the other way around.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:46 pm

Rebel wrote:
Flightlevels wrote:
Rebel wrote:

Shit happens to everyone in this business but you WJ folks slammed AC and JG at every opportunity telling us how much better an operation WJ was. Well what goes round comes round. What you never told us or admitted to was how you did it.

The lack of accountability on every issue is fast becoming a WJ trademark.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 2:49 pm

xkbal wrote:
Rebel wrote:
jazzy-j wrote: Well why don't you ask your CP or one of the techies? The rumor didn't appear out of thin air.
As near as I can tell it did appear out of thin air. I've not seen one mention of it anywhere other than on rumor mills like this. It could be something as simple as someone in watching the flight progress on the seat back tv's and seeing the higher altitude there. Those altitudes are based off different info than what the aircraft is flown to so could easily be out from what the aircraft altimeter is showing.

I repeat why don't you ask the WJ CP or one of the techies?

Get it straight from the horse’s mouth and end the rumor one way or another..

grammar boy · Post by **grammar boy** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 3:09 pm

rebel, once again you show that you have selective hearing (reading).

There have been many posts saying that the 430 rumour is untrue, or at least it wasn't WJ. This info is straight from people who know, which means people in Flt Ops management. What would satisfy you, getting Clive himself to post on here that it wasn't WJ?

Oh, wait, here he is, sitting right next to me:

Clive: "Hi Rebel. It has been brought to my attention that you think one of our aircraft went up to FL430. I would like to imform you that this is untrue. By the way, your lounges suck, too much tacky green fabric and Celine music piped through for my taste. Cheers, CB"

The dead horse called, he asked that you stop beating him.

Flightlevels · Post by **Flightlevels** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 3:33 pm

that's funny!...I asked the guy I spoke with said simply...no. Can you demonstrate the non accountability thing? one is in court (which will be some time to debate)the other you claim is a rumour...pls enlighten/demontrate it for us? You are speaking like this happens all the time here.....worry about your own shop and don't paint us all with the same brush!!

737 Mech · Post by **737 Mech** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:00 pm

I love the tension between AC and WJ people.....at least they care about there companies and are proud

WF9F · Post by **WF9F** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:31 pm

Rebel wrote:
WF9F wrote:
Rebel wrote:[quote"] WF9F
Rebel, if you think YHZ weather is so much better than Torbay then guess again.YHZ has the same conditions as YYT.Only most people don't want to admit it.They have the same if not more fog days at the airport than YYT.

WF9F
Sorry I have to disagree I’ve seen Torbay WXO in a gale; Halifax can get a little rough in high wind conditions but good visibility breaking out. Landing on 14 can be tricky in foggy conditions especially so after preceding landing traffic could possibility cause a stir thus either reducing or improving visibility. I’ve seen it both ways..

I have lived in YHZ and YYT, the way people talk, especially those in YHZ, (and others that have not even lived there)you wouldn't know YYT was WOXOF all year. Don't believe everything you hear from the Weather Network.I have missed YHZ more in 20 years of flying than i have YYT.

Just my opinion from someone who has lived in these parts.

nite_owl · Post by **nite_owl** » Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:07 pm

Rebel Rebel rebel,
nite_owl wrote:
quote]
how original.... I personally like how after the freddie crash AC painted the side of the A/C covering the almighty aircanada then tarped it and hid it on the side of the terminal then offered some cash right away(I think it was a few grand if I'm not mistaken) to the victims and a waiver letter to sign....oh I remember flying in there that night myself...we didn't go off the runway...don't throw stones my friend you are in a glass house...koolaid or not....again I'm glad nobody was hurt..get my point. and the 430 thing wasn't us according to flt ops managers for what it is worth. BTW the 700 can go to 450 without pax. Sorry fellas can't provide a link for the gear leg episode because it was kept quite hush...it was the airport buddies that do the maintenance that told me and I remember reading a small quip on it on a forum. nonetheless it was substantial enough to replace the gearleg. I don't mean to turn this into a 1 vs 1 blog....crap happens to everyone and hopefully there is something learned after this that will help everyone.

I believe credit for this one belongs to Flightlevels, and as far as Kool-Aid goes, sorry to disapoint you, but I'm employed elsewhere.

Now to quote you,

Shit happens to everyone in this business but

Well yes it does, and is precisely why I choose to see it for what it is and not blow it out of proportion.
Fredericton was an accident not an incident. There was a hull loss and a fatality in that one. WJ's incident had neither, so let's not mix the apples and oranges here.

Cheers,