AC Lining Up with a Taxiway SFO...?

[7ECA]

Yes. You make the operator retrofit, for a 24 hr CVR duration, just as operators retrofit important safety advancements all the time.

Privacy concerns are a red herring. You are in a position of substantial public trust and responsibility, Rockie, with thousands of lives under your care. That certainly overrides any concern, IMO, of the company listening to crew conversations.

Have you retrofitted your aircraft to have a CVR/FDR? No, why not? The TSB has been looking to have smaller aircraft fitted with them for years.

[Cat Driver]

As for the CVRs, I agree in this digital age they should be able to record for much longer than they do. But that is, as far as I can tell, totally irrelevant to this discussion since the aircraft and crew are intact and safe.

It may be irrelevant to you but how about to the people who are the customers and were sitting in those airplanes?

Are you suggesting that they are alive because of the expertise and skills of the crew that was flying that airplane?

I am trying to remember a closer call to what could have been the worst accident in aviation history.

[rookiepilot]

Yes. You make the operator retrofit, for a 24 hr CVR duration, just as operators retrofit important safety advancements all the time.

Privacy concerns are a red herring. You are in a position of substantial public trust and responsibility, Rockie, with thousands of lives under your care. That certainly overrides any concern, IMO, of the company listening to crew conversations.

Have you retrofitted your aircraft to have a CVR/FDR? No, why not? The TSB has been looking to have smaller aircraft fitted with them for years.

I am not, and expect will never be, a commercial operator.

The level of public safety expectation is quite different once crossing that boundary and offering flights for hire, which is why I presume it's so difficult to get an AOC to do so.

I am probably supportive of smaller, commercially operated aircraft (than is currently mandated), having CVR recorders.

Ie, while I don't know the precise current regs, small commercial aircraft common up north, should perhaps have these devices.

[Rockie]

Good question, even for someone that is not an airline pilot.

That is a great idea provided privacy concerns are satisfied, and it may already exist. I believe they're trying to have real time tracking of aircraft independent of ATC via ADS, and downloaded CVR's would be a great addition to that. I'm thinking MH370 here.

The problem is retrofitting older airplanes. Do you make operators go to the expense of retrofitting for every advancement in technology? How much are you willing to pay for an airline ticket?

Yes. You make the operator retrofit, for a 24 hr CVR duration, just as operators retrofit important safety advancements all the time.

Privacy concerns are a red herring. You are in a position of substantial public trust and responsibility, Rockie, with thousands of lives under your care. That certainly overrides any concern, IMO, of the company listening to crew conversations.

Ok, I'll ask the question again, how much are you willing to pay for an airline ticket? Where do you draw the line at what is an essential safety enhancement and what isn't? For example retrofitting the 320's with GPS isn't a simple case of slapping in a $200 Garmin, it is a HUGE expense involving systems you aren't even aware of on a fleet that has limited life here at AC. As a customer you are going to pay for it.

With regards to privacy you have to retract your thinking from a catastrophic accident where everybody dies. There has to be guarantees that the company has no access right to the tapes unless there is an incident. If there is an incident any conversation not related to the incident must not be released to the company. If conversations conducted in the flight deck happen to be released to the company there must be a legal guarantee that nothing in it not related to the incident can be used against an employee. And nothing unrelated to the incident is EVER released to the public.

Those are just a few of the things off the top of my head that must be satisfied or any legitimate pilot organization will shut it down flat. The reasons are obvious but if you need me to I will lay them out.

[Rockie]

Are you suggesting that they are alive because of the expertise and skills of the crew that was flying that airplane?

I am trying to remember a closer call to what could have been the worst accident in aviation history.

If you're referring to SFO, then yes, they are alive because of the expertise and skills and training of the crew that was flying that airplane. Unless you think somebody else made the decision and executed the go-around?

[FICU]

I am trying to remember a closer call to what could have been the worst accident in aviation history.

You sound like the media... you honestly believe that crew would have landed on the planes on the taxiway if it wasn't for the controller telling them to go-around?

[rookiepilot]

Rockie,

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am more than happy to pay whatever the market price is for an airline fare, including all safety retrofits.

As a pax I am suspicious how far the overall cost cutting trend has gone and potential effects on safety, in a variety of ways. I'm sure I do not need to list them for you. I'd far rather pay more on every flight, to see some of those changes rolled back, improving safety, comfort and civility.

I fly a lot, both business and personal, and I can assure you price is the last item I look at when choosing a flight, following -- in no order here -- the carrier, safety and perceived quality of product, the schedule, stops, ect. Price follows all of that.

I will pay more -- sometimes a lot more -- to avoid flying a substandard product.

I think BTW I'm aware that retrofitting WAAS is a bit more complex on an A320 than any spam can.

[FICU]

I think BTW I'm aware that retrofitting WAAS is a bit more complex on an A320 than any spam can.

We have WAAS(LPV) capability on our old 737-200s.

[Old fella]

Isn't the A319/20/21 the oldest in the Air Canada domestic fleet, lot of them mid late '80's or early'90's production years and GPS avionics was in its infancy I do believe. Correct me if I am wrong but the C Series and B737 Max are the replacement ac for the A320 and EMB90.

[Rockie]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am more than happy to pay whatever the market price is for an airline fare, including all safety retrofits.

I'll accept that at face value. But as you say you can't say the same about the 45,000,000 other passengers we carried last year.

Isn't the A319/20/21 the oldest in the Air Canada domestic fleet, lot of them mid late '80's or early'90's production years and GPS avionics was in its infancy I do believe. Correct me if I am wrong but the C Series and B737 Max are the replacement ac for the A320 and EMB90.

You are correct, and I for one can't wait for the technological upgrades those aircraft will offer.

[Old fella]

I think BTW I'm aware that retrofitting WAAS is a bit more complex on an A320 than any spam can.

We have WAAS(LPV) capability on our old 737-200s.

Those old noisemakers, smoke belching leaky clunkers still on the go. Last time on one was 2009 to YZF but I have to be honest, sure beats DHC-8 early version propeller bug chasers from a pax prospective

[Illya Kuryakin]

I am trying to remember a closer call to what could have been the worst accident in aviation history.

You sound like the media... you honestly believe that crew would have landed on the planes on the taxiway if it wasn't for the controller telling them to go-around?

Do you honestly, 110%, believe they would not have? They were at 175 feet. Spool the engines back a touch and they might well have.
Illya

[Old fella]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am more than happy to pay whatever the market price is for an airline fare, including all safety retrofits.

I'll accept that at face value. But as you say you can't say the same about the 45,000,000 other passengers we carried last year.

Isn't the A319/20/21 the oldest in the Air Canada domestic fleet, lot of them mid late '80's or early'90's production years and GPS avionics was in its infancy I do believe. Correct me if I am wrong but the C Series and B737 Max are the replacement ac for the A320 and EMB90.

You are correct, and I for one can't wait for the technological upgrades those aircraft will offer.

What's your choice B737 or C series. If I was Rockie and able to fit your shoes, 'tis B787 for me as that is the best looking airplane amongst'em all. Can't wait for a trip in it, plans for a European caper 2019.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Are you suggesting that they are alive because of the expertise and skills of the crew that was flying that airplane?

I am trying to remember a closer call to what could have been the worst accident in aviation history.

If you're referring to SFO, then yes, they are alive because of the expertise and skills and training of the crew that was flying that airplane. Unless you think somebody else made the decision and executed the go-around?

Keep in mind, it was the expertise, skills and training that put them in the position that required them to draw on the aforementioned in the first place.
Illya

[pelmet]

Are you suggesting that they are alive because of the expertise and skills of the crew that was flying that airplane?

I am trying to remember a closer call to what could have been the worst accident in aviation history.

If you're referring to SFO, then yes, they are alive because of the expertise and skills and training of the crew that was flying that airplane. Unless you think somebody else made the decision and executed the go-around?

A statement that reminds me of the Gimli Glider passengers that were heroically saved by the pilot who ignored his MEL and took off with no fuel quantity indicators and ran out of gas. Apparently, he got an award for it instead of all the pilots who followed the rules of law and common sense over the years and didn't end up in such a situation. Maybe another award is on the way for this save.

[Cat Driver]

You sound like the media...

Really?

you honestly believe that crew would have landed on the planes on the taxiway if it wasn't for the controller telling them to go-around?

We really don't know if it was the controller or if they had already started the go around actually we don't really know how they got in that position to start with.

However there is a lot of allegations in the media and some NTSB information. There are other allegations they were very close to at least one airplane holding on the taxi way.

To answer your question, no I do not think they would have deliberately landed on those airplanes.

We may get some more facts from the NTSB as they are very diligent in their investigations.

By the way I find Pprune usually has a lot of discussion on these events and this one sure is getting a lot of comments.

[Rockie]

Are you suggesting that they are alive because of the expertise and skills of the crew that was flying that airplane?

I am trying to remember a closer call to what could have been the worst accident in aviation history.

If you're referring to SFO, then yes, they are alive because of the expertise and skills and training of the crew that was flying that airplane. Unless you think somebody else made the decision and executed the go-around?

A statement that reminds me of the Gimli Glider passengers that were heroically saved by the pilot who ignored his MEL and took off with no fuel quantity indicators and ran out of gas. Apparently, he got an award for it instead of all the pilots who followed the rules of law and common sense over the years and didn't end up in such a situation. Maybe another award is on the way.

That's an oversimplication as there was much more involved in the decision chain than that, but basically you are correct as far as that one factor is concerned. How does that relate to misidentifying a runway in SFO? Was it deliberate? Was it caused by negligence? Was it a death wish?

Why don't we just blame every incident at Air Canada as a natural offshoot of every other incident at Air Canada? That'll make things super easy and nothing ever needs to be investigated.

[PROC_HDG]

Are you suggesting that they are alive because of the expertise and skills of the crew that was flying that airplane?

I am trying to remember a closer call to what could have been the worst accident in aviation history.

If you're referring to SFO, then yes, they are alive because of the expertise and skills and training of the crew that was flying that airplane. Unless you think somebody else made the decision and executed the go-around?

Keep in mind, it was the expertise, skills and training that put them in the position that required them to draw on the aforementioned in the first place.
Illya

One of the main tenants of Threat and Error Management is that crews strive to identify and correct errors. It is of absolutely no use to write off the crew's actions to correct the situation. One of the major reasons that air travel is safer today than it was 30 years ago is that we have come to terms with the fact that everybody, no matter how perfect, even the skygods on avcanada, make mistakes. It is much more productive to focus on being able to identify and correct errors than it is to expect to not make any in the first place.

PROC_HDG

[confusedalot]

Are you suggesting that they are alive because of the expertise and skills of the crew that was flying that airplane?

I am trying to remember a closer call to what could have been the worst accident in aviation history.

If you're referring to SFO, then yes, they are alive because of the expertise and skills and training of the crew that was flying that airplane. Unless you think somebody else made the decision and executed the go-around?

A statement that reminds me of the Gimli Glider passengers that were heroically saved by the pilot who ignored his MEL and took off with no fuel quantity indicators and ran out of gas. Apparently, he got an award for it instead of all the pilots who followed the rules of law and common sense over the years and didn't end up in such a situation. Maybe another award is on the way.

First off, don't leave the ground staff out of the loop for the dunce cap prize. And, you could leave without serviceable fuel gauges according to the then valid MEL. Lots of people in the loop did not seem to have a good grasp on basic arithmetic and imperial to metric conversion, hence the glider.
Second, the transat glider guy is also a hero, way of the world sad to say.
Third, with my luck, my ass would have been outta there with a howitzer kick if I did something like that.

[pelmet]

If you're referring to SFO, then yes, they are alive because of the expertise and skills and training of the crew that was flying that airplane. Unless you think somebody else made the decision and executed the go-around?

A statement that reminds me of the Gimli Glider passengers that were heroically saved by the pilot who ignored his MEL and took off with no fuel quantity indicators and ran out of gas. Apparently, he got an award for it instead of all the pilots who followed the rules of law and common sense over the years and didn't end up in such a situation. Maybe another award is on the way.

That's an oversimplication as there was much more involved in the decision chain than that, but basically you are correct as far as that one factor is concerned. How does that relate to misidentifying a runway in SFO?

While I don't want to change the discussion to an incident from a long time ago, the PIC is responsible as the bottom line. If someone in the company says it is legal to go(they were incorrect) and the MEL says it is not legal, the legal document takes precedence. The only relation to this incident is your statement saying that the SFO pax are alive due to the expertise and skills and similar that was stated for the 767 pax. I believe it is known as "circling the wagons".

And, you could leave without serviceable fuel gauges according to the then valid MEL.

For those who disagree with me about the MEL requirement....

http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 19830723-0

[PROC_HDG]

We really don't know if it was the controller or if they had already started the go around actually we don't really know how they got in that position to start with.

End of thread.

PROC_HDG

[rookiepilot]

We really don't know if it was the controller or if they had already started the go around actually we don't really know how they got in that position to start with.

End of thread.

PROC_HDG

Let's hear the CVR, then. It's in the public interest to release it.

I'm a funny guy. Don't like my information delayed, sanitized and spoon fed.

[PROC_HDG]

End of thread.

PROC_HDG

Let's hear the CVR, then. It's in the public interest to release it.

I'm a funny guy. Don't like my information delayed, sanitized and spoon fed.

Releasing CVR recordings to the public doesn't benefit anyone. The report will be made public when the proper regulatory and investigative agencies finish their investigation.

PROC_HDG

[confusedalot]

And, you could leave without serviceable fuel gauges according to the then valid MEL.

For those who disagree with me about the MEL requirement....

http://aviation-safety.net/database/rec ... 19830723-0[/quote]

I stand corrected, was not portrayed that way, way back then. Hey, I'm honest.

[Cat Driver]

Releasing CVR recordings to the public doesn't benefit anyone. The report will be made public when the proper regulatory and investigative agencies finish their investigation.

That is correct.

And it will be an American NTSB report and not a Canadian TSB report which is in my opinion preferable.