WestJet at YHZ

[grammar boy]

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]

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]

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

[WF9F]

[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]

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,

[complexintentions]

There were no fatalities at Fredericton. According to the TSB report anyway.

http://aircrafticing.grc.nasa.gov/cours ... report.pdf

I really am curious to know how you feel this is being "blown out of proportion". I saw the a/c in the CanJet hangar and frankly, I'm amazed (and thankful) there were't about 140 fatalities. I'd hazard a guess to say that's about as close as you can come to an accident and still call it an incident.

What I find most amazing is this though. All of the WestJet defenders (employees or not) seem to be able to do to do is point at other companies and their accidents/incidents. Why not try to accept some responsibility and admit something went really wrong, (and yes, it can happen anywhere), instead of trying to deflect the criticism by pointing fingers? THAT is the "lack of accountability" that does seem to be a WJ trademark.

[Mitch Cronin]

You guys need to check your definitions... an "incident" does not include a situation where major aircraft damage resulted. That would be termed "an accident".

As for the other nonsense about a gear leg being replaced "a few months back".... strange that I didn't hear a peep about that internally. Sounds like pure BS to me.

[complexintentions]

Mitch,

I don't know what Transport is calling it, or where it fits in the definition of accident/incident, I'm only addressing the apparent need to downplay it...yeah, I never heard about the "gear leg" either...?!?

ci

[Mitch Cronin]

Hi Complex....
I reckon anyone would be inclined to downplay the less attractive aspects of the home they're proud of.... But you're right, lot's more to be gained by calling a spade a spade and taking whatever lumps come. ...no doubt there are many who do just that... though, they're not as vocal - being humble usually comes with being quiet - so we don't see them spouting that point of view.

Cheers,

Mitch

[The Raven]

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."


The WestJet representative in YHZ is quoted as saying that the left wing tip touched the runway before the gear did. To me that is much more than a minor incident. That's awful freakin' scary. I do think lawyers will be involved and rightly so.

[Rebel]

The Raven

This is not merely a scraped wingtip as WJ is saying, quite the opposite..

The WestJet -700 is in the CanJet hangar under repair. The winglet is off and being replaced, the L/H outboard "canoe" was damaged and being replaced and the #1 Slat is ground down and being replaced, no other damage as far as I know.


that was close...........

[double-j]

Rebel....You're always quick to spout out about confirming your stories..So here is your chance, where is the fact to your ruomur you are so proud of.

Put up or shut up.

respectfully,

jj

[double-j]

[Rebel]

Rebel....You're always quick to spout out about confirming your stories..So here is your chance, where is the fact to your ruomur you are so proud of.

Put up or shut up.

respectfully,

jj

Hmm where else but a WJ employee..I thought the WJ pilot's knew everything must be a myth..

[WS739]

I love how people like Rebel come on here acting like they no everything!

-Wait till the report my friends you have no idea what happened so stop being armchair quarterbacks and think you can determine the seriousness of the incident!

And its incident-no injuries and minor damage....does matter how it happened for the idiot who thinks hes a transport canada official!

Sg was deliberate atempt of get-home-itis...low fuel, low trained pilots and shitty equipment! They left the runway and took off from the grass putting crew and passenger in danger....were on two diffrent wavelengths here gentlemen!

Until the report comes out shut up and stop acting like you know you shit...and rebel f*$% man do you have a life....flying into YHZ on FS2004 doesnt count as actual experience here. Get a life and go do a circuit or something.....we will talk when the report comes out...!!

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.

Ahaha what a stupid thing to say!!! Being accountable for a rumour...you are truly a bigger dumbass then i first thought
AHAAH IDIOT!

Ws739

[Rebel]

WS739

No need to wonder why WJ is getting such a rough ride and their own employees refer to their pilot’s as the Blue Cowboys. Happy trails..

[justplanecrazy]

Rebel, you could have done a little better for your 1000th post. I've noticed that I keep getting more and more inane everytime I log on. Damn, if in another 700 posts I'm taking it upon myself to personally attack an Airline company with every fleeting moment, I better log off permanently now. It's been fun but I'm taking a break, see ya in a year... glad to hear that it was just a close call and no-one got hurt.

[CD]

I think that these have been posted in other threads in the past but here they are again:

"reportable aviation accident" means an accident resulting directly from the operation of an aircraft, where

(a) a person sustains a serious injury or is killed as a result of

(i) being on board the aircraft,
(ii) coming into contact with any part of the aircraft or its contents, or
(iii) being directly exposed to the jet blast or rotor downwash of the aircraft,

(b) the aircraft sustains damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that requires major repair or replacement of any affected component part, or

(c) the aircraft is missing or inaccessible; (accident aéronautique à signaler)

"reportable aviation incident" means an incident resulting directly from the operation of an airplane having a maximum certificated take-off weight greater than 5 700 kg, or from the operation of a rotorcraft having a maximum certificated take-off weight greater than 2 250 kg, where

(a) an engine fails or is shut down as a precautionary measure,

(b) a transmission gearbox malfunction occurs,

(c) smoke or fire occurs,

(d) difficulties in controlling the aircraft are encountered owing to any aircraft system malfunction, weather phenomena, wake turbulence, uncontrolled vibrations or operations outside the flight envelope,

(e) the aircraft fails to remain within the intended landing or take-off area, lands with all or part of the landing gear retracted or drags a wing tip, an engine pod or any other part of the aircraft,

(f) any crew member whose duties are directly related to the safe operation of the aircraft is unable to perform the crew member's duties as a result of a physical incapacitation that poses a threat to the safety of any person, property or the environment,

(g) depressurization occurs that necessitates an emergency descent,

(h) a fuel shortage occurs that necessitates a diversion or requires approach and landing priority at the destination of the aircraft,

(i) the aircraft is refuelled with the incorrect type of fuel or contaminated fuel,

(j) a collision, a risk of collision or a loss of separation occurs,

(k) a crew member declares an emergency or indicates any degree of emergency that requires priority handling by an air traffic control unit or the standing by of emergency response services,

(l) a slung load is released unintentionally or as a precautionary or emergency measure from the aircraft, or

(m) any dangerous goods are released in or from the aircraft; (incident aéronautique à signaler)

Transportation Safety Board Regulations

[complexintentions]

This has to be one of the most hypocritical and contradictory posts I've read in a while...

-Wait till the report my friends you have no idea what happened so stop being armchair quarterbacks and think you can determine the seriousness of the incident!

And then you go on to do exactly that to the SG incident.

Sg was deliberate atempt of get-home-itis...low fuel, low trained pilots and shitty equipment! They left the runway and took off from the grass putting crew and passenger in danger....were on two diffrent wavelengths here gentlemen!

Talk about stupid, speculative comments. Here's some rumour for you...it's starting to come out from the YYC findings that the SG flight actually touched down on the runway, departed the runway, and because of the low vis, didn't know where they were and elected to go around due their high speed. Right decision? Who knows. We weren't there. But I'll bet your boys in YHZ have some sympathies for low-vis approaches...

Oh, and it was a senior check captain on that flight, so you can forget your "low trained" crack. Unless you're ready to have the captain of your YHZ flight, whom I understand was check A, held up to the same ridicule. Personally, I think you're on EXACTLY the same wavelength here, and it's pure arrogance to state otherwise.

And its incident-no injuries and minor damage....does matter how it happened for the idiot who thinks hes a transport canada official!

Damaging the flap canoe is minor damage?! Who's the idiot here?! Maybe you can MEL the winglet, but the flaps? lol

"reportable aviation accident":
(b) the aircraft sustains damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that requires major repair or replacement of any affected component part, or

Maybe they'll just sign the logbook and ferry back to YYC? I don't think so.

Until the report comes out shut up and stop acting like you know you shit...

You might try taking your own advice. And again, why is it your post consists more of bashing SG than trying to offer an explanation for your own woes? Newsflash: SG isn't even around anymore!

[737 Mech]

I think a ferry permit was in the works until CanJet offered one of it's bays, I'm not 100% sure (but pretty sure)