Air Canada Incident
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
Re: Air Canada Incident
OK everyone, on the count of three jump to conclusions. It's started already, "looks serious" can't see a thing. Hope everyones OK. NO there are injuries on board so not everyone is OK. Come on.
Re: Air Canada Incident
Some turbulence...Put your seatbelt on and shut up.
"It went up and then sideways," said one passenger, who said a friend of hers was hurt. "She flew up to the ceiling and right down."
"It was about 15 seconds, and then it was over," said another passenger
Re: Air Canada Incident
CTV is trying their hardest to turn it into a major story. Everything from trying to assume mechanical malfunction to depressurization all based on flight tracker data. Their analyst kept cautioning them from making too much out of it but the news anchor kept pushing. Pathetic.
Re: Air Canada Incident
No kidding. This one goes out to everyone that immediately decides to unbuckle their seatbelt when the sign goes off.Uncle Leo wrote:Put your seatbelt on and shut up.
Last edited by C-FABH on Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
2milefinal
- Rank 6
- Posts: 429
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:36 pm
Re: Air Canada Incident
Is it really that uncomfortable to sit with your seat-belt on at all times, I mean really . 
Re: Air Canada Incident
Im confused. I thought "turbulence" only happens to West Jet. 
Re: Air Canada Incident
The 'CTV Aviation Expert' talking is Mike Miller... does anyone know who he is or what his credentials are?
Edit: Sorry, the name is 'Mark Miller'. I've found that he flew with the Snowbirds but nothing else. I'm just curious who can Knight someone as an aviation expert and what background they need to hold such status when these news reports come out.
Edit: Sorry, the name is 'Mark Miller'. I've found that he flew with the Snowbirds but nothing else. I'm just curious who can Knight someone as an aviation expert and what background they need to hold such status when these news reports come out.
Re: Air Canada Incident
Glad everyone is ok, but dammit when we we ask to "keep your seatbelt fasten while seated" there a reason for it.
Re: Air Canada Incident
Looks like the "expert, Miller is back-peddling" on his software/mechanical statements. I know he is excited and wants his claim to fame. But he should really have toned it down a notch being on National TV (CTV) and all...Making those kinds of armchair statements is not professional.
...Seems they are going to remove the axe and the control column from the cockpits for security reasons.
Re: Air Canada Incident
Someone asked me whether I would talk to the television news media this morning!
I didn't.
But if I did, I would only mention what I see in the cabin too often... Loose seatbelts and seatbelts not done up.
In China people undid their seatbelts as the wheels touched down
we were still doing over a hundred knots down the runway.
Passengers should be shown the film of those people being carried off to hospital as a warning to keep those belts snug!
Me, I keep mine tight!
I wonder how the crew fared?
I sometimes fly with pilots and instructors who do not do their lapstraps up tight, I remind them they are flying with me, and I'm not beyond giving the stick a jerk forward for persistent offenders!
I didn't.
But if I did, I would only mention what I see in the cabin too often... Loose seatbelts and seatbelts not done up.
In China people undid their seatbelts as the wheels touched down
we were still doing over a hundred knots down the runway.Passengers should be shown the film of those people being carried off to hospital as a warning to keep those belts snug!
Me, I keep mine tight!
I wonder how the crew fared?
I sometimes fly with pilots and instructors who do not do their lapstraps up tight, I remind them they are flying with me, and I'm not beyond giving the stick a jerk forward for persistent offenders!
Re: Air Canada Incident
Not just turbulence, apparently.
From the CADORS:
From the CADORS:
ACA 190, an A319 with 88 people on board, was en route from Victoria to Toronto when the crew advised ATC of an aircraft upset that resulted in the aircraft doing a roll. The flight was in the vicinity of ONSET intersection (Washington state) about 65 NM southwest of Cranbrook when the crew informed Seattle Center that they were having difficulty controlling the aircraft. It is not known at this point if there was a flight management system problem or whether this event was related to turbulence. Vancouver ACC accepted control of the aircraft at 1450z. The crew declared an emergency, requested diversion to Calgary International Airport and requested medical assistance upon arrival. ACA 190 landed about 30 minutes later at 1529z and stopped on Runway 34 for visual inspection of the aircraft by airport emergency response personnel. The crew then taxied off the runway at 1533z. It was reported that there are some passengers with serious injuries. Medical assistance was on standby upon arrival. TSB Edmonton has sent two investigators to YYC.
Re: Air Canada Incident
For what its worth... I was listening to CBC Radio and they were interviewing a passenger who was saying that the flight crew came on the intercom shortly after the aircraft leveled out and made an announcement stating that the aircraft experienced a failure in one of the computer systems, that they were now flying the aircraft by hand and other than the unplanned diversion everything was under control and there was nothing to be concerned about. They were reporting 2 of the crew were included in the number of injured...I would assume back end crew.
Re: Air Canada Incident
No the pilots spilled their coffee's and are currently in negotiations with the Air Carriers insurance company. I belive it will settle for close to 3 million.I would assume back end crew.
Re: Air Canada Incident
That is more plausible...a lot of the old dolls that AC has in the back look pretty tough.
-
sidestick stirrer
- Rank 5
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:22 pm
Re: Air Canada Incident
As long as we realize this is all pure speculation, let me relate my one, vaguely-similar incident in a 340.
In the dark, well after midnight, enroute YVR-HKG over the Gulf of Alaska, enjoying silent ATC freqs and smooth air, the airplane gave a mighty, short-period, pitch excursion, up and then immediately back down, triggering some nasty crashing noises from immediately behind the flightdeck.
I thought it felt exactly like running at right angles through wake turbulence, meaning there might be another one in a second or two, so I turned on the seat belt sign with my right hand while keying the transmit button on the sidestick with my left, asking Anchorage if they'd had any crossing traffic previously at our position, either at or above our altitude.
Although they replied-after a surprized pause-that there was no traffic on their scope other than us-there was indeed another, but less-intense, bump within a few seconds.
Convinced this was wake, I chalked it up to the occasional Soviet bomber that crosses our oceanic tracks without transponder or radio contact or flightplan.
The banging sound was the poor Augment First Officer in the lower crewbunk, sound asleep, flying up and hitting his head on the bottom of the upper bunk, then lying there somewhat stunned, and he had his arms up to prevent a repeat a few seconds later.
The other noises were the metal coffee and tea pots as well as metal cutlery flying around in the forward galley.
No one was in the galley to be at risk from this, nor was anyone injured, and I'm always amazed at the "sea-legs" our flight attendants have gained through experience.
Mistakenly cursing the Russian Air Force, the rest of the trip to HKG was uneventful.
Imagine our surprize when, upon shutting down on arrival and watching the post-flight record curl out of the printer that-right at the time of our incident-the electronics captured a trip-off of one ELAC ( elevator/aileron computer) followed by a self-reset and reconnect within a couple of seconds. It didn't stay offline long enough to trigger any warnings.
I had never experienced one of these before, but had been warned during training that-if any procedure required a cycling of an ELAC- to strap everyone, including flight attendants, in first.
The odd thing with these electronically-signalled flight controls is where they float when there is no signal to position them: they don't just fair with the wind like you'd expect, they go to a position known as a zero hinge-moment (IIRC, not on the airplane anymore) which is nose down, and trailing-edge way up.
This would explain the violent pitch up as the one elevator lost its positioning signal, and the slightly-smoother return to level flight as the remaining elevator was moved to compensate for the excursion, then the bump on the reverse happening.
The wings on the airplane are long enough that-having an aileron lockout during flap retraction out of SYD one day-I could look out from the cockpit and see the aileron out on the wingtip, with the trailing edge stuck way up, acting like a spoiler. Manually resetting the electronics controlling that aileron had it snap smartly back into position with a slight rolling moment and we continued on our way to HNL.
So, that is my experience with misbehaving electronic flight controls.
The only thing that bothers me is that this event took place in an area-downwind of a very-high mountain range that ends most abruptly-tailor made to generate diabolical clear-air turbulence with the right combination of wind, stability and temperature.
And that I found out the hard way in the days before even INS or LORAN; anyone else know what "eyeball bounce" is?
In the dark, well after midnight, enroute YVR-HKG over the Gulf of Alaska, enjoying silent ATC freqs and smooth air, the airplane gave a mighty, short-period, pitch excursion, up and then immediately back down, triggering some nasty crashing noises from immediately behind the flightdeck.
I thought it felt exactly like running at right angles through wake turbulence, meaning there might be another one in a second or two, so I turned on the seat belt sign with my right hand while keying the transmit button on the sidestick with my left, asking Anchorage if they'd had any crossing traffic previously at our position, either at or above our altitude.
Although they replied-after a surprized pause-that there was no traffic on their scope other than us-there was indeed another, but less-intense, bump within a few seconds.
Convinced this was wake, I chalked it up to the occasional Soviet bomber that crosses our oceanic tracks without transponder or radio contact or flightplan.
The banging sound was the poor Augment First Officer in the lower crewbunk, sound asleep, flying up and hitting his head on the bottom of the upper bunk, then lying there somewhat stunned, and he had his arms up to prevent a repeat a few seconds later.
The other noises were the metal coffee and tea pots as well as metal cutlery flying around in the forward galley.
No one was in the galley to be at risk from this, nor was anyone injured, and I'm always amazed at the "sea-legs" our flight attendants have gained through experience.
Mistakenly cursing the Russian Air Force, the rest of the trip to HKG was uneventful.
Imagine our surprize when, upon shutting down on arrival and watching the post-flight record curl out of the printer that-right at the time of our incident-the electronics captured a trip-off of one ELAC ( elevator/aileron computer) followed by a self-reset and reconnect within a couple of seconds. It didn't stay offline long enough to trigger any warnings.
I had never experienced one of these before, but had been warned during training that-if any procedure required a cycling of an ELAC- to strap everyone, including flight attendants, in first.
The odd thing with these electronically-signalled flight controls is where they float when there is no signal to position them: they don't just fair with the wind like you'd expect, they go to a position known as a zero hinge-moment (IIRC, not on the airplane anymore) which is nose down, and trailing-edge way up.
This would explain the violent pitch up as the one elevator lost its positioning signal, and the slightly-smoother return to level flight as the remaining elevator was moved to compensate for the excursion, then the bump on the reverse happening.
The wings on the airplane are long enough that-having an aileron lockout during flap retraction out of SYD one day-I could look out from the cockpit and see the aileron out on the wingtip, with the trailing edge stuck way up, acting like a spoiler. Manually resetting the electronics controlling that aileron had it snap smartly back into position with a slight rolling moment and we continued on our way to HNL.
So, that is my experience with misbehaving electronic flight controls.
The only thing that bothers me is that this event took place in an area-downwind of a very-high mountain range that ends most abruptly-tailor made to generate diabolical clear-air turbulence with the right combination of wind, stability and temperature.
And that I found out the hard way in the days before even INS or LORAN; anyone else know what "eyeball bounce" is?
Re: Air Canada Incident
Interesting read, sidestick stirrer. I have heard a few things right now, speculation is they might have landed while under direct law.
Re: Air Canada Incident
I wanna roll a 319 too!aircraft upset that resulted in the aircraft doing a roll
[/sarcasm]
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Air Canada Incident
If nothing else it shows one out of three were working properly.Interesting read, sidestick stirrer. I have heard a few things right now, speculation is they might have landed while under direct law.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
-
sidestick stirrer
- Rank 5
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:22 pm
Re: Air Canada Incident
What we must keep foremost in mind is that 99.999% of speculation is so far off the mark as to be downright misleading.
About what to expect from someone as happy to fly a Cub with the door open( slowly poisoning themselves from the exhaust) as a widebody, anyday!
About what to expect from someone as happy to fly a Cub with the door open( slowly poisoning themselves from the exhaust) as a widebody, anyday!
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Air Canada Incident
Side stick....
...if you were referring to my last post it was meant positive....
If in fact they finished the flight in law one...Law one obviously worked as designed.
...if you were referring to my last post it was meant positive....
If in fact they finished the flight in law one...Law one obviously worked as designed.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
-
sidestick stirrer
- Rank 5
- Posts: 383
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 10:22 pm
Re: Air Canada Incident
No, ., I meant no disrespect, and was not referring to your last post, but mine.
I appreciate your candor on these forums, although I have not crossed swords with TC to the extent you have "enjoyed," and therefore keep that in mind, gleaning what knowledge I can from the experience evident in your posts.
I just wished to convey my reticence to post anything regarding this incident, but in a humourous way.
Most who posit a reason for something happening in aviation without the most-thorough examination turn out to be dead wrong.
Having said that, the EFC's and CAT came to mind first, and, with the caveat stated at the beginning of my OP, I thought I would share them with this forum.
It's always amazed me-also-how rarely an incident just appears out of the blue; there's nearly always a story behind the story( so to speak) and a trail of evidence leading up to the event.
Take, for instance, a reciprocating engine throwing a connecting rod through the crankcase: yes, the broken rod caused the engine to fail, but why did the rod fail? It can usually only fail when the big-end bearing seizes to the crankshaft. Why does that happen? The oil film became insufficient to prevent the plain bearing from smearing and flowing.
Why does that happen? Either the oil film was too thin due to low flow or pressure, or the bearing shell turned in the crankcase saddle, reducing the size of the oil-delivery hole. Why does that happen? Usually, the crushing pressure provided by the through-bolts was lost. Why does that happen?
Etc., etc.
Which is a long-winded way of illustrating my point, and also letting all know that I am just delaying getting back on my knees to continue grouting all those tiles on the basement floor......
My only TC-related story that those here might enjoy:
Way back around 1970, while getting my multi rating, my flying school arranged for a MofT inspector to come to our airfield, where they had five candidates for the multi ride in a very-tired 150-horse Apache.
Four of the five didn't even make it to the airplane, flunking the oral in the classroom.
I was the sole student to get as far as the ramp, acutely aware of the stares from the clubhouse windows as well as the silent, intent gaze of the inspector as he followed me around the twin.
I thought him asking me what direction the grain of the metal in the propellor blades was oriented was a little out of line, but, as I was also a newly-minted AME( which I had not revealed), I was able to answer my way out of that one, too.
Then, as I grasped the kitchen-drawer handle on the fuselage side to climb onto the wing to get in, the inspector asked me how much power I figured it would take to taxi away from the parking spot.
I instantly knew what he was getting at, and ducked under the tail to untie it!
How, or why, he let me continue from there, I do not know, except perhaps that failing to untie the airplane wouldn't directly endanger anything save one's ego.
The actual ride went very well from that point forward, the Apache being a reassuringly-slow and stable airplane with an enormous cockpit, although with an engine failure the other one just took you to the scene of the crash, even with the back seats empty.
The other four candidates all passed the next day, with a different inspector.
I sometimes wonder if the inspector I had just felt like flying only once that day.....
I appreciate your candor on these forums, although I have not crossed swords with TC to the extent you have "enjoyed," and therefore keep that in mind, gleaning what knowledge I can from the experience evident in your posts.
I just wished to convey my reticence to post anything regarding this incident, but in a humourous way.
Most who posit a reason for something happening in aviation without the most-thorough examination turn out to be dead wrong.
Having said that, the EFC's and CAT came to mind first, and, with the caveat stated at the beginning of my OP, I thought I would share them with this forum.
It's always amazed me-also-how rarely an incident just appears out of the blue; there's nearly always a story behind the story( so to speak) and a trail of evidence leading up to the event.
Take, for instance, a reciprocating engine throwing a connecting rod through the crankcase: yes, the broken rod caused the engine to fail, but why did the rod fail? It can usually only fail when the big-end bearing seizes to the crankshaft. Why does that happen? The oil film became insufficient to prevent the plain bearing from smearing and flowing.
Why does that happen? Either the oil film was too thin due to low flow or pressure, or the bearing shell turned in the crankcase saddle, reducing the size of the oil-delivery hole. Why does that happen? Usually, the crushing pressure provided by the through-bolts was lost. Why does that happen?
Etc., etc.
Which is a long-winded way of illustrating my point, and also letting all know that I am just delaying getting back on my knees to continue grouting all those tiles on the basement floor......
My only TC-related story that those here might enjoy:
Way back around 1970, while getting my multi rating, my flying school arranged for a MofT inspector to come to our airfield, where they had five candidates for the multi ride in a very-tired 150-horse Apache.
Four of the five didn't even make it to the airplane, flunking the oral in the classroom.
I was the sole student to get as far as the ramp, acutely aware of the stares from the clubhouse windows as well as the silent, intent gaze of the inspector as he followed me around the twin.
I thought him asking me what direction the grain of the metal in the propellor blades was oriented was a little out of line, but, as I was also a newly-minted AME( which I had not revealed), I was able to answer my way out of that one, too.
Then, as I grasped the kitchen-drawer handle on the fuselage side to climb onto the wing to get in, the inspector asked me how much power I figured it would take to taxi away from the parking spot.
I instantly knew what he was getting at, and ducked under the tail to untie it!
How, or why, he let me continue from there, I do not know, except perhaps that failing to untie the airplane wouldn't directly endanger anything save one's ego.
The actual ride went very well from that point forward, the Apache being a reassuringly-slow and stable airplane with an enormous cockpit, although with an engine failure the other one just took you to the scene of the crash, even with the back seats empty.
The other four candidates all passed the next day, with a different inspector.
I sometimes wonder if the inspector I had just felt like flying only once that day.....
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Air Canada Incident
You never know with inspectors, but in the early seventies they were a far different breed.
They even flew with us on weekends when we made it back down to civilization.
The Airbus thing will soon be figured out and my instinct tells me it was CAT.
I sometimes hesitate to comment on the Airbus as I only know enough about the systems to sort of understand the logic behind the computers...I was working for Airbus in 1997/98 in Toulouse and they gave me enough Sim training to have some idea of how it works.....They gave me all the manuals but I lent them to a friend who was trying to get a job flying one..........I really don't need them as I doubt any airlines will be pounding on my door offering me a job flying one.
However there is nothing wrong with discussing stuff as none of us know enough to be experts anyhow.
They even flew with us on weekends when we made it back down to civilization.
The Airbus thing will soon be figured out and my instinct tells me it was CAT.
I sometimes hesitate to comment on the Airbus as I only know enough about the systems to sort of understand the logic behind the computers...I was working for Airbus in 1997/98 in Toulouse and they gave me enough Sim training to have some idea of how it works.....They gave me all the manuals but I lent them to a friend who was trying to get a job flying one..........I really don't need them as I doubt any airlines will be pounding on my door offering me a job flying one.
However there is nothing wrong with discussing stuff as none of us know enough to be experts anyhow.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
-
Chuck Ellsworth
- Rank 11
- Posts: 3074
- Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:49 am
- Location: Always moving
Re: Air Canada Incident
Extract from the CADORS (Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System)
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applica...ors/splash.htm
-"Enter"
-"National report"
-"Reporting date: 2008/01/10" -->"Search"
-Scroll down to Record #14
(I tried a direct link but it didn't worked)
Quote:
Cadors Number: 2008C0093 Reporting Region: Prairie & Northern
---
Narrative: ACA 190, an A319 with 88 people on board, was en route from Victoria to Toronto when the crew advised ATC of an aircraft upset that resulted in the aircraft doing a roll. The flight was in the vicinity of ONSET intersection (Washington state) about 65 NM southwest of Cranbrook when the crew informed Seattle Center that they were having difficulty controlling the aircraft. It is not known at this point if there was a flight management system problem or whether this event was related to turbulence. Vancouver ACC accepted control of the aircraft at 1450z. The crew declared an emergency, requested diversion to Calgary International Airport and requested medical assistance upon arrival. ACA 190 landed about 30 minutes later at 1529z and stopped on Runway 34 for visual inspection of the aircraft by airport emergency response personnel. The crew then taxied off the runway at 1533z. It was reported that there are some passengers with serious injuries. Medical assistance was on standby upon arrival. TSB Edmonton has sent two investigators to YYC.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/aviation/applica...ors/splash.htm
-"Enter"
-"National report"
-"Reporting date: 2008/01/10" -->"Search"
-Scroll down to Record #14
(I tried a direct link but it didn't worked)
Quote:
Cadors Number: 2008C0093 Reporting Region: Prairie & Northern
---
Narrative: ACA 190, an A319 with 88 people on board, was en route from Victoria to Toronto when the crew advised ATC of an aircraft upset that resulted in the aircraft doing a roll. The flight was in the vicinity of ONSET intersection (Washington state) about 65 NM southwest of Cranbrook when the crew informed Seattle Center that they were having difficulty controlling the aircraft. It is not known at this point if there was a flight management system problem or whether this event was related to turbulence. Vancouver ACC accepted control of the aircraft at 1450z. The crew declared an emergency, requested diversion to Calgary International Airport and requested medical assistance upon arrival. ACA 190 landed about 30 minutes later at 1529z and stopped on Runway 34 for visual inspection of the aircraft by airport emergency response personnel. The crew then taxied off the runway at 1533z. It was reported that there are some passengers with serious injuries. Medical assistance was on standby upon arrival. TSB Edmonton has sent two investigators to YYC.
The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying I can not remember even one trip that I refused to do that resulted in someone getting killed because of my decision not to fly.
Re: Air Canada Incident
I just want to say I'm so impressed by the AC pilots, and I wish they could tell us about it. They are probably AvCan pilots, from this board, because I heard they saidjduring the emergency, "we have to fly the plane manually" and I know that's what AvCan pilots say on this board. AC has lots of trouble with their computers eh?
