First Air in YEG

Double Wasp · Post by **Double Wasp** » Sun Feb 29, 2004 12:13 am

Does anybody know what happened to First Air in Edmonton Last week?

OW · Post by OW » Sun Feb 29, 2004 8:32 am

Apparantly the runway wasn't wide enough.

W5 · Post by W5 » Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:02 am

There is a fairly long thread on this in the "General Comments" section of this forum.

J31 · Post by **J31** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:30 am

Now that is an intelligent response OW. It is quite apparent that you have no idea what goes on during a low visibility approach. At 140 kts in low visibility and poor runway lighting things happen fast. Careful about the stones that you toss at a glass house…..we could be talking about your crash next.

OW · Post by OW » Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:07 am

NOT VERY LIKELY!

The Hammer · Post by **The Hammer** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:55 am

Your Right OW, It's not likely this will happen to you!!! Unless you consider overcooking the fries @ Mcdonald's the equivalent

OW · Post by OW » Tue Mar 16, 2004 7:47 am

You "MACHO" boys can call me what you want, but I will not be faced with a situation where the minimums are lower than stated in the approach plates and I am still going to attempt the landing, and ultimately fail, when I should have executed the missed approach procedure, like others did.

I strongly believe that the unfortunate crew of this aircraft was under a lot of pressure to get in. I also, not having experienced it myself, can, to a point, empathsise with them.

I do not fly IFR, by choice, therefore, I will not be in the situation that they found themselves, and therefore you will "never" hear about "MY FAILURE" in this area "EVER". Does that make it more clear for you.

I never claimed to be a better pilot than those on that flight, just that it would not happen to me because I do not fly in those conditions. How do you read me now!

If you jump to those conclusions so fast here, when will we hear about your next failure?

jimmyjazz · Post by **jimmyjazz** » Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:22 am

Hey OW, who said they were below minimums it's my understanding that it went below minimums just after and that they were apparently caught by an illusion that many others have said that they have seen on this runway at yeg. And I don't think many people get to that point in there career and still have to worry about being pressured into attempting a landing by anyone other than themselves. With an attitude like that I hope you don't ever fly IFR and you are probably one of those VFR guys who say things like "what's so hard you just look at the attitude indicator"

OW · Post by OW » Thu Mar 18, 2004 1:29 pm

I wasn't there, I wouldn't know.

Were you there? Do you know for sure? Are you repeating heresay?

All I said was, I don't fly in conditions that would put me in a situation like they had to deal with. Some holier than thou individual wanted me to respond to some kind of a pisser pulling contest about wait till it happens to me. I responded.

It is always unfortunate when something goes wrong. Isn't it just great that no one was hurt?

Can we agree on that? Or would that be a direct attack on your masculinity?

Wasn't Me · Post by **Wasn't Me** » Sun Jul 18, 2004 5:21 pm

OW

never say Not ME there for the grace of your GOD go a lot of us. You do know that most 705's have a lot lower limits than published and its a lot easier to have a situation change and the reason everyone is alive is because of the skill of the crew. When you grew up you will realize that life is not Black and White.

wsguy · Post by **wsguy** » Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:38 pm

This could not possibly be a similiar situation as the MD83 incident in YYC ?

I think we will see greater RVR limits for approach ban to be in effect for CAT I
Approaches.... according to a TC inspector I was talking to last week.

The failed Frederickton AirCanada RJ low energy go-around a few years ago is what got the ball rolling... and now two incidents since then...

First Air in YEG

First Air in YEG

First Air YEG