There you go Schlong, quoting fake news again. Can't we all just agree that fuji is right 100% of the time.
:rofl:
Air Canada Plane Nearly Lands on Crowded Taxiway
- Thread starter GameBoy27
- Start date
:rofl:
Interesting opinion piece in today's Toronto Star by the Chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association. Is this guy someone you will "listen to" fuji?
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...ersight-making-skies-more-unsafe-opinion.html
[h=1]Weak aviation oversight making skies less safe: Opinion[/h]
Greg McConnell is the national chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association.
After more than a decade of budget cuts, it is little wonder Canada is falling offside when it comes to safety in the air. As a result, the checks and balances that have delivered one of the safest aviation systems in the world are falling victim to cost cutting and misguided management.
Just how close did we come to the worst aviation disaster ever at the San Francisco airport last week?
When the pilots of Air Canada 759 aborted their attempt to land on a taxiway mistaken for a runway, the jet was 81 feet off the ground, and less than 30 feet above the huge airliners lumbering toward take off, full of fuel and people, according to incident reports emerging from the United States.
To say this was a close call is an understatement. This Air Canada plane was just seconds from colliding with one of the planes on the ground.
Should Canadian business and holiday travellers be concerned?
A quick read of a report on aviation safety oversight in Canada just published by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Committees suggests there is good reason for worry.
The committee tabled its report just a few weeks ago, on June 20, including 17 recommendations for improvements to bring Canada back in compliance with international safety standards and to ensure Canadian aviation inspectors have the training and skills they need to properly do their jobs.
The committee heard enough troubling testimony about the state of Canada’s aviation safety oversight system that it called on the government to invite the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in to conduct a comprehensive audit of Canada’s aviation oversight system.
Transport Canada, the government department charged with overseeing aviation safety, takes issue with the suggestion that it is falling behind international norms for safety. Spokespeople from the department tried to assure parliamentarians that Canada is 95 per cent compliant with the standards set out by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
What they fail to mention is that this result is based on an audit of Canada’s safety oversight system that was conducted in 2005, more than a decade ago.
It is this kind of heavy spin that may have led MPs on the committee to call for Transport Canada to be put on a shorter leash, urging the government to produce an annual report on Transport Canada’s compliance with findings from the ICAO audit.
After more than a decade of budget cuts, it is little wonder that Canada is falling offside when it comes to safety in the air. As a result, the checks and balances that have delivered one of the safest aviation systems in the world are falling victim to cost cutting and misguided management.
A recent example. Last August, without consultation and in secret, Transport Canada withdrew or reduced safety oversight from a significant portion of aviation including:
In this context, Kathy Fox, the chair of the independent Transportation Safety Board, called on the regulator to do more intensive and direct audits and inspections.
Justice Virgil Moshansky, who conducted the commission of inquiry into the crash of an Air Ontario jet in Dryden that killed 19 people, told the committee that flying is less safe today than 15 years ago because Transport Canada is no longer conducting direct operational oversight of the airlines.
Meanwhile, the perishable skills and competencies of Transport Canada’s own inspectors, who are supposed to be responsible for ensuring the skies are safe, are deliberately being allowed to wither.
In fact, because of cuts, a growing number of inspectors no longer have valid pilots’ licences because they have not flown an aircraft for years in many cases. Today, inspectors are being sent out to oversee the safe operation of planes they no longer know how to fly themselves.
Aviation safety oversight in Canada has been whittled away for the past decade and this retreat by our aviation oversight authority Transport Canada continues to this day.
Transport Minister Garneau has a chance to put a stop to this retreat when he responds to the Committee’s report in the Fall. The committee has put forward a responsible and prudent agenda for safety. Let’s hope Minister Garneau takes the opportunity to implement it before the next close call turns to tragedy.
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/com...ersight-making-skies-more-unsafe-opinion.html
[h=1]Weak aviation oversight making skies less safe: Opinion[/h]
Greg McConnell is the national chair of the Canadian Federal Pilots Association.
After more than a decade of budget cuts, it is little wonder Canada is falling offside when it comes to safety in the air. As a result, the checks and balances that have delivered one of the safest aviation systems in the world are falling victim to cost cutting and misguided management.
Just how close did we come to the worst aviation disaster ever at the San Francisco airport last week?
When the pilots of Air Canada 759 aborted their attempt to land on a taxiway mistaken for a runway, the jet was 81 feet off the ground, and less than 30 feet above the huge airliners lumbering toward take off, full of fuel and people, according to incident reports emerging from the United States.
To say this was a close call is an understatement. This Air Canada plane was just seconds from colliding with one of the planes on the ground.
Should Canadian business and holiday travellers be concerned?
A quick read of a report on aviation safety oversight in Canada just published by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Committees suggests there is good reason for worry.
The committee tabled its report just a few weeks ago, on June 20, including 17 recommendations for improvements to bring Canada back in compliance with international safety standards and to ensure Canadian aviation inspectors have the training and skills they need to properly do their jobs.
The committee heard enough troubling testimony about the state of Canada’s aviation safety oversight system that it called on the government to invite the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) in to conduct a comprehensive audit of Canada’s aviation oversight system.
Transport Canada, the government department charged with overseeing aviation safety, takes issue with the suggestion that it is falling behind international norms for safety. Spokespeople from the department tried to assure parliamentarians that Canada is 95 per cent compliant with the standards set out by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
What they fail to mention is that this result is based on an audit of Canada’s safety oversight system that was conducted in 2005, more than a decade ago.
It is this kind of heavy spin that may have led MPs on the committee to call for Transport Canada to be put on a shorter leash, urging the government to produce an annual report on Transport Canada’s compliance with findings from the ICAO audit.
After more than a decade of budget cuts, it is little wonder that Canada is falling offside when it comes to safety in the air. As a result, the checks and balances that have delivered one of the safest aviation systems in the world are falling victim to cost cutting and misguided management.
A recent example. Last August, without consultation and in secret, Transport Canada withdrew or reduced safety oversight from a significant portion of aviation including:
- All airports in the country.
- Business aircraft, such as former Alberta Premier Jim Prentice died in.
- Urban heliports.
- Aircraft that do dangerous work, such as water bombing the wild fires raging in British Columbia.
In this context, Kathy Fox, the chair of the independent Transportation Safety Board, called on the regulator to do more intensive and direct audits and inspections.
Justice Virgil Moshansky, who conducted the commission of inquiry into the crash of an Air Ontario jet in Dryden that killed 19 people, told the committee that flying is less safe today than 15 years ago because Transport Canada is no longer conducting direct operational oversight of the airlines.
Meanwhile, the perishable skills and competencies of Transport Canada’s own inspectors, who are supposed to be responsible for ensuring the skies are safe, are deliberately being allowed to wither.
In fact, because of cuts, a growing number of inspectors no longer have valid pilots’ licences because they have not flown an aircraft for years in many cases. Today, inspectors are being sent out to oversee the safe operation of planes they no longer know how to fly themselves.
Aviation safety oversight in Canada has been whittled away for the past decade and this retreat by our aviation oversight authority Transport Canada continues to this day.
Transport Minister Garneau has a chance to put a stop to this retreat when he responds to the Committee’s report in the Fall. The committee has put forward a responsible and prudent agenda for safety. Let’s hope Minister Garneau takes the opportunity to implement it before the next close call turns to tragedy.
"When the pilots of Air Canada 759 aborted their attempt to land on a taxiway mistaken for a runway, the jet was 81 feet off the ground, and less than 30 feet above the huge airliners lumbering toward take off, full of fuel and people, according to incident reports emerging from the United States."
This happens more often than you think? ^^^
Please show me other examples of aircraft flying less than 30 feet directly above planes lined up on taxiways.
No question that 30' separation is very serious, today alone in the Ontario Region alone, there were a half dozen overshoots due to runway conflicts. http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?rt=RNL&rd=2017-07-19&fa=&rg=3
Not exactly the same of course but lots of reportable anomalous "occurrences" in the skies every day. Many of which, had they progressed, would have made the news.
For an interesting read, check out the 97 occurrences that occurred in Canada on Tuesday alone. Now imagine how many times larger the US air traffic volume, airports and resultant occurrences there. Then Europe etc.
http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/cadors-screaq/rd.aspx?rt=NRL&rd=2017-07-17&fa=&rg=
Here is the CADORS main search page. Very interesting situations from racoons on the runway to near collisions to smoke in the cockpit etc. You can also subscribe for Daily Occurrence Reports by email.
http://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/CADORS-SCREAQ/rs.aspx?rt=NRL
Too bad the Star failed to explain how exactly the pilot's fuck up relates to the "cuts". Was he under qualified because of those cuts? Air Canada could not afford a squeegee to clear the window? At least Harrison Ford had the balls to notify the tower: "I'm the schmuck who landed on the taxiway".
Thanks for the info. I know overshoots and other occurrences are common but typically don't involve narrowly missing other aircrafts sitting on taxiways. All you have to do is look at the sheer volume of takeoffs and landings worldwide to know shit's going to happen from time to time.
The incident we're discussing was particularly frighting, despite what fuji seems to think.
I suppose the only real ways would be to prohibit visual approaches at night and have George keep you in The Slot and on The Slide. Or have the Pilot-not-Flying monitor the ILS when the PF is hand flying a visual approach. Maybe that is SOP with the air carrier airlines... I don't know because the worst I have had to deal with is when I had a (private) kerosene burner and I had to fly under a CBAA Operating Certificate. A perfunctory paperwork and Consultant money grab.
Reminds me that there used to be a regular column in Canadian Aviation written by my friend Captain Jack Desmarais (AC Ret), called "Ace McCool of Down East International". So fucking funny! Was an ongoing story of a rag-tag Moncton "airline", their band of characters and their WOXOF maritime flying.
All "Polemasters of the First Water" and "Masters of Fifty and an eighth".
I recall Ace's hilarious readback to confirm ILS intercept: "Raj, we're 5 in the slot, got the boots on and laced and we're comin' down the slide"
I tried using that line. Once. On Christmas. When every newbie on every freq along V37 from Toronto to Jacksonville repeating the Santa FAA shotgun ride joke. Shahhh-lut Tower didn't think it was as funny...
Here is a link to the 471 page compilation of the columns. Seems a collectible now. I have two copies. One, rag eared first printing from the 80's and a second personalized copy from Jack. Fantastic reading for pilots with a sense of humour and especially with some local Maritmer knowledge
Ace McCool- spoofs the airline industry through the laughter-packed exploits of Down East International, a fictional -fly-by-night- operation based in Moncton, New Brunswick.
First off, kudos to The Star for regularly publishing Opinion pieces from independent authors from many fields. In this case, aviation. So what if the guy used this incident highlight the change in the regulatory environment. Transport Canada is now a paperwork bureaucracy, nothing more.
Here is how I think the regulatory environment relates to this incident. I suspect that this pilot simply was tired after flying from Toronto to San francisco (he was arriving at midnight local time but his body was still likely on Toronto time ...ie: 4:00am ) and in his fatigued state, he initially misinterpreted the lighting sight picture for the taxiway for the runway and then had "target fixation". This has happened to me before on a night approach to a major airport with lots of lights after a very long westbound night flight.. Many times pilots have lined up on highway lights! Anyways, I think that the regulators need to study the effective duty times as they relate to time of day and circadian rythym and enforce revised duty times.
But the public won't tolerate the increased costs of airline tickets that would result etc.
I do understand physics, and yes (rereading his comments) it would be impossible to abort at 81 feet (assuming that's the actual number, time will tell) and not crash into the planes on the taxiway. If I were to guess, he meant to say "After the pilots of Air Canada 759 aborted their attempt to land on a taxiway mistaken for a runway, the jet ended up 81 feet off the ground." But correct, it's not what he said.
So yes, the point at which he aborted obviously would have happened much earlier. We both agree on that.
I've been doing that since the late '70s. I would park my motorcycle and lay down on the little grassy area amongst the small trees on the east side of Airport Road, across from 24R.
Once again, I understand physics and I mentioned before, I've got over 50 hours flying experience in small planes including aerobatics, having flown many circuits (takeoff and landing) at Billy Bishop airport. Although that's not a lot of experience and by no means makes me an expert on jets, I do have a basic idea of how planes work.
I assume for the time being that this is correct. And no, it's not from TMZ.
"On July 7, 2017, about 2356 Pacific daylight time, Air Canada flight 759, an Airbus A-320, C-FKCK, was cleared to land on runway 28R at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), San Francisco, California, but instead lined up on parallel taxiway C, which had four air carrier airplanes on it awaiting takeoff clearance (a Boeing 787 that was first in line followed by an Airbus A340, another Boeing 787, and a Boeing 737). The flight descended below 100 feet above the ground and initiated a go-around after overflying the first airplane on the taxiway. The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 129 as an international scheduled passenger flight from Toronto/Lester B. Pearson International Airport, (YYZ), Toronto, Canada. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the incident.
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA17IA148.aspx
You misread my interpretation, I totally agree with you that the pilot was some distance away from the taxiway when he aborted the landing. If he was on top of the first plane when he had the "oh shit" moment, he would have crashed as it would have been far too late to avoid a collision.
What I'm saying is, that based on how close the AC flight came to the ones on the ground (allegedly), there was so little margin of error. A few seconds later and it would have been a disaster. I think we're on the same page on this one.
Fair enough.
I don't know what it is about takeoffs and landing (more so the latter because takeoffs are easy) but I still love watching aircrafts land. Practicing circuits at YTZ was fun. The wind made it quite challenging at times. Nice that you get to watch planes at YYZ. I would love to go to St. Maarten. I'd hang out on the beach and watch the planes land all day long.
I've spent hours watching all sorts of YouTube landings. I like the high wind ones. Some really spectacular saves. And then there's aircraft carrier landings. That's a whole different ballgame.
I'm with you and Schlong in that my guess was pilot fatigue which translates to pilot error.
I love Cusack, and yeah I remember that scene. lol
^^ As I recall that incident was a combination of new fly-by-wire technology (I computer know better than pilot) and pilot error (too low and too slow and unfamiliar with the airport including not knowing that there were tall trees at the end of the runway).
Overblown fuji? Think again. This was a really close call!
To all of those who said, in essence, "it wasn't like the pilot was going to crash into the planes on the taxiway." The AC plane flew to just 59 feet above the ground. Surely that doesn't leave much room between it and the the planes on the ground.
Bearing in mind that the height of even a 737 is 40 ft,... anybody who doesn't call that a close call is delusional.
Looks like you haven't either, FAST.
90% of landings are visual and manually flown, even after conducting an instrument approach. The only time the airplane will land on its own is during low visibility operations, when the visibility is lower than 1/2 mile. Other than that, you aim for the 1,000 foot touchdown markers on the runway. You have to be able to see the runway environment before continuing to land. Seeing the runway environment implies that you will also see what's on it. That includes flying heavy aircraft such as B777.
Things didn't look right to these pilots, and the pilot Monitoring, the guy on the radio, called it out, only to be told by the distracted controller that everything was ok. If the controller had been paying attention instead of yacking on the landline, he could have issued a go-around instruction earlier. But of course, to the American public including their hysterical press, their own can do no wrong and they put blame exclusively on foreigners.
And you just confirmed that you have never flown.
Your hero fuji,...stated that pilots can see the run way when they land,...and now you are stating that visibility,..."is lower than 1/2 mile",...so pilots can see the runway 1/4 mile ahead,...or they won't land,...and then you follow with,...,..."You have to be able to see the runway environment before continuing to land".
And a 737 isn't heavy,...are you sober,...???
What a load of crap,....
Methinks you read your email a little too fast, FAST. I clearly wrote B777. In any case, the handling of a 737 on landing is similar to a 777.
I say again. Most times(that's when the visibility is 1/2 mile or more), and low visibility operations are NOT in effect, the airplane is manually flown onto the runway.... they are looking outside most of the time, after the decision to land and the runway is in sight.
Not to do with this situation, when the visibility is less than 1/2 mile, the autopilot lands the airplane. On a CAT II approach, the captain who flies the approach has to be able to clearly see the approach lights at 100 feet above the ground or execute a go-around. On a CAT III approach, when the visibiility is less than 1/4 mile visibility, there is no requirement to see anything, although the measured visibility has to be typically from 600 feet to 50 meters, depending on the airport and the airline's approval. I won't get into the difference between Fail Passive and Fail Operational. When the aircraft are conducting instrument approaches, the aircraft will definitely be lined up with the runway, as the airplane is guided by the autopilot, monitored by the captain.
The approach in question as a VISUAL approach, not an instrument one. The crew has to be heads up to be able to navigate using visual cues that are illustrated on the approach chart.
In any case, the captain executed the go-around BEFORE the controller called for it. That's the latest information from the US NTSB.
Runway 28L was closed and unlit, as well as its adjoining taxiway. So all they saw were 2 strips of pavement and they picked the right one, since 28 RIGHT was etched into their brains; but it happened to be the taxiway onto the right of runway 28 Right. It's the same mistake Harrison Ford made when he landed on the taxiway. They give visual approaches because air traffic control is then not responsible for separation and they can cram more airplanes into a given volume of airspace. Any loss of separation is then blamed on the pilots. If you as a pilot refuse to accept a visual appraoch, then you might have to hold for quite a bit of time.
BTW, Fuji is not my hero.
I don't know why you felt you have to prove something.
You quoted about my response to fuji's ridiculous statement that pilots see the runway when they land.
And you confirmed that they do land when visibility is less than required for a manual landing,...."there is no requirement to see anything"
My comment about the 737 was in regards to you using a 777 as heavy,...and the 737 isn't,...???
