AC flight 624 from Yyz crash landed at YHZ
Mar 31, 2015, 12:55 am
#436
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.666 Mobile Safari/534.8+)
The pevious comments were indefensible. So are the current comments.
So exactly what would you have been wearing on the plane? I can assure you if you were comfortable on the plane you would still have been extremely cold on the outside.
Or would you too have stopped to retrieve you coat and other personal belongings.
Would you really be wearing outdoor winter gear on the plane? If not then you are blowing smoke.
Originally Posted by CZAMFlyer
I'll step to the defense of tracon here, not that he needs my assistance. KenHamer and nihonto have taken a sensible comment and extended it far past the point of reason with talk of winter parkas and heavy jackets left on board. There are multiple media reports quoting passengers complaining that they huddled shivering for an hour, dressed in shorts and t-shirts following Mexican vacations, on a windswept snowy runway following an airplane accident. This runway was in Halifax. In March. Near midnight.
What level of sympathy should a person receive when faced with such an 'unexpected' scenario? I can tell you how much angst I feel for these poor persons' chilly plight: it's slightly less than zero.
I too, am well aware of the most hazardous phases of flight, and ensure my closed-toe shoes are on & laced whenever flying below about 3000' AGL. And if I'm flying into a Canadian airport between the months of October and April, you can rest assured I'm not dressed in beachwear.
What level of sympathy should a person receive when faced with such an 'unexpected' scenario? I can tell you how much angst I feel for these poor persons' chilly plight: it's slightly less than zero.
I too, am well aware of the most hazardous phases of flight, and ensure my closed-toe shoes are on & laced whenever flying below about 3000' AGL. And if I'm flying into a Canadian airport between the months of October and April, you can rest assured I'm not dressed in beachwear.
So exactly what would you have been wearing on the plane? I can assure you if you were comfortable on the plane you would still have been extremely cold on the outside.
Or would you too have stopped to retrieve you coat and other personal belongings.
Would you really be wearing outdoor winter gear on the plane? If not then you are blowing smoke.
Mar 31, 2015, 12:59 am
#437
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, BA Gold, SQ Silver, Bonvoy Tit LTG, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond
Posts: 44,302
I'll step to the defense of tracon here, not that he needs my assistance. KenHamer and nihonto have taken a sensible comment and extended it far past the point of reason with talk of winter parkas and heavy jackets left on board. There are multiple media reports quoting passengers complaining that they huddled shivering for an hour, dressed in shorts and t-shirts following Mexican vacations, on a windswept snowy runway following an airplane accident. This runway was in Halifax. In March. Near midnight.
What level of sympathy should a person receive when faced with such an 'unexpected' scenario? I can tell you how much angst I feel for these poor persons' chilly plight: it's slightly less than zero.
I too, am well aware of the most hazardous phases of flight, and ensure my closed-toe shoes are on & laced whenever flying below about 3000' AGL. And if I'm flying into a Canadian airport between the months of October and April, you can rest assured I'm not dressed in beachwear.
What level of sympathy should a person receive when faced with such an 'unexpected' scenario? I can tell you how much angst I feel for these poor persons' chilly plight: it's slightly less than zero.
I too, am well aware of the most hazardous phases of flight, and ensure my closed-toe shoes are on & laced whenever flying below about 3000' AGL. And if I'm flying into a Canadian airport between the months of October and April, you can rest assured I'm not dressed in beachwear.
Now, I often fly in a t-shirt, with heavier clothing in my carry-on, so I could see myself being out on the runway without much more, so I have a bit of sympathy. But I also think my flying behavior with respect to that extra layer is going to change following this incident (well, maybe not for a SFO-SAN flight, but for any flights starting, ending, or flying over cold areas).
Mar 31, 2015, 2:57 am
#439
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: YOW
Programs: AC-SE100K, AC-3MM, Marriott- LT Titanium, SPG RIP
Posts: 2,958
Mar 31, 2015, 4:09 am
#440
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,153
Anyone can be spokesperson if they know what to speak.
I have been reminded that some of my previous comments were harsh.
I apologize for any personal offense taken by any member of this board.
I have been reminded that some of my previous comments were harsh.
I apologize for any personal offense taken by any member of this board.
Last edited by FlyerTalker683455; Mar 31, 2015 at 5:13 am
Mar 31, 2015, 5:06 am
#441
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Southern Alberta
Posts: 20,550
On Monday, the Transportation Safety Board of Canada issued a release describing Sunday's Air Canada Airbus A320 crash as a "collision with terrain" rather than as a "hard landing," the term used by officials with Halifax Stanfield International Airport and Air Canada.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...term-1.3015457
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...term-1.3015457
Mar 31, 2015, 5:58 am
#442
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: YYT
Programs: AC E35k, HHonors Silver
Posts: 743
On YHZ's response plan to the emergency...
They don't need a fleet of buses hanging around just in case, but access to one would make all the difference. A single bus can take what, 45 pax, so two-three trips and you've got all the walking wounded to the triage point. A single bus would not be an unrealistic investment to make. Or a plan that provides immediate access and priority to the park and fly busses.
It appears that the airport's emergency power is inadequate for the task. Pax interviewed in the terminal talked about being completely in the dark aside from emergency lighting & if power being out means they couldn't open gates to get thoses busses out on the runway, well thats a critical failure as well. One doesn't expect generator capacity to run the whole airport but adequate lighting, emergency systems, inclyding airfield access should, in my non-technical mind, be a given.
On the lack of fireball...
Pax interviews I heard talked about the pilot firewalling the engines just before impact. Wouldn't it be likely the pilots would be trying to execute a go-round manoeuvre once it was apparent they were too low/too short? I imagine that was pretty much followed by pulling the fire handles after/as they crashed (or landed hard). The TSB report will pick all this up of course, but I'd say snow/sleet and some very good luck were the reasons for no fire. What would have happened had there been a fire doesn't bear thinking about.
They don't need a fleet of buses hanging around just in case, but access to one would make all the difference. A single bus can take what, 45 pax, so two-three trips and you've got all the walking wounded to the triage point. A single bus would not be an unrealistic investment to make. Or a plan that provides immediate access and priority to the park and fly busses.
It appears that the airport's emergency power is inadequate for the task. Pax interviewed in the terminal talked about being completely in the dark aside from emergency lighting & if power being out means they couldn't open gates to get thoses busses out on the runway, well thats a critical failure as well. One doesn't expect generator capacity to run the whole airport but adequate lighting, emergency systems, inclyding airfield access should, in my non-technical mind, be a given.
On the lack of fireball...
Pax interviews I heard talked about the pilot firewalling the engines just before impact. Wouldn't it be likely the pilots would be trying to execute a go-round manoeuvre once it was apparent they were too low/too short? I imagine that was pretty much followed by pulling the fire handles after/as they crashed (or landed hard). The TSB report will pick all this up of course, but I'd say snow/sleet and some very good luck were the reasons for no fire. What would have happened had there been a fire doesn't bear thinking about.
Mar 31, 2015, 6:14 am
#443
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: YYZ / FRA
Programs: IHG RA; Avis First
Posts: 1,444
"Aviation experts say 'hard landing' too soft a term for Air Canada crash"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...term-1.3015457
I'm sure AC will keep using "Hard Landing" and I think most people will continue using Crash Landing!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...term-1.3015457
I'm sure AC will keep using "Hard Landing" and I think most people will continue using Crash Landing!
Mar 31, 2015, 6:28 am
#444
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: YVR
Programs: ACSEMM QRGold SPGLifetimePlat FairmontPlat HyattD AMEXCenturion SerenaPlat TalkBoard Founding Member
Posts: 8,963
"Aviation experts say 'hard landing' too soft a term for Air Canada crash"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...term-1.3015457
I'm sure AC will keep using "Hard Landing" and I think most people will continue using Crash Landing!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...term-1.3015457
I'm sure AC will keep using "Hard Landing" and I think most people will continue using Crash Landing!
This is the type of stuff that gets people fired.
Mar 31, 2015, 6:33 am
#445
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 277
On YHZ's response plan to the emergency...
They don't need a fleet of buses hanging around just in case, but access to one would make all the difference. A single bus can take what, 45 pax, so two-three trips and you've got all the walking wounded to the triage point. A single bus would not be an unrealistic investment to make. Or a plan that provides immediate access and priority to the park and fly busses.
It appears that the airport's emergency power is inadequate for the task. Pax interviewed in the terminal talked about being completely in the dark aside from emergency lighting & if power being out means they couldn't open gates to get thoses busses out on the runway, well thats a critical failure as well. One doesn't expect generator capacity to run the whole airport but adequate lighting, emergency systems, inclyding airfield access should, in my non-technical mind, be a given.
On the lack of fireball...
Pax interviews I heard talked about the pilot firewalling the engines just before impact. Wouldn't it be likely the pilots would be trying to execute a go-round manoeuvre once it was apparent they were too low/too short? I imagine that was pretty much followed by pulling the fire handles after/as they crashed (or landed hard). The TSB report will pick all this up of course, but I'd say snow/sleet and some very good luck were the reasons for no fire. What would have happened had there been a fire doesn't bear thinking about.
They don't need a fleet of buses hanging around just in case, but access to one would make all the difference. A single bus can take what, 45 pax, so two-three trips and you've got all the walking wounded to the triage point. A single bus would not be an unrealistic investment to make. Or a plan that provides immediate access and priority to the park and fly busses.
It appears that the airport's emergency power is inadequate for the task. Pax interviewed in the terminal talked about being completely in the dark aside from emergency lighting & if power being out means they couldn't open gates to get thoses busses out on the runway, well thats a critical failure as well. One doesn't expect generator capacity to run the whole airport but adequate lighting, emergency systems, inclyding airfield access should, in my non-technical mind, be a given.
On the lack of fireball...
Pax interviews I heard talked about the pilot firewalling the engines just before impact. Wouldn't it be likely the pilots would be trying to execute a go-round manoeuvre once it was apparent they were too low/too short? I imagine that was pretty much followed by pulling the fire handles after/as they crashed (or landed hard). The TSB report will pick all this up of course, but I'd say snow/sleet and some very good luck were the reasons for no fire. What would have happened had there been a fire doesn't bear thinking about.
Mar 31, 2015, 6:59 am
#446
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC SE (*A Gold), Bonvoy Platinum Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum / AP Reserve, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,691
That's the impression the media is designed to leave. The media gets it's information from a bunch instant gratification obsessed passengers who weren't smart enough to dress for the conditions.
A spokesperson from the YHZAA was on the National this evening. He spoke of the difficuly in getting vehicles through powered gates during a power outage.
I suspect the worse case scenario was 50 minutes. The first bus was probably there at just over 30 minutes. Time will tell.
A spokesperson from the YHZAA was on the National this evening. He spoke of the difficuly in getting vehicles through powered gates during a power outage.
I suspect the worse case scenario was 50 minutes. The first bus was probably there at just over 30 minutes. Time will tell.
Even if one was wearing boots, a shirt, sweater and pants, 50 minutes is a *long* time to be standing outside in those conditions. It's indefensible that one would attempt to defend the airport's actions (or lack thereof)
I'll step to the defense of tracon here, not that he needs my assistance. KenHamer and nihonto have taken a sensible comment and extended it far past the point of reason with talk of winter parkas and heavy jackets left on board. There are multiple media reports quoting passengers complaining that they huddled shivering for an hour, dressed in shorts and t-shirts following Mexican vacations, on a windswept snowy runway following an airplane accident. This runway was in Halifax. In March. Near midnight.
What level of sympathy should a person receive when faced with such an 'unexpected' scenario? I can tell you how much angst I feel for these poor persons' chilly plight: it's slightly less than zero.
I too, am well aware of the most hazardous phases of flight, and ensure my closed-toe shoes are on & laced whenever flying below about 3000' AGL. And if I'm flying into a Canadian airport between the months of October and April, you can rest assured I'm not dressed in beachwear.
What level of sympathy should a person receive when faced with such an 'unexpected' scenario? I can tell you how much angst I feel for these poor persons' chilly plight: it's slightly less than zero.
I too, am well aware of the most hazardous phases of flight, and ensure my closed-toe shoes are on & laced whenever flying below about 3000' AGL. And if I'm flying into a Canadian airport between the months of October and April, you can rest assured I'm not dressed in beachwear.
And your inner altimeter must be pretty accurate to know when the plane is 3000' AGL... I usually just put my shoes and jacket on when the pilot turns on the seatbelt sign
Of course, a COO is often an excellent choice to be a spokesperson. That is, when the COO is capable of being a spokesperson. This guy was thrown out of his element and right under the proverbial bus.
Mar 31, 2015, 7:12 am
#447
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE 1MM, Marriott Ambassador
Posts: 3,396
On YHZ's response plan to the emergency...
They don't need a fleet of buses hanging around just in case, but access to one would make all the difference. A single bus can take what, 45 pax, so two-three trips and you've got all the walking wounded to the triage point. A single bus would not be an unrealistic investment to make. Or a plan that provides immediate access and priority to the park and fly busses.
It appears that the airport's emergency power is inadequate for the task. Pax interviewed in the terminal talked about being completely in the dark aside from emergency lighting & if power being out means they couldn't open gates to get thoses busses out on the runway, well thats a critical failure as well. One doesn't expect generator capacity to run the whole airport but adequate lighting, emergency systems, inclyding airfield access should, in my non-technical mind, be a given.
They don't need a fleet of buses hanging around just in case, but access to one would make all the difference. A single bus can take what, 45 pax, so two-three trips and you've got all the walking wounded to the triage point. A single bus would not be an unrealistic investment to make. Or a plan that provides immediate access and priority to the park and fly busses.
It appears that the airport's emergency power is inadequate for the task. Pax interviewed in the terminal talked about being completely in the dark aside from emergency lighting & if power being out means they couldn't open gates to get thoses busses out on the runway, well thats a critical failure as well. One doesn't expect generator capacity to run the whole airport but adequate lighting, emergency systems, inclyding airfield access should, in my non-technical mind, be a given.
I would also say that on CBC news last night the airport manager said the emergency generator failed after primary power was lost due to the crash. Of course he also defended their unwillingness to bring any outside vehicles onto the tarmac because it was a "secure area" and in general acted like he was trying to prevent the spread of ebola rather than admit vehicles to rescue passengers. On the whole, he came off significantly worse (as in just plain stupid) than any AC spokesperson has so far. Acknowledging the dismally low bar set by AC.
Mar 31, 2015, 7:12 am
#448
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: YYZ / FRA
Programs: IHG RA; Avis First
Posts: 1,444
But it seems it backfired! lol
Mar 31, 2015, 7:33 am
#449
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: YYT
Programs: AC E35k, HHonors Silver
Posts: 743
I dont understand why they weren't allowed to walk, escorted by emergency personnel, to a hangar or the terminal. It was 1.5 km. They could have walked in half the time it took to get them there under the "plan".
I would also say that on CBC news last night the airport manager said the emergency generator failed after primary power was lost due to the crash. Of course he also defended their unwillingness to bring any outside vehicles onto the tarmac because it was a "secure area" and in general acted like he was trying to prevent the spread of ebola rather than admit vehicles to rescue passengers. On the whole, he came off significantly worse (as in just plain stupid) than any AC spokesperson has so far. Acknowledging the dismally low bar set by AC.
I would also say that on CBC news last night the airport manager said the emergency generator failed after primary power was lost due to the crash. Of course he also defended their unwillingness to bring any outside vehicles onto the tarmac because it was a "secure area" and in general acted like he was trying to prevent the spread of ebola rather than admit vehicles to rescue passengers. On the whole, he came off significantly worse (as in just plain stupid) than any AC spokesperson has so far. Acknowledging the dismally low bar set by AC.
Mar 31, 2015, 7:36 am
#450
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: YYZ / FRA
Programs: IHG RA; Avis First
Posts: 1,444
Personally I think the Pilot/s was awesome in handling the Aircraft. Kudos to them!
However AC handled the public announcement VERY poorly just to cover their own backs and afraid of what the "public" might think. People should sue Air Canada for trying to downplay the crash! They were lucky no one died!
Second I guess Halifax Airport NEVER expects any type of crash in their Airport! Its unbelievable how stupid they handled the situation!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...suit-1.3015519
"One Nova Scotia law firm will file a class action lawsuit representing passengers of the crashed Air Canada flight in Halifax, and a second law firm may soon do the same.
Air Canada Flight AC624 crash-landed Sunday morning in Halifax with 133 passengers and five crew on board.
On Monday, MacGillivray Injury and Insurance Law said it had been instructed to file a lawsuit by a person seeking damages for physical and psychological trauma.
The firm says it has also been consulted by a number of other passengers and that their class action will likely be against Air Canada, Halifax International Airport Authority and Nav Canada, the organization that operates Canada's civil airspace.
MacGillivray says it believes Air Canada has already contacted some passengers to offer a compensation package.
Meanwhile, lawyer Ray Wagner of Wagners Serious Injury Law Firm confirmed Monday evening that he is also meeting with a passenger from the flight on Tuesday and he has been in contact with a second passenger.
Wagner is working with two Toronto law firms that have experience with lawsuits dealing with airline crashes."
However AC handled the public announcement VERY poorly just to cover their own backs and afraid of what the "public" might think. People should sue Air Canada for trying to downplay the crash! They were lucky no one died!
Second I guess Halifax Airport NEVER expects any type of crash in their Airport! Its unbelievable how stupid they handled the situation!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...suit-1.3015519
"One Nova Scotia law firm will file a class action lawsuit representing passengers of the crashed Air Canada flight in Halifax, and a second law firm may soon do the same.
Air Canada Flight AC624 crash-landed Sunday morning in Halifax with 133 passengers and five crew on board.
On Monday, MacGillivray Injury and Insurance Law said it had been instructed to file a lawsuit by a person seeking damages for physical and psychological trauma.
The firm says it has also been consulted by a number of other passengers and that their class action will likely be against Air Canada, Halifax International Airport Authority and Nav Canada, the organization that operates Canada's civil airspace.
MacGillivray says it believes Air Canada has already contacted some passengers to offer a compensation package.
Meanwhile, lawyer Ray Wagner of Wagners Serious Injury Law Firm confirmed Monday evening that he is also meeting with a passenger from the flight on Tuesday and he has been in contact with a second passenger.
Wagner is working with two Toronto law firms that have experience with lawsuits dealing with airline crashes."