Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

AC flight 624 from Yyz crash landed at YHZ

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

AC flight 624 from Yyz crash landed at YHZ

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 20, 2015, 9:04 pm
  #751  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
Originally Posted by pitz
If you read through the Complaint archives at the Canadian Transportation Agency, it doesn't appear that AC has the right to arbitrarily ban people for life. However, they certainly can require that people who have misbehaved in the past take steps to show, to their satisfaction, that they are not a risk to the aircraft, the people around them, or to AC staff.
Not true. AC has banned passengers for life before in various incidents and this has been reported in the news already.
superangrypenguin is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2015, 9:07 pm
  #752  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: YVR
Programs: AC S100K
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by canadiancow
I don't understand this. No one knows what happened yet, so they're just suing everyone?
Given the investigators have access to the aircraft, accident scene, crew, ATC, weather, and data recorders, it's a fair assumption that the TSB knows exactly what happened.

What will take time is sorting through the contributing factors and figuring out how to apportion the faults. Given the publicly known facts, it's hard to imagine that any of the named respondents will escape mention in the final report.
BlueMilk is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2015, 9:12 pm
  #753  
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: 44,324
Originally Posted by BlueMilk
Given the investigators have access to the aircraft, accident scene, crew, ATC, weather, and data recorders, it's a fair assumption that the TSB knows exactly what happened.

What will take time is sorting through the contributing factors and figuring out how to apportion the faults. Given the publicly known facts, it's hard to imagine that any of the named respondents will escape mention in the final report.
Sure, I'll accept that some people may know what happened, but it doesn't seem like the lawyer does.

I just think suing everyone at this point is a little extreme.
canadiancow is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2015, 9:16 pm
  #754  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: YVR
Programs: AC S100K
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by canadiancow
Sure, I'll accept that some people may know what happened, but it doesn't seem like the lawyer does.

I just think suing everyone at this point is a little extreme.
Fair enough.

Though, that Airbus wasn't named is telling.
BlueMilk is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2015, 9:26 pm
  #755  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Never home.
Posts: 2,971
Originally Posted by pitz
If you were an AC captain, in that case, then I think a trip to the Chief Pilot's office would be in order.
I doubt that. AC pilots will stick together and the union would prevent any action on that front. I could 100% make the argument I'd be under stress taking people who have sued close colleagues of mine and could do the same to me... without evidence. As PIC I have every right to refuse to fly if not operating at 100%.

... but, I'm not an AC pilot. So unlikely you'd ever have to worry about me

Originally Posted by BlueMilk
Fair enough.

Though, that Airbus wasn't named is telling.
But the lawyer doesn't have access to any information which isn't public... so IMHO it really doesn't say much.
winnipegrev is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2015, 10:34 pm
  #756  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: YEG
Programs: AC Lifetime SE100K, 3MM, SPG Lifetime Plat, Hertz PC, National Executive Elite
Posts: 2,901
Originally Posted by canadiancow
Sure, I'll accept that some people may know what happened, but it doesn't seem like the lawyer does.

I just think suing everyone at this point is a little extreme.
It is called the shotgun affect, and it is a normal litigation tactic.

Originally Posted by winnipegrev
But the lawyer doesn't have access to any information which isn't public... so IMHO it really doesn't say much.
He will get access to everything he asks for in discoveries.

Last edited by tcook052; Apr 20, 2015 at 10:40 pm
YEG_SE4Life is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2015, 10:45 pm
  #757  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Never home.
Posts: 2,971
Originally Posted by YEG2MM
He will get access to everything he asks for in discoveries.
I meant info that the lawyer is working with right now. Yes they will get what they ask for later on but for this initial filing, the fact Airbus isn't named doesn't give us educated insight into the cause of the crash.
winnipegrev is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2015, 10:55 pm
  #758  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: YVR
Programs: AC S100K
Posts: 978
Originally Posted by winnipegrev
I meant info that the lawyer is working with right now. Yes they will get what they ask for later on but for this initial filing, the fact Airbus isn't named doesn't give us educated insight into the cause of the crash.
Well, it tells us that the lawyers are certain that the cause was not mechanical, which has not yet been acknowledged in public. I infer from that certainty that they have access to information that the rest of us do not.
BlueMilk is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2015, 12:43 am
  #759  
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+)

I think not. Even if they knew it WAS mechanical they may feel they have a case resulting from improper or insufficient maintenance.
KenHamer is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2015, 10:16 am
  #760  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MLL / AC Cafe
Programs: It's hard to get status when the website won't let me book flights.
Posts: 5,706
Originally Posted by KenHamer
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+)

I think not. Even if they knew it WAS mechanical they may feel they have a case resulting from improper or insufficient maintenance.
agreed, it's not like it was a brand new plane. It's old enough that IF this was the cause, it would most likely fall on improper or insufficient maintenance.

Not to mention there are thousands (tends of thousands?) of these birds out flying - one failing does not show a design problem but rather a potential maint issue.
Sean Peever is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2015, 10:19 am
  #761  
Formerly known as newbie elite
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: YUL
Programs: IHG Diamond Ambassador, Accor Platinum, AC50K
Posts: 2,925
They could also be looking at the fact that this A320 did not have the GPS approach upgrades performed while other A320s did...
Admiral Ackbar is offline  
Old Apr 21, 2015, 5:46 pm
  #762  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Never home.
Posts: 2,971
Originally Posted by Admiral Ackbar
They could also be looking at the fact that this A320 did not have the GPS approach upgrades performed while other A320s did...
GNSS approaches weren't a requirement for runway 05. If Nav Canada wants to continue to publish minimums and plates for alternative approach methods, there is no reason AC or any other airline shouldn't be able to use them.
winnipegrev is offline  
Old Apr 23, 2015, 6:50 am
  #763  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...ital-1.3044579

The last passenger of the Air Canada flight that crash landed in Halifax has been released from hospital, but Ruth Macumber's recovery is far from over.

Macumber has been in hospital since AC624 smashed into the runway at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport during the early hours of March 29.
tcook052 is offline  
Old Apr 23, 2015, 9:15 am
  #764  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: sqrt(-united states of apologist)
Programs: *$ Green
Posts: 5,403
Originally Posted by tcook052
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-s...ital-1.3044579

The last passenger of the Air Canada flight that crash landed in Halifax has been released from hospital, but Ruth Macumber's recovery is far from over.

Macumber has been in hospital since AC624 smashed into the runway at the Halifax Stanfield International Airport during the early hours of March 29.
I feel bad for her, hope she recovers soon.

But then again, when you think about it, at 81 years of age, she could've slipped an fell on ice in a cold winter day and gotten a similar injury! Would that also be categorized as a "hard landing"?
SparseFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 23, 2015, 9:36 am
  #765  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: YEG
Programs: HH Silver
Posts: 56,446
Originally Posted by SparseFlyer
But then again, when you think about it, at 81 years of age, she could've slipped an fell on ice in a cold winter day and gotten a similar injury!
Yes, but she didn't.
tcook052 is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.