ridefar

So I wonder--would they have given the pilots a breathalyzer? Or done any sort of questioning immediately after the incident?

Note to all: I don't believe they were drinking, not even for one tiny picosecond. I have no pulic opinion on whether the pilots are to blame. It is just a question about procedure.

CZAMFlyer

In the interests of not prolonging the misery, I'm out of this conversation. I find it frustrating (and indicative of online forums and the abundance of Shakespearean monkeys) to respond to absurd interpretations of a simple position. There is little sense in adding hypothetical complexity (en route stops, polar overflights etc) when we were talking about a flight that took off and landed in Canada in March. That some people began their journeys in warmer climes is irrelevant; they were foolish not to consider wearing even shoes and trousers when bound for Halifax. Packing such items on a holiday to Mexico does not seem absurd to me. Wearing sandals and then complaining about not being wrapped in warm blankets within a few minutes of the accident, does.

Would I tell them that when huddled together on the runway? I'd probably exercise more tact. But I wouldn't trade them footwear.

I'm off to catch my own flight now. I'm departing Edmonton, headed for Vancouver. I'm wearing long pants.

Transpacificflyer

It's good that you are leaving the thread, because you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you. Everyone else is an idiot, and only you know the truth.
You keep harping on the few people who may have been in light clothing and ignore those who were suitably attired and who suffered.

Fact: The crash survivors were exposed to the cold for almost an hour. All of the pax comments I have seen broadcast or reported have come from people who were suitably attired for flying in the typical AC cabin.

The flight was ready for a landing. Usually when that happens, most people have got themselves dressed and ready. No one puts his/her coat on and sits overheating in the cabin for 20 minutes. The passengers were told to leave all possessions behind and that included jackets/coats and the like. How can one blame the passengers for following the FA instructions?

Fact: In the weather conditions at the time of the crash, the benefit of wearing long pants, long sleeve shirt, or even a sweater and mittens knitted by mummy was inconsequential. The time exposed to the weather was such that any advantage provided by extra garments was lost because the passengers were left in the cold and wind for almost an hour.

Fact: The most vulnerable pax, such as the elderly or those with medical conditions such as circulatory disease,were not in shorts, tshirts, thongs or speedos. These people are sensitive to the cold, and typically bundle up.
Fact: If anyone had been drinking on the flight, they would have been more susceptible to the cold.

Fact: People who have been traumatized or are in shock, may be resistant to cold weather effects shortly after an event. However, they rebound with an acute sensitivity and suffer faster than those who are not in shock.

tcook052

A number of off topic posts have been deleted as the matter of proper attire in crashes was thoroughly and vigorously debated sending this thread off on a tangent but let's please move on.

Thanks.

tcook052
AC forum Moderator

beachmouse

South of the border, there was an article in my paper this morning about a local 'aircraft into the bay' simulation exercise planned in a couple weeks. There are something like 16 different stakeholders listed as participating from the FAA and Delta on down to the. local Red Cross. It made me appreciate just how many parts the dance of trying to get the best outcome out of a worst case can be, and how, even with redundancies planned, one bad cog from a long list can gunk up the whole system.

tracon

Usually not. In the interest of an open investigation and enhancing future safety, criminal charges are rarely laid.

Not following warnings and procedures is an internal issue with the employer. Not a criminal matter.

Stranger

Except in France I suppose?

24left

RCMP Photos posted at Global News

http://globalnews.ca/news/1915802/ne...24-crash-site/

"HALIFAX – New photos released Wednesday show how close Air Canada flight 624 came to disaster.

The RCMP released the photos, taken from a police drone, as investigators continue to probe why the flight crashed as it was trying to land during a snowstorm in Halifax on Sunday......."

mkjr

those photos by the RCMP make me sick to my stomach as to how close this was to a very tragic event. although that looks like a snow burm in which the antenna array is protruding from, google maps and google street view shows it to be a very large gravel burm. probably the reason why it took the landing gear right off. yes. this could have been very very bad.

https://www.google.ca/maps/@44.86361...Vw!2e0!5m1!1e4

24left

At Global News

some interesting little details in her video

"EXCLUSIVE: AC624 passenger video shows scene on tarmac minutes after crash landing"

http://globalnews.ca/news/1916689/ac...crash-landing/

Dorian

What crash landing?

Stranger

I like the way flightglobal has it:

Air Canada A320 badly damaged by landing ‘incident.’

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...cident-410720/

KenHamer

What if it was a hard takeoff?

FlyerTalker683455

As is abundantly clear, according to AC there was only an incident upon landing until TSB determine it otherwise.

Geoflying

Maybe 22 Minutes got it right