YEG_SE4Life

Oh, I absolutely got your point. I was referring to their intention, not the result. Tomato, potato. If you land on another plane, you have probably crashed. A crash landing is still a landing, probably not a good one, though.

Mountain Explorer

I was typing to fast. I meant to write "almost challenge"

CZAMFlyer

Looking at those photos, it appears that the AC plane - had it continued to a grisly finale - would probably not have impacted UA1, the first plane in line. Chances appear high that it would have clipped the PAL jet, and at least the second UA plane in the conga line; probably the third as well. Not that any of this infers a less serious incident.

It all makes one wonder what it will take for the CVR recording limits to be mandated higher. After numerous unresolved incidents and crashes within the industry that may have been better explained by CVR data, I have zero sympathy for claims of pilot privacy in the workplace. It's not culpability, it's called accountability. We're not asking for cockpit cameras, but access to audio will assist in preventing others from repeating errors.

Transpacificflyer

Seriously? Or is this a wind up? Don't you ever read the enforcement reports?

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...orts/quarters/

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviati...e-menu-680.htm

Two differences stand out:
1. US safety investigations often sanction passenger airlines including legacy carriers.

2. When there is a violation or a pattern of violation, the sanctions in the USA are usually more severe than in Canada.

How is it the US regulators can identify a breach of regulations in a US carriers, while the Canadian investigators do not? Some of aircraft caught for safety violations also flew into Canada.

When is the last time Canadian regulators ever hit an airline with a hefty fine like this one involving a United B787? The most recent FAA action is a pending case where United Airlines may be fined $435,000 by the FAA for not inspecting a fuel pump pressure switch after it was repaired. The FAA said the plane was flown 23 times before the inspection was completed.

This is why I believe that if there was a violation of regulations with this flight whether by the SFO airport, ATC, or Air Canada, there will be a significant sanction. it won't be the usual Canadian response of "tsk tsk, bad boys, please don't do it again. Here's a hug, and off you go".

Mountain Explorer

It wasn't a challenge. I was genuinely curious. I don't follow Canadian aviation closely. Unfortunately, I don't have time to read all the reports that you linked to. If there's a specific example that you think really stands out, please let me know and I'll read up on it.

longtimeflyin

My understanding of the cockpit voice recorder limitation (based on this thread) is that it loops back over itself after 30 minutes and this was the result of privacy concerns brought up by the Air Canada Pilots Association. Also, as I understand it, this is not a hardware limitation of the CVR.

In this case, privacy shouldn't be a concern as cockpit conversations during critical phases of flight must be sterile, and after the aircraft had landed, one would guess that by the time the aircraft lands on the runway and it gets to the gate and parked, that the majority of the 30 minutes would already have disappeared.

If my understanding is correct, it seems incredibly silly to me that Air Canada management would allow for a 30 minute max in the first place. Is this an industry norm or is Air Canada outside the line of best fit?

flybit

i doubt AC need to wait a year for the FAA to tell us what we already know, Air Canada needs to look at its problems, and fast! Halifax was a wake up call that AC management missed.

sram

most CVR recording requirements are mandated by governing bodies and not the airline. In the case of the FAA, they require CVR's to record 2 hours.

Mountain Explorer

That's a lot better, tho wouldn't have helped here since Air Canada flew the plane to Toronto before turning over the data

tennislover9

Aren't the people in the tower to blame as much or more than the pilots in the air?

Mountain Explorer

No. The air traffic controllers did their job by making sure that the runway was clear of traffic for AC759. Unfortunately, the pilots decided to aim for the taxiway instead. That's on them.

longtimeflyin

No. Ultimately the safety and responsibility of an aircraft falls on the shoulder of the individual with 4 stripes on each shoulder in the aircraft.

If ATC orders an aircraft to fly into the mountain, the responsibility lies on the captain at the end of the day.
If the PF who is also the FO flies an aircraft into the mountain, it's also the responsibility of the captain at the end of the day.

In this case, the pilot flying (PF) was the captain. He's got a lot of explaining to do. I suspect Air Canada will fire him once this is all done.

Admiral Ackbar

In this (and 90% of everything else about this incident ) we agree. As I stated earlier, I hope the $$$ saved were worth it.

RangerNS

The CVR (and FDR) are in all senses except for paint color, black boxes, thus the colloquial. I wouldn't be surprised if there are exactly 0 people on Air Canada payroll certified to so much as open them up. Their major design goals are survivability and atomicity. Maintenance and operations have their own HUDS systems they care about.

If current regulations are weighed towards operators not touching the boxes, and 30 minutes is the requirement, then not touching the boxes isn't "overlooking" anything, it's doing what is expected.

That the regulations might change is a different thing.

After Burner

You are correct about this. Any time a go around occurs, the crew is required to file an incident report with the safety officer. They're supposed to do so immediately after the flight.