CZAMFlyer

Those are some far-out claims, are they based in anything other than a need to support a position? Could it be possible that the pilot was properly trained, was emotionally mature, worked for a company that does promote a safety culture and did understand his responsibilities? What if the pilots were human and thus subject to the same risks of errors and lapses in judgement that afflict us all?

The rail industry regulations weren't tightened overnight, and not in the same timeframe as has elapsed since the SFO incident. The death of so many people certainly accelerated the change in rail legislation, and the changes made were much less complex and with fewer cost ramifications than with pilot duty day amendments. I doubt we would see a faster pace of change in rail transport than in aviation if the Megantic accident had resulted in a close call.

tcook052

NTSB to hold probable cause meeting on Air Canada SFO near miss | Air Traffic Management content from ATWOnline

The US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) will meet Sept. 25 to determine the probable cause of a near miss on landing last year involving an Air Canada Airbus A320 at San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

24left

From https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rele...R20180831.aspx


Previously released information about the investigation is available at: https://go.usa.gov/xPq4mWHAT: NTSB board meeting

WHEN: Sept. 25, 2018, 1:30 p.m. EDT

WHERE: NTSB Boardroom and Conference Center, 420 10th St., SW, Washington

PARTICIPANTS: NTSB board members and staff

WEBCAST: A link to the webcast will be available shortly before the start of the meeting at National Transportation Safety Board.

tcook052

https://business.financialpost.com/t...nes-on-runways

While the NTSB’s findings are subject to change at the meeting, the staff has proposed citing pilot actions as the cause of the incident, with the flight crew’s fatigue and other issues as factors, said the person. The NTSB is also preparing to ask Transport Canada, that nation’s aviation regulator, to adopt stricter rules for pilots who fly in the U.S., according to the person.

Mountain Explorer

While admittedly I did not spend quite as much time studying the data as did the NTSB, this does seem to me like the the fairly obvious conclusion. I still regret that we don't have the CVR tho, I do believe that pertinent information was lost forever when that tape was overwritten

CZAMFlyer

Agree that this seems to be an evident conclusion, and will provide more ammo in airline pilots' long-standing push for changes to the fatigue regulations in this country. Interesting that the pressure upon Transport Canada for change might also come from the NTSB's request: "if you won't change the rules to match ours, we'll get involved". Admittedly, the NTSB, like the TSB at home, has no power over what the regulatory agency TC decides to do - or not do.

Beating a tired old drum time: mandate 24 hour loops for CVRs, industry-wide. Easy, quick and overdue improvement.

RangerNS

Perhaps there could be a "deal" between the pilots demand for better fatigue rules and extending the CVR times.

Only the airline bean counters would be opposed to that change.

24left

Reminder from my post 903 above on Sept 7

1:30 pm ET today

Link National Transportation Safety Board

.

cedric

I've been watching the webcast in spurts where possible. It's still ongoing.
What stood out to me is that the (DL) flight right before the AC flight also reported confusing the taxiway for the runway.
In that case, they caught the mistake earlier in the landing process. But that's still pretty spooky.

longtimeflyin

And who do you propose will pay for this? The airlines sure will pass on the cost to passengers, and most people (on this board or elsewhere) will cry at even a 1 cent increase to their fare. I would almost even say the general public would disagree with you and if they could save a cent (or 5 cents to be precise) in order to not have to pay for 24 hour loops for cockpit voice recorders, they might very well prefer that.

smallmj

If the pilots of another flight had the same problem, I have to wonder if the approach lighting was working properly. I'll end my armchair speculation there.

cedric

It was.

Mountain Explorer

Complete nonsense. Most people (on this board or elsewhere) would not notice or care about a 1 cent fare increase.

RangerNS

To regulation and by implemented design, sure. I'll give you that, easily.

But correctly? Two crews made similar mistakes.

CZAMFlyer

I'm unconvinced this was a well thought out response. Yes, naturally the airlines would fund any cost from their revenue; that's how it works with everything they - and all other businesses - do. Airlines upgrade their avionics and various ancillary components all the time as technology improves, regulations dictate and improvements allow. The incremental cost of a larger hard drive in an existing orange box would pale in comparison to the constant investment into their fleets that exists today. Passengers would likely not notice a fare increase from longer-duration CVRs and if they did, I can't envision much of an uprising. How would passengers recognize an increased fare? How much does an airfare cost, from which to base the hypothetical increase? The answer, of course, is 'it depends'. Next time you're on board an airplane, look around. Almost everybody you see around you paid a slightly (or significantly) different price than you did.

If there exists convincing evidence that the general public would notice and/or oppose the idea of sensible amounts of retained CVR data, please provide it. In its absence, I sense the above is simply a 'contrarian for the sake of it' position.