smoothride

Although this is a problem for all airlines and passengers in Canada, this 2-part W5 investigation features two high profile Air Canada incidents:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/w5-investig...kies-1.3606680

jaysona

.....almost led to mid-air collision over the Atlantic?

That's an interesting one, since the spacing on those corridors is quite well regulated. I wonder which "incident" W5 is referring to?

Although I expect the story will be mostly misconstrued hyperbole based on a complete lack of contextual understanding.

I have yet to encounter any journalist that has even a cursory grasp of aviation, the laws, rules and procedures and context for which hey are applied.

These silly and ignorant journalists always try to apply some completely inapplicable analog to aviation - like cars or something similar - instead of actually learning about the topic and reporting intelligently on the topic.

Oh wait, I forgot, intelligence and reporting are mutually exclusive in this day and age.

gregster

It's possible they are referring to the AC878 2011 incident, but it would be inaccurate to say that it almost led to a mid-air collision.

yulred

The story includes a link to the TSB report. It's the YYZ-ZRH incident in which 16 people were injured. The relevant section is on pg 3:

"The FO initially mistook the planet Venus for an aircraft but the captain advised again that the target was at the 12 o�clock position and 1000 feet below. The captain of ACA878 and the oncoming aircraft crew flashed their landing lights. The FO continued to scan visually for the aircraft. When the FO saw the oncoming aircraft, the FO interpreted its position as being above and descending towards them. The FO reacted to the perceived imminent collision by pushing forward on the control column. The captain, who was monitoring TCAS target on the ND, observed the control column moving forward and the altimeter beginning to show a decrease in altitude. The captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and pulled back on the control column to regain altitude. It was at this time the oncoming aircraft passed beneath ACA878. The TCAS did not produce a traffic or resolution advisory."

In short, due to sleep inertia, an AC FO descended towards the aircraft he was trying to avoid (descended from 35000 to 34600 to avoid an aircraft flying at 34000).

Given how fine the margins are with two aircraft flying towards each other at cruise speed, I don't think it's a stretch to say that an aircraft descending towards oncoming traffic can lead to a mid-air collision.

In any event, the story is far more coherent (and dare I say intelligent) than the second half of your post. The journalist evidently read the TSB report before coming to a conclusion. Which is a lot more respectable than the lazy (or should we call it "silly and ignorant") conclusion you reached without even bothering to see the documents attached to the story.

Let me guess. CBC, CTV and Global all have an issue with AC. To which one might reasonably point out that AC hacks have an issue with CBC, Global and now CTV.

Stranger

Clearly it is. Mentioned in the article.

Since there was a TCAS warning and the co-pilot reacted the wrong way, until the captain reacted and corrected, there was a risk of a mid-air collision.

I'll stay out of the semantics issue whether "a risk of" is equivalent to "almost."

Then there is the issue of passengers not having their seat belt fastened when the sign was on. I am not sorry for them...

CZAMFlyer

The delicious irony of somebody broadbrushing and belittling a diverse group while simultaneously displaying the precise attributes he critiques. My takeaway is that if you haven't personally met an example of a person with a given quality, then they must certainly not exist.

The above drivel smacks of the raspy ramblings of a bitter old man in a rocking chair on his porch: 'Git off mah lawn, you durned pencil pushers!!!'

Beautifully, while busy shaking his fist at the scribes, the poster overlooked the obvious:

J. Leslie

I am both a licensed pilot and a (former) senior journalist. You've now encountered one. Anything you care to know?

jaysona

Heh! My post elicited some of the typical responses I was expecting.

Responses from some of the usual suspects that are sadly the typical of many FT responses steeped in what I can only presume are based on presumptive arrogance. Arrogance by some that think they are knowledgeable about a topic because they have read a few wikipedia articles and participate in forums such as this - yet don't even work intimately in the industry related to the topics they are commenting on.

I suspect that for some here the mention of a TCAS target is associated to being a warning - it is not. A TCAS target is informational not a warning, the proper term is TA (Traffic Advisory) which means be aware, obtain visual contact with the target and be prepared to immediately respond to an RA (Resolution Advisory). At no point did the TCAS produce a RA, which means at no point was there almost a mid-air collision.

Had there been no injuries sustained by anyone on this particular flight, the incident would be been nothing more than a loss of minimum separation - which is something that happens on a regular basis around the world - and reported as such.

My original assertion still stands, the W5 statement about "almost led to a midair collision" is ignorant at best or disingenuous at worst.

I am not an AC hack, I am an aviation hack.

I am aviation hack that despises lazy journalism on anything aviation related andi have absolutely zero respect for any journalist that misleads the public (whether intentionally or due to negligence) such that the public then draw inaccurate conclusions due to lack of proper context in the reporting.

I am quite familiar with the TSB AIR A11F0012, as it is one of the hundreds of reports from around the world I had to read through as part of the design, testing and certification activities I spent more than six years engaged in.


Nice to see that someone here figured it out! ^


CPL for which operator? Type rating?

J. Leslie

Agree with the observation on lazy journalism - it drives me nuts, too. I want to throw up when I hear a reporter say - for instance - "the pilot reported he was at 10000 metres." No, he did not.

My point is there are many reporters out there who fly - and know what they are talking about. Miles O'Brien is a good example. Don't paint them all with the same brush.

As for me : CPL Multi IFR with 3100+ hours.

yyznomad

Aww man, you had to respond so soon?
Thanks for spoiling this thread. Sheesh.

yulred

For yyznomads sake, I'll keep it going.

Is it disingenuous to suggest that pointing your aircraft at an oncoming aircraft can lead to a collision. I don't think so. Either which way, you could have called the journalist out on that without disingenuously pretending not to know what incident he was talking about and then spewing bile about journalists writ large. That's pretty much the only reason some of us posted at all. Pilot fatigue is a well known and well covered issue (by the media, of all people). AC pilots complain about it regularly. Nothing new there.

If it helps, no one doubt your expertise on presumptive arrogance or disingenuity. Your first post is a wonderful example of it. Personally, I particularly like this line: "arrogance by some who think they are knowledgeable about a topic....yet don't even work intimately in the industry". It captures the essence of your post about journalists.

(PS - no I don't work in the industry. Don't want to either - the compensation isn't worth my time. Happy to leave it to others to get me to where I need to go - preferably without sleep deprived pilots mistaking stars for airplanes)

Stranger

BTW, I seem to recall that the OP is an AC pilot.

CZAMFlyer

An admission to trolling?
I'm betting I'm one of this crowd.
I only have 28 years in the industry (many of which predate Wikipedia) and am thus probably a ways away yet to be considered eligible for meaningful contribution.

This is all fine & well. I too, am not a fan of lazy journalism on any topic, and being familiar with aviation, am perturbed by inaccuracies, assumptions and factual errors in related articles. I'm sure aviation is not the only line of work in which misinformation is published. But let's not be so confused as to assume all journalists are incapable of producing worthy reports on a given topic. One wonders where this clear bias originates?[/QUOTE]

I read the report on the Concorde crash, but despite my lengthy history with airplanes and flying, don't claim to be any more an expert on that issue than anybody else with access to the internet.

Just curious: how does this matter?

YOWgary

Jumper Jack

You guys know you can be nice to one another right? Behind that ID is a human being after all