RangerNS

On a flight safety point of view, I'd much rather an aircraft designed in the 80s to use computers then an aircraft designed in the early 60s and "tweaked" to the point it no longer has positive stability throughout its commercial envelope.

The Lev

To get away from the reporting hyperbole, here is a link to a summary of the changes:
https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-c...anagement.html

Generally seems pretty sensible, though I'm not an expert in the field.

Transpacificflyer

I cannot speak for others, but I certainly can accept that the conditions associated with wind shear are often visible at some airports. For example, when I am on the approach or landing during one of the more intense thunder/rain storms in SE Asia, and I look out the window at the mess, and turbulence then occurs, I know that there is a high risk of wind shear.

One could argue that a fatigued pilot might not be able to react as quickly or appropriately as a non fatigued pilot. I am not a qualified pilot, but I do accept what the experts have said that SE Asia airports like Hong Kong have the classic weather conditions associated with wind shear.

Now, in your capacity as an experienced pilot of large aircraft such as the B777 or B787 landing at Hong Kong, if you say that wind shear is not discernible to passengers based upon visible characteristics and weather conditions, then I will certainly take your expert opinion into consideration.

CZAMFlyer

Sure. We can recognize weather phenomenon that may include wind shear, for example a downdraft with associated precipitation, or the effects of moving air on water bodies you can see out the window. Can you spot the shear itself? My flying includes a lot time spent in turbulent air close to the ground with lots of visible particulate matter (smoke) in the air. It's very very difficult to point to a wind shear and say "oh, there's one". I certainly anticipate one, feel it, and see it in the form of what the instruments are telling me.

One could certainly argue that. But why would one insert this unsubstantiated variable into the discussion?

(*edited to add: I thought we were in the Scary Winnipeg thread; seems we're in the fatigue regs thread. Maybe we should move the AC15/wind shear discussion over there).
OK. Were there any assertions to the contrary?

One doesn't have to precisely match the circumstance in order to accumulate relevant experience or express a qualified opinion.