"Somewhat scary one near Winnipeg" - The AC Master Incidents Thread
Feb 13, 2018, 6:09 pm
#3302
Formerly known as newbie elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: YUL
Programs: IHG Diamond Ambassador, Accor Platinum, AC50K
Posts: 2,927
This sounds to me like a VERY serious occurrence which could have resulted in a "hard landing" into the side of a mountain. The technology may well have saved the day for this flight.
So why is this occurrence getting no attention on this forum? Where are the posters suggesting a cover-up because the CVR was not pulled? Where are the militant posters suggesting that AC be banned from flying in Mexico? Why is no one asking if the pilot in command has been grounded or dismissed? Why aren't we hearing about a pattern of AC unsafe operations as we did after the SFO incidents?
So why is this occurrence getting no attention on this forum? Where are the posters suggesting a cover-up because the CVR was not pulled? Where are the militant posters suggesting that AC be banned from flying in Mexico? Why is no one asking if the pilot in command has been grounded or dismissed? Why aren't we hearing about a pattern of AC unsafe operations as we did after the SFO incidents?
Feb 15, 2018, 8:23 pm
#3303
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Feb 17, 2018, 5:46 pm
#3304
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YHZ/YQM
Programs: Aeroplan
Posts: 1,618
CBC:
'The pilot called mayday': Tailpipe flames force plane to return to Saskatoon airport - Saskatoon - CBC News
Looks like a Jazz Dash 8 had some trouble today. Glad that they were able to land safely.
'The pilot called mayday': Tailpipe flames force plane to return to Saskatoon airport - Saskatoon - CBC News
Looks like a Jazz Dash 8 had some trouble today. Glad that they were able to land safely.
Feb 23, 2018, 10:04 pm
#3305
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Canada
Programs: Aeroplan E50/MM, HH gold, Nat Exec Elite, Kimpton Karma
Posts: 2,354
Not sure if this will turn out to be the correct thread. Apologies if not. Imagine there was some sort of incident.
Anyone know why ACr 1827 out of YYZ on 23 February turned back about 1.5 hrs into the flight? Flight delayed a couple of hours according to flightaware. Eventually departed but flight was only about 2 1/2 hrs long and landed back at YYZ. Return flight ACr 1826 cancelled since inbound didn’t get there to turn around.
Anyone know why ACr 1827 out of YYZ on 23 February turned back about 1.5 hrs into the flight? Flight delayed a couple of hours according to flightaware. Eventually departed but flight was only about 2 1/2 hrs long and landed back at YYZ. Return flight ACr 1826 cancelled since inbound didn’t get there to turn around.
Feb 24, 2018, 7:24 am
#3306
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,569
Code:
AC 1827 Unknown YYZ Term: 1 Gate: F83 Scheduled: 02/23/18 8:40 AM Estimated: 02/23/18 10:22 AM Actual: 02/23/18 10:22 AM 37% / 36m PSP Scheduled: 02/23/18 10:56 AM Estimated: 02/23/18 12:59 PM Actual: Comments: AC1827/23FEB EQU ABL319R01 CTY TML ARR DEP GRND AIR CABINS J Y YYZ - 0840 - 05.16 PSP 1056 TOTAL TIME YYZPSP 5.16 YYZ 1022 01:42L YYZ?1246 319 MTF AD AA YYZ?1650 08:10L PSP 1906 08:10L 319 MTF ED EA RMKS/DLYD DUE TO MTC FIN273 AVIONICS OUTLET VALVE PRIOR TODEPT. .FURTHER DLYD DUE FIN273 MTC FMGC FAULT...DIVN YYZ ACCT MTCE AI RBORNE RTN BACK TO YYZ DUE FIN273 MTC AVIONICS INLET VALVE FAUL T..FLIGHT CANCELLED DUE FIN277 YYZ MTC AOG AIRBORNE RTN DUE PRE SSURIZATION FAULT 12J 113Y...FULL PRO RV1827 24FEB UPGUAGED TO R ☨ YYZ PSP DEP TML T1 GATE --/F83 ARR TML GATE --/----- OPERATED BY/EXPLOITE PAR ZX
Feb 24, 2018, 10:43 pm
#3307
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Canada
Programs: Aeroplan E50/MM, HH gold, Nat Exec Elite, Kimpton Karma
Posts: 2,354
Code:
AC 1827 Unknown YYZ Term: 1 Gate: F83 Scheduled: 02/23/18 8:40 AM Estimated: 02/23/18 10:22 AM Actual: 02/23/18 10:22 AM 37% / 36m PSP Scheduled: 02/23/18 10:56 AM Estimated: 02/23/18 12:59 PM Actual: Comments: AC1827/23FEB EQU ABL319R01 CTY TML ARR DEP GRND AIR CABINS J Y YYZ - 0840 - 05.16 PSP 1056 TOTAL TIME YYZPSP 5.16 YYZ 1022 01:42L YYZ?1246 319 MTF AD AA YYZ?1650 08:10L PSP 1906 08:10L 319 MTF ED EA RMKS/DLYD DUE TO MTC FIN273 AVIONICS OUTLET VALVE PRIOR TODEPT. .FURTHER DLYD DUE FIN273 MTC FMGC FAULT...DIVN YYZ ACCT MTCE AI RBORNE RTN BACK TO YYZ DUE FIN273 MTC AVIONICS INLET VALVE FAUL T..FLIGHT CANCELLED DUE FIN277 YYZ MTC AOG AIRBORNE RTN DUE PRE SSURIZATION FAULT 12J 113Y...FULL PRO RV1827 24FEB UPGUAGED TO R ☨ YYZ PSP DEP TML T1 GATE --/F83 ARR TML GATE --/----- OPERATED BY/EXPLOITE PAR ZX
Thanks for this info. Understand 24 February flights used a 767 to deal with backlog.
Feb 25, 2018, 10:31 am
#3308
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/SIN/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC, Bonvoy, Accor, Hilton
Posts: 2,922
As per above entry Feb. 15 - Rouge Flight 1806 from YYZ to Costa Rica, turbulence with injuries resulting in the incapacitation of 2 FAs and a need for EMS response upon return to YYZ. Looking at the route, it appears to have been in close proximity to Nashville.
Question: If North American airlines fly with the minimum number of FAs allowed for staffing, why would the aircraft continue back to home base?
I get it that there is a financial and logistical reason to do so, but I am looking at this from the safety perspective with the FA to pax ratio requirement only. We are constantly told that the FAs are there to evacuate an aircraft and to assist in an emergency. If there are insufficient numbers available, then it follows that the safety refrain cannot be met. I would have verified the FA to Pax ratio at Aviation herald, but it didn't register. This would have told me in a specific way whether the FA to pax ratio was respected. This then brings me back to the question; is there an allowance for the FA to pax ratio to be "violated"? I expect that this would be the Captain's decision, but if two FAs were in need of EMS with a hot response upon landing, surely these were serious events? What's AC's safety position in that respect?
Question: If North American airlines fly with the minimum number of FAs allowed for staffing, why would the aircraft continue back to home base?
I get it that there is a financial and logistical reason to do so, but I am looking at this from the safety perspective with the FA to pax ratio requirement only. We are constantly told that the FAs are there to evacuate an aircraft and to assist in an emergency. If there are insufficient numbers available, then it follows that the safety refrain cannot be met. I would have verified the FA to Pax ratio at Aviation herald, but it didn't register. This would have told me in a specific way whether the FA to pax ratio was respected. This then brings me back to the question; is there an allowance for the FA to pax ratio to be "violated"? I expect that this would be the Captain's decision, but if two FAs were in need of EMS with a hot response upon landing, surely these were serious events? What's AC's safety position in that respect?
Feb 25, 2018, 1:03 pm
#3309
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: OGG, YYC
Programs: AA, AC
Posts: 3,697
As per above entry Feb. 15 - Rouge Flight 1806 from YYZ to Costa Rica, turbulence with injuries resulting in the incapacitation of 2 FAs and a need for EMS response upon return to YYZ. Looking at the route, it appears to have been in close proximity to Nashville.
Question: If North American airlines fly with the minimum number of FAs allowed for staffing, why would the aircraft continue back to home base?
I get it that there is a financial and logistical reason to do so, but I am looking at this from the safety perspective with the FA to pax ratio requirement only. We are constantly told that the FAs are there to evacuate an aircraft and to assist in an emergency. If there are insufficient numbers available, then it follows that the safety refrain cannot be met. I would have verified the FA to Pax ratio at Aviation herald, but it didn't register. This would have told me in a specific way whether the FA to pax ratio was respected. This then brings me back to the question; is there an allowance for the FA to pax ratio to be "violated"? I expect that this would be the Captain's decision, but if two FAs were in need of EMS with a hot response upon landing, surely these were serious events? What's AC's safety position in that respect?
Question: If North American airlines fly with the minimum number of FAs allowed for staffing, why would the aircraft continue back to home base?
I get it that there is a financial and logistical reason to do so, but I am looking at this from the safety perspective with the FA to pax ratio requirement only. We are constantly told that the FAs are there to evacuate an aircraft and to assist in an emergency. If there are insufficient numbers available, then it follows that the safety refrain cannot be met. I would have verified the FA to Pax ratio at Aviation herald, but it didn't register. This would have told me in a specific way whether the FA to pax ratio was respected. This then brings me back to the question; is there an allowance for the FA to pax ratio to be "violated"? I expect that this would be the Captain's decision, but if two FAs were in need of EMS with a hot response upon landing, surely these were serious events? What's AC's safety position in that respect?
Whether they divert back to YYZ or divert to a closer field, the risk is the same. The very small chance of having to perform an evacuation exists regardless of where they land. So unless they stay airborne long enough for the FAs' injuries to heal they're still not going to have the required cabin crew for an evacuation.
I haven't looked at the numbers (and I bet you haven't either) but was the aircraft above max landing weight at the time of the diversion? Would there have been a need to burn off (or dump?) fuel? If so, wouldn't it make more sense to do so during cruise back to home base than by spending the same amount of time circling?
Feb 25, 2018, 8:34 pm
#3310
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: YYC
Posts: 4,035
Yes there are procedures for this when underway. If any mandatory manned exits can't be covered by the FAs due to injury or other incapacitation, the crew can sub a passenger into that jump seat. Typically, they do that by going through the list of non-rev FAs (inc. other airlines), pilots, other airline employees, etc... until they find someone who can do it (i.e. hasn't had a drink and is comfortable with it).
Mar 1, 2018, 7:53 am
#3313
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: YUL
Programs: AC SE (*A Gold), Bonvoy Platinum Elite, Hilton Gold, Amex Platinum / AP Reserve, NEXUS, Global Entry
Posts: 5,691
I'm amazed by your resourcefulness at finding AC sorties on Twitter 
It's too bad someone got injured on AC101, no one should be hurt by a freaking phone. There was an incident on CZ recently where a battery pack caught fire, and considering our dependence on power-hungry electronic devices, this isn't a problem that'll go away anytime soon.
It's too bad someone got injured on AC101, no one should be hurt by a freaking phone. There was an incident on CZ recently where a battery pack caught fire, and considering our dependence on power-hungry electronic devices, this isn't a problem that'll go away anytime soon.
