"Somewhat scary one near Winnipeg" - The AC Master Incidents Thread
Jan 11, 2019, 3:24 pm
#3796
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,359
There is never a good time to overcontrol an airplane - first flight on type is irrelevant. Not sure if there will be a need for further training, but AC and most other airlines are noticing the effects of comparatively less accumulated experience for their new hires. Note that we have no idea how new to the company the flying pilot is, nor their flying background. As for 'boys will be boys', I failed to notice any reference to gender in the prelim report. You must have some inside info. I also question the implication of the airline cutting corners based upon these incidents. Do we have evidence of inadequate training, procedures or oversight?
-James
Jan 11, 2019, 3:43 pm
#3797
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2018
Posts: 669
I'm also surprised there was speculation about the aircraft being 'totalled'. It is, and always was, deemed repairable, and that fact was stated many posts ago. The only question is the length of time required to complete the repairs. There will likely be no need for pavement repairs - concrete usually wins in such incidences of contact.
Jan 11, 2019, 3:48 pm
#3798
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
I think it could have become scary had they decided to go around after contact. The empennage would have probably remained attached...but few of us feel ok with 'probably' in aviation.
Ah, that makes sense. To me, 'unserviceable' simply means the former of your definitions.
To be fair (does anybody else hear 'Letterkenny' when that phrase is uttered?), the three incidents are unrelated in terms of what happened. The only common aspects of the SFO shenanigans were the type of airplane and place of occurrence. One plane nearly landed on the wrong surface (failed to check NOTAMs and resolve contradicting visual & cockpit information). One plane landed after having been instructed not to (failed to remain on correct radio frequency). The HKG plane landed on the correct surface while following appropriate instructions - they simply botched the job.
Originally Posted by smallmj
I think this came from the "unserviceable" part of the report mentioned recently. There was a bit of confusion.
Originally Posted by j2simpso
To clarify I meant to say "accidents happen" I.e. not a training issue so much as a freak incident. Other than this incident the only other thing which I pointed to earlier was the 2 times AC aircraft have landed on the wrong runway. I'm not am aviation expert by any means but would tell you that once can be chalked up to an accident when it starts happening multiple times you gotta wonder what's going on here. Perhaps someone more familiar with the SFO incidents could chime in here to provide some necessary colour on the topic.
Jan 11, 2019, 3:52 pm
#3799
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
No, they are not.
No, it does not.
Bad luck? The pilot reacted poorly to a common occurrence. Professional aviating is not a roll-the-dice endeavour.
No, it does not.
Bad luck? The pilot reacted poorly to a common occurrence. Professional aviating is not a roll-the-dice endeavour.
Jan 11, 2019, 3:53 pm
#3800
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,233
Jan 11, 2019, 3:59 pm
#3801
Suspended
Join Date: May 2018
Location: ord
Programs: UA 1k SPG Platinum
Posts: 365
I read Qantas 'repaired" a plane one time rather than write it off, even though it was more expensive. However no idea if its true. However With AC problems right now they might just do the same thing.
Last edited by tcook052; Jan 11, 2019 at 11:08 pm Reason: off topic
Jan 12, 2019, 4:38 am
#3802
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE100K, Bonvoy Platinum Elite, IHG Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 2,132
Perhaps AC will ask the people who fly the 777 into HKG to spend an afternoon in the sim getting crosswinds thrown at them to try to learn (or confirm that know) how to handle this specific situation at this specific airport.
That's the best one can hope for out of a near miss. Use it as a learning opportunity.
That's the best one can hope for out of a near miss. Use it as a learning opportunity.
Jan 12, 2019, 9:01 am
#3803
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,571
Just catching up on FT after a while away and stumbled across this... if this is indeed a CBSA requirement, someone forgot to tell the folks handling our flight. I’m sitting comfortably in the YUL TB after our US-bound plane returned to the gate for a MX problem. We were guided directly to the gate area — not the passage that leads to Canadian customs — and sat there a while waiting for news. We were given meal vouchers, a new departure time, and allowed to wander the TB section of the terminal at will.
Jan 12, 2019, 9:12 am
#3804
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,571
For those unfamiliar with airline pilot progression, there is always a first flight on any given type of aircraft, and more often than not, it occurs with a full load of passengers in the back. The realism of the flight simulators is such that for most pilots, flying it vs a real plane is indistinguishable. There are peculiarities associated with most airports, and amongst the pilots I'm most familiar with (good friend is CX 77W captain and cousin is a GV captain - both based there) HKG is not considered particularly challenging from a weather* & terrain perspective. The stated wind in the report suggests benign flying conditions.
More to the point, flying a aircraft designed for commercial (passenger) use, well maintained and fully functional, and of any size, under clear weather conditions is "easy". The simulators deal with issues of mechanical or weather problems and how a particular type deals with them.
Jan 12, 2019, 10:18 am
#3805
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 3,359
Just catching up on FT after a while away and stumbled across this... if this is indeed a CBSA requirement, someone forgot to tell the folks handling our flight. I’m sitting comfortably in the YUL TB after our US-bound plane returned to the gate for a MX problem. We were guided directly to the gate area — not the passage that leads to Canadian customs — and sat there a while waiting for news. We were given meal vouchers, a new departure time, and allowed to wander the TB section of the terminal at will.
-James
Jan 12, 2019, 10:21 am
#3806
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: *G^2, Bonvoyed, NEXUS
Posts: 3,516
My understanding has always been if the aircraft is still on the ground and returns directly to the gate, you can deplane back into the terminal you left from. Once it takes off, if it returns then you need to go through customs/immigration.
Jan 13, 2019, 12:15 am
#3807
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: YVR
Programs: AC SE 2MM; UA MP Premier Silver; Marriott Bonvoy LT Titanium Elite; Radisson; Avis PC
Posts: 35,255
I don't know what is true/false/rule/law/bible/etc. but from my own experiences (having to come back to the departure airport) flying TATLs and TPACs ex-YYZ, I've never had to do that after a few hours in the air and back to international departures. I simply went back to the international MLL and waited.
Jan 13, 2019, 1:32 am
#3808
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: *G^2, Bonvoyed, NEXUS
Posts: 3,516
I don't know what is true/false/rule/law/bible/etc. but from my own experiences (having to come back to the departure airport) flying TATLs and TPACs ex-YYZ, I've never had to do that after a few hours in the air and back to international departures. I simply went back to the international MLL and waited.
Jan 13, 2019, 3:09 pm
#3809
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: TK *G
Posts: 3,099
Well, this interesting.
Hong Kong SAR
Air Accident investigation Authority
Preliminary Report
Boeing 777-333ER
C-FITW
11 December 2018
ARC: Abnormal Runway Contact
https://www.thb.gov.hk/aaia/doc/Airc...%201-2019e.pdf
"Aircraft Damage: Substantial"
"The aircraft is currently unserviceable"
"The First Officer (FO) was the Pilot-Flying from the Top of Descent"
*****
And similar to what I wrote in posts about my experience at landing.
QUOTE:
"At approximately 200 feet above the runway while continuing to descend to the touch down point the aircraft entered into series of minor lateral roll deviations followed by a pronounced roll first to the left and then to the right, the Pilot-Flying introduced large control inputs into the aircraft to control the sudden and unanticipated roll behaviour.
The aircraft was not wings level at the touchdown point as it was rolling to the right. On touchdown the right-hand main gear contacted the runway first.
With a high rate of descent in conjunction with a nose high pitch attitude, the underside of the rear fuselage contacted the runway surface during the hard landing, the aircraft then bounced before returning to the runway centreline. "
Hong Kong SAR
Air Accident investigation Authority
Preliminary Report
Boeing 777-333ER
C-FITW
11 December 2018
ARC: Abnormal Runway Contact
https://www.thb.gov.hk/aaia/doc/Airc...%201-2019e.pdf
"Aircraft Damage: Substantial"
"The aircraft is currently unserviceable"
"The First Officer (FO) was the Pilot-Flying from the Top of Descent"
*****
And similar to what I wrote in posts about my experience at landing.
QUOTE:
"At approximately 200 feet above the runway while continuing to descend to the touch down point the aircraft entered into series of minor lateral roll deviations followed by a pronounced roll first to the left and then to the right, the Pilot-Flying introduced large control inputs into the aircraft to control the sudden and unanticipated roll behaviour.
The aircraft was not wings level at the touchdown point as it was rolling to the right. On touchdown the right-hand main gear contacted the runway first.
With a high rate of descent in conjunction with a nose high pitch attitude, the underside of the rear fuselage contacted the runway surface during the hard landing, the aircraft then bounced before returning to the runway centreline. "
On on the second page of the PDF, under Aircraft details, Type of engines, it stated GEnx-1B67. It’s supposed to be GE90-115B?!