Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Air Canada | Aeroplan
Reload this Page >

"Somewhat scary one near Winnipeg" - The AC Master Incidents Thread

"Somewhat scary one near Winnipeg" - The AC Master Incidents Thread

Old Jul 12, 2018, 6:11 pm
  #3451  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,741
Originally Posted by expert7700
overwritten."

My law would be 1) any airplane flying to, from, or over my country who provides internet access for passengers, employee, or onboard sales is REQUIRED to live stream FDR/CVR/GPS location to government run archiving server. Failire to to so results in 7 day suspension of operators and fleet airworthiness certificates.
Something like that may well be coming. Driven mostly by the Malaysian 777 which disappear in still mysterious circumstances. However it is only now that the technology is becoming available in reasonable conditions.
Stranger is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2018, 6:14 pm
  #3452  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by longtimeflyin
This is shocking.
Why is this shocking? What do you think was done poorly? Nothing was omitted, and SOPs were followed, and the captain made the best decision given the info he or she had. That the procedures may require amending is conceded, but this and a thousand other similar incidents are what improve commercial aviation.

Those less familiar with a given industry are more easily shocked when irregular events occur.
CZAMFlyer is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2018, 6:53 pm
  #3453  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by CZAMFlyer
Why is this shocking?...SOPs were followed
Shocking to me that while SOPs were followed, that so many checks and balances did not prevent an aircraft to depart when it clearly should not have done so. The SOPs were insufficient to adequately have prevented a damaged airframe from leaving the ground.
longtimeflyin is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2018, 7:16 pm
  #3454  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,527
Originally Posted by longtimeflyin
Shocking to me that while SOPs were followed, that so many checks and balances did not prevent an aircraft to depart when it clearly should not have done so. The SOPs were insufficient to adequately have prevented a damaged airframe from leaving the ground.
Vs

Neither the aircraft manufacturer nor Jazz provide the flight crew with a definition of a hard landing or
criteria to determine what a hard landing is.
​​​​​​I'm impressed your manage clarity when the OEM and operator does not.

Crystal clear to me that the airframe did not meet a threshold of unserviceablility. EHUMS isn't regulatory. The next flight was fine (apparently).
CZAMFlyer likes this.
RangerNS is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2018, 7:18 pm
  #3455  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by RangerNS
Vs



​​​​​​I'm impressed your manage clarity when the OEM and operator does not.

Crystal clear to me that the airframe did not meet a threshold of unserviceablility. EHUMS isn't regulatory. The next flight was fine (apparently).
? See my post where I referenced this:

" The inspection at CYUL found that the aircraft had sustained substantial damage, including buckling of the skin below the windows on the right fuselage (Figure 1). The landing conditions experienced by the right main landing gear during the second touchdown exceeded its ultimate design criteria, which resulted in failure of the orifice support tube during the in-stroke (Figure 2). Once the orifice support tube failed, shock strut damping was effectively lost, thereby generating significant bottoming loads."
"
longtimeflyin is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2018, 7:24 pm
  #3456  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Halifax
Programs: AC SE100K, Marriott Lifetime Platinum Elite. NEXUS
Posts: 4,527
There is no one at Billy Bishop qualified to make that determination, and no documented rational for bringing in a set of qualified eyes.
RangerNS is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2018, 7:25 pm
  #3457  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AC
Posts: 2,167
Originally Posted by RangerNS
There is no one at Billy Bishop qualified to make that determination, and no documented rational for bringing in a set of qualified eyes.
I understand that, and I don't think I need to quote my post again which you quoted which is that I was surprised to read that even though SOPs were followed that such a gap existed whereby an aircraft later flew only to be recognized as a damaged airframe.
longtimeflyin is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2018, 7:45 pm
  #3458  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,741
Originally Posted by CZAMFlyer
Why is this shocking? What do you think was done poorly? Nothing was omitted, and SOPs were followed, and the captain made the best decision given the info he or she had. That the procedures may require amending is conceded, but this and a thousand other similar incidents are what improve commercial aviation.
Bottom line, the next flight should not have happened. Either the SOP were not followed, or they were deficient. Which it is does not really matter.

(It appears there was a warning, but it was dismissed.)
longtimeflyin likes this.
Stranger is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2018, 10:30 pm
  #3459  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by longtimeflyin
Shocking to me that while SOPs were followed, that so many checks and balances did not prevent an aircraft to depart when it clearly should not have done so. The SOPs were insufficient to adequately have prevented a damaged airframe from leaving the ground.
Have you ever looked for visible damage on an aircraft - at night - that you aren't certain is present? I'm guessing not. If we want to eliminate ALL risk, we'd simply stay on the ground.
The airline may (or may not) tweak their procedures as per the TSB recommendations, and one more incremental smidgeon of safety will have been added to the collective wisdom within the industry.
CZAMFlyer is offline  
Old Jul 12, 2018, 10:34 pm
  #3460  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Originally Posted by Stranger
Bottom line, the next flight should not have happened. Either the SOP were not followed, or they were deficient. Which it is does not really matter.

(It appears there was a warning, but it was dismissed.)
The warning was not "dismissed". The pilots contacted their company maintenance about the indication. This was clearly stated in the report.
It's amazing that some people are shocked (bold shocked even) to learn that a visual walk-around inspection on an apron at night did not yield the same level of detail and clarity than a determined inspection in a bright hangar by a team of maintenance professionals.
CZAMFlyer is offline  
Old Jul 13, 2018, 8:46 am
  #3461  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,741
Originally Posted by CZAMFlyer
The warning was not "dismissed". The pilots contacted their company maintenance about the indication. This was clearly stated in the report.
It's amazing that some people are shocked (bold shocked even) to learn that a visual walk-around inspection on an apron at night did not yield the same level of detail and clarity than a determined inspection in a bright hangar by a team of maintenance professionals.
OK. Pilot did not dismiss, company did. Still not acted upon as it should have. (Criticism was never meant to be particularly targeting the pilots. Just the overall scenario.)

Bottom line remains, there was a warning, but it did not have the effect that it should have had. Indeed the next flight happened although it never should have. Because maintenance apparently did not figure out that the inertial switch that was triggered by this hard landing cuts power to the FDR. Admittedly the material they got from the manufacturer may not have been crystal clear either.
longtimeflyin likes this.
Stranger is offline  
Old Jul 13, 2018, 8:47 am
  #3462  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,741
Originally Posted by yyz_atc_qq
and it has factually incorrect information.
Teasing us. What's factually incorrect? Is it relevant, or merely peripheral to the core issues?
Stranger is offline  
Old Jul 13, 2018, 10:17 am
  #3463  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: YYZ most of the time
Programs: AC SE100K MM, Princess Elite
Posts: 3,921
Originally Posted by Stranger
Teasing us. What's factually incorrect? Is it relevant, or merely peripheral to the core issues?
the curfew is 2300L not 2200L. Why the TSB got this wrong I have no idea.

the core issue of flying after the hard landing is one thing, but the Gotta-Get-There-Itis was flawed, they had an extra hour to deal with getting someone to come check, and if they wanted to, they had more than enough time since they landed approx 2120, and would have been at the gate by 2130. It would have taken priority dispatching maintenance but they could have reasonably gotten there by 2230.... IF it was important enough which it clearly wasn’t.
yyz_atc_qq is offline  
Old Jul 13, 2018, 10:18 am
  #3464  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: YYZ most of the time
Programs: AC SE100K MM, Princess Elite
Posts: 3,921
Originally Posted by RangerNS
There is no one at Billy Bishop qualified to make that determination, and no documented rational for bringing in a set of qualified eyes.
I would bet that Porter maintenance could have done it, but that would require Jazz and Porter to have some arrangement for not only the check but the payment.
longtimeflyin likes this.
yyz_atc_qq is offline  
Old Jul 13, 2018, 10:38 am
  #3465  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sun Peaks, Taupo.
Programs: NZ Elite, AC SE100K, Westjet Teal, Marriott Bonvoy Gold Elite, Nexus, Global Entry
Posts: 6,120
Whilst reading the report I put myself into the pilot's heads.
That was a tough landing, what just happened, should we have gone around?
Dark out, flashlight only for a visual inspection.
What are we actually looking for when we inspect?
Our passengers want to get home.
The company wants our passengers to get home.

I am not for one minute insinuating that the company puts pressure on the pilots to keep to schedule as the cost of safety, however it is human nature to want to please your employer and customers, or to not let them down. The consequences of cancelling are significant. It is human nature for the pilots to put pressure on themselves.

Human factors and their relationship to decision making are an integral part of flying and a significant part of training. A thorough debrief of the pilots with regard to human factors would have been interesting. What went through their minds and what were their discussions to cause them to not conduct a go-round and to then fly the aircraft to YUL?
taupo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.