|
Well, even if they have RNAV en route capability, many lack the ability to do approaches. A lot of Southwest's airplanes can't do RNAV approaches. Their -300 and -500 series aren't capable. They can still go Point-To-Point, fly RNAV SIDs/STARs and the like, they just can't fly approaches.
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
Lol at Air Canada initially calling the incident a "hard landing." Yeah, maybe if you landed hard and skidded off the runway. If you touched down short of the runway and ran into poo poo as a result, you crashed. It was a minor crash compared to others, yes, but it's still more than a hard landing. Their initial release had some great wording too. "We believe AC624 has had a 'runway excursion'."
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Lol at Air Canada initially calling the incident a "hard landing." Yeah, maybe if you landed hard and skidded off the runway. If you touched down short of the runway and ran into poo poo as a result, you crashed. It was a minor crash compared to others, yes, but it's still more than a hard landing. Since they slid on to the runway wouldn't it be a runway INcursion? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Only if it was unauthorized!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
overdesigned posted:Since they slid on to the runway wouldn't it be a runway INcursion? I suppose so, but this was before it came out that the aircraft touched down short of the runway by a considerable margin. "Hard landing" my rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
overdesigned posted:Since they slid on to the runway wouldn't it be a runway INcursion? The excursion was from outside of the airport onto the runway! PT6A posted:"Hard landing" my rear end. I dunno, I bet it was pretty hard, especially when they hit the poles and berm at the end of the runway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
So it's actually more like trespassing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Lol at Air Canada initially calling the incident a "hard landing." Yeah, maybe if you landed hard and skidded off the runway. If you touched down short of the runway and ran into poo poo as a result, you crashed. It was a minor crash compared to others, yes, but it's still more than a hard landing. To be fair the first words from the emergency responders/crew/nav canada could easily have been something that confused them. Minimum on the approach is 1SM regardless of whether it was the LOC or NDB or RNAV right? CYHZ 290500Z 33021G27KT 1 1/2SM -SN DRSN BKN013 OVC027 M06/M07 A2968 RMK SC6SC2 /S13/ SLP058 CYHZ 290414Z 34024G33KT 3/4SM R14/P6000FT/U -SN DRSN BKN010 OVC018 M06/M07 A2965 RMK SF7SC1 SLP046 CYHZ 290400Z 34019G54KT 3/4SM R14/5000VP6000FT/D -SN DRSN BKN007 OVC010 M06/M07 A2964 RMK SF7SC1 SLP045 CYHZ 290313Z 35020G26KT 1/2SM R14/3500V4500FT/N SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2963 RMKSN8 SLP040 CYHZ 290300Z CCA 34019G25KT 1/4SM R14/P6000VM0300FT/N +SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2962 RMK SN8 /S09/ SLP038 CYHZ 290300Z 34019G25KT 1/8SM R14/P6000VM0300FT/N +SN DRSN VV003 M06/M07 A2962 RMK SN8 /S09/ SLP038 CYHZ 290200Z 35019G27KT 1/4SM R14/2600FT/N +SN VV002 M06/M06 A2962 RMK SN8 /S05/ SLP036 CYHZ 290100Z 35015G21KT 1/2SM R14/3500FT/N SN DRSN VV002 M05/M06 A2962 RMK SN8 /S02/ PRESFR SLP037 CYHZ 290000Z 36016G27KT 3/4SM R14/2800FT/N -SN DRSN VV004 M05/M06 A2959 RMK SN8 /S03 PRESRR SLP028 CYHZ 282338Z 01018G24KT 3/4SM R14/2600VP6000FT/N -SN DRSN VV005 M05/M05 A2958 RMK SN8 PRESFR SLP023 CYHZ 282300Z 36019G26KT 1 1/2SM -SN DRSN OVC007 M04/M05 A2960 RMK SC8 SLP031 hmmm, 5 hours below 1SM of visibility. Also check out the wind, crash occurred at 330Z
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:To be fair the first words from the emergency responders/crew/nav canada could easily have been something that confused them. LOC is 1SM visibility NDB is 1 1/2SM visibility RNAV is 1SM for LPV minimum, and 1 1/4SM for LNAV minimum. LOC or NDB RWY 05:  RNAV Z RWY 05: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:To be fair the first words from the emergency responders/crew/nav canada could easily have been something that confused them. If available, RVR is controlling. So, even though the tower visibility was below a mile, if they had 5000 RVR for even a few minutes they could start the approach. Not that I believe it was a good idea. The changing winds and terrain at the approach end of the runway also lend itself to windshear at the time of the accident. drat shame that they couldn't use the RNAV to 32.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:LOC is 1SM visibility Ah nice I only saw the very low resolution preview.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Just having someone, anyone on the flight deck with whoever decides it's time to kill themselves is a good thing. This fucker is going to take you all to your deaths anyway, it's better being up there and screaming at him or whatever you come up with rather than being locked in the trunk watching the ground rush up at you. I mean, I don't fly airplanes or work on them, but how quickly would your standard flight attendant catch on if a pilot set the autopilot for a gradual decent into a mountain? I mean obviously when the terrain warning starts blaring, or if another pilot is locked out of the Flight Deck pounding on the door... but assuming that the captain is taking a long time in the shitter, how quickly would a flight attendant figure it out? I'm just curious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:I mean, I don't fly airplanes or work on them, but how quickly would your standard flight attendant catch on if a pilot set the autopilot for a gradual decent into a mountain? I think a flight attendant (or any person without inner-ear issues) would instantly understand that the plane was in a descent. Disgruntled pilot could easily claim it was initial descent or whatever if asked, but the guy who went out for a poo poo break will be pounding on the door very soon because he knows it's not time for the descent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:I mean, I don't fly airplanes or work on them, but how quickly would your standard flight attendant catch on if a pilot set the autopilot for a gradual decent into a mountain? I think the idea behind the "two person cockpit" rule is that the second person is mostly there to open the cockpit door if the flying pilot gets incapacitated or starts doing something obviously crazy, rather than having them monitoring everything the flying pilot is doing. Unless the flight attendants happen to be listening to the radio calls (and knew ATC phraseology), the pilot could probably start a descent without them questioning anything by saying ATC had assigned a new altitude, but if they started a rapid descent (especially towards terrain), I'm guessing even the most dense flight attendant is probably going to realize something isn't kosher.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
It's really a moot point, is it not, considering that it's been reported that the pilot was yelling things like "for God's sake, open the door!"? I think everyone on the plane had realized something was wrong at that point, frankly. Not to mention: flight attendants may not be pilots, but they are trained professionals and they are very accustomed to the normal pattern of a flight. I would, personally, tend to think they would be quite aware of any significant deviation from normal procedure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Don't worry about it Greta, that was Satan on the radio at Hell Approach, he'd like me to descend.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
I think part of the problem here is that any real solution to this issue will necessarily produce an environment of distrust between crew members, and it seems like that could even be more dangerous than the problem that it's meant to solve.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's really a moot point, is it not, considering that it's been reported that the pilot was yelling things like "for God's sake, open the door!"? But someone is in there with him, having to be physically prevented from opening the door. A long way beyond a nice, quiet suicide.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:But someone is in there with him, having to be physically prevented from opening the door. A long way beyond a nice, quiet suicide. No, I agree with that. I'm saying the question of "would the F/A know something wasn't right" is moot, not that it would be pointless to have an F/A on the flight deck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Not related to recent events, but I do have a question... I'm interested in knowing more about the day-to-day operations of remote Canadian airports (especially in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories), small airlines in those regions, infrastructure supporting them, etc. Pretty much anything about who's flying to these places and how it all works. Where is a good place to look? Has anyone written books on their experiences or anything?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
OK, so, not a pilot, but is there any way you can get the GPWS to feed into the autopilot and make it pull up on a terrain warning? Maybe you shouldn't be able to set altitudes as low as 100ft when you're not anywhere near an airport? Or in certain phases of flight you can't set "low" altitudes. Some sort of onboard terrain radar-map database thing? I'm just spitballing based on a conversation on Facebook. Is any of this doable? And is it needed for what is a very rare occurance?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
thehustler posted:Is any of this doable? Yes of course it is. thehustler posted:And is it needed for what is a very rare occurance? Absolutely not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 11:02
|
|
|
It's not like a modern car with automatic braking or something. Systems are designed around two highly trained professionals operating them, not an overweight mother not seeing a bike pull out in front of her. It doesn't matter what the autopilot has as valid values, you can just turn it off and take the control column. There is no technical solution to a people problem, really. Pilots have control of the aircraft, if they decide to crash it.. it's going to crash. It's really as simple as that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
thehustler posted:OK, so, not a pilot, but is there any way you can get the GPWS to feed into the autopilot and make it pull up on a terrain warning? Maybe you shouldn't be able to set altitudes as low as 100ft when you're not anywhere near an airport? Or in certain phases of flight you can't set "low" altitudes. Some sort of onboard terrain radar-map database thing? There are situations in the real world where ignoring the GPWS is part of normal operations. Certain approaches to some high-altitude airports in South and Central America, just as examples.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 11:55
|
|
|
Even the military is not immune to depressive pilots flying a plane: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
thehustler posted:OK, so, not a pilot, but is there any way you can get the GPWS to feed into the autopilot and make it pull up on a terrain warning? Maybe you shouldn't be able to set altitudes as low as 100ft when you're not anywhere near an airport? Or in certain phases of flight you can't set "low" altitudes. Some sort of onboard terrain radar-map database thing? Definitely not needed. But, regardless, I think implementing something like this would require exclusion zones for areas around an airport, so it wouldn't always go off when you were on an approach. I'm thinking that with a likely configuration of this software, it would have been inhibited for the phase of flight anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
The Duke of Avon posted:Not related to recent events, but I do have a question... Phone-posting, but there's a show called Ice Pilots NWT which is a behind-the-scenes look at operations for Buffalo Airways, which almost exclusively flies vintage planes deep into Northern Canada. The show has a bit of the reality crap associated with most shows of this sort today, but seemed to be a sincere documentary for the most part. It aired on The Weather Channel in the US, but hasn't been on in a while. If you want something which seems less like a TV show, Just Planes has several cockpit ride-along DVDs featuring these types of carriers. Buffalo was one of them. Canadian North (gravel strip 737 ops  ) was another, and they've just released a second DVD following them. I think they're also currently producing a First Air DVD to be released later this year.e- On the laptop now. Here are previews of the JustPlanes series. The Canadian North 737/F28 is the best I've seen in the series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MzmLa4jUjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiZ65I41Blc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_8_Dq_c2qw IcePilotsNWT YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/IcePilotsNWT JustPlanes' World Air Routes: http://www.worldairroutes.com/ CBJSprague24 fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Mar 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Why wouldnt the captain just gather like 20 people and heave-hoe that door down? It really seems there must have been SOME options if they really wanted to stop the guy
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
MOVIE MAJICK posted:Why wouldnt the captain just gather like 20 people and heave-hoe that door down? It really seems there must have been SOME options if they really wanted to stop the guy Remember when we mandated that every US serving aircraft to reinforce cockpit doors to withstand someone running and smashing a drink trolley into it at a full sprint? I don't think 20 people are going to do much damage to the door when you can't even fit two people shoulder to shoulder on the flight deck side of the forward galley.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:e- On the laptop now. Here are previews of the JustPlanes series. The Canadian North 737/F28 is the best I've seen in the series: These JustPlanes movies own. There was an Air Canada Toronto-Tokyo one that was really interesting. Also, they go into such gory detail that they're guaranteed to piss of significant others while you watch them too!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:Definitely not needed. But, regardless, I think implementing something like this would require exclusion zones for areas around an airport, so it wouldn't always go off when you were on an approach. I'm thinking that with a likely configuration of this software, it would have been inhibited for the phase of flight anyway. What happens when you fly into an airport not in the database? We have to disable our EGPWS at a handful of airports we go into. Edit: Or you just crash into the airport.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
The Duke of Avon posted:Not related to recent events, but I do have a question... A few of us have firsthand experience working up north...I have a bit, but I know a couple regulars here have several years up there (and I think one guy is up there right now). It's a different experience altogether, that's for sure. Before we get started, here's a book you should read: Bush Pilot With a Briefcase...this book is a biography of Grant McConachie, who was one of the most influential figures in Canadian aviation, going on to found what ultimately became CP Air, and his humble beginnings as a bush pilot up north. Anyways, To start with, you need to realise that basically every community north of Yellowknife relies on air transportation as their only link to the south for some or most of the year, and for the growing number of work camps in that part of the world, air travel is the only way in and out period. You see a lot of varied flying; one day, you could be flying a medevac out of BFE Nunavut, while the next day you're flying back with a load of potato chips and diesel fuel barrels. Aircraft up north tend to be more functional than anything; you won't see any fancy wood, chrome and leather interiors in any aircraft up there, that's for sure. Older aircraft are quite common up there; old King Airs, Twin Otters, lots of singles like Cessna 180s and 206s and the like are commonplace. However, this is starting to change, and you're starting to see larger and more modern types like Dash 8s, ATR-42s and Beech 1900s flying up there now. Speaking of airlines, the vast majority of them are either majority or fully owned by the local First Nations bands. Often this means there is considerable variation in terms of how well the companies are run...much more than what I've found down south. Either way, this means there is now quite a bit of money being put into the airlines up north, hence why there is a big push toward newer and larger aircraft. Actually flying up there is an experience, to say the least. The first thing you need to wrap your head around is the size and the isolation. This also has an effect on how you navigate; before the widespread adoption of GPS, the only way to get around was by NDB airway. When you get to the aerodrome, again often the only approaches are non-precision approaches, either NDB or RNAV (which are becoming quite common these days). ILS approaches are virtually non-existant; hell, paved runways are virtually non-existant too. Another thing about that; in Northern Domestic Airspace (which encompasses most of the area I'm talking about), runways are named by their true heading instead of their magnetic heading, as magnetic compasses are not only unreliable, but also can be highly confusing; nothing like flying due north with your compass pointed on S. On the subject of aerodromes, since they're almost all uncontrolled and often unmonitored, you will almost always fly circling approaches, if only to determine the condition of the runway beforehand. It's a rare day that someone is at the aerodrome to provide a condition report ahead of your arrival. When you get there, you'll also find less division of labour; there just aren't enough people in a lot of these places for a pilot to sit on his or her rear end and let someone else load/unload or refuel their aircraft. On the subject of isolation, that's what gets to you up there. You're so far from just about anything that you might as well be on the Moon; in fact in the winter it feels almost as inhospitable as the Moon. The winters of course are very dark, very cold and very windy, which can be very depressing for some people. The summers are very bright, very stark (blue sky above, grey rocks below and that's about it) with very long days...for me, that was the hardest part, was dealing with a lack of darkness. It can really screw up your sleep patterns. Hope this provides some insight for you. 
MrChips fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Unicom posted:These JustPlanes movies own. There was an Air Canada Toronto-Tokyo one that was really interesting. Also, they go into such gory detail that they're guaranteed to piss of significant others while you watch them too! I don't buy them as much as I used to, but the one you're describing and the other Canadian North are two I would consider buying. The Polar 747 round the world is another good one, as are the Alaska and all the Royal videos. They discuss navigating via true headings and the use of an astrolabe in the first Canadian North DVD due to operating in the higher latitudes. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
xaarman posted:Even the military is not immune to depressive pilots flying a plane: Can't fool me. That was a UFO related event. They stole the bombs after all. ZombieLenin fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Someone tell me how that Hawaii flight managed to land with a giant hole in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
MOVIE MAJICK posted:Someone tell me how that Hawaii flight managed to land with a giant hole in it. Giant hole? The plane didn't have a loving roof. Also, this pisses me off. Just because someone is struggling with depression at some point in their life, it does not follow that they are also suicidal. The two things are different... In fact the vast majority of depressed people never have suicidal ideation, let alone actively contemplate it. So unless Lufthansa knew the man was actually suicidal I find no fault in them agreeing to let a man who was once treated for depression fly. In fact, not to sound like a broken record, it would be much better if pilots who suffered from depression were treated on a regular basis with a clear line of communication between doctors and airlines in case someone does become really unhinged than it is to force pilots to avoid treatment, and let loving common minor mental health issues become serious ones because of the risk of a pilot losing their livelihood.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
ZombieLenin posted:Giant hole? The plane didn't have a loving roof. Yeah, shouldn;t the turbulence ripped the plane to pieces?
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
MOVIE MAJICK posted:Someone tell me how that Hawaii flight managed to land with a giant hole in it. The hole wasn't on a critical lifting surface. I imagine the plane flew fairly controllably.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:The hole wasn't on a critical lifting surface. I imagine the plane flew fairly controllably. More importantly it didn't sever a hydraulic line. JAL123 flew around for quite some time without its entire empennage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 15:27 |
|
|
AWSEFT posted:What happens when you fly into an airport not in the database? We have to disable our EGPWS at a handful of airports we go into. Yeah pretty much this. We need to have the ability to turn off GPWS for certain airports or in certain non-normal procedures, so any autopilot function based around preventing further descent due GPWS could be rendered totally useless with the flick of a switch anyway. MOVIE MAJICK posted:Why wouldnt the captain just gather like 20 people and heave-hoe that door down? It really seems there must have been SOME options if they really wanted to stop the guy Cockpit doors are built to withstand a grenade blast and/or small arms fire. Good luck shoulder barging it down brendanwor fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Apr 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2015 04:34
|
|
