1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default What Part of FASTEN SEAT BELTS

    Did they not UNDERSTAND?

    Forced landing of Toronto-Victoria jet tossed by turbulence shows more training needed: report

    Rare turbulence forced Air Canada aircraft to land in 2008

    By Tamara Gignac, Calgary Herald June 2, 2010 Comments (1)

    The pilot of an Airbus forced to make an emergency landing in Calgary after hitting severe turbulence should have been offered more extensive training to manage the rare inflight incident.

    That's one of the conclusions of an 18-page Transportation Safety Board report into Air Canada Flight 190, en route from Victoria to Toronto on Jan. 10 2008, when it flew into the vicinity of a United Airlines Boeing 747 over Washington state.

    The force of so-called "wake turbulence" from the Boeing caused the smaller Airbus to pitch violently and plummet, sending passengers, flight attendants and food carts flying. Three people on board were seriously hurt during the 18-second ordeal, while eight others suffered minor injuries.

    A TSB investigation was launched into the incident. The findings, released Tuesday, praised the actions of Air Canada crew members who came to the aid of passengers while suffering personal injuries of their own.

    But to avoid the risk of future incidents, the report suggests that new guidelines be developed to better equip pilots to respond appropriately to wake turbulence.

    The rare phenomenon happens most frequently during takeoffs and landings. In November 2001, wake turbulence was cited as a factor in the crash of American Airlines Flight 587, which plunged into a New York City suburb, killing 265 people.

    In the case of Flight 190, it's likely that more extensive training on how to manage wake turbulence would have better prepared the pilots to handle the frightening mid-air encounter.

    "The low expectancy of experiencing such an upset in cruise flight, combined with little or no warning . . . likely startled the pilots, who then responded with potentially hazardous flight control inputs," the report said.

    In fact, some actions taken to steady the rolling Toronto-bound Airbus were similar to those that contributed to damage to the vertical stabilizer attachment fittings on the ill-fated American Airlines jet in 2001, investigators noted.

    Since the incident, Air Canada said it has enhanced pilot training and made adjustments to its traffic collision avoidance system to reduce the possibility of such encounters.

    Canada's largest air carrier is also working with Transport Canada to better understand wake turbulence, a challenge because it is impossible to precisely replicate the violent pockets of shifting air in a training simulator.

    "Our review of the findings is with a view to further improve passenger and crew safety," said spokeswoman Angela Mah.

    But it's not only the job of air carriers to prevent further incidents, noted investigator John Pearson.

    "It's in the hands of the manufacturers, the regulators and the operators themselves. Everyone is working hard to try to prevent reoccurrences of this type of thing," he said.

    Pilots constantly undergo rigorous training to deal with inflight emergencies, but severe turbulence can happen unexpectedly and take even the most experienced crew members by surprise, said Mark Benson, an aviation instructor at Mount Royal University.

    "The reality is when things happen on an airplane, they are generally intense, very quick and pilots need to react immediately," he said.

    "Could we do more training across the whole system? That would be great. But it sounds to me like the Air Canada pilots did what they were ultimately trained to do: they got the airplane down safely. That's really all that matters."

    The Transportation Safety Board is also recommending a closer examination of the potential dangers associated with unsecured trolleys used to serve beverages and meals in the air.

    tgignac@theherald.canwest.com

    © Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist

    Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/busines...#ixzz0po2BGBjX

  2. #2
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    As usual, the media has no idea what they're talking about when it comes to aviation. Their misinformation and fiction starts in the headline and continues throughout the article. Not surprising. The news they made this into is complete nonsense.

    But anyway, there is nothing that could have been done to avoid that situation. Wake Turbulance in cruise flight is nearly unheard of, and it is AIR, you can't see it or detect it. This is why they space the takeoffs and landings the way they do, since wake turbulance is a phenomenon associated with low speed and high angle of attack (like takeoff).

    What TSB is refering to is better educating the crews on how to better recover from a wake turbulance induced upset. Thats all. Hardly worthy of this full page article leading people to believe there is some big training problem resulting planes falling out of the sky.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    In addition to that, Air Traffic Control would have directed them into that flight position, and if ATC says "go", unless there is a mitigating good reason as seen from the Kockpit, *there's that word again!* for the A/C captain to make a command decision based on what he sees at the time, which may be in contravention of what ATC recommends.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Actually they wouldn't have ATC telling them where to go at that point. They're on a filed flight plan, and likely on an existing high altitude jet route. They're on an existing clearance to fly that flight plan. In this phase of flight, ATC is only going to tell them what to do if a collision is imminent or their flight plan changes. That not withstanding, they're proceeding under their own navigation.

    As far as seatbelts go, it is a good idea to keep them loosely fastened during cruise flight. But anyone not belted, up walking around, in the lav, near drink carts, etc is going to get tossed like a rag doll flying into wake turbulance and there is nothing that can be done to prevent this kind of injury. Like I said, WT in cruise flight is nearly unheard of.
    Last edited by nmfire; 06-03-2010 at 03:09 PM.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    If they were close enough to encouter "wake-turbulence" then they were close enough for ATC to say "Hey! Whater y'all doing up there?"

    I believe they classify those events as "Close Calls".

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Nope. Not at all actually. In fact, it is impossible to encounter wake turbulance in-flight while at the same time being too close to another aircraft. Wake turbulance sinks rapidly behind the aircraft. The only way to encouter it is if you are significantly behind and significantly below the aircraft that produced it.

    Also, "close call" is not in the ATC dictionary. There is defined minimum separation of aircraft. If that separation is breached, it is an incident. If it isn't, it is perfectly normal flight. You might surprised how close aircraft can be to one another. There is also anti-collision equipment on the aircraft that make "close calls" nearly impossible. In addition to that, aircraft on an easterly heading fly at odd thousands of feet while aircraft flying on westerly headings fly at even thousands of feet, making head on "close calls" somewhat difficult.

    Long story short, nobody (passengers or crew) did anything wrong. There is no requirement to strap yourself to the seat the entire flight. And there was no loss of aircraft separation. They are simply doing additional training on the best practices to recover from a wake turbulance encounter. The news media, not knowing what they're talking about, has decided something went terribly wrong.
    Last edited by nmfire; 06-03-2010 at 04:24 PM.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber
    MalahatTwo7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Loco madidus effercio in rutilus effercio.
    Posts
    12,837

    Default

    NM, while I will defer to your comments on what and how wake turbulence is encounted (I was not aware of the "minimum" distances needed), I have to make comment on "close-call":

    [b]Friday, May 28, 2010

    Close Call in Anchorage

    The FAA and NTSB is investigating a near mid-air collision l between two jetliners at Alaska's Ted Stevens Anchorage International (ANC). A US Airways passenger jet that was taking off May 21 came within a third of a mile of a Cargolux Boeing 747-400 that was landing on another runway.

    The US Airways Airbus A319 (Flight 40) was coming from Phoenix with 138 passengers and a crew aboard. The freighter conducting Flight 658 was leaving for Chicago with a crew of two. The A319 was inbound to Runway 14 and the B747 was on runway 25R. The incident occurred in night visual meteorological conditions with 10 miles of visibility.

    According to the TCAS report from the A319 crew, that aircraft was approaching ANC when, because of the effects of tailwinds on the aircraft's approach path, the crew initiated a missed approach and requested new instructions from air traffic control.

    The tower controller instructed the A319 to turn right heading 300 and report the departing B747 in sight. After the A319 crew reported the B747 in sight, the controller instructed the A319 to maintain visual separation from the B747, climb to 3000 feet, and turn right heading 320.

    But “the A319 crew refused the right turn because the turn would have put their flight in direct conflict with the B747,” according to the Safety Board.

    The A319 crew then received a resolution advisory to "monitor vertical speed" and the crew complied with the descent command. During the descent, the A319 crew lost sight of the B747. At about 1700 feet above ground level, the A319 crew received a "clear of conflict" aural command.

    http://www.aviationtoday.com/asw/top...age_68604.html
    /b]

    Acknowledged that this is in reference to a near ground event, during landing/take off procedures but it comes from Air Safety Week. If they don't know the lingo, then no one does.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    There was no loss of separation. They were well over 1,000ft apart from one another. The TCAS system was not issuing alerts to either aircraft and no conflict was detected by ATC either. The FAA and NTSB are looking into it to make sure nobody screwed up. This is yet another story about absolutely nothing.

    Just because a news media publication entitles their story "close call" doesn't mean it actually was. The controllers, the crew, and their equipment did their jobs and as a result, there was no incident.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    FIREMECH1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    HUSKER LAND
    Posts
    2,425

    Default

    nmfire... Do you have a PPL or CPL???

    FM1
    I'm the one Fire and Rescue calls, when they need to be Rescued.

    Quote Originally Posted by EastKyFF
    "Firemens gets antsies. Theys wants to goes to fires. Sometimeses they haves to waits."

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FIREMECH1 View Post
    nmfire... Do you have a PPL or CPL???

    FM1
    All I have left is the checkride and written exam.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  11. #11
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    So of Can. / N. of Mexico
    Posts
    869

    Default

    Years ago my wife was on a flight over the Atlantic returning from England when the plane hit "clear air turbulence". The plane was suddenly in a down draft and dropped around 2,000 feet in something like 20 - 30 seconds. Anyone not belted in bounced off the ceiling and 5 people were injured with around 20 others with bumps and bruises. My wife was lucky she had her seat belt on. They had an open bar the rest of the flight.

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Thats another one of those nearly impossible to detect and avoid phenomenon. Your wife's flight was lucky to only drop 2000ft. Others have dropped like a brick a lot further than that! I'd definately be stumbling off that flight inebriated post-open bar too! I usually find turbulance to be fun, enjoyable, and exciting. But that would be a little excessive.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  13. #13
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Memphis Tn,USA-now
    Posts
    5,436

    Default

    Even though air traffic control told them to go at that time,the pilot in the c.o.c.k.pit is still the dummy that signed for the aircraft so he was the one driving too close to the other aircraft.
    It's kind of like if I were on a 10,500 hp towboat running 35 barges northbound at Memphis in fog and my company dispatcher was on my axe for being behind "schedule" and I rammed into another towboat also pushing 35 barges loaded with orphan nuns.
    Just because someone else was telling me how to do my job is no reason to be actually following their instructions.I would still be at fault for not having the judgement to keep clear and run at a safe speed to avoid other vessels.
    The pilots got the plane down safely and everyone got on with their lives.



    Quote Originally Posted by MalahatTwo7 View Post
    If they were close enough to encouter "wake-turbulence" then they were close enough for ATC to say "Hey! Whater y'all doing up there?"

    I believe they classify those events as "Close Calls".

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by doughesson View Post
    Even though air traffic control told them to go at that time,the pilot in the c.o.c.k.pit is still the dummy that signed for the aircraft so he was the one driving too close to the other aircraft.
    It's kind of like if I were on a 10,500 hp towboat running 35 barges northbound at Memphis in fog and my company dispatcher was on my axe for being behind "schedule" and I rammed into another towboat also pushing 35 barges loaded with orphan nuns.
    Just because someone else was telling me how to do my job is no reason to be actually following their instructions.I would still be at fault for not having the judgement to keep clear and run at a safe speed to avoid other vessels.
    The pilots got the plane down safely and everyone got on with their lives.
    Umm. No. That's not how it works. The sky works a little bit different than a river. I could go in great detail about why your incorrect if you'd like, or you can take my word for it just as I don't question vessel operations you talk about.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Calling the Mayday and Seat Belt Safety Campaign courses
    By oktruckie in forum Emergency Services Training
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-26-2007, 12:07 AM
  2. Seat Belts
    By nsfirechap in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-08-2001, 01:39 PM
  3. Pet seat belts
    By pokeyfd12 in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2000, 09:09 AM
  4. Seat belt use with a car seat
    By Marcy in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-13-1999, 09:58 PM
  5. Front Seat Removal
    By pvfd56L7 in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-13-1999, 03:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register