The newspaper that reported the recent Air Canada near disaster, the San Jose Mercury, is now reporting that the FAA did not even conduct alcohol/drug tests on the Air Canada pilots. This even though they lined up on a taxiway with four loaded aircraft awaiting takeoff and managed to descend to below 60 feet before arresting their approach. Apparently they simply departed on their next run the following day. The FAA also did not report the matter to the NTSB for at least 24 hours which seems very odd to me. Why would the FAA be so lenient in this case? It sure looks like they want the close call of what could have been the largest air diaster in history to just go away. Might it have been inconvenient during a time of considering privatization I wonder?
FAA - Curiouser and curiouser
- Thread starter DeepFriar
- Start date
- Status
Good point. I just find it odd that the FAA would wait out the convenient metabolic time of 24 hours before telling anyone with at least some moral/professional authority who could say, "Have they been tested yet?". I am not gleeful over this, I am no fan of "pilot error". But this is strange.
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Newspaper-Questions-FAAs-Air-Canada-Response-229515-1.html
https://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Newspaper-Questions-FAAs-Air-Canada-Response-229515-1.html
Listened to the recording. It happens. Night, strange airport, fatigue, nothing loaded into the navigation equipment (legal in many cases) and making a visual approach...for instance Delta landed on a taxiway in Atlanta several years ago.
This wasn't reported to the NTSB, and the pilots weren't tested, because there WAS no accident. Go arounds happen all the time and we practice them in the simulator every 6-9 months.
I'm sure that both pilots will have to speak to their superiors and tell the tale, and if things are done right there will be some safety enhancements from this occurrence.
This wasn't reported to the NTSB, and the pilots weren't tested, because there WAS no accident. Go arounds happen all the time and we practice them in the simulator every 6-9 months.
I'm sure that both pilots will have to speak to their superiors and tell the tale, and if things are done right there will be some safety enhancements from this occurrence.
Fate was kind this time. I hope they continue the rapid rollout of the various
RAAS (Runway Awareness and Advisory System) systems. STC's already exist for most platforms and it's largely just a software enhancement of the ground prox system.
RAAS (Runway Awareness and Advisory System) systems. STC's already exist for most platforms and it's largely just a software enhancement of the ground prox system.
Originally Posted By: Kuato
This wasn't reported to the NTSB, and the pilots weren't tested, because there WAS no accident. Go arounds happen all the time and we practice them in the simulator every 6-9 months.
I'm sure that both pilots will have to speak to their superiors and tell the tale, and if things are done right there will be some safety enhancements from this occurrence.
The more I reread your post the more blase it sounds. Nothing to see here, move along? Happens all the time? Someone will speak to the pilots? Remember to practice going below 60 feet next time you're in the sim and have the check/sim chief line up four planes full of people so you can get some idea of the reality. Some professional outrage is called for here and not just that faux outrage in the press. I understand it just like you do but this ain't no yawn brother!
This wasn't reported to the NTSB, and the pilots weren't tested, because there WAS no accident. Go arounds happen all the time and we practice them in the simulator every 6-9 months.
I'm sure that both pilots will have to speak to their superiors and tell the tale, and if things are done right there will be some safety enhancements from this occurrence.
The more I reread your post the more blase it sounds. Nothing to see here, move along? Happens all the time? Someone will speak to the pilots? Remember to practice going below 60 feet next time you're in the sim and have the check/sim chief line up four planes full of people so you can get some idea of the reality. Some professional outrage is called for here and not just that faux outrage in the press. I understand it just like you do but this ain't no yawn brother!
I would imagine that the pilots were invited to give the tower a call after this event.
These FAA employees would have used their judgment in deciding what if any action should be taken.
These guys were maybe fatigued and were maybe not sufficiently situationally aware, but there was nothing to indicate that they were impaired with either alcohol or drugs, prescribed or otherwise.
Not sure why the enthusiastic amateurs at NTSB should have been involved.
These FAA employees would have used their judgment in deciding what if any action should be taken.
These guys were maybe fatigued and were maybe not sufficiently situationally aware, but there was nothing to indicate that they were impaired with either alcohol or drugs, prescribed or otherwise.
Not sure why the enthusiastic amateurs at NTSB should have been involved.
60 feet. Four aircraft, with taxi lights, in full view. Perhaps 800 lives hanging in the balance. The NTSB may well be "enthusiastic amateurs" but there were something less than true professionals in the cockpit that night. And pardon me for saying so, but you guys trying to make relative light of it does not strike confidence in my heart - passenger that I sometimes am. No offense. It wasn't that long ago that Astro wrote that there was no excuse for linig up/landing on a taxiway. As I said earlier, I can understand how it might happen, humans being humans and all. But there is no excuse good enough. Just like in the military where lives hang in the balance people still make mistakes. Ask the former command staff of the USS Fitzgerald what should be done when professionalism gets marginized and excuses are made. Even after being fired for the collision there is no doubt in my mind that they would agree that there can be no excuse for it. Frankly, as much as I like and respect you guys, and I do, and share your interest and love for aviation, you concern me if you're willing to slough this off as an "Oh well". And that's what I'm hearing.
Well, I'd like to hear what Astro has to say, but I bet they'd have tested them if they'd been American pilots.
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Originally Posted By: Kuato
This wasn't reported to the NTSB, and the pilots weren't tested, because there WAS no accident. Go arounds happen all the time and we practice them in the simulator every 6-9 months.
I'm sure that both pilots will have to speak to their superiors and tell the tale, and if things are done right there will be some safety enhancements from this occurrence.
The more I reread your post the more blase it sounds. Nothing to see here, move along? Happens all the time? Someone will speak to the pilots? Remember to practice going below 60 feet next time you're in the sim and have the check/sim chief line up four planes full of people so you can get some idea of the reality. Some professional outrage is called for here and not just that faux outrage in the press. I understand it just like you do but this ain't no yawn brother!
60' is pretty low. The real hero in this is the guy who broke in on the radio and said, "He's lined up on the taxiway..."
I was once on an active taxiway waiting for FedEx to land before departing, with the clouds at 200'. They broke out of the clouds right in front of us, lined up on the taxiway, went around and right back into the soup. I'm sure they were below 100', maybe even below 60 I don't know. What I DO know is that they executed a go around and there was nothing in the news, no FAA action, no accident and nothing happened. Like I said, go arounds happen all the time.
If we want to be technical here, a go around can be as low as 50'. Below that is considered a "balked landing" with some different criteria.
Originally Posted By: Kuato
This wasn't reported to the NTSB, and the pilots weren't tested, because there WAS no accident. Go arounds happen all the time and we practice them in the simulator every 6-9 months.
I'm sure that both pilots will have to speak to their superiors and tell the tale, and if things are done right there will be some safety enhancements from this occurrence.
The more I reread your post the more blase it sounds. Nothing to see here, move along? Happens all the time? Someone will speak to the pilots? Remember to practice going below 60 feet next time you're in the sim and have the check/sim chief line up four planes full of people so you can get some idea of the reality. Some professional outrage is called for here and not just that faux outrage in the press. I understand it just like you do but this ain't no yawn brother!
60' is pretty low. The real hero in this is the guy who broke in on the radio and said, "He's lined up on the taxiway..."
I was once on an active taxiway waiting for FedEx to land before departing, with the clouds at 200'. They broke out of the clouds right in front of us, lined up on the taxiway, went around and right back into the soup. I'm sure they were below 100', maybe even below 60 I don't know. What I DO know is that they executed a go around and there was nothing in the news, no FAA action, no accident and nothing happened. Like I said, go arounds happen all the time.
If we want to be technical here, a go around can be as low as 50'. Below that is considered a "balked landing" with some different criteria.
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
The newspaper that reported the recent Air Canada near disaster, the San Jose Mercury, is now reporting that the FAA did not even conduct alcohol/drug tests on the Air Canada pilots. This even though they lined up on a taxiway with four loaded aircraft awaiting takeoff and managed to descend to below 60 feet before arresting their approach. Apparently they simply departed on their next run the following day. The FAA also did not report the matter to the NTSB for at least 24 hours which seems very odd to me. Why would the FAA be so lenient in this case? It sure looks like they want the close call of what could have been the largest air diaster in history to just go away. Might it have been inconvenient during a time of considering privatization I wonder?
It wasn't an accident.
So, you don't apply accident protocol.
They weren't lenient. It was reported via proper channels. It's being investigated.
Your thread posting is a faulty conclusion based on faulty assumptions, exacerbated by a specious, inaccurate understanding of how aviation safety works, with just a touch of insinuation on a conspiracy...
I've already said most of what I can in this thread: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr...ati#Post4459290
The newspaper that reported the recent Air Canada near disaster, the San Jose Mercury, is now reporting that the FAA did not even conduct alcohol/drug tests on the Air Canada pilots. This even though they lined up on a taxiway with four loaded aircraft awaiting takeoff and managed to descend to below 60 feet before arresting their approach. Apparently they simply departed on their next run the following day. The FAA also did not report the matter to the NTSB for at least 24 hours which seems very odd to me. Why would the FAA be so lenient in this case? It sure looks like they want the close call of what could have been the largest air diaster in history to just go away. Might it have been inconvenient during a time of considering privatization I wonder?
It wasn't an accident.
So, you don't apply accident protocol.
They weren't lenient. It was reported via proper channels. It's being investigated.
Your thread posting is a faulty conclusion based on faulty assumptions, exacerbated by a specious, inaccurate understanding of how aviation safety works, with just a touch of insinuation on a conspiracy...
I've already said most of what I can in this thread: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr...ati#Post4459290
Last edited:
That this was a serious error I don't question.
That the consequences could have been horrible is also beyond question.
The only question here is why this happened.
AC is not noted for having incompetent crew, so there must be a little more to this than simple
crew inattention.
I agree that while the crew is wholly responsible for the safe conduct of any flight, we need to
identify the factors that caused this crew to make an error or a series of them that could have and
very nearly did result in many deaths.
That the consequences could have been horrible is also beyond question.
The only question here is why this happened.
AC is not noted for having incompetent crew, so there must be a little more to this than simple
crew inattention.
I agree that while the crew is wholly responsible for the safe conduct of any flight, we need to
identify the factors that caused this crew to make an error or a series of them that could have and
very nearly did result in many deaths.
Specious? I don't think so. Approaching aircraft in clear weather lines up on lit-up, loaded taxiway and overflies two of those aircraft while descending below 60 feet which is about the same level as the top of the tail of the third one before being told by someone else (UA pilot?) to go around. Specious? I understand exactly how these are investigated and this process is going forward. This still smells. No accident, no report to NTSB, I get it. So why report it at all to the NTSB 24+ hours later. How many times has the relevant CVR been overwritten? I don't know how long the FDR exists so I can't question that. But clear night, can't follow path VASI/PAPI, obviously not following an ILS or WAAS approach.
If nothing else AC Ops should have ordered BAC/drug tests on the spot. So Astro, I will hold fire until we see if my specious, inaccurate understanding of aviation safety procedures is justified. Until then don't pee down my leg and tell me it's raining. This smells and you can get your panties in a wad about what mere aviators may or may not understand relative to gods like yourself if you like but it will still smell.
As I have said earlier, if you read it, I am no fan of "pilot error" but I don't need your kneejerk attack on what I feel is a valid concern. The only thing I haven't heard here yet is that ALPA will be making a statement. Specious my butt.
If nothing else AC Ops should have ordered BAC/drug tests on the spot. So Astro, I will hold fire until we see if my specious, inaccurate understanding of aviation safety procedures is justified. Until then don't pee down my leg and tell me it's raining. This smells and you can get your panties in a wad about what mere aviators may or may not understand relative to gods like yourself if you like but it will still smell.
As I have said earlier, if you read it, I am no fan of "pilot error" but I don't need your kneejerk attack on what I feel is a valid concern. The only thing I haven't heard here yet is that ALPA will be making a statement. Specious my butt.
Okay, so what happened?
These guys were neither incompetents nor newbs.
What led these pilots into this horrible error?
There is a reason and we need to find it.
This type of incident is by definition the fault of the crew, but what matters is what
caused this crew to make this error.
Only this will enable us to prevent the same error from occurring in the future.
There are ignorant folks who refer to the FAA as the "tombstone agency" but only because they
don't understand that accidents are typically one-offs and cannot usually be proactively prevented,
without regard to what the amateurs at NTSB tell the FAA that it should do.
...and yes, NTSB truly is a collection of amateurs, rarely finding any reasonably plausible probable cause.
These guys were neither incompetents nor newbs.
What led these pilots into this horrible error?
There is a reason and we need to find it.
This type of incident is by definition the fault of the crew, but what matters is what
caused this crew to make this error.
Only this will enable us to prevent the same error from occurring in the future.
There are ignorant folks who refer to the FAA as the "tombstone agency" but only because they
don't understand that accidents are typically one-offs and cannot usually be proactively prevented,
without regard to what the amateurs at NTSB tell the FAA that it should do.
...and yes, NTSB truly is a collection of amateurs, rarely finding any reasonably plausible probable cause.
Agreed. The first place I would look is crew rest. When you're tired, you're tired. I'd also like to know if the sterile cockpit was maintained or "observed" with a wink and a nod. Then what the final clearance procedures were to the crew. We could go on. The reason the FAA concerns me in this case is not due to conspiracy theories but the tombstone agency atmosphere does contribute to my concern. The FAA is in a real existential crisis. The airlines via the NAA (National Aeronautic Association and others) are actively seeking the privatization of the national airspace system. It is therefore an inopportune time for the FAA to be seen hammering an airline. That's not a conspiracy, that's the way the world often works. That's why my suspicion antennae are up.
I have come out of the ground at L'enfant Plaza Metro station going to the FAA literally hundreds of times over the years. There are many good people there and some not so good. And in any such organization there is the tendency to form a defensive circle in the best of times when bad news comes their way. This is maybe the worst of times instead so when this very real near disaster happens, it is natural for them cover their six. That was what I wondered about (note - did not make an assumption or reach a conclusion) in the earlier post. I still wonder.
I have come out of the ground at L'enfant Plaza Metro station going to the FAA literally hundreds of times over the years. There are many good people there and some not so good. And in any such organization there is the tendency to form a defensive circle in the best of times when bad news comes their way. This is maybe the worst of times instead so when this very real near disaster happens, it is natural for them cover their six. That was what I wondered about (note - did not make an assumption or reach a conclusion) in the earlier post. I still wonder.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
The newspaper that reported the recent Air Canada near disaster, the San Jose Mercury, is now reporting that the FAA did not even conduct alcohol/drug tests on the Air Canada pilots. This even though they lined up on a taxiway with four loaded aircraft awaiting takeoff and managed to descend to below 60 feet before arresting their approach. Apparently they simply departed on their next run the following day. The FAA also did not report the matter to the NTSB for at least 24 hours which seems very odd to me. Why would the FAA be so lenient in this case? It sure looks like they want the close call of what could have been the largest air diaster in history to just go away. Might it have been inconvenient during a time of considering privatization I wonder?
It wasn't an accident.
So, you don't apply accident protocol.
They weren't lenient. It was reported via proper channels. It's being investigated.
Your thread posting is a faulty conclusion based on faulty assumptions, exacerbated by a specious, inaccurate understanding of how aviation safety works, with just a touch of insinuation on a conspiracy...
I've already said most of what I can in this thread: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr...ati#Post4459290
I'm a trained FAA/DOD aircraft accident investigator. This is correct.
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
The newspaper that reported the recent Air Canada near disaster, the San Jose Mercury, is now reporting that the FAA did not even conduct alcohol/drug tests on the Air Canada pilots. This even though they lined up on a taxiway with four loaded aircraft awaiting takeoff and managed to descend to below 60 feet before arresting their approach. Apparently they simply departed on their next run the following day. The FAA also did not report the matter to the NTSB for at least 24 hours which seems very odd to me. Why would the FAA be so lenient in this case? It sure looks like they want the close call of what could have been the largest air diaster in history to just go away. Might it have been inconvenient during a time of considering privatization I wonder?
It wasn't an accident.
So, you don't apply accident protocol.
They weren't lenient. It was reported via proper channels. It's being investigated.
Your thread posting is a faulty conclusion based on faulty assumptions, exacerbated by a specious, inaccurate understanding of how aviation safety works, with just a touch of insinuation on a conspiracy...
I've already said most of what I can in this thread: https://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthr...ati#Post4459290
I'm a trained FAA/DOD aircraft accident investigator. This is correct.
Last edited:
Correction to the above - the Red Mist must've gotten me....
It is the former Airline Transport Association, which recently rebranded itself "Airlines for America". Spiffy name change as they try to push a privatization of a US national asset they would control.
The NAA and the Aero Club of America are firmly against the airspace privatization.
I apologize for the error.
It is the former Airline Transport Association, which recently rebranded itself "Airlines for America". Spiffy name change as they try to push a privatization of a US national asset they would control.
The NAA and the Aero Club of America are firmly against the airspace privatization.
I apologize for the error.
Originally Posted By: DeepFriar
Correction to the above - the Red Mist must've gotten me....
It is the former Airline Transport Association, which recently rebranded itself "Airlines for America". Spiffy name change as they try to push a privatization of a US national asset they would control.
The NAA and the Aero Club of America are firmly against the airspace privatization.
I apologize for the error.
Understand that in this case the FAA allowed the crew to exit the country before a full set of questions could be asked. Or tests taken. It is therefore at least possible that the FAA has done a favor to Air Canada and, by extension the airline industry. Message - "See, we the FAA will watch your back. Please don't kill us." I know that will make some see red however I doubt they've spent a lot of time watching desperate bureaucrats at work. Over and out, I'm done. We'll see.
Correction to the above - the Red Mist must've gotten me....
It is the former Airline Transport Association, which recently rebranded itself "Airlines for America". Spiffy name change as they try to push a privatization of a US national asset they would control.
The NAA and the Aero Club of America are firmly against the airspace privatization.
I apologize for the error.
Understand that in this case the FAA allowed the crew to exit the country before a full set of questions could be asked. Or tests taken. It is therefore at least possible that the FAA has done a favor to Air Canada and, by extension the airline industry. Message - "See, we the FAA will watch your back. Please don't kill us." I know that will make some see red however I doubt they've spent a lot of time watching desperate bureaucrats at work. Over and out, I'm done. We'll see.
Completely agree that pilot error played a big role in this...but it's not the only factor.
Please read what I said in the other thread. Pilots, as a culture, will address the set of errors that led to this. I'm not convinced that ATC will conduct any self examination.
For the rest, of the concerns raised here:
Airlines aren't pushing for privatization - they want modernization.
We're using 1950s technology and the system is grossly inefficient. The Government levies over $20billion/year in taxes on airlines and is decades behind other countries in technology. Privatization in Canada (NAV CANADA) has led to new technology, no increase in efficiencies, but a 30% increase in charges to use the airspace.
So, I'm not a fan of privatization, but the system is broken, and unable to contend with today's traffic. We all want change, we all want improvement.
I wouldn't read anything into the FAA decision and/or action on this. It's unrelated.
Please read what I said in the other thread. Pilots, as a culture, will address the set of errors that led to this. I'm not convinced that ATC will conduct any self examination.
For the rest, of the concerns raised here:
Airlines aren't pushing for privatization - they want modernization.
We're using 1950s technology and the system is grossly inefficient. The Government levies over $20billion/year in taxes on airlines and is decades behind other countries in technology. Privatization in Canada (NAV CANADA) has led to new technology, no increase in efficiencies, but a 30% increase in charges to use the airspace.
So, I'm not a fan of privatization, but the system is broken, and unable to contend with today's traffic. We all want change, we all want improvement.
I wouldn't read anything into the FAA decision and/or action on this. It's unrelated.
Last edited:
- Status