Air Canada 777
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: FL400
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Canada 777
Just heard a news cast on the radio of a B777 from Air Canada diverting to Honolulu after flying through thunder storm and turbulance.
Reports are some minor injuries to PAX and CREW
Anyone have anymore info??
Reports are some minor injuries to PAX and CREW
Anyone have anymore info??
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: FL400
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for the article glad that it wasnt any worse
I wonder if the turbulance was forcast and if so why would the crew fly through it rather then around??? perhaps it may have came on suddly.
I wonder if the turbulance was forcast and if so why would the crew fly through it rather then around??? perhaps it may have came on suddly.
jacek_flying;
Airlines do not "plan a route through an area of turbulance [sic] if it was forecast".
Flight planning, whether international or domestic is not nearly that simple, CAT is not nearly that easy to predict and pilot reports enroute may or may not indicate that a selected route is satisfactory. One simply does not board tons and tons of fuel for an extended route or "just in case", simply because turbulence is "reported" or indicated on the Sig Wx charts. The industry is exceedingly experienced at determining, most of the time, where to expect turbulence and does plan around such routes. But determining precisely where, when, at what altitude and how bad turbulence is going to be is simply not possible, and experience indicates that almost all the time, significant route diversions are not necessary. Also please bear in mind that one's own airplane is up there with hundreds and hundreds of others, on crowded routes across the Pacific and Atlantic. Finally, one does not "fly around turbulence" as though it were a pothole in the road. CAT can extend for hundreds of miles - I sat in 10hrs of moderate chop coming home from Tokyo one night and along with the dozens of flights which were in our area above, below to our side, in front and behind, there was nothing any of us or ATC could do.
what I mean is why would you plan a route through an area of turbulance if it was forecast???
Flight planning, whether international or domestic is not nearly that simple, CAT is not nearly that easy to predict and pilot reports enroute may or may not indicate that a selected route is satisfactory. One simply does not board tons and tons of fuel for an extended route or "just in case", simply because turbulence is "reported" or indicated on the Sig Wx charts. The industry is exceedingly experienced at determining, most of the time, where to expect turbulence and does plan around such routes. But determining precisely where, when, at what altitude and how bad turbulence is going to be is simply not possible, and experience indicates that almost all the time, significant route diversions are not necessary. Also please bear in mind that one's own airplane is up there with hundreds and hundreds of others, on crowded routes across the Pacific and Atlantic. Finally, one does not "fly around turbulence" as though it were a pothole in the road. CAT can extend for hundreds of miles - I sat in 10hrs of moderate chop coming home from Tokyo one night and along with the dozens of flights which were in our area above, below to our side, in front and behind, there was nothing any of us or ATC could do.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
J_F,
Airlines usually plan their flights on the 'minimum time track '. In certain areas of the world, such as the southeast section of Japan, this minimum time track is created by the convergence of two or three jet streams.
Eastbound flights to North America are routed into the track system just about where these jet streams meet and as PJ2 has mentioned there can be some bumpy rides associated with the minimum time track routes.
So, airlines don't look for bumpy air, but do look for minimum time tracks, which often mean bumpy air. :-))
I often took extra fuel on those eastbound flights and would occasionally drop down to the mid 20s to find smooth air if things were too bad up above. Another option if you were on the northern track in the system was to offset 25-50 miles north in an attempt to get on the northerly side of the tropopause. You of course lost some tailwind but the ride could improve significantly .
best regards,
Bruce Waddington
Airlines usually plan their flights on the 'minimum time track '. In certain areas of the world, such as the southeast section of Japan, this minimum time track is created by the convergence of two or three jet streams.
Eastbound flights to North America are routed into the track system just about where these jet streams meet and as PJ2 has mentioned there can be some bumpy rides associated with the minimum time track routes.
So, airlines don't look for bumpy air, but do look for minimum time tracks, which often mean bumpy air. :-))
I often took extra fuel on those eastbound flights and would occasionally drop down to the mid 20s to find smooth air if things were too bad up above. Another option if you were on the northern track in the system was to offset 25-50 miles north in an attempt to get on the northerly side of the tropopause. You of course lost some tailwind but the ride could improve significantly .
best regards,
Bruce Waddington
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Antigua, W.I.
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we missing the point? The seat belt sign was ON. Why were the SLF not strapped in? Probably for the same reason they don't listen to the passenger brief!
Crew injuries might be explainable, but the SLF injuries were avoidable, but probably deserved - am I being hard on them? Maybe, but too many people believe that they can always do as they want with no consequences. Remember the one on the wing in the Hudson with his life jacket on backwards?
Crew injuries might be explainable, but the SLF injuries were avoidable, but probably deserved - am I being hard on them? Maybe, but too many people believe that they can always do as they want with no consequences. Remember the one on the wing in the Hudson with his life jacket on backwards?
Bruce;
Nice additional comments. Those were the days - dark nights, brilliant clear sky, millions of stars, the Great Magellanic Cloud when pointing south, Sydney flat whites, Bondai...
Gooneyone;
You've run up against the pampered generation (of all ages). The airlines will not talk about safety because it may "frighten the customers/guests/clients" unnecessarily, so passengers take a lot for granted.
However, not only in the airline world have we become accustomed to having our every comfort met, "like right now and if anything hurts and even if it's my fault, you can expect to be sued".
This is an expectant, situationally-unaware generation of travellers who are bathed every moment in technology where their virtual world of pixels and soundbites creates the illusion that reality doesn't bite or kill.
Put your newspaper, blackberry, magazine, iPod down and listen to and watch the cabin crew. Set an example for others.
How many in the Hudson aircraft knew that within four minutes of liftoff, they were going to be relying upon one another for a safe evacuation.
Far too many passengers take their safety for granted, when it is their responsibility to do as much as possible to ensure their own safety, just as we do in the aircraft and the industry.
Not wearing shoes for takeoff and landing means a very nasty evacuation, possibly over sharp metal and/or burning debris.
Not wearing/having ready, warm clothing when coming from a tropical holiday into the dead of winter is simply stupid and thoughtless of one's personal safety.
Wearing the seatbelt at all times is absolutely necessary.
Drinking too much affects one's own safety and the safety of those around one - and it takes about half the alcohol at cabin altitude to get one drunk due to quicker absorption in the bloodstream due to the partial pressure of the cabin.
Making sure children behave and not permitting them to run up and down the aisles seems to have left the repertoire of many parents' childraising skills and values.
Very little in an airplane goes wrong as a result of the airline or the staff. We/they know exactly what to do. Most incidents can be mitigated by a passenger taking the necessary responsibility themselves for their, their loved ones' and others' cabin safety.
PJ2
Nice additional comments. Those were the days - dark nights, brilliant clear sky, millions of stars, the Great Magellanic Cloud when pointing south, Sydney flat whites, Bondai...
Gooneyone;
You've run up against the pampered generation (of all ages). The airlines will not talk about safety because it may "frighten the customers/guests/clients" unnecessarily, so passengers take a lot for granted.
However, not only in the airline world have we become accustomed to having our every comfort met, "like right now and if anything hurts and even if it's my fault, you can expect to be sued".
This is an expectant, situationally-unaware generation of travellers who are bathed every moment in technology where their virtual world of pixels and soundbites creates the illusion that reality doesn't bite or kill.
Put your newspaper, blackberry, magazine, iPod down and listen to and watch the cabin crew. Set an example for others.
How many in the Hudson aircraft knew that within four minutes of liftoff, they were going to be relying upon one another for a safe evacuation.
Far too many passengers take their safety for granted, when it is their responsibility to do as much as possible to ensure their own safety, just as we do in the aircraft and the industry.
Not wearing shoes for takeoff and landing means a very nasty evacuation, possibly over sharp metal and/or burning debris.
Not wearing/having ready, warm clothing when coming from a tropical holiday into the dead of winter is simply stupid and thoughtless of one's personal safety.
Wearing the seatbelt at all times is absolutely necessary.
Drinking too much affects one's own safety and the safety of those around one - and it takes about half the alcohol at cabin altitude to get one drunk due to quicker absorption in the bloodstream due to the partial pressure of the cabin.
Making sure children behave and not permitting them to run up and down the aisles seems to have left the repertoire of many parents' childraising skills and values.
Very little in an airplane goes wrong as a result of the airline or the staff. We/they know exactly what to do. Most incidents can be mitigated by a passenger taking the necessary responsibility themselves for their, their loved ones' and others' cabin safety.
PJ2
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Ethereal Land of Vintage Aviation
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2, very good comment. I'm not too "sophisticated" to ignore the F/A's safety monologue - unlike many of my fellow passengers.
I did the SYD/HNL/YVR flight on the Air Canada A340 shortly before the non-stop B-777 was put on the route. Even with the stop in HNL, some of the "SLF" were popping up and down in their seats like a Jack-in-the box. It seems that the longer the trip, the more complacent and disassociative the passengers become.
I did the SYD/HNL/YVR flight on the Air Canada A340 shortly before the non-stop B-777 was put on the route. Even with the stop in HNL, some of the "SLF" were popping up and down in their seats like a Jack-in-the box. It seems that the longer the trip, the more complacent and disassociative the passengers become.
Last edited by V2-OMG!; 25th Apr 2009 at 01:01. Reason: spelllling
Even as an SLF, I'm appalled at the number of passengers who completely ingnore the fasten seatbelt signs. On the other hand, I've been on a number of flights where it's seemed for all the world like the pilot turned on the signs and then just plumb forgot them. If that's really what happened on those flights, I think there's room for improvement on both sides.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chu Chu, as SLF myself I'm inclined to think that on the occasion where the flight deck has "forgotten" to turn off the seat belt sign the cabin crew would have queried. As has been said turbulence is not given to easy detection and it may be the crew had an expectation of an encounter which proved to be unmet. Err on the side of safety, there will be a feeding frenzy of lawyers otherwise.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Queensland, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a fairly frequent SLF I know there are a number of airlines whose safety announcements include a suggestion to "keep your seatbelt loosely fastened whenever you're in your seat" and this always sounds like good advice to me. It surprises me how few people do this even if they'd never dream of doing a car trip without a seatbelt.
As for not even buckling up when the seatbelt light is on, I just hope none of these selfish prats land on top of me after they bounce off the roof.
Bob
As for not even buckling up when the seatbelt light is on, I just hope none of these selfish prats land on top of me after they bounce off the roof.
Bob
Here we go again!
Right, to begin with, I wear my seatbelt at all times except when I need to go to the lavatory. I believe most people do. However, in my book that means that by the laws of averages when any unexpected turbulence is encountered there may be pax walking to or returning from the lavatory. If the FD switches on the seatbelt sign I will respect it, but within reason. By that I mean that depending on how long they choose to leave it on, there will come a time when nature will take precedence. (Btw, my experience is that U.S. airline crews often tend to leave the seatbelts sign on for long and unecessary durations - thus reducing the effectiveness of it). And, right or wrong, many pax have a genuine need to go for walkies to relieve the agony of being squeezed in like sardines when flying Y class. Bottom line: inevitably, on longhaul flights there will always be a risk of injuries when unexpected turbulence hits.
Right, to begin with, I wear my seatbelt at all times except when I need to go to the lavatory. I believe most people do. However, in my book that means that by the laws of averages when any unexpected turbulence is encountered there may be pax walking to or returning from the lavatory. If the FD switches on the seatbelt sign I will respect it, but within reason. By that I mean that depending on how long they choose to leave it on, there will come a time when nature will take precedence. (Btw, my experience is that U.S. airline crews often tend to leave the seatbelts sign on for long and unecessary durations - thus reducing the effectiveness of it). And, right or wrong, many pax have a genuine need to go for walkies to relieve the agony of being squeezed in like sardines when flying Y class. Bottom line: inevitably, on longhaul flights there will always be a risk of injuries when unexpected turbulence hits.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LHR
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay, so we've had a go at the pax who have not had their seatbelts on when they should do however why have we not queried what the hell the aeroplane was doing that close to a thunderstorm in the first place???
CAT=undetecable and often unaviodable.
Thunderstorm Turbulence=Very bloody obvious and easily avoidable, or at least avoiding the worst of it.
This whole incident was totally avoidable.
CAT=undetecable and often unaviodable.
Thunderstorm Turbulence=Very bloody obvious and easily avoidable, or at least avoiding the worst of it.
This whole incident was totally avoidable.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LHR
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know, how silly of me!! It's one of my "things" as a pilot. I can never understand these guys who want to fly as close to a storm as they dare, it only ever ends in tears. Particularly in the cruise. Pointless.Obviously we know very little about the ins and outs about this incident so I'm not going to speculate, but if it is a case of just going to close to a CB then they have no-one else to blame but themselves.
Sorry to go on but it really really winds me up!!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Raincoast
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B-Wad: Praise the Lord, what you say is true... (I hope you're enjoyin' yer retirement)
PJ2: Well said!
Cloud Bunny: From where have y'all learned that there was a thunderstorm, except from another poster on this here rumour site? Could be yer a might hasty in yer assesment.
PJ2: Well said!
Cloud Bunny: From where have y'all learned that there was a thunderstorm, except from another poster on this here rumour site? Could be yer a might hasty in yer assesment.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: the balmy beautiful south
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but if it is a case of just going to close to a CB then they have no-one else to blame but themselves.
In tropical regions CBs and their associated turbulence are not always easy to detect and avoid. Until you actually spend some dark and dirty nights boucing around over the Pacific or the Amazon you don't really have an idea of what these guys may have been dealing with.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From where have y'all learned that there was a thunderstorm, except from another poster on this here rumour site?
Air Canada spokesman Peter Fitzpatrick said Flight 34, with 256 passengers and 17 crew, was just over an hour east of Honolulu when it encountered turbulence related to thunderstorms in the area.
DHC6tropics;
Precisely; well stated.
My comments aren't about passenger-bashing; this is about being aware of the kind of travel you're undertaking. This is about complacency about the environment transport aircraft operate in which is, despite the relative comfort, (I certainly hear the poster who brings up the "sardine" point!, and sympathize greatly - even though I flew them for 35 years, I'm still an SLF once in a while), a hostile and, despite current technologies, not a wholly predictable one.
I see that some would shift the blame for passengers not wearing their seatbelts to the pilots, and that getting up and wandering around is justified because "the pilot forgot to turn the sign off". In my view that is an immature approach and an inappropriate solution to the problem. First, no passenger knows what's up ahead; there have been many times when there's been ten minutes of smooth air but the reports from others ahead indicate more bumps; second, check with the CCs and let them know you gotta go.
What I will accept from passengers by way of criticism, because it's valid, is the complaint about the FD not telling passengers what's going on. Crews have to keep people informed, even if such announcements are a nuisance to some. Even if it's an announcement every 15 minutes or so, explaining why the sign is on, its a requirement to keep people informed. Sometimes we'd get calls from the CCs asking, and reminding us - no problem - it gives us the opportunity to either turn the sign off or explain why it's still on and to make a PA.
Radar, ADS/CPDLC, pilot and ATC reports are all technologies/techniques we use to avoid turbulence. But passengers need to realize that despite these technologies and our best efforts, not all turbulence is predictable. That is the only point to my original post but I see that point has been missed or misinterpreted by some. It is situational awareness that I am emphasizing, not blind obedience to authority. We have ample evidence in injuries and even deaths to demonstrate the point I'm making.
Technology helps but it isn't perfect. Probably most passengers don't know, for example, that radar only paints moisture - rain; it doesn't paint thunderstorms or ice crystals in the higher altitudes - it only paints the liquid water associated with thunderstorm activity. Through training and experience, we learn what the radar signal means and can interpret the returns pretty well, but it isnt' perfect and sometimes there is no avoiding a solid line of 'em, a phenomenon which is more usually found on the continent, (NA, Europe, etc) than over the Pacific where they're generally more isolated.
Cloud bunny, you say you're a pilot?
If you're a real pilot, whether commercial or private, you'd understand all this and know that airline pilots, any pilots, do not fly as close to thunderstorms "as we dare". Do you think we just make all this up as we go and just guess or that there's a John Wayne in every pilot just waiting to let loose? Airlines have ops manuals which provide clear guidance on TCU avoidance, usually 20 miles from the red returns and more if there are hooks, curls or steep gradients in the returns. Bear in mind what I said about radar as well, although as a pilot you should know this already as part of your kit. From such knowledge, as a pilot you're pretty quick in assigning blame to crews and setting your hair on fire over an incident the cause of which no one has yet any knowledge.
Even with two experienced pilots actively scanning and tilting for CBs we still managed to get into very turbulent tops with lot's of St. Elmo's fire on a regular basis...not ever severe turbulence but definately more than you would expect from an area that was either not painting or only very lightly painting on the radar.
In tropical regions CBs and their associated turbulence are not always easy to detect and avoid. Until you actually spend some dark and dirty nights boucing around over the Pacific or the Amazon you don't really have an idea of what these guys may have been dealing with.
In tropical regions CBs and their associated turbulence are not always easy to detect and avoid. Until you actually spend some dark and dirty nights boucing around over the Pacific or the Amazon you don't really have an idea of what these guys may have been dealing with.
My comments aren't about passenger-bashing; this is about being aware of the kind of travel you're undertaking. This is about complacency about the environment transport aircraft operate in which is, despite the relative comfort, (I certainly hear the poster who brings up the "sardine" point!, and sympathize greatly - even though I flew them for 35 years, I'm still an SLF once in a while), a hostile and, despite current technologies, not a wholly predictable one.
I see that some would shift the blame for passengers not wearing their seatbelts to the pilots, and that getting up and wandering around is justified because "the pilot forgot to turn the sign off". In my view that is an immature approach and an inappropriate solution to the problem. First, no passenger knows what's up ahead; there have been many times when there's been ten minutes of smooth air but the reports from others ahead indicate more bumps; second, check with the CCs and let them know you gotta go.
What I will accept from passengers by way of criticism, because it's valid, is the complaint about the FD not telling passengers what's going on. Crews have to keep people informed, even if such announcements are a nuisance to some. Even if it's an announcement every 15 minutes or so, explaining why the sign is on, its a requirement to keep people informed. Sometimes we'd get calls from the CCs asking, and reminding us - no problem - it gives us the opportunity to either turn the sign off or explain why it's still on and to make a PA.
Radar, ADS/CPDLC, pilot and ATC reports are all technologies/techniques we use to avoid turbulence. But passengers need to realize that despite these technologies and our best efforts, not all turbulence is predictable. That is the only point to my original post but I see that point has been missed or misinterpreted by some. It is situational awareness that I am emphasizing, not blind obedience to authority. We have ample evidence in injuries and even deaths to demonstrate the point I'm making.
Technology helps but it isn't perfect. Probably most passengers don't know, for example, that radar only paints moisture - rain; it doesn't paint thunderstorms or ice crystals in the higher altitudes - it only paints the liquid water associated with thunderstorm activity. Through training and experience, we learn what the radar signal means and can interpret the returns pretty well, but it isnt' perfect and sometimes there is no avoiding a solid line of 'em, a phenomenon which is more usually found on the continent, (NA, Europe, etc) than over the Pacific where they're generally more isolated.
Cloud bunny, you say you're a pilot?
If you're a real pilot, whether commercial or private, you'd understand all this and know that airline pilots, any pilots, do not fly as close to thunderstorms "as we dare". Do you think we just make all this up as we go and just guess or that there's a John Wayne in every pilot just waiting to let loose? Airlines have ops manuals which provide clear guidance on TCU avoidance, usually 20 miles from the red returns and more if there are hooks, curls or steep gradients in the returns. Bear in mind what I said about radar as well, although as a pilot you should know this already as part of your kit. From such knowledge, as a pilot you're pretty quick in assigning blame to crews and setting your hair on fire over an incident the cause of which no one has yet any knowledge.
Last edited by PJ2; 25th Apr 2009 at 16:44.