Slashdot Mirror


Snoozing Pilot Mistakes Venus For Aircraft; Panic, Injuries Ensue

Cazekiel writes "In January 2011, an Air Canada Boeing 767 carrying 95 passengers and eight crew members was on route to Zurich from Toronto when its First Officer, fatigued and disoriented from a long nap he'd taken, panicked in seeing what he believed to be a U.S. cargo plane on a collision course with his aircraft. The panicking F.O. pushed forward on the control column to make a rapid descent. Only, it wasn't an aircraft he'd been looking at, but Venus. According to the article: 'The airliner dropped about 400 feet before the captain pulled back on the control column. Fourteen passengers and two crew were hurt, and seven needed hospital treatment. None were wearing seat belts, even though the seat-belt sign was on.' The only danger in this situation had been the F.O. napping for 75 minutes instead of the maximum 40, as the disorientation and confusion stemming from deeper sleep was the culprit in this mix-up. However, the Air Canada Pilots Association, 'has long pressured authorities to take the stresses of night flying into account when setting the maximum hours a pilot can work,' taking into account that North Atlantic night-flights are hardest on an already-fatigued pilot."

81 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. Air Canada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Were many beavers injured?

    1. Re:Air Canada? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      just your mom's

    2. Re:Air Canada? by Antidamage · · Score: 2

      Beavers aside, I don't actually see what the problem is. What if the situation were reversed? Way, way worse.

    3. Re:Air Canada? by jenic · · Score: 5, Funny

      Beavers aside, I don't actually see what the problem is. What if the situation were reversed? Way, way worse.

      You mean if Venus mistook the pilot for another planet?

    4. Re:Air Canada? by pepax · · Score: 2

      or if the pilot did NOT mistake Venus for another plane?

    5. Re:Air Canada? by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean if Venus mistook the pilot for another planet?

      In Soviet Russia that scenario could be completely feasible.

    6. Re:Air Canada? by SeaFox · · Score: 2

      The pilot was shocked first!
      Don't believe the special edition of the Air Canada Pilots Association report.

  2. Shame they don't have cabin video by Zaelath · · Score: 5, Funny

    then they could just show video of what happens if you don't use your seatbelt on an aircraft to that 10% of idiots that know better instead of the boring safety talk.

    1. Re:Shame they don't have cabin video by mug+funky · · Score: 5, Funny

      true enough, but have you ever been stuck in the toilet when turbulence strikes? not fun.

      having to change a baby during turbulence is quite fun, but a little scary (baby was fine - i was bouncing around and the little bugger was giggling at me).

    2. Re:Shame they don't have cabin video by GumphMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No video, but some nice photos at page 189-190 of http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3532398/ao2008070.pdf (5.6MB)

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    3. Re:Shame they don't have cabin video by Oswald · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, but the composition is a bit off because the baby was holding the camera.

    4. Re:Shame they don't have cabin video by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Funny

      then they could just show video of what happens if you don't use your seatbelt on an aircraft to that 10% of idiots that know better instead of the boring safety talk.

      Everyone's got (n) hours to kill in a perfectly good aircraft and video is the best they can do?

      The hell with video, they should do a live demonstration. Anyone un-belted who the pilot hasn't successfully removed from their seat after 5 minutes gets a free airline meal as a prize :^)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  3. New safety message by GeneralSecretary · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mesdames et Messieurs, dans le cas d'une collision interplanétaire s'il vous plaît attachez vos ceintures ... Ladies and Gentlemen, in the event of an interplanetary collision please fasten your seatbelts...

    1. Re:New safety message by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2

      Maybe we have underestimated the Canadians and they are already doing interplanetary flights?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  4. That's no moon. by Morky · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's too big to be a space station. I have a very bad feeling about this.

  5. Thankfully Not... by nemui-chan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Luckily it wasn't in America. If it was, the TSA would stop allowing pilots through checkpoints, since they're clearly a flight risk.

    1. Re:Thankfully Not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      100% of all planes involved in terrorist attacks, hijackings and crashes have had pilots on board! when will government make us safe from these terrors of the skies!

    2. Re:Thankfully Not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      They also had wings too - OMG so do birds!

    3. Re:Thankfully Not... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd be more suspicious of Venus... clearly it was trying to take down a passenger aircraft, the classic cowardly maneuver of a terrorist. And it is a known hoarder of deadly chemicals used in the manufacture of WMD. Who knows how far along it's program already is, since it has never allowed IAEA inspectors beneath it's all-concealing clouds?!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:Thankfully Not... by grcumb · · Score: 2

      I'd be more suspicious of Venus... clearly it was trying to take down a passenger aircraft, the classic cowardly maneuver of a terrorist.

      Clearly it's aligned with the Ecliptic of Evil.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    5. Re:Thankfully Not... by Grayhand · · Score: 4, Funny

      They also had wings too - OMG so do birds!

      Breaking News. Terrorists are training swallows to carry coconut shaped bombs.

    6. Re:Thankfully Not... by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      They also had wings too - OMG so do birds!

      Breaking News. Terrorists are training swallows to carry coconut shaped bombs.

      Yeah, but how fast will they be able to fly?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    7. Re:Thankfully Not... by sFurbo · · Score: 3, Funny

      And it has been known to shoot lasers at earth! And Mars is even worse, it shoots lasers and is clearly a rouge planet! Somebody call Team America!

    8. Re:Thankfully Not... by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, Venus has the whole "love" and "sex" thing down. THAT is evil these days. Mars and war are fine. Get with the times, man.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    9. Re:Thankfully Not... by mcamino · · Score: 2

      So all along, Angry Birds was a terrorist training video game?

    10. Re:Thankfully Not... by laejoh · · Score: 4, Funny

      African or european terrorists?

    11. Re:Thankfully Not... by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      Dude, back the hell up! Don't you realize that once we send troops in and some die, that we'll HAVE to keep sending more until we win, because otherwise the first to go will have died in vain?

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  6. Is this a bad thing? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Personally, I'd prefer my pilots to take evasive action when they feel its neccessary, and not pick up a habit of second guessing themselves to avoid bad PR. Yes, passengers were injured, but TFA notes that the seatbelt light was on.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Is this a bad thing? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes it's a bad thing for pilots to sleep longer than they're supposed to because they're overworked, then panic because they just woke up from deep sleep and so can't tell the difference between an airplane and a planet despite being well experienced to tell the difference when awake.

      The problem isn't that when the pilot thought he was about to hit another aircraft he took an evasive maneuver.

      The problem is the circumstances that resulted in him mistaking Venus for an aircraft he was about to crash into.

      What if his evasive actions had caused him to crash into an actual airplane that was at a lower altitude which he didn't notice because, again, he'd just woken from a deep sleep?

      The whole point is that his judgment was temporarily impaired because he was fucking groggy, and you're asking "is this a bad thing?" Yes! Yes it is!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:Is this a bad thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Except when the evasive action puts the plane into the path of the C-17 the pilot thought he was evading. Even after the captain had told him the C-17 was straight ahead and 1,000 feet below. Or the fact that the captain and the C-17 pilots flashed their landing gear lights to acknowledge their position. Go ahead and think its actions are okay just because someone "felt it was necessary."

    3. Re:Is this a bad thing? by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Personally, I'd prefer my pilots to take evasive action when they feel its neccessary, and not pick up a habit of second guessing themselves to avoid bad PR. Yes, passengers were injured, but TFA notes that the seatbelt light was on.

      "However, the Air Canada Pilots Association, 'has long pressured authorities to take the stresses of night flying into account when setting the maximum hours a pilot can work,' taking into account that North Atlantic night-flights are hardest on an already-fatigued pilot."

      Personally, I'd prefer my safety authorities actually listen to the men and women doing the damn job, and realize they could have likely prevented this from happening in the first place.

    4. Re:Is this a bad thing? by WankersRevenge · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can totally sympathize with this pilot. True story .. I was driving through Yukon a few years ago and I had been on the road for twelve hours that I could barely stay awake so I pulled off in a rest area, climbed in the back seat, and fell asleep.

      At some point, another driver pulled into the rest area and his lights woke me up. All I saw were trees and I thought I had fallen asleep at the wheel and crashed in the woods. I panicked. I climed out of my sleeping bag, climbed into the front seat, started my car, and pulled a 360 before I realized what the hell was going on. The other driver probably thought I was nuts.

      Moral of the story ... Thank god I'm not a pilot :)

    5. Re:Is this a bad thing? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Personally, I'd prefer my pilots to take evasive action when they feel its neccessary, and not pick up a habit of second guessing themselves to avoid bad PR

      Pilots second-guessing their instruments is a major cause of crashes.

      But I think the bigger problem is that it sounds like Air Canada engaged in a systematic cover-up of this incident, and are only now admitting it because they were outed by the government report.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Is this a bad thing? by inglorion_on_the_net · · Score: 2

      I panicked. I climed out of my sleeping bag, climbed into the front seat, started my car, and pulled a 360 before I realized what the hell was going on. The other driver probably thought I was nuts.

      Oh, I thought that was just your way of saying "hi".

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    7. Re:Is this a bad thing? by Kagato · · Score: 2

      If I was AC I'd be more concerned about the fact they flew a TATL flight with only 95 passengers on a 200 passenger plane. They were already lossing tens of thousands of dollars on the flight as is.

    8. Re:Is this a bad thing? by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Informative

      Have you actually looked at Venus in clear skies? During the closest approach it's bright enough so that people mistake it for a motorcycle _headlight_.

    9. Re:Is this a bad thing? by jbwolfe · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Thank you for seeing it that way. The US government has finally decided to do this and modified 50 year old FTDT (flight time duty time) regulations to be more in line with science and reality. By the end of 2013, pilots will have greater rest requirements that incorporate circadian aspects of physiology- all thanks to pilots unions lobbying efforts.

      http://www.alpa.org/FTDTFightingFatigue/tabid/3370/Default.aspx/

      --
      Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
    10. Re:Is this a bad thing? by jbwolfe · · Score: 2

      One notable failure of TCAS was human instead of technical: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_%C3%9Cberlingen_mid-air_collision/. In the US, TCAS commands require mandatory compliance- ICAO rules were not the same but may have been updated to the same compliance. The system otherwise has prevented numerous collisions, and in my experience is nearly flawless if crews are properly trained.

      --
      Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
    11. Re:Is this a bad thing? by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      He didn't just second guess his instruments, he also ignored his captain, and did so while impaired. I understand that impaired, groggy state when waking quite well, but he still should have known not to react.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    12. Re:Is this a bad thing? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Here are a few things to note from the Transportation safety board of Canada Report
      1. The FO had two days off before the flight took place.
      2. On the day of the flight he FO reported 8 hours of rest with some child care interruptions before waking at approximately 0600.
      3. The FO took a 2–hour nap in the afternoon before reporting for duty feeling well rested.
      4. Both crew members checked in at the required time of 1935 and the aircraft pushed back at 2109.
      5. The FO started the nap at 0040 (3 hours and 31 minutes after push back and 18 hours 40 minutes after wake up.).

      The FO had only worked for 4 hours in the previous three days before requesting a nap.Should not someone who just had two days off not be "already-fatigued"? The Pilots Association are talking about flights later in the work week and not on the first day. How is an airline supposed to react when a pilot reports as well rested after a two day break? Yes it was an 8 hour flight but the incident occurred only 3.5 hours into the flight.

    13. Re:Is this a bad thing? by Leebert · · Score: 2

      and pulled a 360 before I realized what the hell was going on.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SL135uL2XZA

      :)

    14. Re:Is this a bad thing? by CycleMan · · Score: 2

      That flight may have cost Delta $ by itself, but they probably needed the plane in LAX for the next day's travels.

    15. Re:Is this a bad thing? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Theres always cargo to be carried, plus the aircraft needs to be repositioned for the return flight anyway - some passengers are better than no passengers.

    16. Re:Is this a bad thing? by Smauler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Me and my friend were driving round Europe on holiday when we were 18. We'd got to Munich late, and decided just to park up between 2 cars in a small road in the middle of Munich, and sleep in the car. So, we both got in our sleeping bags, and went to sleep, in the front two seat reclined back almost horizontal.

      The next thing I know, my friend was asking me what the fuck I thought I was doing. We were now parked in the middle of the road, completely blocking it.

      Apparently, I'd just sat up, entered in the 4 digit immobiliser code, started the car, carefully driven the car into the middle of the road, parked and then happily gone back to sleep. This was in a manual car in my sleeping bag. I had absoluteley no recollection of any of this.

      Anyway, I managed to get the car back in approximately the right place (about a foot and a half from the kerb though). My friend did spend a few minutes persuading me that we were parked in the middle of the road in Munich. I had been having a dream that we were in a campsite in Holland, for some reason, and the campsite manager had been telling me to move the car.

      I had been known to sleepwalk a little in the past, but this was my only sleep-drive (that I know of, anyway).

  7. Re:radar... by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Informative

    For traffic, it's TCAS..

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. I read tfa and Im still not sure what happened by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It sounds like the FO was napping, woke up and immediately put the plane into a dive based on a snap judgement, and the Captian (who we presume was not flying the plane or manning the controls) recognized the error and corrected.

    It sounded like nobody was flying the plan (autopilot presumably), but that the FO, who was napping, was actually on the controls. It sounds more like a problem with pilots sleeping while they should be awake and alert. The article was so light it was impossible to actually tell, through.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:I read tfa and Im still not sure what happened by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Informative

      How I read it was that the FO woke up, Captain was in control. They were communicating with a C-17 that was ahead of and below them. The FO, still groggy, saw Venus directly ahead and misidentified it as the C-17, immediately diving. The Captain was, I guess, able to exert more power on the controls which brought the plane back up out of the dive. And for the record, the nap the FO was taking is in fact legal. But I think it would have had to be the Captain's aircraft while the FO was napping. A pilot always has to be awake and at the controls even with autopilot activated.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:I read tfa and Im still not sure what happened by Baloroth · · Score: 2

      On a 10 hour or longer flight I would personally rather one of the pilots take turns sleeping than both try to stay awake at the same time. The latter is just asking for them to both fall asleep at the same time: the former keeps one of them awake and fully aware at all times (which, if you notice, very much helped in this case). Obviously, both of them shouldn't be asleep at the same time (also, there are generally 3 people in the cockpit, if I am not mistaken, so 2 should be awake at all times).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:I read tfa and Im still not sure what happened by timeOday · · Score: 2

      This is a super-common cause of car crashes - drifting off to sleep could kill you, but suddenly re-awaking with your car halfway off the road and swerving to get back on the road is what normally kills you.

    4. Re:I read tfa and Im still not sure what happened by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Read this instead: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/a11f0012/a11f0012.asp

      At 0155, the captain made a mandatory position report with the Shanwick Oceanic control centre. This aroused the FO. The FO had rested for 75 minutes but reported not feeling altogether well. Coincidentally, an oppositeâ"direction United States Air Force Boeing Câ"17 at 34 000 feet appeared as a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) target on the navigational display (ND). The captain apprised the FO of this traffic.

      Over the next minute or so, the captain adjusted the map scale on the ND in order to view the TCAS target 5 and occasionally looked out the forward windscreen to acquire the aircraft visually. The FO initially mistook the planet Venus for an aircraft but the captain advised again that the target was at the 12 o'clock position and 1000 feet below. The captain of ACA878 and the oncoming aircraft crew flashed their landing lights. The FO continued to scan visually for the aircraft. When the FO saw the oncoming aircraft, the FO interpreted its position as being above and descending towards them. The FO reacted to the perceived imminent collision by pushing forward on the control column. The captain, who was monitoring TCAS target on the ND, observed the control column moving forward and the altimeter beginning to show a decrease in altitude. The captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and pulled back on the control column to regain altitude. It was at this time the oncoming aircraft passed beneath ACA878. The TCAS did not produce a traffic or resolution advisory.

      --
    5. Re:I read tfa and Im still not sure what happened by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is a quote from the Safety board report;

      Several deviations from Air Canada controlled rest SOP occurred. They included:

                not advising the cabin crew of the intention to rest;
                not agreeing in advance on an end time of 40 minutes;
                not stopping the rest at 40 minutes; and
                not providing recovery time after the rest.

      If anyone was at fault it was the Captain for not following proper procedure which put the First Officer in the position of making a snap decision while just waking up.

      The FO, still groggy, saw Venus directly ahead and misidentified it as the C-17, immediately diving.

      This is a false statement perpetuated by the posted summary. It sounds like the FO dove to avoid Venus. That is not what really happened. Here is the real sequence of events;
      1. Captain advised FO of approaching C-17.
      2. FO searched the sky and thought he found the aircraft.
      3. The captain corrected the FO that what he say was actually Venus and the other aircraft was dead ahead and below.
      4. The FO found the real aircraft, misinterpreted its movement and dove the aircraft.
      The FO did not dive to avoid Venus; he dove to avoid the other aircraft. Here is the supporting quote from the Safety Report;

      Coincidentally, an opposite–direction United States Air Force Boeing C–17 at 34 000 feet appeared as a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) target on the navigational display (ND). The captain apprised the FO of this traffic.

      Over the next minute or so, the captain adjusted the map scale on the ND in order to view the TCAS target 5 and occasionally looked out the forward windscreen to acquire the aircraft visually. The FO initially mistook the planet Venus for an aircraft but the captain advised again that the target was at the 12 o'clock position and 1000 feet below. The captain of ACA878 and the oncoming aircraft crew flashed their landing lights. The FO continued to scan visually for the aircraft. When the FO saw the oncoming aircraft, the FO interpreted its position as being above and descending towards them. The FO reacted to the perceived imminent collision by pushing forward on the control column.

    6. Re:I read tfa and Im still not sure what happened by JoelKatz · · Score: 3, Informative

      We tried that, and the evidence suggests the risks are greater. What happens if you do that is that crew members just say they're fine when they're not. Studies show that giving crew members the option to nap at their stations makes it more likely that they actually *will* nap when they need to and consequently are more alert during critical stages of flight (like approach and landing) where maximum performance of all crew members can make a major life and death difference.

  9. Close call by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 2

    Thank goodness he missed the planet by 67 million miles..

  10. Re:radar... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Weather radar? Yes. Traffic collision alerting system? Yes, though not much use unless the guy in the other aircraft has turned his transponder on...

  11. c'mon, think about the alternative! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everyone is piling on this guy now, but think about what would have happened if he'd actually HIT Venus - nobody would have survived that! Think, people, THINK!

    1. Re:c'mon, think about the alternative! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm picturing something like the steamroller scene in Austin Powers only much, much longer...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  12. Venus was incidental by cratermoon · · Score: 5, Informative

    The media reports are all harping on the idea of "crash dive to avoid Venus", but that's incidential. There was an oncoming aircraft (but not on a collision course) and the FO erred in thinking it was going to collide. Source - TSB report.

    1. Re:Venus was incidental by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Mod parent up. Venus had nothing to do with it.

      First officer saw Venus, alerted captain. Captain pointed out that was Venus, pointed to actual oncoming aircraft. First officer misinterpreted altitude of actual oncoming aircraft, dived.

    2. Re:Venus was incidental by Ed_1024 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Several points:

      1) It is very difficult, even during the daytime, to work out whether an aircraft is above or below you by looking out of the window. At night, there is often no visual horizon at all, so you are seeing a big expanse of sky with stars/planets/aeroplanes/ships in it with no references to judge their relative positioning.

      2) Pilots are not superhuman. We have the same evolved circadian rhythms as everyone else and suffer from fatigue in the same way. We are diurnal mammals and staying up through the night means your performance suffers in a similar way to what it would if you missed a night's sleep at home.

      3) In-flight napping is legal and encouraged under the regulations I work with, with certain provisos. Long-gone are the notions of the steely-eyed pilot constantly scanning the sky for danger at 3am on the body clock: we just aren't capable of that, which is why we have a plethora of automatic systems to take care of most of the trivia.

      4) If you think this incident was bad, have a look at the proposed new European "safety" legislation, where you could end up on-duty for 21-22hrs in certain circumstances. Oh, and they've ignored just about every piece of peer-reviewed scientific research from the last 50 years in drafting the new rules...

  13. Re:air canada is a terrible carrier by mug+funky · · Score: 5, Informative

    emirates = hot hostesses and the option to watch the front-mounted camera on the entertainment system. with all the chaos of landing, it's comforting to know you're not going to run into the terminal.

  14. Did Gary Larson Predict This? by IonOtter · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    [End Of Line]
  15. Re:air canada is a terrible carrier by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    Funny you should mention that front-mounted camera; I've seen it on the overhead video screens of other eastern airlines as well (Thai, JAL for example) during takeoff and landing but never on any of the western airlines. I wonder why...

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  16. Re:It could have been worse by swalve · · Score: 2

    That would definitely be a different kind of pitch excursion.

  17. The captain pulled up sharply to AVOID a collision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    There was an oncoming aircraft on the same flight path 1000ft below. The FO was visually searching for that aircraft, saw venus, panicked, and put the aircraft nose-down.

    The captain immediately assumed control of the plane and put the plane nose-up.

    The planes were on the exact same flight path thanks to GPS. They were both depending on the 1000ft difference in altitude to prevent a head-on collision. A better idea is for each plane to offset right of the flight path by 1 mile.

  18. Not Venus, sensationalism at its best by __aazsst3756 · · Score: 5, Informative

    He did not take evasive action to avoid Venus, but did point to Venus and briefly discussed if it was an aircraft when he first woke up. He later made the evasive maneuver when he misjudged the position of another aircraft. The two events are only connected by the fact the pilot was entirely too exhausted.

  19. Re:No seatbelts? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 5, Informative

    its not a LAWFUL ORDER you fucking MORON. it a request. you can ignore it.
    crew are not LEOs. they cant issue lawful orders.

    Federal Aviation Regulations require passenger compliance with lighted passenger information signs and crewmember instructions concerning the use of safety belts.

    So sit down, buckle your seat belt, and STFU.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  20. Re:radar... by inglorion_on_the_net · · Score: 5, Informative

    As far as I know, commercial aircraft have never had radar to detect traffic. They do usually have weather radar, but that's for detecting bad weather, not traffic.

    There is TCAS, but I don't see how that would have avoided this. Sure, the pilot could have thought "TCAS doesn't say anything is there, so I'll just continue on", but is that really what you expect a panicked pilot to do?

    Also, avoiding anyway is probably the right response: safety systems do fail, and you're not going to score any points by saying "but TCAS didn't say there was any danger" if there is a real collision, because you and your passengers will be dead.

    The real story is that operating vehicles while impaired causes accidents. We know this. That's why we regulate it; there are limits on how many hours in a row you can work, how much sleep you must have had, how much alcohol can be in your blood, and more. Apparently, it wasn't enough to prevent this incident.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  21. Re:The captain pulled up sharply to AVOID a collis by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3

    There was an oncoming aircraft on the same flight path 1000ft below. The FO was visually searching for that aircraft, saw venus, panicked, and put the aircraft nose-down.

    Go figure, a groggy pilot's panicked reaction put the plane closer to danger.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  22. How about a separate bunk? by hawguy · · Score: 2

    Why not have the pilots take their naps in a separate bunk near the crew compartment. It gives them better rest, and the act of climbing out of the bunk and walking to the cockpit gives them time to help shake off the grogginess.

    Or is it better to have them sleep in their seats so they are immediately ready to step in if needed?

    1. Re:How about a separate bunk? by colonel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The rule in this case is for naps-in-chair to be limited to 40 minutes to prevent slow-wave sleep, longer naps with slow-wave permitted are to be done in a separate bunk. The pilots broke that rule. There are other rules around "recovery period" between sleep and flying.

  23. Re:air canada is a terrible carrier by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Funny

    just fly cathay pacific

    Sounds great! OK then, let me just check out the options for Zurich to Toronto on Cathay. Hmm... OK seems we've got Zurich to Hong Kong, then Hong Kong to Toronto. Only 33 hours of travel, compares to 9 hours on Air Canada, at three times the cost. Makes perfect sense.

  24. Mandatory sleep information by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    We cannot have laws against sleeping, as it is a natural need. However we could improve safety by giving customers more information.

    For instance, a law could force airlines company to tell customers how many hours a week the pilot worked, and how many flight he did in a row. That would help us avoiding pilots made dangerous by insane airline work policy.

  25. Re:You don't live here, do you? by Fjandr · · Score: 2

    If you bring your own soda from home, YOU HATE AMERICA.

    I can't wait until movie theaters pick up that line.

  26. Please read the actual report. by colonel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Please, please, please -- there are tons of very well-considered safety points in the real report, and the linked articles are very very very wrong.

    http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/a11f0012/a11f0012.asp

    To quote:

    At 0155, the captain made a mandatory position report with the Shanwick Oceanic control centre. This aroused the FO. The FO had rested for 75 minutes but reported not feeling altogether well. Coincidentally, an opposite–direction United States Air Force Boeing C–17 at 34 000 feet appeared as a traffic alert and collision avoidance system (TCAS) target on the navigational display (ND). The captain apprised the FO of this traffic.

    Over the next minute or so, the captain adjusted the map scale on the ND in order to view the TCAS target 5 and occasionally looked out the forward windscreen to acquire the aircraft visually. The FO initially mistook the planet Venus for an aircraft but the captain advised again that the target was at the 12 o'clock position and 1000 feet below. The captain of ACA878 and the oncoming aircraft crew flashed their landing lights. The FO continued to scan visually for the aircraft. When the FO saw the oncoming aircraft, the FO interpreted its position as being above and descending towards them. The FO reacted to the perceived imminent collision by pushing forward on the control column. The captain, who was monitoring TCAS target on the ND, observed the control column moving forward and the altimeter beginning to show a decrease in altitude. The captain immediately disconnected the autopilot and pulled back on the control column to regain altitude. It was at this time the oncoming aircraft passed beneath ACA878. The TCAS did not produce a traffic or resolution advisory.

  27. Re:radar... by colonel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Lots of facts wrong. . .

    First Officer woke up. Captain said "hey, sleepyhead, you see that Air Force cargo plane coming towards us that the TCAS is telling us about?" First Officer points, "That thing?", "No, that's Venus, the Air Force cargo is lower." "Oh. Ah! It's coming right at me!" (Dives instinctively)

    All within a couple of seconds after waking from 75 minutes of REM sleep in his chair, groggy as hell.

    http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2011/a11f0012/a11f0012.asp

  28. An antenna outside an office window... by Thagg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used to fly my lightplane back and forth from my home in the San Francisco Bay Area to my Los Angeles office on the fourth floor of a building in Hollywood.

    There was an antenna across the street that looked exactly like the profile of an airplane heading toward us. Whenever I was walking down the hall and would glance out the window, I would see that and immediately, uncontrollably, startle. When you see a plane that close you literally have a second or two to make a decision, and it becomes a reflex to act immediately. Now, walking down the hall of a building no reaction is actually called for; but it didn't stop me from jumping!

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  29. Re:No seatbelts? by QuasiEvil · · Score: 2

    If you're sitting down and not wearing your seatbelt, you're a dumbass. I fly all the time (and used to fly jumpset on cargo jets, who don't tend to take the "easier on the passengers" route), and have lost two laptops over the last twenty years to sudden drops and ceiling impacts. I've also seen my coworkers hit the ceiling and then drop to the floor, often resulting in at least a nasty headache. This shit happens; wear your seatbelt. And yes, if you're instructed by the flight crew while in US airspace, the FAR dictates that it's a lawful order you must obey.

  30. Re:air canada is a terrible carrier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    On slashdot, AC == Anonymous Coward. Find another acronym.

    OTOH, the following actually makes some kind of sense:
    Its not just that 9 hours of Anonymous Coward can seem like 33 hours of root canal; but Anonymous Coward has an odd idea of what 9 hours means....

  31. It Worked! by mikeplokta · · Score: 3, Funny

    The good news is that the evasive action was successful, and the plane did not hit Venus.

  32. Of course Venus is evil. by formfeed · · Score: 2

    I'd be more suspicious of Venus... clearly it was trying to take down a passenger aircraft

    And Venus is the morning star, also known as Lucifer.

  33. Is it Venus or a USAF flight? by kbreak · · Score: 2

    I want my pilot(s) to react automatically and fast in all situations. If that FO was right, and the C-17 was in their path, he would be a hero instead of a dimwit. I will gladly fly with him. He's safe.