What: Air Canada Airbus A319-100 en route from Montreal,QC to Toronto,ON Where: Montreal When: Apr 14th 2009 Who: 117 on board Why: As the plane was about to lift off, the rudder moved and the aircraft pivoted to the left. The crew completed the flight. Afterwards, maintenance in Toronto was informed and they replaced the yaw damper actuator and the #1 flight augmentation computer.
George’s Point of View
I question whether the crew should have continued on with this flight on board this plane before the maintenance repairs were completed. It is obvious that everyone survived and that is a good thing. But I wonder if the convenience of not stopping is worth either 1. the actual risk; 2. the perceived risk 3. passenger confidence.
As far as confidence in an airline goes, as for me, ask me any day and I’ll tell you, I’d prefer to be a little late to being a little dead. I think most passengers would agree.
If not stopping to perform repairs is Air Canada’s policy, then someone needs to rethink this policy, because the issue is not consumer confidence vs the bottom line. It is safety vs foolhardy cutting of corners.
To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
Stall warning sounded 75 times after the pitot tubes froze over.
Could the crash have been averted if the stick had communicated to the more experienced co-pilot what the less experienced pilot was doing? We agree that if the stick had been designed to communicate that the angle was wrong, the error would have been caught before the situation became critical.
We happen to agree with journalist, Nick Ross, who said in the video below that “All commercial airliners are remarkably safe,” but that the design could be made safer.
Should the stick provide pilot feedback? We believe amending the Airbus design to provide feedback would make the airbus a safer vehicle. What is your opinion?
To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.