Embarrassing moment!
Posted 16/01/2009 - 11:18
Link
pentaxian450 wrote:
Not for Air Canada.
Hmm, I don't think I'll fly Air Canada either.Not for Air Canada.
So who does he fly with?
Posted 17/01/2009 - 12:47
Link
Unfortunately, I lost track of the fellow, so I can't say anything about his current whereabouts. About your comment not flying with Air Canada, I don't either. I fly "Cessna". Not any cheaper (actually, the other way around), but a lot more fun.
Yves (another one of those crazy Canucks)
Posted 17/01/2009 - 15:15
Link
Sad to see somebody get scapegoated.
Re-training personel, and safety is a whole team effort, and the person in charge is the one who should assume responsibility. Management in big corporations often get away with tooo much.
Re-training personel, and safety is a whole team effort, and the person in charge is the one who should assume responsibility. Management in big corporations often get away with tooo much.
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 17/01/2009 - 19:21
Link
I wonder if the USAIR pilot who recently made such a spectacular landing in the Hudson river with no engines will get blamed for hitting the birds that took out both power plants on his Air Bus?
These guys are amazing and it breaks my heart to see them take the fall for shoddy, profit-only oriented companies.
These guys are amazing and it breaks my heart to see them take the fall for shoddy, profit-only oriented companies.
Mac from Montreal
SP, SPII, SPF, PZ-10, P30, SFX, K110D, istDS, Optio 60, Z-10, H90, RZ10, I-10, f3.5 28mm, f1.8 55mm, f1.4 50mm, f3.5 135mm, f2.5 135mm, f4 50mm Macro, f4.5 80-200 F, f4 35-70, f3.5 28-80, f3.5 35-135, f3.5 18-55, f1.8 31mm Ltd., two Auto 110's, Auto 110 lenses and filters, tubes, bellows, Manfrottos and a sore back.
SP, SPII, SPF, PZ-10, P30, SFX, K110D, istDS, Optio 60, Z-10, H90, RZ10, I-10, f3.5 28mm, f1.8 55mm, f1.4 50mm, f3.5 135mm, f2.5 135mm, f4 50mm Macro, f4.5 80-200 F, f4 35-70, f3.5 28-80, f3.5 35-135, f3.5 18-55, f1.8 31mm Ltd., two Auto 110's, Auto 110 lenses and filters, tubes, bellows, Manfrottos and a sore back.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
393 posts
17 years
The reason he was blamed for the accident is because he took off with inoperative fuel gauges, even after having confirmation by the tech dept. that he had enough fuel. If he hadn't taken off, he would still have been in trouble, with his employer that time, because the plane wouldn't have made it's next "rendez-vous", with the correspondence and so on. If nobody had made mistakes with the stick gauges, he would have made it to Vancouver without problem and the company (Air Canada) would have been very happy, because, even if the plane was flying illegally, they still would have made money out of it. The pilot was blamed by the Dept. of Transport, but the employer, who told him to go anyway, was not held partly/jointly responsible. Of course, they could afford better lawyers...