Gimli Glider recovery
Steve Howie
into service from the facility at Gimli, Manitoba:
1. Was Gimli a disused airport? I know they used to hold drag races there.
2. How much runway did the plane have to work with when it eventually
took off again after being repaired?
3. What was the extent of the damage to the plane? The nose gear had
problems either before landing or on landing, leading to a VERY
scraped nose cone on the plane. What other damage occurred?
4. As far as I know, the plane is still in service. Anyone know the
registration number?
Yours in curiosity,
Scotty
--
=================================================================
Steve Howie Email: sho...@uoguelph.ca
NetNews and Gopher Admin. Phone: (519) 824-4120 x2556
Computing and Communications Svcs. Fax: (519) 763-6143
University of Guelph
If it's not Scottish its CRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPPPPP
=================================================================
David Fisher
What we wondered about was the subsequent career of the flight crew.
Who would hire idiots who took off without having assured themselves
of adequate fuel on board? In point of fact, who would allow such pilots
to continue possessing pilot's licenses?
To some, this might sound like Monday morning quarterbacking. To us,
it sounds like getting rid of incompetents before they kill people.
David Fisher
Fisher Research Corporation
John R. Grout
>From what I've read, the pilots thought they had taken on a certain number of
kg of fuel, and the mechanics had given them that many pounds of fuel instead.
Not that that makes what happened excusable... but it expands the incompetence
to include AC upper management (who ordered a metric plane for political
reasons) and AC middle management (who pushed it onto their pilots and
mechanics without adequate retraining and procedural changes).
--
John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-g...@uiuc.edu
Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
David Fisher
> >From what I've read, the pilots thought they had taken on a certain number o
f
> kg of fuel, and the mechanics had given them that many pounds of fuel instead
.
>
> Not that that makes what happened excusable... but it expands the incompetenc
e
> to include AC upper management (who ordered a metric plane for political
> reasons) and AC middle management (who pushed it onto their pilots and
> mechanics without adequate retraining and procedural changes).
> --
> John R. Grout Center for Supercomputing R & D j-g...@uiuc.edu
> Coordinated Science Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
>>>>
There is merit in what you say, certainly, but the bottom line is that the pilot
is
responsible for the airplane. Period. He is the one who has to be sure that the
airplane is flightworthy. To the extent that he takes others' word for something
as critical as fuel quantity - and all the more so if, as I have been told, the
fuel
quantity indicators were known to be defective - he has abdicated the responsi-
bility that is his alone.
For this, he should be sacked and his ticket taken away.
I have been a pilot for well over thirty years, and I know full well what a pilo
t's
ticket is worth. Even so, I stand by my opinion that this was not forgivable.
David Fisher
PS: this having been said, I want to stress that the collateral responsibility,
as adverted to above, is not diminished by hanging the pilot out to dry.
Malcolm Metcalfe
e
>> to include AC upper management (who ordered a metric plane for political
>> reasons) and AC middle management (who pushed it onto their pilots and
>> mechanics without adequate retraining and procedural changes).
>> --
and the aircraft was loaded with what the pilots thought were kg of fuel
when in fact it was in pounds (less than half). One pilot commented on the
previous sector that the plane climbed extremely well..
A friend who is a pilot told me some time later that the fueller and the
First Officer in the plane spoke in French -- which the captain could not
understand -- and that may have had some impact..
Jim McLean
> In article <4232ji$4...@roch3.eznet.net> f...@eznet.net (David Fisher) writes:
>
>> One of our pilots and I were talking about the Gimli Glider this afternoon.
>> What we wondered about was the subsequent career of the flight crew.
>> Who would hire idiots who took off without having assured themselves
>> of adequate fuel on board? In point of fact, who would allow such pilots
>> to continue possessing pilot's licenses?
>>
>> To some, this might sound like Monday morning quarterbacking. To us,
>> it sounds like getting rid of incompetents before they kill people.
>
> kg of fuel, and the mechanics had given them that many pounds of fuel instead.
>
> to include AC upper management (who ordered a metric plane for political
> reasons) and AC middle management (who pushed it onto their pilots and
> mechanics without adequate retraining and procedural changes).
> --
I thought that one of the primary reasons this whole incident occurred was
becuz the fuel guages were inop, and at time of refueling the fuelers had
to use drip stick/magna stick refueling procedures. As this was one of the
first arcft they had seen in "metric", it became quite a nightmare trying
to convert the centimetres shown on the drip sticks to the inches which
were still in their manuals, also taking into consideration the gallons to
litres and pounds to kilograms. As a result, they did not put nearly enough
fuel onboard and the flight departed. Remember too, that this incident
occurred prior to the regulation of having to confirm fuel-on-board with
the flight crew prior to departure. That reg. was brought about by this
incident and others similar. So without confirmation of how much fuel was
uplifted and with inop fuel guages, the crew did not know how much fuel was
on the arcft. Also, interestingly, Transport Canada also brought a new
regulation after this incident which makes it illegal for fuelers to perform
the dip stick/magna stick manual refueling procedure. It must now be
accomplished by a licensed mechanic; which is in contrast to FAA regs which
allow fuelers to do this procedure.
As far as I know, both pilots were considered heroes for awhile for being
able to save the flight and both continued to work for AC for a few years.
I believe the Capt. is now retired. Not sure about the F/O.
Jim McLean CYOW
David Fisher
> As far as I know, both pilots were considered heroes for awhile for being
> able to save the flight and both continued to work for AC for a few years.
> I believe the Capt. is now retired. Not sure about the F/O.
Some few years ago, as a consequence of a mechanical failure in the fuel
system, I had to deadstick into a small airfield that fortuitously appeared di-
rectly beneath us while we were coming to grips with the increasingly obvious
fact that no amount of fine-tuning of airspeed would enable us to glide to
what we thought was the nearest airport.
We were lucky, and nobody suggested any heroism on our part. Perhaps the
crew of the Gimli Glider got just a little better than they deserved. As they sa
y,
all's well that ends.
David Fisher
Jean-Francois Mezei
> to include AC upper management (who ordered a metric plane for political
> reasons) and AC middle management (who pushed it onto their pilots and
> mechanics without adequate retraining and procedural changes).
Now, here is a question for you:
Are planes in Europe metric in terms of refueling ?
What happens when these planes refuel in the United States ?
How come we don't constantly hear about European planes
running out of fuel in the middle of the Atlantic ?
Remember that the Gimli incident was the first ever flight of that Plane "in
production". Since Canada had the guts to convert to the metric system, you
cannot blame the airlines for make the effort to also convert. Just because the
USA is incapable of converting doesn't mean that the rest of the world can't
live on the metric system.
Now, let me see:
There are US gallons ,
There were Imperial gallons (not used anymore)
There are litres
There are pounds
There are tons (1000 kilos)
I do not know who makes the actual calculations of how much fuel should be
loaded on a particular plane. And I do not know how that information is passed
on all the way to the guy on the tarmac that operates the tanker.
But it seems to me that this is where there was the ORIGINAL problem.
Could air Canada have trained pilots for this new plane without explaining to
them that this was a metric plane and how they should calculate fuel
requirements ?
If the pilots were aware that this was the first ever metric refueling request
going through the AC "system", shouldn't they have made sure it got to the guy
on the tarmac properly ? Shouldn't they have tripple checked since their
on-board gauges didn't work ? To me, this is where the REAL problem lies.
The responsability lies with the highly trained pilots, not the guy on the
tarmac that refuels the plane.
I don't blame the metric conversion. I blame those idiots who can't make the
difference between US gallons, Imperial gallons, pounds, litres, kilos, tons
etc.
Robert Ashcroft
Jean-Francois Mezei <meze...@eisner.decus.org> wrote:
>Now, let me see:
>There are US gallons ,
>There were Imperial gallons (not used anymore)
>There are litres
>There are pounds
>There are tons (1000 kilos)
>I don't blame the metric conversion. I blame those idiots who can't make the
>difference between US gallons, Imperial gallons, pounds, litres, kilos, tons
>etc.
Actually, 1000 kilos is a tonne = metric ton. A ton is 2000 pounds.
RNA
Curtis R. Anderson
~One of our pilots and I were talking about the Gimli Glider this afternoon.
~What we wondered about was the subsequent career of the flight crew.
~Who would hire idiots who took off without having assured themselves
~of adequate fuel on board? In point of fact, who would allow such pilots
~to continue possessing pilot's licenses?
Didn't Captain Pearson and/or FO Quintal get some kind of award for their
efforts here?
~To some, this might sound like Monday morning quarterbacking. To us,
~it sounds like getting rid of incompetents before they kill people.
There might have been something about the automated gauges not working right,
and as those gauges were not on the MEL (Minimum Equipment List), the fuel
could be computed manually. But the problem was they thought they had X
_gallons_ of fuel instead of the X _litres_ on board.
It may have also been a problem with the flight manual used by AC at the time
rather than what the pilots did.
ObThoughts:
A couple of weeks ago, when I was hanging out at the outdoor patio of the
Flying Tigers Restaurant, conveniently nestled about 450' from runway 5/23 at
BUF, we all watched an AC 767 fly in. As it took off, I mentioned the Gimli
Glider incident to the other folks at the patio. It must be one of those things
that we aviation enthusiasts talk about.
Funny thing is that the Gimli Glider incident popped up in the newsgroup after
I was thinking about it again.
I can see myself in a bar sitting next to an AC pilot. When he identifies
himself as one, I just might say, "Air Canada: Home of the Gimli Glider" and
risk getting punched out. Not fun...
--
Curtis R. Anderson, ASCIT, State Univ of NY at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-1408
"Opinions all mine!"; Co-creator of "Gleepy the Hen"; SP 2.5?; KoX; DEE;
Official Chicken Breeder of Hill 10; PGP: keys from any keyserver or mail me
with subject "sendme keys"; print: E79A7A848F1AC4E0 5C3CE458443DF12A (6575B8E9)
Americans: Remember and Support U.S. Troops Overseas!
Steve Howie
: In article <1995Sep2.123008.11114@eisner>,
And just to make it *really* ugly, an imperial ton = 2240 lbs. or 20
hundredweight. One hundredweight (cwt.) = 112 lbs.
Ack!
Richard Hunt
> Actually, 1000 kilos is a tonne = metric ton.
Correct.
> A ton is 2000 pounds.
Sort of. An American ton (or "short ton") is 2000 pounds. An imperial ton
is 20 hundredweights (cwt - 112 pounds) or 2240 pounds. Quite a
difference :-)
Richard Hunt
Mark Brader
>> There are pounds
>> There are tons (1000 kilos)
>> I don't blame the metric conversion. I blame those idiots who can't make the
>> difference between US gallons, Imperial gallons, pounds ...
>
> Actually, 1000 kilos is a tonne = metric ton. A ton is 2000 pounds.
Except when it's 2240 pounds, of course.
The actual error was that a measurement in volume had to be converted to
one in weight or mass terms, which meant multiplying by the density.
The density in pounds per liter was a familiar figure that did not have
to be looked up. But kilograms per liter was what they needed this time.
--
Mark Brader, m...@sq.com, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto
"I'm a little worried about the bug-eater," she said. "We're embedded
in bugs, have you noticed?" -- Niven, "The Integral Trees"
My text in this article is in the public domain.
David Fisher
Where do you draw the line around the responsibility of the
pilot of an aircraft?
As in the case of the master of a sea-going vessel, the line
encompasses everything that is within the pilot's grasp. He
is not held responsible for the surface-to-air missile fired at
him in Chicago, but he is responsible if it happens in Beirut,
since that is a foreseeable risk in the one place and not the
other.
That this responsibility is occasionally unfair matters not, for
it is in his hands that up to four hundred people put their
very lives. I still think that the crew of the Gimli Glider evaded
the consequences that were legitimately theirs.
David Fisher
Mark Sutcliffe
>
>That this responsibility is occasionally unfair matters not, for
>it is in his hands that up to four hundred people put their
>very lives. I still think that the crew of the Gimli Glider evaded
>the consequences that were legitimately theirs.
>
>David Fisher
I have flown commercial jets for 20 years. I have flown in the
cockpits of both Captain Pearson and Captain Maurice Quintal,
(formerly F/O). There are none finer! In all the Air Canada
jets I have flown, I have never personally checked that the
oil caps were on tight (ref. Eastern L1011 out of Florida) or
double checked all the 700 signatures required to sign off a
rebuilt jet engine. The point is that pilots do not check the
fuel drip sticks when fuel levels are checked manually by
maitenance. The pilots convert the numbers given and compute
the fuel on board.The Captain is in charge of every detail in
theory, but not in practice.The operation requires the efforts
of many licensed people. If the mechanics have signed off an
aircraft deviation, should the pilot go back and check every
part with an untrained eye? Not quite the same as doing a walk
around on a 172! Easy to sit back over 10 years later, and
criticize a series of events, and assune that you would have
performed heroically. Whatever or whoever was at fault, try
duplicating the glide that Bob Pearson accomplished if you ever
get a shot at a 767 simulator. Good Luck!
Mark Sutcliffe
John R. Grout
ei) writes:
> John R. Grout wrote:
> > Not that that makes what happened excusable... but it expands the incompetence
> > to include AC upper management (who ordered a metric plane for political
> > reasons) and AC middle management (who pushed it onto their pilots and
> > mechanics without adequate retraining and procedural changes).
>
> Now, here is a question for you:
> Are planes in Europe metric in terms of refueling ?
> What happens when these planes refuel in the United States ?
> How come we don't constantly hear about European planes
> running out of fuel in the middle of the Atlantic ?
>
> Remember that the Gimli incident was the first ever flight of that Plane "in
> production". Since Canada had the guts to convert to the metric system, you
> cannot blame the airlines for make the effort to also convert.
I could just as easily challenge France for not having "the guts" to free Air
France from dirigiste regulation... instead, when discussing that subject, I
try to discuss the costs and benefits of dirigisme in that situation.
> Just because the USA is incapable of converting doesn't mean that the rest
> of the world can't live on the metric system.
For myself... I go out of my way to use metric measurements, and I am a very
strong advocate of metrification in the USA. However, I want to be realistic
about the political dimensions of metrification in the USA.
The USA's political structure is based on separation of powers, and is much
less "executive driven" than either parliamentary systems like the UK's and
Canada's or Presidential systems like France's. Admittedly, some of we
m.t.a-i posters from the USA have been trumpeting one of the strengths of the
USA's political structure... greater freedom for businesses (without, I hope,
putting down other structures as being worse throughout). However,
metrification falls into one of its weaknesses... since legislators have
greater power in the USA's looser political structure, history shows that a
Presidential Administration must build a separate consensus to pass
politically unpopular decisions which are not of the greatest national
importance, (e.g., metrification, NAFTA)... party loyalty is not enough for
such matters, and attempting to skip the process (e.g., using the Gulf of
Tonkin resolution for an unlimited build up in Vietnam) leads to political
polarization which paralyzes the poltical process.
As far as I know, only two Presidents (Thomas Jefferson and Theodore
Roosevelt) made really serious efforts at building a consensus for mandatory
metrification, and both failed (Jefferson's efforts were doomed by Angophilic
revulsion at Jacobin excess, while Teddy Roosevelt's metrification bill passed
the House, but couldn't get by the more conservative Senate, which was less
interested in foreign trade than state's rights).
By comparison, the metrification bills passed in the 1970's were weak bills,
full of escape clauses, because metrification was a politically unpalatable
decision which did not have enough of a political consensus behind it to be
continued in the face of persistent opposition... and it was not.
However, most USA businesses do use the metric system for product development
with an international dimension (e.g., aviation, automobile and truck
engines), the military uses the metric system throughout, and quite a few
consumer goods sold by volume are not just marked in "liters" (the American
spelling) but sold in even units of litres. So, since most American consumers
are in touch with one metric unit, I am hopeful that metrification will
eventually be politically palatable enough to happen.
Back to aviation...
A. In the real world, people tend to do things unconsciously when rushed.
So, if people are trained to do a task using non-metric measurements, and the
task suddenly involves using metric measurements, it's a _DIFFERENT_
task... which requires not just procedural changes, but _retraining_ so that
people have the trained, tested ability to do the new task... in real-life
work situations.
This is exactly the reason why pilots are tested so thoroughly in flight
simulators... which test not not only their conscious judgement, but their
unconscious instincts.
I reject the notion that pilots, because they have ultimate responsiblity, are
the only ones who need such training: if fuelers or mechanics are under time
pressure to make correct decisions, they also need such training.
B. If an airline says, "we're going to buy metric planes" without being
willing to consider A, they are not doing so because it is best for the
airline or its passengers... they're doing it for other reasons.
In this case, I think the record is sufficiently clear that Air Canada was
doing it out of "political correctness"... the Canadian Government said "go
metric", and so AC, a government-owned airline, did it _without_ an
appropriate conversion effort... which, though it put their employees on the
spot, and endangered their passengers, served their owners.
reyn...@crpl.cedar-rapids.lib.ia.us
Just to add more fuel to the fire :)
1) The fuel gauging system is on the Minimum Equipment List. The primary system
had a cold solder joint and couldn't cross-compare with the back-up. So it
blanked, but the secondary thought the primary was working so it did not 'take
the display.' One mechanic did 'chicken ring' the circuit breaker for the
primary, which brought the system up using the secondary. Another mechanic, in
trying to fix the system, pulled the tag and pushed the CB back in. Blank
display. At this point the aircraft should not be considered as airworthy as it
no long is in conformity with its type design (Fuel Guaging totally inop.)
2) HOWEVER, the airline was having some internal reorganization which resulted
in ground maintenance feeling they had the authoriry to sign-off such a problem
if they considered it as 'operable.' SO, the maintenanc chief got the tanks
dipped, did the conversion (after they all agreed with the incorrect conversion
factors), then 'signed off' the aircraft as airworthy - Over the Captains
objections.
In reading about this incident one can only shake one's head in wonder at how we
can create systems to make things safer, but someone will try and find away
around them. US Fedaral Regulations are quite clear about who has the final
decision as to fly or not to fly - and that is the pilot in command. I can't
conceive of how an airline can get its nickers so bunched up that it could come
close to creating a situation where a ground crew (however well intentioned)
could think they had the authority to do this; let alone create the atmosphere
where the Captain would think that he had to agree.
Quite a chain of events to make the incident happen, but also quite a chain of
events to make it come out as good as it did. If the cabin crew had decided
to go out the #1 door (as one PAX did - stepped to the ground), there most
likely would have been no injuries at all.
Good book, really bad movie.
Brian
**********
I used to have put a disclaimer here. Company says I can't because I'm not
a lawyer. So I guess that I won't.
**********
Eric Olesen
: Remember that the Gimli incident was the first ever flight of that
: Plane "in production". Since Canada had the guts to convert to the
: metric system, you cannot blame the airlines for make the effort to
: also convert. Just because the USA is incapable of converting doesn't
: mean that the rest of the world can't : live on the metric system.
Excuse me, but this was not AC's first ever flight of the 767. If it
were, there would never have been an incident because they'd never have
dispatched the aircraft with an inop gauge -and- an inexperienced crew on
that particular airframe.
Second, the US has converted more than you might think. For many years,
we've had metric measurements on our food products, and have used dual
measurements in science, commerce and engineering. The cutover to metric
could take place, however there is no pressing need to do it. The US
converting to metric would be the equivelant of Canada switching to
French as the official language.
: Could air Canada have trained pilots for this new plane without explaining to
: them that this was a metric plane and how they should calculate fuel
: requirements ?
The crew and fueler were trained. They knew enough to attemp making the
conversion in the first place, didn't they? They just both happened to
make the same conversion errir. (intentional!)
: The responsability lies with the highly trained pilots, not the guy on the
: tarmac that refuels the plane.
Absolutely. The captain is responsible for the _safe_ operation of the
aircraft, and is also responsible in this case for not checking the
figures closer. If I remember right, it was the first time that the CA and
the FO flew together (the original FO called in sick). The CA should have
double checked the fuel numbers, and not just assumed that the FO was
doing it correctly. Second guessing -is- his position when dealing with
someone less experienced. It was his airplane, and he was responsible for
the passengers onboard. The accident occured because of pilot error. No
if's and's or but's about it.
E
Terry Angus
>
> Absolutely. The captain is responsible for the _safe_ operation of the
> aircraft, and is also responsible in this case for not checking the
> figures closer. If I remember right, it was the first time that the CA and
> the FO flew together (the original FO called in sick). The CA should have
> double checked the fuel numbers, and not just assumed that the FO was
> doing it correctly. Second guessing -is- his position when dealing with
> someone less experienced. It was his airplane, and he was responsible for
> the passengers onboard. The accident occured because of pilot error. No
> if's and's or but's about it.
>
The accident occurred, as all accidents do, because of a series of events,
many of them errors, that occurred as precursors to the accident.
Remove any of the precursors and you have prevented the accident. Assigning
blame to the flight crew ("pilot error") represents a view of accident
analysis that is as outdated as it is simplistic, but is popular among
those who don't recognize that the pilot is merely the final line of
defence against the occurrence of an accident, and very rarely the sole
cause of that accident.
If one were simply concerned with assigning blame, then there would be a
host of individuals to identify, all of who contributed in some way to the
accident. It is far more useful, however, to look for the cause factors
in order to prevent the occurrence of a similar event.
As is often the case, the crew were merely involved in the final stages of
the series of events leading up to this accident. And of course, as is
almost always the case, they were first at the scene, and thus easily
identifiable as directly involved. Having found themselves in a very quiet
aircraft high above extremely hostile terrain, they did an incredible job
of preventing almost certain catastrophy through extremely skillful
flying. This earned them well-deserved recognition from airline pilots world
wide in the form of IFALPA's Polaris Award.
--
Terry Angus
Tel/Fax 613-692-6393
AN...@immedia.ca
Jean-Francois Mezei
> were, there would never have been an incident because they'd never have
> dispatched the aircraft with an inop gauge -and- an inexperienced crew on
> that particular airframe.
This is the first time I hear about that. I had heard from various places
that it was AC's first revenue flight and that there was pressure to get
it up in the air on-time.
Whether or not this was the first revenue flight, or if the pilots were
properly trained or not, whether the blame lied on the sweeper, the pilot
or the president, the RESPONSABILITY does lie with the pilots especially
since they were ware of a potential problem (failed gauges, requesting
dipstick measurement).
Nobody has yet given me some facts about how non-american airlines proceed
with refueling while in the USA (do they have "metric" planes? do they
have problems with refuelers who are not trained in metric in the USA ?,
and if not, how come the folks involved in the GIMLI incident *seemed*
inexperienced in servicing suhc a plane and converting measures ?