Joe: Every transportation method has safety problems
Hi Elizabeth,
RE: "...the scarier flying sounds."
All of those disturbing events you described (fatigue, illness etc) have indeed affected pilots. Sadly, almost every transportation method has had it's share of unnecessary incidents caused almost solely by the operator.
Trucking - (drivers using amphetamines to drive all night), shipping - EXXON VALDEZ - enough said, buses and yes airplanes.
Don't let me dissuade you from flying. I'm only sharing facts that CAIR may have overlooked. A commercial flight doesn't taxi to a runway to takeoff unless calculations have verified that the aircraft can safely takeoff within the available distance under the existing environmental conditions. The pilot does NOT taxi to the runway, say a prayer, apply full power and HOPE for the best.
Flying is - BY FAR - the safest mode of transportation. If my explanation of how calculated every takeoff and landing is has made you MORE afraid, then I suspect there is little anyone can say to put you at ease. (I am willing to try though)
The fact that a Q400 is being used to fly beyond 500 miles is strictly a business decision made by the operator. They understand that doing this causes other undesirable side effects like leaving behind baggage or as Mr. Iler pointed out - golf clubs, or flying with many empty seats.
Here's another scenario: Canadian Airlines used to fly from Toronto to Tokyo "NONSTOP". Due to the aircraft type selected for the route, headwinds on some days would cause an unscheduled stop for fuel in Calgary.
In addition, this daily flight was severely weight restricted and about half of the seats were not available for purchase. As inefficient as these conditions were, they allowed for the flight to operate safely each and every day.
Another major airline -Northwest Airlines - fly from Detroit to Tokyo and on some days, the aircraft would reach the runway and have to sit for 15 minutes to burn off fuel to reduce the weight of the aircraft. The pilots calculated the exact weight that would allow a safe takeoff on that runway in those weather conditions and burned off the exact amount of fuel to allow a safe operation.
The fact that Bombardier has specified a "typical" range for the Q400 does not mean it is the MAXIMUM range of the aircraft.
If anyone here is going to accuse Porter of an unsafe operation, then just make sure you understand that every airline, at one time or another, engages in exactly the same practice.
Also understand that while load restricting a flight to extend range is inefficient it is not unsafe. Don't let your opinions about the TCCA or Porter cloud your judgment.
Elizabeth, if you have any other questions or concerns, I welcome an opportunity to help explain these occasionally complex issues to you or anyone else.
Take Care!
Joe
RE: "...the scarier flying sounds."
All of those disturbing events you described (fatigue, illness etc) have indeed affected pilots. Sadly, almost every transportation method has had it's share of unnecessary incidents caused almost solely by the operator.
Trucking - (drivers using amphetamines to drive all night), shipping - EXXON VALDEZ - enough said, buses and yes airplanes.
Don't let me dissuade you from flying. I'm only sharing facts that CAIR may have overlooked. A commercial flight doesn't taxi to a runway to takeoff unless calculations have verified that the aircraft can safely takeoff within the available distance under the existing environmental conditions. The pilot does NOT taxi to the runway, say a prayer, apply full power and HOPE for the best.
Flying is - BY FAR - the safest mode of transportation. If my explanation of how calculated every takeoff and landing is has made you MORE afraid, then I suspect there is little anyone can say to put you at ease. (I am willing to try though)
The fact that a Q400 is being used to fly beyond 500 miles is strictly a business decision made by the operator. They understand that doing this causes other undesirable side effects like leaving behind baggage or as Mr. Iler pointed out - golf clubs, or flying with many empty seats.
Here's another scenario: Canadian Airlines used to fly from Toronto to Tokyo "NONSTOP". Due to the aircraft type selected for the route, headwinds on some days would cause an unscheduled stop for fuel in Calgary.
In addition, this daily flight was severely weight restricted and about half of the seats were not available for purchase. As inefficient as these conditions were, they allowed for the flight to operate safely each and every day.
Another major airline -Northwest Airlines - fly from Detroit to Tokyo and on some days, the aircraft would reach the runway and have to sit for 15 minutes to burn off fuel to reduce the weight of the aircraft. The pilots calculated the exact weight that would allow a safe takeoff on that runway in those weather conditions and burned off the exact amount of fuel to allow a safe operation.
The fact that Bombardier has specified a "typical" range for the Q400 does not mean it is the MAXIMUM range of the aircraft.
If anyone here is going to accuse Porter of an unsafe operation, then just make sure you understand that every airline, at one time or another, engages in exactly the same practice.
Also understand that while load restricting a flight to extend range is inefficient it is not unsafe. Don't let your opinions about the TCCA or Porter cloud your judgment.
Elizabeth, if you have any other questions or concerns, I welcome an opportunity to help explain these occasionally complex issues to you or anyone else.
Take Care!
Joe
Comments