E-Mail Post To A Friend
Email a copy of 'The Gimli Glider' to a friend
Loading ...
9 comments to "The Gimli Glider"
-
Denita TwoDragons
November 13th, 2007 at
12:32 am
That story was IN. FRIGGIN’. CREDIBLE!!
Of course, it also continues to feed my rapidly-growing fear of flying. Eek!
–TwoDragons
-
Justin
November 13th, 2007 at
1:28 am
Nice, you know this story sounded familiar but apparently I was thinking of an incident in 2001. Here is the wiki article
-
Andy3000
November 13th, 2007 at
2:03 am
Thanks for the reminder of that amazing story. It’s said that the pilot landed a brick that day. Some ace piloting on his part…
-
Alex
November 13th, 2007 at
2:19 am
Wow! That was a great story. I’m glad everyone made it. Y’know, when I first read the title, I thought Miss C was talking about this Gimli.
-
F451
November 13th, 2007 at
12:47 pm
Y’know, every commercial airliner type has a document called the “Minimum Equipment List.” And it’s called the “MINIMUM Equipment List” for a reason — you’re not supposed to fly the airplane without all those items being functional!
I don’t care what a hotshot glider pilot Capt. Pearson was, he (and his copilot) should have been canned. Air Canada should have been heavily fined, and a thorough review of their safety and training programs instituted.
There’s more to being a “professional” airline pilot than good stick-and-rudder work. This is a textbook example of a pilot with the Wrong Stuff.
-
Quasi_Mojo
November 13th, 2007 at
3:14 pm
F451, What are you talking about?
It’s not like the pilot is responsible for the maintenance of the airliner and it’s not like they took off without having the failed mechanical parts working.
The problems were encountered IN-FLIGHT!!!
While the Airline should be held responsible, the pilots should be commended. -
bpr
November 13th, 2007 at
5:15 pm
The pilot is responsible to be sure all of his indicators are functioning properly. One of the things on the checklist is “Working fuel gage.”
The gage wasn’t reading at all, and they knew that BEFORE the flight began, not after they were in the air.
-
Dave
November 13th, 2007 at
6:10 pm
True enough, that was some ace piloting, but the pilots & crew definitely need to work on their math and communication skills.
They say the difference between a good carpenter and a bad one is that the good carpenter knows better how to cover up his mistakes. Sometimes it’s that way with pilots too. How many death-defying landings are made by pilots who were responsible for getting themselves (and anybody else along for the ride) into trouble in the first place?
-
F451
November 13th, 2007 at
9:03 pm
No. 6:
I’m serious: In the U.S. (and Canadian law and aviation regulations match) it is illegal to operate a commercial aircraft with any of the items on the Minimum Equipment List (MEL) not in operating condition. And the fuel quantity indicating system is one of those items. Capt. Pearson was in violation of safety regulations before he ever left the ground, with the result that he nearly killed everyone on board. And I do mean ‘he’: The pilot is not responsible for performing maintenance on an aircraft (he isn’t licensed to do it) but the pilot is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the plane.
The pilot in command (Pearson, in this case) is required prior to departure to do a brief inspection of the aircraft, to check the maintenance logbook for any outstanding discrepancies, and to run through a lengthy checklist to assure that the aircraft is in good operating condition.
From the account, Pearson _knew_ this B767 had a faulty FQIS. Air Canada’s procedures were very clear about what he should do in such a case: Wait for the item to be put in good working order before operating the airplane. Instead, he elected to have the fuel quantity manually measured. Then he screwed up the calculations to determine whether there was enough fuel on board to make the flight.
He should have been canned.
Want your own avatar? Get one for free at Gravatar!
