Air Canada Does Search & Rescue - 270 Scanners On Board

[a2capt]

They were ready to land in Australia, at the end of a 14-hour international flight, when the 270 passengers of an Air Canada flight were suddenly thrown into a high-seas search-and-rescue operation.

Flight AC033 diverted after pilot Andrew Robertson got a call from the Australian Maritime Safety Authority on Tuesday to help search for a yachtsman who had sailed from Sydney two weeks earlier.

"If we have the fuel, could we investigate an emergency beacon that had just gone off," came the question from maritime officials, Robertson told CNN Canadian affiliate CBC News.

Down below, Glenn Ey of Queensland, Australia, was being tossed about in his crippled 36-foot yacht -- out of fuel and with a broken mast after a storm.

"I thought I had a very good chance of getting back to Sydney without assistance," Ey said after nine days adrift. "I couldn't see any evidence of Sydney, and I had no idea of my exact position, and it was at that point I set off the emergency position indicator radio beacon."

The search began as the Boeing 777, on its way from Vancouver, dropped from 37,000 feet to 4,000 feet. Robertson asked the passengers and crew to train their eyes on the choppy waters below.

"I think everyone's heart started beating a little bit faster," said Jill Brown, a Canadian singer, who was making the trip to Sydney for a concert. "They said ... we'd really appreciate it if everyone could look out their windows, and if anyone has any binoculars that could help us identify this yacht, that would be really helpful."

It didn't take too long to find Ey as passengers and crew scanned the waters below.

"We're doing this big sweeping right turn and almost immediately they said, 'Oh, we see something,' " Robertson said. "We were totally ecstatic."

Total from time from activation of the emergency beacon until he was found by the Air Canada flight: about 25 minutes.

"You know, we cheered and we applauded and I think we all kind of felt a sense of pride," Brown said.

A merchant vessel helped the yacht until the New South Wales water police arrived from Sydney late Wednesday, about 270 nautical miles off the coast.

Air Canada Finds Lost Yacht after diversion, nearing Sydney, AU
Can you imagine the SQTR's? .. if there was an SET qualified individual on board?

[Eclipse]

I saw that - were I a passenger, I'd be filing a complaint somewhere:

A: My time, the plane was already late and this made it even later.

B: More important, my safety - taking a commercial jet down under 4000 ft over water?  Seriously, what were they thinking?

"Seemed like a good idea at the time..."

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

I saw that - were I a passenger, I'd be filing a complaint somewhere:

A: My time, the plane was already late and this made it even later.

B: More important, my safety - taking a commercial jet down under 4000 ft over water?  Seriously, what were they thinking?

"Seemed like a good idea at the time..."

Ignore above, Curmudgeon venting...

Way to go Canadians, proof again that banning contingency fees is in the self-interest of any healthy society!

[A.Member]

I saw that - were I a passenger, I'd be filing a complaint somewhere:

A: My time, the plane was already late and this made it even later.

B: More important, my safety - taking a commercial jet down under 4000 ft over water?  Seriously, what were they thinking?

"Seemed like a good idea at the time..."

So, what?  They're over the Pacific.  Do you think at 37,000+ ft they have any better shot at reaching land?!   Don't be silly.  There was no significant risk to anyone's safety.  Have you ever been on an overseas flight?  The passengers probably welcomed a break from the monotony.

Good on this crew and the passengers.  More importantly, they actually found their target.  Sadly, this puts their batting average well above ours.    

[Eclipse]

So, what?  They're over the Pacific.  Do you think at 37,000+ ft they have any better shot at reaching land?!   

Um, yes?

An engine failure or other mechanical problem at 4k feet is going to to be a lot more "exciting" a lot faster then at 37,000.
This is a typical "ask for forgiveness situation" - the results were positive, so then it must be "OK".  If that plane went into the
water doing the same thing, everyone would be yelling how dumb this was.

[A.Member]

So, what?  They're over the Pacific.  Do you think at 37,000+ ft they have any better shot at reaching land?!   

Um, yes?

An engine failure or other mechanical problem at 4k feet is going to to be a lot more "exciting" a lot faster then at 37,000.
This is a typical "ask for forgiveness situation" - the results were positive, so then it must be "OK".  If that plane went into the
water doing the same thing, everyone would be yelling how dumb this was.

Uh, no.  The yacht was reportedly 270nm off the coast.  The only difference would be in the unlikely event they had such a significant problem, the passengers would have a longer time to dwell on it from 37K.  Either way, they'd be going swimming.

[Critical AOA]

Yes, if you lose both engines you can glide much farther from 37,000' than 4000'.  The glide ratio of a 777 is somewhere in the neighborhood of 17:1.  So at 37,000', the 777 could glide for approximately 119 miles.  The article stated that the yacht was approximately 270 miles from the coast so assuming that this was the minimum distance the 777 had to travel as well means splash down even at 37,000' but at least they would have been closer to land than if it happened at 4000'.   So yes, there is an increased level of risk.

However...

The probability of losing one engine is pretty low. The MTBF of modern jet engines is pretty high.  Besides, the 777 can fly just fine on one engine.  It has to in order to qualify for ETOPS as well as basic certification.

The probability of losing both engines is quite a bit lower, in fact statistically it almost approaches zero.

The probability of losing both engines at that particular moment in time is even closer to approaching zero.

About the only real risk is that considering the time they took looking plus the increased fuel burn at the lower altitude plus perhaps a higher fuel burn in climb returning to a higher altitude after the search, they would have cut into their fuel reserves.  I am sure this was all taken into consideration and the crew did some calculations and decided that their fuel remaining was sufficient for the conditions existing at the time.  I am certain they would have bugged out of the search area long before fuel got critical.

I know if it were my knickers getting soaked that I would really appreciate the fact someone took this very modest risk.   Statistically speaking, I am certain that we assume a far greater level of risk as CAP pilots when we jump in our single engine piston powered airplane to look for someone in need... but we do it anyway.   

[NIN]

So, what?  They're over the Pacific.  Do you think at 37,000+ ft they have any better shot at reaching land?!   

Um, yes?

An engine failure or other mechanical problem at 4k feet is going to to be a lot more "exciting" a lot faster then at 37,000.
This is a typical "ask for forgiveness situation" - the results were positive, so then it must be "OK".  If that plane went into the
water doing the same thing, everyone would be yelling how dumb this was.

Twin Engine Jets (AKA the Boeing 777) are required to demonstrate the ability to operate for 180 minutes (thats 3 hours) on ONE engine in order to be able to fly certain routes over the Pacific & Atlantic. 

The routes they take are based on this certification (called "ETOPS" for, off the top of my head, Extended Twin-engine OPerationS), and they're never more than 180 minutes from a suitable divert field.

Also, and I could be wrong here: A lot of aviation ops internationally have a basis in maritime law & custom.   I *believe* that this is one of those circumstances where, while it might not be *required*, it is *customary* for a vessel (aircraft or ship) to divert to render aid of some sort.

[JeffDG]

I saw that - were I a passenger, I'd be filing a complaint somewhere:

A: My time, the plane was already late and this made it even later.

B: More important, my safety - taking a commercial jet down under 4000 ft over water?  Seriously, what were they thinking?

"Seemed like a good idea at the time..."

Please feel free to file your complaint, sir:

[Critical AOA]

Oh... I thought it stood for Engines Turn Or People Swim.

[A.Member]

Yes, if you lose both engines you can glide much farther from 37,000' than 4000'.  The glide ratio of a 777 is somewhere in the neighborhood of 17:1.  So at 37,000', the 777 could glide for approximately 119 miles.  The article stated that the yacht was approximately 270 miles from the coast so assuming that this was the minimum distance the 777 had to travel as well means splash down even at 37,000' but at least they would have been closer to land than if it happened at 4000'.   So yes, there is an increased level of risk.

However...

The probability of losing one engine is pretty low. The MTBF of modern jet engines is pretty high.  Besides, the 777 can fly just fine on one engine.  It has to in order to qualify for ETOPS as well as basic certification.

The probability of losing both engines is quite a bit lower, in fact statistically it almost approaches zero.

The probability of losing both engines at that particular moment in time is even closer to approaching zero.

About the only real risk is that considering the time they took looking plus the increased fuel burn at the lower altitude plus perhaps a higher fuel burn in climb returning to a higher altitude after the search, they would have cut into their fuel reserves.  I am sure this was all taken into consideration and the crew did some calculations and decided that their fuel remaining was sufficient for the conditions existing at the time.  I am certain they would have bugged out of the search area long before fuel got critical.

I know if it were my knickers getting soaked that I would really appreciate the fact someone took this very modest risk.   Statistically speaking, I am certain that we assume a far greater level of risk as CAP pilots when we jump in our single engine piston powered airplane to look for someone in need... but we do it anyway.

Agreed.  We're on the same page.  I was just pointing out there was no significant risk (over what they already had) but didn't get into the various details as to why.

[NIN]

Oh... I thought it stood for Engines Turn Or People Swim.

I like yours better.

[BillB]

If there was a CAP member on that aircraft, could he apply for a Find ribbon?

[JeffDG]

If there was a CAP member on that aircraft, could he apply for a Find ribbon?

It had to devolve into a uniform discussion eventually.

[AngelWings]

Job well done for these pilots!

[Critical AOA]

Oh... I thought it stood for Engines Turn Or People Swim.

I like yours better.

Old airline joke. I first heard it back in the 90's when the now defunct airline I worked for at the time (ATA) was doing its first ETOPS certifications.  In fact we were the first airline to get certified for 180 minute ETOPS in the 757. 

[Eclipse]

If there was a CAP member on that aircraft, could he apply for a Find ribbon?

Did they silence the beacon?

[Flying Pig]

i was on a cruise in Alaska where the PA chimed up, and some alarm sounded that sent chills up my spine.  My wife looked at me and said "uh, that isnt the lunch bell".  The captain came on and in a hard Norweigen accent told everyone we were reversing course and would be significantly increasing speed for a fishing boat broadcasting they were rapidly taking on water.  I though I was back in the Marines when that ship turned to the point where people were leaning against walls and railings and water in the pool sloshed out!  Believe it or not a cruise ship can Haul A-- if it needs to.

We got there, rescue swimmers from the ships crew were getting suited up.  However another fishing boat was in the process of taking the crew onto their boat.  I didnt hear anyone complain.

[Check Pilot/Tow Pilot]

i was on a cruise in Alaska where the PA chimed up, and some alarm sounded that sent chills up my spine.  My wife looked at me and said "uh, that isnt the lunch bell".  The captain came on and in a hard Norweigen accent told everyone we were reversing course and would be significantly increasing speed for a fishing boat broadcasting they were rapidly taking on water.  I though I was back in the Marines when that ship turned to the point where people were leaning against walls and railings and water in the pool sloshed out!  Believe it or not a cruise ship can Haul A-- if it needs to.

We got there, rescue swimmers from the ships crew were getting suited up.  However another fishing boat was in the process of taking the crew onto their boat.  I didnt hear anyone complain.

Guess Eclipse was at home posting to CapTalk   

[Eclipse]

Guess Eclipse was at home posting to CapTalk

A scathing letter was sent to the editor of the "Spirit of Freedom, and Working Man's Vindicator".

[sardak]

Also, and I could be wrong here: A lot of aviation ops internationally have a basis in maritime law & custom.   I *believe* that this is one of those circumstances where, while it might not be *required*, it is *customary* for a vessel (aircraft or ship) to divert to render aid of some sort.

It's a bit of a gray area, but here's what international conventions state:
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
" Every State shall require the master of a ship flying its flag, in so far as he can do so without serious danger to the ship, the crew or the passengers:
(a) to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost;
(b) to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress, if informed of their need of assistance, in so far as such action may reasonably be expected of him."
International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
"The master of a ship at sea which is in a position to be able to provide assistance, on receiving information from any source that persons are in distress at sea, is bound to proceed with all speed to their assistance..."
International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 12 on SAR
3.2.1 Contracting States, when requested, shall arrange for all aircraft, vessels and local services and facilities which do not form part of the search and rescue organization to cooperate with the latter in search and rescue and to extend any possible assistance to the survivors of aircraft accidents.

If your plane crashes at sea, you're going to expect ships to come to your aid. Communications is also based on these premises. The same international radio distress frequencies are good for ships and planes dating back to early days of aviation.

Canada Shipping Act, 2001 (2001, C. 26) Extract — Part 5, Sections 130–133
(2) On being informed that a person, a vessel or an aircraft is in distress or is missing in Canadian waters or on the high seas off any of the coasts of Canada under circumstances that indicate that they may be in distress, a rescue coordinator may:
   1. direct all vessels within an area that the rescue coordinator specifies to report their positions;
   2. direct any vessel to take part in a search for that person, vessel or aircraft or to otherwise render assistance;
   3. give any other directions that the rescue coordinator considers necessary to carry out search and rescue operations for that person, vessel or aircraft;
(3) Every vessel or person on board a vessel in Canadian waters and every vessel or person on board a vessel in any waters that has a master who is a qualified person shall comply with a direction given to it or them under subsection (2).
Aircraft treated as if vessel
[The above] apply in respect of aircraft on or over Canadian waters as they apply in respect of vessels in Canadian waters, with any modifications that the circumstances require.

From the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) website: Dedicated SAR facilities are limited in Australia. When necessary, other facilities are diverted from their primary function by arrangement or request.  Private and commercial aircraft are chartered as required for searches and the costs are recovered from the State/Territory or Australian Search and Rescue (AusSAR) as appropriate.

Given that this was a flight of a Commonwealth flag airline to another Commonwealth nation, there was probably an implied duty to act, following the Canada Shipping Act, if not outright responsibility under the conventions.

Somewhat related, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) merged their SAR manuals into one several years ago. This combined manual is the one the United States follows, with supplements.

Mike

[Luis R. Ramos]

I also read on Mike's post a section that implies that if there are any costs for searching, the Australian territory will cover them.

Kinda takes care of Eclipse's comment that the airplane was incurring extra costs by diverting from their commercial flight...

:angel:

Flyer

[Flying Pig]

Thats why Captains are paid the big bucks to make decisions.

[Eclipse]

Kinda takes care of Eclipse's comment that the airplane was incurring extra costs by diverting from their commercial flight...

Yeah - rescue cost, sure.  That lost business because you're three hours late for a meeting, or don't make the hearing for your kids custody fight,
or maybe just miss the connection and don't get on the cruise ship that you have non-refundable tickets for, doubt it.

Commercial airlines are supposed to get passengers to their destinations on time, not get involved in SAR - there's highly paid professionals for that,
and further, in this case, the boat had a beacon on it and they knew pretty much where it was.

And again, this had a positive outcome so everyone's a "hero", if that plane went swimming, we'd all be asking why this was even an option, let alone a good idea.

As to the Maritime statutes, I doubt the intention is to endanger the lives of hundreds of people on an already engaged commercial flight.
There's a difference between commandeering aircraft on the ground, and diverting one that already has a responsibility for hundreds of souls.

You also can't compare this to a cruise ship - on a cruise ship, no matter where you are, you're "there".  Few people would mind staying on a boat longer, while no one but the first few rows wants to stay on a commercial plane 1 second longer than necessary. 

I wonder if the airline was passing out vouchers or at least T-shirts, they got some great pub at their passengers risk and expense.

Like most news stories these days, the "cool" wins over common sense.

[PHall]

Kinda takes care of Eclipse's comment that the airplane was incurring extra costs by diverting from their commercial flight...

Yeah - rescue cost, sure.  That lost business because you're three hours late for a meeting, or don't make the hearing for your kids custody fight,
or maybe just miss the connection and don't get on the cruise ship that you have non-refundable tickets for, doubt it.

Commercial airlines are supposed to get passengers to their destinations on time, not get involved in SAR - there's highly paid professionals for that,
and further, in this case, the boat had a beacon on it and they knew pretty much where it was.

And again, this had a positive outcome so everyone's a "hero", if that plane went swimming, we'd all be asking why this was even an option, let alone a good idea.

As to the Maritime statutes, I doubt the intention is to endanger the lives of hundreds of people on an already engaged commercial flight.
There's a difference between commandeering aircraft on the ground, and diverting one that already has a responsibility for hundreds of souls.

You also can't compare this to a cruise ship - on a cruise ship, no matter where you are, you're "there".  Few people would mind staying on a boat longer, while no one but the first few rows wants to stay on a commercial plane 1 second longer than necessary. 

I wonder if the airline was passing out vouchers or at least T-shirts, they got some great pub at their passengers risk and expense.

Like most news stories these days, the "cool" wins over common sense.

International Law says they must help if asked and if they are able.  They were asked and they were able. End of story.

[Eclipse]

International Law says they must help if asked and if they are able.  They were asked and they were able. End of story.

Fair enough, but don't make it out to be more, or less then it is, or negate the impact on the passengers, nor the risk.

[A.Member]

Kinda takes care of Eclipse's comment that the airplane was incurring extra costs by diverting from their commercial flight...

Yeah - rescue cost, sure.  That lost business because you're three hours late for a meeting, or don't make the hearing for your kids custody fight,
or maybe just miss the connection and don't get on the cruise ship that you have non-refundable tickets for, doubt it...

Quit being ridiculous.  This was an international flight.  No one with an ounce of common sense plans timelines like that.

Sometimes you make good arguments.  This is not one of those times.  When you're the only one on the side arguing your point, it may be a clue to revisit your position.

[Eclipse]

This was an international flight.  No one with an ounce of common sense plans timelines like that.

A lot of people live in those timelines, every day, and the airlines do it to their customers, every day.

Less flights, more passengers, tighter timelines.

[Майор Хаткевич]

When you're the only one on the side arguing your point, it may be a clue to revisit your position.

*cough*

[AngelWings]

This was an international flight.  No one with an ounce of common sense plans timelines like that.

A lot of people live in those timelines, every day, and the airlines do it to their customers, every day.

Less flights, more passengers, tighter timelines.

So who cares? It's not every day it happens, nor is it a common occurence. Plus I am sure all of the passengers are at least half decent human beings who can fathom that it wasn't a normal situation. And what is ONE occurence of losing at most 270 customers going to matter in the long run? You've become corrupt when you value money over lives.

And the pilot didn't put anyone at risk. 4,000 feet ASL with a perfectly fine airliner is safe. They didn't fly it stupidly, they flew it sanely. I'd completely agree with your safety concerns if they were yankin' 'n bankin' it like they were fighter jocks, but the reports make it sound like they were flying the turns safely.

[RogueLeader]

This was an international flight.  No one with an ounce of common sense plans timelines like that.

A lot of people live in those timelines, every day, and the airlines do it to their customers, every day.

Less flights, more passengers, tighter timelines.

So who cares? It's not every day it happens, nor is it a common occurence. Plus I am sure all of the passengers are at least half decent human beings who can fathom that it wasn't a normal situation. And what is ONE occurence of losing at most 270 customers going to matter in the long run? You've become corrupt when you value money over lives.

And the pilot didn't put anyone at risk. 4,000 feet ASL with a perfectly fine airliner is safe. They didn't fly it stupidly, they flew it sanely. I'd completely agree with your safety concerns if they were yankin' 'n bankin' it like they were fighter jocks, but the reports make it sound like they were flying the turns safely.

As a matter of fact, those planes are designed (or were when first conceived)  to yank and bank.  Just because they aren't handled like that, doesn't mean they can't.  (If I had 270 on board, I wouldn't be, but YMMV)

[johnnyb47]

I suppose I see both sides.
I'm not too concerned about being late to a meeting or something when a human life is involved.
I can say that after the rush had worn off and the person was rescued I might begin questioning the use of a jet airliner with 250+ passengers being used for SAR.
It's different, IMHO, when an ocean liner is turned around to help stranded or sinking vessels on the high seas. There's not even a slight worry that you could hit the water at 580MPH when you are already in it.

I dont know that I'd be angry. Just questioning the judgement.

[AirDX]

Twice in my ATC career I had air carrier aircraft look for downed aircraft, both times successfully.  Both times the air carrier remained in the area until relieved by a USCG asset.  In one case the air carrier remained on station as a com relay for the USCG helo that was winching up survivors. 

No one complained whined.

Here's one of the stories:

http://www.equipped.com/kenditch.htm

[AirDX]

Kinda takes care of Eclipse's comment that the airplane was incurring extra costs by diverting from their commercial flight...

Yeah - rescue cost, sure.  That lost business because you're three hours late for a meeting, or don't make the hearing for your kids custody fight,
or maybe just miss the connection and don't get on the cruise ship that you have non-refundable tickets for, doubt it.

Commercial airlines are supposed to get passengers to their destinations on time, not get involved in SAR - there's highly paid professionals for that,
and further, in this case, the boat had a beacon on it and they knew pretty much where it was.

And again, this had a positive outcome so everyone's a "hero", if that plane went swimming, we'd all be asking why this was even an option, let alone a good idea.

As to the Maritime statutes, I doubt the intention is to endanger the lives of hundreds of people on an already engaged commercial flight.
There's a difference between commandeering aircraft on the ground, and diverting one that already has a responsibility for hundreds of souls.

You also can't compare this to a cruise ship - on a cruise ship, no matter where you are, you're "there".  Few people would mind staying on a boat longer, while no one but the first few rows wants to stay on a commercial plane 1 second longer than necessary. 

I wonder if the airline was passing out vouchers or at least T-shirts, they got some great pub at their passengers risk and expense.

Like most news stories these days, the "cool" wins over common sense.

SAR assets are not as easily and quickly available in the open ocean as they are in Illinois.  You have to use what you have, and people actually HELP each other.  As as been explained, risk is minimal - 777s are type-certified to 330 minutes.  As far as delay, let's see what the pax said:

I think everyone's heart started beating a little bit faster," said Jill Barber, a Canadian singer, who was making the trip to Sydney for a concert. "They said ... we'd really appreciate it if everyone could look out their windows, and if anyone has any binoculars that could help us identify this yacht, that would be really helpful."

It didn't take too long to find Ey as passengers and crew scanned the waters below.

"We're doing this big sweeping right turn and almost immediately they said, 'Oh, we see something,' " Robertson said. "We were totally ecstatic."
Total from time from activation of the emergency beacon until he was found by the Air Canada flight: about 25 minutes.

"You know, we cheered and we applauded and I think we all kind of felt a sense of pride," Barber said.

So... yeah, your opinion is officially irrelevant.