Have you ever looked at something in your work and thought:

“Why do we do it that way?”

You ask around.
Nobody really knows.
“We’ve just always done it that way.”

Navigation might be one of those things.

In aviation, marine travel, and even backcountry hiking, we still talk about direction using magnetic north.

But here’s the thing: almost all modern navigation systems don’t actually navigate using magnetic north.

So… why are we still speaking that language?

A Quick Step Back

Any point on Earth can be described using latitude and longitude. If you know where you are and where you want to go, you can theoretically travel in a straight line between those two points.

The direction of that straight line is based on true north — geographic north — the fixed North Pole where all lines of longitude meet.

But your compass?

It doesn’t point there.

It points to magnetic north, which is somewhere else entirely… and moving.

For decades, magnetic north sat in the Canadian Arctic. Today it’s drifting across the Arctic Ocean toward Siberia.

Which means this:

The reference point we use for direction is literally sliding across the planet.

That’s Where “Variation” Comes In

Maps are drawn relative to geographic north. Somewhere on the chart you’ll see a little note that says something like:

“Variation 15°W (2025), decreasing 0.2° annually.”

That difference between true north and magnetic north is called variation (or declination).

And because magnetic north moves, variation changes.

Slowly.
Constantly.
Forever.

Over short distances, it’s manageable. But over long distances — or where precision matters — those few degrees start to matter.

Here’s the Irony

In modern aircraft, direction is actually computed using true north.

GPS? True.
Inertial systems? True.
Radio-based position fixes? True.

The aircraft calculates position and track using geographic references.

Then the system converts everything to magnetic.

• Aircraft present direction in magnetic.

• Airways are published in magnetic.

• ATC headings are magnetic.

• Runway numbers are magnetic.

• Wind direction reports are magnetic.

We built a system that thinks in true… but talks in magnetic.

Canada Already Does It Differently (Sometimes)

In northern Canadian airspace, headings are issued in true north.

Why?

Because near the magnetic north pole:

• Magnetic variation becomes huge.

• It changes rapidly over short distances.

• Magnetic compasses get unreliable.

So they stopped using magnetic.

And it works.

Which brings us back to the question:

If true works… and modern navigation already uses true internally… why not just used true north?

Because Switching Would Be Massive

Imagine flipping the entire aviation system at once.

• Every runway number would change.

• Every chart would need updating.

• ATC phraseology would shift.

• Weather reports would need alignment.

• Pilots would have to retrain muscle memory built over decades.

• International coordination would be required.

From a safety perspective, the transition itself would be the biggest risk.

If you’re in an area with 20° of variation and someone misapplies it during the switchover? That’s not a small mistake.

But Once You Switch…

Something interesting happens.

The actual direction from Point A to Point B never changes.

What changes is the magnetic correction layered on top.

If everything were true-based:

• Databases wouldn’t need magnetic updates.

• Charts wouldn’t need variation adjustments.

• Runways would never need renumbering.

• The system would stabilize permanently.

It would align with how modern navigation actually works.

So Why Haven’t We Done It?

Probably because magnetic north still works well enough.

And because changing global aviation infrastructure is not like updating an app.

There have been white papers. There have been industry discussions. Even NAV CANADA, Canada’s air travel control organization, has written publicly about the cost and complexity of managing magnetic variation year after year.

But for now?

We keep converting true to magnetic.

Because we’ve always done it that way.

Or maybe, one day, a new generation of pilots will ask:

“Why are we still using a moving pole as our reference?”

And someone else will answer:

“We’ve just always done it that way.”

Wouldn’t it be easier if we had the money to just “pay” for volunteers? It sometimes feels like pulling teeth when trying to fill the volunteer roster. Gosh, what a dream.

Where am I going to get that money?

Now that we’ve woken from my daydream of “what if we had a big bag of money,” when we look at volunteer-led organizations like Rotary, the struggle remains. I’m talking about volunteers, but also about membership numbers in service-based organizations.

How do some organizations always seem to have volunteers available? I know they’re volunteers — so they’re not getting “paid.” So what’s their secret? Is it free cookies?

Does money, or something tangible, motivate volunteers — or anyone? Isn’t that why we work?

But then we go back to the question: why do some organizations never seem to have volunteer issues?

The Surprising Research

Funny enough, money does not motivate people in the way we think. In fact, for purpose-driven non-profit organizations, money can actually do harm.

Richard Titmuss, in The Gift Relationship, argued that voluntary, unpaid blood donation systems outperform paid ones in both supply and quality.

That idea was later tested experimentally. In a field study, Mellström and Johannesson (2008) randomly assigned potential Swedish blood donors to three conditions: no payment, a small monetary payment, or a choice between accepting the payment or donating it to charity. They found:

• Offering payment reduced willingness to donate among women compared with no payment.

• When participants could donate the payment to charity instead, the negative effect disappeared.

In other words, introducing money shifted the frame from altruism to transaction.

If money isn’t the answer for purpose-driven work, what is?

If Not Money, Then What?

Let’s look at Self-Determination Theory (SDT).

Developed by Deci and Ryan, SDT suggests — and decades of research continue to support — that people engage more deeply when three basic psychological needs are met:

• They have choice — members feel they choose their involvement.

• They feel capable and effective — members feel useful.

• They feel belonging and connection — members feel known and part of something meaningful.

In SDT language, these are autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Increasing participant engagement is explicitly part of Rotary’s strategic plan.

But engagement isn’t something we can demand.

It’s something we design for.

I’ve seen many clubs and Rotarians talk about improving engagement. There are lots of ideas:

• More opportunities of different types and at different times — choice

• Better connection between members’ skills and project needs — capability

• More social events to build relationships — connection

These are all good ideas.

But we may be thinking about them in isolation.

A Practical Example

Your club is about to launch a project. You have a great team of Rotarians ready to get started, but the project needs to build a budget. No one on the team has experience with budgeting, so the group approaches another member — an accountant — and recruits (begs) them to join.

In theory, this should be great. The accountant is skilled (capable), and the project team creates a strong sense of belonging.

So what’s the issue?

Did the accountant have a real choice?

Guilt is a powerful motivator. Of course they can’t be forced. But two out of three — capability and connection — isn’t the same as three out of three.

Real life isn’t always as black and white as this example. And there will be times when hitting all three needs perfectly isn’t possible.

But trying to increase engagement while consistently missing one of the three is not a long-term solution.

A Club Engagement Checklist

If engagement is a strategic objective, maybe we need to evaluate it more intentionally.

Here’s a simple checklist clubs could use.

1️⃣ Choice (Autonomy)

• Do members have real input into projects and decisions?

• Are ideas coming from many members or mostly from a small core?

• Are volunteers asked what they’re interested in — or simply assigned?

• Do members feel comfortable saying “not right now” without guilt?

• Are there multiple ways to participate (short-term, long-term, leadership, support roles)?

Practical Ideas:

• Survey members annually about interests.

• Offer “project menus” instead of single sign-up sheets.

• Build smaller, time-bound roles (micro-volunteering).

2️⃣ Capability (Competence)

• Do members feel their skills are actually used?

• Do new members know how to contribute meaningfully?

• Are there clear expectations for project roles?

• Are members supported when trying something new?

• Is feedback constructive and encouraging?

Practical Ideas:

• Map member skills against club needs.

• Offer simple onboarding for project leads.

• Create mentorship pairings for first-time chairs.

• Celebrate progress, not just outcomes.

3️⃣ Belonging (Relatedness)

• Do members feel known beyond their classification?

• Are relationships deeper than meeting attendance?

• Do projects create connection, or just task completion?

• Are newer members integrated socially?

• Do people feel safe sharing ideas or concerns?

Practical Ideas:

• Build intentional social time into service projects.

• Rotate seating or small-group discussions at meetings.

• Create cross-generational project teams.

• Check in personally with members who step back.

Leadership Matters

A club can’t just flip a switch and activate choice, capability, and belonging everywhere at once. Some areas will be stronger than others.

Leaders can’t — and shouldn’t — force these concepts. Micro-managing or chaotic leadership can do just as much harm as ignoring choice, capability, and belonging altogether.

Engagement isn’t something we demand.

It’s something we need to design for.

A Personal Reflection

Going forward, I’ll be thinking more about SDT. I’ll be self-evaluating the areas I’m involved in to see whether we can introduce — or improve — these three elements.

If money truly motivated service, Rotary would look very different.

Instead, people give their time because they believe.

Maybe our job as leaders isn’t to push harder.

Maybe it’s to protect the conditions that make people want to show up.

Over the past week, I wore my WHOOP through a real-world time change experiment.

I travelled from home in Halifax to Calgary for five days — Atlantic Time to Mountain Time — and watched what happened to my sleep data.

As pilots, we routinely cross time zones.

Our bodies, however, are not nearly as cooperative.

First: How WHOOP Scores Sleep

In the WHOOP app, we see a daily Sleep Score (0–100) representing the quality of the previous night’s sleep.

That score is based on:

• Hours slept vs. sleep need

• Sleep consistency

• Sleep efficiency

• Sleep stress

The key thing to understand:

The underlying physiological data never changes. Only the time zone presentation changes.

WHOOP displays your data in whatever time zone your phone is currently set to.

The screenshots below are the exact same sleep data:

• On the left: phone set to Calgary time

• On the right: phone set to Halifax time

Normally your phone switches automatically when you come out of airplane mode — but I manually changed it to demonstrate this effect.

Your body doesn’t know what time zone you’re in.

Your phone does.

Adjusting in Calgary

Since I was staying in Calgary for four nights — and I wasn’t going to operate on Halifax hours — I adjusted to local time.

Below is my travel day (shown in Calgary time).

I had an early night before departure, woke early for the flight, then began shifting my sleep to Mountain Time once I arrived.

The grey vertical bars represent sleep periods.

The dotted lines represent suggested optimal bed and wake times.

You’ll notice a dip in those lines Monday night.

That dip reflects a sudden change in sleep timing — not because my physiology changed, but because my sleep shifted relative to my recent history.

Remember:

Your circadian rhythm doesn’t instantly relocate when you land.

The Wednesday Night “Nap” Issue

Something interesting happened Wednesday night into Thursday.

I was exhausted. I went to bed early.

I remember waking around 02:00 and struggling to fall back asleep.

WHOOP recorded the second half of that sleep as a nap, so it doesn’t appear as continuous overnight sleep on that screen.

This is one of the limitations of algorithm-based sleep detection — fragmented sleep can sometimes be categorized differently depending on movement and heart rate patterns.

Back Home: The Catch-Up Sleep

This next chart was taken Saturday in Halifax time.

You can clearly see:

• The poor Wednesday night

• A significant recovery sleep Thursday into Friday

• A later sleep Friday into Saturday — similar to my Calgary timing

What I find interesting is how sharply the Optimal Bed/Wake lines jump after that recovery night.

It’s almost as steep as the shift when I first arrived in Calgary.

That surprised me.

Was It My Sleep Goal?

While in Calgary and again once home, I experimented with sleep goals:

• Peak Mode

• Performance Mode

• Get By Mode

• Optimize Sleep

• Reach My Sleep Need (70/85/100%)

For example:

On Saturday night after my return:

• Optimize Sleep suggested bed around 22:50 and wake around 07:30

• The blue “Optimal” line suggested roughly 22:20 to 04:50

That’s a big difference.

So I asked WHOOP AI Coach to explain it.

When you open “Tonight’s Sleep” / Sleep Planner, you’ll see:

• Recommended Time in Bed

  • Total time WHOOP thinks you should be in bed to hit your selected goal.

  • It already includes:

    • Your baseline sleep need (what your body usually needs)

    • Extra for recent strain

    • Extra for sleep debt

    • Minus any recent naps

    • Your typical sleep latency (how long you take to fall asleep)

• Suggested Time to Bed

  • The actual clock time WHOOP recommends you get into bed tonight.

  • It’s based on:

    • Your sleep goal:

      • Improve My Sleep → prioritizes sleep consistency and gently reduces debt.

      • Reach My Sleep Need → targets 70/85/100% of tonight’s calculated sleep need.

    • Your wake-up choice:

      • If you set a wake time, WHOOP backs bedtime up from there.

      • If you don’t, WHOOP suggests a wake time that best fits your need + consistency.

    • Your typical bed/wake times so it doesn’t swing your schedule wildly.

• Optimal vs Suggested (blue vs white)

  • Optimal (blue): “In a perfect world, based only on your physiology and sleep need, this is when you’d sleep.”

  • Suggested (white): “Given your set alarm/wake time and habits, here’s a realistic bed/wake that balances sleep need + consistency.”

• When you change goals or alarm

  • Switching between Improve My Sleep and Reach My Sleep Need, or changing:

    • target (70/85/100%)

    • wake time or alarm type (Exact Time / Sleep Goal / In the Green)

  • → WHOOP recalculates:

    • Recommended Time in Bed

    • Suggested Time to Bed

    • Suggested Wake Time

What This Means for Pilots

A few observations:

1. WHOOP doesn’t “care” about time zones — it cares about physiology.

2. Presentation depends entirely on phone time zone.

3. Sleep Planner is heavily influenced by your selected goal.

4. Fragmented sleep may show up as naps.

5. Recovery sleep after travel can significantly shift suggested timing.

Being back home allows me to gradually realign with my normal rhythm.

While in Calgary, I focused on:

• Maintaining sleep consistency

• Maximizing sleep opportunity

• Managing sleep debt

That’s the real objective — especially when operating.

The Bigger Experiment

I’m especially curious how WHOOP will respond on longer pairings that cross multiple time zones in short succession.

Atlantic → Europe

Those will be far more disruptive than a simple two or three - hour shift.

I’ll keep tracking.

Because as pilots, we don’t just fly through time zones — we fly through physiology.

You can find all posts in the Flying with WHOOP series here:
👉 https://substack.thomaspaul.ca/t/whoop

I wear a watch on my right wrist and put my WHOOP on my left. I’ve never worn anything on my left wrist before, so it took a day or two to get used to. After that, I mostly stopped noticing it — except when putting on a coat and being mildly surprised when something caught my sleeve.

Showering with it felt odd at first. The version I have came with a fabric band, and it does stay damp for a while after getting wet. I found that removing it briefly to clean my skin and pat the strap dry helps a lot. Even when I left it damp, it didn’t take long to fully dry.

One thing I noticed right away: unlike my old Fitbit, I haven’t seen any sensor lights at night unless I physically lift the WHOOP off my wrist. That’s a small detail, but a welcome one.

The App: Screenless Device, Very Full App

While WHOOP itself is slim and screenless, the app is packed with data. In the first 10 days, I’ve been checking it often — partly out of curiosity, partly because new insights keep appearing as more data is collected. That has already tapered off a bit as I settle into a routine.

I’ve started activities like hikes or rowing sessions directly in the app, and I’ve also added activities retroactively by telling it I went for a walk between specific times. I haven’t seen automatic activity detection yet, but most of my higher-strain activities were ones I manually logged anyway.

Journaling: Simple, but Surprisingly Powerful

I’ve settled into a fairly consistent journaling routine. WHOOP prompts me each morning to complete the previous day’s journal, and I can also edit past days if needed.

The yes/no questions are simple, but I’ve already noticed how hard it is to remember specifics — like when I last had caffeine — even one day later. Entering information during the day works much better for me.

There are over 160 behaviours you can track. I’ve trimmed mine down to what feels realistic and relevant.

Daytime

• Ate breakfast / lunch / dinner

• Consumed caffeine (amount and timing)

• Consumed protein (grams)

• Felt nervous or anxious (severity)

• Had alcoholic drinks (amount and timing)

• Hydrated sufficiently (glasses)

• Received red light therapy (duration)

• Took probiotics

• Took creatine (milligrams)

• Took vitamin D

• Travelled on a plane (duration and landing time)

(I temporarily tracked things like back pain, zinc, and anti-inflammatory medication while I was unwell, but removed them once they were no longer relevant.)

Nighttime

• Ate close to bedtime

• Sleep disruption (duration and timing)

• Read a non-screen device in bed

• Shared the bed

• Slept in a dark room

• Slept in a loud environment

• Slept in the usual bed

• Took melatonin

• Used a screen device in bed

Status

• Feeling sick or ill

So far, it’s too early to see meaningful correlations between journaling and physiological data — which is expected. WHOOP needs time.

In the first few days, WHOOP mostly reported basic stats. By day 10, more and more insights have appeared, and the amount of information is honestly impressive.

On the dashboard, I can see sleep, recovery, and strain scores. These shifted around a bit early on as the system calibrated. In simple terms, sleep reflects how well I met my body’s sleep needs, recovery indicates how ready my body is for the day based on overnight physiological signals, and strain measures how much cardiovascular load I accumulate throughout the day from both exercise and normal activity.

For example, after my first night, I received a sleep score of 100 — which clearly wasn’t realistic yet. Sleep scoring is based on duration vs. need, consistency, efficiency, and sleep stress, and those metrics settle as more data is collected.

Recovery stayed fairly steady until I got sick. When that happened, both my sleep score and recovery dropped sharply — which perfectly matched how I felt. I hit a low recovery score of 26% on my worst day. After about four days, the green / amber / red indicators appeared, which seems to mark when WHOOP has enough baseline data to be more confident.

Strain behaved exactly as advertised: it climbed throughout the day and jumped during workouts or hikes. WHOOP describes strain as non-linear — “the higher your strain gets, the harder it is to build more.” That tracks with what I’ve seen.

Recently, a target strain has appeared. This is based partly on recovery and is meant to suggest an optimal amount of strain to maximize performance without overtraining. I haven’t tested this much yet, since I’m still recovering from being sick, but it’s an interesting concept.

Getting Sick: Data That Matches Reality

I had planned to be flying for a few days during these first 10 days, but instead I got sick. While my dataset is still very new, many WHOOP users report that certain metrics can flag illness before symptoms appear.

I didn’t see any early warning this time — which isn’t surprising given the short baseline — but once I felt unwell, the data lined up perfectly.

Both sleep and recovery dropped sharply. Digging into the details, I saw:

• Increased sleep debt

• Less restorative sleep

• Lower heart rate variability

• Higher resting heart rate

• Increased respiratory rate

That alignment between “how I feel” and “what the data shows” is reassuring.

Sleep Coaching: Helpful, With Caveats

Because I’ve been home sick, I’ve had time to experiment with WHOOP’s sleep tools. You can choose between optimizing sleep habits (useful when consistency is possible) or simply meeting your sleep need (more practical when travelling or on irregular schedules).

Based on when I want to wake up, the app suggests a bedtime — and I can even choose what percentage of my sleep need I want to hit. Asking for 100% suggested nearly 10 hours in bed, which isn’t realistic most of the time. I’m hoping that as WHOOP learns more about me, those suggestions will tighten up.

One interesting observation: when I was sick and spending a lot of time in bed, the sleep recommendations didn’t always match how I felt. I wanted rest, even if the app thought I’d already had enough. It’ll be interesting to see how this behaves the next time I’m unwell (not that I’m eager to test that).

Charging: Surprisingly Easy

One last note: charging is effortless. The wireless battery pack clips onto the WHOOP, and in theory the band can last up to 14 days, with the charger holding multiple full charges. You can even charge while wearing it — in the shower or swimming — though for now I’m sticking to topping it up while sitting around.

Early Verdict

After 10 days, I’m genuinely impressed.

The timing hasn’t been ideal thanks to illness, but the data has been fascinating, and the app interaction feels intuitive. I didn’t expect the strain target to influence my behaviour as much as it already has — it’s making me think differently about movement, even on lower-energy days.

I’m looking forward to seeing what additional insights appear over the next few weeks.

You can find all posts in the Flying with WHOOP series here:
👉 https://substack.thomaspaul.ca/t/whoop

I’ve always been interested in technology — especially technology that helps us better understand ourselves. Alongside that, I’ve had a long-standing interest in trying to be healthier: eating reasonably well, exercising when I can, and probably the hardest one of all… sleep.

For several years, I wore a Fitbit. It was a solid wearable that helped me track steps, basic health metrics (like heart rate and skin temperature), and sleep. I found the data genuinely useful. It gave me cues about when I needed to prioritize rest, when my routine was slipping, or when I needed to move a bit more.

Recently, after doing some research, I decided to upgrade to WHOOP — a screen-less health tracker focused less on steps and more on recovery, sleep, and overall physiological strain.

What drew me to WHOOP is how continuously and passively it monitors key metrics like heart rate, skin temperature, oxygen saturation, and movement — and then pairs that data with an app that’s packed with intelligent insights. The result is a surprisingly detailed picture of sleep quality, recovery, and overall health trends.

One feature I’ve found especially powerful is the journal. WHOOP allows you to log daily behaviours and events — things like caffeine timing, late meals, workouts, alcohol, naps, and more. There are lots of options, but I’ve customized my journal to focus on the variables I think most directly affect my sleep and recovery.

Why I’m writing this series

As an airline pilot, fatigue is always part of the conversation — but it’s usually framed around how tired we feel. What I’m interested in exploring is the space between perceived fatigue and what the data says about recovery, sleep, and overall health.

Sleep is a major focus, but it’s not the whole story.

Flying involves long periods of sitting, irregular schedules, early starts, late finishes, and constant shifts in routine. Over time, those factors influence more than just rest — they affect movement, habits, stress, and recovery in ways that aren’t always obvious in the moment.

In this series, I’ll be sharing:

• How WHOOP fits into my life and work as an airline pilot

• What the data shows across different flying patterns and schedules

• How sleep, recovery, and strain line up — or don’t — with how I actually feel

• How periods of sedentary work show up in the data, and what prompts me to move more

• Where the data challenges my assumptions, and where it confirms them

This isn’t about chasing perfect scores or optimizing every minute of the day. It’s about using better information to support better decisions — when to prioritize sleep, when to move after long sedentary stretches, when caffeine helps (and when it hurts), and when a small habit change might make a meaningful difference.

Ultimately, this is about understanding how work, life, and health interact in a profession where schedules, time zones, and circadian rhythms don’t always cooperate.

If that sounds interesting, you can find all posts in this series here:
👉 https://substack.thomaspaul.ca/t/whoop

More to come.

I wasn’t looking to get into blockchain, crypto, or any of the buzzwords that usually come with them. But the ad caught my attention. A few clicks and a little research later, I ended up with a Web3 domain — not something rented through a traditional registrar, but one I actually own, recorded permanently on a blockchain.

That domain is thomaspaul.x — and it’s mine, forever.

Even stranger? I now have a basic website hosted on a decentralized, peer-to-peer network. Not on a server or hosting plan, but on something called IPFS — the InterPlanetary File System.

If you're using a Web3-compatible browser like Brave, you can view it directly at thomaspaul.x. If not, you can still access it using a regular browser here:
👉 web3.thomaspaul.ca

While I’ve explored crypto and blockchain before, the idea of owning a domain on a blockchain — and hosting content across a decentralized network — was totally new. I’m still wrapping my head around it, to be honest. But I’m intrigued.

What really stands out is the potential this technology might offer non-profits and community organizations — the kinds of groups I care about most.

What if decentralized infrastructure could reduce or eliminate hosting costs?
What if it could improve trust through transparent, tamper-proof records?
Or help organizations rely less on centralized platforms?

Right now, it’s just a personal experiment. But the more I learn, the more I see possibilities — especially for mission-driven groups trying to do more with less.

I’ll keep sharing what I discover, what I build, and what inevitably breaks along the way.

Stay tuned — or better yet, visit thomaspaul.x (if your browser supports it),
or try the gateway version: web3.thomaspaul.ca

The author expresses shock at the salary aircraft maintenance engineers earn, framing it as excessive compared to the average Canadian income. However, this perspective ignores the significant expertise, responsibility, and risks associated with aviation maintenance. The claim that higher wages for aircraft maintenance engineers are unnecessary ignores the realities of the current market demand and the critical need for skilled labour to maintain the safety and reliability of air travel. In fact, WestJet has acknowledged the need for a better contract to remain competitive during a time of growth.

Nunes suggests that if aircraft maintenance engineers believe their labour is worth more, they should seek employment elsewhere, implying that their current compensation is fair. This overlooks the fundamental principle of collective bargaining, which allows workers to negotiate better terms collectively rather than individually, ensuring a fairer distribution of benefits and working conditions.

The author’s comparison to the 1981 air traffic controllers’ strike under President Reagan is misplaced. While Reagan’s actions might have seemed like tough love, they also resulted in long-term negative impacts on the air traffic control system, including a loss of experienced personnel and diminished safety standards. This would be unacceptable in aviation today.

Interestingly, Nunes had similar arguments during the 2018 pilot labour negotiations at WestJet, claiming that “WestJet’s labour dispute is about expanding union influence, not protecting existing jobs.” While COVID-19 wreaked havoc on the industry, the arbitrated pilot contract from that period failed to attract sufficient numbers of pilots to support WestJet’s growth during the recovery. It wasn’t until the negotiated contract in 2023 (including a potential strike and lockout), which included the absorption of Swoop, that pilot attraction and retention met the company’s needs. Despite Nunes’ dire predictions, WestJet has recently maintained a healthy supply of professional pilots who ensure the safety of the flying public, and ticket prices have remained competitive with other airlines. Additionally, WestJet has had several profitable quarters since the most recent negotiations in 2023. This historical context highlights that fair negotiations and improved compensation do not necessarily lead to negative economic outcomes but can enhance operational efficiency and safety. It seems the underlying issue for the author is his dislike of unions.

Unions play a crucial role beyond just advocating for higher wages. They ensure that working conditions meet high safety standards, which directly benefits the travelling public. For instance, my union, the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) has been at the forefront of promoting aviation safety, advocating for measures such as maintaining at least two pilots in the flight deck, pushing for duty limits to protect against fatigue, and improving mental health support for pilots. These initiatives, driven by union efforts, enhance overall safety in the aviation industry, benefiting all stakeholders, including passengers.

Reducing the discussion of aircraft maintenance engineers’ value to mere dollars and cents overlooks the critical importance of having a highly trained, well-compensated, and satisfied workforce maintaining aircraft. The public’s primary concern is safety, and it should demand that airlines hire the best professionals available. Ensuring that aircraft maintenance engineers are fairly compensated is integral to maintaining high safety standards and operational efficiency.

While labour disruptions can temporarily inconvenience the travelling public, the long-term benefits of a well-compensated, highly-skilled workforce far outweigh these disruptions. By investing in their employees, airlines like WestJet not only improve job satisfaction and retention but also enhance safety and reliability, ultimately benefiting passengers. The true value of skilled aircraft maintenance engineers cannot be measured solely in financial terms; it is reflected in the safety and efficiency of the aircraft they maintain.

Are You at Risk? A Thought Experiment

Imagine this scenario: a key member of your team is unexpectedly off for a month starting tomorrow. They haven’t shared access to their email or cloud files, and their physical notes are out of reach. How significantly would this impact your team’s operations? It’s an unlikely situation, sure, but similar unexpected events can and do occur. The time to address this potential issue is now, not when it becomes an unavoidable problem.

Empowering Your Volunteer Teams: Effective Strategies

1. Spread the Skills: Train multiple volunteers in similar tasks and processes. This not only shares the workload but also increases your team’s capacity and reduces risks. Encourage volunteers who acquire new skills to teach others. A broad base of members with foundational skills is incredibly valuable.

2. Document Everything (Well, Almost): Essential processes, tasks, and responsibilities should be well-documented. This doesn’t mean recording every minute detail, but enough to ensure someone else can seamlessly take over as needed. Remember, documentation can take many forms: emails, online documents, websites, or even videos. The key is to make it accessible and easy to understand.

3. Encourage Sharing and Collaboration: Silos can form in any organization, including volunteer-driven ones. It’s vital to find ways of sharing information that align with your organization’s culture. Be clear in your communications, distinguishing between FYIs and calls for collaboration. Encourage openness in sharing experiences, feedback, and ideas.

4. Implement ‘Musical Chairs’: Rotate responsibilities among volunteers. This approach helps distribute workload, fosters confidence, and reduces dependency on specific individuals.

5. Succession Planning: Succession planning should begin as soon as someone steps into a leadership role. By preparing future leaders and establishing a smooth handover process, leaders can step aside when necessary, knowing the organization remains in capable hands.

6. Utilize Technology and Tools: Utilize technology to automate repetitive but essential tasks, such as sending reminder emails. Focus on areas with high error risks or bottlenecks. The aim is to reduce human involvement in error-prone processes, enhancing efficiency and allowing volunteers to concentrate on tasks that require personal attention. This strategic use of automation can significantly improve your organization’s functionality.

Strategies in Action

As the secretary of our Rotary Club, a volunteer-driven service organization, I’ve experienced firsthand the challenges of transitioning post-pandemic. We quickly realized that our old methods wouldn’t suffice for the future, prompting us to actively seek new directions. Ironically, in this process, I initially fell into the very trap I now advise against: over-relying on individual members. This experience taught me the importance of rethinking team dependencies. Reflecting on this, I understand that applying effective strategies from the outset would have been simpler than trying to rectify dependencies later. So, instead of saying “do as I say, not as I do,” I’m sharing my journey of adapting and learning to foster a more resilient team structure.

1. Spread the Skills: My current role in the Rotary Club isn’t one I hold indefinitely. Whenever possible, I teach others how to handle my responsibilities. Even if they do things differently, the essential tasks can still be completed without me.

2. Document Everything (Well, Almost): Effective documentation involves two key aspects: choosing the right content to document and ensuring accessibility. I’ve experimented with various formats, including emails, cloud documents, and videos. For ease of access, I strongly believe in making information as reachable as possible. Considering privacy, a lot of our documentation is now on the club’s website, allowing any member to access information easily without the need for usernames and passwords. This centralizes updates and avoids reliance on outdated email chains.

3. Encourage Sharing and Collaboration: It’s important to keep everyone in the loop, especially those directly affected by changes or updates. I clearly indicate when feedback is or isn’t necessary. However, email chains can be limiting for collaboration, especially when joining late into a long thread. To improve this, we’ve started using chat tools like WhatsApp for more fluid conversations.

4. Implement ‘Musical Chairs’: Our club uses ‘Fellowship Teams’ that rotate monthly for various roles in meetings. This system allows members to learn new roles and build skills, with each team organizing in the way they find most effective.

5. Succession Planning: In preparing for my eventual departure as Club secretary, I’ve considered the best ways to pass on my knowledge and responsibilities. Although our roles are democratically elected, early planning ensures a smoother transition for my successor.

6. Utilize Technology and Tools: One significant improvement we’ve made is in meal pre-ordering for club meetings. We’ve eliminated the need for manual reminders and order collection. Now, members can easily find a link to an online order form on our website, which automatically closes at a cutoff time and sends orders to the caterer and our finance team. Instead of weekly payments, members are billed quarterly, making most of the process hands-off and more efficient.

Rethinking team dependencies may be challenging, but it’s essential for your team’s success. Your team has put in tremendous effort to reach your current position; don’t let dependencies become a setback. Start by addressing the areas most at risk and work your way through the rest. It’s important to communicate with your team about why minimizing dependencies is crucial and to discuss potential strategies for improvement. Consider using the thought experiment of a team member suddenly going on vacation to highlight areas of vulnerability. With dedication and effort, you and your team can reach a state where dependencies no longer impede your progress.

Disclaimer: The author was responsible for crafting the content, ideas, and structure of this post. AI was utilized to enhance clarity and address grammatical/spelling errors. Any opinions conveyed in the blog post are the author’s own.

The challenge

For perspective, according to the International Energy Association (IEA), between 2000 and 2019 total CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion in aviation rose from 675 Mt to 1,036 Mt. There was a significant reduction during the pandemic, but levels have since risen to 784 Mt in 2022.

Additionally, travel demand is expected to continue growing from 4.6 billion passengers in 2025 to over 10 billion in 2050.

What is net zero?

Net zero does not mean the industry is emitting no emissions. What it means is when you take the industry’s total emissions and subtract its offsets and carbon removal, you end up at zero. There are arguments that carbon offsetting is not an effective way to reduce emissions, but IATA argues that by investing in green technology they are able to reduce carbon emissions by the equivalent amount.

Achieving net zero through carbon offsetting alone is impractical for several reasons. Realistically, a combination of methods is necessary. As technology improves, the tools used are likely to change, possibly resulting in reduced reliance on offsetting. This shift could lead to a more affordable long-term solution, considering the significant costs associated with offsetting.

SAF

At the core of IATA’s net zero strategy is the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). While SAF isn’t completely emissions-free, it significantly reduces CO2 emissions compared to traditional fossil fuels. It’s derived from various sources, including recycled materials and renewable resources, and is compatible with most existing jet engines, making it an ideal option for short-term CO2 reductions.

IATA envisions SAF contributing to a 65% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.

However, current challenges for SAF include availability and cost. The CEO of Boeing has predicted that the cost of SAF will likely never be lower than that of fossil jet fuel. Addressing these costs will require industry and consumer support, possibly with assistance from governments.

The other 35%

Following Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF), IATA’s net-zero plan incorporates several key elements:

• New Technology (13%)

• Improved Infrastructure and Efficiencies (3%)

• Offsets and Carbon Capture (19%)

New tech only 13%?

Why does new technology only promise a 13% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050? Wouldn’t electric or hydrogen-powered planes be a fantastic environmental solution? Absolutely, but here’s the catch: 2050 is just 26 years away. While we’ll soon witness the advent of electric and hydrogen-powered planes, scaling up this technology for extensive medium to long-haul flights by 2050 seems unlikely. Developing new aircraft can be a lengthy process, often spanning decades. When the planes are fundamentally different from our current models, this timeline extends even further.

The encouraging news is that technology will accelerate, and beyond 2050, it’s likely to become the aviation industry’s most effective tool for emission reduction.

How much?

Here comes the tricky part: making all this happen won’t come cheap. Everyone involved, from industry players to consumers and governments, has to contribute their fair share. The rationale behind this is that although the current costs may seem high, the longer we delay, the more expensive the solution becomes. Naturally, as industries transition, we’ll witness job shifts towards renewable resources and improved cost efficiencies over time.

The challenge lies in the cost sensitivity of consumers. People often opt for the most affordable flights, prompting airlines to carefully balance their costs and investments in new technology. An illustrative example is the scenario where consumers are asked to offset the CO2 emissions of their flight. In a 2020 report, it was found that of the 44 IATA airlines offering carbon offsetting, only about 1-3% of customers voluntarily chose to offset their flights through the airline.

Why care?

There are several compelling reasons to care about this issue. On a personal level, regardless of my beliefs about climate change, my livelihood is linked to the aviation industry. Any disruptions would have a direct impact on my career. Looking beyond my personal interests, supporting innovation and change is vital for the industry’s overall success, safety, and environmental responsibility. Even if environmental concerns aren’t the primary motivation, supporting initiatives that enhance the industry’s efficiency and sustainability is crucial. It’s easy to assume aviation is a permanent fixture, but it’s worth reflecting on other industries that experienced significant disruption due to innovations driven by consumer demand.

Disclaimer: The author was responsible for crafting the content, ideas, and structure of this post. AI was utilized to enhance clarity and address grammatical/spelling errors. Any opinions conveyed in the blog post are the author’s own.

Cleanliness

Hotel rooms take a lot of abuse. Hundreds of people could use the same room in a year, and we don’t exactly treat hotel rooms like our own homes. Even with the best cleaning staff, rooms build up grime, dirt, and germs. I’m not a germaphobe, but I do get a little squeamish about “hot spots”—like TV remotes, light switches, door handles, and phone handsets. And don’t forget the glassware. I’m all about being green, but from hotel friends, I know that glassware sometimes doesn’t make it to the dishwasher. I stick to the paper or plastic cups provided. I don’t blame the cleaning staff—it’s a tough job with tight time pressures. So, when something looks clean and unused, it might get skipped. I never plan to lick the TV remote, but I do take a moment when I arrive to wipe down these “hot spots” with a sanitizing wipe. It only takes a moment and at least gives me some peace of mind.

Sheets are another area of concern. If a bed doesn’t look used or you’re staying at a less-than-stellar hotel, check the sheets for signs of use. If you suspect they haven’t been changed, call the front desk and ask for a new room.

One last cleanliness tip from a hotel friend: be wary of the in-room coffee machines. I’ll leave it to your imagination as to how those might get, let’s say, “contaminated.”

Bedbugs

This one’s a bit gross, but bedbugs can happen at any hotel, no matter how many stars it has. While they don’t carry disease, their bites can cause itchy marks. Bedbugs love to hitchhike, so never leave your suitcase on the bed, couch, or floor. Use the luggage rack and keep your clothes off the bed too. Bedbugs prefer soft materials with seams to hide in during the day. They’re attracted to the carbon dioxide we exhale and move around at night. You can check for signs of bedbugs by pulling back the sheets and inspecting the mattress seams for bugs, shells, or blood spots. If you suspect bedbugs, most hotels will quickly move you to a new room.

If you’re worried about bringing bedbugs home, here’s what to do as soon as you get back:

• Place all your bag’s contents in the washer on a hot cycle. If possible, dry them too—heat kills both bugs and eggs.

• Spray a bedbug treatment inside your bags, paying close attention to seams. Seal the bags in garbage bags and leave them sealed for a few days.

• If you can’t wash your belongings right away, put them in garbage bags to keep the bugs from getting into your home.

If you think bedbugs have made it into your home, don’t be embarrassed—call a professional exterminator immediately. This is not a DIY project.

Noise

Hotels pack a lot of people in close quarters, so some noise is inevitable. Downtown or highway-adjacent hotels contend with more external noise. It can be especially annoying when hotels have thin walls or when you’re sharing a floor with a youth sports team. For flight crew, normal sleep hours aren’t so normal, so here are a few strategies for a quieter night.

If you can choose the hotel, check reviews on Trip Advisor for chronic noise complaints. Many good hotels accommodate requests at booking, like placing you on a “quiet floor,” away from elevators, and facing away from busy streets. Most people are woken by sudden noises, like the AC unit powering up, so try leaving the fan on to create white noise. It’s continuous and can mask disruptive sounds like the housekeeper’s intense conversation right outside your door. If the fan isn’t an option, use a free white noise app on your phone. For light sleepers, earplugs may help—just make sure you have a backup alarm plan if you need to wake up early.

Light

If you can sleep through a rock concert next door but the smallest sliver of light wakes you up, here are some tricks. Hotel curtains are often a pain if they don’t overlap well. No problem: grab a hanger with pants clips and use it to hold the curtains closed. For light coming under the door, lay a bath towel along the gap. This might also help with noise. For flashing fire detectors, it’s best to ask the hotel for help. You don’t want to accidentally set off the alarm and end up standing in the parking lot in the middle of winter. Some hotels may use small sticky notes to cover the light without affecting the sensors.

Extra

Not a fan of dry air? Hotels can be notoriously dry, so check out this post on how to keep humidity in your hotel room—don’t be so dry.

I wish you a clean, bug-free, quiet, dark night!

SPECI stands for special aerodrome meteorological report. These reports follow the same format as METARs but are issued when weather conditions significantly change between routine reports. While specific local criteria may be applied at individual aerodromes, the following general criteria are used in Canada:

• ceilings

• sky conditions

• visibility

• tornado, funnel cloud, waterspout

• thunderstorm

• precipitation

• obstruction of vision

• wind

• temperature

Ceilings

The ceiling is defined as the lowest broken or overcast cloud layer. Few or scattered cloud layers are not considered ceilings and may not necessitate a SPECI. A SPECI is required if the ceiling lowers or forms at values less than the following:

• 1,500′

• 1,000′

• 500′

• *400′

• 300′

• *200′

• *100′

• the lowest published minimum altitude

The altitudes marked with an * require a SPECI only if the aerodrome is equipped with a precision approach.

Examples:

• If the METAR indicates a ceiling of 1,200′, a SPECI is not required until the ceiling lowers or a new ceiling forms below 1,000′.

• If the METAR indicates a ceiling of 300′ and the lowest minimum altitude for the aerodrome is also 300′, a SPECI is not required if the ceiling lowers below this value.

A SPECI is also required if the ceiling rises to or above the specified values.

Examples:

• If the METAR indicates a ceiling of 1,200′, a SPECI is required if the ceiling rises to 1,500′ or higher.

• If the METAR indicates a ceiling of 100′ and the lowest minimum altitude for the aerodrome is 300′, a SPECI is required if the ceiling rises to or above 300′.

Sky Conditions

A cloud layer can range from few to overcast. If a new layer is observed below 1,000′ or the highest minimum altitude for IFR straight-in landing or takeoff after the METAR is published, a SPECI is required.

Example: If the METAR shows sky clear and a few clouds form at 500′, a SPECI is required.

Visibility

A SPECI is required if visibility decreases to values less than:

• 3SM

• 1 1/2SM

• 1SM

• *3/4SM

• 1/2SM

• *1/4SM

• the lowest published minimum

Visibilities marked with an * require a SPECI only if the aerodrome is equipped with a precision approach.

Examples:

• If the METAR shows a visibility of 2SM, a SPECI is not required until visibility decreases below 1 1/2SM.

• If the METAR shows a visibility of 1SM and the lowest minimum visibility for the aerodrome is also 1SM, a SPECI is not required if visibility decreases below this threshold.

A SPECI is also required if visibility increases to or above the specified values.

Examples:

• If the METAR shows a visibility of 2SM, a SPECI is required if visibility increases to 3SM or more.

• If the METAR shows a visibility of 1/2SM and the lowest minimum visibility for the aerodrome is 1SM, a SPECI is required if visibility increases to or above 1SM.

Tornado, Funnel Cloud, Waterspout

A SPECI is required if a tornado (+FC), funnel cloud (FC), or waterspout (+FC) is observed, disappears, or has been reported within the past six hours by a reliable source.

Thunderstorm

A SPECI is required if thunderstorm activity (TS) starts, increases to heavy (+TS), or if 15 minutes pass without thunderstorm activity.

Precipitation

A SPECI is required when the following forms of precipitation start, stop (after 15 minutes), or change in intensity:

• freezing rain (FZRA)

• freezing drizzle (FZDZ)

• ice pellets (PL)

• showery ice pellets (SHPL)

• rain (RA)

• rain showers (SHRA)

• drizzle (DZ)

• snow (SN)

• snow showers (SHSN)

• snow grains (SG)

• hail (GR)

• snow pellets (GS)

• ice crystals (IC)

Obstruction of Vision

A SPECI is required when freezing fog (FZFG) starts or ends.

Wind

A SPECI is required if wind speed doubles from the previous report and exceeds 30 kts. A SPECI is also required if there is a significant change in wind direction.

Temperature

A SPECI is required when the temperature increases by 5 degrees Celsius or more if the previously reported temperature was 20°C or higher, or if it decreases to a value of 2°C or lower.

AIM Reference: MET 8.4

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

It’s that time of year when IROPs wreak havoc on travel plans in Canada. IROP stands for irregular operations, a term used when an airline has to switch to plan B—or much further down the alphabet.

Winter presents many challenges for airlines in Canada, and while they work diligently to mitigate these issues, some disruptions are unavoidable. Airlines only make money when they can transport passengers to their destinations safely. To better manage weather-related IROPs, airlines use strategies aimed at minimizing their impact.

One such strategy is the scheduling of larger "block" times during the winter. Block time refers to the duration between when an aircraft’s main cabin door closes at the departure airport and when it reopens at the destination. Longer block times account for delays due to necessary processes like de-icing, especially on early-morning flights when frost may have formed on the aircraft. Below is a comparison of winter and summer block times for flights from Halifax (YHZ) to Toronto (YYZ) on January 15th.

The Challenge of Canadian Winter IROPs

Canadian winters bring disruptions that can span wide geographic areas and long durations. When major hubs like Montreal, Toronto, Calgary, or Vancouver experience winter storms, airlines face a significant test of their operational resilience.

Passengers rarely remember smooth, uneventful travel days, but the frustrations of disruptive ones linger. To recover more efficiently, airlines often make the difficult decision to preemptively cancel flights. While frustrating, this strategy has its merits. For instance, grounding a fleet at an airport during a snowstorm slows recovery efforts, whereas moving planes away from affected areas allows airlines to resume service more quickly once conditions improve. Proactive cancellations also reduce chaos at airports by preventing thousands of passengers from crowding terminals while waiting for delayed flights.

Airport Capacity During Winter Storms

Airlines also contend with airport capacity limits during severe weather. Each airport has a finite number of takeoff, landing, and de-icing operations it can accommodate during winter storms. Reduced visibility further complicates matters, as aircraft must be spaced farther apart during landings, diminishing airspace capacity.

For example, Toronto Pearson Airport can normally handle over 50 arrivals per hour in ideal conditions. In a snowstorm, this capacity may be halved, forcing airlines and air traffic control to prioritize flights. If an airline is accustomed to 10 arrivals per hour but is reduced to 5, tough choices must be made: cancel, consolidate, or delay flights. You can read more about flow management, GDPs, and ground stops in “What the Flow! Why Is My Flight Delayed?”

Tips for Air Travel During Canadian Winters

Here are some practical tips to help you navigate air travel during the winter season:

1. Choose Longer Connections
   When booking connecting flights, opt for longer connection times. While extended airport waits may not be ideal, they significantly improve your chances of making your connection. One exception is “through” flights, where the same aircraft continues onward after a stop. These can reduce connection-related stress, and you can identify them by flights sharing the same flight number.

2. Start Early in the Day
   Early morning flights are less likely to face delays caused by cascading disruptions throughout the day. While weather may still affect your flight, you’ll avoid issues like waiting for an inbound aircraft or crew reaching their maximum duty hours later in the day.

3. Plan for Disruptions
   Accept that delays and cancellations are a possibility. Choose flights with a buffer for critical events, such as weddings or meetings. Avoid booking the latest possible flight before an important event—it’s a risky gamble.

4. Practice Patience
   Patience goes a long way during IROPs. Airlines want to recover quickly, but the process may feel excruciatingly slow. Avoid taking your frustration out on staff for situations they cannot control. Remaining calm and polite may even improve your chances of receiving assistance.

5. Know Your Rights
   Familiarize yourself with the airline’s responsibilities during IROPs. In most cases, airlines are not liable for delays and cancellations caused by weather. If you feel mistreated, document the issue and file a complaint later, either with the airline or the relevant government body. In Canada, consult the Air Passenger Protection Regulations for more information.

6. Check Your Credit Card’s Travel Insurance

Even if an airline is not responsible for a delay, many credit cards include travel insurance that covers trip interruptions, delays, and lost baggage. Understand your credit card’s policy, and keep documentation and receipts to support any claims you may need to file. 

7. Remember: Airline Staff Are Human Too
   Many airline staff are in the same weather-induced mess as you. Customer service agents often bear the brunt of passenger frustration, despite being messengers of the facts. Consider how difficult it is to deliver bad news to hundreds of passengers. Additionally, many airline employees, such as pilots and flight attendants, are also on the road during IROPs. Some commute on empty seats from other cities, and during disruptions, those empty seats disappear. If you can, take a moment to thank them for keeping you safe.

By understanding the challenges of winter travel and preparing for potential disruptions, you can navigate Canadian winters with greater ease and patience. Safe travels!

Major weather events can significantly disrupt flight schedules, leading to widespread delays and cancellations. But why do flights sometimes continue to be delayed or canceled even after the weather has passed?

Weather disruptions are a massive challenge for airlines. Operating an airline involves meticulous planning and precise coordination of countless moving parts. The fact that airlines successfully transport so many passengers each day is a testament to human organization and teamwork. Consider all the steps involved when you fly:

• Staff check you in and manage your baggage.

• Screening officers ensure security protocols are met.

• Pilots and flight attendants are transported from their hotels to the airport on time.

• Maintenance teams prepare the aircraft for departure.

• Dispatchers plan the flight and arrange for fuel, while fueling personnel top up the aircraft.

• Catering staff load the plane with the correct meals.

• Cargo and baggage are loaded.

• Passengers board.

• The crew completes their pre-flight checks.

• Ground crew push the aircraft back, and de-icing teams remove frost and ice.

• Air traffic controllers guide the aircraft to its destination, where a new set of staff are ready to welcome you.

For example, Air Canada operates over 1,600 flights per day on average!

This intricate choreography means that when a major weather event disrupts operations, chaos ensues, followed by a slow and challenging recovery.

Recovery Challenges: The Ripple Effect

When a major weather event strikes, most passengers understand delays or cancellations caused by visible conditions like snow, ice, or storms. But even after the skies clear, the aftereffects of weather disruptions can persist, primarily due to aircraft and crew being “out of sequence.”

Every flight requires both an aircraft and a crew, and neither is an unlimited resource. Scheduling these resources involves strict rules and limitations. For instance:

• In Canada, there are legal limits on how long pilots can work and mandatory minimum rest periods between shifts.

• Crew members must also remove themselves from duty if they feel fatigued or unwell.

If an aircraft is grounded due to weather, or a crew becomes unavailable because of delays, fatigue, or illness, it can disrupt an entire series of flights.

For example, imagine a crew scheduled to fly from Halifax to Toronto. Once in Toronto, they are assigned to a different aircraft to fly to Montreal, while another crew takes the Halifax-Toronto aircraft onward to Boston. If the original flight from Halifax is delayed or canceled due to weather, there’s no aircraft available for the Boston flight and no crew for the Montreal flight. This ripple effect can cascade across the network and last for days.

Reserve Resources and Constraints

Airlines do maintain reserves of both staff and aircraft to manage such disruptions, but these resources are finite. During major weather events, reserve crews and planes can quickly be exhausted. Additionally, having reserves isn’t always helpful if they aren’t in the right location—an extra crew in Toronto is of no use if they’re needed in Halifax.

Why Don’t Airlines Have More Aircraft or Crew?

A common question from frustrated passengers during delays is: “Why don’t airlines have more planes?” or “Why can’t you call in another pilot?” The answer lies in the economics of air travel.

Modern air travel is designed to be affordable, which requires airlines to operate as efficiently as possible. Airlines carefully balance customer expectations with operational costs, and the margins in the airline industry—especially in Canada—are incredibly slim. Adding more planes or crews would significantly increase costs, making tickets more expensive.

If money were no object, you could hire a private jet. While private aviation offers unparalleled service and flexibility, the cost is far beyond what most travelers can afford. For the rest of us, the tradeoff is clear: minor frustrations in exchange for safe, affordable air travel.

Final Thoughts

Recovering from major weather disruptions is a complex process involving countless moving parts. While it can be frustrating to deal with delays, understanding the intricacies of airline operations can provide some perspective. Remember, every step of the process is designed to ensure your safety while keeping air travel accessible and cost-effective.

So, what do these terms mean? While these delays can be frustrating, they exist to keep Canada’s air traffic organized and, most importantly, safe.

Flow

Let’s start with flow. As the name suggests, flow is a method air traffic control (ATC) uses to manage the timing of aircraft arrivals in busy airspace. Airspace and air traffic controllers can only handle so many aircraft at a time, and these limits can vary depending on factors such as staffing levels, weather, and runway availability. To prevent too many planes from arriving simultaneously, ATC institutes flow control.

Without flow, aircraft would have to hold (circle in the air) until the airspace or airport could accommodate them. Holding isn’t efficient and can be frustrating for both passengers and crew. Worse, if an aircraft runs low on fuel while holding, it may need to divert to an alternate airport, resulting in even longer delays.

When a flow program is introduced, pilots must estimate when their aircraft will be ready for departure. ATC then assigns a departure time that avoids excessive holding at the destination. Depending on the situation, flow delays might be as short as 10 or 20 minutes or as long as several hours.

Some of Canada’s busiest airports regularly experience flow programs, particularly during peak times. On clear weather days, these programs typically cause only minor delays, but during adverse conditions, the impact can be more significant.

Ground Delay Program (GDP)

A ground delay program (GDP) serves a similar purpose to flow by managing the number of aircraft arriving at airports operating at reduced capacity. These reductions are often caused by weather—thunderstorms in the summer and snow or ice storms in the winter can drastically reduce how many aircraft an airport can handle.

For example, if an airport usually accommodates 50 arrivals per hour but can only handle 25 due to weather, ATC implements a GDP. Airlines then collaborate with ATC to negotiate arrival slots.

If an airline typically schedules 25 arrivals in an hour but is now allocated only 10, difficult decisions must be made. Airlines might delay flights until a slot becomes available or cancel flights altogether. Factors such as passenger connections, crew scheduling, and aircraft positioning are all taken into account when making these decisions.

Once the airline finalizes its plan, ATC assigns a specific departure time to each flight. However, GDP delays are often longer than flow delays, and conditions can change unexpectedly, requiring further adjustments. If a flight misses its assigned departure time, it could face a long wait for a new one.

Ground Stop

When airport capacity becomes too restricted or weather conditions are particularly severe, ATC may initiate a ground stop. A ground stop means that no aircraft are allowed to depart for the affected airport.

Ground stops can be geographically specific or apply only to certain types of aircraft, depending on the situation. Typically, a ground stop is announced for a specific duration—say, 30 minutes. After that period, the stop may be extended or lifted, depending on the circumstances.

Ground stops often precede the implementation of a GDP, especially when conditions remain challenging.

Final Thoughts

While terms like flow, GDP, and ground stop may cause frustration for travelers, they play a vital role in ensuring safety and maintaining organization within Canada’s busy airspace. Understanding these systems can provide some perspective the next time your flight is delayed.

Stable approaches are a cornerstone of aviation safety. Unstable approaches are statistically linked to a significant portion of approach and landing accidents, making this topic critical for pilots and the industry as a whole. Pilots are trained to plan and execute stable approaches, and while procedures vary among companies, having a clear plan of action and keeping the aircraft within an acceptable performance window is essential for maintaining a stable approach and ensuring a safe landing.

What is a Stable Approach?

A stable approach occurs when the aircraft is flown at an appropriate speed, altitude, and configuration for the stage of the approach. This consistency reduces pilot workload during critical phases of flight and enhances safety. For example, a company may require the aircraft to have gear and flaps extended before reaching five miles from the runway. This allows pilots to focus on flying the aircraft and completing final checklists rather than making configuration changes during the final approach.

Communication is also a vital component of a stable approach. Pilots should discuss and address any concerns or changes during the approach. Within a company’s policies, pilots may either correct the issue or discontinue the approach as necessary.

What if Something Unexpected Happens?

An investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) highlights the importance of stable approaches in unexpected situations. In 2012, a Boeing 717 was on approach to Perth when deteriorating weather created Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). The crew executed a missed approach when they failed to visually identify the runway. However, as they began the missed approach, they regained visual contact and decided to land despite the unstable condition. They made this decision to avoid a potential fuel emergency, believing it was the safer option at the time.

This incident illustrates how unexpected events, such as sudden weather changes or fuel concerns, can challenge the stability of an approach. While the crew’s decision may have been influenced by immediate circumstances, it underscores the importance of adhering to procedures that prioritize safety, such as executing a missed approach when necessary.

The Value of Stable Approaches

The significance of a stable approach is straightforward: it ensures safe conditions during high-workload phases of flight, where there is little margin for error. When an unexpected situation arises, pilots may not be able to resolve it effectively while continuing to land. The solution, as emphasized in the Boeing 717’s procedures, is to execute a missed approach. By doing so, the crew can stabilize the aircraft at a safe altitude and speed, evaluate the factors contributing to the instability, and plan for a subsequent stable approach and landing.

So…

Flying into familiar airports in good weather can sometimes lead to overconfidence. Thoughts like, “I can handle this,” or “A little extra speed won’t matter,” can creep in. But what happens when something unexpected occurs? A sudden downdraft? A minor system failure? That straightforward approach now has an added variable you didn’t anticipate. Do you attempt to manage the situation and land, or do you execute a missed approach?

The ATSB puts it clearly: “If there is any doubt about the safety of the aircraft, conducting a go-around is a perfectly legitimate option. Safety trumps scheduling or dignity.”

Conclusion

We must always remember the importance of stable approaches. Even outside of a simulator, pilots should be prepared to give or receive the command to “go around.” A stable approach isn’t just a best practice—it’s a fundamental principle that ensures safety in every flight. Expect the unexpected, and always prioritize stability over convenience.

More reading:

• Handling unexpected developments – ATSB – https://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/2016/handling-unexpected-developments/

• Handling approach to land – ATSB- https://www.atsb.gov.au/safetywatch/handling-approach-to-land.aspx

• Weather-related operational event involving Boeing 717, VH NXO, Perth Airport, WA on 1 June 2012 – ATSB – https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-073.aspx

Occurrences Related to Unstable Approaches:

• Hard landing – Darwin Airport, Northern Territory, 7 February 2008, VH-NXE, Boeing Company 717–200 – ATSB – https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-007.aspx

• Stickshaker activation – Boeing 717-200, VH-NXE, Alice Springs, NT, 18 September 2008 – ATSB – https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-064.aspx

• Unstable approach, VH-TQL Sydney Aerodrome, New South Wales 26 December 2008 – ATSB – https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2009-001.aspx

• Stall warning device event – Bombardier Inc DHC-8-315, VH-TQL, Sydney Airport, NSW, 1 March 2011 – ATSB – https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-036.aspx

• Go-around event Melbourne Airport, Victoria, 21 July 2007, VH-VQT, Airbus Industrie A320-232 – ATSB – https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/aair/ao-2007-044.aspx

The safety notice states:

“Evidence from evacuations of aeroplanes since 2013 has shown that significant numbers of passengers attempt to take hand baggage with them when evacuating an aircraft. Such passenger behaviour can present a significant hindrance to egress, injury to other passengers, and damage to evacuation slides.”

Following numerous high-profile aircraft accidents involving passenger and crew evacuations, recurring images have shown passengers carrying their belongings off the aircraft. One notable incident involved the fire and evacuation of a British Airways aircraft in Las Vegas. These events have prompted industry insiders and safety experts to emphasize the dangers associated with retrieving carry-on baggage during evacuations. Carry-on baggage can obstruct the evacuation process, damage evacuation slides, and critically delay escape when every second can mean the difference between life and death.

The CAA is urging operators to address this issue by raising awareness and implementing measures to prevent passengers from retrieving carry-on baggage during an evacuation. Potential strategies include:

• Enhancing pre-flight safety briefings to stress the risks of retrieving baggage during emergencies.

• Modifying shouted commands during evacuations to explicitly instruct passengers to leave their belongings behind.

• Implementing policies that enable crew members to physically prevent passengers from taking baggage during an evacuation.

By prioritizing passenger safety and ensuring a swift and unobstructed evacuation, the aviation industry can reduce the risks posed by carry-on baggage and improve survival outcomes during emergencies.

There are valid reasons for these high prices. The expenses associated with staffing, training, equipment, aircraft, and real estate contribute to the complexity and cost of air travel. Despite these drawbacks, most would agree that the benefits of air travel outweigh its expenses.

Fuel: A Major Expense for Airlines

One of the most significant costs for airlines is fuel. Much like gasoline prices at the pump, jet fuel prices can fluctuate widely, prompting airlines to seek innovative ways to minimize fuel consumption.

It’s important to note that airlines are required to carry enough fuel to reach their destination, proceed to an alternate airport if necessary, and hold additional reserves (30 minutes for jets, 45 minutes for non-jets). This requirement adds to operational costs and influences efficiency strategies.

Speed and Efficiency

Speed plays a crucial role in determining fuel consumption. Similar to driving a car, there are optimal speeds where aircraft operate most efficiently. Factors like aircraft weight, temperature, and pressure affect this efficiency. Few airlines operate at full speed since higher power settings lead to increased fuel burn. Some airlines incorporate flexibility into their procedures, allowing pilots to adjust speeds depending on schedules. However, finding the perfect balance is critical, as flying slower increases flight time, which can raise maintenance and staffing costs.

Real-World Examples of Savings (2008):

• Southwest Airlines added one to three minutes per flight, saving an estimated $42 million annually.

• JetBlue added just under two minutes per flight, saving $13.6 million annually.

Flight Planning

Airlines strive to choose the most direct routes possible. However, the "routes" aircraft follow are often not straight lines due to air traffic control requirements and airspace constraints. Direct routes may not always be the most efficient when wind conditions are considered. For instance, avoiding headwinds by flying a slightly longer path can save fuel. Altitude also plays a role, as higher altitudes generally offer better fuel efficiency unless wind conditions dictate otherwise.

The Role of Technology

Technology significantly enhances fuel savings. Advanced software helps airlines plan optimal routes and speeds, while modern aircraft designs focus on reducing fuel consumption. Small modifications, like adding winglets, can further improve efficiency. Aircraft manufacturers often publish guidelines for operating their planes more efficiently.

Example:

• United Airlines provided pilots with software to optimize routes and speeds, saving $20 million annually (2008).

Reducing Weight

Weight is another critical factor in fuel efficiency. Similar to cars, heavier aircraft require more energy to move. Advances in lightweight materials have led to lighter aircraft, reducing fuel consumption. Airlines have adopted various measures to save weight, from using smaller seats to embracing paperless flight decks. Digital tablets and smartphones now replace heavy manuals and documents for pilots and cabin crew. Even minor adjustments, like removing excess water from lavatories or reducing the use of paint, contribute to savings.

Examples:

• American Airlines introduced lightweight drink carts, saving an estimated $5 million annually (2011).

• JetBlue began dumping lavatory waste water after every flight to save on weight.

• In the 1980s, American Airlines famously removed one olive from their salads, saving $40,000 annually.

The Bigger Picture

Lower operating costs generally translate into lower fares for travelers. These fuel-saving initiatives also reduce CO2 emissions, addressing environmental concerns that will become increasingly important for airlines in the future. Small changes, such as removing an olive or flying more efficiently, can make a significant difference in reducing costs and protecting the environment.

Sources:

• USA Today: Airlines Slow Down to Save Fuel

• FareCompare: Airline Cost-Saving Measures

Have you ever returned from a day of flying and felt your skin was warm but not burnt? A study by the FAA found that most commercial aircraft windshields made of laminated composite glass block most UVB radiation.

“UVB, the chief cause of skin reddening and sunburn, tends to damage the skin’s more superficial epidermal layers. It plays a key role in the development of skin cancer and a contributory role in tanning and photoaging.” – Skin Cancer Foundation

However, the same FAA study revealed that most commercial aircraft windshields made of laminated composite glass do not block UVA radiation.

“UVA, which penetrates the skin more deeply than UVB, has long been known to play a major part in skin aging and wrinkling (photoaging). Until recently, scientists believed it did not cause significant damage in areas of the epidermis where most skin cancers occur. Studies over the past two decades, however, show that UVA damages skin cells called keratinocytes in the basal layer of the epidermis, where most skin cancers occur. UVA contributes to and may even initiate the development of skin cancers.” – Skin Cancer Foundation

A Hidden Danger on the Flight Deck

You would never sit for hours on the beach without sunscreen, yet many pilots are unaware of the similar dangers of prolonged sun exposure on a flight deck. According to the FAA study, UV intensity increases by 15% for every 3,000 feet of altitude and is double that of the Earth’s surface between 31,000 and 41,000 feet.

The study also noted that “hazardous exposure to naturally occurring UV and visible radiation is most likely to occur when flying over a thick cloud layer or a snow field with the sun at its zenith. Snow reflects 85% of visible and UV radiation, while clouds can reflect up to 80%.”

A report in JAMA Dermatology stated that flying at 30,000 feet for just under an hour exposes pilots to the same amount of radiation as 20 minutes in a tanning bed—and the exposure is even greater when flying over clouds or snow.

Protect Yourself

1. Use Sunscreen Apply and reapply a broad-spectrum sunscreen that protects against UVA and UVB radiation. Not all products are equally effective, so it’s worth checking the Environmental Working Group’s data on sunscreens. This organization evaluates not only the effectiveness of sunscreens but also their safety for daily use.

2. Protect Your Eyes Wear sunglasses with effective UVA and UVB protection. Ensure the glasses fit properly; gaps around the frame can let in light, reducing their effectiveness.

3. Cover Your Skin Wear long-sleeved shirts or sweaters to protect exposed skin. A hat can also shield your scalp, an area often overlooked when applying sunscreen.

4. Spread Awareness Share this information with your flying colleagues, friends, and family. Many people are unaware of the significant sun exposure risks on a flight deck.

Sources

• Skin Cancer Foundation: Understanding UVA and UVB

• FAA Report: Optical Radiation Transmittance of Aircraft Windscreens

• JAMA Dermatology: Tanning Bed Radiation Exposure

What is Carbon Monoxide?

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas that is poisonous to humans. While the young, elderly, and those with preexisting health conditions may be more vulnerable, CO can affect everyone at dangerous levels.

CO is particularly hazardous in enclosed spaces where it can accumulate. Many governments recommend or require homeowners to install CO detectors due to the risks associated with faulty furnaces and other fuel-burning appliances. CO is produced when fuels such as oil, wood, natural gas, propane, or kerosene are burned.

Symptoms of Carbon Monoxide Poisoning

The severity of symptoms depends on the level of exposure and the duration. Symptoms can include:

• Headache

• Fatigue

• Shortness of breath

• Nausea

• Dizziness

• Mental confusion

• Vomiting

• Loss of muscular control

• Loss of consciousness

• Death

Effects of CO at Different Levels

Implications for Pilots

Most small aircraft use engine exhaust for cabin heat, directing outside air over the exhaust pipe to warm the interior. If there is a leak in the exhaust pipe, CO can enter the cabin. Similarly, fuel-burning heaters can also pose a risk if exhaust leaks occur. While turbine aircraft have a lower risk of cabin contamination (as air is drawn in before combustion), there is still a possibility of CO exposure on the ground when using external fuel-burning heaters.

How to Protect Yourself

The simplest and most effective way to protect yourself is to install a carbon monoxide detector. These devices range from simple colour-changing “dots” to advanced digital detectors that alert you when CO levels exceed safe limits.

What to Do if You Suspect CO Exposure

1. Leave the Area: If you suspect CO exposure, exit the area immediately.

2. Eliminate the Source: If it is safe to do so, turn off the suspected source of CO and ventilate the space with fresh air.

3. Seek Medical Attention: Visit an emergency room or doctor as soon as possible, even if symptoms subside. CO binds to hemoglobin in the blood, and it can take at least 80 minutes on 100% oxygen to reduce CO levels by half.

4. Do Not Re-enter Until Safe: Only return to the area once it has been declared safe by authorities such as the fire department.

Practical Considerations

• Safe CO levels ideally should not exceed 20 ppm.

• For perspective, exposure to car exhaust in heavy traffic can range from 100–200 ppm, and undiluted car exhaust can reach up to 7,000 ppm.

• Even low-level exposure can have cumulative effects, making detection and prevention crucial.

Final Thoughts

Understanding the dangers of carbon monoxide, knowing how to respond to exposure, and advocating for CO detectors in the workplace are essential steps for pilots and aviation personnel. Remember, carbon monoxide is odourless; you cannot rely on the smell of exhaust as a warning sign. Protect yourself and those around you by staying vigilant.

Sources

• Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - Wikipedia

• WorkSafeBC Poster

Types of ILS Approaches

The most common type of ILS is Category I (CAT I), which typically brings aircraft to about 200 feet above the ground. However, local geographic restrictions may prevent an ILS from achieving this altitude. Less common are Category II (CAT II) and Category III (CAT III) approaches, which guide aircraft down to 100 feet and 50 feet above the ground, respectively.

In Canada, any pilot with an Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) rating can fly a certified IFR aircraft on a CAT I approach. However, CAT II and CAT III approaches require specific training, certification, and additional aircraft equipment.

How ILS Works

Regardless of the type of ILS approach, the concept remains the same. Ground-based equipment sends out two radio beams:

• Localizer: Provides horizontal guidance (left and right).

• Glide Path: Provides vertical guidance (up and down).

In the flight deck, pilots use two needles to interpret the signals representing the glide path and localizer:

• The center of the instrument represents the aircraft's position.

• If the glide path needle moves up, the aircraft is below the glide path, and the pilot needs to reduce the descent rate to return to the correct path.

• If the localizer needle moves left, the aircraft is right of the intended course, and the pilot must correct accordingly.

As the aircraft approaches the runway, the guidance signals become more sensitive, requiring only minor adjustments to stay aligned with the localizer and glide path.

Created by “Bob the Oyster”. The original image can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ILS_gauge.svg. This image is used under this license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. The original image was modified to include two red arrows pointing from two descriptions. 

Decision Height and Missed Approaches

Every ILS has a decision height, which is the altitude at which pilots must determine if they can safely land. If the runway is not visible by this altitude, the pilots must execute a go-around, also known as a missed approach. During a go-around, the pilots discontinue the landing attempt and climb away from the ground to reattempt or divert to an alternate airport.

Limitations of the ILS

While the ILS is the most widely used and accurate instrument approach system, it is also expensive to install and maintain. As a result, only airports with significant traffic and frequent adverse weather conditions invest in these systems.

The ILS remains a cornerstone of aviation safety, guiding aircraft safely to their destinations even in challenging weather conditions.

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.