Transpacific Flight

This short documentary from the On the Spot series-“the National Film Board’s up-to-the-minute report of what’s happening somewhere in Canada”-invites us aboard a transpacific flight. Host Fred Davis, on his way to shoot stories in Japan and Korea, interviews the pilot, navigator and flight attendants.

[@WAL_DC-6B]

The aircraft this was filmed aboard, "Empress of Tokyo," was a Canadian Pacific Airlines Douglas DC-6B (CF-CUQ) and was delivered to the airline on February 26, 1953. It was later renamed, "Empress of City of Buenos Aires." Sadly, it was involved in a crash on July 8, 1965 when apparently a bomb exploded in flight in a lavatory breaking up the aircraft near Dog Creek, B.C. (330 kms or 200 miles north of Vancouver) killing all 52 aboard.

[@goognamgoognw6637]

aircrafts are never safe. It's not true that it's safer than cars. They cheat in many ways to say that, there are many metrics to use to say what you want. First of all they kill all passengers on board at once, whereas a car it's only between 1 to 4 only if a fatal car crash. Another easy way to hide the statistics is to look at distance covered by planes between accidents. The other big difference is you can do defensive driving with a car to significantly reduce risk of serious accidents, so you have control, and it works. That is the reason teenagers have most fatal car crashes. But for airplanes you have zero control, you are far more exposed to an accident. And the most commonly heard number is how fewer people die from plane crash per year than car accidents, well, that too is a misleading number because it should be adjusted to number of flights from one single departure city, then compared to car fatality rate per car commute trip in that same city over a year. So for example if 200 people died of plane crash among 20,000 flights leaving sidney over that year, but 4000 people died of car crash in sydney where 20 millions commute trips are done over that year. compare 200/20,000 = 1% to 4,000 / 20,000,000 = 0.02 %. Stepping in a car is 50 times safer than climbing in an airplane.

[@goognamgoognw6637]

@@chrisbristol1615 you're not worth my answer, you don't have the mind to understand the point I made.

[@goognamgoognw6637]

@@chrisbristol1615 you're not worth my answer, you don't have the mind to understand the point I made.

[@rapman5363]

@@chrisbristol1615 👍...well done!! You did a great job schooling this fool.

[@maintuning]

@@goognamgoognw6637 Thank you, Sheldon Cooper.

[@priestpilot]

"You girls seem to be very talented in the kitchen, do you come by that naturally or is that part of your training?" Quite a 1950s thing to say!

[@jamesyates48]

Wow...a good night's sleep AND not a hair out of place!

[@zacktong8105]

Wow nonstop from Tokyo to Vancouver in a DC-6B.In 1970 in a DC-8-63 in summer we had to stop for fuel in Anchorage, AK. Not until 2011 did we go nonstop in a 747-400 both ways between Detroit and Oska in almost the same number of hours though it was a light load of 90 some passengers wth the Asian economy in a downturn and every Osaka gate filled with parked airplanes going nowhere.

[@user-ky6vw5up9m]

The autopilot was “George” - i have not heard that for fifty years .

[@carlhaluss]

Oh, the memories! I never did fly on a CP DC-6B, but my Dad and grandmother did from Vancouver to Amsterdam and vice versa. I did fly on United Airlines' DC6 though. Funny that the configuration of CP DC6 was 5 abreast and I remember on United it was 4 abreast. I suppose F-Class was in the rear, and it must have been 4 abreast. Thanks for the great video!

[@jfchonors8873]

Love the pencil sharpener in the cockpit

[@frankgarrett9500]

That was a horribly drawn map.

[@jsmr451]

Some impressive straight lines drawn with the pencil though!

[@nicolas2970]

He asked the Captain "What is PNR?" The CA never said the acronym is "Point of No Return"

[@jayreiter268]

Now called Equal Time Point. That more accurately describes its significance and is not as foreboding.

[@im1who84u]

I worked in the reservation department of a major airline and P.N.R. for us meant... Passenger Name Record. But I figured out what it meant for this video.

[@kimchipig]

Notice the movement at 9:50. They are flying across the Pacific at 11,000 feet. They are at the complete mercy of the weather. Iron nerves these folks!

[@nedmarc]

Thanks for posting.

[@purryellis]

I always wondered what it really sounded like in the cabin during a flight on one of these old birds and this gave me a better understanding. The older I get, the more sensitive to sound and vibration I become. I think 19 hours of a loud drone would be difficult to take if you were used to much quieter modern day aircraft. I wonder if any passengers wore any type of headphones..

[@moggridge1]

I was thinking along the sane lines. I've often flown on modern smallish twin turboprop aircraft for journeys of an hour or so. Those are very wearing due to the racket I find, so goodness knows what this aircraft must really have been like!

[@andyharman3022]

Those big piston engines didn't turn very fast during cruise, about 1600 rpm. The things that made the old piston airliners uncomfortable was the vibration of the props, and turbulence. You don't "get above the weather" until 20,000 feet. They were flying at 11,000. Not fun.

[@karelmarx8899]

stevardese were real beaties

[@cherifbar]

fantastic video!

[@JohnR84]

More here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Pacific_Air_Lines_Flight_21

[@Vtarngpb]

0:45 man that cutting edge graphics department… 😂

[@yes_head]

They were headed for Korea? In 1953? That was brave.

[@crushingvanessa3277]

They should have made this once the Connie came out.

[@scottvernon9413]

That was really cool.............................................

[@johannesbols57]

2x3 seating. FORGET IT!

[@rashidamin7241]

Nice memories 💖💖💖

[@srckovic]

No this is not old but is in 2015 ago

[@davenguyen1968]

Absolutely proper

[@garypugh1153]

Gps is futuistic 🇺🇸

[@rev.henrybrowniv9917]

I wonder who that baby grew up to be.....

[@Tolstoievsky]

Rev. Henry Brown IV nobody

[@ShakespeareCafe]

I found the sounds of the turboprops very comforting

[@robertl.fallin7062]

@ Shakespearescafe..... The engine are eighteen cylinder radial engines of a type used for bombers in WWII. Four engine turboprop aircraft were about to come into commercial avation a few years later the most natourous being the Lockheed Electra. It would experiance several wing separations , one over NYC.. One joining the US Navy in 1963 I flew to to Washington on a DC3 then to Chicago, a four hour flight, on a DC6. The noise and vibration was exhausting . I returned on a 707, a amazing quite vibration free experiance . I could not imagine a DC6 flight to Australia !

[@jayreiter268]

In 1961 I flew in a C118 military version of a DC-6. McGuire, Gander - Non scheduled maintenance - cylinder change- , Prestwick, Mildenhall , London RON- Douglas House. 25 hours in route. AS my father said of the pistons We changed engines and cylinders from the day we got them till we got rid of them"

[@jayreiter268]

Actually the P-3 turbo prop has a different noise inside as the engine noise beat of the cylinders is not there. In the pistons there was always a burbling tone to voices when talking.

[@user-ky6vw5up9m]

The first turbo-prop airliner was the Vickers Vanguard in 1949. It was a big success and popular with north American airlines for internal flights.

[@denniscantoreggi5937]

@@user-ky6vw5up9m Sorry, but it was the Vickers Viscount