|
Good lord, I wasn't aware the US medical procedure involved a trial by fire followed by interrogation on the rack. I can't imagine being so aggrieved by the idea of going to the doctor twice a decade. I held my class 1 medical until I finally decided not to be a pilot as a career, and I kept it current instead of letting it lapse to class 3 during that time. It wasn't a drama, even though I do have a medical condition which I was able to demonstrate to the AME did not affect my fitness to fly a plane. I agree that the standards need to be revised in some fashion so that people with controlled conditions are able to fly, but why should that require a full exemption from getting a medical altogether? Furthermore, why should people who are actually medically fit to fly, but unable to get a class 3 as it currently stands, be restricted from exercising the full privileges of a PPL? The exemption seems like bad policy compared to a comprehensive review and modification of the medical standards.
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 12:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
Who the gently caress needs a medical to fly a piston single?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
I'm weighing in here. My personal story is this. I had cancer, and went through two months of radiation therapy. 9 months after, I went for my medical. At the time, I had fully recovered, and was fit to fly. I had to go for additional testing, get letters from every single dr who treated me during the cancer, as well as a Transport Canada review of my file, and ended up with a restricted Category 3 license. I did my medical a second time about 9 months later and got an unrestricted cat 1, even though the AME said I never would. I agree reform is needed. I agree standards need to be loosened, but I think scrapping the medical for PPL entirely is a really loving stupid idea. Going once every five years to get checked out is also not a bad idea. And Apollo Captain Apollo posted:Sorry dude I don't need a doctor every 5 years telling me I'm good to fly is an incredibly arrogant, stupid, stubborn bullshit thing to say. As someone who has had health issues, I can tell you, you might not be aware of issues you have, or you may be wilfully ignoring them. Self-delusion is a powerful thing, and yes, having regular checkups by a doctor WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING, is a good thing. EDIT: As well, attaching it to a highway safety bill is bullshit too, but then again, that's my experience with Canadian Legislation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
You're right, so anyway I guess I need to call my doctor and get my grocery store medical. Don't want my arrogant and bullshit ways to prevent me from getting properly diagnosed so that I may or May not be able to buy groceries! The HORROR of shopping with no medical.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 14:55
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:You're right, so anyway I guess I need to call my doctor and get my grocery store medical. Oh gently caress off you disingenuous poo poo. You know full well what I was saying, and the fact that you are denying that there are valid medical concerns that keep people from flying is infuriating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Why don't the Canadians just stop talking about their medical and airplane system. It's obviously way better than our American counterpart. It has no bearing on the previous discussion regarding the U.S. Senate bill, the Pilots Bill of Rights 2.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 14:58
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Why don't the Canadians just stop talking about their medical and airplane system. It's obviously way better than our American counterpart. And how does you saying "Oh well I'll need a medical to get groceries" have any bearing? Are you seriously trying to push the equivalence that getting groceries is the same as flying a plane? Honestly, I really didn't have a horse in this, but jesus wept, you really made the loving case that the medical is necessary down south because otherwise we get people like you going "Oh I don't need a Dr, I can fly fine" and then whoops, poo poo goes bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
A class 3 medical screening is not the type of exam that will alert you to serious conditions you have that you didn't know about, with the possible exception of whatever they are looking for in the piss test.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Why don't the Canadians just stop talking about their medical and airplane system. It's obviously way better than our American counterpart. We're pointing out that the system is lovely and does need, very much, to be modified. I haven't the faintest idea why people think the best way is to exempt certain pilots from the medical system entirely instead of, you know, making the medical system less lovely. The problems are still there even if certain pilots no longer get affected by them. Wouldn't it be better to simply fix the problems instead of trying to go around them? Don't even get me started on the stupidity of basically saying, "I don't need no doctors with their fancy book-learnin' tellin me bout mah health!" They're trained professionals. If they are improperly constrained by the system, the system needs to be changed, and if they are not acting professionally, they need to be fired. Finally, if you actually want to convince people that this exemption is a good idea, it might be a good idea to present its merits instead of coming in all butthurt going "Waah, why did the ALPA make a perfectly reasonable statement?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Medical a exist because 1) pilots were issued licenses through the military and the military has medicals. 2) doctors make money off having pilots take medicals. I can't imagine that it's a ton, but apparently it's enough. The problem is, in the U.S., we pilots don't seem to have enough money to combat the OTHER special interest groups of the doctors who want to keep the requirement that they get paid by pilots. It's like a luxury tax except the doctors are getting paid. It's not a safety issue, it's not a health issue, it's a money issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Because there was never a need for a class 3 medical in the first place is the point, I believe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
PT6A posted:We're pointing out that the system is lovely and does need, very much, to be modified. I haven't the faintest idea why people think the best way is to exempt certain pilots from the medical system entirely instead of, you know, making the medical system less lovely. The problems are still there even if certain pilots no longer get affected by them. Wouldn't it be better to simply fix the problems instead of trying to go around them? Actually, ALPA poo poo the bed on this one. Their letter claimed that pilots would have "unfettered" access to 18k. The legislation said up to 14,500 only. They just incited terror. Many of their members are reacting negatively. Go do some research. Now, regarding my self assessment of flying. I, as a CFI, teach the IMSAFE checklist just as FAA/AOPA taught me to do as a private pilot. Illness, sleep, medication, alcohol, fatigue, eating. So yes, I know better on any day, minute, or second, whether or not I'm good to fly. As opposed to a doctor I see every 5 years. Sorry dudes, no scandal here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:And how does you saying "Oh well I'll need a medical to get groceries" have any bearing? Are you seriously trying to push the equivalence that getting groceries is the same as flying a plane? Honestly, I really didn't have a horse in this, but jesus wept, you really made the loving case that the medical is necessary down south because otherwise we get people like you going "Oh I don't need a Dr, I can fly fine" and then whoops, poo poo goes bad. But he does have a medical. And would continue to need one in order to be a CFI even under the proposed changes. Apollo's attitude causing poo poo to go bad wouldn't have anything to do with medicals. We have the data for over a decade of pilots flying under the sport pilot certificate. And data going further back for aircraft types that don't require medicals like gliders. And the medical doesn't really help with flight safety. There are pilots having heart attacks and strokes in flight, but they did have their medicals and were flying as private pilots. Having a medical doesn't noticeably improve flight safety over a self-certification by the pilot and drivers license. And yeah, attaching it to a highway bill is politics, but given the fact that our Department of Transportation has sat on the recommended changes the FAA sent them over a year ago I'm not that upset about it, especially since it looks like the FAA appropriations bill is probably going to be stuck in Congress and the FAA funded by continuing resolutions. Again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
RAH airlines stock dropped like a Q400 in Buffalo yesterday. They're blaming operational issues due to the pilot shortage and specifically the post 3407 rules. Apparently they're having problems adapting to laws that have been on the books for 5 years now. Hopefully this is the start of the pilot shortage starting to hit the good old boys club in their wallets so they'll finally start working on real solutions. I'm not holding my breath though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
What's up in Atlanta im stuck swearing my rear end off in a md88 and all I hear is ground stip
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/airlines/allegiant-air-flight-runs-low-on-fuel-over-closed-airport-makes-emergency/2238936 Whelp. Relevant to the previous notam discussion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
The two pilots were apparently the VP of flight ops, and the director of safety at Allegiant, so I'm assuming they've decided the entire thing was the fault of the dispatcher.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
It's almost like I said notams are a human factors nightmare the other day because I knew this exact thing would happen! That said, I'm really surprised they decided to hold. Surely they could have gone to a different airport 10 min prior to that point and landed only slightly into their reserve? I doubt weather was a factor if the blue angels were out practicing. !IAD 07/215 (KIAD A2369/15) IAD RWY 1R ALS OUT OF SERVICE 1507291200-1507291600 !IAD 07/214 (KIAD A2368/15) IAD RWY 1L ALS OUT OF SERVICE 1507291300-1507291500 !IAD 07/211 (KIAD A2365/15) IAD SVC MICROBURST/WINDSHEAR DETECTION SYSTEM NOT AVBL 1507281105-1508052000EST !IAD 07/210 IAD OBST TOWER LGT (ASR 1267911) 385109.60N0772307.70W (6.6NM SSE IAD) 671.9FT (239.8FT AGL) OUT OF SERVICE 1507281005-1508121014 !IAD 07/209 IAD OBST TOWER LGT (ASR 1232614) 385510.20N0772915.90W (2.1NM SW IAD) 477.7FT (163.7FT AGL) OUT OF SERVICE 1507280514-1508120514 !IAD 07/197 (KIAD A2345/15) IAD SVC TERMINAL AREA SURVEILLANCE RADAR/ SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR OUT OF SERVICE 1507300400-1507300800 !IAD 07/192 (KIAD A2339/15) IAD APRON TAXILANE B BTN TAXILANE A5 AND TWY J WIP CONST N SIDE LGTD AND BARRICADED 1507261653-1510012359 !IAD 07/191 (KIAD A2338/15) IAD SVC TERMINAL AREA SURVEILLANCE RADAR/ SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR OUT OF SERVICE 1507290400-1507290800 !DCA 07/327 (KIAD A2312/15) LDN NAV TACAN AZM OUT OF SERVICE 1507221829-1508052000EST !IAD 07/137 (KIAD A2264/15) IAD TWY J BTN TWY A AND TWY J3 CLSD TO ACFT WINGSPAN MORE THAN 90FT 1507161721-1510311600 !DCA 07/230 (KIAD A2255/15) BRV NAV VOR OUT OF SERVICE 1507152136-1508142300 !IAD 07/114 IAD APRON TAXILANE A SFC MARKINGS E SIDE NOT STD 1507131941-1510310400 !IAD 07/113 (KIAD A2232/15) IAD APRON TAXILANE B SFC MARKINGS EAST SIDE NOT STD 1507131940-1510312359 !IAD 07/112 (KIAD A2231/15) IAD TWY B BTN TWY J AND TWY K CLSD TO ACFT WINGSPAN MORE THAN 90FT 1507131932-1510312359 !IAD 07/111 (KIAD A2230/15) IAD APRON TAXILANE B BTN TAXILANE A4 AND TWY J CLSD TO ACFT WINGSPAN MORE THAN 90FT 1507131929-1510312355 !IAD 07/102 (KIAD A2216/15) IAD APRON TAXILANE A5 BTN TAXILANE A AND TAXILANE B CLSD 1507130300-1510092000 !IAD 07/099 (KIAD A2212/15) IAD TWY J BTN TWY A AND TWY B CLSD 1507130300-1510092000 !IAD 07/098 (KIAD A2211/15) IAD TWY K SFC MARKING BTN TWY J3 AND TWY A NOT STD 1507122040-1510092000 !IAD 07/097 (KIAD A2210/15) IAD TWY B SFC MARKINGS BTN TWY K AND TAXILANE B NOT STD 1507122040-1510092000 !IAD 07/094 (KIAD A2207/15) IAD TWY J SFC MARKINGS BTN TWY J2 AND TWY J3 NOT STD 1507121839-1510310400 !IAD 06/171 IAD TWY Y8 TWY DIRECTION SIGN FOR TWY Y MISSING 1506180948-1507312359 !IAD 06/170 IAD TWY Y8 LOCATION SIGN MISSING 1506180945-1507312359 !IAD 06/174 IAD AD CLSD 1507281000-1507312359 !IAD 06/169 (KIAD A1888/15) IAD TWY W4 APRON SIGN WEST SIDE FOR W APRON MISSING 1506180939-1508312359 !IAD 06/161 (KIAD A1862/15) IAD RWY 12/30 SFC MARKINGS NOT STD 1506161840-1511161900 !IAD 06/130 (KIAD A1809/15) IAD RWY 1C WIP RWY PAPI LGT MOUNT REPAIR 1300FT N OF RWY 1C THR 1506120235-1510011200EST !IAD 06/129 (KIAD A1808/15) IAD RWY 19C WIP RWY PAPI LGT MOUNT REPAIR 1300FT S OF RWY 19C THR 1506120234-1510011200EST !IAD 01/040 IAD AIRSPACE SEE FDC 1/1155, 0/8326 ZDC 99.7 TFR 1501081749-1601312359EST !FDC 5/7564 (KIAD A2002/15) IAD SID WASHINGTON DULLES INTL, WASHINGTON, DC. BULRN ONE DEPARTURE (RNAV)... POTOMAC DEPARTURE CONTROL FREQUENCY 126.65. 1506291938-1512261938EST !FDC 5/6822 (KIAD A1575/15) IAD STAR WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC., SELENSGROVE THREE ARRIVAL DME REQUIRED 1505271330-1508200400 !FDC 5/4832 (KIAD A1481/15) IAD STAR WASHINGTON DULLES INTL, WASHINGTON, D.C., COATT FOUR ARRIVAL...RADAR AND DME REQUIRED 1505211400-PERM !FDC 5/8049 (KIAD A1028/15) IAD IAP WASHINGTON DULLES INTL, WASHINGTON, DC. RNAV (GPS) RWY 19R, ORIG-A... RNAV (GPS) RWY 1L, ORIG-B... LPV VISIBILITY RVR 4000 ALL CATS. NOTE: INOPERATIVE TABLE DOES NOT APPLY TO LPV ALL CATS VISIBILITY. NOTE: HELICOPTER VISIBILITY REDUCTION BELOW 3/4 SM NOT AUTHORIZED. 1504151759-1510121759EST !FDC 5/9925 (KIAD A0657/15) IAD STAR WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC. BARIN ONE ARRIVAL NA 1503051200-PERM !FDC 5/7643 (KIAD A0576/15) IAD IAP WASHINGTON DULLES INTL, WASHINGTON, DC. ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 12, AMDT 9A... S-LOC 12 MDA 740/HAT 430 ALL CATS. VIS CAT C RVR 4000. 1502262124-1508252124EST !FDC 4/5589 (KIAD A3204/14) IAD STAR WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC., PHILIPSBURG TWO ARRIVAL UNAVAILABLE 1409180400-PERM !FDC 4/5587 (KIAD A3203/14) IAD STAR WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC., PRTZL THREE ARRIVAL UNAVAILABLE 1409180400-PERM !FDC 4/2823 (KIAD A3130/14) IAD STAR WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC.,GRAVZ ONE ARRIVAL DELETE NOTE 4: TURBOJET AIRCRAFT ONLY ADD NOTE: FOR AIRCRAFT CAPABLE OF 180KTS OR GREATER ADD NOTE: PSB TRANSITION-TURBOJETS ONLY 1409180400-1411130400 !FDC 4/2822 (KIAD A3128/14) IAD STAR WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC., SELINSGROVE THREE ARRIVAL UNAVAILABLE 1409180400-PERM !FDC 4/2819 (KIAD A3129/14) IAD STAR WASHINGTON DULLES INTERNATIONAL, WASHINGTON, DC., LEGGO TWO ARRIVAL UNAVAILABLE 1409180400-PERM These are the real notams today for IAD. I added one pretty important notam just for fun! And keep in mind that would be just a small part of your dispatch release, and by the way, you're already running late and in a hurry to get your flight out. The FAA really needs to ... re-do the NOTAM system. Yes, it's irresponsible to not know about a notam, and totally inexcusable for a professional crew but the sequence of events leading them to this is entirely human behavioral-ist understandable. The Slaughter fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
To be fair, they're normally at least separated by carriage returns. You made it even worse than it normally looks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Carriage returns don't make that mess much more readable. And I couldn't get them to copy and paste with it in, so yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
The Slaughter posted:Carriage returns don't make that mess much more readable. And I couldn't get them to copy and paste with it in, so yeah. If you had pasted it as formatted, I could have found the "gotcha" you included. As it currently reads, I'm not going to spend the time. Ah I see it. It's toward the top (my ATC brain locked onto this): TERMINAL AREA SURVEILLANCE RADAR/ SECONDARY SURVEILLANCE RADAR OUT OF SERVICE But I guess pilots care about : AD (aerodrome) CLOSED The Ferret King fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
I don't think the cause was unclear NOTAMS, but probably a mix of Allegiant not wanting to put anything more than the bare minimum fuel on the airplane (there was a perfectly viable alternate about 70 miles away), and no one actually bothering to pay attention to the NOTAM. If you're flying in a 121 environment, reading NOTAMS is part of the job description (especially if you're in a management position where and rank-and-file pilots would love to see you screw up), so there's really no excuse for managing to dispatch a flight to an airport that was going to be NOTAM'ed as closed, and then declaring an emergency to land there anyway. Also, under Part 121, the director of operations and the PIC are jointly responsible for the "initiation, continuation, diversion, and termination of a flight in compliance with this chapter and the operations specifications", and that same rule also says that the director of ops cannot delegate the responsibility for those functions to anyone else. Since the PIC on that flight was apparently the director of operations (meaning dispatch ultimately reports to them), there's legally no way for Allegiant to blame anyone else for the screwup, so I'm guessing that individual is going to have some very interesting conversations with the FAA about what happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Agreed that it was the fault of dispatch for not planning around the NOTAMed closure, and then it was the fault of both dispatch and the PIC for either not planning for enough divert fuel, or for holding long enough that a divert wasn't possible, but as mentioned multiple times above, the FAA's flight safety information is delivered in a way that is an absolute human factors nightmare, could be EASILY changed to a format more condusive to easy understanding, and is only still issued in that format because "That's the way we've always done it." Simply pointing at a regulation and saying that the flight crew didn't comply with it, and therefore it's all their fault LALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU THERES NO PROBLEM doesn't mean that the entire regulation, and indeed, parts of the entire regulatory structure aren't a goddamned disgrace.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Okay copy and pasting it into word fixed it. It's slightly more readable? It's still a loving garbage mess. Paraphrasing from IRC since I'd like to keep the discussing going here too, as much fun as it is to crucify the crew and allegiant, and YES they absolutely share a lot of responsibility, the notam system SUCKS (especially with regard to TFRs and the FAA not following their own rules regarding briefings, etc). Goes back to the "This faa listing of TFRs may not be the FULL list of TFRs" thing. There are a lot of ways to solve a problem. The first step is admitting you have a problem. In a human factors class I took, there was a picture of a sign that was like 'please stay on trail and off the grass', and you can clearly see where people have ignored the gently caress out of that sign and gone on the grass. People are going to shortcut. So you can come with all kinds of solutions. You can make a new trail where people are taking the shortcut. (it was the convenient way to go, clearly). You can hire a security guard to watch it 24-7. You can put up a fence, or thorns, or both. This applies to aviation too and the human factors of design into aviation. It's why we have gear handles now that don't look like light switches and we also don't touch switches on the runway, plus weight on wheels sensors, you can engineer out the problem, you can train for it, tons of ways to eliminate problems. People are gonna be lazy and gently caress up, make it easier for pilots and it won't occur as often. The notam system hasn't changed enough since the 1950s and teletype, it hasn't kept up AT ALL. Azflyboy, if they knew there was that notam why would they go bounding toward the airport with a lack of fuel? It seems like a miss to me. Edit: goddamnit yenko you beat me by like 2 minutes. yeah management pilots should be careful for this poo poo because people love to see them fail, but I understand how they can make that mistake because I'd be lying if I said I'd never missed a somewhat important notam in 6 years of flying. Sorry, it's easy to do. I guess i'm a garbage pilot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
I think the 1995 and forward way to transmit that info would be in XML various alert types, and then let software concatenate it in to one amorphous blob, or color code it, or sort it, or let the user filter by alert type, time stamp, whatever on their iPad. You can transmit XML as plain ASCII (i.e. it's teletype compatible) so it's not like it's terribly difficult to integrate it in to the existing system. If there's further limitations you could always design your own non standard data format and force everyone to use that instead but XML is pretty dead easy. Or CSV or Json or yaml or a hundred other equally valid international standards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
I didn't mean to imply that the current NOTAM system isn't screwed up, since it clearly is. In this case, the NOTAM had been out for some time (probably a couple of weeks), so the fact that no one seems to have bothered to actually read the NOTAM during that period (and the fact that every other 121 carrier in the US manages not to dispatch flights to closed airports) seems to indicate that the burden of this particular screwup is on Allegiant, and not the FAA. The only reason I brought up that particular FAR was because Allegiant's management loves shifting blame to everyone but themselves when something goes wrong there, so having a situation where one of said managers not only screws up in a spectacularly public manner, but is also the person the FAA says is ultimately responsible for said screwup is some pretty great schadenfreude. What really confuses me about the whole incident is how the crew got to the point where they had to declare an emergency in the first place. Ignoring the NOTAM issue, the crew had a perfectly good alternate (GFK) about 70 miles north, so the fact that they didn't have an extra 15 minutes of fuel on board indicates that either the flight departed with less than the required reserves, or the crew decided that flying in circles and arguing with ATC was a better use of time and fuel than just admitting they screwed up and landing somewhere else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:I think the 1995 and forward way to transmit that info would be in XML various alert types, and then let software concatenate it in to one amorphous blob, or color code it, or sort it, or let the user filter by alert type, time stamp, whatever on their iPad. You can transmit XML as plain ASCII (i.e. it's teletype compatible) so it's not like it's terribly difficult to integrate it in to the existing system. If there's further limitations you could always design your own non standard data format and force everyone to use that instead but XML is pretty dead easy. Or CSV or Json or yaml or a hundred other equally valid international standards. lol @ the FAA using something even remotely modern
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
Wait a Minute - now this thread admits the NOTAM system is completely jacked and that pilots can't read this poo poo anyway but LAST PAGE we had pilots with less than 200 hours collectively saying they always check the notams!? Obviously I don't work and never will work in a chartered environment. I would be PISSED if "dispatch" was responsible for my NOTAM info and didn't tell me about a closed runway. In other news, Google Maps will now tell you when a restaurant is going to be closed by the time you arrive based on your route and ETA! Just waiting until foreflight is the only chart and nav database in existence and is FAA approved. Captain Apollo fucked around with this message at 01:27 on Jul 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Just pointing this out for anyone else who may be interested before we get back to NOTAMania, JustPlanes is having a clearance sale on many of their cockpit DVDs/BluRays this month and next. I picked up a Gemini DC-10 and Air Canada A319/A321 cockpit video for $5 and $10 respectively. The sale through the end of this month is on all non-Boeing types, though they reduced the price on a couple Boeing DVDs for some reason. Deep discounts on Boeing videos start August 1st. These can be a fun way to kill a couple hours and they have pretty much every type you can think of with a cockpit ride along. If you're interested in recommendations, I have a few of them I've purchased over the years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:but LAST PAGE we had pilots with less than 200 hours collectively saying they always check the notams!? What purpose does this comment serve apart from making you look like a complete rear end? Nobody gives a flying gently caress about how many hours you or anyone else has in their logbook. As far as I and many others are concerned, your logbook is a binary thing. You either fall into the "enough" category, or the "not enough" category.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:Just pointing this out for anyone else who may be interested before we get back to NOTAMania, JustPlanes is having a clearance sale on many of their cockpit DVDs/BluRays this month and next. I picked up a Gemini DC-10 and Air Canada A319/A321 cockpit video for $5 and $10 respectively. The captain flying right seat on that GAC flight is a Genuine Good loving Guy. He was always a pleasure to work with. The captain flying left seat was a huge cock. HUGE COCK.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:What really confuses me about the whole incident is how the crew got to the point where they had to declare an emergency in the first place. Ignoring the NOTAM issue, the crew had a perfectly good alternate (GFK) about 70 miles north, so the fact that they didn't have an extra 15 minutes of fuel on board indicates that either the flight departed with less than the required reserves, or the crew decided that flying in circles and arguing with ATC was a better use of time and fuel than just admitting they screwed up and landing somewhere else. Yeah, that's what I was wondering too. I can't imagine the situation where going into holding and then declaring an emergency was the best option available. Also, how did this issue not become abundantly clear like ... 50 nm prior to their destination anyway when an approach controller was like "uhh, that airport place is closed"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:The captain flying right seat on that GAC flight is a Genuine Good loving Guy. He was always a pleasure to work with. Interesting. I've only seen about 10 minutes of it so far. Got any stories worth sharing? Do/did you know much about the F/E? I got a laugh out of his "What am I supposed to do now?" pause at the end of the walkaround. What's really interesting about these DVDs is when pilots turn up other places in the series. The F/Os on the Royal 727 and A310 (STN-YYZ leg) videos later wind up as MD-80 captains on the JetsGo video.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
MrChips posted:What purpose does this comment serve apart from making you look like a complete rear end? Inhofe made the comment that pilots who fly a lot disregard notams or simply don't look them up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Nobody gives a flying gently caress about how many hours you or anyone else has in their logbook. As far as I and many others are concerned, your logbook is a binary thing. You either fall into the "enough" category, or the "not enough" category. Enough/Not Enough for a particular job or aircraft or situation or what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:Inhofe made the comment that pilots who fly a lot disregard notams or simply don't look them up. That's pretty stupid. Actually no, that's completely loving retarded. I get that NOTAMs are so lovely to read, but the onus is still on the PIC to be familiar with them, end of story. Having said that, at a large flight operation, where you would be working with a dispatcher, it's the dispatcher's job to make sure the aircrew has the right information in their hands at the right time. Regarding the Allegiant incident, I will fall back on my favourite safety officer line; "If we're going to play the blame game, there's more than enough to go around here." I think what they need to do is have a priority system with the NOTAMs. If, say, an airport is closed, that is important and should go right at the top of the list of the aerodrome file, probably with an urgent tag like how pireps (remember those?) are categorised UA for normal and UUA for urgent. After that things like airspace changes, procedure amendments and whatnot, then below that are all the NOTAMs for all the rest of the silly and possibly inconsequential poo poo like cranes, unlit towers 80 nm from the nearest airport etc. DNova posted:Enough/Not Enough for a particular job or aircraft or situation or what? That's the great(?) thing about the "enough/not enough" metric; it can apply to any of those situations and more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That's pretty stupid. Actually no, that's completely loving retarded. That Inhofe said it, or that it's true?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
MrChips posted:That's the great(?) thing about the "enough/not enough" metric; it can apply to any of those situations and more. Ah, gotcha. Makes sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Captain Apollo posted:That Inhofe said it, or that it's true? Both.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 18:54 |
|
|
People seem to be overlooking the real question of why the Blue Angels need the field closed for five hours when those planes carry like 30 minutes of fuel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2015 05:57
|
|
