|
LGA approach has this guy who slurrs his Brooklyn accent like he just had a stroke. He is a good controller but the way he talks would raise eyebrows in any normal conversation, let alone a radio frequency. I've heard guys yell at him on the frequency because they could not understand him, but he seemed utterly unaffected.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 15:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Wow - FAA just came out with an app in Beta form. This actually makes a ton of sense. Takes your location and let's you know about airspace and a variety of other issues. To be used as a UAS flight planned http://1.usa.gov/1F31xaM
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
There's a guy who works YVR approach who sounds exactly like Robin Leach (the former host of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous), which is endlessly entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Anybody hear about the Delta that had to go around today because some regional jet couldn't turn off on a taxi way? WOW - Imagine the cost? spoiler it was slaughter Captain Apollo fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Haha. Spoiler, it was bad controlling.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 06:59
|
|
|
Unless it was American Airlines or one of their sub carriers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0fVI4l8KQM
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 10:47
|
|
|
Go away TS Erika I want to finish my ATP >8|
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/27/pilot-shortage-faa-1500-hours-required-colgan-crash-alpa/32008451/
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
Some boner ran my clubs Archer out of gas and balled it up. Was a good bird and the plane I did my instrument rating in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
And the occupants?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Well I might be leaving my training facility soon to sit right seat in an LR60 for salary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Congratulations! Land it like a LEAR not a Cessna apparently. The Learjet 60, while a tremendous performer, also maintains the highest incident/accident rate in its class with most accidents occurring during landing. According to the NTSB most of these failures are caused by pilot-error as the aircraft can be unforgiving.[7] source: the wikipedia of the internet Captain Apollo fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Aug 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:And the occupants? They were ok apparently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
What's the rule of thumb for reverser use on RJs? I flew into PHL twice last week on Air Whiskey CRJs: the first flight landed on 17 and had the crew slam on the brakes to the point where everybody's heads snapped forward with little or no reverser usage to try and make K/not cross 27R. On the way back, we landed on 35 and used somewhat moderate braking to clear on E3 to the ramp. Both these were during the day, about 10AM and 7PM respectively. Diagram for reference: http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/PHL/APD/AIRPORT+DIAGRAM/pdf Rickety Cricket posted:http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/08/27/pilot-shortage-faa-1500-hours-required-colgan-crash-alpa/32008451/ This next month might be as big a political shitshow as the race for President already is/is going to be. I'd like to know what data the guy from UND sampled to get the "one crash in the last 100 had pilots with less than 1,500" stat. He'd almost have to be including GA, right? CBJSprague24 fucked around with this message at 05:12 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
When American Eagle/Whatever They Call Themselves This Flight fly in on the E135a or E145s, they never, ever, EVER use reverse thrust on landing. I see other carriers use reverse thrust in the E135/145 jets. Maybe it's just company specific policy to replace more brake pads.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Jetblue policy is not to use reversers unless required due to runway contamination or length. The reasoning being brake usage is better than engine wear. Also one of the reversers could have been MELed so neither would be used.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
CBJSprague24 posted:What's the rule of thumb for reverser use on RJs? Makes sense to me. 6500 feet isn't a particularly long runway for a CRJ200. Landing on 17 you don't HAVE to stop short of 9L/27R but it saves a lot of taxi time. Landing on 35 there is no distance that affects taxi time so you have more leeway to roll it out. That being said, I used the reversers on most landings in the CRJ despite our books saying to use when needed. Maybe their book says to avoid using it however on that short of a runway I'd use it every time. Also as two_beer_bishes pointed out, one of them could have been defered and they chose not to use them, however one being defered doesn't mean you can't use the working one, it is just uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
I always use full reverser on the CRJ700/900 with brakes as necessary. It's just the way we are trained, we don't want people hesitating to use them and then one day really need them but applying them too late (they have a lag time.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 11:35
|
|
|
AWSEFT posted:however one being defered doesn't mean you can't use the working one, it is just uncomfortable. Just learned something new... huh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
vessbot posted:Just learned something new... huh. Obviously airframe dependent, and probably because the CRJ has fuse-mounted engines. When you defer a wing T/R on a DC-10, as an example, you have to physically disable BOTH wing T/Rs, per the MEL. You also have to safetywire the T/R handles so they're immobile, in case the crew can't remember which orange sticker is which. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
In the E175 we were trained to use them every time but they recommend idle reverse. Otherwise they're just super loud and don't do much more.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
AWSEFT posted:Makes sense to me. 6500 feet isn't a particularly long runway for a CRJ200. Landing on 17 you don't HAVE to stop short of 9L/27R but it saves a lot of taxi time. Landing on 35 there is no distance that affects taxi time so you have more leeway to roll it out. That being said, I used the reversers on most landings in the CRJ despite our books saying to use when needed. Maybe their book says to avoid using it however on that short of a runway I'd use it every time. Also as two_beer_bishes pointed out, one of them could have been defered and they chose not to use them, however one being defered doesn't mean you can't use the working one, it is just uncomfortable. Yeah, I figured there'd be some taxi considerations which factored in if you didn't make K and had to hold short of 9L/27R, as it would add a couple minutes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:
This leads to safety arguments after one notable cock up. http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/belfast/Congonhas/A320-throttles.htm This was on an A320, but on the UK 757/767 I used to fly we did not wire down the inoperative T/R as you could (and we tried it, it was fun) with the operative T/R in reverse hit the G/A (go around) switch on the locked out lever and get max reverse commanded on one and TOGA on the other. (Trainer in left seat, it was part of the "the system cannot be going to be designed to do that, oh hell it has" check) Policy now for the airlines I fly with is select reverse IDLE on both and leave it at idle only with one inop. Also, if you have NOT selected reverse idle at touch down the authorities will have you bent over if something were to go wrong at all. (Witness the Air France in Canada where all survived but the crew got bollocked for delayed selection of reverse). Airbus Standard (and all Boeing fleets I have been on) is always take reverse idle as if the brakes fail it saves about 5 seconds to get reverse max if you are already in idle. They also state to use it until taxi speed (c. 30-60kts) before stowing, and to return to reverse idle by 70 knots in the landing roll.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
For neatness the snip from the manual is below (slightly jigged so it is readable):quote:Applicable to: ALL hjp766 fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Aug 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:Jetblue policy is not to use reversers unless required due to runway contamination or length. The reasoning being brake usage is better than engine wear. Really? almost the opposite SOP at my company. We almost* always deploy reversers on the CRJ, before using brakes, and we still use them even if one is deferred. *It should be always, but there's a few times crews have forgotten to arm them on descent so on landing it's a bit of an awkward surprise when they don't deploy...oops 
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
I flew into PHL yesterday on a CRJ-200 by AW operating as US Airways Express but booked with an AA flight number (confused yet?) and they used the reversers. I also spent most of the flight looking at the road nav app on my phone and thinking, thanks to this thread, that 400MPH was indeed slow as balls. E: also saw a crewmember and gate agent nearly get into a fight in the terminal while 1705 was deboarding, anyone know what that was about? shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Sep 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
MANGOSTEEN CURES P posted:I flew into PHL yesterday on a CRJ-200 by AW operating as US Airways Express but booked with an AA flight number (confused yet?) and they used the reversers. I also spent most of the flight looking at the road nav app on my phone and thinking, thanks to this thread, that 400MPH was indeed slow as balls. It's almost like two major airlines are merging. As of Oct 17 it'll be "flew into PHL yesterday on a CRJ-200 by AW operating as American Eagle but booked with an AA flight number" so much simpler.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
So as someone who's only ever flown turbo props, how does this reversing work on a straight turbine? Educate me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Bob A Feet posted:So as someone who's only ever flown turbo props, how does this reversing work on a straight turbine? Educate me. Bypasses that open for the turbofan or something that deflects the actual exhaust. http://youtu.be/vXZctFouxZE OH NO MR BILL http://youtu.be/yz3AC93DvDo
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
It's official, I start my 135 charter gig in the Lear 60 at the end of the month. Oh my god I can start paying my debt off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Congrats Rolo!
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
The Ferret King posted:When American Eagle/Whatever They Call Themselves This Flight fly in on the E135a or E145s, they never, ever, EVER use reverse thrust on landing. This is a company policy. They can use reversers if they need to but it's SOP to not use them if you can get away with using only the wheel brakes. I'm not exactly sure why they do it this way but my guess is some accountant somewhere figured out that it saves them X cents per landing. It's full reverse every time on Envoy* CRJ's though. *The name is technically Envoy but flies under the brand American Eagle. A lot of envoy pilots still refer to themselves as American Eagle pilots in the same way that there are still AA pilots who say they fly for TWA. Rolo posted:Oh my god I can start paying my debt off.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
Got the bill for my first annual inspection and the hail damaged window repair. $3200
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
KodiakRS posted:This is a company policy. They can use reversers if they need to but it's SOP to not use them if you can get away with using only the wheel brakes. I'm not exactly sure why they do it this way but my guess is some accountant somewhere figured out that it saves them X cents per landing. It's full reverse every time on Envoy* CRJ's though. I second the second part, and add to the first this gem our accountants once asked... Acc: Why is no one in that base doing reduced flap landings, it would save money? FD: Because the performance calculation says we would over run without max brakes and max reverse... Acc: And? FD: You told us don't bother as if you have to use max reverse and max brakes it costs more. Acc: Oh...but it actually works though so why don't you do it and ignore the calculation? FD: It's our licences, and at the subsequent board of enquiry... We still have to use max brakes but normally can get away with idle reverse. Hell the company airfield brief from the safety department says always use medium brake and max reverse with flap full... and then adds if you land long but in the touchdown zone expect to use max manual brakes and leave reverse deployed... (Downslope, old A320/321 and a landing distance available of 2000m... on top of a hill) hjp766 fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Sep 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
helno posted:Got the bill for my first annual inspection and the hail damaged window repair. Pay it
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
helno posted:Got the bill for my first annual inspection and the hail damaged window repair. Any insurance help for the storm damage?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
The parent company of the regional I work for just decided to ask for a 28% reduction in costs from us, including 14% from the pilots, or they're threatening to park 40% of our fleet by 2020. Since our "increased costs" are entirely the fault of our parent company (who decided doubling down on a fleet of dubiously reliable turboprops was a brilliant idea, then acted surprised when they keep breaking), and our pilot group has gone through base closures, having our jets given to Skywest, a fleet reduction, furloughs, downgrades, stagnant seniority, and 401(k) cuts in the last decade, we're not exactly happy with the demands. Seeing as our parent airline has posted several consecutive quarters of record profits, the general response from the pilot group seems to be "go gently caress yourselves", and it sounds like the flight attendants (who were asked to create a "b-scale" by cutting first year pay, among other things) are likely to respond in a similar manner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 05:06
|
|
|
Everybody else is passing or even rejecting TA's with gains in them. Skywest just passed increases too and the gap between you shouldn't be too high anymore, other than the fact that you have higher longevity which is their fault for not instituting some kind of flow program years ago and actively passing up QX... I would tell them to get hosed, especially when it's only 8 jets and a shrinkage of the prop fleet... that's barely worth having a training department around for. If it were the full 30, I think the answer would still be 'go gently caress yourself' but let's face it, plenty of the routes are prop routes and the Q can do it cheaper. And yeah, when the parent company is making record profits it's not like they're even trying to justify cuts anymore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:The parent company of the regional I work for just decided to ask for a 28% reduction in costs from us, including 14% from the pilots, or they're threatening to park 40% of our fleet by 2020. They are out of touch with reality. Tell them to go gently caress themselves like, all the other regional pilot groups with a spine have been voting. We have the leverage now. In related news, Republic's "LAST OFFER YOU GUYS!!!" was shot down by the union before it even reached the pilot group.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
helno posted:Got the bill for my first annual inspection and the hail damaged window repair. IIRC, you're Canadian, meaning this is C$3200, correct?
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 14:27
|
|