Takeoff Mins/Pinnacle Ops Specs

[Metro752]

There was a Mesa flight out after 10am that I did not include originally because looking at the METAR for that time the weather had improved, and they obviously were not one of the planes that departed with 1/8sm vis.

KSBN 261454Z 12007KT 1/2SM FG OVC001 01/01 A3009 RMK AO2 SLP196 T00110011 58015 $
KSBN 261554Z 12007KT 1/4SM FG OVC001 03/03 A3007 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP189 T00280028
KSBN 261654Z 11007KT 1 1/2SM BR OVC003 04/03 A3005 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 2 1/2 SLP183 T00390026 $


Chickensled, not sure why you are jumping on the OPs case, unless you're a PCL guy.


4-1-0 it dude!

 

[TapitLight]

I have a long story for that morning. I was operating ASH7217 SBN-ORD. Our original departure time was scheduled at 6:04am. When I arrived at the plane I immediately found that we had a low hydraulic quantity. MX was called and the mechanic was coming from off field. He got to the plane at 6:20, finished in 5 mins and we boarded. We had to deice due to the FZFG and we knew we would have to wait out the visiblity becase we had learned that it has just dropped to 1000RVR. We deiced and headed for the runway. During our taxi to the runway we got a call from ops stating our deicing was not done with correctly heated fluid and we would need to come back to the gate. This was a shocker! Glad they caught us huh! We went back to the gate and decided just to wait out the visiblility there. And there we waited until our departure around 900am. There were some breaks in the visilbity prior to 630am or so in which a few other planes got out. But there was a period of a few hours where there were no visibility changes and two Pinnacle plans and the PART 91 King Air departed. The story is straight. If we would not have had that slight MX delay we would have bet the weather and been on our way.

 

[SEVEN]

Pull the Freak'n Plug Already!!!

There is a definitive answer...

OpSpecs require at least 2 working RVRs for less than 1600RVR takeoff mins.

SBN RW 27L has ONLY ONE RVR....

1000 RVR takeoffs are not allowed.

Right! Pinnacle had NO right launching out of SBN that morning unless they were 91. Jepps require 1600R RVR and the LIDMO-whatevercrap requires 1/4 mile. Either way both flights took off illegally and will probably be reported. It's amazing to me that this blatent lack of saftey is still going on at 9E. Time to pule the plug. Enough is enough. Go pull this crap at a shotty freight company, not when your carrying innocent passengers who don't even know what they are doing when they boarded those planes in SBN.
Was there even a takeoff alt? God help us all!

oh yeah...one more thing...is there a timeline to paint the 200's at 9E in DAL colors?
I wonder why not?!?
Hint: Delta Connection carriers NO NOT have red tails.....

 

[ChickenSled]

There was a Mesa flight out after 10am that I did not include originally because looking at the METAR for that time the weather had improved, and they obviously were not one of the planes that departed with 1/8sm vis.

KSBN 261454Z 12007KT 1/2SM FG OVC001 01/01 A3009 RMK AO2 SLP196 T00110011 58015 $
KSBN 261554Z 12007KT 1/4SM FG OVC001 03/03 A3007 RMK AO2 TWR VIS 1/4 SLP189 T00280028
KSBN 261654Z 11007KT 1 1/2SM BR OVC003 04/03 A3005 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 2 1/2 SLP183 T00390026 $


Chickensled, not sure why you are jumping on the OPs case, unless you're a PCL guy.


4-1-0 it dude!

I am indeed. And thanks for the good natured jab at the memory of two dead colleauges. Nice to know that you were lucky enough not to die everytime you thought no one was watching and you thought it would be fun to try something stupid.

Every captain I've ever flown with at Pinnicle would take 2 minutes to pull out their FOM, read where it says in plain english, One RVR -> 1600, unless the LIDO is more restrictive and RVR is controlling if available. The AOI for SBN says 1/4 mile, which is equivalent to 1600, which all makes sense. Come on guys, this stuff is easy, and it is written right in your book, just look it up.

I'm pretty sure the tower knows you need 1600 to take off on that runway as well. And yet, they cleared six 121 aircraft to take off when this guy is saying the RVR was only 1000.

So, what is going on here, I dunno. Maybe we have a Mesa guy who doesn't like clouds and is getting some heat for unnecessarilly delaying a flight for over three hours. I've sat in the right seat and watched it happen. To take some heat off himself he jumps on the internet and makes a seven page thread out of it.

What I do know is that there are six captains that should really be filling out ASAP reports right now because someone is on the internet accusing them of taking off illegally. I don't even know if that is an option for ASA and Commutair, pretty sure CHQ has it.

The other thing I know for sure is there are a bunch of guys posting on here who should go dust off their FOM/GOM and review this stuff.

 

[RJLoser]

I have a long story for that morning. I was operating ASH7217 SBN-ORD. Our original departure time was scheduled at 6:04am. When I arrived at the plane I immediately found that we had a low hydraulic quantity. MX was called and the mechanic was coming from off field. He got to the plane at 6:20, finished in 5 mins and we boarded. We had to deice due to the FZFG and we knew we would have to wait out the visiblity becase we had learned that it has just dropped to 1000RVR. We deiced and headed for the runway. During our taxi to the runway we got a call from ops stating our deicing was not done with correctly heated fluid and we would need to come back to the gate. This was a shocker! Glad they caught us huh! We went back to the gate and decided just to wait out the visiblility there. And there we waited until our departure around 900am. There were some breaks in the visilbity prior to 630am or so in which a few other planes got out. But there was a period of a few hours where there were no visibility changes and two Pinnacle plans and the PART 91 King Air departed. The story is straight. If we would not have had that slight MX delay we would have bet the weather and been on our way.

Sounds fishy.

 

[TapitLight]

I had not intention of getting anyone in trouble. I had a legitimate question. I, as with all of you, want to do my job to the best of my abilities. If I am missing something and delaying my passengers for no reason, I want to know. Because I can sure tell you I was looking at any way to get that flight going that morning. So I would say lets leave out the specifics about who did what, and use this thread to educate ourselves and get on the same page. As someone has stated earlier, this is pretty basic stuff and it has taken 100 posts to get to an answer.

 

[flyingfool]

Jepps are not controlling. Your Op Specs are. Another example of this would be using the 1800 RVR for a CAT I approach. On most Jepp plates you'll see 1800 RVR listed for full and if TDZ lights inop 2400. Read your op specs. If the lowest published is 1800 RVR for that approach you can still use that as a min even though the TDZ lights are inop.

Now they needed two RVR reports for the 1000 to be legal. If they didn't have that then they were wrong.

I can't believe this many people don't understand their op spec's.

By the way for all the CRJ drivers that use the 1800 RVR Cat I mins you must have a HUD, AP with an approach coupler, or a FD. If you think the CRJ has an AP with an approach coupler you are wrong.

 

[30West]

This has got to be one of the most chilling threads on FI yet.

 

[SEVEN]

I had not intention of getting anyone in trouble. I had a legitimate question. I, as with all of you, want to do my job to the best of my abilities. If I am missing something and delaying my passengers for no reason, I want to know. Because I can sure tell you I was looking at any way to get that flight going that morning. So I would say lets leave out the specifics about who did what, and use this thread to educate ourselves and get on the same page. As someone has stated earlier, this is pretty basic stuff and it has taken 100 posts to get to an answer.

They need to get in trouble. It's the flying public who gets killed when we make mistakes. How 2 different 9E planes(2Capts and 2 FOs) missed that is not a mistake. They new exactely what they were doing.
If not...then it's time for some retraining in Part 121 101 in MEM!

 

[Metro752]

wow this thread keeps getting better

 

[jehtplane]

This thread is driving me to drink. Guys, your op specs are controlling, however they do not authorize you to lower your T/O mins below what is published. If you think they do, please post your airline so that I know which one's to never let my family fly on again.

 

[jehtplane]

If you think the CRJ has an AP with an approach coupler you are wrong.

What the hell is that? Are you a flight attendant?

 

[Stifler's Mom]

8 pages...........

 

[WMUSIGPI]

Jepps are not controlling. Your Op Specs are. Another example of this would be using the 1800 RVR for a CAT I approach. On most Jepp plates you'll see 1800 RVR listed for full and if TDZ lights inop 2400. Read your op specs. If the lowest published is 1800 RVR for that approach you can still use that as a min even though the TDZ lights are inop.

Now they needed two RVR reports for the 1000 to be legal. If they didn't have that then they were wrong.

I can't believe this many people don't understand their op spec's.

By the way for all the CRJ drivers that use the 1800 RVR Cat I mins you must have a HUD, AP with an approach coupler, or a FD. If you think the CRJ has an AP with an approach coupler you are wrong.

Last I checked they all have a flight director. And some actually have a HUD as well i believe. Besides that, notice the word OR? Only one of the three is needed to reduce to 1800 RVR if the chart so notes.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

The amount of stupid I've seen in this thread is astounding. The CRJ not having an approach coupler? Um... LOC/GS active. That would be "coupled."


For the sake of your license and safety of your pax... please listen to what jehtplane is saying.

 

[flyingfool]

Last I checked they all have a flight director. And some actually have a HUD as well i believe. Besides that, notice the word OR? Only one of the three is needed to reduce to 1800 RVR if the chart so notes.

I know that.

By the way for all the CRJ drivers that use the 1800 RVR Cat I mins you must have a HUD, AP with an approach coupler, or a FD. If you think the CRJ has an AP with an approach coupler you are wrong.

 

[flyingfool]

The amount of stupid I've seen in this thread is astounding. The CRJ not having an approach coupler? Um... LOC/GS active. That would be "coupled."


For the sake of your license and safety of your pax... please listen to what jehtplane is saying.

The AP is not coupled to the approach. The AP is coupled to the flight director. I was told an AP approach coupler is a completely different system found on older airplanes.

 

[Kenny]

Flyingfool,

If I might ask in as civilized a way as possible, who do you work for and which part of the US do you fly in because if you think you're right on this, you're not and I'd like to stay as far away from you as I can.

This is absolutely frightening stuff.

 

[flyingfool]

Op Spec's C074

c. Reduced Landing Minima. The certificate holder is authorized precision CAT I landing minima as
low as 1800 RVR to approved runways without TDZ lights and/or CL lights, including runways with
installed but inoperative TDZ lights and/or CL lights.

What am I missing. How do you interpret this?

 

[Metro752]

We are talking about landings now?