Takeoff Mins/Pinnacle Ops Specs

[SEVEN]

It keeps Going and Going and Going and Going and Going and Going and Going and Going.

We are talking about landings now?

This thread is like the energizer bunny. It's unstopable....I predict another 10 more pages.
:laugh:

 

[Metro752]

The ASA pilots on this message board cannot even compete!

 

[cksport]

Then who exactly are those numbers on the back of the airport pages for?

I think what is being lost here is your meaning in that Jepps are controlling. I believe I understand your logic, but the statement is innacurate as Jepps can have lower than standard mins that differ from what Ops Specs authorize you to use. If you are not authorized by Ops Specs to use 300/300/300 or 500/500/500 and they are the only mins published below standard and you are authorized for 600/600/600, you are controlled by your Ops Specs and can accept RVR down to 600/600/600. Ops Specs are always controlling.

 

[ricecake]

..... 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.....

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!

Oh please get off your holier than thou high horse. Feel free to report this hearsay from an anonymous internet message board about the illegal operations going on at 9E. You know in fact, next time you jumpseat on 9E why don't you swing by the cockpit and tell them what you think of the operation.

 

[Sig]

The opinions keep bouncing off of "PUBLISHED."

That's what my OpSpecs say, so wtf does that mean?

In any case, I couldn't give two squirts of McNugget pablum- if the plate says I need RVR1600 to go, I won't go until I have it.

(AGS, for example)

 

[avbug]

This is quite possibly one of the most appalling threads I've read in quite some time. I was asked to reply, and will do so, albeit reluctantly. Reading this thread has been much like watching goats; it sucks the intelligence right out of anything nearby like a a mental vacuum.

Some very basic assertions in the thread are disturbing. There is nothing "controlling" about a Jeppesen chart. Jeppesen doesn't invent data for the charts; they use state-provided data, and put it in their format. They do publish specific numbers for specific clients, in certain cases.

Touchdown RVR values are controlling. Jeppesen charts do not "control." Published numbers (when greater than standard) do take precedence, but Jeppesen is a commercial company which does not invent numbers and does not "control."

Where takeoff minimums are published that are greater than standard, they're the lowest numbers that may be used. Where takeoff minimums are not published, then standard, or any applicable lower-than-standard minimums may be used. If RVR is available, it's to be used...even if the published numbers don't use RVR. That's why there are conversion charts.

Several assertions were made regarding "interpretations" of the OpSpecs...and there's nothing to "interpret." Both the regulation, and the Operations Specifications are clear. OpSpec C056 spells out without question the heirarchy regarding what standards can be used for a takeoff, and OpSpec C078 spells out the specific numbers that the operator may use.

OpSpec C056 states that if takeoff minimums are published that are greater than standard (1 mile for 2 engines, 1/2 mile for more than 2 engines), then the published minimums apply. Period.

Per the OpSpec, "When a published takeoff minimum is greater than the applicable standard takeoff minimum and an alternate procedure (such as a minimum climb gradient compatable with aircraft capabilities) is not prescribed, the certificate holder shall not use a takeoff minimum lower than the published minimum. The Touchdown RVR Report, if available, is controlling."

If published minimums are equal to or less than standard, then standard or lower minimums may be used, as authorized for that certificate holder.

C056 also states that RVR will be used when it's available. This is stated for good reason, as it's more accurate, more applicable to the runway visibility (as opposed to what's seen from the tower), and most importantly, it's the legal standard accorded the operator. Even where RVR isn't provided in the published minimums, the operator must use RVR and convert the values, if RVR is available.

 

[Sig]

I see what you're saying- the Jepp itself didn't "invent" the data, it just IS.

They "publish" it as such.

That's the trick word, though. What do I really care? If I bag an engine before V1 and clip a light, what do I have backing me up when the Fed starts the inquest?

My line of thinking. And I'll point to the data I have.

I understand the megabrain that is Avbug. Thanks.

 

[Donsa320]

I see what you're saying- the Jepp itself didn't "invent" the data, it just IS.

They "publish" it as such.

That's the trick word, though. What do I really care? If I bag an engine before V1 and clip a light, what do I have backing me up when the Fed starts the inquest?

My line of thinking. And I'll point to the data I have.

I understand the megabrain that is Avbug. Thank

Well, it isn't "just is" ..."it" comes from a form 8260. which the FAA prepares and from which ALL chart manufacturers obtain the information.

I, as is Avbug, am shocked at some of the interpretations I've read here. Just do a loaded take-off in a larger airplane and you would see why the roll-out RVR is important on take-off. Have an engine fail after V1 and you will have explored both ends of almost every runway if you are heavy.

 

[BoilerUP]

The upside to this head-shaker of a thread is that maybe, just maybe, pilots will learn a thing or three (even if they should have already known it) and put that knowledge into their back pocket for operations going forward...

 

[RJLoser]

This is quite possibly one of the most appalling threads I've read in quite some time. I was asked to reply, and will do so, albeit reluctantly. Reading this thread has been much like watching goats; it sucks the intelligence right out of anything nearby like a a mental vacuum.

Some very basic assertions in the thread are disturbing. There is nothing "controlling" about a Jeppesen chart. Jeppesen doesn't invent data for the charts; they use state-provided data, and put it in their format. They do publish specific numbers for specific clients, in certain cases.

Touchdown RVR values are controlling. Jeppesen charts do not "control." Published numbers (when greater than standard) do take precedence, but Jeppesen is a commercial company which does not invent numbers and does not "control."

Where takeoff minimums are published that are greater than standard, they're the lowest numbers that may be used. Where takeoff minimums are not published, then standard, or any applicable lower-than-standard minimums may be used. If RVR is available, it's to be used...even if the published numbers don't use RVR. That's why there are conversion charts.

Several assertions were made regarding "interpretations" of the OpSpecs...and there's nothing to "interpret." Both the regulation, and the Operations Specifications are clear. OpSpec C056 spells out without question the heirarchy regarding what standards can be used for a takeoff, and OpSpec C078 spells out the specific numbers that the operator may use.

OpSpec C056 states that if takeoff minimums are published that are greater than standard (1 mile for 2 engines, 1/2 mile for more than 2 engines), then the published minimums apply. Period.

Per the OpSpec, "When a published takeoff minimum is greater than the applicable standard takeoff minimum and an alternate procedure (such as a minimum climb gradient compatable with aircraft capabilities) is not prescribed, the certificate holder shall not use a takeoff minimum lower than the published minimum. The Touchdown RVR Report, if available, is controlling."

If published minimums are equal to or less than standard, then standard or lower minimums may be used, as authorized for that certificate holder.

C056 also states that RVR will be used when it's available. This is stated for good reason, as it's more accurate, more applicable to the runway visibility (as opposed to what's seen from the tower), and most importantly, it's the legal standard accorded the operator. Even where RVR isn't provided in the published minimums, the operator must use RVR and convert the values, if RVR is available.

We have a winner. So, unless highr than standard.. jepps/lidos are not controlling. Ops specs are controlling assuming predicated information is avail.

 

[Smarta$$]

You are correct. Hopefully this ends this thread. If there is any doubt about this topic......look no further, jehtplane is right.

Actually Seven, You are completly incorrect. Try again.

 

[Smarta$$]

A whole lot of people thowing stones that don't know their head from their A$$.

 

[Ratherbsurfing]

Dude you're so wrong it's not even funny. Hope I don't have to ride on the back of your airplane. your understanding is dead wrong. You can only reduce if the chart allows those minimums. Your statement about the back of the chart being just for part 91 is flat out scary!

I'm just playing around and having fun. Anyone who does a little research will find that the takeoff minimums section of the 10-9 will, most of the time, correspond with the minimums allowed in one's op specs. Therefore, the op specs are controlling since jepp simply reflects them in their charts more or less.

And I thought my statement was pretty funny with respect to all the flight instructor types out there who should be getting laid on a weekend night and not digging through their ops manuals.

What this thread really should be about is what kind of jerk would come on a public forum like this and call out some of his peers for doing something they may not know about but could get them violated. Nobody I ever want to fly with. . .

 

[JustaNumber]

Admittedly, this is a confusing topic. Some of you have gotten close to explaining it, but I suspect that many are still scratching their heads. Would you believe that most of the posts here are correct, even the seemingly contradictory ones? Allow me to take a stab at clearing it up.

The main controversy seems to revolve around the question, "if the Jepps publish a takeoff visibility number, can I take off with less than that or not?" What's causing all this confusion, though, is the fact that there is not one, but usually two or more Jepp published numbers (or more accurately, sets of numbers).

The first set of numbers are under a column labeled "Standard". This is the most basic minima that must be met by any 121 or 135 operator. It is usually 5000 RVR/1 SM. If so, the runway has what are referred to as "standard takeoff mins".

If the runway has "standard mins", think of it as a box being checked off. If that box is checked off, then some operators that have jumped through extra hoops with the FAA get to use less restrictive minimums than those in the "Standard" column. (Thus half the posts here are correct).

So let's say the runway is categorized as having "standard mins"; that box is checked off. Now let's say you fly for an operator that has FAA approval for less than standard mins. You now refer to your ops specs for the exact conditions that must be met to go lower, and how much lower you can go. If those conditions are met, then you refer to the other columns in the Jepps, labeled "Adequate Vis Refs", and possibly also an additional column labeled by a specific set of other conditions. Some operators have custom Jepps that match up these numbers to their own ops specs, but regardless, you may not depart below these numbers ever. So the other half of the posters here are also correct.

Now, I have no idea how Pinnacle's cheap-ass LIDO charts are labeled, which could have added to the confusion. But I am quite certain that the crews in question did not meet their ops specs requirements, and departed illegally. And contrary to the previous poster who admonished the original poster as a tattletale, I commend the original post since it raised awareness of a potentially confusing issue, and hopefully will keep some future crews out of trouble.

 

[JustaNumber]

What this thread really should be about is what kind of jerk would come on a public forum like this and call out some of his peers for doing something they may not know about but could get them violated. Nobody I ever want to fly with. . .

What this thread really should be about is what kind of jerk would come on a public forum like this and complain about pilots trying to educate themselves to the best of their ability. Especially with all the recent incidents and accidents going on. Nobody I ever want to fly with. . .

 

[J32driver]

I used the "Disaster" that is LIDO for a bit at my airline. I vaguely remember that takeoff minimums were not contained with the airport charts. I thought we had to go to a separate section at the front (almost like notams) in order to find the takeoff mins that applied to an airport.

No matter what though, the lack of understanding by the majority of Pinnacle guys in this thread is absolutely astounding. It might be the fault of your training department, but I hope your POI finds out about this thread and starts asking some real hard questions of your checkairmen. If the 9E checkairmen are teaching things like you guys say.... I would NOT want to be anywhere near the training house when the POI shows up.

 

[LHRCrewDog]

AVBUG

Thank you! Your post was spot-on. I was getting sick to my stoamch reading this thread until I read your post. I do not know if you put this down, but if there is a ceiling requirement put into the jepps, then you are not able to reduce.

Eric Pogo

 

[Ratherbsurfing]

And contrary to the previous poster who admonished the original poster as a tattletale, I commend the original post since it raised awareness of a potentially confusing issue, and hopefully will keep some future crews out of trouble.[/quote]

I commend anyone who comes on here to raise awareness and learn as well. It's refreshing in fact and the only reason I bother checking this website any longer really. However, I'm a little suspect of a person's motives when instead of being vague about an incident like this they instead point out particular airlines at particular airports at particular times on particular days.

 

[JustaNumber]

I commend anyone who comes on here to raise awareness and learn as well. It's refreshing in fact and the only reason I bother checking this website any longer really. However, I'm a little suspect of a person's motives when instead of being vague about an incident like this they instead point out particular airlines at particular airports at particular times on particular days.

I think he felt he needed to post the details so we could all look at the exact airport, the exact charts, the exact weather, the specific airlines involved's ops specs, etc. The tone of his posts is much more intellectual than vindictive, so I don't think he had any kind of sinister motives. I'll agree, perhaps he could have waited a few days and left the date out, so as to protect the guilty. Regardless, I'm glad he posted. And I hope the guilty have read this thread.

 

[titans10]

Non 121 crews and equipment.

think again