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.