2 CRJ pilot job openings at SKYW

[MALSR]

...

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1060738&TopOfYest=yes

 

[kj6991]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1060738&TopOfYest=yes

That's pretty low you son of a b!tch. That could very well happen to a lot of us. That was a 12 year captain and a 3 year fo who I happen to know very well, who is an extremely great guy. Keep flying your 152 and while your at it go ahead and send me your first and last name and I'll be sure you never make it out here, trust me.

 

[TOOL CRIB]

Won't happen to me. I wouldn't land in a heavy downpour with a 10 kt tailwind on a 6500ft runway with a 50 seat RJ with a ref of 142kts if at max landing weight.

By the way, being a 12 year captain at a regional airline is nothing to brag about. He probably sucked so much he couldn't get a job anywhere else. There, I said it.

 

[Flying Ninja]

Come on now...it's not everyday you see a soft field landing photo with a CRJ. Not too cool with the 2 new jobs comment, but at least the photos are cool.

 

[PacoPollo]

SWA will hire them....

 

[embpic1]

Won't happen to me. I wouldn't land in a heavy downpour with a 10 kt tailwind on a 6500ft runway with a 50 seat RJ with a ref of 142kts if at max landing weight.

By the way, being a 12 year captain at a regional airline is nothing to brag about. He probably sucked so much he couldn't get a job anywhere else. There, I said it.

Dude. You obviously have never flown 121 so STFU! As far as the '12 year captain' comment you again show your ignorance. My advice to you 'TOOL', is to keep your immature comments to yourself.

 

[John Pennekamp]

By the way, being a 12 year captain at a regional airline is nothing to brag about. He probably sucked so much he couldn't get a job anywhere else. There, I said it.

Flamebait. What airline do you work for flying Mooneys? Very fitting avatar you have.

 

[capt. megadeth]

Won't happen to me. I wouldn't land in a heavy downpour with a 10 kt tailwind on a 6500ft runway with a 50 seat RJ with a ref of 142kts if at max landing weight.

.

Ok rookie.....I bet every pilot involved in an accident has at one time or another said it won't happen to me. With an attidude like yours rookie, it will happen to you someday. Just make sure you are alone so you don't hurt anyone else.

 

[The_Russian]

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1060738&TopOfYest=yes

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?i...&TopOfYest=yeshttp://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1060738&TopOfYest=yes

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1060738&TopOfYest=yes

Warning!

That's pretty low you son of a b!tch. That could very well happen to a lot of us. That was a 12 year captain and a 3 year fo who I happen to know very well, who is an extremely great guy. Keep flying your 152 and while your at it go ahead and send me your first and last name and I'll be sure you never make it out here, trust me.

And people get mad at me when I yell at these kids for opening their mouth. Let 'em bash, they are idiots!

Won't happen to me. I wouldn't land in a heavy downpour with a 10 kt tailwind on a 6500ft runway with a 50 seat RJ with a ref of 142kts if at max landing weight.

Yes it could! Most of us can safely land with a tailwind. In the Beech it's max 10 kts. And guess what? You'll be in the chief pilots office if you can't do it. Why? Because it's your job to know how to land in those conditions. You should never have to go around more than once. If you do you'll most likely be on the edge of the fuel cliff.

By the way, being a 12 year captain at a regional airline is nothing to brag about. He probably sucked so much he couldn't get a job anywhere else. There, I said it

Yeah, thats most likely true.

SWA will hire them....

Why would you make a lateral career move?

 

[The_Russian]

Ok rookie.....I bet every pilot involved in an accident has at one time or another said it won't happen to me. With an attidude like yours rookie, it will happen to you someday. Just make sure you are alone so you don't hurt anyone else.

True!

 

[txpilot1974]

MALSR - Glad to know that flying your C-150 around makes you an expert. I'll bet that you are that annoying jerk student that all of us have had.....the guy that is cocky as hell and can't fly his way out of a wet paper sack. The guy who thinks he is an expert pilot before he ever starts flying because he wacked off to Microsoft flight sim everyday in high school. Do the rest of the world a favor and crawl in a hole.

 

[MALSR]

txpilot1974:Sorry to disappoint you but I am a GREAT pilot, I went to UND

 

[Amish RakeFight]

I hope the grass grows back okay.

 

[txpilot1974]

txpilot1974:Sorry to disappoint you but I am a GREAT pilot, I went to UND

CLASSIC...LMAO

 

[The_Russian]

What does it matter what school you went to?

Now I know this guy is flaming!

 

[asayankee]

What does it matter what school you went to?

Now I know this guy is flaming!

An accident would be some sort of mechanical failure or some unforseen factor that couldn't be planned for. Making a poor landing and overunning a runway into the grass is poor piloting/decision making. Defend the guy all you want, I'm sure he's a great man but he put himself here and then performed poorly on top of it. He knew the risks, took them, and failed.

 

[The_Russian]

An accident would be some sort of mechanical failure or some unforseen factor that couldn't be planned for. Making a poor landing and overunning a runway into the grass is poor piloting/decision making. Defend the guy all you want, I'm sure he's a great man but he put himself here and then performed poorly on top of it. He knew the risks, took them, and failed.

The quote was concerning the initial poster, not the pilot of the CRJ. I didn't defend anyone. Re-read my posts.

 

[asayankee]

Hey sorry, didn't mean to single you out. I hit the quote button on mistake and was too lazy to go back. I meant to just do a general reply. Sorry

 

[embpic1]

An accident would be some sort of mechanical failure or some unforseen factor that couldn't be planned for. Making a poor landing and overunning a runway into the grass is poor piloting/decision making. Defend the guy all you want, I'm sure he's a great man but he put himself here and then performed poorly on top of it. He knew the risks, took them, and failed.

How the hell do you know what happened? Do you have all the facts? Was there a brake malfunction? Was there a reverser malfunction? Did the plane hydroplane making braking less effective? Get all the facts before you start pointing fingers.

 

[TOOL CRIB]

Yes it could! Most of us can safely land with a tailwind. In the Beech it's max 10 kts. And guess what? You'll be in the chief pilots office if you can't do it. Why? Because it's your job to know how to land in those conditions. You should never have to go around more than once. If you do you'll most likely be on the edge of the fuel cliff.

I don't care what the max tailwind component is. Will you go the posted 70mph speed limit on the highway in a blizzard? Just because it says you can?

 

[TOOL CRIB]

Flamebait. What airline do you work for flying Mooneys? Very fitting avatar you have.

Same one you do. I dunno if I'd actually call it an "airline" though...

 

[embpic1]

I don't care what the max tailwind component is. Will you go the posted 70mph speed limit on the highway in a blizzard? Just because it says you can?

Ok. I'll say it again. NO 121 EXPERIENCE!

 

[n757st]

I don't care what the max tailwind component is. Will you go the posted 70mph speed limit on the highway in a blizzard? Just because it says you can?

I think it all comes down to the aerodata, they either had it or they didn't. If the aerodata says that I can land somewhere, and the conditions agree with the aerodata report, then yeah land with the 10 knot tailwind. What I will say is that dry runway in PHL on 35 you loose over 1000lbs per knot of tailwind, but granted in this case you had an extra 1000 feet of runway.

 

[embpic1]

A little education for ya. 121 operations fly in bad weather all the time. The operation specifications spell out the limitations for operating in poor weather. If the weather conditions fall within those limitations (ie: 10kt tailwind) and all performance limitations are met, then you will operate in those conditions. Of course the PIC can decide not to operate in those conditions if there is something that he/she perceives as a safety of flight issue. I flew 121 for a regional for 9 years. There were many times where we operated right at the limits. Its just the nature of the job.

 

[JetPilot_Mike]

It will be interesting to see the NTSB report. Was it a thunderstorm, or just a heavy rain? 6500 isn't a ton of runway, but in LGA (7000) it isn't hard to hold short of the crossing runways. Is the runway grooved? To go 500' through the grass is a LONG WAY in the grass. They must have been doing 70kts when they left the runway. Either they landed 1/2 way or more down the runway, had a system failure, or maybe they had the tailwind component pick up dramatically at the end.

Either way, it sucks. Could happen to any of us on any given day.

 

[TOOL CRIB]

A little education for ya. 121 operations fly in bad weather all the time. The operation specifications spell out the limitations for operating in poor weather. If the weather conditions fall within those limitations (ie: 10kt tailwind) and all performance limitations are met, then you will operate in those conditions. Of course the PIC can decide not to operate in those conditions if there is something that he/she perceives as a safety of flight issue. I flew 121 for a regional for 9 years. There were many times where we operated right at the limits. Its just the nature of the job.

I do have 121 experience. Just because it says you can do it doesn't mean you always should. We are pilots, not monkeys and we're trained to make decisions based on the data available. There is not data for everything and if you're going to live your life believing you are immune to any idiosyncrisies in the data, yo gonna get yo feet wet some day like these guys did and the SWA guys did at MDW. I'd rather get questioned by a chief pilot for diverting or holding until the storm passed than get questioned by the feds for making a dumb decision.

 

[MALSR]

Just a little 121 review for all of us: Aerodata (or whatever your company uses) is for planned conditions. Planned data is usually prepared well before a flight even leaves the gate. Planned data only allows us to be legally dispatched. Once we depart, all bets are off and landing performance must be reevaluated by the flight crew. Just ask the SWA pilots in MDW about this. Obviously they had the performance when they were dispatched or they could never have left but conditions changed enroute. 121.195 is a good reference for starters.

 

[JetPilot_Mike]

Just a little 121 review for all of us: Aerodata (or whatever your company uses) is for planned conditions. Planned data is usually prepared well before a flight even leaves the gate. Planned data only allows us to be legally dispatched. Once we depart, all bets are off and landing performance must be reevaluated by the flight crew. Just ask the SWA pilots in MDW about this. Obviously they had the performance when they were dispatched or they could never have left but conditions changed enroute. 121.195 is a good reference for starters.

You are correct. Too bad nobody has the METAR at the time of the incident. There is so little information out there about it, ya'll are just being idiots making assumptions. We should wait to pile on anybody until the facts are out. Oh, wait, this is flightinfo...we don't wait for stinken facts.

 

[embpic1]

I do have 121 experience. Just because it says you can do it doesn't mean you always should. We are pilots, not monkeys and we're trained to make decisions based on the data available. There is not data for everything and if you're going to live your life believing you are immune to any idiosyncrisies in the data, yo gonna get yo feet wet some day like these guys did and the SWA guys did at MDW. I'd rather get questioned by a chief pilot for diverting or holding until the storm passed than get questioned by the feds for making a dumb decision.

Here is an exerpt from 121.195

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c), (d), or (e) of this section, no person operating a turbine engine powered airplane may take off that airplane unless its weight on arrival, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight (in accordance with the landing distance set forth in the Airplane Flight Manual for the elevation of the destination airport and the wind conditions anticipated there at the time of landing), would allow a full stop landing at the intended destination airport within 60 percent of the effective length of each runway described below from a point 50 feet above the intersection of the obstruction clearance plane and the runway. For the purpose of determining the allowable landing weight at the destination airport the following is assumed:

There is a 'fuge factor' already calclated by this regulation. This should account for the idiosyncrisies in the data you spoke of.

 

[MESA=WALMART]

I have to agree a 12 year captain flying a 50 seat jet is nothing to proud of. Anybody that lands in a 10 knot tailwind should really study the limitation section in their POH! Didnt these's guys learn anything from the Air Chance Airbus that ran off the end of the runway and burn to the ground? They may not have a job but at least the dont need skin grafts.