2 CRJ pilot job openings at SKYW

[embpic1]

But, we, on this board, tend to think that if someone hasn't flown 121, then they should not have an opinion on 121 ops.

Bunny

That is not the case. But when someone makes a derogatory comment about a crewmember who appears to be operating within the guidelines of their op specs (ie: landing with 10kt tailwind in heavy rain), it can upset people.

 

[Little Bubba]

You say you've flown a 747, but you don't know that for any airplane with a thrustreverser, the performance is based solely on everything else BUT the 'reversers'!

Look up the 747's manual and you'd be pleasantly surprised

From the 747 manual:

Normal landing distance obtained from Table 1 and 2 which are based on antiskid operative, all wheelbrakes operative, automatic speedbrakes operative, and ALL AVAILABLE THRUST REVERSERS operative with corrections for wind

 

[The_Russian]

Did you get turned down by SWA?

Intellectually speaking, there's a clear-cut definition about regionals, nationals, and major airlines. When you finish reading up on this, you'd have a better understanding.

Besides, your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to 'definition'. You probably also think Mesa is not a regional airline.

Bunny

P.S. Intellectually speaking, the word 'regionals' is not a word, but a term commangly used in aviation to describe cummuter airline operations

Heck no! I turn SWA down right now, before I interview. Not that I would interview at all! I don't like SWA, their business model, or how they treat their employees. SWA is only a good place to work now because of the state of the industry. Being a good place to work by comparison due to the state of the industry generally means its not a good place to work when the industry is good!

BTW- Sorry um no interlektuil like yu. I can't believe you are taking the "SWA is a lateral career move" comment as more than a joke. Geezzzzz. I guess thats what I get for talking to an intellectual.

 

[Crossky]

Ok now you are comparing apples to oranges. That flight was operated within the performance limitations for the existing conditions. Unfortunately, the plane touched down too far down the runway and was not able to stop in time. Pilots make mistakes. When mistakes are made operating at the limits, bad things can happen.

My point is that operating at the limits in 121 operations is part of the job. Just make sure you are on the ball.

You're referring to the SWA MDW accident. I'm not really into responding to thread diversions, but it is pretty much factual that the SWA plane did not touch down long, only about 500' past the 1000' markers (about 1500' past the threshold). The cause of delayed decelleration is suspected to be the improper and unapproved use of autobrakes, and delayed TR deployment.

Someone asked what the METAR at KCWA with SKW overrun, I believe someone posted earlier it was 120 deg @ 7, they landed RWY 35.

 

[oiltycoon]

From the 747 manual:

Since we brought up the 747 and landing distances, check this video

http://www.thatvideosite.com/view/2652.html

Be patient during the first few seconds. Rough ending......

 

[capt. megadeth]

If he/she follows the SOPs, procedures, use common sense, and pay close atttention to Performance Data, it WON'T happen to him/her!

Rather than criticizing the 'rookie - in your opinion', why don't you spend some time and look up the NTSB reports on runway overshots. Go ahead, take some time off from this board, read the reports, and point out a single incidents where pilots followed each and every SOP and procedures and still overshot.

Bunny

Ok Einstein thanks for the advice. I am sure you are perfect like that tool too.

 

[Dave Benjamin]

It sure would be nice if the armchair crowd would STFU until there is an NTSB report published. You ladies are worse than the media with all your rampant speculation. And where did the idea it was a 12 year captain come from? Just another fact someone pulled out of their rectum?

Lot of things could have happened. None of us were there. Let's just be glad there no injuries. Insurance will fix damaged airplanes. Not so easy with people.

If you think nothing like this could happen to you, you're an arrogant cocky SOB. None of us are infallible. I've never so much as put a scratch in my employer's aircraft but every time I go to work I know there's an element of risk in every operation. My job is to manage that risk and keep it minimized.

 

[TOOL CRIB]

All hear this! The high and mighty Dave Benjamin has spoken, and it was Good. You've made me see the wrongness of my ways and I am now a better person because of it. Thank you for saving me. Gag.

Do you really imagine that everybody is 100% serious at all times on this board?

 

[wmuflyguy]

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.

The limitations in my companies FSM/POH(CRJ), says the max tailwind is 10kts. The runway performance book, will tell yo how much tailwind you can have on a specific runway(sometimes less than 10kts) in WET and DRY conditions.

Determining when to use WET runway data is an inexact science(especially when the conditions are changing fast and you are relying on a 3rd party for updates). I feel the company doesn't really provide enough guidance in this area and that is a reason why some of these accidents occur.

I have landed with a 10kt tailwind, some airports won't change the runways unless it is absolutely necessary(MDW, CVG...etc). It is not a big deal but you can not try to grease it on or finesse it, just put it in the TDZ and get it stopped

 

[Dave Benjamin]

Do you really imagine that everybody is 100% serious at all times on this board?

Go back to your shed tool.
You're just another flamer. My guess is an overweight high school student with severe acne.

Of course not everyone is serious on this board. However there's some folks like yourself who are getting out of line. If you become a professional pilot when you grow up perhaps you'll understand that professionals wait until they have facts before making judgements.

 

[B190Captain]

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.

That is the biggest line of SH*T I have ever heard. Your responsibilty as a Captain is to take those conditions under consideration and determine wether you can SAFELY complete the flight. There was a downpour at the field and on top of that a 10 knot tailwind along with max landing weight? Those factors are NOT in your favor and in my opinion I would have taken my fuel load under consideration to:

A. Hold and wait until conditions improved or attempt a landing from the opposite runway.

B. Divert.

Your fuel load should never have been critical in the first place to be commited to land in those conditions.

It's all about judgement as a Pilot in Command. NOT about being scared to be in the CP's office. If you made a conservative decision it would have been respected by your CP and your company. If not, they can kiss my @ss as I was the ultimate authority to make that decision.

If you practice your job as captain the way your described then please let me know if you are flying a flight that myself or my family is on. Thats only to make sure I GET MYSELF or MY FAMILY OFF THE FLIGHT.

Poor judgement may have been a factor in my opinion but I was not there and thankfully they are ok along with their passengers.

Don't ever push yourself to the limit to please some jack@ss cp on the ground.

 

[AngelKing]

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.

Right on.

AK

 

[B1900FO]

Overrun

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.

.

Guys, come on. This and many other overrun accidents are a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. For example, what Southwest did at MDW was a case of just that. Everytime an accident like this happens we all have to play monday morning quarterback and thats not good because it could happen to any of us. I think we can all admit we've done things, 121 or not, in airplanes that after we were done made us go "probably shouldn't have done that." We're human.

Now, with all of that being said. If they totally f***** up then its fair game. If they did touchdown halfway down the runway, or anything of that nature then yes, they did screw up, and I'm sure they'd admit it. I can almost be 100% sure they are not proud of what they did and are regretting every minute of it. Just move on...

 

[Papa Woody]

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.

10 kts tailwind at the surface is probably 20kts tailwind at 50' which means FLOAT CITY! The plane already floats forever in a no-wind condition, a tailwind dramatically increases the runway overflown till touchdown (ROTT).

Plus, downpours and gusts lead the pilot to add a few more knots to the 'ref speed.

When all's said, the FDR will probably show touchdown at least halfway down the runway.

BE CAREFUL! This can happen to anybody.

 

[n757st]

10 kts tailwind at the surface is probably 20kts tailwind at 50' which means FLOAT CITY! The plane already floats forever in a no-wind condition, a tailwind dramatically increases the runway overflown till touchdown (ROTT).

Plus, downpours and gusts lead the pilot to add a few more knots to the 'ref speed.

When all's said, the FDR will probably show touchdown at least halfway down the runway.

BE CAREFUL! This can happen to anybody.

Well, I will say that it might not be pretty, but if you want to you can get this airplane on the ground on the aiming point even with a 10 knot tailwind, but again it will not be very pretty.

 

[The_Russian]

That is the biggest line of SH*T I have ever heard. Your responsibilty as a Captain is to take those conditions under consideration and determine wether you can SAFELY complete the flight. There was a downpour at the field and on top of that a 10 knot tailwind along with max landing weight? Those factors are NOT in your favor and in my opinion I would have taken my fuel load under consideration to:

First off, I know what my job as Captain is so don't tell me. The situation I was describing was only a 10 kt tailwind. Of course you shouldn't land if its unsafe to land on that runway with a 10 kt tailwind. However, if you are within the limitations of runway length, aircraft operational characteristics, and weigh, you should be able to land the aircraft. If you cannot, you don't belong in an airliner period. Sorry, thats the hard truth.

A. Hold and wait until conditions improved or attempt a landing from the opposite runway.

B. Divert.

Your fuel load should never have been critical in the first place to be commited to land in those conditions.

Well, you should have never reached that point in the first place is what I am trying to say.

It's all about judgement as a Pilot in Command. NOT about being scared to be in the CP's office. If you made a conservative decision it would have been respected by your CP and your company. If not, they can kiss my @ss as I was the ultimate authority to make that decision.

Nobody said anything about being scared to be in the CPs office. I was talking about getting fired for not being able to operate and aircraft in a perfectly safe situation within its limitations. Previous posts had referenced a 10kt tailwind condition only, and generalized for a part 91 pilot.

If you practice your job as captain the way your described then please let me know if you are flying a flight that myself or my family is on. Thats only to make sure I GET MYSELF or MY FAMILY OFF THE FLIGHT.

Please, don't assume anything about how I operate my flights. And also, tell them not to fly on my plane so I can at least take round trip fuel.

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Common sense, adhering to procedures, follwoing SOPs is what it is all about. Nothing to do with Part 121 flight experience!

Incidents like these have occured in Part 91, 135, and 121, and in any other ops type.

You'd be very surprise to find out that the majority of NTSB investigators have never flown for part 121.

But, you probably also believe that if someone hasn't 'paid their dues' as Flight Instructors, they should'nt fly for the airlines. Right? (If someone hasn't flown 121 so they shouldn't make comments or judgements...that's what you're saying).

So, how come you accept anything and everything said by FAA (majority of them hasn't flown for Part 121 either)?

Bunny

In order to be an NTSB investigator, you must hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate. Unless they all went to All-ATPS and did their ride in a Seminole, they likely earned their certificates by either flying part 121 or 135. In fact, a good portion of NTSB accident investigators are line pilots called in to work for the NTSB after an accident takes place.

It is the responsibility of the NTSB to provide investigation results and recommendations to the FAA. They are independent agencies.

You are a confused (or misinformed) one...

 

[Way2Broke]

Cool picture, bad situation. Can't we just be happy that no one was hurt. There I said it.... hahahahaha Grow up kids.

 

[B190Captain]

Russian,

I interpreted your statement as you worded it relating to the topic of this thread.

"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" Meaning more than one condition. Not just the 10 knot tailwind.

If this was a misunderstanding, fine so be it. As for making assumptions, I am not assuming anything. I have a pretty good idea how your company teaches their captains to operate the 1900.

Peace

 

[The_Russian]

Russian,

I interpreted your statement as you worded it relating to the topic of this thread.

"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" Meaning more than one condition. Not just the 10 knot tailwind.

If this was a misunderstanding, fine so be it. As for making assumptions, I am not assuming anything. I have a pretty good idea how your company teaches their captains to operate the 1900.

Peace

No problem. It be cool.

 

[The_Russian]

In order to be an NTSB investigator, you must hold an Airline Transport Pilot certificate. Unless they all went to All-ATPS and did their ride in a Seminole, they likely earned their certificates by either flying part 121 or 135. In fact, a good portion of NTSB accident investigators are line pilots called in to work for the NTSB after an accident takes place.

I didn't know that. Interesting!

 

[aviator7]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anybody but has anybody ever been able to land the RJ in the distance that is actually on the speed card? throw in a couple other variables (Tailwindand, Rain, Etc.)and i don't care where it says you can land the plane right at the limitations listed in the POH you would be silly to try it.
Again i'm not saying that this is what this pilot did and i do not doubt he was skilled. my only point it that just because the books say you can do it does not mean it should be done.
I have flown with alot of VERY good pilots and just because the performance data said they could do it if it was right up to the very edge of the limitations with variables such as tailwind and rain thrown in I seriously doubt that many pilots could perform within those limitations. We all respond differently in situations(especially after a 5 leg, 14 hour day). Just because a book tells me the airplane can do it does not mean I would want to attempt it.
I'm not bashing on the pilots that happened to. I feel bad for them because i know that could happen to me too. I'm just tired of people saying that just because a BOOK tells me i can do it that it should be done

 

[SSDD]

Yes, you can land and stop an RJ within the published distances, but it requires a "solid" touchdown, and heavy breaking and reverser use. Not something that passengers would appreciate.

 

[wmuflyguy]

Yes, you can land and stop an RJ within the published distances, but it requires a "solid" touchdown, and heavy breaking and reverser use. Not something that passengers would appreciate.

They really wouldn't appreciate the off road experience. Landings all can't be smooth with a nice long rollout.

 

[FlyBunny]

From the 747 manual:

Uh...yeah...but, look up the guidelines for the 'certification process' and you'd notice that 'thrust reversers' are not considered in airplane's performance.

Bunny

 

[rtmcfi]

Uh...yeah...but, look up the guidelines for the 'certification process' and you'd notice that 'thrust reversers' are not considered in airplane's performance.

Bunny

You have got to be kidding me...
He showed you in the manual how stopping distance is calculated. Yet you continue to argue. What does certification have to do with stopping distance? Go back to crossing belts.....

 

[AWACoff]

FlyBunny,
You speak with such confidence on matters that you don't fully understand. Some part 25 aircraft do allow thrust reversers to be used in landing distance calculations. Go ahead, it seems you spend your life in the books, why don't you look it up and tell us which aircraft allow it. Um, yeah...

AWACoff

 

[n757st]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anybody but has anybody ever been able to land the RJ in the distance that is actually on the speed card? throw in a couple other variables (Tailwindand, Rain, Etc.)and i don't care where it says you can land the plane right at the limitations listed in the POH you would be silly to try it.
Again i'm not saying that this is what this pilot did and i do not doubt he was skilled. my only point it that just because the books say you can do it does not mean it should be done.
I have flown with alot of VERY good pilots and just because the performance data said they could do it if it was right up to the very edge of the limitations with variables such as tailwind and rain thrown in I seriously doubt that many pilots could perform within those limitations. We all respond differently in situations(especially after a 5 leg, 14 hour day). Just because a book tells me the airplane can do it does not mean I would want to attempt it.
I'm not bashing on the pilots that happened to. I feel bad for them because i know that could happen to me too. I'm just tired of people saying that just because a BOOK tells me i can do it that it should be done

Normal landing distance has that "fudge" factor built in. At least at my company, and I would be shocked if it isn't true for yours, you have a company required landing distance, and an emergency landing distance. Emergency landing distance is 60% of your required landing distance, therefore giving you a 40% buffer.

 

[embpic1]

Normal landing distance has that "fudge" factor built in. At least at my company, and I would be shocked if it isn't true for yours, you have a company required landing distance, and an emergency landing distance. Emergency landing distance is 60% of your required landing distance, therefore giving you a 40% buffer.

???

I don’t think that is quite right. 121.195

Basically it states that you must plan to stop within 60% of the expected runway at the destination airport in order to be dispatched to that airport. When you arrive at the airport, 100% is available for landing distance computations. This is how I remember it anyways.

 

[n757st]

???

I don’t think that is quite right. 121.195

Basically it states that you must plan to stop within 60% of the expected runway at the destination airport in order to be dispatched to that airport. When you arrive at the airport, 100% is available for landing distance computations. This is how I remember it anyways.

At my company we have two numbers, emergency stop distance and company required stop distance wet and dry. We have to use the company required, emergency is 60% of the company required and considers landing on the aiming point.