Colgan overheard in EWR today

[FirstMate]

Look at the windsock and fly the airplane.

 

[onionluvr]

Look at the windsock and fly the airplane.

...Amen

 

[rustypigeon]

You must be one of those "wind check" guys. What a silly bit of logic. By the same token you probably shouldn't accept an approach to minimums. What if the visibility goes to 1/4 while you're in the flare!.....oh no!

I have never asked for a windcheck.

Your visibility analogy is a silly bit of logic in itself.

 

[onionluvr]

I have never asked for a windcheck.

Your visibility analogy is a silly bit of logic in itself.

I obviously disagree.

Your contention is that one should have an extra cushion when landing in winds close to the airplane's limits for fear of a chance that those limits might be exceeded at the last minute. So, why wouldn't you do the same for an instrument approach?

 

[kf4amu]

I would have refused runway 11. Although you are a full 1 knot from the limit now, what if tower calls the winds from 320 with gust to 24 on short final? Are you going to pull out your E6-B in the landing flare to see if you are legal?

Why refuse it if it's within limitations? The only other reason would be personal limitations of skill or comfort which is just as important, but don't blame the airplane if you won't do it and it will.

 

[OPECJet]

Prohibiting the use of reverse thrust would be like prohibiting the use of ailerons in flight. Or prohibiting the use of the landing gear.

Maybe, someone is thinking about the use of reverse thrust inflight being prohibited.

Amen.

 

[LowlyPropCapt]

Is it prohibited there or just not encouraged?

More of an "operational culture" thing. Nothing prohibited that I am aware of.

 

[papanovember]

Prohibiting the use of reverse thrust would be like prohibiting the use of ailerons in flight. Or prohibiting the use of the landing gear.

American Eagle prohibits the use of reverse (idle) on the erj on any dry runway over 7000 feet. Some TSA jets don't even have reversers.

 

[OPECJet]

American Eagle prohibits the use of reverse (idle) on the erj on any dry runway over 7000 feet. Some TSA jets don't even have reversers.

If you got 'em, use 'em. I can understand a company not wanting you to spool when you've got carbon brakes, but not popping them just doesn't make sense. Eagle's policy will be just fine until one of their jets ends up off the end of a runway. The Feds will want to know why that policy is there.

Nothing against Eagle guys, just something against a stupid corporate policy that takes safety down a notch.

 

[papanovember]

They don't want the mx costs associated with maintaining the reversers. My roommate busted his type ride for opening the buckets because he (violated a limitation) yes, it's in the limitations.

To prevent people from going off the end of the runway they now require a ref + call at 500 feet instead of an app + - call to "remind" you to slow to cross the threshold at ref. Add in a little wind correction and turbulence and you get "500 ref + 20 sink 700" people think they are 20 knots fast (when they are on speed for the condtions) and go to idle and damn near fall out of the sky. This is what happens when you have guys who have never flown a jet teaching and making the procedures on a jet.

For the lawyers there is a section that says reverse may be used if the PIC determines it is necessary or something like that.

 

[jdubya]

I like it, a normal thread for FI. Questions, answers, no craziness. I don't see it too often.

 

[rustypigeon]

I obviously disagree.

Your contention is that one should have an extra cushion when landing in winds close to the airplane's limits for fear of a chance that those limits might be exceeded at the last minute. So, why wouldn't you do the same for an instrument approach?

I wouldn't do the same for an instrument approach because I can go down to DH as long as I have the vis by the FAF, If I see the runway at DH, I can land because I will have the required vis. Tower can say whatever they want as far as vis goes after the FAF and I can continue legally as long as I have the flight visibility during landing.

The winds on the other hand are changing constantly, especially on gusty days. I can't disregard tower winds and say "Yeah but the wind sock only showed 20." You get guys asking for wind checks and tower gives the winds when he clears you to land. I don't want an ATC recording of a 21 tailwind should something happen on the runway. When it gets close to the limit, it could just as easily be over the limit when I land. It is not a matter of whether the airplane is capable. I know it is, and it could easily handle more. It is a matter of covering your ass. If the FAA ever looks into your flight, do you want them to see that you exceeded the limit when you landed?

My question for those who don't see my logic... Would you land with a 20 knot tailwind with an FAA inspector in the jumpseat? It is legal yes, and it can also be safely done. But are you going to then calculate the tailwind compenent every time tower gives the winds to make sure it is not 21? Wouldn't it be easier to land on runway 4/22 and not worry about the tailwind component?

For those of you who would land with a 20 knot tailwind with an FAA inspector in the airplane... Why would you choose the runway that is 1 knot away from a possible certificate violation?

 

[suupah]

More of an "operational culture" thing. Nothing prohibited that I am aware of.

Same as CJC. You rarely ever need it and frankly if not applied carefully it can snake the plane and make for a pretty uncomfortable roll out.

 

[kf4amu]

They don't want the mx costs associated with maintaining the reversers. My roommate busted his type ride for opening the buckets because he (violated a limitation) yes, it's in the limitations.

If it's a limitation, shouldnt he have known it?

 

[papanovember]

He knew it and was taught it but, it was his 4th training event in one year due to displacements and he had just come off the CRJ where you use them on every landing. Also, in training you use them on 95% of the landings because you are either single engine, on a wet/contaminated runway, or on a short runway, so there was a big negative transfer of learning.