Flg 3701 Audio Tape

[Dumbledore]

I refuse to listen to any criticism regarding the events of 14 october 2004.

So if I may may I respectfully ask, will you say the same thing if the NTSB says the same things in their final report?

I don't see any pilot bashing here. I see people duscussing facts and how the media does or does not correctly report them.

Simmer down. This seems to me to be a very civilized thread - all things considered.

 

[Dumbledore]

Let's see, on my last four-day pairing, I am sure I was at FL410 several times.

Pretty much everyone here who flies the thing says the plane won't go to 410 well and yet you claim this. That's nice but count me out if you want to be running experiments in aerodynamics with your customers in back.

Explain this to me again - WHO'S the moron????

 

[Dodge]

Ty has to be the best pilot in the world. Numerous times up to FL410. Congrats, dude. I have a feeling that his routine trips to FL410 were in a Boeing not a Canadair.

 

[Mel Sharples]

Thank god nothing happened on the next leg where one of you douchebags could sit here and say that I had no business at 410 (I did) or that my comment indicated a disregard for safety (it doesn't).

You are so right, Ty. I routinely fly in severe ice because I have yet to have a problem, so obviously the plane can handle it. I also like to get up tight behind 757's, because I did it five times last week and nothing bad happened, so obviously it is not that big a deal.

You are right, man. Too many pansies here. Thank God guys like you and me are here to prove just because something can be done, it obviously should be.

Yep.

 

[DigMyKungFuGrip]

So if I may may I respectfully ask, will you say the same thing if the NTSB says the same things in their final report?

I don't see any pilot bashing here. I see people duscussing facts and how the media does or does not correctly report them.

Simmer down. This seems to me to be a very civilized thread - all things considered.

My quote more is targeted more to the media than this particualr thread. It has been fairly civilized. I just get a little tight about the media tearing up their names using information they twisted to make a story. I know that if something like that happened to me or anyone of us, they'd do the same thing. If the NTSB comes back and put it on them, well, thats something we're all gonna have to deal with. Anyway, again, I didnt mean to come over the top so quickly, just a knee jerk reaction... thats all..

 

[FL000]

Nope, and neither do you. That is why the appropriate thing to do is to sit back, wait for more info,and keep your big yapper shut until then. Is that really so hard to do?

So we're not allowed to discuss what might or might not have happened to get them in that position? Get over yourself. Discussing this incident could prevent a crew from pushing the envelope on their next trip. For those of us who actually fly the RJ, it's pretty obvious what started this chain of events. You can keep your head in the sand if you want to, but if you pull it out, you might actually learn something.

 

[Ty Webb]

Pretty much everyone here who flies the thing says the plane won't go to 410 well and yet you claim this. That's nice but count me out if you want to be running experiments in aerodynamics with your customers in back.

Explain this to me again - WHO'S the moron????

Apparently, it's you, Chief. Look at my profile. I didn't say I flew a CRJ, I said that someone could couple up an off-hand statement and a cruise flight at MAX FL and make anyone look like a risk-taker.

And, after re-reading this string, apparently, you don't seem to even know the difference between "airport analysis" and "High-altitude cruise" data, so I can see spending any more time in a discussion with you is like wrestling with a pig.

Oink, Oink and AMF.

 

[Dumbledore]

Look at my profile.

I see now. The profile is required reading so that implications made by posters are not taken the wrong way. Sorry dude but you said what you said and it implied that you'd had the RJ up there and that's that. And if you aren't flying the RJ then what exactly do you have to say about cruising at FL410 that's of ANY relevance whatsoever to the subject? What's being discussed (in part) here is whether this crew had any business taking a Canadair Regional Jet to that altitude that night, not a 737!

So that it's clear, here's a reminder of what you wrote:

Let's see, on my last four-day pairing, I am sure I was at FL410 several times.

Perhaps a better way to have said it (if you want to be perfectly clear about it) would have been to add "...in my 737 - (or whatever)."

I didn't say I flew a CRJ, I said that someone could couple up an off-hand statement and a cruise flight at MAX FL and make anyone look like a risk-taker.

I don't quite get that either from what you wrote. Again, here is what you really wrote:

I am sure that, after shutting down the engines at the gate and the Parking Check was run, I probably said something like "Well, we cheated death again" or something similar. Thank god nothing happened on the next leg where one of you douchebags could sit here and say that I had no business at 410 (I did) or that my comment indicated a disregard for safety (it doesn't).

I just don't see the same theme in your original post as you are trying claim is there in your response to me. But, to be fair, I can honestly say that if you jsut barely got yourself up there, stalled the airplane reapeatedly, and then failed to make proper command decisions on the way down with your double flameout and crashed as a result, I'd be an equal opportunity critic of your actions!

And, after re-reading this string, apparently, you don't seem to even know the difference between "airport analysis" and "High-altitude cruise" data, so I can see spending any more time in a discussion with you is like wrestling with a pig.

Too bad you had to be the pig though huh?

Here's the deal with the Airport analysis comment. Here's what I wote in regard to aircraft perfromance in general, using airport analysis in particular as an example.

Sorry dude but that won't fly. It won't fly for the same reason that, as EVERYONE here who has ever ACTUALLY flown an airliner knows, there are times when you just can't have the faith in the airport analysis that it's supposed to inspire - your airplane is just too whooped and the engines are just too tired. Sometimes the airplane you have in your possession just won't do what it would have done the day it rolled out green from the factory.

That's what I wrote. Now let me translate it for you because although you claim to have read it you are clearly unable to undestand it.

Sometimes when you fly airliners of a common type they have a book in the cockpit called an airport analysis binder. In it you can find takeoff and landing data for each airport the crew might need to use boiled down to just one thing - weight. This is a nice thing to have on hand because it makes quick work of calculating takeoff performance in a way that is quite usable to the crew as far as their bottom line goes.

There are times though, when you've been handed the keys to SN 5 or 6 of that type and she's and old lady now. Her engines run a little warm and she needs a few units of trim that weren't needed when she was part of the manufacturer's certification test flight program. When you've got old Bessie, it is often wise to not quite believe what the airport analysis tells you about what she'll do.

Similarly, there are times when you can look at the cruise performance charts all day long and it won't improve old Bessie's chances of making it where you (foolishly) wanna try taking her.

What was that about a yapper? You might consider taking your own advice!

 

[Ty Webb]

Sorry dude but you said what you said and it implied that you'd had the RJ up there and that's that. And if you aren't flying the RJ then what exactly do you have to say about cruising at FL410 that's of ANY relevance whatsoever to the subject?

You write a lot, but little of it is of any relevance.

Let me boil it down for you, Chief, since you seem to have so much trouble understanding a simple, little concept:

1) You don't know what happened.

2) Comments were taken out of context by the press, and

3) People who should presumably know better (ie, pilots) are doing the same stupid thing the news media did.

4) You don't seem to know the difference between "Airport Analysis Info" and "High Altitude Cruise Charts", but are game to parade your ignorance in front of your peers.

Thank you, come again.

 

[DirkkDiggler]

Just take one look at Ty's avatar and then read his comments. I don't know why any of you guys are even wasting your time with this guy! Let him rule his little world on his own. He can have it. I'm happy in my world that doesn't include him.