Flying and fun do not mix, heres proof

[1-tacan-rule]

One man's fun...

IP, you said:

...The point I responded to didn't say "they were foolish to go for max altitude outside of the envelope", it just said they were stupid to find going for max "fun"....

In fact, I never said they were "stupid to find going to max fun." Please read my post.

What I'm saying is that if two guys (where's the CRM?) get their kicks from going to 410....???? comon....

I've been flying since '87 and I still love just about every minute of it...and at some point I actually thought walk-arounds were "fun." I grew up. They should have as well.

 

[avbug]

Come on, folks. You're passing judgement based on the descriptions of a popular news article, filled with inaccuracies. Wild spitballing at best.

The pilot made an off hand comment that was taken out of context, and has been misconstrued to mean all sorts of things that in all liklihood, were certainly never intended.

The pilots choice of wording, including the use of "cool," was misplaced and makes him sound flippant after the fact. Almost certainly that was never his intention, or his attitude. His vernacular should not be elected as his execution device; I find the idea that he went to 410 for "fun" ridiculous, and don't believe for a moment that the purpose of going there was at all what's being carried on about here or in the article. Get a grip.

The controller queried the pilots intent, and he responded with an off hand comment. That is all. Nothing more. Did he actually mean that he got his jollies by being at 410? No, doubtful. Did he actually mean that he was thrilled by the prospect of going to 410? No, I doubt that, either. Did he actually mean that his idea of a good time was climbing to 410? No. He made an offhand commend, period.

Was he outside his envelope? I believe several posters cited that being at 410 was outside the relight envelope. That is not at all the same, or consistent, with operating at 410. We all operate above our relight envelope, and that doesn't make any of us unsafe; it's SOP. If he elected to attempt a relight after a flameout and did so outside the envelope, then that's an error, but again, has nothing to do with a decision to maintain or attempt a cruise altitude of 410.

Occasionally I request an altitude and then find that it's not working for my weight, and ask for a lower for my final or for a time. We all do. So what? You're going to crucify the man for that?

I won't say I got hopping excited about it, but I did get a kick out of flying eastbound at 350 after RVSM, and picking previously unuseable altitudes. Nothing exciting, but I did it just for the novelty. Why not? One might say that was illicit "fun," and I wouldn't describe it as fun, but I might have said, in an offhand way, "Yeah, I'll take 350 for the fun of it."

Gonna crucify me, too? Crickey, guys. Who made you undertakers?

 

[650 driver]

Since when is FL350 a new altitude? I have been using it for the past 18 years. Like I said in another post, we might know the whole story in 6 months.

650

 

[avbug]

No, it's not a new altitude...westbound. But eastbound it is...used to be "wrong way," and now it's not. That's how it's a new altitude.

Does that really require an explaination??

 

[Diesel]

the guy wanted to see what 410 was like. He probably wanted to say he'd been there to his buddies.

too bad he never got any training on how to get there safely.

Just because it's certified doesn't mean it can allways get there.

 

[I.P. Freley]

In fact, I never said they were "stupid to find going to max fun." Please read my post.

I've been flying since '87 and I still love just about every minute of it...and at some point I actually thought walk-arounds were "fun." I grew up. They should have as well.

If you want to split hairs over the precise wording of my post, go right ahead. You know exactly what I meant, and you reiterated your point at the end of this post... I'm sorry, but going for the airplane's maximum altitude if you've never been up there IS NOT foolish, if done properly. You don't appear to object to the method they used to get up there, you appear to object to the very thought that such an endeavor is "fun" in the first place, and that they needed to grow up. You've made the same basic point twice now.

I think you are wrong. Period. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[1-tacan-rule]

Once again....

I.P., since you seem to be much more dense than I thought.

You seem to keep attributing the words "stupid" and "foolish" to me....I never did used those words (GD you sound like my wife).

We will disagree on this issue. However, whether these pilots were stupid, foolish, or immature....doesn't really matter since they are dead.

That fact can't be minced. I wish they hadn't thought it would be "cool" to get the plane to 410 on that day. Wheter their actions turn out to be stupid or foolish is yet to be determined.

 

[I.P. Freley]

I.P., since you seem to be much more dense than I thought.

Cool! Mission accomplished.

 

[Ty Webb]

Avbug is right on.

Once again, a few pilots on this board have jumped at the opportunity to be judge and jury based on a frigging newspaper article. All you have proven so far is that our village has a few new idiots.

Wait until the facts are out before you start your freaking "Church Lady" Superiority Strut, please. Sheesh!

 

[x402]

Avbug is right on.

Once again, a few pilots on this board have jumped at the opportunity to be judge and jury based on a frigging newspaper article. All you have proven so far is that our village has a few new idiots.

Wait until the facts are out before you start your freaking "Church Lady" Superiority Strut, please. Sheesh!

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. We will bend over backwards to 'excuse' the departed pilots, or most likely pilot, for their (his) fatal mistake. The NTSB preliminary report talks about the failure to restart and the envelopes needed to make it happen.
I'm sorry for loss of the crew and the pain for their loved ones.

 

[avbug]

Failure to restart has nothing to do with a higher altitude. One cannot achieve a restart until descending to the altitude where the relight or restart altitude may be accomplished, and cannot occur until the airspeed is within the relight envelope, as well. We all cruise above our relight envelope, which isn't particularly relevant, as we arent' trying to relight.

If for whatever reason we shut one down or one flames out, then we are going to descend to relight the engine, if that is our desire.

Therefore, operating above that envelope, and failure to relight the engines, has nothing at all to do with cruising or attempted cruise at a higher altitude.

If the crew failed the basic task of flying the airplane and got too slow or operated at too high an angle of attack by an attempt to climb above their ceiling limits for their weight and temperature that day, then that's another matter.

 

[x402]

If the crew failed the basic task of flying the airplane and got too slow or operated at too high an angle of attack by an attempt to climb above their ceiling limits for their weight and temperature that day, then that's another matter.

It's clear that the crew did fail the basic task of flying the airplane. They also failed the recovery of the airplane once the engines shut down.

You can wait for the final report to learn and apply lessons from this crash but I'll leap to conclusions and be a bit more attentive should the need arise to fly my plane to service ceiling.

 

[avbug]

Whatever

 

[Ty Webb]

You can wait for the final report to learn and apply lessons from this crash but I'll leap to conclusions and be a bit more attentive should the need arise to fly my plane to service ceiling.

You go right ahead and do that, Church Lady. . . but the rest of us have been doing that already. Maybe if you give that reporter a call, they can give you some other great tips- like unhook the towbar before taxiing. . . . and make sure not to leave any garment bags draped over the wing when you're loading your exterior baggage compartment.

 

[x402]

I don't need to call the reporter nor do I care how you manage your flights. Here was an experienced PIC with a responsiblity for an aircraft and a new FO. He f**ked up.
You can call me whatever you like Ty, I always liked Dana Carvey.