For All You FLOPS BJ Pilots, a little memory lane action

[fischman]

Each item must work as detirmined by the design manufacturer. Your decision must be based on that standard. Anything else is an outlier, so do what you want. If you don't understand how an item works, perhaps you may need some additional training.

Oh, and you got me curious when the last time was that I had turbojet time in my logbook. The last turbojet I flew was a 737 during the last week of October, 2004. Does that answer your meaningless question?

Sure does. Perhaps it is time for a recurrent?

 

[brokeflyer]

if it's broke then it's broke.....seems really clear to me. There is no ambiguity, its broken so write it up. I can't imagine how you can be an adult of reasonable intelligence and not understand that.

managements wants to play that card just to dispatch airplanes.

But the regs give us(the crew) the power and the duty to stop that kind of behavior.

There have been more violations of operators trying to fly broken airplanes than pilots being busted for not writing them up.


Your statement is incorrect. The pilot is responsible to make sure the airplane is airworthy. Perhaps you need some more training on regulations from flight school 101.


Keep fishing rookie......

 

[B19 Flyer]

How far shall I lower my safety standards to appease you skanza?

At what point is a broken item, whether it is on a checklist or not, ignorable?

You don't have a leg to stand on in this arguement. The regs are on my side. I, not a mechanic, not a POI, not B19, not you, not the Pope determine if the plane is safe to fly. The call is mine and mine alone.

Any questions?

No questions.. you just love to think you are smarter than everybody else. Your job, your career.. I could care less. But for those reading this that think you have a clue, take it from somebody that knows a thing or two about union members, slow downs and how pilots set themselves up for failure of a union cause that has no impact on the outcome of a CBA. Following fischman will do nothing but get you in trouble.

fischman, it is broken when the mechanic says it's broken, not you.

All your job to do is point it out. If he doesn't agree, YOU have no recourse. At that point management makes the call, not you. If you choose to disagree with the mechanic, well.. it's your job. Mechanics tend to know more about mechanical items than pilots do. That's why their signature can make an airplane airworthy and yours can only break it.

The regs are on the industry side, not yours.

You don't detirmine airworthiness, the mechanic does. Your job is preflight planning and the operation of the aircraft. I have yet to see a pilot sign off an airplane in 135 that he is going to fly.

If you detirmine that an item is not airworthy and the mechanic says it is. You lose the argument every time.

I still think that you need to write up more airplanes, keep them outliers going!

 

[brokeflyer]

fischman, it is broken when the mechanic says it's broken, not you.

WOW.....and you think WE should worry about law suits?.....lol

I think it's official....B19 had a meltdown of epic proportion.

That's not what the regulations say....you need to do some research before you post stuff like that.....it makes you look dumb man.

If you just respect other people views it wouldn't have to be like this.

 

[skanza]

not according to the regulations there aint. I have the FINAL authority, that is undisputed. You know that you need to read the WHOLE regulation right? Not just the parts that can get you dispatch fcked up planes..... So, the people that design, manufacture, inspect and maintain these machines don't have any responsibilty for the safety of them? I realize you don't have to fly if you think it's not safe, but when you do, you're putting a lot of faith in the integrity of the people I just mentioned.
Again, get over yourself.

Dude, I could really teach you some stuff but I know you would have a lotta trouble keeping up.

You getting so worked up about this on a message board, on the internet really has us thinking you have some personal development issues that haven't completed yet.

Give it up, you don't stand a chance here with me sunshine boy.

Well, I'm not getting worked up about it, I just happen to say things that work other people up.
And what do you mean I don't stand a chance with you here, isn't this just the internet?
Fool.

 

[brokeflyer]

nah, you just didn't understand my post.

dont worry about it kid......its all good.

 

[skanza]

I haven't posted anyone's name or four letter ID. If you don't think it was wrong to post someone elses four letter ID No I don't, but thier name, yes. It is against Flight Info's rules. , then post up with yours, or admit it was a chicken-$h!t thing to do. Somehow I know you will come up with another lame a$$ excuse.

Well maybe you haven't posted names, but plenty of other have. Names like the VP of flight operations, several pilot managers, a few people that have had bad luck with engine plugs - these all have been named by thier names on this board. I think that's wrong. I simply posted a group of letters that some may interpret as somebody's identity. How's that for a lame excuse, pal?

 

[skanza]

WOW.....and you think WE should worry about law suits?.....lol

I think it's official....B19 had a meltdown of epic proportion.

That's not what the regulations say....you need to do some research before you post stuff like that.....it makes you look dumb man.

If you just respect other people views it wouldn't have to be like this.

Read his post completely and you may understand. I think what he means by:
fischman, it is broken when the mechanic says it's broken, not you.
is that a pilot points out what we perceive as a mechanical defect, and the maintenance people (who have the training and reference materials) determine the actual airworthiness. It's a shared responsibility. Once maintenance has determined it's airworthy, there's no mechanical reason not to fly it. I don't think these people would call something good if it wasn't - regardless of pressure from management.

 

[fischman]

No questions.. you just love to think you are smarter than everybody else. Your job, your career.. I could care less. But for those reading this that think you have a clue, take it from somebody that knows a thing or two about union members, slow downs and how pilots set themselves up for failure of a union cause that has no impact on the outcome of a CBA. Following fischman will do nothing but get you in trouble.

fischman, it is broken when the mechanic says it's broken, not you.

All your job to do is point it out. If he doesn't agree, YOU have no recourse. At that point management makes the call, not you. If you choose to disagree with the mechanic, well.. it's your job. Mechanics tend to know more about mechanical items than pilots do. That's why their signature can make an airplane airworthy and yours can only break it.

The regs are on the industry side, not yours.

You don't determine airworthiness, the mechanic does. Your job is preflight planning and the operation of the aircraft. I have yet to see a pilot sign off an airplane in 135 that he is going to fly.

If you determine that an item is not airworthy and the mechanic says it is. You lose the argument every time.

I still think that you need to write up more airplanes, keep them outliers going!

I am completely dumbfounded at this post.

Congratulations B19. I'm finally speechless.

I disagree with every single word in this post, and now fully understand that you have NO CLUE what the regulations say, or what Pilot In COMMAND authority means.

Does your company have a safety committee? I think they need to know about this.

I went ahead and ran the spell checker for you again.

 

[993_Pilot]

Well maybe you haven't posted names, but plenty of other have. Names like the VP of flight operations, several pilot managers, a few people that have had bad luck with engine plugs - these all have been named by thier names on this board. I think that's wrong. I simply posted a group of letters that some may interpret as somebody's identity. How's that for a lame excuse, pal?

"I simply posted a group of letters that some may interpret as somebody's identity." is definitely a lame excuse. Using names is one thing, but identifying a poster when they want to remain anonymous is a completely different thing. If you want to stand by your guns and say anonymity is no big deal here, then I challenge you to identify yourself. Your four letter ID or even just your initials would be fine. We all know that you won't do it, so you have already proved my point that it was a chicken $h!t thing to do.