Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

How these guys got hired at Mesa, I have no idea

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
J32driver said:
Yeah, yeah.... if you only have 5 minutes of fuel in the airplane you probably shouldn't attempt a go-around. We get it.
Click to expand...

Hey, you'd be surprised! There was a guy here who said he blew an interview because he said if he had to go around in a low fuel situation, he would shut down one engine (after getting established on the go-around) and come back to land (yes, IMC).
 
wmuflyguy said:
Ok here are the pics a friend sent me, they were sent to him by a mx guy. As a disclaimer, these are not my pictures and I am not taking credit for them.

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff230/bluemoon323/Jazz hard landing/Jazz Hard Landing/img5.jpg

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff230/bluemoon323/Jazz hard landing/Jazz Hard Landing/img1.jpg

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff230/bluemoon323/Jazz hard landing/Jazz Hard Landing/img2.jpg

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff230/bluemoon323/Jazz hard landing/Jazz Hard Landing/img3.jpg

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff230/bluemoon323/Jazz hard landing/Jazz Hard Landing/img4.jpg
Click to expand...

Wow. Anyone have an NTSB report for this? Or the Canadian version of NTSB report?

Have you guys thought of bringing this kind of stuff to the attention of the public? A well published web page with a few of the photos I have seen here along with a well written rational piece detailing the state of the regional industry could frighten the public enough to try and change the airlines for the better. For pilots and passengers. Letters to the editor could accomplish this as well.

This stuff scares me. I don't have to airline that often either.
 
A-V-8 said:
Well sir, Wonder no longer. All were fired.

ALPA was able to get all of the jobs back with back pay except the woman who crashed it. Still talk of her around the crew room.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure one of the crewmembers died young of some disease (cancer?) before getting their job back.

As I recall, part of the "problem" the morning crew had doing the pre-flight (and missing the gaping hole in the airframe) was an in-op APU, so the captain asked the FO to do the first walk around so he could coordinate getting a power/huffer cart.

So . . . the first crew crashed it and missed the damage on the walk around.

The second crew had a captain delegating a duty his manual specifically told him he had to do (1st flight walk around). The fo who did the walk around did a sloppy job.

Did ANY of them deserve to keep their jobs? We're not talking about missing a static wick or a burnt out nav light. This was major airframe damage.

It's a cautionary tale for all of us to be more careful. And another example of why ALPA wastes our dues protecting those who probably don't deserve it.
 
Flyer1015 said:
From a June 2007 aviation interviews.com gouge:

To fill you in, the 'her' is a Mesa lady captain, asked this applicant a question:



Wow. Lose the Glideslope and you're gonna descend to 100 ft above the TDZE lights?!?!


Seriously?!?!?


"She said the MDA changes and go missed"

Duh! The lady captain is absolutely correct. You have to now use the LOC mins, since the glideslope is out of service. MDA changes, you must use the higher LOC only mins. Go Missed, brief the LOC-only approach, and then shoot the approach again.

Check his attitude: "I don't think she knew" LOL!

The scariest part is not just the fact this applicant responded he'd go down to 100 feet above the lights if he lost the glideslope... the scariest part is that his OTHER friends ALL AGREED with him.


Man, the money I would pay to see the look on the face of a Mesa IOE captain if his/her new hire FO said to continue to 100 ft above the lights if the glideslope went out. :eek:
Click to expand...

Flyer you are right about the DH changing to a MDA but the FAA would look at it you were cleared for an ILS not a LOC and if the GS fails you should notify ATC, level off at your current altitude until the missed approach point then go missed. I asked my POI about it and he said you "could" try to turn it into a LOC approach only if you were just inside the FAF.

Bailey
 
WSurf said:
How about the most Famous Mesa Approach Brief-------

On approach to ROA at Night and Gusty winds to 33. Female Captain to Female First Officer "Go Around is No Option".
Click to expand...


That's f***ed up!

Let me ask you this....why do you feel the need to point out "female"? What's your point with that?
Either way it was a completely reckless and dangerous attitude right there.
 
 
bailey3083 said:
Flyer you are right about the DH changing to a MDA but the FAA would look at it you were cleared for an ILS not a LOC and if the GS fails you should notify ATC, level off at your current altitude until the missed approach point then go missed. I asked my POI about it and he said you "could" try to turn it into a LOC approach only if you were just inside the FAF.

Bailey
Click to expand...

I think you will find that you would still be cleared for an ILS approach if that is the title of the procedure. If the ground equipment is the failed component the controller may add that the Glide Slope is inoperative. If it is your equipment that has failed the controller certainly is not going to say "by the way, your glide slope is inop". But the clearance will still be for an ILS approach in either case. Smart money still always starts the time at the appropriate point and pre-briefs loss of glide slope so as to avoid a go-around. If the wx clearly precludes continuing with a non-precision approach then so brief it. The arguement that one must be recleared for a "LOC only" approach is bogus. If your ops specs, FOM or whatever say you must fly a missed approach with G/S failure past the G/S intercept then of course you must but I really have never seen that in writing.
 
BushwickBill said:
Wow. Anyone have an NTSB report for this? Or the Canadian version of NTSB report?

Have you guys thought of bringing this kind of stuff to the attention of the public? A well published web page with a few of the photos I have seen here along with a well written rational piece detailing the state of the regional industry could frighten the public enough to try and change the airlines for the better. For pilots and passengers. Letters to the editor could accomplish this as well.

This stuff scares me. I don't have to airline that often either.
Click to expand...

Bushwickbill..... too funny! GetoBoys! I think I had a couple of there CD's back in the day! Enjoy!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnRS-3AyGUs
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top