Ouch!

[Dep676]

As far as the 72 in ORD, it did land short and then bounce to the runway and settle off to the side. The tower did in-fact let two airplanes land on the same runway. One aircraft landed and taxied in and the other did touch down but went around. It was an airport vehicle that discovered the AA flight on the side of the runway.

The FO was PF until they reached min's and then the captain took over, per company policy. It was still coupled when the captain became PF. It began to sink below GS, the FE noticed and the captain tried to apply power and that is when the plane struck the ground. There was a sound on the cockpit voice recorder that sounded like the AP being disconnected but the captain does not recall disconnected it. One thought was that he bumped in when he took control on the aircraft from the FO.

The autopilot was timed for a slower approach speed but they came out with a new procedure to fly faster and never adjusted the AP. So that could have been one cause of the accident. I do not recall what the FAA actually came up with after the investigation.

I do know that other aircraft had reported discrepanies with that approach. The FAA did functional tests after the accident and found no interference from anything. There was a TV station close by that they thought might have caused a false signal. There was no interference from that found either.

 

[Iam3rd]

Ya know it took only five min. for my point to be proven.

I will even go so far as to say that its not the union itself that I have an issue with. Its the attitude that the union expresses. The union feels that it actually has more authority within the company than the people who run it. And you just proved it by your comment by saying "A union can bring a company to its knees."

And don't get be wrong, I do agree with you on some of your points with regards to safety and harassment, but its not the job of a union to take care of that. There are actually laws for those things believe it or not. But I am sure that you feel the union even has as much power as the govt. too and thats what you were refering to.

 

[walshsfly]

I am trying to not punch a hole in the wall. :angryfire If you actually believe that garble, you are a truly uneducated closed minded fool. I pity you.

First off. Unions have done more for safety in this country than any other entity.

Secondly. Any unionized company that went belly up is not the fault of the unions. It is the fault of piss-poor management.

Thirdly. You feel that if a person owns a company he should be able to do whatever he/she wants??? Are you kidding me??? Does the employee have the right to a safe, stable, harassment free workplace? Doesn't the employee have a right to fight for his career? (I'll answer the question for you. We do.)

Fourthly. You are partially correct. A union CAN bring a company to its knees. They can also be their greatest strength. In 2005 NJA had their worst year ever. In 2006 NJA enjoyed record profits.

You tell me what the difference was?

First: Its unions that make airlines hire 600 and 1 wonder kids. Is that safe?

Second: Yes and No, Sometimes its the over paying of union employees that make companies fail. 300k a year for a guy that works one week a month, even though its my profession I find that absurd.

Third: Just imagine its your company what would you do?

Fourth: Prove it.

Last: Use your head to hit the wall it might help you out.

 

[Iam3rd]

Well said Walsh

 

[Iam3rd]

Also remember it was the unions that were so against Airbus coming out with a 2 member crew and doing away with the FE. It was going to make the cockpit more effecient and cheaper for airlines. This move was not going to cause anyone to get fired or layed off. But the unions knew it was better to have 3 in the cockpit rather than 2 because it meant more union members therefor more union dues and more power.

So once again they were looking out for their own interest, not the interest of the company as a whole.

 

[fischman]

First: Its unions that make airlines hire 600 and 1 wonder kids. Is that safe?

Second: Yes and No, Sometimes its the over paying of union employees that make companies fail. 300k a year for a guy that works one week a month, even though its my profession I find that absurd.

Third: Just imagine its your company what would you do?

Fourth: Prove it.

Last: Use your head to hit the wall it might help you out.

First: How are unions making airlines hire 600/1 riddle wonder kids? The company is the one with the low standards. The unions provide protection to these kids who will do anything to fly a jet.

Second: The company agrees to the work rules and pay. If they can't afford it, they shouldn't sign it.

Third: I'd get rid of the crew food menus. Seriously, I'm a pilot, not a manager. I care about fair work rules, good pay, time with my kids, and management complying with the contract THEY agreed to.

Fourth: What more proof do you want?

 

[fischman]

Ya know it took only five min. for my point to be proven.

I will even go so far as to say that its not the union itself that I have an issue with. Its the attitude that the union expresses. The union feels that it actually has more authority within the company than the people who run it. And you just proved it by your comment by saying "A union can bring a company to its knees."

And don't get be wrong, I do agree with you on some of your points with regards to safety and harassment, but its not the job of a union to take care of that. There are actually laws for those things believe it or not. But I am sure that you feel the union even has as much power as the govt. too and thats what you were refering to.

You don't get it. It IS the job of the union to protect the members. That is the WHOLE point of unions.

And yes. "A union can bring a company to its knees."

Your welcome for the pay raise.:erm:

 

[Iam3rd]

First: How are unions making airlines hire 600/1 riddle wonder kids? The company is the one with the low standards. The unions provide protection to these kids who will do anything to fly a jet.

Second: The company agrees to the work rules and pay. If they can't afford it, they shouldn't sign it.

Third: I'd get rid of the crew food menus. Seriously, I'm a pilot, not a manager. I care about fair work rules, good pay, time with my kids, and management complying with the contract THEY agreed to.

Fourth: What more proof do you want?

First: If a company wants to have low standards, so be it. They just won't be around long probably due to their safety record. I am sure if you asked the kids they would say they don't need protecting. They left their parents a long time ago.

Second: Thats right I forgot, the union brought them to their knees.

Third: I think its time for the company to get some knee pads because once again the union had them at their knees I am sure.

 

[fischman]

First: If a company wants to have low standards, so be it. They just won't be around long probably due to their safety record. I am sure if you asked the kids they would say they don't need protecting. They left their parents a long time ago.

Second: Thats right I forgot, the union brought them to their knees.

Third: I think its time for the company to get some knee pads because once again the union had them at their knees I am sure.

I'm glad we're at an agreement. Now I'll hold you to it.

 

[Iam3rd]

But you can speak louder to a company by just going somewhere else to work. Work for a company that does not have to be brought to its knees to treat its employees right. Do you really want to work for a company like that?