Piedmonts Training "ONE LESS PERSON"

[Flyin2low]

If a Dash8-100 leaves EWN and another leaves CLT, but flies at half its speed. Where do the aircraft meet.


In CLT because that one is still broken.

 

[Sig]

Did you like Modlin's Magical MinMax Madness more than the WhizWheel?


I can't reconcile a Max that is less than the Min on the 300. It drove me nuts.

 

[Booker]

Did you like Modlin's Magical MinMax Madness more than the WhizWheel?


I can't reconcile a Max that is less than the Min on the 300. It drove me nuts.

A-frigging-men, brother! I've got a way to go, but I think I'll be criticizing that stupid program until I retire.

 

[NCFlyer]

It was simple.

However unlike the 100/200 you couldn't look at the 300 like a min-max range. It was 2 separate numbers and needed to be addressed as 2 separate CG limits. Maybe we should have used different terms instead of min/max, i.e. forward/aft. If the you didn't meet the min, use what ever empty/occupied seats that "adjusted" the min. Then do the same with the max. You just had to quit thinking like it was a range.

After I explained it to several people that way, almost all agreed that it was very easy. You either met the number or didn't. Instead of the current whiz wheel where 10 pilots come up with 20 different solutions to the same CG problem.

Sig, I find it hard to believe after that math lesson you just gave us, that you would have any trouble with the min/max W&B.

 

[rustypigeon]

So anyway. I guess AW is still there then?

 

[PropPiedmont]

So anyway. I guess AW is still there then?

Well, if you take the square root of 1342 and then add half a liter of Cuervo, subtract the common sense factor of nine, and add the restraining order, then the answer is....Yes.

 

[Sig]

Sig, I find it hard to believe after that math lesson you just gave us, that you would have any trouble with the min/max W&B.

I laughed out loud at that! I totally deserved it. I jerked out, I admit it. I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to apologize... or did I just...

I hated looking at a MAX number that was less than a MIN number. It made my teeth itch for some reason.

I gotta say Mike's system was pretty danged simple- a lot better than I could do, that's for sure. I'd be banging my head on the ground.

And AW really got in that much trouble? The two versions I heard were the "simfamous" quote, and/or he went on to another job. The other job rumor ain't true- he's still here.

 

[OPECJet]

20 different numbers? Punch in the BOW into your calculator, then add on the pax straight off the pinwheel. Don't dick around with adding up each individual zone. Then add in the total bag wt. Then add the gas, subtract the burn, then fill in the individual pax zones on the paper.

 

[MEL'ed]

20 different numbers? Punch in the BOW into your calculator, then add on the pax straight off the pinwheel. Don't dick around with adding up each individual zone. Then add in the total bag wt. Then add the gas, subtract the burn, then fill in the individual pax zones on the paper.

If the form got redone, then this is exactly what we would do on paper. Make it more simple. With the current form, why do we need to write out the individual zone weights? If there are 5 pax in zone X, anyone can tell there is X weight in that zone. We could have the whole form done before the FA got us the zone numbers and then just copy her/his page and tear off. Seems it would be more time efficient. I am slower with a calculator than without. My fat fingers always punch the wrong numbers so I have to go back 1 step. My fault, but it still takes me longer.

 

[flyNICKair]

I just did a 2 day in the right seat and became reaquainted with the form. My complaints are, just like spinning the wheel in the left seat, the wheel, OF-11 and form do not match up. The wheel has carry-on and checked reversed from the OF-11. The form has them top to bottom vs. side by side. Makes your head spin. I have caught myself transposing them many a time.

I did not care for the 300s fore and aft business either.

Yeeeoooowww

 

[OPECJet]

If the form got redone, then this is exactly what we would do on paper. Make it more simple. With the current form, why do we need to write out the individual zone weights? If there are 5 pax in zone X, anyone can tell there is X weight in that zone. We could have the whole form done before the FA got us the zone numbers and then just copy her/his page and tear off. Seems it would be more time efficient. I am slower with a calculator than without. My fat fingers always punch the wrong numbers so I have to go back 1 step. My fault, but it still takes me longer.

I do have the weights done before the FA gives us the zone count. 32 passengers weighs the same no matter where they're sitting. When I get the sheet from the FA, I just fill in the blanks.

 

[Captzaahlie]

Too much for me to figure how many kids equal how many bags with cargo. It would just be simpler .......

It would just be simpler ....... IF YOU JUST SHOT YERSELF LAZY ASS . (nothing personal!)

:bawling:

Sorry a form is not going to help the logic, sure it's tedious ( the present way) but you can skin a cat several ways and record the frigging numbers down just once with out claiming to be a rocket scientist!

You kids....
I'm slower than most @ complex mathematical stuff but this is adding and subtracting for crying out loud........ Take a deep breath and take a 15 minute delay if the gate agents or ramprats give you anything over the max pax/bag count.....

 

[jellynuts]

i just make up numbers and hope they loaded us correctly. i have complete faith in our lga/phl gate agents and ramp personnel. very competent people.

 

[Captzaahlie]

i just make up numbers and hope they loaded us correctly. i have complete faith in our lga/phl gate agents and ramp personnel. very competent people.

excellent point.... garbage in, garbage out....