Plane crash Aspen

[J.Otto]

two friends of mine were sitting in their cockpit and witnessed the entire event from the front row of the atlantic ramp.

They haven't been interviewed by the ntsb or even contacted.

I don't expect much in the way of much-needed operational changes at that stupid airport. I think the fed wants this to go away because they'll catch too much heat if they make it more difficult for the beautiful people to reach their ski chalet.

+1...

 

[chief9404]

I hope the FAA goes after everyone that landed with more than 10kts on the tail and yanks all their licenses. If your going to put peoples lives in danger you don't belong in the cockpit.

 

[billybob]

Cheif +1

Fly every leg like a fed is in the jumpseat and life is simple.

If not...... Find a place where you can. Flame on

 

[rettofly]

Cheif +1

Fly every leg like a fed is in the jumpseat and life is simple.

If not...... Find a place where you can. Flame on

It worked for me, even though some DOs and CPs were not thrilled.

 

[t-bone]

I try to minimize the number of things that I could potentially have to explain at a later date. Limitations is an easy place to start. It also includes not landing on short runways when there is a longer runway right next to it. 28R/L in KOAK is a good example. I'll take a slightly longer taxi if it gives me a little more pavement.

 

[chainring]

I don't think the FAA gets their investigative information from aviation blogs.

If u feel like you have broken rules that day, then don't speak to the FAA or NTSB, plead your 5th amendment rights and seek your union or personal council.

Oh yeah, that Flex Challenger that landed doesn't have Union representation. Those damn evil unions.

 

[V1 Rotate]

Because no one that ever belonged to a union has ever been violated. You're basically suggesting that if you knowingly break a rule that the union will simply come in and save the day. Why not take the personal responsibility of not exceeding a limitation and keep the FAA and the unions both away?

 

[rettofly]

Because no one that ever belonged to a union has ever been violated. You're basically suggesting that if you knowingly break a rule that the union will simply come in and save the day. Why not take the personal responsibility of not exceeding a limitation and keep the FAA and the unions both away?

What a concept! :smash:

 

[chainring]

I don't see anything about knowingly breaking rules. Truth is we work in a f#%?ked up profession were your ticket is on the line at all times. From the FAA and from management as well. And some times sht happens. I wonder how long it took for the Southwest pilots to contact their Union yesterday. All I know is there are a whole bunch pilots at Options who are still employed because they were represented when management goes on their witch hunts.

 

[V1 Rotate]

Landing with tailwinds that exceed limitations with the current wind reports isn't "knowingly?" I'm not completely anti-union nor 100% pro. I've worked at both places. I just take issue with being told it's the only way.