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

SWA LGA Captain Fired

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
Not sure what you're asking, but from the time I got hired in the mid '90's until it changed after BUR, the book said stabilized and spooled at 500' or go around. No gray area that I can remember.

If "idle" is considered spooled, how is that not gray? Is it 35% or 56%? Or About 62%?

And the quotes I have don't tell you to go around, they just say, "should" be stabilized. "Should" and "shall" are totally different in FAA land, and the point is that it isn't explicit.

My question is, did the book say "go around"? That might be what you would have done, but that doesn't mean it was in the book.
 
If "idle" is considered spooled, how is that not gray? Is it 35% or 56%? Or About 62%?

And the quotes I have don't tell you to go around, they just say, "should" be stabilized. "Should" and "shall" are totally different in FAA land, and the point is that it isn't explicit.

My question is, did the book say "go around"? That might be what you would have done, but that doesn't mean it was in the book.

The book said go around, but since they ignored 14 other procedures that were also in the book, the point is moot in this case.

I can't recall if it said should or shall. It's been well over a decade since we used that book and it really doesn't matter in the BUR case. An ATP shouldn't need the book to tell him when a go around is required, IMHO.

I can say without reservation is that in those days, we were given much more discretion and allowed to use our judgment more freely than we can now.
 
Last edited:
The book said go around, but since they ignored 14 other procedures that were also in the book, the point is moot in this case.

I can't recall if it said should or shall. It's been well over a decade since we used that book and it really doesn't matter in the BUR case. An ATP shouldn't need the book to tell him when a go around is required, IMHO.

I can say without reservation is that in those days, we were given much more discretion and allowed to use our judgment more freely than we can now.

I'm pretty just regurgitating what I read in

http://www.amazon.com/The-Limits-Expertise-Rethinking-Operations/dp/0754649644

It has a chapter on this accident and it tries to understand why they made the error. Good read. Get the paperback. ;)
 
Really?, Over $110.00 dollars for the hard cover edition? I think the author obviously doesn't understand, The Limits of the Cheapness of Pilots.

It must not have been written with pilots in mind! ;)

I order a lot of books from Amazon, and every so often, you'll see prices like that, but normally on niche, out of print books. As far as I can tell, this book is still in print.
 
Must be angling for use in college courses with those prices.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top