Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

Collapse

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
3WE
3WE
Senior Member
Last Activity: Yesterday, 21:20
Joined: 2008-01-18
Location:
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
  • Source
Clear All
new posts

  • I gave up making too much sense of requirements long ago...because it's possible these guys could have taken off with 0/0 visibility...1 mile...1/2 mile.

    Terrain, the aircraft, the skill of the pilot...None of that matters, right...

    Edit- ATLCrew's knowledge of doesn't hurt anything, of course, and he can certainly get his hand slapped if he messes up....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Interesting argument...

    Using that thinking, I believe that all Cat II and III (especially) approaches should be banned and Cat I minimums be revisited to be sure airplanes can stop for undetected school busses full of nuns..

    Indeed we had planes bearing down in New Yark at 100+ kts while an MD-80 was doing some off-road ATV exercises unbeknownst to the tower or the approaching aircraft.

    "Why do we need it" I was THINKING we "need" about 100 ft to be able to see the centerline and runway edges...but thinking is dangerous, of course.

    Edit: I missed the exact quote Flyboy mentioned:



    So let me RESTATE, if you are worried about this, we need to ban all Cat III, II AND UPDATE, CAT I instrument approaches and landings due to the risk of snowplow collisions.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozark_...nes_Flight_650

    Snowplowman did died , but the aeroplanie lived-...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Indeed.

    However on the other end of the scale, I think most takeoffs are highly dependent on seeing a centerline (or runway edge) markings/lightings....so you need some visibility....and I would guess that 0.5 miles is enough to keep on the runway.

    By the way to HELL with Part 121, Part 91, etc. if you can't see the runway, it's not good.

    (Yes, I'm sure that TOPMS and GPS/RTK auto-takeoff is within the realm of automation)....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:



  • 3BS...Busted talking out of his ass.

    And suddenly, this takeoff is looking as it might be illegal- reported visibilities around 0.5 mi.
    ...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • No real disagreement, and icing might be a factor here.

    You're gonna love this, but Icing seems to be one of those very black and white things...If you need it, get it, or don't go...

    If icing was dismissed in this case- shame on the pilots.

    The only devil's advocate I might say for them is if it was light snow, I would think it would not stick to the wings, could be removed before departure and that a takeoff could be made with minimal accumulation that would blow off during the takeoff roll.

    Finally- someone also pointed out that the plane apparently doesn't really seat 12....so a big load of passengers and guns and game and luggage...W & B gets suspicious (along with W & B AND icing together and so on and so forth)....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I am not a walking FAR encyclopedia. However, I think that most takeoffs are prohibited below 0.5 miles visibility and 200 ft ceilings (yeah, similar to the classic Cat I minimums) (Light airplane viewpoint- maybe airliners have some fancier systems allowing different minimums for takeoff). Takeoff minimums are obviously airport-dependent and vary, but I think 200 & 1/2 is common for airports without significant terrain or obstructions.

    I would hope, that with 1/2 mile visibility, you could take off reasonably well and as you state, the weather here SEEMS to suggest at least minimally OK visibility (not discounting a random gust and blowing snow at exactly the wrong time).

    As to Gabriel's comments that take offs into "immediate IMC" are STATISTICALLY tough- OK maybe the minimal silicon, annular fluid ring attitude indicators suck even more for takeoff, but it STILL comes back to the uber basic, diligent monitoring of attitude...and I wonder how taking...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Dudes, none of this is relevant.

    I wanted to highlight that MAYBE (Yes, I need to wait for the final report), the pilot was not a FULL TIME professional pilot and the fact that ATL, VNav and Bobby (in his prior life) flew "EVERY DAY" and REGULARLY dealt with weather and instruments and 6-month recurrent training, AND A SOLE FOCUS ON FLYING makes a difference.

    And that annual insurance-required Pilatus training and a genuinely caring about safety are very good, but just don't substitute for what professionals USUALLY do "every day with lots of great training and CRM and sole focus".

    (Yes, sometimes professionals do BAD things, just like amateurs do BAD things).

    All that being said, there is (apparently from reading Aviation Typists) a statistical difference between putting around LOCALLY on sunny days versus flying light planes CROSS COUNTRY......A shred of "get there itus" (or perhaps more simply EXPOSURE...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I will probably piss you off now as I draw from my 10 hours of instrument training.

    Is an "instrument takeoff" really THAT hard? I've done several under the hood (which admittedly is not the same as true weather).

    I (personally) break instrument skills into four categories.

    1. Keep the plane right side up by looking at the instruments (I personally don't think it's all that hard and had some experience doing this).

    2. Fight off strange (and sometimes strong) feelings of being in a different attitude than what you are. (I'm not sure I have experienced this in my limited flight time, and don't need to shoot my mouth off about how easy or hard it is).

    3. Flying UBER precise holding patterns and approaches where the ILS signal gets super incredibly sensitive. (From my limited experience, I SUCK at that)

    4. Reading, briefing, understanding and 'briefly memorizing' approach and procedure charts and MAPs and...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I don't think we need to over-analyze it. It WAS snowing and there were 20+ MPH wind gusts within 24 hours and it was likely a light, fluffy snow that could blow...That is more than enough to constitute blizzard-like conditions to the media.

    ALSO, the visibility and ceiling were most definitely limited to "real" IMC based on your NWS data link....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Please bear with me as I "argue" with you- and it's not an argument as much as digging deeper.

    1. Absolutely legal and proficient are different things and this comment is said over and over.
    2. I'm just taking in one step further.

    It's MORE than a recurrent annual deal for turbine singles as required by insurance. I bet a beer the pilot in this crash had exactly that, AND that it was a good thing AND that it made him a good pilot.

    BUT

    As I get older and read about MORE of these, I feel that it means a LOT that you are doing it "every day" and that it is your sole focus. That the "daily practice and sole focus" puts you in much better shape and SA to deal with stuff. I suspect that had you or ATL or VNav been the pilot, they probably would not have crashed. Maybe it would be your sage ability to NOT take off, or to DeIce one more time, OR MAYBE your ability to do CRM (even if the crew is 1), or knowledge...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yes, and no.

    Obviously, it's a gross over statement.

    Conversely, it's sad when a plane load of family and friends go down. Moreso with a great big turboprop single with a dozen of them.

    When I was younger, I envisioned using a light plane to travel around. Private Pilot & Instrument and you can go anywhere, right? I read about Richard Collins challenging weather in his P-210.

    BUT (that's a big but)…

    Sometimes, Richard parked it and got on a 7X7.

    You guys (and Cape Airways for that matter), do amazing things and keep folks moving through lots and lots of weather with very very good safety stats.

    Conversely, we (no italics this time) seem to regularly crash airplanes even in cases of capable aircraft and rated, technically current pilots.

    The value of you guys, your recurrent training, the fact that you do it "daily" with a sole focus, AND with the usual benefit of two crew...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The pilot probably had the training and cared about safety (they always do), but it seems that ATL Crew and VNav and Bobby probably benefitted from having more training and more experience and less distractions and more crew help, and the biggie- practicing it all “every day” with a sole focus.

    Just making a general, total assumptive statement based on how things often seem to go.

    On the other hand, we also see those reckless cowboys (and not talking by Evan's definitions) who seem to make this eye-rolling predicable....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Yet another reason to require full land and water rescue resources at every airport....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Ban all non commercial aviation in IMC.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • A few points of ironing:

    As curious as I am about big, beautiful, noisy aeroplanies, this incident seems to have been handled pretty darn well and the over-analysis in this thread is quite the eye roller. While I know it’s different on the inside, I got a very solid f’n’g clue that you should promptly land without doing anything stupid, and I praise the crew for apparently doing that.

    That being said, you hit on the exact point of Evan’s admonishment- should they have lightened up before landing...flown around for an hour or two, gear down, flaps down, spoilers up and the good engine at full power...maybe throw the carry-on luggage out the back door or something, too. It’s a valid question, but to me, not all that interesting, and I will trust that the crew did things well in that regard when they landed heavy.

    As to “mayday, mayday, mayday”, I get your point. Conversely, there’s been those cases where...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Colicky, no. Just amazed at how your disdain for pilots and your home base that they are always wrong, blinds you from seeing that 1) they didn't land immediately nor 2) they used good procedures and made good decisions...but, no, 72 pt font is no match for your closed mind....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Would you please comment on the amount of paperwork this might generate. I'd ass ume it's frightening....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Oh, but we MUST critically analyze every LAST detail of the pilot's actions. I certainly hope no one paused to itch their nether regions, that isn't on the checklist!...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Home base: "The flight crew did wrong...the flight crew ALWAYS does wrong...I have a differing opinion...we must have more automation.."

    Seriously, man WHAT ELSE would you have them do?

    Yeah, Gabieeee points out they might have been overweight, but you are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo blind over procedures that your mind is unable to comprehend why it might be good to land sorta expeditiously...

    The engine aint right...what if a bearing seizes, and/or it flings a blade or disk? What about those on-board fires where the plane burns up before you can land? What about that toxic lubricant leaking into the air intake system and dooming the passengers to a much slower (years) , but more painful death?

    Please note the HUGE GRAY AREA HERE:

    They did not haul over into an 80-degree bank to circle back and land downwind...they noted that there were engine problems, that flames were belching, they probably...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Are you talking about aeroplanies, or www.internet.com discussion fora?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More
Working...
X