Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Zimbabwe 767 Engine Surge, Tailpipe Flames, Mayday... Continues to Destination

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    No but they do make one that they can shove up your rear end and see if you have a brain.
    You are a pilot. You are supposed to monitor lots of stuff and follow procedures. Temperatures, TOPMS, MCAS, AND if the lavatory fault light is on caution...

    If you need any advice, rest assured, we will assist you.

    Stop it with the brain stuff. Yes, this can all be considered blue font.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

    Comment


    • #62
      Children, behave.

      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Children, behave.
        Just having some fun, Mom.

        Sometimes, the tone is a bit heavy that pilots really need to be listening to what we're saying here. Bobby's razz is a little bit valid.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          Bobby's razz is a little bit valid.
          How so?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            How so?
            A reaction to pesky nosiness and incessant questioning of situations for which professionals have a really good handle on.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              A reaction to pesky nosiness and incessant questioning of situations for which professionals have a really good handle on.
              Right. For asking a question about protocol regarding the in-flight decision to either return or proceed following a potentially damaging event to an engine, where the professional in question suggests I Google a boroscope examination, I deserve to be "razzed". Sure, I follow ya...

              The point I'm making is that, at some point (and I think 60-90 secs is that point) an inspection needs to be carried out--boroscope or otherwise--on the ground before the crew can safely make any determination.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                at some point an inspection needs to be carried out--boroscope or otherwise--on the ground before the crew can safely make any determination.

                And over here at least, that is what is done. Probe withdrawn, waiting for the results.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Right. For asking a question about protocol regarding the in-flight decision to either return or proceed following a potentially damaging event to an engine, where the professional in question suggests I Google a boroscope examination, I deserve to be "razzed". Sure, I follow ya...
                  In fairness to you, you've been razzworthy for years.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                    In fairness to you, you've been razzworthy for years.
                    aaaaaand we're back to the swamp.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      aaaaaand we're back to the swamp.
                      Did we leave?
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        Did we leave?
                        I don't think this is about any "swamp" necessarily. It's just that, in my experience, when one takes himself and/or his priceless ideas a tad too seriously, it pretty much guarantees that nobody else will take said one and or his/her priceless ideas very seriously. Which is a shame, particularly when some of those ideas aren't entirely baseless, but are, regrettably, presented in a manner that invites only ridicule.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                          I don't think this is about any "swamp" necessarily. It's just that, in my experience, when one takes himself and/or his priceless ideas a tad too seriously, it pretty much guarantees that nobody else will take said one and or his/her priceless ideas very seriously. Which is a shame, particularly when some of those ideas aren't entirely baseless, but are, regrettably, presented in a manner that invites only ridicule.
                          Define "too seriously" and "a manner that invites only ridicule" here. I'm seriously interested.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                            It's just that, in my experience, when one takes himself and/or his priceless ideas a tad too seriously, it pretty much guarantees that nobody else will take said one and or his/her priceless ideas very seriously.
                            It's all agronomical to me, but I have also noticed that stuff that on the outside, that looked stupid and wrong, becomes very logical and correct when on the inside.

                            And often we [no italics for agronomists] HAVE thought about "that" before and made a well-thought-out, appropriate decision on how to handle it.

                            Maybe it's a bad attitude, but sometimes we prefer that folks "spare the free advice".
                            Last edited by 3WE; 2019-06-21, 00:43. Reason: To bold key words with the tiniest fraction of ITS' genius.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              Define "too seriously" and "a manner that invites only ridicule" here. I'm seriously interested.
                              Well, these are mere suggestions, of course, and they don't necessarily only apply to you. It's more of a general discourse on written communication to the extent that it must be done in such a way that the audience will be receptive, otherwise it's an waste of breath and/or bandwidth.

                              It might behoove to avoid phrases like "I would recommend" or "My recommendation is". Such wording implies the speaker is qualified to make recommendations, which means he/she is expected to state those qualifications. If the speaker is not willing to do that, there is no reason why anyone should feel his/her recommendations should be heeded. Therefore, using words like "In my opinion" or "it seems to me" or "if they were to ask me" might be more productive.

                              Taking somewhat narrow views of very complex, wide-ranging, multifaceted problems is not very helpful. I remember in response to an A310 going swimming somewhere in the Indian Ocean someone suggesting any airport within 50 miles of anything bigger than a puddle have a fleet of rescue vessels sized no smaller than a destroyer. I exaggerate, but you get the point. That sort of an approach can certainly open oneself to ridicule.

                              Having a very decidedly negative view on a subject, making no secret of said negative view, denying it and then attempting to sound unbiased and unemotional. Doesn't work, the audience will see the inconsistency. It's hard to have it both ways, particularly in written communication where it's no always easy to tell the tone of the writer. It might behoove to admit the bias and then present opinions in support of that bias. E. g. "I'm not a big fan of spreads in general, but marmite is particularly vile".

                              Just food for thought.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by ATLcrew
                                Just food for thought
                                IMHO, a public aviation forum doesn't need 'IMHO' preceding every humble opinion, nor does being in the industry, even as a pilot with 50,000 hours, leave you more qualified to offer suggestions on certain aspects of aviation safety. If it did, we wouldn't need those pencil-pushers at the NTSB. What I would like to find at a public forum like this are well-researched opinions, factually-checked information, well-formed opinions derived from historical study and imaginative, visionary suggestions that might not be occuring in the malaise of bureaucracy (such as: two redundant data sources for any system that interferes with flight-control). IMHO.

                                I would also like to find a healthy social environment built on respect rather than hostility (not specifically directed at you - I think you are at times aggressive but not hostile. IMHO.).

                                In my defense:

                                Originally posted by ATLcrew
                                I exaggerate.
                                This is a big part of the problem and it not only degrades any useful debate by misrepresenting the ideas put forth, it bends the trajectory of every thread toward hostility. No one is more prolific at this than 3WE. Case in point: I once strongly suggested that any airport regularly servicing transport-category aircraft (such as the A310) with an approach over a large body of water, and with the funding source available (for example, the French government-funded Comoros aerodrome) should be required to have an SAR response in place for a water landing (dedicated boats or a trained volunteer fleet with appropriate rescue equipment. I stand by that humble opinion. However, now that YOU have made it "anything within 50 miles of a puddle" and "boats the size of a destroyer", it becomes, indeed, ridiculous. You want it to become ridiculous because you want to ridicule the opposing position. This is what modern politics have become. There is little sign of respect left for intelligent debate. And look where that has gotten us!

                                In this thread, I first asked if there was a threshold mandate for destructive engine parameter exceedance either in the regs or in operator SOP. I pointed out that, in spite of all the technological protections and redundancies, catastrophic engine failure remains an existential threat for which the only defense is sound engine manufacture and uncompromising maintenance. For instance, ETOPS is worthless if an engine explodes over the mid-Atlantic and takes out cabin pressure and vital structures and systems, let alone directly kills passengers with hot debris shot out at cannon velocities. Therefore, IMHO we need regulations that require pilots to restrict an engine (remain at flight idle or at a reduced, maximum N1) following a given parameter exceedance and to land asap. How is that ridiculous?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X