Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 92

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

  1. #61
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #62
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    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 ---

  3. #63
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    Quote 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.

  4. #64
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    Bobby's razz is a little bit valid.
    How so?

  5. #65
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #66
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote 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.

  7. #67
    Senior Member BoeingBobby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    MIA
    Posts
    1,412

    Default

    Quote 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.

  8. #68
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    946

    Default

    Quote 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.

  9. #69
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ATLcrew View Post
    In fairness to you, you've been razzworthy for years.
    aaaaaand we're back to the swamp.

  10. #70
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    Quote 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.

  11. #71
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    946

    Default

    Quote 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.

  12. #72
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote 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.

  13. #73
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    Quote 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; 06-21-2019 at 12:43 AM. 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.

  14. #74
    Member ATLcrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    946

    Default

    Quote 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.

  15. #75
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote 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:

    Quote 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?

  16. #76
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ALT
    I exaggerate
    Quote Originally Posted by Evan
    3BS
    Indeed.

    I often exaggerate to make a point.

    But alas, getting you to acknowledge any shred of validity is almost impossible.

    Apparently not everyone agrees with your idea of a water-rescue squad...whatever the numbers are.

    I see your 'strong suggestion', I see ALT's exaggeration...

    I also see ALT's advice that "I strongly suggest" is taking a step over the line from parlour talk to misplaced and over-inflated and largely-false expertise.

    Still waiting on a shred of acknowledgement on how a bicycle ride might have insight into human reactions and startle factor.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  17. #77
    Senior Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    6,691

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    I also see ALT's advice that "I strongly suggest" is taking a step over the line from parlour talk to misplaced and over-inflated and largely-false expertise.
    Perhaps I'm just used to more inspired parlours. There are plenty of taciturn and conservative pilot forums about where responses are very measured and nobody wants to take a stand. I don't see this as a pilot forum however. I see this as an aviation safety forum. I see this as a place to express activist thinking.

    On 30 June 2009, Yemenia 626 went down within sight of the airport with 152 souls on board. There was one survivor, a 14-year-old girl found clinging to wreckage, relatively unscathed. She had been floating there, within sight of land, for 13 hours! This was because the nation of Comoros, a resort destination with an ILS-equipped, French-financed airport landing heavy aircraft, having already been the site of a major airliner-ditching disaster, possessed no sea rescue capability. None! There is every reason to believe that more passengers, perhaps many more, survived the crash but perished in the hours following it due to weakened strength or exposure. It's hard not to have a strong opinion about that. I think it's kind of dead-from-the-neck-up to not have a strong opinion that. but that's just my IMHO.

  18. #78
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    ...having already been the site of a major airliner-ditching disaster, possessed no sea rescue capability. None!...
    [Bold added by 3BS]

    Ok Evan, I'll side with you that it seems like they should get a good jon boat, outboard motor, a trunk full of life jackets and maybe even hit Amazon's pool and rafting sections for some life rings and rescue ropes.

    https://www.trackerboats.com/boat/?boat=4599 What say you ALTCrew?

    Getting back on topic, I would hope that the Zimbabwe crew used good CRM and procedures and visited with operations/maintenance via radio and that maybe some investigation was made into what the engine hiccup was. It is mildly interesting to go from flame-belching and emergencies to, "Never mind, we'll be our way now".
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

  19. #79
    Senior Member Gabriel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Buenos Aires - Argentina
    Posts
    6,971

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 3WE View Post
    $ 23,795 !!!!

    --- 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 ---

  20. #80
    Senior Member 3WE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5,061

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    $ 23,795 !!!!
    No.
    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •