Let''s Give them Jets!

[WSurf]

Okay, here''s something a stupid AirMidwest (Mesa) pilots did out of CLT. Taxing to 36R, the Tower told them to turn into the C2 by pass to get them out in front of a Jet that didn''t have there numbers and was at the end of the Runway. They told the tower that they didnt have C2 numbers to depart, but could go to C3. The tower didn''t response to the idoits. And they were to told to taxi into postion and hold C2. They said again they could depart C2 and got on the runway, taxing down it to C3 and they departed off 36R. Not knowing that that numbers allowed from C3 then back to the end of the runway!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What scares me is that there were TWO dummies that thought they were doing the right thing. My GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I couldnt believe it, and everyone got a kick out of them taxing down the runway till they were abeam C3 and then pushed up the power.
My point, you pay banana''s and you get a bunch of Monkeys!!!

Piedmont (Protecting The Professionalism)

 

[USHenry]

I don't quite understand this message, but isn't this a serious safety problem?

 

[OldpropGuy]

I also heard an unusual conversation between Air Midwest MESA pilots and CLT tower, one day not so long after the fatal accident in CLT. Tower told Air Midwest Flight #### to taxi into position and hold Runway 36L, expect a short delay for wake turbulence separation behind a departing 757. The Air Midwest pilot quickly stated "We'll waive the wake turbulence." The tower controller responded "Sir, I wouldn't let you, even if you could."

Sometimes you get what you pay for.

 

[ONTHESTREET]

----------------
On 8/2/2003 6:15:40 PM USHenry wrote:

I don't quite understand this message, but isn't this a serious safety problem?

----------------​

In this case it was not a safety concern, the crew erred on the "good" side of the performance envelope. Meaning they had more runway avalible than they needed.

Had their "confusion" taken them the other way on the runway then it would have been a big problem if an engine had failed on takeoff. They would have not had the runway avalible that was needed.

I do not know if this account is accurate or not, if it is then I would hope that it was just the last leg of a very long day and fatigue caused the "head up the wazoo" status.

If the crew was that inexperienced to not know how to calculate a basic performance requirement (Done on every takeoff) then I would have to agree that it is a large safety problem. I could see a new F/O screwing up, but the Captain should have caught it.

Performance numbers have very little room for error. On a takeoff roll there are many factors that can turn very ugly quickly if not calculated correctly (Speeds, weights, temperature, elevation, power setting, etc)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, you do indeed get what you pay for.

 

[WSurf]

No, these guys taxied down the runway!!!! They didn't back taxi, they went on the runway until they were abeam C3 like they were taking off... Once they got down there they pushed the power levers to Takeoff, meaning they had so much wasted runway behind them......

 

[smfav8r]

Hate to tell you, but legally they did what was correct..

I'm not saying it makes sense...but legally they did what was needed...under 121, if you do not have data, you CAN NOT take off period!!!! Even if you have data for an intersection that is more restrictive!!!

If MESA doesn't have data for a C2 intersection in there performance manuals and they accepted the clearance....they can be violated by the FAA...if they were operating under 135, totally different story!!!

This coming from a former/present 121 check airman and furloughed U guy who doesn't really care for Mesa...just my two cents.

Keep the greasy side down and the pointy end foward!!!

 

[OldpropGuy]

----------------
On 8/3/2003 3:13:53 PM smfav8r wrote:

Hate to tell you, but legally they did what was correct..

I'm not saying it makes sense...but legally they did what was needed...under 121, if you do not have data, you CAN NOT take off period!!!! Even if you have data for an intersection that is more restrictive!!!

If MESA doesn't have data for a C2 intersection in there performance manuals and they accepted the clearance....they can be violated by the FAA...if they were operating under 135, totally different story!!!

This coming from a former/present 121 check airman and furloughed U guy who doesn't really care for Mesa...just my two cents.

Keep the greasy side down and the pointy end foward!!!

----------------​

All of the other 121 carriers which I have worked for, common sense, and the FAA inspectors which I have discussed this with, say you are wrong. If you have the numbers for the most restrictive intersection, you are legal for any of the others behind you, which are less restrictive.
There is no magic, or smoke and mirrors here, Mr. former/present 121 check airman and furloughed U guy . But, maybe it's just me and the others. There's probably something here we're not aware of or maybe we're just wrong.. You're probably right, and I won't argue about it, if it makes you feel better!

 

[smfav8r]

OldpropGuy

Wasn't trying to toot my own horn nor start an arguement...maybe the FAA views performance with props in 121 ops differently then with jets...if that's the case, I will be the first to admit that I'm wrong...I don't have any experience with turboprops in airline ops..

Small/Cheap airlines save money by not having the performance data for every possible departure point...when you are flying for one of those airlines(the cheap ones) you always need to cya!!! In my experience, those type of airlines will not go to bat for you in the event of a potential violation...

And I imagine Mesa is one of those airlines....that was all I was trying to say.....I know it's stupid, but sometimes common sense doesn't enter into the equation!

Keep the greasy side down and the pointy end foward!!!

 

[ONTHESTREET]

Dunno about Mesa, but back in my turboprop days we had performance charts for all our airports and alternates, runways and intersections in the plane. The crew did it all. V-speeds, weight and bal, balanced field etc. I would be surprised if Mesa didn't have some version of this in the plane as a back up. Most commuters would be paralyzed at small stations without it. I can't count how many times we had to dispatch over the phone. All the non ACARS equipped airlines that I know of had a similar manual in each aircraft.

Other than filing the flight plan and releasing any maint. items the crew could just about do the rest in the field.

Anyhow, we were also legal for any intersection that was less restrictive than the one we had numbers for, and provided we checked the book we could also take the more restrictive intersection. The only requirement was the Captain signed a notation on the release with the runway requirments for that intersection. Even going through all that it only took 4 minutes worth of work.

Course it was a different time, the regionals were not hiring 500 hour pilots in those days. So the FAA may have clamped down on them since then. The average new hire was around 2500 hours, which is what alot of the junior Captains have now.

 

[Cisco]

Don't know when your turbo-prop days were, but when the 1900 went from FAR 135 to being a 121 aircraft in 1997, they pulled the airport analysis out of the aircraft and started printing them on the dispatch release. Now only the most prefered ie. the end of the runway, and the most distant intersection which all criterian can be met in terms of performance are printed. The pilot was required to use one of the printed intersections on his release. Common sense(which isn't at all that common) will not hold up as an argument in court if someone else has your companies ops specs in their hand which are written to comply with the FAR's and say something different.

 

[PoorPropDriver]

At my WO carrier we are allowed to take off from any intersection that is less restrictive. Typically, we have data for the most restrictive intersection and the runway end anything in between is perfectly legal. It's in our Ops Manual.

 

[Justlaughingatyou]

I read your post and had to laugh.

Wsurf / Billy. You are a true idiot. First you use very poor grammar and spelling to attack another airline within your own union. Why could that be? Lets see they have jets and you don't. Not that this is a problem with your management for allowing the jets to go to the other airline. No. It must be the pilot’s fault. After all they are so much underpaid and must be inferior to you. Wasn't that the argument? Better check you pay stub pal. I've seen the numbers and you make less. Ouch, guess you better quit "monkeying" around. Open mouth insert foot, huh?

As far as the "Protecting The Professionalism" comment. You violated that by making negative comments about another group within your own profession. Try reading some ethics. They teach ethics at most Universities and have a few books at the library you can check out. Also, look up the words before you use them. Might cut down on some of your spelling errors and help you use the word correctly in a sentence.

Also, smfav8r is partially correct. You should check your facts before you blast someone and call them stupid. The procedure they followed was correct, safe, and what they have been trained to do. If they had time they could have contacted dispatch and the number are generated within a minute. The wonder of modern computers. PS smfav8r, your comment about cheap airlines was not unnoticed. Just think for a second about how much paper would be wasted if every possible runway and intersection data were printed on a release. The only sensible outcome is to print out commonly used and probably data.
The only think "cheap" that I see is your investment in education and logical thought ability. Ouch.

My advice. Vent your anger on your own management. Heck, on yourself. We at ALPA allowed the jets to go to the "Regional Airlines". The race to the bottom was inevitable. We as a group have to find a way to fight management collectively and quit bickering amongst ourselves. Your piss poor comments do nothing to better the career. We will keep getting jets and you will not. Not by my choice but because managements go for the better deal and you can always scare someone to take a worse contract if they think there job is going to be lost or the flying isn't going to come. Didn't your group just take a pay cut? Didn't almost everyone’s?

Felt like venting. It's not that I don't like stupid people. Just feel better when they’re not around.

 

[WSurf]

Justlaughingatyou,

Please re-read the post, you idiot.... And Dont make this personal!!!!
We can easily contact each other and talk it over face to face....

 

[scot]

----------------
On 8/6/2003 6:33:41 PM WSurf wrote:

And Dont make this personal!!!!
We can easily contact each other and talk it over face to face....


That would be a smart move since both replies are close to being on the warning needed side. Thanks.



----------------
​

 

[scot]

justlaughingatyou please check your personal messages.