UPS Accident - BHM
#171
On Reserve
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: B-757/767 CPT
Posts: 16
Don't know who Sooeet.com is, but they lose all credibility with the following statement:
"likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate."
yea, thinking the same thing.
"likely using a combination of engine power to maintain speed, and spoilers to increase descent rate."
yea, thinking the same thing.
#173
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,223
The ground speeds shown on Figure 2 should be at most 4 knots above the indicated airspeeds that the crew of the accident aircraft would have seen on their cockpit instruments. This is due to the fact that the prevailing low level wind (a tailwind), was at most 4 knots.
Which you can't do.
Unless you're ignorant.
I don't see an unstable approach at all here. All that matters is below 1000' - or even 500' ....
#176
The FAA's purpose is to promote commerce, and that boils down to making it possible for airlines to make money. If passengers are too scared to fly, airlines don't make money. Therefore, the FAA will do what it takes to make the public FEEL safe enough to buy tickets.
IF it's cheaper to crash a cargo jet and kill 2 pilots (life may seem precious to you and me, but it represents a cold dollar value to an actuary) than it is to comply with Part 117 Flight and Duty Time Restrictions and Rest Requirements, then it's not in the financial interest of the operator, and therefore it doesn't fit the "promote commerce" purpose of the FAA.
If you can stomach it, take a gander at their "official" Mission, Vision, and Values here. I really like the bit about ethics.
Perhaps the calculus would change if the "little cargo plane" (that's how I heard it described on a major news network since it only carried 2 pilots) had passed through a living room instead of 20 feet above it, or into a shopping center or apartment complex. Until it does, we all know that safety is paramount only in our minds and in our actions -- to them, it's just another item on the big spreadsheet.
.
#177
The FAA's purpose is to promote commerce, and that boils down to making it possible for airlines to make money. If passengers are too scared to fly, airlines don't make money. Therefore, the FAA will do what it takes to make the public FEEL safe enough to buy tickets.
IF it's cheaper to crash a cargo jet and kill 2 pilots (life may seem precious to you and me, but it represents a cold dollar value to an actuary) than it is to comply with Part 117 Flight and Duty Time Restrictions and Rest Requirements, then it's not in the financial interest of the operator, and therefore it doesn't fit the "promote commerce" purpose of the FAA.
.
IF it's cheaper to crash a cargo jet and kill 2 pilots (life may seem precious to you and me, but it represents a cold dollar value to an actuary) than it is to comply with Part 117 Flight and Duty Time Restrictions and Rest Requirements, then it's not in the financial interest of the operator, and therefore it doesn't fit the "promote commerce" purpose of the FAA.
.
Due to our proximity to FAA Headquarters several of the pilots were FAA attorneys during their "day job." It was frequently interesting to ask those guys what they were doing at work. I vividly remember one of them saying he was looking into requiring child safety seats for kids while traveling on airliners. Part of his analysis was considering that "if" families were required to buy an extra seat (to strap their child seat into), how many of them would decide to drive instead and how many of those kids might be killed in car accidents!*?
It's almost 15 years later now, we all know, the FAA never did require child safety safety seats. I guess it wasn't "cost effective"?
#178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: In the TRACON
Posts: 109
My wife thought I was crazy for bringing our car seat and strapping our 2-year-old in on a 737 A few years ago. We had the "safe vs legal" discussion over it, and she came around. The FAA appears to put "expeditious" over "safety" in its air traffic procedures to some degree as well (in my opinion as an ATC).
#180
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post