Super Hero Captain or D-bag?
Careful Acting like a Super Hero Captain for ZW demands might make you a D-bag for violating Covid19 environmental policy. We have all flown with 'that guy' during our careers one time or another.
https://eturbonews.com/3005030/update-united-airlines-untold-story-of-a-covid-19-nightmare-continues/ |
Can both packs be on MEL with passengers? I don’t feel like looking it up right now. The author of the article doesn’t really know what was wrong with the plane so I’m just assuming both packs were inop. I’m also assuming that no FA or CA would knowingly and voluntarily admit to the press that a flight was unsafe. I’m guessing the author is putting words into their mouths to some degree and I’m assuming the company will see it that way, too. Neither the FA nor the CA will get fired as long as they tell the company and the FAA that they did not tell the author that the flight was unsafe. Air Wis is happy the flight was completed so they could get paid. How would the flight have ever even left the gate if it was not airworthy or if it were operating under an MEL that didn’t allow passengers? Nobody is getting fired. Or, the CA and FO are getting fired along with a few MX folks and a few dispatch folks. There’s a 95% chance nobody did anything wrong and this author just wants to put out an attention grabbing shock article that makes United and Air Wis look like the bad guys.
|
Originally Posted by Imapylot
(Post 3310742)
Can both packs be on MEL with passengers? I don’t feel like looking it up right now. The author of the article doesn’t really know what was wrong with the plane so I’m just assuming both packs were inop. I’m also assuming that no FA or CA would knowingly and voluntarily admit to the press that a flight was unsafe. I’m guessing the author is putting words into their mouths to some degree and I’m assuming the company will see it that way, too. Neither the FA nor the CA will get fired as long as they tell the company and the FAA that they did not tell the author that the flight was unsafe. Air Wis is happy the flight was completed so they could get paid. How would the flight have ever even left the gate if it was not airworthy or if it were operating under an MEL that didn’t allow passengers? Nobody is getting fired. Or, the CA and FO are getting fired along with a few MX folks and a few dispatch folks. There’s a 95% chance nobody did anything wrong and this author just wants to put out an attention grabbing shock article that makes United and Air Wis look like the bad guys.
No packs with RAM air only is allowed if you follow the procedure according to the manufacturer and FAA. Same thing with landing gear pinned down flights with passengers. Single engine takeoffs are technically allowed per the "BRAD" (Bombardier Reference Manual), but no passengers, obviously. Buddy-starts are also allowed with high pressure hoses between airplanes with one supplying high pressure air to start the other one. Should any of these be done? Absolutely not. But you technically can do them legally. |
Originally Posted by DoNoHarm
(Post 3310747)
Depending on which MEL's you choose to allow (the extremes) and which supplemental procedures you are authorized for, there are all kinds of crazy things that are "legal" to do in a CRJ.
No packs with RAM air only is allowed if you follow the procedure according to the manufacturer and FAA. Same thing with landing gear pinned down flights with passengers. Single engine takeoffs are technically allowed per the "BRAD" (Bombardier Reference Manual), but no passengers, obviously. Buddy-starts are also allowed with high pressure hoses between airplanes with one supplying high pressure air to start the other one. Should any of these be done? Absolutely not. But you technically can do them legally. |
E turbo News, the last bastion of reliable journalism. I didn’t make it past “The FAA reached out to E turbo news.” I’ll take things that never happened for $500, Alex.
|
Originally Posted by 3400
(Post 3310762)
The “buddy start” is blowing my mind. Provided the pressure is similar to a huffer cart, is there anything inherently dangerous about this? Why not do it?
I've also had the oil pressure indication on Mel with pax on board. And a pcu inop, and disconnected. Pretty crazy. |
Originally Posted by 3400
(Post 3310762)
The “buddy start” is blowing my mind. Provided the pressure is similar to a huffer cart, is there anything inherently dangerous about this? Why not do it?
|
Originally Posted by DoNoHarm
(Post 3310747)
Single engine takeoffs are technically allowed per the "BRAD" (Bombardier Reference Manual), but no passengers, obviously.
Should any of these be done? Absolutely not. But you technically can do them legally. Not sure how people felt about that back in the day with three-holers, that would probably be OK, same for 4-bangers of course. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3310906)
I recall that most or all of the airlines I've worked at had contractual provisions such that pilots could not be required to perform OEI takeoff's.
Not sure how people felt about that back in the day with three-holers, that would probably be OK, same for 4-bangers of course. |
Did a few two engine ferries in my 727 days. Boeing had a section in the FPPM with all the numbers. Max T/O weight came down to around 135k if I remember correctly. The crew had to have another box checked during training doing a two engine T/O with an engine failure. Captains already got a single engine landing every 6 months. We had to coordinate the departure with ATC. One time climbing out ATC asks which engine is inop “so they know which way to turn us.” I look over at the F/O. “Well tell him.” “It's number 2.”
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:11 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands