Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Air Wisconsin (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/air-wisconsin/)
-   -   Super Hero Captain or D-bag? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/air-wisconsin/135420-super-hero-captain-d-bag.html)

WhiskyWhisky 10-17-2021 03:55 PM

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/

Imapylot 10-17-2021 06:46 PM

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.

DoNoHarm 10-17-2021 07:00 PM


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.

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.

3400 10-17-2021 07:38 PM


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.

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?

WhipWhitaker 10-17-2021 09:37 PM

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.

FlyyGuyy 10-18-2021 04:14 AM


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 did this at PSA at a station without a huffer cart after the apu failed to start. No big deal.

I've also had the oil pressure indication on Mel with pax on board. And a pcu inop, and disconnected. Pretty crazy.

rickair7777 10-18-2021 06:31 AM


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 don't think it's a big deal. Witnessed it once at my company with two CRJs (I was flying a different type so I couldn't help them) but they did have MX there to supervise.

rickair7777 10-18-2021 06:34 AM


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.

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.

Hedley 10-18-2021 06:56 AM


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.

It was a special crew requirement that involved sim training when I was on the 727. We may have had more engines back then, but they were small. The 727 on a 1 engine out missed was not an issue, 2 engines out you were committed to landing when the gear was extended, and an engine out takeoff meant that you needed to be light and have lots of pavement. The 747 had issues with VMCG. If you lost #1 or 4 at high thrust and low ground speed you better be quick on the thrust levers and hard on the brakes.

Twin Wasp 10-18-2021 07:00 AM

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