Skids off runway in FSD
04-10-2018, 03:20 PM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: doggy style
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by Newstick189
Allegedly tower reported 5/5/5 and 1800rvr.
According to that, I would have also shot the approach.
According to that, I would have also shot the approach.
Originally Posted by BrewCity
I'm seeing 1800 RVR required for the straight in ILS to 21 (assuming nothing was NOTAM'd inoperative).
04-10-2018, 03:43 PM
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 84
Originally Posted by DENpilot
RVR has been NOTAM'd inop for a while now at KFSD.
04-10-2018, 04:27 PM
#23
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: doggy style
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by hyde
Not sure that's accurate but I'm sure it will all get sorted out in an investigation. The real question is why are you here being a douche? This would be like me going on the F9 forum and running my mouth about how you all have a ****ty contract and will be stuck in mediation for another 5 years. If it is none of your business and you don't know what you're talking about then just ****.
If you were in your interview for the airline you are at now, and someone asked you if you'd land under those conditions, would you say yes?
04-10-2018, 04:51 PM
#24
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Posts: 84
My point is you are talking out your a$$ cause you weren't there so you don't know the conditions or the information the crew had. That's why they do an investigation. But from looking back at your post history you seem like a dbag so I doubt anything I say here will change that. Carry on
04-10-2018, 04:54 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: CRJ FO
Posts: 207
RCC of 5/5/5 and 1800rvr (with FD or AP) seems like the approach would be legal to me. I don’t know about the mad dog side of the house but on the bus we have a chart from the company that says our x-wind limitation with a rcc of 5/5/5 is between 38kts and 25kts depending on the depth of dry snow. Sounds like they were legal to shoot the app. and had landing data that said they had enough distance for the conditions, but the RCC was not as advertised, it sucks, but it sounds like they used all of the info at their disposal and made a decision within opspecs and FARs. just sucks that the RCC wasn’t accurate. Thankfully no one was hurt.
04-10-2018, 04:56 PM
#26
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by DENpilot
Yeah well having a ****ty contract does not equate to endangering the lives of a planeful of people. I have no tolerance for people who do stupid sh*t that is unsafe. Landing in heavy snow, RVR inop, 1/4 mi vis, direct gusting 27 kt xwind? Have some common sense! What happened to using good judgment as pilots? A/C limitations be damned. No way in hell I would attempt a landing in any commercial aircraft with the lives of the people behind me at stake.
If you were in your interview for the airline you are at now, and someone asked you if you'd land under those conditions, would you say yes?
If you were in your interview for the airline you are at now, and someone asked you if you'd land under those conditions, would you say yes?
Way to take cheap shots at your fellow pilots without knowing all of the facts. I’m sure you’re an absolute pleasure to fly with. You’ll make a fantastic management pilot one day (that’s not a compliment btw).
04-10-2018, 05:43 PM
#27
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by DENpilot
Yeah well having a ****ty contract does not equate to endangering the lives of a planeful of people. I have no tolerance for people who do stupid sh*t that is unsafe. Landing in heavy snow, RVR inop, 1/4 mi vis, direct gusting 27 kt xwind? Have some common sense! What happened to using good judgment as pilots? A/C limitations be damned. No way in hell I would attempt a landing in any commercial aircraft with the lives of the people behind me at stake.
If you were in your interview for the airline you are at now, and someone asked you if you'd land under those conditions, would you say yes?
If you were in your interview for the airline you are at now, and someone asked you if you'd land under those conditions, would you say yes?
04-10-2018, 09:56 PM
#29
Banned
Joined APC: Dec 2017
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by 310skying
RCC of 5/5/5 and 1800rvr (with FD or AP) seems like the approach would be legal to me. I don’t know about the mad dog side of the house but on the bus we have a chart from the company that says our x-wind limitation with a rcc of 5/5/5 is between 38kts and 25kts depending on the depth of dry snow. Sounds like they were legal to shoot the app. and had landing data that said they had enough distance for the conditions, but the RCC was not as advertised, it sucks, but it sounds like they used all of the info at their disposal and made a decision within opspecs and FARs. just sucks that the RCC wasn’t accurate. Thankfully no one was hurt.
04-10-2018, 10:58 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Posts: 549
Some really pitiful Monday quaterbacking from other pilots... Perhaps it must be aggravating for a crusty F9 pilot at the top of their sad payscale to be making less than a 2nd year G4 pilot, but being based in Denver doesn't make you the master of winter flying.
The ATC tapes are easily available online now to anyone who can grasp a google search. Have a quick listen before you throw your colleagues under the bus. Most of the info propagated on this thread is not accurate.
The ATC tapes are easily available online now to anyone who can grasp a google search. Have a quick listen before you throw your colleagues under the bus. Most of the info propagated on this thread is not accurate.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
