Originally Posted by Meme In Command (Post 3889530)

Skywest used to have no crosswind limits if the CA made the landing. It was implemented a few years ago. Can’t say for certainty what caused it but it did get implemented not very long after we had a CRJ fly into RDU mid hurricane.

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 3889833)

I'm curious why any flight operations were attempted after an inbound landed and reported "wind shear with a 20-knot loss."

I worked for a regional 15 years ago that allowed up to 20 knot gain/loss, but since then I thought all major operators reduced that to 15 knots. Are any airlines still allowing operations with over a 15-knot airspeed loss? Also, it didn't sound like ATC passed that info along to anyone who wasn't on frequency then.

That Elite Air flight took one for the team and saved the rest of the aircraft planning to takeoff and land from making a mistake.

Originally Posted by Milk Man (Post 3889851)

I asked this to one of our higher ups in Flight Ops, basically they said you can still attempt it, just once you get the +\-15 discontinue and go from there. Just becuase someone else experienced it doesnt mean that you will.

I was behind Spirit and they reported 20kt loss, after 2 attempts and hearing that I discontined approach and went somewhere else. So I guess some do have different standards.

Originally Posted by Guppydriver95 (Post 3889838)

Well said. Whenever an FO asks me about challenges from the left seat, I always mention the fact that we are the ONLY people at the airline that get paid to say “no” from time to time. The entire apparatus is set up to go, go, go. It can feel like you’re on an island when you put the brakes on the operation, but that level of backbone is what is sometimes required. Operators at shops without strong safety cultures don’t have the luxury that we have with a highly effective safety structure at ALPA backing us up. We’ve all known outfits where if you didn’t want to take the jet, they would find someone who would. It’s a terrible way to operate, but they exist. Once you realize you won’t “get in trouble” for putting your foot down, it’s liberating. Sadly, at UAL, we’ve recently let go of some who viewed each flight as a mission to be completed at all costs. One particular new Captain was fired for flying right through a line of weather, causing injuries. His response to the FO was that’s what the company pays me to do! No, the company pays you to be smart, but his mindset from his regional was tough to shake. And no, it’s not a regional slam, just that particular one that shall remain nameless. Bottom line, kudos to the CAPTAIN for being the voice of reason.

Originally Posted by marcal (Post 3889900)

At my regional the joke was, "whats the weather at destination? who care's were going anyway!"

This is a bad practice in general. Granted out of 10,000 flights I've only actively delayed a flight twice for weather and both were short flights with massive t-storm lines hitting the field right as we'd get there. Waited an hour and all good. Much tougher to justify on a 3+ hour flight when things can change. On a long haul it would be impossible.

Originally Posted by crewdawg (Post 3889943)

I'm guessing that it comes from the mid-20 somethings bravado and lack of wisdom. I'm an outstanding pilot, I can make it happen. Now I'm like have at it buddy, I'll be right here waiting it out...preferably off the gate with the clock ticking lol.

Originally Posted by marcal (Post 3889826)

I didn’t get the impression that he was “refusing“ to go, I felt like they were just shutting the engines down because the airport had closed because of the incident and they knew they’d be sitting there for a little while. Regardless, no one is going to stop our operation except for the Captains. No one in OCC is stopping anything. Until an airport closes they just keep the train chugging along.

The FOM clearly gives captains the authority to the delay a flight but not cancel one. I’ve used that card before.

Just because a flight arrives at its destination, does not mean that it was a done safely or responsibly. sometimes I wish more of us would have that versus the historic go go go mission driven mindset. This airline has clearly stated that they will back us up when we make safety related decisions.

Good discussion

Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine (Post 3889524)

I'm shocked Skywest was able to depart with those winds. If they must account for the gusts, that's a 40-knot crosswind! Does Skywest not include the gusts or have a crosswind limit?

Originally Posted by Hotel Kilo (Post 3889957)

This is misleading. I've "cancelled" a few flights over my many years here. It wasn't hard to do either. One was back in my M-88 days. Blizzard in ROC. Our airplane had MELs for thrust reverser and the autobrake/autospoiler system. I wasn't taking that jet up to ROC in a blizzard. We talked about getting a spare, but none were available. Cancelled.

For the younger captains here with not a huge "knowledge of aviation reserve" - never be afraid to speak up about something like this. If you, or your FO, or both of you have reservations about the situation. Stop. Make a call. In all my years here as a Captain, I've never been questioned about a safety call. Ever.

Originally Posted by cencal83406 (Post 3889986)

Im sure the pressure to take an unairworthy airplane here pales in comparison to the regional level. Hell, didn’t even get sent home or to the hotel after landing with crash trucks. Just get a new plane and file your ASAP when able.

Off the top of my head a couple of odd ones during pax ops: 1) we were approved for flight unpressurized 2) with the landing gear pinned down.

I refused to be crew on an airplane at the regionals once (as FO) because the seat track was deferred and they would have to safety wire it to my preferred seating position. Nope no thanks. What if we need to evacuate?? Company solution - spent an hour trying to replace me first.