Cries in 717...

 

Oh, the VNAV didn't do it's job again speedbrake needed indicator.

 

I'm sick of the "quick upgrade" tropes around here. I don't see an age pattern in any of the numerous incidents over the last 5 years; if anything, the opposite. We literally have a post about an A330 incident, and someone comes on here to talk about "quick upgrades." It's hilarious.

 

That's not what our manual says at all. And it's very specific. -An important thing to note in case some Delta guy is reading this and thinks this is the policy.

 

1. It's an extra layer of swiss cheese to remember to shut it off before pulling into the gate. Of course, it's an after landing item at a minimum, but that phase of flight is much more workload intensive and it can be easier to miss items. Best to get it off early in a low workload time, if it is no longer required for the duration of the flight.

2. As a rebellion to those who turn it on in clear, day VMC, for one non-embedded cumulus buildup. To which I think, just look out the window and fly the damn plane, which is a phrase I catch myself thinking at a disturbing rate out on the line.

 

The double standard is infuriating. If this had been an ER or a narrowbody everyone would be rushing to crucify the crew and scream iNeXpeRiEnCe. Instead because it's a senior airplane we get a nuanced and frankly pretty interesting discussion on the nuances of weather radar and multiscan. Go re-read the thread on the 767 that flew into hail in MXP and it was a bunch of condescending remarks about junior captains, even though there was an LCA onboard. Last month a 330 does the exact same thing in BCN and it's crickets. I'm always in favor of giving crews the benefit of the doubt regardless of their seniority number.

 

330: The radar goes on for taxi out and stays on until after landing. When I first got on the airplane I thought it was overkill but now I realize it's a good default safety feature.

Plus as an added bonus I don't need to turn on the bathroom light in the middle of the night now because my nether regions glow in the dark.

 

Are we sure the 330 crew actually flew into that cell?

 

This specific one I don't know, flightaware overlays are notoriously unreliable and until the significant event summary comes out we can only speculate. This one last month in BCN for sure did though: https://avherald.com/h?article=52a3dfdb&opt=1

The difference is junior guys don't go trolling threads with 330 and 350 incidents trying to skewer their fellow pilots to stroke their own egos. I actually quite enjoyed the discussions in this thread about different radar and convection avoidance techniques, and possible threats associated with each one. It's how I expect professionals to behave, and would love all cases to be treated with this same regard. Unfortunately if the aircraft type is one that attracts junior pilots, and the boogeyman "quick upgrades", the discussion usually devolves into attacking the background and experience level of the crew, before knowing anything about the circumstances.

My point is that everyone is one bad day at work away from ending up in the news. Recent events show this can happen across all fleets and seniority levels. So let's give people the benefit of the doubt and look at the complete picture before getting out the pitchforks

 

Remember when those same guys blamed the inexperienced CRJ crew for getting hit by the 350? Pepperidge Farm reminders