![]() |
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1589957)
I don't advertise my books or offer lap dances.
Although the thought has crossed my mind.;) http://topnews.in/files/images/Elizabeth-Hurley1_4.jpg was she pretty? :D |
Originally Posted by boog123
(Post 1590117)
So, you have never done one flow, or checklist or flight using SOPA/SMAC, yet "That is the kind of rigidity that is not needed. It is ridiculous and parochial."
That, Bub, is ignorant. |
Originally Posted by GogglesPisano
(Post 1590039)
It was a point of emphasis at my previous carrier as well. This has nothing to do with SOPA/MAC (whatever the hell that is.) It has to do with the interpretation of a rather "gray" FAR.
SOPA - Senior Officer Present Afloat. The most Senior US Naval Officer on a ship or a group of ships. :D Actually I think it means Standard Operating Procedures Amplified or something similar. Scoop |
Originally Posted by DogWhisperer
(Post 1590160)
Of note, the tailnumber N3971 is registered to a Twin Beech in Nevada. Does this lend credence to the little-known merger rumor with Allegiant? Anything to get our hands on a few more DC-9 derivatives I guess. Looks like it has an E-175's APU exhaust mated with a 330... |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 1590216)
SOPA - Senior Officer Present Afloat. The most Senior US Naval Officer on a ship or a group of ships. :D
Actually I think it means Standard Operating Procedures Amplified or something similar. Scoop I've never seen what the big deal is. SOPA/SMAC was a comfortable way to fly, as you always knew EXACTLY what the other guy was going to do. That said, I never felt operationally restricted. The one major downside of SOPA/SMAC, IMO, was in the preflight. We had a CA and an FO preflight (instead of PF/PM) and after a few months on the line I quickly started forgetting what all those "CA Switches" did. There was roughly half of the overhead panel that I NEVER touched, making it more difficult to keep your mind wrapped around the other guy's switches. But I knew 100% (of 50%) of the Airbus! :D Our current way is my new favorite way, and I'm sure the next "best way" will be fine too. A little common sense goes a looooong way. |
Anything come out of the ATL lounge visit?
|
Originally Posted by GunshipGuy
(Post 1589745)
One of the guys on the 88 who did this retired in Oct. I can't recall what he flew....maybe the same guy. The one who made it even worse IMO would include the fact that he graduated from MIT right before talking about his carrier landings. The give away that this is about to happen: When he asks what you did before coming to Delta within 30 seconds of meeting one another in the cockpit.
|
Originally Posted by buzzpat
(Post 1589766)
GMAB. Does the FAA ever jump seat on SWA? I welcome the folks, tell them where we are in the conga line, and not worry about it. If the FAA deems that a violation, so be it. I haven't had a problem in 14 years.
|
Originally Posted by LeineLodge
(Post 1590226)
I've never seen what the big deal is.
This is a big to-do about nothing. Which is interesting considering how often some here say the same thing about other issues that people bring up. That said, I never felt operationally restricted. Our current way is my new favorite way, and I'm sure the next "best way" will be fine too. A little common sense goes a looooong way. And Big box theory, little box theory, sopa/smac, No sopa/smac, I'll do it the way the company wants. None of it is the end of the world. And it would not suprise me in the least if what other's have said regarding it being on the way comes true. The latest Vol 1 revision on my airplane is pretty much spot on to old nw. Verbatim at times. And to head off the inevitable tangent: no I am not saying it was better that way. |
Originally Posted by gloopy
(Post 1590374)
Yeah really. I can't believe anyone actually thinks saying what number you are for takeoff is a violation. Its 100% CRM and vital information for the FA's. Its probably the same people that climb at 240 because they think if they climb at 250 and hit a one knot gust they're violating the regs. :rolleyes:
Who here has said they think saying what number you are for takeoff is a violation? To the contrary, I have seen a number of posters state they excluded that type of statement, and that they are referring to the long drawn out types. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:03 PM. |
|
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands