Envoy 2019
02-06-2019 | 08:42 PM
#381
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Alright, I'm going to get preachy here, (I'll apologize in advance) but I get so tired of arrogant posts like those on the previous page. Those of you that think you know something about performance because you know AOM1/FM1 well are fooling yourselves.
If you want to know something about performance, read AC 91-79a. That will get you the most basic information you need. Then you need to read Part 25 requirements and AC25-7D Chapter 4 (although the whole thing is good to know), AC 25-32, SAFO 16009 and EASA certification/peroformance requirements. A lot of what Embraer does is to comply with EASA rules. You especially want to spend time on EASA's contaminated runway takeoff and landing information. All of that will give you the background information in AC 91-79a that will help you to understand why AC 91-79a teaches what it teaches.
If you do all that, you'll start to understand why we do what we do and why AOM1/FM1 says what it says. AOM1/FM1 only tells you how to comply with all the above. But if you don't know what you are complying with, you won't have the urgency to do what is necessary. That is when we start to see floating and carrying extra speed along with minimal brake usage. Also, if you know the information in the documents above, you might start catching all the mistakes our dispatchers make. I've filed at least 4 ASAPs for improper performance calculations over the last year. Just looking at the TPS is not enough. Dispatchers are like FO's, they are there to kill you.
Did you ever wonder why you rarely see a mainline pilot float to get a "greaser"? I get it is part of the development of a young pilot to think a good landing is a soft landing. And maybe I'm short cutting pilots that work here by trying to teach them this stuff instead of letting them figure it out for themselves. But every landing, every time needs to be on the 1000 foot marker at Vref-x. You can solve for x if you read AC25-7D.
Passengers and Flight Attendants do not define a good landing. Stop listening to their opinions. They are not the experts.
Ok, maybe it was a lot preachy. I'm sorry about that, but not about the information.
If you want to know something about performance, read AC 91-79a. That will get you the most basic information you need. Then you need to read Part 25 requirements and AC25-7D Chapter 4 (although the whole thing is good to know), AC 25-32, SAFO 16009 and EASA certification/peroformance requirements. A lot of what Embraer does is to comply with EASA rules. You especially want to spend time on EASA's contaminated runway takeoff and landing information. All of that will give you the background information in AC 91-79a that will help you to understand why AC 91-79a teaches what it teaches.
If you do all that, you'll start to understand why we do what we do and why AOM1/FM1 says what it says. AOM1/FM1 only tells you how to comply with all the above. But if you don't know what you are complying with, you won't have the urgency to do what is necessary. That is when we start to see floating and carrying extra speed along with minimal brake usage. Also, if you know the information in the documents above, you might start catching all the mistakes our dispatchers make. I've filed at least 4 ASAPs for improper performance calculations over the last year. Just looking at the TPS is not enough. Dispatchers are like FO's, they are there to kill you.
Did you ever wonder why you rarely see a mainline pilot float to get a "greaser"? I get it is part of the development of a young pilot to think a good landing is a soft landing. And maybe I'm short cutting pilots that work here by trying to teach them this stuff instead of letting them figure it out for themselves. But every landing, every time needs to be on the 1000 foot marker at Vref-x. You can solve for x if you read AC25-7D.
Passengers and Flight Attendants do not define a good landing. Stop listening to their opinions. They are not the experts.
Ok, maybe it was a lot preachy. I'm sorry about that, but not about the information.
Classic. Stupid FOs never learning that a firm landing in the touchdown zone is better than a greaser that is floated down the runway...
If we were flying together and you decided to “teach” me that as if I wasn’t already aware, I would lose all respect at that point. Glad you feel like you have some sort of secret knowledge though.
Too bad the majority of the intentional floaters in the left seat are the lifers who have the most experience. They know they aren’t going to the big jets and could care less about the laundry list of references you just gave because landing distance is almost never critical in a 140/145. I’ve seen more “power-on” landings from old heads than I can count.
02-06-2019 | 09:13 PM
#382
In a land of unicorns
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 102
From: Whale FO
If you want to know something about performance, read AC 91-79a. That will get you the most basic information you need. Then you need to read Part 25 requirements and AC25-7D Chapter 4 (although the whole thing is good to know), AC 25-32, SAFO 16009 and EASA certification/peroformance requirements. A lot of what Embraer does is to comply with EASA rules. You especially want to spend time on EASA's contaminated runway takeoff and landing information. All of that will give you the background information in AC 91-79a that will help you to understand why AC 91-79a teaches what it teaches.
02-07-2019 | 07:53 AM
#383
On Reserve
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 139
Likes: 1
I commend you for doing that to a degree however, we aren’t check airmen and it isn’t our job to do it. If it was then we would all have an extra fed ride and be qualified to teach, but we aren’t. When a line captain starts teaching in the cockpit unprovoked, it will come across as an insult in most cases. Chances are, this is exactly why those guys roll their eyes. You’re basically telling them that you automatically assume/believe they have no knowledge of anything and are weak.
02-07-2019 | 09:31 AM
#386
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
I commend you for doing that to a degree however, we aren’t check airmen and it isn’t our job to do it. If it was then we would all have an extra fed ride and be qualified to teach, but we aren’t. When a line captain starts teaching in the cockpit unprovoked, it will come across as an insult in most cases. Chances are, this is exactly why those guys roll their eyes. You’re basically telling them that you automatically assume/believe they have no knowledge of anything and are weak.
It is my experience that some guys do have a decent understanding of performance but most have almost none. Heck some that come out of the training center don’t even really know what they’re looking at with the TPS besides what speeds to plug into the MFD. I’m always more than happy to answer anyone’s questions or provide assistance to understanding topics for those who want to learn. But I will never just start teaching to someone who hasn’t asked first.
It is my experience that some guys do have a decent understanding of performance but most have almost none. Heck some that come out of the training center don’t even really know what they’re looking at with the TPS besides what speeds to plug into the MFD. I’m always more than happy to answer anyone’s questions or provide assistance to understanding topics for those who want to learn. But I will never just start teaching to someone who hasn’t asked first.
filler
02-07-2019 | 09:39 AM
#387
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,547
Likes: 0
From: Resigned
02-07-2019 | 09:54 AM
#388
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,510
Likes: 0
02-07-2019 | 10:29 AM
#389
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,607
Likes: 12
I didnt get the hi6, prob because i am an fo, but you got me curious. What did the message say?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
