Tool of the day
11-02-2018 | 10:34 AM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 595
Likes: 0
From: A320 CA
11-02-2018 | 02:42 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Anyone who changes their voice, cadence, accent, speed of speech or changes wording for a checklist. Stop it. Now. Also, at least look at it. That’s the point. I’m glad you have it memorized. Good job. However, read it.
11-02-2018 | 02:46 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,371
Likes: 11
11-02-2018 | 03:11 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2018
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
11-02-2018 | 03:33 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,230
Likes: 62
From: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
11-02-2018 | 04:48 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 147
Lots of places... One of my proudest (hey at least I admit it) new FO moments was clearly communicating the presence of an aluminum can bouncing around in the safety zone right in front of the #2 engine in time for the CA to shut the motor down before we shelled out the motor. He was probably going to shut it down anyhow but maybe he shut it down earlier? Who knows, but I'm taking credit for it. It's the little victories when you're a probie. Like getting in and out of LGA without getting teased on ground, or going a whole 4-day without making a PA on ops freq or calling for push over the PA.
Small victories. Maybe tomorrow will be slightly less tool-ish.
Small victories. Maybe tomorrow will be slightly less tool-ish.
11-02-2018 | 04:58 PM
Line Holder
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 147
Not being snarky, I understand that accepting LAHSO is part of being a good neighbor at an over-capacity airport but it puts the risk of high volume ATC ops right in the cockpit of the LAHSO participant. I can totally see why any particular company might refuse to accept that risk.
11-02-2018 | 05:35 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,230
Likes: 62
From: B-737NG preferably in first class with a glass of champagne and caviar
Maybe it's also a bit like why the USAF doesn't permit LAHSO... It benefits everyone except the crew that's put at risk doing the landing, increases the chance of botching the landing or violating the LAHSO clearance, etc. Let someone else absorb that risk or build another runway.
Not being snarky, I understand that accepting LAHSO is part of being a good neighbor at an over-capacity airport but it puts the risk of high volume ATC ops right in the cockpit of the LAHSO participant. I can totally see why any particular company might refuse to accept that risk.
Not being snarky, I understand that accepting LAHSO is part of being a good neighbor at an over-capacity airport but it puts the risk of high volume ATC ops right in the cockpit of the LAHSO participant. I can totally see why any particular company might refuse to accept that risk.
Any US 121 carriers have the LAHSO in their OPs Specs?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
