The B-717 is another!

 

A windshear alert does not equal a microburst alert. They have different affects on the operation. If you are an RAH pilot isn't this addressed in your FOM? Or is your airline still in the learning phase? I would hope that these are simulator scenarios for you guys.

You mentioned all the planes that departed....Did they crash or report unsafe conditions once airborne? Here is something that might surprise you...Perhaps they were taking windshear precautions (V1 up to RWY Limit, Opt Flap, Max EPR etc) listening to what was broadcast by TWR, using the Predictive Windshear System on board the aircraft and safely flying in away to their destination. Meanwhile, back at the ranch an RAH pilot was trying to decide if what took place was legal. You really have to know the rules to know if it was legal right?

 

airhoss - again visibility is not a factor, unless you lose an engine. Depending on your company procedure, you are not coming back to that airport. Not every airport has 300RVR landing mins. But after you declare an emergency all bets are off. So where are you going to land? At an airport with low visibility or a airport up to an hour away with VFR conditions. You decide, you are the captain.

 

Many transport category aircraft are capable and legal to land cat3 single engine so the old rule of needing a takeoff alternate if departure wx is less than cat1 does not apply in a properly equipped qx dhc8-400 or a b777. Hence you could quite legally return to your 600rvr airport of departure and land.

 

To sum up this thread.

RH pilot thinks pilots with more experience and regimented training programs all departing unsafely.

RH pilot given information that refutes his assessment. Show's RH pilot has lack of understanding between windshear and microburst and the relation to operations.

And several major airline pilots with years of experience take the time to educate this pilot. In fact I am guilty also. After thinking about this I think we need to go radio silence on this type of response to these RJ pilots.

If their companies are not willing to train them, then it is not OUR problem. Let these guys sit in the pad critiquing the rest of the industry while we take our passengers to and from their destinations. Let their performance drop below the threshold to keep their parasite contracts with the major partners. Let's put these guys out of business. We should not support these pilots that have made a career out of working on the cheap and NOT knowing the rules. They are so infatuated with taking flying from a major airline pilot that they haven't botherd to learn how to operate an airplane. School is out. Let them learn it the hard way!

L

 

Just curious, but do the operators of said aircraft have it in their opspecs that they don't need a takeoff alternate if the WX is below CATI mins for a usable runway?

The reasoning behind it is that it's all fine and well that if you lose JUST an engine, sure, you can get back in CATII/CATIII SE if the aircraft is capable. However, if you had a failure, and a slew of multiple system/component failures that the CATII/CATIII logic needs to function, you're kinda screwed if it's below CATI.

 

Well, sort of. Need and example? Colgan, that became a problem for all of us. Could you imagine what would have happened if DAL/CAL hit somebody on those taxiways? Could you imagine what would have happened if that UAL 744 smacked the mountain in SFO years ago? Please, spare me the argument. Those crews were lucky, NOT good. Maybe some serious retraining is in order for the high and mighty legacy pilots that could have killed a lot of people. Did not the UAL PF know how to handle a loss of thrust on takeoff to ensure the airplane will climb and meet the necessary criteria? Did not the CAL/DAL crews know how distinguish a taxi way from a runway? Were they simply not trained in said things? That's called sarcasm.

Sort of agree. Maybe we shouldn't support the legacy pilots that allowed their CBA's to be gutted, as well as gave away scope helping to put this profession in the sad state it's found itself.

And the old, worn out, stale legacy vs. regional argument/thread drift continues..............

 

Mod note:

KC10 and DJD - if you would like to continue the age old discussion of Legacy -vs- Mainline pilots, please do so via the PM.

USMCFLYR

 

We are not required to file a take off alternate if the visibility meets legal landing mins at the airport you are departing from. So no we are not required to file for a takeoff alt if the weather is below CAT I mins if the landing mins are lower than CATI and your airplane is CATII OR III legal. IE in DEN as long as the operational limits are met EG cross wind, head wind, vis,braking action, ETC are all within limits then you are not required to have a take off alternate. We are limited to 500 RVR for take off and we are limited to 300 RVR to begin the approach however if after crossing the FAF the vis drops below 300 RVR we are legal to land all the way down to zero, zero.

However depending on multiple operational issues including MGTOW, MEL status ETC it is a never a bad idea to either file for or at least have a suitable takeoff alt in mind.

Orion Tanker,

I am not sure what you are getting at with your last post but visibility is not only a factor but it's one of the main legality factors in filing for a take off alternate. And your statement about not coming back to your departure airport is false if the conditions above are met. If they aren't met then visibility is the controlling factor in whether or not you are required to file for a take off alternate.

I guess I am just not sure what you are trying to say.

 

Well the RAH plane I saw did.....

Your claims on a public forum naming companies is out of line, you could ask your questions in general. Instead you point out that an operator your company is shutting down might or might not have done something you dont agree with. Grow up.