Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 291847)

Pretty sure there was a hard landing by Skywest where tail icing was a contributing, if not the main, cause...

The 727 didn't have tail anti-ice either, but I've seen them completely iced up before...just like a CRJ tail. Just because there hasn't been an accident for tail stall (yet) doesn't mean it wouldn't be prudent to have tail anti-ice protection. The Beechjet has a known tail-stall issue related to icing (thing becomes a friggin' lawn dart!) and IIRC an inop tail heater is a no-go item.

I mean let's think about it, the airplane was designed by Canadians but it is absolutely horrid for errant EICAS messages when it gets cold-soaked and the flap fail issue has (in part) been attributed to slush/snow working its way into the system.

Originally Posted by sigep_nm

Remember someone smarter than all of us designed these things, and the probably went to school to learn whether it needs this or that to work

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB (Post 290983)

Lesson number 1: Don't trust a Canadian that tells you their Jet doesn't need Ice Protection on the tail-feathers. Check it out next post-flight.

Besides, I like to give my birds a peck on the cheek on the Pre-flights...makes 'em feel Loved. So I guess my brain is fried as well LoL

BTW, SkyWest did teach me the two-foot rule, thank you very much!

Originally Posted by BoilerUP (Post 291864)

I don't know about "smarter than all of us". Engineers know what works on paper - not what works in reality and operational use. If you don't believe me just ask anybody in construction...

And I'm sure 4 inches of ice IN TWENTY SECONDS meets the definition of severe icing...

Originally Posted by sigep_nm (Post 291879)

That is probably an exageration of how long they were in there as most pilots do but yes most engineers are stupid so I agree with you there I guess.

Originally Posted by ERJ Driver (Post 292427)

Just thought since this was a Mesa thread y'all might be interested in some news...

Some figures are being kicked around behind the scenes: hundreds of weeks of vacation have been CX to this point, and I'm not sure it won't continue to be CX all the way through '08. Per the MAG CBA the vacation is supposed to be banked, but someone pointed this out: is there any way a pilot could bank that much time and take advantage of it EVER. We're looking at a significant number of pilots having a huge number of weeks of vacation in the bank--how will they be able to take advantage of that time and not continue to contribute to the staffing problems in significant ways? I just don't see how the math will ever work on this one, and I don't see vacations happening at MAG before '09. Oh, and if they try to force a cash-out, well that will cost the company millions and right now MAG is hurting for money. Yikes.