Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 290649)

Mesa crews always seemed to just jump off the airplane and run away (probably late to their next JA, or trying to avoid one). No cleanup, checklists, walkaround, switches all wrong, etc. I even found the #2 engine turning once :eek::eek::eek: That CA bought me some beer...

Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 290649)

Mesa crews always seemed to just jump off the airplane and run away (probably late to their next JA, or trying to avoid one). No cleanup, checklists, walkaround, switches all wrong, etc. I even found the #2 engine turning once :eek::eek::eek: That CA bought me some beer...

Originally Posted by unclepetey (Post 290670)

Nice. I would routinely find the radar and transponder on.

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB (Post 290901)

The Radar?? Great so we're all going to be STERILE now. Way to go Mesa...

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB (Post 290901)

The Radar?? Great so we're all going to be STERILE now. Way to go Mesa...

Originally Posted by Over40 (Post 290916)

I'm a wantabe pilot. I live in Houston and will probably be applying with express jet in March or April, and evaluating other potential carriers.... If I read this thread right I should steer clear of Mesa BIG TIME!

Originally Posted by Over40 (Post 290916)

I'm a wantabe pilot. I live in Houston and will probably be applying with express jet in March or April, and evaluating other potential carriers.... If I read this thread right I should steer clear of Mesa BIG TIME!

Originally Posted by unclepetey (Post 290913)

Bombardier says the danger area on the radar is 2 feet. Did Skywest forget to teach you that? Either way its not a good deal.

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.

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB (Post 291102)

Limited exposure or not, I picked up severe (yes, severe) icing on approach to DEN. Even w/tail anti-icing on the Jungle Jet there were four inches of Rime in 20 seconds covering the aircraft. Glad I wasn't in the CRJ...Limited exposure? Thanks but no thanks!

Originally Posted by FlyerJosh (Post 291131)

I've picked up some serious ice on the tail of the CRJ and never noticed a difference in handling. No biggie. I'll try to dig up the ice certification videos for the Challenger. Trust me- they build up a heck of a lot more than 4" of ice on the plane (all surfaces) during the certification tests. Those guys have to have guts to fly behind a tanker spraying water at FL300.

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB (Post 291841)

That is one helluva photo! Is that a Saab 2000?? I've got about ten min's in one of their Level D's :D

Originally Posted by FlyerJosh (Post 291027)

Not to hijack the thread but, huh? It obviously doesn't need ice protection since there hasn't been a CRJ or CL65 crash due to a tailplane stall...

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.