Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
JO... regional airlines are safer than showers >

JO... regional airlines are safer than showers

Search
Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

JO... regional airlines are safer than showers

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 02-08-2008, 08:54 AM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
The Chow's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 1st year pay for the 3rd time
Posts: 1,434
Default

Originally Posted by saab2000 View Post
I'll try an experiment today. I am going to take a shower and fly on a regional airline.

If I survive both I'll assume that JO is wrong - they are equally safe. If I have a shower accident but survive the flight I will have to assume he is right.
In order for this to work you need a control group. This group will have fly on regionals all over the country but not shower.
The Chow is offline  
Old 02-08-2008, 08:59 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
SharkAir's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 492
Default

I've nearly slipped in the shower several times in recent memory. It's scary. I'm starting to lose sleep over it.
SharkAir is offline  
Old 02-08-2008, 09:30 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
ERJ Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: ERJ CA
Posts: 299
Default

"It's safer to fly an airplane than it is to take a shower," said Jonathan Ornstein, chairman and CEO of Mesa Air Group, which operates regional airlines. "No fatalities last year. That speaks for itself."

It's flippant statements like this that contribute to the problem rather than fixing it. When our leaders are crooks how can we rely on any information they give? This is a whitewash load of crud that speaks for itself. At MAG we are secretly counting the days. Good luck.
ERJ Driver is offline  
Old 02-08-2008, 12:02 PM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
exp96's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 294
Default

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB View Post
And how the heck was FL410 an "unauthorized high altitude??"
I think the media just has its facts wrong (go figure). At the time of the 3701 accident, there was no reason we couldnt go up to FL410 if we were light enough. Right after 3701, the company restriced operations above FL370.
exp96 is offline  
Old 02-08-2008, 01:40 PM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,803
Default

Originally Posted by exp96 View Post
I think the media just has its facts wrong (go figure). At the time of the 3701 accident, there was no reason we couldnt go up to FL410 if we were light enough. Right after 3701, the company restriced operations above FL370.
Yep - that was my conclusion. I'd like to know what the climb-capability chart said...?
ExperimentalAB is offline  
Old 02-08-2008, 01:40 PM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,803
Default

Originally Posted by The Chow View Post
In order for this to work you need a control group. This group will have fly on regionals all over the country but not shower.
Where do we opt-out of that experiment?!
ExperimentalAB is offline  
Old 02-08-2008, 03:55 PM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: DD->DH->RU/XE soon to be EV
Posts: 3,732
Default

Originally Posted by Jakob View Post
Showers are generally WAYYYY overrated anyway...








Unless you get to shower with JO's daughter.
dojetdriver is offline  
Old 02-09-2008, 08:41 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
exp96's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 294
Default

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB View Post
Yep - that was my conclusion. I'd like to know what the climb-capability chart said...?
I dont know what 3701's TOGW was, but I know it took them 29 minutes to get to FL410. I have only been up there 2 times on ferry flights, and it took longer than 29 minutes to burn off enough fuel to make it.
exp96 is offline  
Old 02-10-2008, 04:12 PM
  #19  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Posts: 59
Default

Originally Posted by ExperimentalAB View Post
Yep - that was my conclusion. I'd like to know what the climb-capability chart said...?
They were empty - so I'm betting the charts would say they could do it. Hell heavy our charts routinely say FL370 no problem - but it would be a brave person who would actually go there.

To re-hash an old incident, a significant part of the problem was they weren't following any reasonable climb profile, if they held 500fpm, or probably even less, they could probably have got to FL410 with a stable airspeed and lived to tell about it.

Note that the article had a picture of a go! jet (Mesa owned and operated) and did not mention the AMW accident except in the side-bar (and only the insider would know AMW was Mesa owned) and no other mention of Mesa incidents and JO was the only airline executive quoted. So I'm thinking there was a little quid pro quo going on and let's face it, the USA Today (the cartoon of newspapers) isn't exactly known for it's investigative journalism.
CFIse is offline  
Old 02-10-2008, 06:31 PM
  #20  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 30
Default

Funny, after an interview with Mesa I felt so dirty I had to shower......
AlaskaOps is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sr. Barco
Regional
89
09-15-2013 07:22 PM
AFPirate
Regional
6
11-26-2007 11:39 AM
Sr. Barco
Major
34
07-31-2007 01:01 PM
RockBottom
Major
1
12-08-2005 06:50 AM
WatchThis!
Major
0
07-10-2005 03:55 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices