Yeah, that's the real gem here.

 

Calling in sick at Republic results in the Crew Scheduler telling you that you are going to need a Dr.'s note. W*T*F?

Now I know that there will always be some people who abuse the system, but is this true of the majority of pilots? I think it's silly that as adults and professionals, that a doc should have to verify illness, especially in aviation where it's illegal to fly when you're sick. IMHO, the company should not be legally able to require proof of illness unless you're sick for more than 3 days, or you make a habit of it.

13. Specific training for pilots in applying maximum braking and maximum reverse thrust on contaminated runways until a safe stop is ensured would reinforce the skills needed to successfully accomplish such landings.

I don't recall if Boeing or Airbus did the study, but the manufacturer found that more than 80% of pilots did not apply maximum braking when told to do so. The pilots initially applied a fair braking force, but immediately reduced pedal pressure because the plane (simulator) reacted so violently that they thought something was wrong. The same study noted that pilots typically applied more pressure on the dominant side...I'm a lowly PPL, but perhaps sim sessions can include time allotted to demonstrate a maximum effort stop?

 

here, just watch this and hopefully we can all learn something.

http://www.capitolconnection.gmu.edu...ntsb041508.htm

you can fast forward to specific sections by clicking the links on the left.

LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE HUMAN PERFORMANCE ISSUES SECTION AND THE PROBABLE CAUSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

 

If they ask for a Dr.'s I just say ok and hang up. If they require training like the FAA runway safety training that they don't want to pay for then I send it UPS COD to them. If they BS with me several times in one day and reassign me then I call fatigue. I've done it twice. Not afraid to do it again. Though this was months when based in CMH. Out of STL I haven't had them try many tricks.

 

Here's the thing with Doc's notes.

If the company requires you to get one, it has to pay for the appointment. Also mention that it'll take 2 weeks to get the appointment and ask what do they want you to do in the mean time. It's not bad enough to go to the ER, right? If they really want it, make sure you get a credit card number ;-) There are times I have been sick, like a head cold, and knew that it wasn't something that a doc could help with, unless there now is a cure for the common cold.

So, why should I have to pay, especially if I wouldn't go to the doc in the first place?

 

A big part of the NTSB's mission is:

To help prevent accidents, save lives and reduce injuries, the Board develops safety recommendations, based on its investigations and studies, which are issued to Federal, State and local government agencies, and to industry and other organizations in a position to improve transportation safety. These recommendations are the focal point of the NTSB's efforts to improve safety in the Nation's transportation system.

I haven't read where it disseminates information so that YOU can bash other pilots...


and for the media:
Fox News is Number 1
Their winning format: Two Hot Chick Lawyers bookending a talking head.
The Cubs will win the 2008 series

 

At Freedom we have a "proactive go-around policy". This is all our book really has to say about the procedure. Every crew change, I brief the FO on the existence of the policy and that we will communicate the intention to one another when the time comes, and that it is not a commentary on pilot performance when it happens. It's not an ego thing, it's a safety thing. [Heck, it's more block time for that upgrade worksheet after all, right?] This way, it is less of a surprise when the GA happens. I liked these two bullet points below especially, as there is a culture behind the scenes at MAG not to use reverse thrust in the EMB... well, I will add my 2 cents that here's what happens when you build that kind of culture. Same applies with the tendency not to use speed-brakes for descent or slow-down, and taxiing into the gate at Vr.

1. The flight crewmembers did not use reverse thrust and braking to their maximum effectiveness; if they had done so, the airplane would likely have stopped before the end of the runway.
2. Specific training for pilots in applying maximum braking and maximum reverse thrust on contaminated runways until a safe stop is ensured would reinforce the skills needed to successfully accomplish such landings.

Fly safely!

I know it's probably not the most comfortable for the PAX, but does anyone ever practice aggressive stops on the runway in good conditions just to see exactly how quickly you can stop and exactly how effective braking/reverse thrust can be? I've tried it in the EMB, and the thing can stop on a DIME on a clean rwy...

 

Wow...very sobering and a reminder to all of us never to become complacent or careless especially when shooting an approach down to mins. Here at XJ I have called in sick once while on probation and it was no problem. On side note, I have noticed that it takes quite a while for spool up to max reverse on the E-Jets. Can anyone who flies them confirm this?

 

Failing to use the brakes has been a factor in other over-run mishaps as well, and has been previously identified as a training failure. It's simple in theory--full brake application until one stops. The problem is that one feels a lot of feedback through one's feet and seat that is uncomfortable, which leads one to ease off the brakes. Everything smooths out, but now the aircraft is no longer decelerating effectively.

There's a time to be smooth, and a time to make the aircraft perform. Anticipate the fact the maximum performance braking on a contaminated runway feels different, be ready for it, and you won't react by coming off the brakes.

 

Smooth, I'm not prepared to get into a pi$$ing contest with you but other than me voicing a personal opinion about a documented event by the NTSB, why exactly do you have the $hits with what I wrote?

Any of us from a brand, spanking new PPL up to a 20000 hour vet know full well that it's very easy to make mistakes. Hopefully our training and to a certain extent our common sense limit the amount by which we repeat these mistakes but we're only human and we do make them. However, there are certain no-no's that are set in stone; descending to precision approach minimums using non-precision guidance is one of them. At 200' above the ground in a jet-engined aircraft, there isn't a lot of room to correct any mistake.

Now I'll grant you that there are occasions where your choices might be severly limited and you might be forgiven for doing this; min fuel and no suitable alternate due to wx or the aircraft is on fire but for any of us to believe that this is an acceptable practice in normal day to day ops, is un-acceptable.

We pi$$ and moan that the legacy pilots don't take regional pilots seriously and then this kind of stuff happens. I'd be amazed if descending to ILS mins without a glideslope would be acceptable at a major carrier.

So as far as I'm concerned, my personal opinion is that that particular event within the whole chain of events, was an idiot thing to do.