FAA issued Colgan warnings
#21
Yes.
One knot below REF and someone should be saying something, no action taken and I would be assuming control and pushing the power levers up no matter what seat I am sitting in.
It sounds plausable that if they are infact fully configured prior to the FAF (waste of airspeed and money if you ask me) that they could be trying to avoid major power changes prior to GS intercept.
One knot below REF and someone should be saying something, no action taken and I would be assuming control and pushing the power levers up no matter what seat I am sitting in.
It sounds plausable that if they are infact fully configured prior to the FAF (waste of airspeed and money if you ask me) that they could be trying to avoid major power changes prior to GS intercept.
#22
Banned
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Yes.
One knot below REF and someone should be saying something, no action taken and I would be assuming control and pushing the power levers up no matter what seat I am sitting in.
It sounds plausable that if they are infact fully configured prior to the FAF (waste of airspeed and money if you ask me) that they could be trying to avoid major power changes prior to GS intercept.
One knot below REF and someone should be saying something, no action taken and I would be assuming control and pushing the power levers up no matter what seat I am sitting in.
It sounds plausable that if they are infact fully configured prior to the FAF (waste of airspeed and money if you ask me) that they could be trying to avoid major power changes prior to GS intercept.
#23
No not ignorant. Almost everytrip I flew was based on Time Away From Base so I was not out there to "get paid by the hour" My job is to get an airplane from A to B as efficiently and safely as I want and can. Slowing down to VREF 7 miles out and driving in with a lot of power is a waste of time and money. It isn't Ignorant. I am not the one hitting the stick shaker. I am the one who called for flaps 30 at a thousand feet cause thats what my SOP's said I could do.
In addition the comment was based more towards managment having an less safe procedure that actually costs the company money.
In addition the comment was based more towards managment having an less safe procedure that actually costs the company money.
Last edited by BoredwLife; 06-03-2009 at 09:00 PM.
#24
Indeed, Bill Brasky was the Chief pilot for Colgan, however, they offered him a leave of absence because he was constantly eating passengers and that was throwing off the weight and balance of the beech 1900's. Thus always landing out of CG.
On a side note, I once saw Brasky eat the bible while water-skiing.
On a side note, I once saw Brasky eat the bible while water-skiing.
#26
Can't abide NAI
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,078
Likes: 15
From: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Airlines can manipulate a problem Fed back to a desk job.
Feds have to train and pass check rides on the Company's equipment. As it works out the problem Feds are usually the ones who have a problem showing proficiency in other areas. I'm not saying they were pushed, but the simple fact of the matter is that if they can't pass a proficiency check then their employment options are limited just like ours are.
Now that having been said, it is a VERY rare occurrence.
The general trend I've seen in law enforcement at every level is a tendency to really throw the book at the little guys, seeking the highest level of enforcement & punishment, while Corporations and the big guys get a wink and a smile. Just look at Bernie Madoff (which has resulted in over 50 billion in losses and several suicides) and all his buddies on Wall Street. Meanwhile first offense walking on an airplane with alcohol over the limit netted pilots ten years in prison.
I'm not defending that pilot. He should have called in sick before the trip instead of trying to tough out the death of his father and drinking his problems away the night before. Still - TEN YEARS - after the emergency revocation of all of his Certificates?
Feds have to train and pass check rides on the Company's equipment. As it works out the problem Feds are usually the ones who have a problem showing proficiency in other areas. I'm not saying they were pushed, but the simple fact of the matter is that if they can't pass a proficiency check then their employment options are limited just like ours are.
Now that having been said, it is a VERY rare occurrence.
The general trend I've seen in law enforcement at every level is a tendency to really throw the book at the little guys, seeking the highest level of enforcement & punishment, while Corporations and the big guys get a wink and a smile. Just look at Bernie Madoff (which has resulted in over 50 billion in losses and several suicides) and all his buddies on Wall Street. Meanwhile first offense walking on an airplane with alcohol over the limit netted pilots ten years in prison.
I'm not defending that pilot. He should have called in sick before the trip instead of trying to tough out the death of his father and drinking his problems away the night before. Still - TEN YEARS - after the emergency revocation of all of his Certificates?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



