Freight dogs do it every night, they might not be able to program an FMS but they can hand fly a 20 series LearJet all night to a hand flown approach to 100 and 1/2...

 

Not that I don't love the freight dog boxes or checks to living people comparison, I do believe me. I'm curious are most lears CAT II or are we nightly ignoring mins? Just curious.

 

What...are you joking?.......you get the appr lights in sight and then go to 100ft above tdze...which is typicaly 100 ft. above the ground...do you even fly?

 

We're goin to the approach lights every night? I've done cat II just not much light chasing. I'm aware of the 100 with lights in sight, just never had to use it "every night".

 

Back when I was a kid we used to hand fly inverted with minimal fuel while blindfolded, and we liked it.... All this in a ford tri-motor with nothing but an airspeed indicator and an altimeter. You guys nowadays have it so easy.

For those of you who can't take a joke that's sarcasm...

 

I want to play devil's advocate for a moment and present you the following scenario: Weather at destination is above minimums and ONLY the auto flight system on the RJ fails 30 minutes into a 2.5 hour flight. Should the captain then declare an emergency and land at the nearest suitable airport?

Be careful how you answer this question because you have emphasized proficiency, prudence, and safety.

The reason I bring this up is due to the fact that folks (on both sides of the argument) are trying to fit an absolute answer into a subjective situation. As I have said before, no one situation is going to be identical for two separate individuals.

For those who are accusing some of being "chest thumping super-pilots" because they would not have refused to accept an aircraft with an inoperative auto flight system, are you too not guilty of "chest thumping" yourselves? Are you not portraying yourselves as "holier-than-though" safety zealots while accusing others of being "reckless"? Think twice before casting a stone.

And that leads to another point. Does an inoperative auto pilot system automatically equate to being unsafe? That depends on who is willing to accept or deny the aircraft in question. Again, there is no right or wrong answer.

 

You used an airspeed indicator? You wimp!

 

Agreed, I was overly cautious

 

No.

They'd remove themselves from RVSM airspace, and assuming they had enough gas to make destination + alternate at FL270/280, execute the approach and either land or divert depending on the outcome of that approach.

Of course this crew isn't likely going to be proficient at hand-flying their jet at cruise or on the approach, but they'll perform to the very best of their abilities.

Performing in the clutch after a failure isn't the same, to me, as making a decision to dispatch with such a failure in the first place. Sure the outcome may be the same...but in one case you don't have a choice (takeoffs are optional, landings are mandatory) and in the other you have options like a tail swap, etc.

I agree 100% with that statement.

 

That sucks! Though I would have loved to see your reaction when your CA broke the good news to you

Have you ever tried this? Speaking directly to our DO for 18 months to revise a pressurization MEL that he agrees would save time, money and passenger comfort has resulting in absolutely nothing. However, I do work for Lakes