"Gust's don't matter for crosswind limit" ???
02-10-2010 | 08:48 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Wow. Not playing the "my airline is better than yours" game, but we have a 3rd X-wind limitation at XJ. It's 27 for dry, 22 for wet and 15 for slippery. These limits are further restrictive if you have less than 100 hours in the plane. It also is so very clear in black and white that we MUST consider gusts as apart of the limitations.
It never ceases to amaze me that your mgmt still thinks you're a bunch of idiots, when perhaps they're ought to look at themselves in the face. How your POI lets your mgmt do some of the stuff they do is incredible. More proof that the operator and FAA are often in bed with each other.
It never ceases to amaze me that your mgmt still thinks you're a bunch of idiots, when perhaps they're ought to look at themselves in the face. How your POI lets your mgmt do some of the stuff they do is incredible. More proof that the operator and FAA are often in bed with each other.
02-10-2010 | 09:27 AM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,168
Likes: 0
From: Reclined
So were told in a memo recently issued, from our 9E management, that "Gust's don't matter for cross wind limit."
CRJ-200 X-Wind limit is 27 knots for a wet or dry runway
CRJ-200 X-Wind limit is 15 knots for a contaminated runway
Example:
Runway 36 Dry or Wet (Grooved rwy)
090/27G45....NEW interpretation is "within limits"
090/28.........NEW interpretation is "not within limits"
Runway 36 contaminated with 1 inch snow:
090/15G30....NEW interpretation is "within limits"
090/16.........NEW interpretation is "not within limits"
How unsafe!!!!!
CRJ-200 X-Wind limit is 27 knots for a wet or dry runway
CRJ-200 X-Wind limit is 15 knots for a contaminated runway
Example:
Runway 36 Dry or Wet (Grooved rwy)
090/27G45....NEW interpretation is "within limits"
090/28.........NEW interpretation is "not within limits"
Runway 36 contaminated with 1 inch snow:
090/15G30....NEW interpretation is "within limits"
090/16.........NEW interpretation is "not within limits"
How unsafe!!!!!
02-10-2010 | 09:32 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,244
Likes: 0
From: CL-65 captain
Mason, anytime a Pinnacle manager signs his initials to anything he thinks it overrides the feds, whether it be FAA, FMLA, MIL leave etc.
02-10-2010 | 09:56 AM
#16
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,775
Likes: 18
02-10-2010 | 11:24 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 454
Likes: 0
From: PIC Challenger 605
I am actually really impressed that everyone who has responded to this on the company board has said they will still be using the gust factor. I for one would never risk this one.
On another note, one of our guys talked to the local FSDO within an hour of the memo going out. They are looking into it and will get back to him.
On another note, one of our guys talked to the local FSDO within an hour of the memo going out. They are looking into it and will get back to him.
02-10-2010 | 05:36 PM
#20
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
From: Guppy
Just a thought but maybe the "gust limit" memo was for dispatchability? At my former airline prior to my furlough airline the gusts were also not considered however at my furloughed airline they were considered.
