Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Regional
SKW 200s restricted to 280 and 900s to 350 >

SKW 200s restricted to 280 and 900s to 350


Notices
Regional Regional Airlines

SKW 200s restricted to 280 and 900s to 350

Old 07-01-2015 | 04:49 AM
  #111  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,809
Likes: 0
From: Left
Default

Originally Posted by wmupilot85
Our MEL states that if the door is open or unknown state, that the speed is limited to 220 KIAS or the APU has to run.



Nope, just thought about it yesterday. I'm not a Skywest pilot.
It's 200 or 7/9 dependent. At least at my carrier.

200 is 300kts 7/9 220. Or apu remains in operation.

This is a good question.

I do not work at Skywest.
Reply
Old 07-01-2015 | 12:48 PM
  #112  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,875
Likes: 0
From: Downward Dog
Default

Apparently people are optimistic that the 200 alt and speed limit will be lifted as it was lumped in with the 7/9 issue.
Reply
Old 07-03-2015 | 07:34 AM
  #113  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Default

From our leader:

Clearly, even one event is unacceptable and a failure of our professional responsibilities as pilots.

We do not believe our procedures play a role; however, we will fully evaluate all aspects to continue ensuring the highest levels of safety.

It's all the pilot's fault!
Reply
Old 07-03-2015 | 08:00 AM
  #114  
Covfefe
 
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 3,001
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Check Complete
From our leader:

Clearly, even one event is unacceptable and a failure of our professional responsibilities as pilots.

We do not believe our procedures play a role; however, we will fully evaluate all aspects to continue ensuring the highest levels of safety.

It's all the pilot's fault!
You are right. A guy sitting behind a computer hundreds of miles away is responsible for low speed events causing a shaker. Certainly can't be the fault of the two ATP/typed guys who are manipulating the flight controls (or monitoring). Everyone makes mistakes, but blaming the company for low speed events due to cruise profiles/Econ speeds is a stretch. I don't think they told you to cruise within 5 knots of stall did they? Even if they did, which I doubt, still the pilots responsibility to not stall the plane. Sorry, even Skywest pilots can make mistakes. The first step is accepting and admitting that. Stop trying to shift blame.
Reply
Old 07-03-2015 | 06:21 PM
  #115  
Banned
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 CPT
Default

Originally Posted by BeatNavy
You are right. A guy sitting behind a computer hundreds of miles away is responsible for low speed events causing a shaker. Certainly can't be the fault of the two ATP/typed guys who are manipulating the flight controls (or monitoring). Everyone makes mistakes, but blaming the company for low speed events due to cruise profiles/Econ speeds is a stretch. I don't think they told you to cruise within 5 knots of stall did they? Even if they did, which I doubt, still the pilots responsibility to not stall the plane. Sorry, even Skywest pilots can make mistakes. The first step is accepting and admitting that. Stop trying to shift blame.

That's all true. But the other big issue here that people conveniently ignore is the punitive stance this company memo outlines. Does no one have a problem with it? To me it speaks volumes of the safety culture.
Reply
Old 07-03-2015 | 07:50 PM
  #116  
velosnow's Avatar
Line Holder
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,342
Likes: 61
Default

The answer to the issue lies somewhere in the middle IMO. One or two crews messing up points to an anomaly. Enough incidents that the feds get involved to this extent points to a larger issue that is perhaps cultural and/or systemic.

Those insisting the culture of 'fly the block' has nothing to do with this need to separate their heads from the arses. Yes, at the end of the day the blame lies squarely on us, but to think it isn't a factor is looking the other way to say the least.
Reply
Old 07-04-2015 | 08:30 AM
  #117  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,144
Likes: 802
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by Nevets
That's all true. But the other big issue here that people conveniently ignore is the punitive stance this company memo outlines. Does no one have a problem with it? To me it speaks volumes of the safety culture.

The company has been quite quite reasonable and non-punitive in their efforts to resolve this to date. The FAA has clearly expressed a desire to exclude these events from asap. They already have excluded events where the proper recovery procedure is not applied, on the basis that while the original mistake may been "honest" an attempt to linger at altitude in an unsafe fashion so as to cover up what happened is now an intentional violation.
Reply
Old 07-04-2015 | 09:17 AM
  #118  
Banned
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 0
From: EMB 145 CPT
Default SKW 200s restricted to 280 and 900s to 350

Originally Posted by rickair7777
The company has been quite quite reasonable and non-punitive in their efforts to resolve this to date. The FAA has clearly expressed a desire to exclude these events from asap. They already have excluded events where the proper recovery procedure is not applied, on the basis that while the original mistake may been "honest" an attempt to linger at altitude in an unsafe fashion so as to cover up what happened is now an intentional violation.

I'm talking about the letter itself! To me, it's very chilling when they say you will be strictly monitored by occ and the FAA. That is what is punitive! I wasn't even talking about what's actually happening behind the scenes. And speaking of which, what about the list of inattentives? That by itself instills an unjust culture.

And I wasn't talking about the FAA either. But now that you mentioned the ASAP thing, how would they even know that there was an attempt to linger at altitude in an unsafe fashion? I'm probably not understanding the whole concept of what's actually happened in these events.

Last edited by Nevets; 07-04-2015 at 09:29 AM.
Reply
Old 07-04-2015 | 11:44 AM
  #119  
Banned
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by BeatNavy
You are right. A guy sitting behind a computer hundreds of miles away is responsible for low speed events causing a shaker. Certainly can't be the fault of the two ATP/typed guys who are manipulating the flight controls (or monitoring). Everyone makes mistakes, but blaming the company for low speed events due to cruise profiles/Econ speeds is a stretch. I don't think they told you to cruise within 5 knots of stall did they? Even if they did, which I doubt, still the pilots responsibility to not stall the plane. Sorry, even Skywest pilots can make mistakes. The first step is accepting and admitting that. Stop trying to shift blame.
Well, 5 years ago we didn't have this problem. We didn't have SmartCI. We didn't have a bunch of clowns down in SGU that never or can't fly telling us how to fly the plane. We didn't have an oversight system where you have to tell your chief pilot why you're early.

Now that things have been "fixed", we have problems. Now that things are "fixed" we have published stupid slow allowable airspeeds that have been proven are safe(not)! Now that things are "fixed" we are told by SCI to fly M.64 at FL 390.

The FAA did what SkyWest management could not.

I really don't blame them!
Reply
Old 07-04-2015 | 11:57 AM
  #120  
rickair7777's Avatar
Prime Minister/Moderator
Veteran: Navy
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 45,144
Likes: 802
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Default

Originally Posted by Nevets
I'm talking about the letter itself! To me, it's very chilling when they say you will be strictly monitored by occ and the FAA. That is what is punitive! I wasn't even talking about what's actually happening behind the scenes. And speaking of which, what about the list of inattentives? That by itself instills an unjust culture.
Te FAA is monitoring regardless. Under these circumstances the company needs to monitor as well.

Originally Posted by Nevets
And I wasn't talking about the FAA either. But now that you mentioned the ASAP thing, how would they even know that there was an attempt to linger at altitude in an unsafe fashion? I'm probably not understanding the whole concept of what's actually happened in these events.
Umm the FAA is on the ASAP committee and they get a vote? They get to see what people submit as asap reports and have gotten to point where they are no longer willing to grant blanket immunity.

Hypothetical example:

1) Honest mistake: Got distracted (possibly for understandable reasons) and got too slow to power out of it.

2) Cover up: Didn't request lower, milked it down a few hundred feet (in RVSM) trying to power out eventually got shaker maybe pusher

Can't say as I blame the FAA for having lost all tolerance for 2).
Reply

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


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices