![]() |
I have friends at Skywest so I know it is not a limit for you guys but it is at most other airlines. Delta for one. At Delta and just about everywhere else I know of other than Skywest, it is the limit including gusts for takeoff and landing.
That said, I understand that it is simply the "max demonstrated" but do you feel it is good judgement to operate in an area of unknown performance? I'm sure you'd agree that the safest, and by definition default, course of action would be to always operate within the limits of demonstrated performance. |
Originally Posted by nuball5
(Post 1761371)
Does anyone know what the winds were that day in ORD? Just curious.
|
You always get the airplane out of the crab a such as possible. But even the 757/767 you're going to take out that crab as much as possible. In an 88/90 if you want to wait to the flare to take out the crab you're going to have a nasty landing. Some airplanes require taking the crab out earlier than others. But you don't want to just land in a crab.
|
Checked out the hourly reports for the day -
Most of it was 15G27kts and 80-90 degrees off of the runway. Hourly report peak that I saw was 32kts. Might have had higher gusts between hourly reports in the notes. |
Originally Posted by Bobman80
(Post 1761372)
but do you feel it is good judgement to operate in an area of unknown performance? .
Of course, none of this will change until there's a tragic loss of life and then we'll all end up paying the price via the next level of regulation were destined to endure. |
Originally Posted by FaceBiter
(Post 1761377)
Unfortunately, a whole new generation of 1500 hour wonder super macho "I have not died yet so I must be doing something right" airline pilots with a history of bad judgement illustrated by the poor decisions they've made in their short lifetimes is getting hired and sent to the left seat of part 121 jetttttz at an alarming rate.
Of course, none of this will change until there's a tragic loss of life and then we'll all end up paying the price via the next level of regulation were destined to endure. |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 1761379)
I thought 1500 hours was meant to solve that problem?
ELOHEL, when airlines blatantly disregard terrible backgrounds, enforcement actions, 709's, arrests, checkride failures and flying employment history to hire the otherwise unemployable via "hiring partnerships" with flight schools or over the phone I'd say the '1500 hour rule' is a total failure. |
Different techniques for different a/c
I just know that if you tried landing a MD-11 like that, you're probably gonna end up dead. Side loads on landing are a very,very,very bad thing in the Maddog.
fbh |
Originally Posted by FaceBiter
(Post 1761382)
ELOHEL, when airlines blatantly disregard terrible backgrounds, enforcement actions, 709's, arrests, checkride failures and flying employment history to hire the otherwise unemployable via "hiring partnerships" with flight schools or over the phone I'd say the '1500 hour rule' is a total failure.
|
Originally Posted by FaceBiter
(Post 1761377)
Unfortunately, a whole new generation of 1500 hour wonder super macho "I have not died yet so I must be doing something right" airline pilots with a history of bad judgement illustrated by the poor decisions they've made in their short lifetimes is getting hired and sent to the left seat of part 121 jetttttz at an alarming rate.
Of course, none of this will change until there's a tragic loss of life and then we'll all end up paying the price via the next level of regulation were destined to endure. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:04 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands