![]() |
Originally Posted by Vito
(Post 4033347)
everyone has their own personal limits..
Of course we are all trained at United to fly it… but unless an emergency makes it absolutely necessary I won’t be doing it on a WB plane I’m CA on… other CAs can do whatever they want. If the Threat forward discussion is done properly prior to descent then the same decision should probably be made… not worth the risk “IF” other options available at EWR. |
Originally Posted by ugleeual
(Post 4033358)
here we go again… it isn’t about personal limits or confidence levels… it’s about risk management and doing what’s smart for the circumstances… no chest thumping even allowed in the equation… just because you can doesn’t mean you do it.
Of course we are all trained at United to fly it… but unless an emergency makes it absolutely necessary I won’t be doing it on a WB plane I’m CA on… other CAs can do whatever they want. If the Threat forward discussion is done properly prior to descent then the same decision should probably be made… not worth the risk “IF” other options available at EWR. |
Originally Posted by ugleeual
(Post 4033358)
here we go again… it isn’t about personal limits or confidence levels… it’s about risk management and doing what’s smart for the circumstances… no chest thumping even allowed in the equation… just because you can doesn’t mean you do it.
Of course we are all trained at United to fly it… but unless an emergency makes it absolutely necessary I won’t be doing it on a WB plane I’m CA on… other CAs can do whatever they want. If the Threat forward discussion is done properly prior to descent then the same decision should probably be made… not worth the risk “IF” other options available at EWR.
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 4033433)
i was playing Kenny Loggins in my head when I read this.
The narrative of some here seems to be that NO threats ever exist for any approach, as long as its line selectable and its on there ATIS well (kind of like the 91 guys who can legally take off in 0 and 0, does it mean they should do it)....which is strange to hear.......you see if I had an Indian Rupee for every time I heard a United callsign request the ILS in place of the RNP that hey had just been issued........ which usually is just a result of people not being situationally aware to correlate that it is very foreseeable if not probable since their STAR terminates in a downwind...they have briefed the wrong approach and in order to do so now workload would increase at a critical time...........but see that still is TEM, albeit a an error not a threat. |
Originally Posted by ugleeual
(Post 4033358)
here we go again… it isn’t about personal limits or confidence levels… it’s about risk management and doing what’s smart for the circumstances… no chest thumping even allowed in the equation… just because you can doesn’t mean you do it.
Of course we are all trained at United to fly it… but unless an emergency makes it absolutely necessary I won’t be doing it on a WB plane I’m CA on… other CAs can do whatever they want. If the Threat forward discussion is done properly prior to descent then the same decision should probably be made… not worth the risk “IF” other options available at EWR. I’m not saying this to castigate the EWR crew, as I wasn’t there and I’m not privy to all the facts. But this discussion should center on conservative decision making with a little humility sprinkled in. |
Originally Posted by 11atsomto
(Post 4033452)
You know ......looking at my lanyard I have this blue/yellow card attached to it, on the yellow side it says: Discuss threats First; Personal? Environmental? Technical?..........which Ugleual's technique of avoiding 29 if his callsign includes heavy is a great example of filtering the current flights circumstances through a layer of threats be they personal, environmental or technical.
The narrative of some here seems to be that NO threats ever exist for any approach, as long as its line selectable and its on there ATIS well (kind of like the 91 guys who can legally take off in 0 and 0, does it mean they should do it)....which is strange to hear.......you see if I had an Indian Rupee for every time I heard a United callsign request the ILS in place of the RNP that hey had just been issued........ which usually is just a result of people not being situationally aware to correlate that it is very foreseeable if not probable since their STAR terminates in a downwind...they have briefed the wrong approach and in order to do so now workload would increase at a critical time...........but see that still is TEM, albeit a an error not a threat. |
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 4033433)
i was playing Kenny Loggins in my head when I read this.
|
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
(Post 4033433)
i was playing Kenny Loggins in my head when I read this.
-"I'm Going All the Way", theme from Caddyshack 2 |
Originally Posted by ugleeual
(Post 4033358)
here we go again… it isn’t about personal limits or confidence levels… it’s about risk management and doing what’s smart for the circumstances… no chest thumping even allowed in the equation… just because you can doesn’t mean you do it.
Of course we are all trained at United to fly it… but unless an emergency makes it absolutely necessary I won’t be doing it on a WB plane I’m CA on… other CAs can do whatever they want. If the Threat forward discussion is done properly prior to descent then the same decision should probably be made… not worth the risk “IF” other options available at EWR. |
Originally Posted by ugleeual
(Post 4033358)
I won’t be doing it on a WB plane I’m CA on… other CAs can do whatever they want.
|
Originally Posted by GPullR
(Post 4033477)
So tell me why its so much more difficult in a heavy again.............
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:33 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands