Airline Pilot Central Forums - Enormous Cultural Gap.

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- United (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/)

- - Enormous Cultural Gap. (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/73653-enormous-cultural-gap.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 1375399)

Uh...not my pop up procedures chief. Usually involves some extra dry martinis and olives.

Ahhhh... little slow (er) tonight. OL' No. 7 and I are hanging...:)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunvox (Post 1375393)

Didn't answer any of the questions. What are the engine failure profiles for GVA RW 5 and SFO 28?

There are huge mountains infront of the runway. TERPS do not protect you when you turn back to the runway so how does CAL solve that problem, and when exactly did CAL get centerline tracking for the 756 fleet, pre or post May 2010, 'cuz UAL had it from atleast 98.?

From 10-7:
SFO 28 L/R: 2.0 DME from SFO, turn right 310 heading, intercept 294 radial off SFO, track outbound. 900' accel. height

GVA RWY 05: If below 5589 AGL, intercept, track 225 radial off SPR VOR. Clean up, climb to 7000, and hold at VOR.

Quote:

I heard that you guys couldnt proactively correct a fuel inbalance in-flight without waiting for a corresponding caution light or EICAS message directing you to do so?

There was an FAA mandated thing on the 756 after a couple of brainiacks flamed both engines coming out of the Hawaiian islands while balancing fuel on a 757.

Before that there was no requirement to wait for a light or use a checklist. And it's now recommended but not required.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airhoss (Post 1375504)

Thanks Hoss for the insightful, educational, and civil discourse over a procedural question. If only some others could attempt to resolve these perceived differences as openly and without judgmental condemnation or contemptuous slights.

One brainiac did both double engine flame outs while trying to cross feed.....and it was on the same plane, twice. 767-300 #6666. No I'm not joking. The planes name is Christine. Low time F/O with complications from the captain.

Big blow up with Boeing over the enignes supposed to stay running and suction feed with no boost pumps. Guess they got that one wrong. Anyway, we can now cross feed without an emergency being declared. Hooray.

I realize this question this paints with a broad stroke but I ask it with all sincerity.

There is a maintenance issue with an airplane that can be legally deferred. The Captain is wants to accept the plane, but the F/O(s) is/are genuinely uncomfortable flying with the deferral. Is the prevailing sentiment at sCAL to tell the F/O's to fly the plane or get off the ID since the Captain will not refuse it, or will the Captain refuse the aircraft out of the F/O(s) concern?

Why would the deferral be uncomfortable? More info needed. I don't think you can get a prevailing sentiment or broadstroke answer since the question is vague. In my time it has always been subjective. Legal has it's boundaries and limits also.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpecialTracking (Post 1375574)

OK I will play. IMO any good Captain listens to his crew. You talk about it to understand what the concerns are and making sure those concerns are addressed. Getting more information from outside sources such as ATC, Maintenance ect will increase the understanding and Situational Awareness of both pilots. The Captain should not try to Force the FO into accepting something he feels is unsafe. However, If Captain feels it is still safe after getting as much information as possible and discussing the issue with his FO and the FO still feels uncomfortable with the situation then the FO is expected to man up (sorry ladies, not insult meant) an get off the flight. However, he had better be willing to explain his actions. The same thing goes for the Captain. The point is what is right not who is right. If the Captain is weak and feels things are safe only then to acquiesce to the FO then IMO he should not be a Captain. You got to be able to answer three questions to take the aircraft. Is it safe? Is it legal? Is it smart? If you can’t answer all three yes then I would not go. Of course I can only speak for myself, I assume it it the same way at sUAL as it is at sCAL. We both have good and bad Captains and FOs. Hopefuly not very many bad ones.

Now for my question. Special Tracking have you ever been a Captain at a major airline or in command in the military. The reason I ask is because you sure seem to like to throw grenades. Not the best way to build a crew/team. You must be a hoot to be with on a 4 day trip.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vspeed (Post 1375659)

V,

I can appreciate that. It was my intention to be vague with the understanding that the F/O had a valid concern. Yes it would be a legal def of a major system, but nothing along the lines of a ldg light out, a video monitor inop, or anything else to be considered minuscule. I didn't want to get into a "what would you take" discussion but rather one of "would the Capt stand up for the F/O."

Mwindaji, albeit from his perspective, gave me some insight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mwindaji (Post 1375684)

I assume it it the same way at sUAL as it is at sCAL.

I would say you are off the mark on that comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mwindaji (Post 1375684)

Now for my question. Special Tracking have you ever been a Captain at a major airline or in command in the military. The reason I ask is because you sure seem to like to throw grenades. Not the best way to build a crew/team. You must be a hoot to be with on a 4 day trip.

I do like how you bolster your argument by attacking a poster. Actually, I have neither been a Capt nor in the military. How did you know? Instinct? From those who I have spoken with that have personal knowledge of CAL Mgt tactics, I have a bad "attitude" that just might need some "adjustment." Shocker indeed.