aloft
New Member
This seemed to be exactly his point. OO has nothing at Provo.
SkyWest plane makes emergency landing at Provo airport
- Thread starter p1l07m4n
- Start date
Muff3n
Well-Known Member
Definitely not.
I'd say a hefty payraise to somwhere about 20.5K is in order for this kind of excellent, aboveboard work.
I know I may get stalked by the airline big whigs, but they might even deserve 21k! shhhhh...
Bumblebee
Commodore
then it wouldn't be a suitable airport....and the only thing I would really need would be a runway long enough to handle my airplane, and emergency services would be preferred. In this case, with no fire, and a precautionary shutdown, just the runway would seem sufficient.
It is a towered field,(although I wouldn't preclude a non towered field) and home to a large flight school. (As I recall)
Jimmy_Norton
Well-Known Member
prop planes r dangerous!!!!!
CaptBill
Well-Known Member
I have always considered nearest suitable airport as an airport that would provide a safe environment to operate the aircraft. Runways long enough to support your aircraft, rescue/ medical resources (depending on situation) and suitable weather. Choosing an airport for convenience issues will get you in very hot water and will be scrutinized by the FAA and investigators. You, as a captain will have to explain why you flew over operationally acceptable airports to go to someplace more convenient and it better be a good reason (it likely won't be good enough).
If it is something like an enroute fuel stop or something of a non-emergency nature, a convenient airport to the company would obviously not be an issue. When you declare an emergency it becomes a whole other animal.
From what little I know, I think the Provo landing was appropriate and the right decision.
If it is something like an enroute fuel stop or something of a non-emergency nature, a convenient airport to the company would obviously not be an issue. When you declare an emergency it becomes a whole other animal.
From what little I know, I think the Provo landing was appropriate and the right decision.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
Much like what's already been pointed out, PVU has mx, ATC services, is centered in a somewhat industrial area, and overall is a well attended field.
If I have any mx issues, location is irrelevant. Quite possibly inconvenient but absolutely irrelevant.
zmiller4
Well-Known Member
From personal experience, this is an extremely true statement. If your decision regarding what airport is suitable during an emergency includes things like company ops, available replacement aircraft, and whether your car is in the employee lot, prepare to do a lot of explaining to the FAA. They take the whole "nearest suitable" thing very seriously.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Just a few points so that folks are aware of the area.
Provo is 36nm south of Salt Lake City International Airport. In the grand scheme of things, that's nothing while moving at even 250 knots (I have no idea if the Bro can do 250 knots on one engine).
There is one airport between Provo and Salt Lake, number 2, which is 27nm north of Provo.
This is, in my mind, like diverting to Jackson when you're coming into DTW, Van Nuys if you're going into LAX, or maybe Arlington if you're headed into DFW.
Provo is 36nm south of Salt Lake City International Airport. In the grand scheme of things, that's nothing while moving at even 250 knots (I have no idea if the Bro can do 250 knots on one engine).
There is one airport between Provo and Salt Lake, number 2, which is 27nm north of Provo.
This is, in my mind, like diverting to Jackson when you're coming into DTW, Van Nuys if you're going into LAX, or maybe Arlington if you're headed into DFW.
Bumblebee
Commodore
In my mind, knowing the area, there is no question...if I was at 22000 and once the checklists were complete and I could land at a normal rate of descent the airport that was in front of me is the one I would use, 35 miles is too far, that's just my opinion, however.
meritflyer
Well-Known Member
When you're in the left seat making the calls, you can head to to closest rather than the most suitable airport, champ.
CaptBill
Well-Known Member
I am quite sure that nearest suitable is defined by distance to, not where I can get to based upon my altitude. It seems a bit strange but the airport you are over at 22,000 feet is the "nearest" despite a more convenient airport that is well within range of the aircraft to comfortably descend into. I recall a situation years ago where a Northwest crew got into a lot of trouble for a situation like this.
Like Dale, If I have an airport in my sights and it will accommodate my aircraft, I am landing there. The what-ifs of going elsewhere are just too great in my mind.
Like Dale, If I have an airport in my sights and it will accommodate my aircraft, I am landing there. The what-ifs of going elsewhere are just too great in my mind.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Yup, but you also have a union to back you up if you make this decision.
Skywest pilots do not.
So with that, I sure hope the chief pilots office agrees with you and them, but if they don't, then these guys might be stumbling over themselves trying to explain why they did a circle to land for 17,000' when they could have gone straight towards SLC.
Who knows, though, it's all a guess without the details.
CaptBill
Well-Known Member
All good points John. At the end of the day you just have to be comfortable with your decision and hope for the best. Making these questionable calls is certainly the hardest part of being a captain in my opinion.
zmiller4
Well-Known Member
It's not a union/non-union issue. It's about 1) safely getting the plane on the ground and 2) following the applicable regulations and company procedures.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
It isn't a union/non-union issue until the company doesn't agree that the applicable regulations and company procedures were followed.
Bumblebee
Commodore
honestly John, do you think that that would enter into the decision making process? Really? Because I tell you it wouldn't enter my mind at all.
jhugz
Well-Known Member
Wow...:banghead: Only you could turn this thread into a union/non-union cluster.
I know for a fact though when I have an emergency the first thing that goes through my mind is management politics, then checklists.
They put the plane on the ground w/o bending metal or hurting anyone, if the company fires them for that I wouldn't want to be working for them anyway.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I think it's another variable that needs to be considered.
You can think whatever you want, you worked there, not me.
EDIT: I'd also like to use this as an opportunity to highlight something; if any of us think safety is the only thing that ever has to be considered when making these kinds of decisions, we're being naive. If you're on fire, you can pull the safety card and it will be nearly impossible to second guess it. Fuel leak? You may be able to do the same. But when you have one fully functional engine still turning, putting an airplane down on any runway you feel like may not be the best decision. Now on the other hand, maybe it is. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this is the worst emergency possible, necessitating an immediate diversion to the closest airport possible.
Single engine operations sound dramatic, but if the engine is shut down and secured, with the prop feathered and nothing on fire, then it's a comparatively sublime event. Prop overspeed? That's a different story. Engine on fire? Get on the ground! But a secured, feathered engine? That could be a hard sell in the "divert anywhere" game.
Bumblebee
Commodore
exactly, after the thing is over then there may be issues if you cannot defend your choices, and following the procedures, as these pilots did, will be the the best defense