Professionalism...is sometimes lacking.

Interesting thread. Lots of views on technique. On the CRJ, Ives never had a problem with VS smoothness, even if you crank the VS in all at once. Now if you're slowing before making a descent and then hit speed mode, that's a wild ride. Lastly, I've never had a problem with 3000-3500 ft per minute descents. Never heard a pax complain about either. I think a descent has to be over 4500 ft per min on a clear VFR day for pax to notice
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yes, I'm sure most managers would embrace the attitude of doing things as we're paid to do them. Most union reps would as well. It's a little thing called professionalism. It's not just for managers.
Click to expand...

Your interpretation of "Professionalism" is yours, and your alone. But, if it make you feel better....
 
Trip7 said:
Interesting thread. Lots of views on technique. On the CRJ, Ives never had a problem with VS smoothness, even if you crank the VS in all at once. Now if you're slowing before making a descent and then hit speed mode, that's a wild ride. Lastly, I've never had a problem with 3000-3500 ft per minute descents. Never heard a pax complain about either. I think a descent has to be over 4500 ft per min on a clear VFR day for pax to notice
Click to expand...

I have heard a few comments made from time to time, but not an everyday event by any stretch. Most of the guys I fly with just like VS below 3000 on the way down. As for speed mode you mind as well forget that about FL200 or so, it's like riding on the back of a porpoise.

You just have harder pax out there in Hotlanta! ;)
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Yes, I'm sure most managers would embrace the attitude of doing things as we're paid to do them. Most union reps would as well. It's a little thing called professionalism. It's not just for managers.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair sometimes there are company procedures that are wrong or impractical. In freight its not really a big deal, you just do whatever the hell you want to and don't bend metal, but profiles are onlt as good as the people who made them.
 
I'm with ATN on this one, it isn't impossible to get something in the CFM at an airline changed if it really is retarded. Flying cargo the closest thing to a CFM I've seen is the profiles in the flight safety book. The GOMs are usually a bit sparse.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
 
ATN_Pilot said:
What airline do you fly for? I'd like to avoid it.



At your next airline interview, please be sure to inform the interviewer that you feel that following company profiles is "dangerous," and makes you "an extension of the autopilot," and tell him how you are smarter than the company, the manufacturer, and the performance engineers who designed the profiles. I'm sure he will be so impressed that he will hire you on the spot. :sarcasm:

I'm amazed that anyone thinks that flying the jet the way the company pays you to fly it is a crazy concept.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure there are 40 or so people in buffalo that would disagree with this statement, but what do you expect with training departments so fixated on "profiles" rather then airmanship.
 
jhugz said:
Pretty sure there are 40 or so people in buffalo that would disagree with this statement, but what do you expect with training departments so fixated on "profiles" rather then airmanship.
Click to expand...
Wait what?

I think you're going to find about a dozen things that were non profile in that stall recovery they executed. Throwing the flaps up comes to mind immediately, as well as pulling up to escape the stall.

A lot of things went bad that night.
 
jynxyjoe said:
Wait what?

I think you're going to find about a dozen things that were non profile in that stall recovery they executed. Throwing the flaps up comes to mind immediately, as well as pulling up to escape the stall.

A lot of things went bad that night.
Click to expand...

Forgetting how to fly an airplane was one of them.
 
jhugz said:
Forgetting how to fly an airplane was one of them.
Click to expand...
Look at this quote below again:
jhugz said:
Pretty sure there are 40 or so people in buffalo that would disagree with this statement, but what do you expect with training departments so fixated on "profiles" rather then airmanship.
Click to expand...
You are blaming the training department for fixating on profiles for the accident in Buffalo. Yet the crew was outside of the profile by a pretty long shot. How are the profiles at fault here?
 
They were trying to power out of the stall which was the company profile to my understanding.
 
jhugz said:
They were trying to power out of the stall which was the company profile to my understanding.
Click to expand...
Rrrrrrrrright, no one here has disagreed with THIS point (my point) yet. What I am questioning is your point. I quote you again

jhugz said:
Pretty sure there are 40 or so people in buffalo that would disagree with this statement, but what do you expect with training departments so fixated on "profiles" rather then airmanship.
Click to expand...
You're saying strict following of the profiles caused 40 or so people to die. Can you help me understand how this is so?
 
jynxyjoe said:
Rrrrrrrrright, no one here has disagreed with THIS point (my point) yet. What I am questioning is your point. I quote you again


You're saying strict following of the profiles caused 40 or so people to die. Can you help me understand how this is so?
Click to expand...

Brb, let me go throw together a profile for you to better understand this topic.
 
Ok kids. Don't make me separate you two. Cowboys on this side of the gymnasium, standards-gurus on the other side. Everyone find your dance partner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top