Professionalism...is sometimes lacking.

jhugz said:
Brb, let me go throw together a profile for you to better understand this topic.
Click to expand...
As usual, I think I understand what you are TRYING to say, and I'm trying to lead you down the road I think you are trying to follow, but you appear completely and contentedly lost in the roadside ditch.

I don't know if putting a profile is going to help you back out of your own faulty logic. Waiting with rapt attention here, guru.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hey thats funny, we both said guru at almost the same time.

(To be clear, the front of every Standards book I've even had -even Colgans- admits sometimes the book has to go out the window and a pilot just has to be a pilot, I'm just trying to understand in what way the profiles were actually at fault. We've had similar events here at Mesaba as the Colgan accident, of course our pilots followed the profile -once the mistake was caught- fairly closely and everyone lived.)
 
The flight safety "power out of the stall" does seem a little asinine. If you actually get to the break doing what they tell you to do in the sim, "just hold the same pressure and add max power" you won't ever recover in the airplane. The "minimum altitude loss" business is not conducive to proper understanding of the aerodynamics involved, "lowering the angle of attack" is more appropriate. I'll take the middle ground and say "you're both wrong."

We need both better training, and better profiles, and had the crew of the buffalo operation flown the airplane like an airplane rather than - well, whatever the hell they decided to do (I think they thought tailplane icing) - then we wouldn't have had the buffalo crash.
 
mojo6911 said:
That is the thing. He was a passenger in the back of a regional jet. He is asserting that something happened, when it may not have. I suspect if it were a random poster instead of someone with a mod tag posting this, you would probably agree that someone sitting in the back of the plane doesn't have the proper perspective to question the professionalism of the crew.
Click to expand...

Regardless if he is a moderator or not, Steve is far from a random poster. He quite possibly had more time than the crew combined. I believe his time as well as his position give him plenty of credibility to make the comments he has. Now if it were me with my whopping 200 hours of 172/pa28 time then yes you would be correct.
 
ppragman said:
The flight safety "power out of the stall" does seem a little asinine. If you actually get to the break doing what they tell you to do in the sim, "just hold the same pressure and add max power" you won't ever recover in the airplane. The "minimum altitude loss" business is not conducive to proper understanding of the aerodynamics involved, "lowering the angle of attack" is more appropriate. I'll take the middle ground and say "you're both wrong."

We need both better training, and better profiles, and had the crew of the buffalo operation flown the airplane like an airplane rather than - well, whatever the hell they decided to do (I think they thought tailplane icing) - then we wouldn't have had the buffalo crash.
Click to expand...
Lol, I can't speak to the flight safety profiles but those aren't ours, and the training dept says they never were.

At Colgan BM (WM) taught us to power out of the stall, but he was showing the onset of stall, not developed stall, departure and arrival stalls were taught differently. Mesaba, as long as I've been here anyway (pre-Buffalo), we've never had the "power out of the stall" mentality. I don't know the exact profiles of the Colgan Q, but obviously Huggies does.

By the way, the FO was completely out of the loop. Tailplane icing has you go back one notch (to where the plane was flying right) not flaps 0. I think she was of the mindset, "the nose is up, we must be out of the stall" or something of that order. The captain was obviosuly trying to power out of the stall. Both were lost in fits of fatigue, which is what I attribute most fault to.

PS: I'd add you are attributing the Flight Safety profiles (which should be extinct after Buffalo) and assuming that's what we got trained at every airline.
 
I think a key point is being missed here: if you fly the profiles you won't end up in a stall in the first place. Another key point, since a certain poster was scoffing at the benefits of automation earlier in this thread, is that an autothrottle system would have prevented that crash. I'm a big advocate of making autothrottles with low speed protection mandatory on transport category aircraft. You can talk about airmanship all you want, but a system that will add power when you're too stupid or fatigued to do it can save lives.
 
CAE Simuflite still teaches to power out of the stall. I lost 100 feet on a landing config stall and we had to "talk" about it.
 
Power AND angle of attack is what we learned in the sim with 9E instructors. Sounded a lot like what my private pilot instructor taught in the Cessna 150.
 
Dugie8 said:
CAE Simuflite still teaches to power out of the stall. I lost 100 feet on a landing config stall and we had to "talk" about it.
Click to expand...
Curious what program that is? I've gone through the Lear, Hawker, and most recently Challenger programs and they surely are not teaching that anymore.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Sure it is, although it's not as simple as it is in the 717. It just takes a little more work. If you engage Turb Mode, then either Speed Mode or Pitch Mode are smooth enough for initiating descents. With Pitch Mode, you just need to roll it in a little bit at a time. Even without Turb Mode, VS Mode can be very smooth, as long as you don't click in more than 200 fpm at once. Level offs can be done the same way to keep them smooth. That plane can fly incredibly smooth on the AP with a little bit of effort.
Click to expand...

Well, sure I'd love to do that, but Company profiles call for speed mode (at least most of the time) and limit turb to reducing inflight turbulence. And apparently I'm a bad pilot if I don't follow company profiles.

:)
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I think a key point is being missed here: if you fly the profiles you won't end up in a stall in the first place. Another key point, since a certain poster was scoffing at the benefits of automation earlier in this thread, is that an autothrottle system would have prevented that crash. I'm a big advocate of making autothrottles with low speed protection mandatory on transport category aircraft. You can talk about airmanship all you want, but a system that will add power when you're too stupid or fatigued to do it can save lives.
Click to expand...

Autothrottles are a huge help when you're fatigued. I fly approaches every once in a while with them off to maintain proficiency, but I agree that they're beautiful when you're not running at 100%.
 
BobDDuck said:
Well, sure I'd love to do that, but Company profiles call for speed mode (at least most of the time) and limit turb to reducing inflight turbulence. And apparently I'm a bad pilot if I don't follow company profiles.

:)
Click to expand...

That sucks. Pinnacle wasn't nearly as specific in the books about that stuff. That plane is tough to fly smoothly if the company doesn't want you to use all of the features of the autopilot.
 
mikecweb said:
If you are so fatigued that you need autothrottles to safely get on the ground, should you really be flying?
Click to expand...

No, of course not. But the first thing taught about fatigue is that it is insidious. You may not even realize that you are fatigued until after you've already started making mistakes. And it's not just about fatigue. Sometimes humans just make mistakes. Technology can prevent those mistakes from becoming disasters.
 
I am with ATN. Not my airplane, and I am paid to do a job the way the company wants me to. Obviously if circumstances dictate, good airmanship says that we can make judgements about how to adjust our operation to complete the flight safely. I also try to challenge myself to manipulate the controls as smoothly as possible for the passengers as many are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with flying, especially on a "small" plane.

Gotta love flying with the occasional guy who will fly long range cruise or Vmd against a 120kt headwind in order to "make some cash" (and then requests that I do the same on my leg). Or the guy who initiates a descent by spinning the vertical speed wheel as quickly as possible followed by slamming the thrust levers to flight idle as hard as he can. I just try to fly smoothly, on profile, and get the passengers there on time.

All of the above is IMHO.
 
ZapBrannigan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh just wait until some of you guys have a merger where it's darned near "SAC" versus "NATOPS"! :)
 
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with the profile crowd here. There's a time and a place for hot doggin, but a plane with pax isn't one of them. I switch pretty regularly between cargo flights, and pax flights with guys hopping off a falcon 50 and onto our amphibs to go out to their ten million dollar house boat. You just don't fly cargo and pax the same way.

If I feel the need to get my rocks off by blowin my ear drums out with nothing but bags in the back, that's fine. But with the VIPs it's gotta be Cadillac smooth baby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top