Sad Realization

gotWXdagain said:
If the pilots in AF447 or Asiana 219 had stopped to think rather than just trying to ham fist the airplane into doing what they wanted it to, alot of people would still be alive.
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree with what you wrote I think your response might be a bit too serious for what was supposed to be a tongue in cheek response.

I'm also pretty sure that had either of those planes had at least one amflight guy up front, neither crash would have happened. Thanks a lot Obama and 121 hr.
 
dead-horse.gif
 
SpiceWeasel said:
If you guys think that "going above and beyond" in 121 will make anyone in 135 not perceive you as a trained monkey you are just being naive.

They want guys who will think outside the box. An example of "thinking outside the box" is rejecting above V1 on a long runway. At least 135 operator I know of that has ARG/US Platinum asked a guy that hypothetical. In 135, if your immediate answer is that, regardless of runway length, you'll continue above V1, you'll abort below V1, you are, to them, a trained monkey.

That's where I was going with the trained monkey comment, anyway.
Click to expand...

There's are reasons that 121 has a better safety record. Your post identifies one of them.
 
SpiceWeasel said:
They want guys who will think outside the box. An example of "thinking outside the box" is rejecting above V1 on a long runway. At least 135 operator I know of that has ARG/US Platinum asked a guy that hypothetical. In 135, if your immediate answer is that, regardless of runway length, you'll continue above V1, you'll abort below V1, you are, to them, a trained monkey
Click to expand...

I don't see how that is an outrageous answer to the question.

If the hypothetical runway is 7 or 8 or 10 miles long, and V1 is calculated on a "balanced field" instead of actual runway length, it makes no sense to take a sick airplane airborne, and into one of the most risky flight regimes, based on data not computed on real-world limitations.

In the AF trainer and fighter world, we have always computed refusal speeds, decision speeds (the definitions are different than the civilian defs, but basically V1), and other TOLD based on actual runway length. The balanced field length was just a number computed along the way to compare to our actual runway length. Sometimes there was so much runway available that our refusal speed/decision speed (again, V1 equivalent) was above normal rotation speed, and even above our single engine takeoff speed, and in those cases we'd just use Vr as our V1.

To this day, I still have never heard a cogent explanation as to why the FAA has decided to not compute TOLD based on actual runway length.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top