Autothrust Blue
"Well, on the Brasilia..."
He's too busy looking at cat videos.Uh what about the crew member resting?
He's too busy looking at cat videos.Uh what about the crew member resting?
Will you not be knowingly violating 121.311 ? During takeoff you couldn't have known about it. But now you know before landing.
That is an entirely different scenario. Your post history indicates you like arguing hypotheticals. May I suggest a hobby, or scotch, or a scotch hobby?
I'm suggesting that you not violate 121.311 upon landing by supplying all passengers 2 years of age and older a seat with a seat belt if possible. I'm also suggesting the safest course of action regardless of regulation is for all passengers to have a seat with a seat belt on landing and through turbulence. Finally I'm suggesting when you, as Captain, become aware of a situation that might be unsafe or violate a regulation, you have a duty to do something about it. Some of you are saying basically screw it, keep on trucking, file a report and have some scotch.
oh boy. now this kid is gonna die because he's on his mother's lap when we perform a normal landing? look, I don't have a seat. a flight attendant jumpseat is not a seat, except in an emergency, and this ain't a qualified emergency. My FOM prohibits me from putting somebody there. If we have a nonrev that's trained and qualified for the FA jump, that's fine. If there's a pilot in the back that was verified in CASS and my JS is open, sure send em up. Otherwise, "continue with normal operations". I think you're being pretty dramatic and hysterical with your hypothetical. The kid that somehow survived the takeoff on his mother's lap isn't going to die because we perform a normal landing.After giving it some further thought, screw that little kid. If he dies he dies. It's the mothers fault and the agents fault anyway. I'll be covered with an asap.
oh boy. now this kid is gonna die because he's on his mother's lap when we perform a normal landing? look, I don't have a seat. a flight attendant jumpseat is not a seat, except in an emergency, and this ain't a qualified emergency. My FOM prohibits me from putting somebody there. If we have a nonrev that's trained and qualified for the FA jump, that's fine. If there's a pilot in the back that was verified in CASS and my JS is open, sure send em up. Otherwise, "continue with normal operations". I think you're being pretty dramatic and hysterical with your hypothetical. The kid that somehow survived the takeoff on his mother's lap isn't going to die because we perform a normal landing.
Nah, I don't think our ADM/CRM scenario is that arcane.Is this what they are asking in St George for an interview, because this has the mark of the beast all over it.
I don't get accused of having a casual attitude towards compliance very often. Pretty cool.@propsync Soooo ..... this actually happened, your captain did what literally every single 121 pilot in this thread said they would do but you came here seeking validation for your disagreement of that decision, yes?
@propsync Soooo ..... this actually happened, your captain did what literally every single 121 pilot in this thread said they would do but you came here seeking validation for your disagreement of that decision, yes?
Yikes. I read that to mean the response from all the 121 pilots in this thread would be unsatisfactory in your eyes.No, these will be interview questions.
Good luck filling the position if just about every experienced pilot doesn't agree with your preconceived "right" answer.No, these will be interview questions.
Amen. If his online demeanor was sitting across the table from me I'd be walking out the door. An interview goes both ways after all.Good luck filling the position if just about every experienced pilot doesn't agree with your preconceived "right" answer.
Everything going alright, Derg?
But no one's above reproach because of "Captains Authority".
Sadly, our (ALPA) pro standards department just put a memo out that disagrees with that, at least as far as being an FO is concerned.
#stoneage