Previous employer Pria abuse

No, I mean before you die on average in an honest to god inflight fire
The point here is that the Company had a procedure and the OP deviated from that procedure on a CHECK RIDE. Not the best play on the board as far as I'm concerned. Fly their "stupid" procedure, pass the check ride, then do what you need to do when the smoke is actually spewing from your plane.
 
Maybe I misread or misremember, but I thought he said he had been teaching and doing his technique for quite a while, then the new guy came in with his preferred technique and it went south from there…not a company procedure per se(?).
 
Maybe I misread or misremember, but I thought he said he had been teaching and doing his technique for quite a while, then the new guy came in with his preferred technique and it went south from there…not a company procedure per se(?).

He was a captain and IOE captain, he didn’t say anything about training captain so I’m not sure in what capacity he was teaching, regardless if the CP/ACP change or revise a procedure, then it’s incumbent on the training /ioe captains to use, demonstrate and teach said procedure. If a check airman doesn’t like it, then it’s up to them to work with the DOT/CP/ACP and not just teach their own way of doing things. Nobody has posted the SOP’s yet, so I’m not sure what they call for.

Re: single engine yes, still talking single engine. Go fly gliders a bunch and the notion of a pattern without an engine becomes far less daunting. If said engine is a confirmed burning fire and the checklist doesn’t extinguish it, then by all mean get it on the ground. It’s been my experience though, that we tend to set our plan of action by the first indication and pilots often make a “not a big deal” into a big deal. I’m guessing that more happened in the spiral that the ACP didn’t like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Maybe I misread or misremember, but I thought he said he had been teaching and doing his technique for quite a while, then the new guy came in with his preferred technique and it went south from there…not a company procedure per se(?).
That's how I read it, and if that's the case, I don't see why OP wouldn't be pretty pissed off.

I think you guys are missing the message for the tone. Everyone's spring-loaded to dogpile on the dude, and he's certainly not helping his own case.

But a lot of yall are just grandstanding.
 
I believe that number is derived from the study of fires on transport-category aircraft. In a single-engine airplane, turbine or piston, I'm willing to bet you don't have nearly that long.
Very good point.

There’s too much mixed messaging and weirdness involved here for me to invest the mental energy to have an opinion on who was right in the OP but this sidebar we’ve created about technical matters around fire indications is definitely worth thinking about.
 
I believe that number is derived from the study of fires on transport-category aircraft. In a single-engine airplane, turbine or piston, I'm willing to bet you don't have nearly that long.

How long can you glide? :)

Out of control engine fires are pretty rare. Once the motor is shutdown and fuel is shut off at the firewall they usually don’t keep burning.

The study was about fires in the cabin/cargo hold no? Where there is an abundance of flammable material and a good supply of air. Most transport category airplanes don’t crash after and engine fire and I’ve not heard of a PC-12 or caravan crash that was the result of an uncontained engine fire.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
He was a captain and IOE captain, he didn’t say anything about training captain so I’m not sure in what capacity he was teaching, regardless if the CP/ACP change or revise a procedure, then it’s incumbent on the training /ioe captains to use, demonstrate and teach said procedure. If a check airman doesn’t like it, then it’s up to them to work with the DOT/CP/ACP and not just teach their own way of doing things. Nobody has posted the SOP’s yet, so I’m not sure what they call for.

Re: single engine yes, still talking single engine. Go fly gliders a bunch and the notion of a pattern without an engine becomes far less daunting. If said engine is a confirmed burning fire and the checklist doesn’t extinguish it, then by all mean get it on the ground. It’s been my experience though, that we tend to set our plan of action by the first indication and pilots often make a “not a big deal” into a big deal. I’m guessing that more happened in the spiral that the ACP didn’t like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was also attempting to point out the difference between technique and procedure.
 
This business has no shortage of •bags in management. I fully believe there are those like that out there.

I’d give the benefit of the doubt if someone just walked into that blind. But word of that kind of thing travels with the speed of the intrawebz, and heck, even before Al Gore invented it, word spread pretty quick.

Sounds like the OP already knew that going in. That takes some extra effort to extricate yourself from that situation unscathed. PITA? Absolutely. But the very last thing you do is irritate an already bad situation. Do what they tell you, keep your head down, your nose clean and depart the pattern in as expeditious manner as possible.

To do otherwise is just bad SA and headwork.
 
Does anyone actually care what kind of maneuvers are used as long as it's a minimum (safe) time to ground situation and is reasonable, prudent, etc.?

I'm pretty sure that very thought hung heavy in the mind of the FO on Swiss 111 as the Senior God Chief Training Captain ran line...

by line...

by line...

through every...

single...

line...

of the Cabin/Cockpit Fire Checklists in "Zee Buch of Instruction".
 
I'm pretty sure that very thought hung heavy in the mind of the FO on Swiss 111 as the Senior God Chief Training Captain ran line...

by line...

by line...

through every...

single...

line...

of the Cabin/Cockpit Fire Checklists in "Zee Buch of Instruction".

TSB report said even if they hadn’t bothered with the fuel dump process, checklist, and turn away from airport, they still wouldn’t have made it to Halifax.
 
He was a captain and IOE captain, he didn’t say anything about training captain so I’m not sure in what capacity he was teaching, regardless if the CP/ACP change or revise a procedure, then it’s incumbent on the training /ioe captains to use, demonstrate and teach said procedure. If a check airman doesn’t like it, then it’s up to them to work with the DOT/CP/ACP and not just teach their own way of doing things. Nobody has posted the SOP’s yet, so I’m not sure what they call for.

Re: single engine yes, still talking single engine. Go fly gliders a bunch and the notion of a pattern without an engine becomes far less daunting. If said engine is a confirmed burning fire and the checklist doesn’t extinguish it, then by all mean get it on the ground. It’s been my experience though, that we tend to set our plan of action by the first indication and pilots often make a “not a big deal” into a big deal. I’m guessing that more happened in the spiral that the ACP didn’t like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You are correct, he didn't post "training captain" this one is on me, my apology to the OP. What he wrote was that he is a Captain that has been training his method (technique, if you will) of handling an engine fire emergency that is contrary to the Company's training doctrine.
All else in my post remains the same......
 
The point here is that the Company had a procedure and the OP deviated from that procedure on a CHECK RIDE. Not the best play on the board as far as I'm concerned. Fly their "stupid" procedure, pass the check ride, then do what you need to do when the smoke is actually spewing from your plane.
Not disputed, merely ”argumentative.” Agreed.
 
Back
Top