Challenger 300 Turbulence Death - Prelim Released
- Thread starter schloopy
- Start date
jrh
Well-Known Member
This sums up the issue I take with your logic. You don't really know what you're talking about. You kind of just spew out random bad things that have happened in the world and come to false conclusions with little to no nuance. You're talking to highly experienced pilots who have worked on the corporate side of the industry for years, but none of that matters, your perception is reality.
I thought about debating more with you, but then I thought..."Nah, I don't think he'll get it."
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
i dunno, the relevant opinion here might be folks who spent a long time in corporate and then went 121 and for the most part when they chime in they’re much more on CC’s side of things.
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
As one of who fits into that category, it's not worth the time. But I've been singing that song for a bit. Why go into it just so Todd can laugh, CC can say something not funny, and the dude that responds to himself says something only the voice in his head could understand.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
13 years “corpie” and 6 121 here. I’m of the opinion that no one is safe. We are all about to make the biggest mistake of our lives that could get errryyyybody killed.
Hence my finger pointing to NASA as what should be the pinnacle of safe. Yet even they failed.
The only thing that’s going to save you long term is following procedures and a flight department that values humility, learns from mistakes and vigorously backs up their pilot group to not give in to perceived pressure.
Fate is the hunter. It’s only a matter of time.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
Why would NASA be the pinnacle of safety? I've seen documentaries on the Challenger and Columbia. I was way less than impressed. Just another typical government run organization. Inefficient, different priorities, complacency, normalization of deviance, and the little guy being squashed by the higher ups.
jrh
Well-Known Member
There's some truth to that.
Something else to consider, this forum is pretty heavily dominated by airline pilots. It would make sense that airline pilots prefer airline flying, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
There's also some selection bias happening, where pilots work for a crappy bottom of the barrel corporate operator, understandably get sick of it, move to an airline, then yell, "See! Airline flying is far superior!" No kidding buddy, based on your experiences, it sure is.
I have a few thousand hours in Citations now and have been quite satisfied with my choices. If I thought I was cheating death every day I'd quit doing it.
I'm not trying to prove corporate flying is any more or less safe than airline flying. I'd like everyone to appreciate the nuances of corporate flying, that's all.
Airline flying in the United States is a pretty narrow spectrum between the "good ones" and "bad ones."
Corporate flying is a wider spectrum. It doesn't make sense to declare it all "safe" or "unsafe," especially without having a deep understanding of the factors involved.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Turns out they are not…
My point was one would think they should be.
They fell victim to operational pressure and lack of adherence to SOP.
No one is safe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Why would you think that NASA should be the pinnacle of safety? They’re literally pushing the envelope on what humans are capable of, going out into a place we aren’t designed to survive. This should be expected to be a highly risky endeavor.
ArcherII
Well-Known Member
I think that one thing is the type of operations when thinking about pinnacle of safety, and another completely different is when thinking about the culture of safety.
NASA pushes the envelope, as you say. So the type of operations often involves levels of risk way higher that any private or commercial endeavor. The mechanism to offset most of that risk is a healthy safety culture whithin the organization. NASA, in this case, should be in the pinnacle of safety culture. I think that we all agree that it was the safety culture that was lacking for the Challenger disaster. In fact, the decision to certify the SLS after a mere 5-flight testing process is to be blamed to safety culture.
As John W. Young said, it should have never been certified after that testing program. Certainly not after only 5 flights, and definitely not for transporting civilians. And it was known as an inherently unsafe vehicle. That screams lack of safety culture, something that NASA should not have per design.
NASA pushes the envelope, as you say. So the type of operations often involves levels of risk way higher that any private or commercial endeavor. The mechanism to offset most of that risk is a healthy safety culture whithin the organization. NASA, in this case, should be in the pinnacle of safety culture. I think that we all agree that it was the safety culture that was lacking for the Challenger disaster. In fact, the decision to certify the SLS after a mere 5-flight testing process is to be blamed to safety culture.
As John W. Young said, it should have never been certified after that testing program. Certainly not after only 5 flights, and definitely not for transporting civilians. And it was known as an inherently unsafe vehicle. That screams lack of safety culture, something that NASA should not have per design.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
Well said.
Richman
JC’s Resident Curmudgeon
Why limit it to one? I think it’s more a case of “circle all those that apply”
Absolutely. 91 covers a lot of operations. Bottom line though—airlines exist to make money. Corporate departments exist to provide safe and efficient transportation. That key difference is why good corporate departments should be operating at or above a 121 level of safety.
zmiller4
Well-Known Member
Very well said.
My time at the airlines included 5 years of longish commutes, and the most professional, competent crews I’ve seen have been those in my post-flying career company’s flight department.
The equipment is spectacular, crews clearly do an excellent job balancing weather, schedules, etc, and there’s literally an A&P on every flight.
Compare that to a clapped out CRJ with a 350hr FO who bought their interview 6 months before…it’s not even a question.
BEEF SUPREME
Well-Known Member
I'm sure there are operations in the 91 and 135 world that are run safer than 121 flight departments. They are in my experience few and far between.
TUCKnTRUCK
That guy
There’s a small bit of irony, in, that dealing with TEM/CRM - those that paint with a broad brush making blanket statements - and who are inherently inflexible in their ideas- are the ones that cause the most issues.
Kinda like saying “all corpies are unsafe because they are not 121”.
And, most 121 can’t circle because y’all keep landing on taxi ways and stuff. I’m slightly positive Boston didn’t have to write TAXI onto the tax way because of Corpies… and to my knowledge no business aircraft have landed on Z in Ewr…. (Last paragraph is actually just a joke) circling in environments where you don’t have reference or familiarity is probably always gonna be a bit risky.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cherokee_Cruiser
Bronteroc
“All corpies are not AS safe because they are not 121.”
Happy?
Still not stepping aboard a Corpie Jet.
Happy?
Still not stepping aboard a Corpie Jet.