Oh SFO tower

Here is a larger version so you can observe that mans is not entirely nude. He has a belt and.


bD5EDhv.jpg
 
form810 said:
Fair enough. If it is not possible for airline crews to actually pre-brief more than one take off runway at a time, then instead of us debating this here, I think the airline unions should get on this with the FAA, render this request unavailable to ATC, and allow all the airline pilots to live happily ever after with phat stacks.

As an aside, when they sneak stuff like this into the, er, "remarks" section of an ATIS, does that render this information an instruction, an advisory, or a NOTAM?
Click to expand...
ATC is in the separation and clearance business, not in the crew briefing business.

The same information, presented as background info is great, advising us what we should brief is problematic. This example seems rather benign but it could get worse. ATC could tell us to brief hazards and then do a “told you so” if their instructions assume retained knowledge of the described hazards and become abbreviated or incomplete.
 
“We said caution, birds in vicinity! The airport authority has no obligation for bird mitigation now!” :).
 
///AMG said:
"The Board finds the causal factor to be the crew's inattention to the 18th unlit tower. However the Board would like to posthumously commend them on avoiding the first 17 unlit towers, birds in the vicinity, and reading the FDC notams"
Click to expand...

Post of the week!
 
CFI A&P said:
12 pages of discussion about an event that didn't result in a mishap or accident and we're back to the Delta application process....

Yeah, go ahead and try to tell us that you're still not thinking about the one you never had.
Click to expand...
And it all stems from 10 years ago when CC couldn’t get an interview at Delta. Now this is his life ambition - to defame Delta.
 
Last edited:
Pilot Fighter said:
ATC is in the separation and clearance business, not in the crew briefing business.

The same information, presented as background info is great, advising us what we should brief is problematic. This example seems rather benign but it could get worse. ATC could tell us to brief hazards and then do a “told you so” if their instructions assume retained knowledge of the described hazards and become abbreviated or incomplete.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree. That's precisely what I was intimating.
 
derg said:
@Cherokee_Cruiser, @form810 - this is why I’m disinterested in hypothetical debates and repeating points I’ve already made.

Seoul, at the moment:
Oh and my copilot is a guy who cut his teeth under @SteveC 's tutelage and is easily one of my top five copilots.
Click to expand...
Nice! Probably the Kloud talking, but I'm almost certain you meant to say "uninterested". ;)
 
derg said:
View attachment 71449
Click to expand...
Just because something did NOT result in an incident or accident does not necessarily render that something innocuous or unimportant to examine. Lots of obviously bad stuff happens daily, with limited material effect on proximate outcomes, or even notice by the perpetrator or the perpetrator's management or any regulatory overseer. Unexamined and unmitigated, that bad stuff eventually leads to the cultural normalization that eventually leads to the disaster that ratchets up the suck and the regs and the pain for everyone. If the Fed had better regulated before the bank failure... If the FAA had better regulated before Colgan... Etc., etc.

Everyone makes mistakes. The idea is to make small mistakes, identify them early, correct them quickly, and avoid them in the future. That way, they don't lead to big problems that make life and commerce more difficult for everyone in perpetuity. (I did not use the term "ratchet" by accident.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top