LGA accident

CFI A&P said:
Last year's mid-air in DCA
NMAC with two 121s last week in EWR
Last night in LGA.

Those are the high profile events that made the news, who knows how much else is happening out there. At this point we can say that the business model of "do more with less" isn't working for ATC.

Is the solution change the hiring criteria and streamline training which means new controllers are less trained than before?
Reduce operations to match staffing?
Raise ATC compensation and create their own rest rules similar to 117 after Colgan in BUF?

I don't know what the answer is, but maybe all of the above?
Click to expand...
The only thing that can possibly improve safety right now is to limit operations. The airlines will kick and scream, but I think it is necessary.
 
guywhoflies said:
The only thing that can possibly improve safety right now is to limit operations. The airlines will kick and scream, but I think it is necessary.
Click to expand...

I know this will make me a witch in church with regard to the industry, but the best way I can see to implement a limit is to have a minimum seat count per aircraft in slot-controlled airports.

In other words, far fewer 50/76 seat RJs.

Before anyone accuses me of trying to pull up a ladder behind me....I absolutely, 100% DEPEND on those same RJs to get to and from work on a commute that really shouldn't be difficult but is. But if you put fewer, larger aircraft on the same routes, you de-congest the airspace and still preserve the largest number of available seat-miles. Commuting is a choice. I'd make do in the interest of smoother operations and a safer environment.
 
killbilly said:
I know this will make me a witch in church with regard to the industry, but the best way I can see to implement a limit is to have a minimum seat count per aircraft in slot-controlled airports.

In other words, far fewer 50/76 seat RJs.

Before anyone accuses me of trying to pull up a ladder behind me....I absolutely, 100% DEPEND on those same RJs to get to and from work on a commute that really shouldn't be difficult but is. But if you put fewer, larger aircraft on the same routes, you de-congest the airspace and still preserve the largest number of available seat-miles. Commuting is a choice. I'd make do in the interest of smoother operations and a safer environment.
Click to expand...
Easy to say when hub to hub flying on one of those 76 seat jets isn't how you pay rent.

Signed,
-Regional lifer
 
🦈💜 said:
Easy to say when hub to hub flying on one of those 76 seat jets isn't how you pay rent.

Signed,
-Regional lifer
Click to expand...
I feel for the plight of those like you sentenced to the 'regional life', honestly, I do...but I'm sorry, "paying rent" isn't really a consideration when trying to figure out how to get a limited amount of metal into a limited amount of airspace/ground space. I guess so others can also pay rent, they need to drag out the EMB-120s and B1900s, right?

There is no one simple solution for what's happening, but the fact is that slot times and capacity limits (min seats per jet) is one of the fastest ways to get a grip on the crisis that is the ATC system. Facts are hard and they hurt sometimes.
 
killbilly said:
As I said. I depend on it. So yeah, I do get it.
Click to expand...
Depending on it for commuting is different than depending on it as a livelihood, and you need to understand the different weight in those two states.

Bluntly, you're reflexively calling for the end of my career, which, forgive me, is something I'm sensitive to. Disclaiming it doesn't make it better. (Granted it's coming anyway thanks to the current president, but that's a separate affair.)

Just consider the effects reactionary calls for change may have on real people.

Also, there's a hint of "blame the regional," which ... no.
 
HeyEng said:
I feel for the plight of those like you sentenced to the 'regional life', honestly, I do...but I'm sorry, "paying rent" isn't really a consideration when trying to figure out how to get a limited amount of metal into a limited amount of airspace/ground space. I guess so others can also pay rent, they need to drag out the EMB-120s and B1900s, right?

There is no one simple solution for what's happening, but the fact is that slot times and capacity limits (min seats per jet) is one of the fastest ways to get a grip on the crisis that is the ATC system. Facts are hard and they hurt sometimes.
Click to expand...
Ground all the private jets and just watch how fast stuff gets fixed.

Or ... pick on working class pilots.

"Some of you will die, but that's a risk I'm willing to take."
 
🦈💜 said:
Depending on it for commuting is different than depending on it as a livelihood, and you need to understand the different weight in those two states.

Bluntly, you're reflexively calling for the end of my career, which, forgive me, is something I'm sensitive to. Disclaiming it doesn't make it better. (Granted it's coming anyway thanks to the current president, but that's a separate affair.)

Just consider the effects reactionary calls for change may have on real people.

Also, there's a hint of "blame the regional," which ... no.
Click to expand...

Yknow, I knew when I posted that thought exactly what you’d say. I’ve had the same thought myself.

I paid my rent the same way you do and I thought that then. I think it now. This is not a reactionary call.

I’m not calling for the end of your career. I’m saying I think the industry should do some things differently and why. Your entire career isn’t hub to hub flying at Skywest.

We’ve all made our choices, and we all live with the consequences of those choices.
 
🦈💜 said:
Ground all the private jets and just watch how fast stuff gets fixed.
Click to expand...
Well, we both know that is NEVER going to happen. There will always be a ruling class be it communism, socialism, or capitalism and they will always fly on their own tiny (or not so tiny) jets.
 
🦈💜 said:
Depending on it for commuting is different than depending on it as a livelihood, and you need to understand the different weight in those two states.

Bluntly, you're reflexively calling for the end of my career, which, forgive me, is something I'm sensitive to. Disclaiming it doesn't make it better. (Granted it's coming anyway thanks to the current president, but that's a separate affair.)

Just consider the effects reactionary calls for change may have on real people.

Also, there's a hint of "blame the regional," which ... no.
Click to expand...

then you’d better look further to the guy running the company giving you that hub to hub flying who makes it very clear he wants to upgauge the mainline as much as possible into constrained hubs.
keep denying reality that regionals fill the cup they are poured into, but billy did not say anything with contempt. also i don’t really wanna hear about regional lifer if you still haven’t taken any of the many offers of help from the owner of this site
 
killbilly said:
Your entire career isn’t hub to hub flying at Skywest.
Click to expand...

A significant majority of the flying I do is hub to hub.

I don't understand what "we've all made our choices <etc>" has to do with the discussion here.

Instead of fixing the problem, you're suggesting we throw a large number of pilots under the bus as a palliative.

We don't even know what the problem is that caused this accident. Controller overwork? Probably at least contributory. But it's a systemic FAA problem, being exacerbated (as some have suggested above) by a lack of desire to spend on infrastructure and likely political maneuvering for privati$$$$$ation.

Why immediately jump to attacking 76-seat aircraft? For that matter, why not blame scope clauses? If we flew 100 or 130 seat aircraft, that might solve the problem too.

Doubt that is what people have in mind, though.
 
🦈💜 said:
Depending on it for commuting is different than depending on it as a livelihood, and you need to understand the different weight in those two states.

Bluntly, you're reflexively calling for the end of my career, which, forgive me, is something I'm sensitive to. Disclaiming it doesn't make it better. (Granted it's coming anyway thanks to the current president, but that's a separate affair.)

Just consider the effects reactionary calls for change may have on real people.

Also, there's a hint of "blame the regional," which ... no.
Click to expand...

Two guys just died, and a whole bunch of peoples lives just changed for the worse and you’re screaming about your regional. Why am I not surprised.
 
Then throwing in scope is the problem. lol.

Why? Because it’s an immediate fix. Do you know how long it takes to hire someone into a position to be working at LGA?
 
T/O w/FSII said:
Two guys just died, and a whole bunch of peoples lives just changed for the worse and you’re screaming about your regional. Why am I not surprised.
Click to expand...

There are reflexive calls for reducing my flying, despite no real evidence that it has any significance. I am responding to that.

You, on the other hand, appear to be making a personal attack based on a grudge. Exactly who is being "insensitive" here?
 
bp said:
you’re the one that made it about yourself instead of talking about solutions to the problem being discussed in the thread
Click to expand...
I didn't make it about myself, I said that there are real people working the jobs that are being reflexively thrown under the bus, and saying "can we not."
 
it’s a pointless discussion anyway because the FAA works for the airlines and they’ll never, especially in this political climate, do something that might mess with the airlines business plan.

Personally, I think that between one thing and another the conditions that allowed the US airline industry to become the behemoth it has are all coming to an end and I’m rapidly becoming very skeptical of the long term viability of this as a career.
 
MikeD said:
The acronyms CFR and ARFF are interchangeable, CFR being the older school of the two, and ARFF being the “nicer sounding” one, as the word Crash isn’t in it.
Click to expand...

I an well aware of this... thus my post.
ARFF doesn't always work out and some prefer the older CFR

Since Baltimore ARFF ends up as BARFF
They don't appreciate it

MikeD said:
See the above response, maneuver the truck to where the final can be seen, there is no requirement to remain aligned with the taxiway line. In the medium/large CFR trucks, the driver sits in the center/left of the cab. If it’s a four person cab, there’s a jumpseat to the left of the driver next to the left door situated slightly aft, another seat directly to the driver’s right; and a jumpseat next to that seat and next to the right door, also situated aft. The two center seat crewmen, driver and other crewman, have the best view all around the truck from 9 o’clock to 3 o’clock. Some trucks have a roof hatch with a crewman who stands up through the hatch manning the upper turret and has a 360 view around the vehicle from the top. Either way, there’s ample ability to see what you need to in that 9-3, including the ability to position the truck to account for any blind spots. All airport firefighters know what they should be looking for in terms of threats. Knowing what goes on during emergency responses and having been there myself any number of times, I wouldn’t be surprised if adrenaline and distraction led to either not checking/clearing the final visually, or doing it in a quick manner. Again, this remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top