Corporate Culture Not Good In Aviation

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Perhaps you feel this way due to your limited personal experience as a pilot. Your experience is NOT that of others.

If, in fact, executing the approach in this discussion were considered a “stupid decision” with no variants, the FARs wouldn’t allow it.

Part 121 is more conservative for a reason and one reason only….more passengers. A 121 accident is higher profile in public opinion. This is not to state that Part 91 is dangerous but it is certainly different.

I’m a very selfish pilot. I WANT to live and I think about MY survival EVERYTIME I fly. I figure if I live through the flight, my passengers will live through the flight!

I have executed more “0/0” takeoffs than I have “0/0” landings but I’ve done both and will do so again if the situation dictates. AND I, along with all of my passengers lived!! Oh it’s a miracle!!!!!!

If YOU don’t want to or, most likely, can’t handle flying an approach that is below published minimums (or below your personal minimums), then don’t!!

But either way, stop the sanctimonious grandstanding….please!

If you took off and landed, they weren’t 0/0, which is why you’re putting it in quotes.

No sanctimonious grandstanding necessary. The amount of fatal 91 and 135 corporate jet losses (esp during approach) compared to 121 jet in this country is remarkable.

 

[MikeD]

If you took off and landed, they weren’t 0/0, which is why you’re putting it in quotes.

No sanctimonious grandstanding necessary. The amount of fatal 91 and 135 corporate jet losses (esp during approach) compared to 121 jet in this country is remarkable.

I think the problem is more so with end-game. Anyone, 91/135/121, can fly an instrument approach just fine. Its when breaking out, often at or near mins, and if not making a straight in landing, where things begin to get dicey. If a particular 121 op was approved for circling approaches, but rarely practiced them or performed them operationally, they’d probably have occurrences of their own. There’s absolutely nothing inherently unsafe about circling, when trained to vis a vis sight pictures and proper aircraft maneuvering; but its a skill that if not done regularly, can and will atrophy.

Generally speaking, as a helo guy, I don’t normally care about circling approaches and circling mins. However in the 737, I fairly regularly will practice them on empty legs, and have needed to do them a few times on operational legs. it’s not a difficult iteration at all. Even in the -117 where it was Cat E circling, it’s easily doable, but you have to be on top of your game while maneuvering to land at 190 kts. And that requires practice in order to hone the skill.

 

[bp]

If you took off and landed, they weren’t 0/0, which is why you’re putting it in quotes.

No sanctimonious grandstanding necessary. The amount of fatal 91 and 135 corporate jet losses (esp during approach) compared to 121 jet in this country is remarkable.

you do understand the difference between reported and flight visibility right

 

[mikecweb]

No. I stick with the company minimums, the ones I’m trained to and authorized for.

Awesome. So how bout you do your job and let others do theirs.

 

[MikeD]

Also, on circling approaches. I am a firm believer that the circling maneuver needs to be hand flown. Especially if making the instrument approach on autopilot. The transition from autopilot, to having to hand fly and have an instantaneous feel for the aircraft and the meteorological and area environment you are flying in, is not something that should be done in the middle or near the end of a circling maneuver. Plus, there are too many things going on too fast, such as the need for instantaneous fine heading/speed/altitude changes, that trying to fiddle-fart flying the circle on autopilot and using the heading select knob and typing/twisting in speed/altitude changes, is a true safety hazard that can blow up in your face with over/undershoots, being too high, etc.

Hence the need to keep the skill honed, and to understand your aircraft’s feel, by hand.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

you do understand the difference between reported and flight visibility right

*sigh*

Yes. If that’s the standard, go fly “and take a look anyway” could be done every single day for every single approach, and is a dangerous op.


Why beat around the bush? Answer this simple question, are all Part 91 Corpie ops authorized to start approaches below mins? And go 0/0? Or, are there some 91 corporate ops that operate as 121 ops, and are conservative. Why do I have a gut feeling there are some 91 ops that are equal to (or even better) than 121? So really, some of you are defending the lower end 91 ops.


Although not an airliner or a Corp jet, I bet Kobie and his passengers wished their pilot wouldn’t have gone “and taken a look” in regards to getting into CMA. This was the same operation where an ex-employee said this guy in particular would swing out over the water, drop near to zero, and make it in from the shoreline. The saying is FAFO. You can FA only so much until one day you FO. Downside is, innocent passengers also FO at the same time, and that isn’t fair.

 

[zmiller4]

Awesome. So how bout you do your job and let others do theirs.

CC when a 91 pilot asks for an approach that they’re authorized and trained for: “what a terrible decision!!”

Also CC: “I fly approaches that I’m authorized and trained for!!”

@Cherokee_Cruiser I dont know if I’ve ever encountered anyone as blissfully unaware that they’ve had an extremely limited range of life and career experiences/circumstances and subsequently use them to judge others.

 

[derg]

No. I stick with the company minimums, the ones I’m trained to and authorized for.

But you aren’t articulating a clear understanding of what’s required to start, what’s required to stay on the approach and when and if the reported visibility changes, if you’re able to continue.

I assumed since you’re flying the Pacific seaboard that you would be wizard AF on the issue.

 

[derg]

Also, on circling approaches. I am a firm believer that the circling maneuver needs to be hand flown. Especially if making the instrument approach on autopilot. The transition from autopilot, to having to hand fly and have an instantaneous feel for the aircraft and the meteorological and area environment you are flying in, is not something that should be done in the middle or near the end of a circling maneuver. Plus, there are too many things going on too fast, such as the need for instantaneous fine heading/speed/altitude changes, that trying to fiddle-fart flying the circle on autopilot and using the heading select knob and typing/twisting in speed/altitude changes, is a true safety hazard that can blow up in your face with over/undershoots, being too high, etc.

Hence the need to keep the skill honed, and to understand your aircraft’s feel, by hand.

Ours is pretty dumbed-down to reduce the “YEET” factor:

 

[MikeD]

Although not an airliner or a Corp jet, I bet Kobie and his passengers wished their pilot wouldn’t have gone “and taken a look” in regards to getting into CMA. This was the same operation where an ex-employee said this guy in particular would swing out over the water, drop near to zero, and make it in from the shoreline. The saying is FAFO. You can FA only so much until one day you FO. Downside is, innocent passengers also FO at the same time, and that isn’t fair.

Unfortunately, Kobe’s pilot had basic attitude instrument skills that were severely deficient, so he was behind the power curve long before he even had time to maintain a stable platform long enough to engage the autopilot and set up the fully IFR-capable helicopter to even help him out at all.

 

[zmiller4]

@Cherokee_Cruiser have you ever gone missed due to not having adequate visibility?

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

Unfortunately, Kobe’s pilot had basic attitude instrument skills that were severely deficient, so he was behind the power curve long before he even had time to maintain a stable platform long enough to engage the autopilot and set up the fully IFR-capable helicopter to even help him out at all.

Yes, but wasn’t his company Ops not IFR? To be conducted in VFR or Special VFR only? Seems he skirted the boundary for a while and finally got in trouble.

 

[tlove482]

But that’s not what’s going on.

It’s a whole different thing if you start an approach, inside FAF, and then WX changes.

We are talking the airport not taking any approaches, multiple people holding, and someone impatient saying “send itttttttttttt!”

You know that works both ways. You can start the approach and the weather can improve.

 

[bp]

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_90-106A.pdf

 

[MikeD]

Yes, but wasn’t his company Ops not IFR? To be conducted in VFR or Special VFR only? Seems he skirted the boundary for a while and finally got in trouble.

Yes. And both the pilot’s actions and inactions definitely got himself into the situation he ended up in.

 

[dustoff17]

………

Point being, we 121 don’t just go “forget the weather, I don’t care, I WANTZ THE APPROACH!!!”

No, this is YOUR point!!

THE point is that in the 121 world, you aren’t ALLOWED to say this! The 121 (and some 135) canned operations don’t allow this much flexibility nor does it allow you to assess a situation as it presents itself and make this type of decision.

Part 91 does have the ability and requirement to make minute by minute decisions. We don’t have the “Big Brother” overwatch and scrutiny. Sometimes the lack of a 121/135 babysitter has been an issue and sometimes it’s been a blessing.

Stop the hate just because you don’t get the same toys that others do. Fly for the type of operation you want and move on…

The controller in this video was totally wrong, he should have allowed the Falcon to fly the approach. I would have requested a mark on the tape and filed formal complaint.

As for the Kobe flight, if 121/135 crew had their job security and future on the line when they took off, you would see a different story. Very few 91 operations will tolerate pressure from a passenger but those that get caught up in it rarely turn out well. Crashes have been attributed to this (Kobe’s, Allayah, etc).

I put “0/0” in because that is what was reported. I opted to fly the approaches anyway and determined, based on what I observed, that the report was incorrect and that safe landings could be made.

As for the “0/0” departures, I should have typed 0/0 because they were in fact ZERO! And everytime my departure alternate met the requirements. Your linear mindset that your departure airport has to be your return airport shows lack of real world experience.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

As for the “0/0” departures, I should have typed 0/0 because they were in fact ZERO!

How do you see out the window in order to taxi?

And everytime my departure alternate met the requirements. Your linear mindset that your departure airport has to be your return airport shows lack of real world experience.

This is a trolling statement. 121 is very clear on WX required at the departure airport and when we need a TO alternate.

 

[dustoff17]

How do you see out the window in order to taxi?



This is a trolling statement. 121 is very clear on WX required at the departure airport and when we need a TO alternate.

WOW, not only do you not understand the WX requirements for an approach, you don’t understand WX! And 91 are the dangerous ones?

0/0 doesn’t necessarily mean your in a blackout condition and can’t see the hand in front of your face. It means that below a certain range (50’ RVR), the system reports zero. I can EASILY see the taxiway and runway with 50’ ahead of me.

Part 91 has very clear WX requirement at the departure airport too. However, I’m glad there’s a dispatcher holding your Commie hand through the takeoff process. Sounds like you are one that wouldn’t survive a Part 91 job.

 

[Cherokee_Cruiser]

WOW, not only do you not understand the WX requirements for an approach, you don’t understand WX! And 91 are the dangerous ones?

0/0 doesn’t necessarily mean your in a blackout condition and can’t see the hand in front of your face. It means that below a certain range (50’ RVR), the system reports zero. I can EASILY see the taxiway and runway with 50’ ahead of me.

Part 91 has very clear WX requirement at the departure airport too. However, I’m glad there’s a dispatcher holding your Commie hand through the takeoff process. Sounds like you are one that wouldn’t survive a Part 91 job.

So you weren’t 0/0. Thanks for clarifying.

You have a HUD? Enhanced Vision? What kinda stuff you launching with at 50 ft RVR?

 

[zmiller4]

So you weren’t 0/0. Thanks for clarifying.

You have a HUD? Enhanced Vision? What kinda stuff you launching with at 50 ft RVR?

Hey CC, could you answer my question? Have you ever gone missed—in any airplane—at minimums due to low visibility?