Delta flight to Mexican resort city of Cabo diverted after passenger dies on board

So in your eyes a wide body exceeding 250KIAS below ten is safe and clear of collision hazards because they’re 121 and minimum clean speed dictates such but anyone non-121 operating at similar speeds in the same conditions is not cool.

You’re worried about closure rate and collision hazard, but the same risk exists whether or not you’re 121.

Alright, I'll say it. Yeah, it's not cool. 121 training and regulations are amongst the highest/strictest. The corporate and GA, it depends who they use for training and what standards they have. There have been cases where a corporate jet accident happened and the guy wasn't even certified/typed for that plane. Accidents speak for themselves. And in that industry, merit and who you know can go a lot further than seniority when you are only talking about operators where it's literally 1 or 2 planes and a handful of pilots. Good luck, you better be liked and fit "their mold" or you'll be outcast and go find another job. I've heard the horror stories. Besides, risk analysis. Widebody airliners for the most part aren't going into smaller mom and pop airport FBO type places where many more corpies and GA are. They're mostly (though not always) operating in the US in class B airspace. Very rarely are they in positions where they are departing uncontrolled airfields (though there are some with, military/charter operations, etc).

With technological advances, ADS-B out requirement in controlled airspace, etc, hopefully the risks of midair collisions are further reduced.
 
Alright, I'll say it. Yeah, it's not cool. 121 training and regulations are amongst the highest/strictest. The corporate and GA, it depends who they use for training and what standards they have. There have been cases where a corporate jet accident happened and the guy wasn't even certified/typed for that plane. Accidents speak for themselves. And in that industry, merit and who you know can go a lot further than seniority when you are only talking about operators where it's literally 1 or 2 planes and a handful of pilots. Good luck, you better be liked and fit "their mold" or you'll be outcast and go find another job. I've heard the horror stories. Besides, risk analysis. Widebody airliners for the most part aren't going into smaller mom and pop airport FBO type places where many more corpies and GA are. They're mostly (though not always) operating in the US in class B airspace. Very rarely are they in positions where they are departing uncontrolled airfields (though there are some with, military/charter operations, etc).

With technological advances, ADS-B out requirement in controlled airspace, etc, hopefully the risks of midair collisions are further reduced.

You still haven’t explained how 121 operations are not subject to the physics of an inelastic collision.
 
You still haven’t explained how 121 operations are not subject to the physics of an inelastic collision.

And you still can't name that accident that caused that painful restriction to you of 250kts below 10k everywhere.

But to answer your question, they aren't, BUT they have taken a LOT of steps, procedures, and laws made (many due to blood) to try and mitigate further ones.
 
There are ways to exceed 250KIAS below 10,000 in an N registered airplane.

The trick is being more than 12nm off shore in international airspace.
I'm too lazy to find it, but this came up on Reddit a few days ago and someone dug up a letter of interpretation from the feds that basically debunked that. I kind of hate that though, because really, who has every letter of interpretation memorized or has even seen it? If it's the law of the land, make it the law of the land.
 
And you still can't name that accident that caused that painful restriction to you of 250kts below 10k everywhere.

But to answer your question, they aren't, BUT they have taken a LOT of steps, procedures, and laws made (many due to blood) to try and mitigate further ones.

Was I asked to discuss the UA vs. TWA over Brooklyn accident?

The collision risk exists for anyone below ten, but in your eyes only the non-121 aircraft are in danger.
 
Was I asked to discuss the UA vs. TWA over Brooklyn accident?

The collision risk exists for anyone below ten, but in your eyes only the non-121 aircraft are in danger.

That one only made the rule for controlled/busy airspace. The one I'm referring to made the speed rule everywhere.

Collision risk exists everywhere but the difference is what's done about it? An an example, guess what types of aircraft are required TCAS versus not?
 
You do know that there are aircraft outside of 121 with TCAS, right?

Yes. But that didn't answer the question.

I think we've gone a bit too far over this topic. Bottom line, 250 kts below 10k is written in blood. Of course there are exceptions like widebodies that have min safe speeds higher than 250 kts. And in your case, beyond 12 nm miles from the shoreline. For a smaller aircraft, I just don't see why you would want to barring an emergency. And as stated several posts, you do you, whatever your FOM prescribes.
 
Is there any argument one way or another over 14 CFR 91.117(c), since we may as well explore the whole 117 section while we’re here? :)
 
Yes. But that didn't answer the question.

I think we've gone a bit too far over this topic. Bottom line, 250 kts below 10k is written in blood. Of course there are exceptions like widebodies that have min safe speeds higher than 250 kts. And in your case, beyond 12 nm miles from the shoreline. For a smaller aircraft, I just don't see why you would want to barring an emergency. And as stated several posts, you do you, whatever your FOM prescribes.

Your position is that speeds greater than 250 below 10k is dangerous because collision hazards, unless it is a wide body 121 aircraft because of TCAS (TCAS is not exclusive to 121).

How about the military aircraft on VR/IR routes? Aside from the poor bastard in the C150 a couple years ago, there are not too many midair’s when those aircraft are greater than 250KIAS.

Once again, just like the political conversations, it is your reasoning and thought process that is odd.
 
How about the military aircraft on VR/IR routes? Aside from the poor bastard in the C150 a couple years ago, there are not too many midair’s when those aircraft are greater than 250KIAS..

480-600 knots at 300 AGL......lower for the TFR planes like the F-111. Fun stuff!

There’s really only one aircraft I can think of where there were serious problems with visual lookout vs task loading. The F-117. Not because of it's limited visibility out the windscreen, but because of the requirement that in order to employ as a weapon system, that the single-pilot had to be heads-down in the Sensor Display searching for the assigned target, releasing the weapon (live or simulated), and guiding it to the target. That's a 5+ minute span of time where the jet is cruising on autopilot, at .95M+, varying in it's altitudes.....sometimes by +/- 3000'-5000' or more, with no TCAS, and with no one clearing its flightpath. Want to talk about scary vis-a-vis VFR traffic which may not even be squawking. Add to it that in the training environment, though I'm IFR and with a block altitude, I was doing all this while cruising sometimes at altitudes below to well below 18,000, and around and above areas like Phoenix, Albuquerque, Tucson, El Paso, and Dallas, while hitting simulated targets in these places. All of this was a requirement in order to effect my mission.....as Im only one guy in the jet and it's a heads-down intensive jet as Ive described.

Even with all the above described things I was required to do that were part of my mission and couldn't be avoided, had I ever had a midair with another aircraft in VMC even while doing the very required things I described above, I would've been as much responsible as the other guy for failing to see and avoid; as my mission limitations couldn't be used as an extenuating circumstance (barring some off the wall investigative circumstance). In fact, I'd probably be more at fault if it was known that I was completely heads down at the time, regardless of need. That situation totally sucks, but it was what it was: a total Catch 22. Luckily.....very luckily...it never happened. But it was always in the back of my mind when I was "into attack" on the final attack run in that plane, that Im hurtling through the sky, swapping altitudes, and there are potential VFR planes out there that I'll never see until impact, since I'll never have the chance to. That was reinforced a good few times when, while on the attack run and looking through the bottom of the jet through the DLIR at targets below, I'd see a light civil aircraft cruise through the sensor display picture crossing my flightpath below.

Food for thought. And I even had a legit excuse.
 
Do the airlines do anything for the passenger next to the dead passenger?


A passenger died suddenly aboard a Delta flight bound for the Mexican resort city of Cabo, forcing the plane to divert to Sacramento International Airport.
Delta Flight 1837 had just taken off from an airport in Seattle on Thursday when a traveler became unresponsive, according to CBS Los Angeles.

The aircraft was diverted just after 7 p.m. to Sacramento International Airport, where emergency personnel pronounced the person dead at the scene.
The Sacramento County coroner’s also office responded to the airport to retrieve the passenger’s body. Officials said it appeared the person died of natural causes.

Authorities have not yet released the name of the passenger nor any other details surrounding the incident.
A spokesperson with the coroner’s office told CBS it’s likely the plane stopped in Sacramento because it was the one that was closest at the time.
Someone died going to a Vacation Resort??

In other news... 500,000 died in America because our former president had NO COVID PLAN WHATSOEVER!. Thousands died in a military coup. Tens of thousands died in a genocide. The Texas Governor incited homicidal no-mask behavior in his ENTIRE state while, thereby, putting the rest of the nation at greater mortal peril.

Sorry... Wait, what?? Someone died? Where again?? First Class, or cattle?

Sitting in a sealed-air tube going to a vacation destination during a global pandemic?

I'm sooo confused.
 
Last edited:
Alright, I'll say it. Yeah, it's not cool. 121 training and regulations are amongst the highest/strictest.
"Most Standardized" is NOT the same as "highest" (unless you mean the drug-induced connotation of the term).

"Strict" - in Airline-Academy or McDonald's-Academy training - denotes a very similar attribute; It's just not the vaunted one you're assuming it is. In those cases, "strict" means the burger is cooked for 38 seconds per side: At every shop. Everywhere. Every day. No more. No less.

That's the same as standardization.

Standardized is one version of quality; The McDonald's version. Competence to adapt, overcome and produce the desired outcome is another version of quality.

Hey, Joey! Do you ever watch movies of 121 "pilots" trying to actually fly airplanes to a landing to anywhere other than 7000+ ft runways at class B or C airports from anything other than an ILS or RNAV LPV??
 
Last edited:
Your position is that speeds greater than 250 below 10k is dangerous because collision hazards, unless it is a wide body 121 aircraft because of TCAS (TCAS is not exclusive to 121).

How about the military aircraft on VR/IR routes? Aside from the poor bastard in the C150 a couple years ago, there are not too many midair’s when those aircraft are greater than 250KIAS.

Once again, just like the political conversations, it is your reasoning and thought process that is odd.

That’s not my position, that’s the feds from the accidents in 1960 and 1967. Military is an exception, they have their own rules and corresponding airspace/MOAs/routes. For the most part there aren’t many military to civilian collisions, except that Carolina one a couple years ago.

One area I’m against the NTSB is the finding of “pilots failure to see and avoid.” That needs to go. I can’t count the times I’ve been told traffic at 2oclock and whatever miles, and I say looking, and still can’t see it. It’s hard enough sometimes to see traffic you know is there, now imagine seeing one you don’t know about. The chances of us accurately scanning 180 deg of the sky successfully to truly comply with see-and-avoid is, well, unrealistic. The pilots failed to see each other. Well, no chit. That’s why there was a midair. It’s the circumstances, and the realistic chance they were scanning that piece of the sky in time to acquire the aircraft and then do something about it.

Also, we are a bad judge of whether or not we will hit a plane when we are close. Accident history has shown (for example) like the worst midair in the world, the chakri dadra midair, had the Illuhsuin crew not tried to pull up once they acquired the Saudi 747, and just continued their downward path, they would have missed (barely).


And how about that Sabreliner and Cessna on downwind at San Diego (not SAN). That was ATC error, but at the speeds the jet was going plus that big ass pillar on the FO side, I just don’t see it as a fair assessment that it was their failure of see and avoid.
 
I feel cheated, I've only had to ride up front on Southwest once and everyone makes it out like it's going to be NASCAR with Captain Ricky Bobby and First Officer Earnhardt Jr and it was just like being on United. And neither wore cowboy boots.
I rode up front once where the CA shut both engines down on the turn into the gate and just coasted the rest of the way in. Pretty sure there were cowboy boots involved.
 
Back
Top