Good bye Jet U

[JA Yawd Bwoy]

Have you ever had that dream where you are partying with supermodels on the beach in the Caribbean, living life to the fullest, not a care in the world, and splashing around in the surf with the aforementioned models... only to wake up to find that the water you felt splashing on your face in your dream was just the puddle of drool trailing down your mouth and onto your pillow, and your dog whining to go outside for a walk even though it's way too early, it's raining, and you have to get up in 2 hours to hit the daily grind?

That's an example of the "Dream" and waking up with the "realities" you are referring to.

Have you ever had the dream of walking with your loved one on the beach and enjoying each other's company, when a large lobster walks up and asks you if you can "spare a buck?"... to which you say, "I don't think lobsters should be asking me for change" and then you realize it's not a lobster at all, it's your son asking you for college tuition... then you wake up and realize that your loving wife is still by your side and your 2 year old is sound asleep upstairs with his favorite stuffed lobster plushie??

That's an example of a the "Dream" and waking up to realities that you know you can overcome with proper planning, training, networking, and timing.

Sure, we've all considered it a "Dream" to fly at one point... but the fact is... not everyone wakes up to the harsh realities that you suggested... because they planned accordingly. The way I see it... your eyes will only be opened in such harsh ways, if you followed your dream blindly and with out research or a plan.



Bob

:yeahthat: Hell yeah to that! There are plenty of ways to become a pilot and sad to say but paying 70k is one of them...

 

[Murdoughnut]

Have you ever had that dream where you are partying with supermodels on the beach in the Caribbean, living life to the fullest, not a care in the world, and splashing around in the surf with the aforementioned models... only to wake up to find that the water you felt splashing on your face in your dream was just the puddle of drool trailing down your mouth and onto your pillow, and your dog whining to go outside for a walk even though it's way too early, it's raining, and you have to get up in 2 hours to hit the daily grind?

That's an example of the "Dream" and waking up with the "realities" you are referring to.

Have you ever had the dream of walking with your loved one on the beach and enjoying each other's company, when a large lobster walks up and asks you if you can "spare a buck?"... to which you say, "I don't think lobsters should be asking me for change" and then you realize it's not a lobster at all, it's your son asking you for college tuition... then you wake up and realize that your loving wife is still by your side and your 2 year old is sound asleep upstairs with his favorite stuffed lobster plushie??

That's an example of a the "Dream" and waking up to realities that you know you can overcome with proper planning, training, networking, and timing.

Sure, we've all considered it a "Dream" to fly at one point... but the fact is... not everyone wakes up to the harsh realities that you suggested... because they planned accordingly. The way I see it... your eyes will only be opened in such harsh ways, if you followed your dream blindly and with out research or a plan.



Bob

Wait ... so are you telling me that Entourage isn't real, and they're not going to invite me to join their group?

 

[kellwolf]

The fact is... no training program can prepare you for and and every possible scenario that can go wrong up there. I mean when was the last time any of us trained for a dual engine flameout, a total electrical & hydraulic failure and flying the plane in manual reversion on the standby instruments to minimums in mountainous terrain, abrupt pusher actuation due to any number of reasons, gear collapse on the takeoff roll, etc.

Well, if you mean all at once, haven't done that. Dual engine flameout has been part of our training syllabus since 3701, though. ISIS approach (standy instruments) is also in there for both initial and upgrade training. "Total electrical failure" in the CRJ isn't possible unless your ADG fails to deploy or in addition to losing the electrics, you've lost something else. You're having a REALLY bad day then. Total hydraulic failures have been creeping up in LOFT scenarios since we started having #2 accumulators blowing up and taking out hydraulic lines. The hot new LOFT scenario now is a shaker/pusher event on base to final out of no where.

I don't think the INTENTIONALLY put guys up there that don't know what's going on. But it's a by product, especially at airlines that partner up with places like JetU. The FOs are normally pretty good after a year or so, which is what we've got going on here at Pinnacle now. When they're fresh outta training, though, it's a different story. Some can tell you spot on how much hydraulic fluid is in the #3 reservoir from memory, but don't ask them to land in a 15 kt crosswind.

 

[Murdoughnut]

How come no one is talking about the fact that of the last three fatal regional accidents, there were gulfstreamers in the cockpit of each flight.

 

[SFCC/UND]

did not know that!!!

 

[Murdoughnut]

did not know that!!!

Yes, I'm thinking of this one, the Comair flight in Lexington, and the "dude we're at 410!" flight wherever it was ... Missouri maybe? Surprised no one has written a story about that.

 

[kellwolf]

Yes, I'm thinking of this one, the Comair flight in Lexington, and the "dude we're at 410!" flight wherever it was ... Missouri maybe? Surprised no one has written a story about that.

IMO the fact that the guys on 3701 were Streamers is a moot point. Take guys that were CFIs that were put through the company training with little to no high altitude training, and the same thing could have happened. In fact, the only reason *I* know there's a difference b/w high and low altitude stall recovery is BECAUSE of 3701.

 

[rd757]

IMO the fact that the guys on 3701 were Streamers is a moot point. Take guys that were CFIs that were put through the company training with little to no high altitude training, and the same thing could have happened. In fact, the only reason *I* know there's a difference b/w high and low altitude stall recovery is BECAUSE of 3701.

They flamed out too, didn't they?

RD

 

[kellwolf]

They flamed out too, didn't they?

RD

3701 = the FL410 accident. More of a core lock issue than a flame out. You can re-start the engine if it flames out, but you need to keep the N2 rotating to do it.

 

[rd757]

3701 = the FL410 accident. More of a core lock issue than a flame out. You can re-start the engine if it flames out, but you need to keep the N2 rotating to do it.

Ah yeah, I just got to that part in the article. The overheating with the cooling caused it to lock up... Sad to see a perfectly good airframe wasted.

RD

 

[Cptnchia]

3701 = the FL410 accident. More of a core lock issue than a flame out. You can re-start the engine if it flames out, but you need to keep the N2 rotating to do it.

No, the flame out was the incipient failure and issue. The core lock was a result of the flame out. If they hadn't been playing grabA and flamed out, there never would have been the need to do a relight, and the subsequent core lock.

 

[rd757]

No, the flame out was the incipient failure and issue. The core lock was a result of the flame out. If they hadn't been playing grabA and flamed out, there never would have been the need to do a relight, and the subsequent core lock.

That is my take on it as well (if it's worth anything). The engines flamed out, therefore it stalled...high pitch attitude, low airspeed, loss of thrust...bye bye.

 

[kellwolf]

No, the flame out was the incipient failure and issue. The core lock was a result of the flame out. If they hadn't been playing grabA and flamed out, there never would have been the need to do a relight, and the subsequent core lock.

But if they had kept the N2 spinning like the QRH called for, the flame out wouldn't have lead to a core lock. We can keep going around in circles all night, though.

 

[Cptnchia]

But if they had kept the N2 spinning like the QRH called for, the flame out wouldn't have lead to a core lock. We can keep going around in circles all night, though.

You're right, we could. But you have to acknowledge the fact that if they had not been screwing around, a function of experience or more precisely a lack of, then they never would have been a position to flame the engines out, get slow, lose N2, get core lock, and screw the pooch. Or do you think it is OK to deviate from SOP and common sense in an airplane as long as you can recover from any pilot induced frak up?

 

[kellwolf]

You're right, we could. But you have to acknowledge the fact that if they had not been screwing around, a function of experience or more precisely a lack of, then they never would have been a position to flame the engines out, get slow, lose N2, get core lock, and screw the pooch. Or do you think it is OK to deviate from SOP and common sense in an airplane as long as you can recover from any pilot induced frak up?

Never said it was okay for them to be screwing around.

 

[MikeD]

You're right, we could. But you have to acknowledge the fact that if they had not been screwing around, a function of experience or more precisely a lack of, then they never would have been a position to flame the engines out, get slow, lose N2, get core lock, and screw the pooch. Or do you think it is OK to deviate from SOP and common sense in an airplane as long as you can recover from any pilot induced frak up?

I think Kell is discussing the second of two separate and distinct issues:

1. How the 3701 crew got into that situation in the first place.

2. What their actions were immediately after the flameout.

 

[kellwolf]

I think Kell is discussing the second of two separate and distinct issues:

1. How the 3701 crew got into that situation in the first place.

2. What their actions were immediately after the flameout.

Yeah, what he said. They shoulda never put themselves in the situation. Basically it was a "Well, they say this is the max altitude, so it'll do it. Oh, and we're empty so let's have some "fun" while we're at it" type thing. Not a good thing to do. The thing climbs like a pig in the summer at FL250. I've had it at FL370 (our company max alt now) ONCE, and it handled like a tractor trailer rig with loose wheels. I think I spent about, oh, 3 minutes up there before coming back down. Only reason we even tried was WX avoidance. I don't want to know how badly it handles above that altitude.

 

[ctab5060X]

The thing climbs like a pig in the summer at FL250. I've had it at FL370 (our company max alt now) ONCE, and it handled like a tractor trailer rig with loose wheels. I think I spent about, oh, 3 minutes up there before coming back down. Only reason we even tried was WX avoidance. I don't want to know how badly it handles above that altitude.

I have had it at FL370 for a good segment of cruise(during the winter and you can probably guess who I was flying with). I agree with your assesment... it is like a tractor trailer rig with loose wheels. I have no clue how the airplane was even certfied for FL410 in the first place.

 

[Cptnchia]

Yeah, what he said. They shoulda never put themselves in the situation. Basically it was a "Well, they say this is the max altitude, so it'll do it. Oh, and we're empty so let's have some "fun" while we're at it" type thing. Not a good thing to do.

That's what I'm getting at. It was a lack of commonsense and inexperience that led them to be that high in the first place. Goes back to the accident chain theory. Without that link, you never get the flameout and subsequent cluster. Was it an engine problem that resulted in the crash, or a pilot error that led to the engine problem? Which was the higher causal factor?

 

[bunghole]

Nah... didn't have to do with cheap labor in the right seat. I had a bit of a heated response but I retracted it and left the rolling eyes.

Here's what my issue was... It was bunghole's assumption that an airline intentionally puts an inexperienced, unknowledgeable crewmember in the right seat. I haven't looked up his history, but I think it's fairly safe to assume that he hasn't been through 121 training, or he wouldn't have made a comment like that.

The fact is... no training program can prepare you for and and every possible scenario that can go wrong up there. I mean when was the last time any of us trained for a dual engine flameout, a total electrical & hydraulic failure and flying the plane in manual reversion on the standby instruments to minimums in mountainous terrain, abrupt pusher actuation due to any number of reasons, gear collapse on the takeoff roll, etc.

Well, if you had a decent instructor and some time left over in the SIM after your normal training was done then you may have heard him say "You guys wanna have some fun?" followed by some of the scenario's depicted above. But... as part of the standard FAA approved training programs?? Nope.

I guess, in a way... that means we are all inexperienced and unknowledgeable crew members, regardless of our time accumulated prior to being hired and our GA/military training up to that point.

Bob

In your rebuttal are you referring the dual engine flameout as it relates to Flight 1594? Experience of flight crew certainly was the key factor for passenger survival in this case.
It's interesting you didnt use as part of your comment the all too common icing conditions as regional pilots encounter. Do you honestly think that Flight 3407 crew members were adequately prepared for their demise? Knowing what you know now.....would you put your wife and kids on a similar flight with similar crew experience and action?
My comment Mr. Bob was based on an industry that puts more emphasis on profits(lack thereof) than lives of inviduals. This puts both flight crews and passenger in unneccesary high risk environments where failure is imminent.

What can be gained of course is a critical analysis of these failures and more often than not.....'experience' wins, regardless of simulations.:bandit: