Land after learning about reg violation?

[Autothrust Blue]

Uh what about the crew member resting?

He's too busy looking at cat videos.

 

[JEP]

Will you not be knowingly violating 121.311 ? During takeoff you couldn't have known about it. But now you know before landing.

Well you cant just keep flying forever unless the aircraft has been retrofitted for inflight refueling. Land hte plane and deal with it...

 

[JEP]

That is an entirely different scenario. Your post history indicates you like arguing hypotheticals. May I suggest a hobby, or scotch, or a scotch hobby?

Try some Two Gingers. Its very refreshing in hte summer....

 

[JEP]

I'm suggesting that you not violate 121.311 upon landing by supplying all passengers 2 years of age and older a seat with a seat belt if possible. I'm also suggesting the safest course of action regardless of regulation is for all passengers to have a seat with a seat belt on landing and through turbulence. Finally I'm suggesting when you, as Captain, become aware of a situation that might be unsafe or violate a regulation, you have a duty to do something about it. Some of you are saying basically screw it, keep on trucking, file a report and have some scotch.

So you come here looking for some input and now are giving out advice that just happens to agree with your version of whatever did or did not happen.....? Damn my head hurts.

 

[propsync]

After giving it some further thought, screw that little kid. If he dies he dies. It's the mothers fault and the agents fault anyway. I'll be covered with an asap.

 

[Dphoenix]

After giving it some further thought, screw that little kid. If he dies he dies. It's the mothers fault and the agents fault anyway. I'll be covered with an asap.

oh boy. now this kid is gonna die because he's on his mother's lap when we perform a normal landing? look, I don't have a seat. a flight attendant jumpseat is not a seat, except in an emergency, and this ain't a qualified emergency. My FOM prohibits me from putting somebody there. If we have a nonrev that's trained and qualified for the FA jump, that's fine. If there's a pilot in the back that was verified in CASS and my JS is open, sure send em up. Otherwise, "continue with normal operations". I think you're being pretty dramatic and hysterical with your hypothetical. The kid that somehow survived the takeoff on his mother's lap isn't going to die because we perform a normal landing.

 

[propsync]

oh boy. now this kid is gonna die because he's on his mother's lap when we perform a normal landing? look, I don't have a seat. a flight attendant jumpseat is not a seat, except in an emergency, and this ain't a qualified emergency. My FOM prohibits me from putting somebody there. If we have a nonrev that's trained and qualified for the FA jump, that's fine. If there's a pilot in the back that was verified in CASS and my JS is open, sure send em up. Otherwise, "continue with normal operations". I think you're being pretty dramatic and hysterical with your hypothetical. The kid that somehow survived the takeoff on his mother's lap isn't going to die because we perform a normal landing.

Exactly, I've way over thought this. It's a 1 in a million shot he dies. Those are acceptable odds. It's a lot of extra effort to move people around. And its not my fault anyway.

 

[milleR]

@propsync Soooo ..... this actually happened, your captain did what literally every single 121 pilot in this thread said they would do but you came here seeking validation for your disagreement of that decision, yes?

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Is this what they are asking in St George for an interview, because this has the mark of the beast all over it.

 

[Cptnchia]

I think we need to start attaching something like this to the threads.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

Is this what they are asking in St George for an interview, because this has the mark of the beast all over it.

Nah, I don't think our ADM/CRM scenario is that arcane.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

@propsync Soooo ..... this actually happened, your captain did what literally every single 121 pilot in this thread said they would do but you came here seeking validation for your disagreement of that decision, yes?

I don't get accused of having a casual attitude towards compliance very often. Pretty cool.

 

[propsync]

@propsync Soooo ..... this actually happened, your captain did what literally every single 121 pilot in this thread said they would do but you came here seeking validation for your disagreement of that decision, yes?

No, these will be interview questions.

 

[milleR]

No, these will be interview questions.

Yikes. I read that to mean the response from all the 121 pilots in this thread would be unsatisfactory in your eyes.

 

[Cptnchia]

No, these will be interview questions.

Good luck filling the position if just about every experienced pilot doesn't agree with your preconceived "right" answer.

 

[NovemberEcho]

 

[milleR]

Good luck filling the position if just about every experienced pilot doesn't agree with your preconceived "right" answer.

Amen. If his online demeanor was sitting across the table from me I'd be walking out the door. An interview goes both ways after all.

 

[derg]

Everything going alright, Derg?

Hunky dory!

I just don't like the "Green Eggs and Ham" approach to getting someone to agree with a really rotten idea. "But what if…"

Want to divert? Divert and do it well. But no one's above reproach because of "Captains Authority".

 

[BobDDuck]

But no one's above reproach because of "Captains Authority".

Sadly, our (ALPA) pro standards department just put a memo out that disagrees with that, at least as far as being an FO is concerned.

#stoneage

 

[derg]

Sadly, our (ALPA) pro standards department just put a memo out that disagrees with that, at least as far as being an FO is concerned.

#stoneage

Did they declare that the captain was a Xerxesian "God King" or something?