Land after learning about reg violation?

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

I'm (VERY slightly) paraphrasing:

FO's be mindful that doing something to undermine the captain's authority such as no following basic instructions and doing things without asking permission first (examples include calling for taxi and changing the FMS) is not only disrespectful but also unsafe.

They do go on to tell captains that FOs are there to "assist" you and suggest not being "overbearing" and to avoid micromanaging and that will win FO's respect.

Le sigh...
 
So to heavily paraphrase...

FOs don't do things until you're told

CAs you don't have to tell the FO to do everything

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 
I'm (VERY slightly) paraphrasing:

FO's be mindful that doing something to undermine the captain's authority such as no following basic instructions and doing things without asking permission first (examples include calling for taxi and changing the FMS) is not only disrespectful but also unsafe.

They do go on to tell captains that FOs are there to "assist" you and suggest not being "overbearing" and to avoid micromanaging and that will win FO's respect.

Le sigh...

Sounds like Pro Stands is trying to preserve everyones ego!

Xerxes I am not.
 
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".
It gives you the latitude to do what you think best in a situation.

It does not imply complete freedom of action or from consequence.
 
@propsync Ihave only gone through 3 of the 7 pages of this thread, but so far nobody agrees with you. Stop and think about that.

As a dispatcher I would be shocked and stunned if a Captain proposed diverting because of this. As others have said, it's not any safer, and the reg. has already been violated. No point in inconveniencing everyone on board, as well as all the downline passenger on subsequent flights. ASAP it and move on.
 
You're the Captain on a flight cruising at 36,000 feet and learn from the flight attendants while at cruise that a reg violation occurred prior to push back. They just became aware of it themselves. It turns out after some friendly conversation, a passengers lap child is really 4 years old. There are no other passenger seats available to sit.

After checking with your dispatcher, the decision ultimately comes down to what you want to do.

Obviously an ASAP will be filed later, but more importantly, what do you do right now at 36,000 feet?

Do you-

A.) Continue on to your destination and land normally, file a report
B.) Declare an emergency and land at the nearest suitable airport
C.) Work with your dispatcher and amend your destination to a nearest suitable airport
D.) Put a passenger in an open flight attendant jumpseat to open up a seat up for the child
E.) ??


Anyone who does B, C, or D should have their ATP revoked. Same with anyone who'd blow a slide just to avoid paying a fine by stopping the 3 hr clock.

Ok, maybe not have the ATP revoked, but at the very least a beotch-slap across the face....

Batman-Slapping-Robin.jpg
 
Im not 100% committed to that because you have weigh now what is in all the passengers best interests on landing, not just one passenger. But in moderate turbulence where everyone needs to be seated I would do it, for example over the Atlantic or Pacific. I'm guided by what's in the interests of everyone's safety drawing on available resources. I ask myself if someone could be hurt or killed. It's a hypothetical situation but it could happen. I would put a pax in an extra flight attendant seat though to open a seat for a child. Passengers do and have sat in FA jump seats when a seat breaks.


Oh please. If you really are what you believe in, then you'd refuse to transport ANY infant in arms or any kid below 2 in arms. But that's not what you are saying. You only care because the kid is 4 yrs old, and not 2 which is FAA-legal for being in arms. So enough of the turbulence/bad weather/not safe without a seatbelt/ argument. It didn't stop you from taking 0-2 yr olds in arms, so just stop.

You'd be a buffoon to declare and land nearest suitable airport. And the same goes for putting an unqualified individual in a FA jumpseat.
 
Its wierd that the manufacturer of the CRJ didnt realize this issue during production and change FMS head vendors or get it fixed before sending A/C to customers.
 
Its wierd that the manufacturer of the CRJ didnt realize this issue during production and change FMS head vendors or get it fixed before sending A/C to customers.

You mean the same manufacturer that rushed the plane to market before they got LEDs and auto throttles certified on it just to beat Embraer to the first sales?
 
You mean the same manufacturer that rushed the plane to market before they got LEDs and auto throttles certified on it just to beat Embraer to the first sales?
So they make a half baked plane and customers still bought it? No wonder airlines are throwing their 200s in the desert and sticking with the 7 and 9.
 
So they make a half baked plane and customers still bought it? No wonder airlines are throwing their 200s in the desert and sticking with the 7 and 9.
The 700 and 900 have the same FFFFFFFFFMMMMMMMMMMMMSSSSSSSSSS, and still no auto throttles.
 
The 700 and 900 have the same FFFFFFFFFMMMMMMMMMMMMSSSSSSSSSS, and still no auto throttles.
As a part of our ADS-B equipage, some of our airplanes are getting non-bouncy, LCD display CDUs.

Except the Deuce because that thing is a piece of crap no matter what you do to it.
 
It is in many respects a pity that Canadair/Bombardier beat Embraer to market with the 135/145, but I must admit that the common qual has been rather beneficial to my airline.

The 135/145 are superior airplanes in every regard to the -200.
 
Back
Top