Professionalism...is sometimes lacking.

mojo6911 said:
Still, I don't see how you can make that determination unless you were:

A. Rated and trained to the company standards
B. In the cockpit

This reminds me of the thread where the guy was a passenger on a 737 or something and claimed it stalled during cruise. Maybe it is just me, but I try not to criticize other pilots when I don't know the facts.
Click to expand...

I understand your objections. I will certainly concede that there may be circumstances of which I'm not aware. Either way, my initial (and subsequent) reaction to what happened stands. It struck me (and the other pilot riding in the back with me), that they had a severe case of "we're really light, let's have some fun".

It might not make a difference in the overall impression from the outside, but part of what put the interpretation (of what they were doing) in my head in the first place was the fact that the gate agent made an announcement prior to boarding that because of the very light load the pilots had informed them that the first six rows would need to be empty for W&B purposes. The agent asked that anyone in those rows come up for a new seat assignment, and said that everyone could basically have a row to themselves if they desired. After boarding the F/A made a similar comment about having our choice of seats if desired because there were so few people on board. I glanced around while moving to an exit row, and made a cursory headcount of about 10 people on board. That initial idea that we were very lightly loaded immediately drove me to think that the guys were having a bit of fun on take-off, rather than being any sort of a standard profile. I know that there weren't any outside factors (obstacle departure or noise abatement procedure) driving the profile because I'd just flown into that airport myself and was familiar.

Just as a reminder, I haven't thrown anyone under the bus here by publishing flight numbers/city pairs, etc.. I'm also not trying to make what they did appear more dramatic than it really was - for example the zoom climb (my interpretation) was fairly short lived - simply a strong pull up followed by a sharp bank. Could it have been something like a maneuver to avoid birds or something similar? Sure it could have - but I sincerely doubt it based on everything leading up to it. Too much circumstantial evidence leading me straight to my conclusion. I'm simply making an observation based on my perception of what happened. Everyone can take from it what they will.
 
SteveC said:
Just as a reminder, I haven't thrown anyone under the bus here by publishing flight numbers/city pairs, etc..
Click to expand...


You haven't called them out specifically, but the thread title suggests they were unprofessional, when really, you don't know all of the facts. You made the observation from the back of the airplane in an operation you aren't trained for.


SteveC said:
I'm simply making an observation based on my perception of what happened. Everyone can take from it what they will.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I said "flies the airplane differently." Securing the door and making PA announcements don't involve flying the airplane. I'm referring to manipulation of the flight controls.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to start a fight, or be cold to a follow member, however the above sir is the arrogant presumption the lead to the whole back and forth exchange.

In my original post I was not referring to the manipulation of the flight controls per se, I was referring to the operation of the flight as a whole. I consider fun any deviation from the normal routine that might be enjoyable, you obviously equate it to unsafe operation of the aircraft. The use of the word "Fun" in the context in which I used it was as much innocuous as it was ambiguous. However, you choose to make an assumption, which was incorrect, and take a position of condescension. Quite honestly that is something this forum already has too much of.

Being able to take that ridiculous shortcut because you are not worried about a gate being open, that's fun

Being able to throttle back and fly super slow to get a few extra dimes in you paycheck, that's fun

Being able to get on the PA and say "You guys keeping busy back there" to your F/As, that's fun

Being able to leave the door open, unbuckle, get up and take a piss without an act of congress, that's fun

Not giving a crap about how bumpy the ride is because the tailwind is awesome, that's fun

Being able to stay up high longer because you can make a descent that would normally make a pax upchuck, that's fun

Being able to leave my rollaboard in the cabin as opposed to in C3 on a snowy or rainy day, that is FUN

Etc.

None of the above involves unsafe aircraft operation, violation of FAA or company regs. So next time perhaps you should clarify before making inaccurate assumptions and taking such a self-righteous stand. If you believe that any of the above somehow compromises safety and is reckless, then we can just agree to disagree

Either way..I ain't mad at ya'

ATN_Pilot said:
The airplane is designed to operate at FL410. The problem was that ambient temperate was ISA+11. Unfortunately, Pinnacle never trained crews to use the performance charts to determine maximum cruising altitude, and never trained them how to use the FMS for performance data backup. But none of that would have really mattered if they had just flown the airplane as they would have if passengers were onboard. The problem with that flight began when the crew decided that since there weren't any passengers on board, they were going to fly the airplane differently.
Click to expand...

I am well aware, I fly it there all the time. What I should have said is that the pilot chose to disregard a company operational parameter for no other reason then to say they had done so.

Again, apples and oranges. I don't willfully break or disregard company imposed limitations, they did.
 
X-Forces said:
Being able to throttle back and fly super slow to get a few extra dimes in you paycheck, that's fun

Being able to stay up high longer because you can make a descent that would normally make a pax upchuck, that's fun
Click to expand...

These are exactly the kinds of things I'm talking about. Disagree all you want, but the company tells you how fast to fly on the release. Unless there's a legitimate operational reason for flying a different speed (turbulence, ATC direction, need to burn fuel for landing weight, etc.), then the airplane should be flown at the speed that the company plans the flight. That's what they're paying you to do. And I don't know about your company, but our company has us do descents with a programmed cost index. They pay me to do it that way, regardless of whether there are people in the back or not. I fly it the way I'm paid to fly it. That's part of professionalism.

I don't willfully break or disregard company imposed limitations, they did.
Click to expand...

No, they didn't.
 
"A friend" used to do it on repo flights and saw too much crap go south that "my friend" doesn't even do it on repo flights anymore. Whenever I have to make a large control input with pax on board I am embarrassed.
 
X-Forces said:
I am not trying to start a fight, or be cold to a follow member, however the above sir is the arrogant presumption the lead to the whole back and forth exchange.

In my original post I was not referring to the manipulation of the flight controls per se, I was referring to the operation of the flight as a whole. I consider fun any deviation from the normal routine that might be enjoyable, you obviously equate it to unsafe operation of the aircraft. The use of the word "Fun" in the context in which I used it was as much innocuous as it was ambiguous. However, you choose to make an assumption, which was incorrect, and take a position of condescension. Quite honestly that is something this forum already has too much of.

Being able to take that ridiculous shortcut because you are not worried about a gate being open, that's fun

Being able to throttle back and fly super slow to get a few extra dimes in you paycheck, that's fun

Being able to get on the PA and say "You guys keeping busy back there" to your F/As, that's fun

Being able to leave the door open, unbuckle, get up and take a piss without an act of congress, that's fun

Not giving a crap about how bumpy the ride is because the tailwind is awesome, that's fun

Being able to stay up high longer because you can make a descent that would normally make a pax upchuck, that's fun

Being able to leave my rollaboard in the cabin as opposed to in C3 on a snowy or rainy day, that is FUN

Etc.

None of the above involves unsafe aircraft operation, violation of FAA or company regs. So next time perhaps you should clarify before making inaccurate assumptions and taking such a self-righteous stand. If you believe that any of the above somehow compromises safety and is reckless, then we can just agree to disagree

Either way..I ain't mad at ya'



I am well aware, I fly it there all the time. What I should have said is that the pilot chose to disregard a company operational parameter for no other reason then to say they had done so.

Again, apples and oranges. I don't willfully break or disregard company imposed limitations, they did.
Click to expand...

"Fun" that you're having on your flights is a lot different than the "fun" a lot of people have on empty legs, trust me. There's a lot of stupid crap that goes on at every airline. From now on, "fun" shall hereby refer to the stupid, unprofessional crap. :)
 
ATN_Pilot said:
These are exactly the kinds of things I'm talking about. Disagree all you want, but the company tells you how fast to fly on the release. Unless there's a legitimate operational reason for flying a different speed (turbulence, ATC direction, need to burn fuel for landing weight, etc.), then the airplane should be flown at the speed that the company plans the flight. That's what they're paying you to do. And I don't know about your company, but our company has us do descents with a programmed cost index. They pay me to do it that way, regardless of whether there are people in the back or not. I fly it the way I'm paid to fly it. That's part of professionalism.
Click to expand...

Than I would say that about 90% of the Capts at are operation are not professional by your standards. By my standards, you sound like an extension of the autopilot, which in itself is as dangerous as any of the above. Either way it doesn't matter. Like I said, we can agree to disagree.
 
Doug Taylor said:
Does anyone actually "agree to disagree"? :)

I like to take my intellectual opponents and beat them senseless. I mean, it's what the internet was founded upon, right? :)
Click to expand...

I don't know brother, I've never met ATN? Do you think it would be a fair fight? You do know me after all! ;)
 
X-Forces said:
I don't know brother, I've never met ATN? Do you think it would be a fair fight? You do know me after all! ;)
Click to expand...

We just have "Dance Off's" on Jetcareers — my aim in conflict resolution is to bob my head side-to-side and throw out euphemisms like, "Dayum, son! You got got served!".

I'll make a quick Hip-Hop mix for you two to attempt to serve one another BRB.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
These are exactly the kinds of things I'm talking about. Disagree all you want, but the company tells you how fast to fly on the release. Unless there's a legitimate operational reason for flying a different speed (turbulence, ATC direction, need to burn fuel for landing weight, etc.), then the airplane should be flown at the speed that the company plans the flight. That's what they're paying you to do. And I don't know about your company, but our company has us do descents with a programmed cost index. They pay me to do it that way, regardless of whether there are people in the back or not. I fly it the way I'm paid to fly it. That's part of professionalism.
No, they didn't.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with your statements. Flying profiles though (at least at my company) is mostly "technique." More like, "that's what the company would like," but most either disregard or are unable to follow.
 
"Oh hello FO _______, this is Captain so-and-so, we have a FOQA event, and we'd like to ask you a few questions..."
 
Baronman said:
I tend to agree with your statements. Flying profiles though (at least at my company) is mostly "technique." More like, "that's what the company would like," but most either disregard or are unable to follow.
Click to expand...

I agree about the profiles. Most Capts I fly with don't use the company descent profile because it is a bit too steep for most pax liking. The company likes it because it is the fuel efficient. However, in the end of the day it is better to burn a little extra fuel then to take a 30 minute delay because you have to sanitize the cabin!

"Clean up in row 10.......Row 10"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top