Rant

derg said:
That NEW Prius is fire though. I like the aesthetics and I’m not buying another Tesla because I want off the crazy train.
Click to expand...


LOLz

Caving in? It’s the man (Elon) driving you away? Despite singing high praises for years on Tesla products. Well, your Tesla car is still the same inanimate object it was before Elon went MAGA.



derg said:
“Hey, my car just finished an update in the garage, 45 minutes of downtime and OOOH I got a new version of Dune Buggy Racer I’ll never play,”
Click to expand...

I don’t know what this means. But you’re gonna get made fun of if you buy a new Prius. That’s below an A35A.
 
ChasenSFO said:
On the airline side, I was told when SJC had 30R closed for a few days, something of a majority of Roll Coal Express crews were asking for a sidestep on check-in with approach having no idea the runway was closed. By the 4th or 5th day of 50%+ of these guys asking, apparently the company was asked why such a huge number of these guys were in the last stage of the approach hoping to use a closed runway haha. Sounds like no big deal, but it really had the local ATC thinking "what is going on at X". In that case, I actually told my friend "Well, to be fair, even if no pilot at any other airline read the NOTAMs either, it would still only be airline X asking for sidesteps all day to save 11 seconds so you wouldn't know".
Click to expand...

Well that's because reading NOTAMS for any given airport is like reading a novel. It's just way too much and some of it's coded and convoluted.
 
CK said:
If a State Trooper tells you to avoid Nissan Altimas with temporary tags, you should listen.

The lack of 135 accidents is interesting and I'm not sure what to attribute it to. The experience level of the pilots, mechanics, training centers, controllers, and leadership has to be at the lowest point since jet aircraft were put into service. It is a perfect storm, but the holes in the cheese are not lining up (thankfully).

Alex.
Click to expand...

I clicked like after the first sentence. Perfect.

So your 2nd point, it’s the avionics and the modern planes.

You can thank the tech programmer and designers for keeping these guys alive,

-signed ex 135 “big wig”
 
Rosstafari said:
I’d ask you to kindly not • on my coworkers.

This was not the result of a hard landing. There were some serious problems well before that point. The RAT is visibly deployed. Listen to the audio. Other details I’m not able to share.

They did a good job in a serious emergency scenario.
Click to expand...

For some reason, CNNs article title had “hard landing” in it. Not sure where they got that from, as there didn’t appear to be anything hard about the landing; and as you said, this was a previously declared emergency to a landing. Seemed to be a fine job from what I saw.
 
Rosstafari said:
I’d ask you to kindly not • on my coworkers.

This was not the result of a hard landing. There were some serious problems well before that point. The RAT is visibly deployed. Listen to the audio. Other details I’m not able to share.

They did a good job in a serious emergency scenario.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
 
MikeD said:
For some reason, CNNs article title had “hard landing” in it. Not sure where they got that from, as there didn’t appear to be anything hard about the landing; and as you said, this was a previously declared emergency to a landing. Seemed to be a fine job from what I saw.
Click to expand...
One of the videos out there labeled it a hard landing, so everybody ran with that. Also, one of the pax interviewed didn’t have a clue about the emergency prior, and just said they landed hard and then he saw flames. It’s just normal aviation journalism.
 
MikeD said:
For some reason, CNNs article title had “hard landing” in it. Not sure where they got that from, as there didn’t appear to be anything hard about the landing; and as you said, this was a previously declared emergency to a landing. Seemed to be a fine job from what I saw.
Click to expand...
The local news here in PHX said the wing and the engine was on fire. Not sure where they got that from other than an internet watching the video.
 
RAT deployed? Mechanical backup? There are some mode failures in the Bus where you’re gonna have a hard time flaring and it is going to be a hard landing.

But Smoke! Fire! Crash! Sells for the news. I already had a non-pilot friend text me a news article about this landing, with his word caption, “can’t trust Airbus now”
 
Sounds like what was happening in the air was much harrier than what happened on the ground.

My guess is that the smoke procedure led them into emergency electrical config, which might involve the RAT. I’ll have to look that up…
 
Toobdrvr said:
And, confirmed. The Smoke procedure will eventually lead to RAT deployment, and possibly a landing in Direct Law, and Alternate Brakes…
Click to expand...

Lots and lots of bad things. But most of the news is for ‘public consumption’ and fire, smoke and gnashing of teeth is basically what they want to hear about and share. Makes for more compelling product instead of “smoke removal led to a very challenging but otherwise safe landing, which could have been much MUCH worse”
 
Toobdrvr said:
And, confirmed. The Smoke procedure will eventually lead to RAT deployment, and possibly a landing in Direct Law, and Alternate Brakes…
Click to expand...
IMS the only things left running on main AC power in that condition are one fuel pump in each wing via the GEN 1 LINE pb-sw.
 
Friend's colleague was the FO on that flight - smoke event in cockpit at 240 followed by loss of AP and AT and elements of PFD/ND on descent. Comms malfunctioning as well.

That sounds like a really rough day at the office. Good job crew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top