Bumblebee
Commodore
two or four stroke?It's a Vespa...
Scrutiny of Gulfstream Intensifies
- Thread starter tonyw
- Start date
I'm going to tattoo your full name to my left buttock and tell your coworkers we date.
Bumblebee
Commodore
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
I agree, but only to an certain extent.
TCAS has made some of us 'lazier', and ultimately it's no solution for real eyes-on. Given the allowable tolerances that a transponder reports, if two airplanes had tolerances given towards each other, actual separation as depicted might not be accurate. Eyes on is just the only way to go sometimes.
However- if TCAS is considered valuable enough that 121 carriers are required to have it now, then one must consider the safety of having it inoperative. Personally, I don't think it's safety critical- one can certainly fly safely without it, usually, but I think it's silly to go without it.
I think perhaps if the item IS MEL'able, it needs to have a more restrictive MEL repair deferral.
Once again, legal vs. prudent rears its ugly head.
HeyEng
Well-Known Member
I liked Doug's MIL vs 121 comparison. There are a lot of things we'll fly with or without to get the mission done. In the days after 9/11, the ENTIRE MEL was waived and it's was at "crew's discretion" as to turning down an airplane. The HHQ folks had planned an "acceptable loss" rate for the increased risk. Oddly enough, I think there was very little dented aluminum...at least on the C-5 side of the house. I have two things I will refuse...flight control issues and fuel tank issues. Both of those things will kill you QUICK. Other things are considered depending on mission and other variables. Risk management is the latest "hot thing" and in the C-5 world at least, has worked out pretty good. As for the C-17 folks...not sure there. They keep bending airplanes for no good reason.
When I go fly pt 91 stuff, my level of risk changes depending on mission/wx/passengers/etc. Very much like the AF world, just different levels of "acceptable risk". I would hope that most 121 guys operate in the same manner and not just look at what the MEL says.
When I go fly pt 91 stuff, my level of risk changes depending on mission/wx/passengers/etc. Very much like the AF world, just different levels of "acceptable risk". I would hope that most 121 guys operate in the same manner and not just look at what the MEL says.
deadstick
Well-Known Member
Come one!
Honest question: what was the finding out of the Dover accident?
Any truth to the story of a flight full of instructors getting evaluated on instructing (I think I heard 9 people in a daisy-chain of evals) and they land gear-up...in a C5?
Wasn't a gear up, the latest Dover incident from a year plus ago, it was an engine failure post-takeoff with action taken against the wrong engine. Landed short of the runway on recovery.
deadstick
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I was asking about 2 different events. I was just asking since SOMEBODY was taking pot shots at the C17 folks. I was just trying to point out that the C5 community was not immune to the occasional "Oops."
tonyw
Well-Known Member
It probably comes from being trained to fly missions where people are actually trying to kill you.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
It probably comes from being trained to fly missions where people are actually trying to kill you.
I'd call that a pretty good job description of a CFI.
BTAcola
New Member
Oh...Ok. Was just confused by the post. Thats cool.
deadstick
Well-Known Member
It probably comes from being trained to fly missions where people are actually trying to kill you.
Awhile ago, I had a chat with an ops inspector. Her take is that the mission-oriented, "go" mentality has gotten former military pilots in trouble in the past.
The thing I had to get through my thick skull was that nobody was going to die if I didn't fly. No problem. Just chill, right? After thinking about it, I would love to follow-up and get her opinion of Helicoper EMS companies.
The HEMS operators have been burning the midnight oil trying to reduce their accident rate. These are VERY experienced aviators who do fly life and death flights in very challenging conditions. People CAN die if they do not get to their destination in time. So what the HEMS folks are looking at are procedures to mitigate (there is that word again) the risks associated with SP IFR flying and to unimproved LZs.
It's about risk assessment. Assess the situation, identify the risks, develop a course of action. HEMS is faced with weight/balance problems and can't cram everything they need into the current fleet. Those folks are the "pros from Dover" and hope they make some progress soon. We lost some good crews in the last year up around DC. There is a way to do this mission.
In an earlier post, I was wondering about "the rest of the story" and more info has surfaced. Limited to 10k -- that's a biggie in my book. With his options running out with the multiple MELs, I can understand his decision. Somebody also posted a question about how can something so critical be MEL'd. I agree. A few weeks ago, our TAWS was going wackey and needed attention. After all the hoopla over TAWS being REQUIRED equipment for turbine aircraft with, I think, 6 pax seats, I was shocked to see that it could be deferred for 120 days (FWIW 135, not 121). Wow. It must be really important in the eyes of the FAA.
I realize I've been all over the place. It's been a long day. I just think that people need to understand that there can be a safe way to operate when faced with abnormal circumstances.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Safety costs money.
The FAA doesn't want to cost somebody money. Who else would give them cushy jobs when their tenure at the FAA was up?
I think if we wanted REAL oversight of airlines, there should be a bar against people taking jobs with an airline for a certain period after being at an airline.
