kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Yeah, it's been replaced with the old "will NORMALLY be blah blah blah." My CFM still says FCOM 2 on the binder.
Sloooooowwwww down!
- Thread starter SpiceWeasel
- Start date
Yeah, it's been replaced with the old "will NORMALLY be blah blah blah." My CFM still says FCOM 2 on the binder.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Don't even try to play the victim here. You're the one who wrote the bolded text below, remember?
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
I absolutely remember that. But what was written before that by others:
If you'd like to say something to address the safety of the flight, grow some balls and talk to the crew first... but you didn't. Professional Standards should be the second to get involved.
You're welcome for the ride, BTW.
Some of the most vitriolic replies come from... guess who... the guys who may or may not work at the same outfit. Am I surprised? No.
If you don't understand that the original post WAS NOT meant to be a calling out, if you will, then you don't get me or my posting style. I already explained that I made the mistake of even mentioning it - shouldn't have, but suffice it to say, again, that when I was writing it, my feeling on the matter was that I was just recommending something. Not bashing anyone.
And, since everyone likes to read into everything, I will say again, I never used the word HOPE in the bending metal comments. av8sean said "hope". I said, I would "laugh" if they did, because their attitude toward a "friendly" post (well, if they'd given it a chance and not read it wrong) sucks. If you want to throw away your careers ignoring some seemingly sound advice, it's not my problem. Why should I play the victim? I'm not, but, in a moment of weakness, I wrote nothing "unprofessional" until I was accosted (in my opinion) by the fellows above). So, the OP is poorly worded - that's all I'll give you, and shouldn't have been posted. I meant well with that post, not ill of anyone. If, in your opinion, that is not the case, then I direct you to how easily I feel slighted by the replies... so, therefore, it has to do with interpretation of the written word. Apparently, some folks here thought I was lecturing; I think people are attacking me.
Finally.... again @ mokulele and av8sean.... might I just remind you in the most civil of manners that due to scrutiny from outside forces, the zero-tolerance program is in effect.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Hey, a propos to nothing, when was the last time someone "slid off the taxiway" because they were taxiing too fast, anyway? I'll bet SWA does it all the time!
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
:dunno: Hasn't happened yet, I suppose.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
Happens more often than you think... I remember seeing at least one XJ plane in DTW stuck, and saw plenty more 9E and XJ aircraft hurrying around like idiots and cross outside of the taxiway boundaries.
Not one of those newsworthy events... after all, it's just the "tarmac," right?
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
:rotfl:I think that'll show up in FOQA though, so unlike taxi, that'll get handled by a monthly memo to the pilots.
Polar742
All the responsibility none of the authority
So does taxi speeds. Usually TCH and touchdown distance too....and lots of other stuff.
I don't know if you guys can print out all that, but we can. If I get bored enough, I might remember to do it on the next trip so you can see what the mid-80s tech captures.
SpiceWeasel
Tre Kronor
It captures what parameters FOQA is looking for. AFAIK, taxi speed isn't an emphasis area.
Single engine taxi, climb speed, speed below 10K, landing distance, Vref exceedences, etc, but not speed on the ground.
The CRJ-900 program pulls it differently than the CRJ-200 program does, and we also get nearly 100% reporting on those planes, vs only about 20 to 30% in the CRJ-200...
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Oh damn. I'm hosed, then. I hardly ever do that.
We also aren't really privy to the info. It goes to the super-secret committee, then they put together a newsletter of bad things going on. Some of the stuff is pretty eye opening. Some of it is "We randomly selected 20 flights. 10% of those flights were REALLY REALLY dangerous!" So, 2 flights out of a LOT were bad.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
Oh damn. I'm hosed, then. I hardly ever do that.
I would always single engine taxi out of hub airports... Made me twitch to burn the gas that I might need. The outstations were a judgement call with the frequent turnouts and short taxi lengths.
kellwolf
Piece of Trash
Taxi times in MEM are short now, though. Go out of the A gates, N to 36L, and you normally don't even stop before you get to the runway. Plus, with the new RNAV arrivals into MEM, you can sometimes get there and be over MLW. Per the RNAV and FAA we have to carry enough gas to fly the full arrival, yet approach never has you fly to that last fix 40 miles from the airport. If it's clear and a million at the destination, I'm okay with two engine taxiing unless it's gonna be more than 12 minutes. 9 times out of 10 in MEM, it's gonna be less than 12 minutes. Another point they're harping on is both pilots being heads up on the taxi. Well, if you've got a whopping 7 minute taxi, having your FO start the second engine kinda kills that point since he's gonna be heads down starting the second engine. Then you've got to give it 2 minutes to stabilize. Now, if it's questionable weather at the destination, I'll do everything I can to save every drop of gas just in case.
Now, if we're taking off Rwy 17 in MSP, I'll single engine it every time unless there's snow and ice everywhere. Same thing in DTW if they're sending us to the east runway. But, in all honesty, if I need the .1 or .2 it's gonna save me going single engine, I've royally screwed up somewhere else.
KLB
Well-Known Member
Those regional pilots are cowboys!