SWA vs UAL... FIGHT

SurferLucas said:
Lastnight in my upgrade MV (34X in SouthernJets parlance), my FO was setting up his ‘non-ILS’ approach and I was the PF at the time. Slowed to 210kts, and asked my FO what he thought about Flaps 2, then we went to Flaps 2.

The APD chuckled, and in the debrief asked why I used Flaps 2. “Because Alaska can’t”…he let out a big laugh and responded “Oh, usually it’s only the psychopaths that use Flaps 2, but I like your reasoning” :D
Click to expand...


You dirty dog you. I feel like I need a shower after reading that! :)
 
Skåning said:
uhhh I dont think it would be wise to hand fly in RVSM airspace
Click to expand...
Why not?

'Just cause "it's not approved" by Regs/GOM or OpSpecs? Ok, I get that. Sure. Sure. I'll comply. 'Cause I'm a "good boy". [Never transgress the unwritten law (and especially not the actual written one!)]

Still, all of that is based upon a structural assumption. The "structure" is assuming that pilots are unable to hand-fly an airplane.

A real pilot HAS those, er, flying skills. A real pilot? ALWAYS flies the plane. Whatever "regime" of flight, shim flies the plane.

That, er, "flying" ability is supposed to be why we get paid so much to do what we do.

Any scrow can flip burgers. (Well, maybe not ANY scrow, but, you know, the general principle still holds.)
 
form810 said:
Why not?

'Just cause "it's not approved" by Regs/GOM or OpSpecs? Ok, I get that. Sure. Sure. I'll comply. 'Cause I'm a "good boy". [Never transgress the unwritten law (and especially not the actual written one!)]

Still, all of that is based upon a structural assumption. The "structure" is assuming that pilots are unable to hand-fly an airplane.

A real pilot HAS those, er, flying skills. A real pilot? ALWAYS flies the plane. Whatever "regime" of flight, shim flies the plane.

That, er, "flying" ability is supposed to be why we get paid so much to do what we do.

Any scrow can flip burgers. (Well, maybe not ANY scrow, but, you know, the general principle still holds.)
Click to expand...
Anyways
 
T/O w/FSII said:
You know 91 applies to everyone right? Or did I miss the joke
Click to expand...
A whole lot of "pilots" these days wouldn't even know how to determine if one of the two required separate systems was inop. How many folks do you notice doing a 75 foot check before takeoff? Seriously.

Addendum to clarify for those of you who found my "language" bot-like and "obtuse".

Altimeter Errors
  1. Manufacturing and installation specifications, along with 14 CFR Part 43, Appendix E requirement for periodic tests and inspections, helps reduce mechanical, elastic, temperature, and installation errors. (See Instrument Flying Handbook.) Scale error may be observed while performing a ground altimeter check using the following procedure:
    1. Set the current reported airfield altimeter setting on the altimeter setting scale.
    2. Read the altitude on the altimeter. The altitude should read the known field elevation if you are located on the same reference level used to establish the altimeter setting.
    3. If the difference from the known field elevation and the altitude read from the altimeter is plus or minus 75 feet or greater, the accuracy of the altimeter is questionable and the problem should be referred to an appropriately rated repair station for evaluation and possible correction.
 
SurferLucas said:
The APD chuckled, and in the debrief asked why I used Flaps 2. “Because Alaska can’t”…he let out a big laugh and responded “Oh, usually it’s only the psychopaths that use Flaps 2, but I like your reasoning” :D
Click to expand...

Why can’t it be both? Fairly sure that my excuse for it falls more into the latter category though.
 
form810 said:
A whole lot of "pilots" these days wouldn't even know how to determine if one of the two required separate systems was inop. How many folks do you notice doing a 75 foot check before takeoff? Seriously.

Addendum to clarify for those of you who found my "language" bot-like and "obtuse".

Altimeter Errors
  1. Manufacturing and installation specifications, along with 14 CFR Part 43, Appendix E requirement for periodic tests and inspections, helps reduce mechanical, elastic, temperature, and installation errors. (See Instrument Flying Handbook.) Scale error may be observed while performing a ground altimeter check using the following procedure:
    1. Set the current reported airfield altimeter setting on the altimeter setting scale.
    2. Read the altitude on the altimeter. The altitude should read the known field elevation if you are located on the same reference level used to establish the altimeter setting.
    3. If the difference from the known field elevation and the altitude read from the altimeter is plus or minus 75 feet or greater, the accuracy of the altimeter is questionable and the problem should be referred to an appropriately rated repair station for evaluation and possible correction.
Click to expand...

Ok
 
I wish the F/A-18 could make up its mind about RVSM. We never were capable until a number of years ago, then we all were, then the EA-18G got removed. And it always was predicated on having an external stores configuration that wasn't always realistic. Have participated in so many data gathering surveys. I'm not really sure what the issue is, other than test nerds nerding out over silly details. We have an INS that is more accurate than anything the civilian 121 world is flying with, and I'd hope we figured out altimeters too. I'm probably over simplifying the requirements in my mind. But our barometric altitude hold AP (about the only mode we have) is not fraught with error, even when flying with lots of weird stuff hanging off the wings......though I'm guessing that has some effect on the theoretical performance of pitot static instruments/EAS, and various other things.
 
///AMG said:
I wish the F/A-18 could make up its mind about RVSM. We never were capable until a number of years ago, then we all were, then the EA-18G got removed. And it always was predicated on having an external stores configuration that wasn't always realistic. Have participated in so many data gathering surveys. I'm not really sure what the issue is, other than test nerds nerding out over silly details. We have an INS that is more accurate than anything the civilian 121 world is flying with, and I'd hope we figured out altimeters too. I'm probably over simplifying the requirements in my mind. But our barometric altitude hold AP (about the only mode we have) is not fraught with error, even when flying with lots of weird stuff hanging off the wings......though I'm guessing that has some effect on the theoretical performance of pitot static instruments/EAS, and various other things.
Click to expand...
Yeah, given what you say about stores configurations I would guess it’s all about the way air flows over the pitot static system. Considering how big a deal even peeling paint is in the RVSM area on an airliner…
 
form810 said:
A whole lot of "pilots" these days wouldn't even know how to determine if one of the two required separate systems was inop. How many folks do you notice doing a 75 foot check before takeoff? Seriously.

Addendum to clarify for those of you who found my "language" bot-like and "obtuse".

Altimeter Errors
  1. Manufacturing and installation specifications, along with 14 CFR Part 43, Appendix E requirement for periodic tests and inspections, helps reduce mechanical, elastic, temperature, and installation errors. (See Instrument Flying Handbook.) Scale error may be observed while performing a ground altimeter check using the following procedure:
    1. Set the current reported airfield altimeter setting on the altimeter setting scale.
    2. Read the altitude on the altimeter. The altitude should read the known field elevation if you are located on the same reference level used to establish the altimeter setting.
    3. If the difference from the known field elevation and the altitude read from the altimeter is plus or minus 75 feet or greater, the accuracy of the altimeter is questionable and the problem should be referred to an appropriately rated repair station for evaluation and possible correction.
Click to expand...

That was literally the most bot-like “I”m not a bot” post ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top