Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/1000079/

Topic: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2003-01-08 01:27:47 and read 5402 times.

As I'm sure most of you know, there was an incident at CLE the other day involving an ERJ-145 that overran runway 6L. Braking was reported poor at the time and there was blowing snow. The RJ went over the end and took out the approach lights for runway 24R. The runway-opened just 3 weeks ago- is now closed indefinatly for repairs. Assuming nothing mechanical failed and this was the fault of the crew, do you think they should be allowed to keep their jobs? In my opinion, it's like a car, if you screw it up you get a ticket. The crew should have landed it short and quick, but obviously they didn't. What do you think will come of them?


-N76

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: BlatantEcho
Posted 2003-01-08 01:38:42 and read 5363 times.

kind of a loaded question if you ask me

Don't know the particulars of the event, but what if it was mechanical? Brakes failed or something to that effect.

In that case no, nothing the pilots could have done.

If they come in hot on a snow covered runway though, then there is room for disciplinary action, possibly a firing.

Depends on what really happened, and why they went off the end.

George

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: FlagshipAZ
Posted 2003-01-08 01:40:29 and read 5355 times.

What's the tail-number on that puppy?? Looks like it's easily repairable enough to put back into service soon. Regards.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: ExpressJet_ERJ
Posted 2003-01-08 01:46:10 and read 5347 times.

Yeah, I agree. Wait and see what the NTSB has to say. This is the third time I've posted it. The Registration is N16571  Wink/being sarcastic Delivered in October 2002. Really new! Heres a picture too...http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.cgi?1031323384:BEL

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: MD88Captain
Posted 2003-01-08 01:48:01 and read 5342 times.

YGBSM. Why don't you wait on the NTSB report before you fire these guys for trying to do their job. They may possibly have done everything correctly and still not been able to stop. It happens. Sometimes fate hands you a shit hoagie and you bite into it because you think it is a meatball hoagie. There are few worse feelings than landing on a contaminated runway and realizing that the airplane is not decelerating due to conditions. I believe 2 winters ago at CLE 3 aircraft went off the runway in one afternoon. Sometimes you land "short" but you find out you cannot stop "quick".






















Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2003-01-08 01:51:39 and read 5321 times.

I'm saying this hypothetically. Assume nothing mechanical failed and the NTSB found the crew responsible, what is the repremand they deserve? I'm not trying to pin the blame on these guys yet but it seems kinda fishy.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: OPNLguy
Posted 2003-01-08 01:54:15 and read 5316 times.

>>>The crew should have landed it short and quick

No offense intended, Patrick, but credibility is strained when a 16-20 year old (presumably without an ERJ-145 type rating or experience in type) makes a definitive statement as to what the flightcrew should (or should not) have done.

(I know you also said "Assuming nothing mechanical failed and this was the fault of the crew..." but the first statement sorta infers that it WAS the crew's fault because they "should have landed it short and quick."

Not trying to rain (or rather, snow) on your parade here, just noting that you might want to consider how to better phrase a question...

Cheers...

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2003-01-08 02:00:15 and read 5295 times.

Well, as a cessna pilot I do know something about landing in the snow, and plunking the plane down quick is the way to assure you stop. Obviously floating your way down a slick runway doesnt work, so my comment stands. 7000 feet should be plenty of room to stop, though, so something had to happen that reduced that length. Sorry for the confusion, though.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Hmmmm...
Posted 2003-01-08 02:02:18 and read 5289 times.

This is airliners.net. It's a cyberspace bulletin board forum. It's not the NTSB. We usually don't wait for the NTSB to issue reports before we discuss accidents. Those reports usually takes 1-3 years. This topic will be exhausted in 1-3 days. So let us pass comment on it before it expires.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Jtamu97
Posted 2003-01-08 02:30:05 and read 5244 times.

Back on the topic,
If the pilots followed protocol and were just unable to stop they should be reprimanded like mandatory training or something along that lines. However, if they did not follow protocol, the jobs should be lost. How we know what when on in the cockpit, who knows?? Guess the black box and data recorder could give some insight. Bottom line, IT depends on what the final ruling will be. Either way, I feel bad for the pilots because it is horrible when something goes terribly wrong on something you love doing.

Later,
Jay

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Jcxp15
Posted 2003-01-08 03:33:41 and read 5185 times.

N766UA:

Unfortunately, you're not an ERJ pilot, nor do you probably know all the specs about landing in the snow and all...
The cessna is a completely different plane than the ERJ in so many ways.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2003-01-08 03:38:07 and read 5169 times.

I'm well aware of that, Jcxp15, thank you. I never said anything technical... all I did was state the obvious in that they should've (if they didnt) landed as close to the approach end of the runway as possible. I never said anything implying i know how ERJs handle it and I never said I knew anything more than I do. All I simply did was use common sense. I don't understand why you guys even bother replying if all you're going to do is criticize. That said, how many of you are ERJ pilots that have been in that situation? If you aren't, you're in no position to criticize me. Please stay on topic.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: AA61hvy
Posted 2003-01-08 03:41:05 and read 5169 times.

you're right Jcsp15, i wouldnt know where to begin on that one!

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Goingboeing
Posted 2003-01-08 03:56:24 and read 5138 times.

You are right...7,000 feet should be plenty of room to stop a cessna.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2003-01-08 04:03:19 and read 5113 times.

Thank guys, I appriciate the positive input. You guys really made my day, I tell you what. I guess I'll make a point of finding piddly errors in your topics so I can pick them apart when I see them, seems everyone else is doing it anyway. Pissed

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: CO/ba
Posted 2003-01-08 04:03:38 and read 5112 times.

They should keep their jobs unless it can be proven that they acted inappropriately.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: OPNLguy
Posted 2003-01-08 04:40:23 and read 5077 times.

It appears that you're getting upset at the comments, but let me make a good faith effort to put this in perspective for you. You may find it helpful as you progress...

There are really two threads here, but they managed to get intertwined.

Thread-1. A good question to ask would have been something like, "..after an accident or incident, what are the various levels of discipline or punishments that may be metted out should a pilot be at fault?" and left the CLE runway incident out of it entirely. There are several levels; a week or two off w/o pay, downgrading from captain to F/O for 6-12 months, firing--it runs the gamut, and is usally commensurate with the seriousness of the infraction.

Thread-2. The CLE incident itself. Yes, you're a Cessna pilot. The CoEx guys are EJ145 pilots. While some things between your experience level and theirs translate well, some things don't. It's tantamount to someone who drives go-carts projecting his experiences forward on to someone who drives Formula 1 race cars--some things translate, some don't, including the stuff that operating a higher performance (than your Cessna) aircraft entails.

All that folks here have been trying to get you to see is that things are not always as they seem (especially via early news reports) and that your assessment of "they should have..." is pretty judgemental and quite unfair.

I'm sorry you feel like folks are picking on you, and if you still feel that way after reading this, then I've failed in trying to explain it to you, and I'm sorry for that. I'd love to be your age again and just starting out in aviation, and I encourage you to keep at it, as well as learn from those further ahead on the ame pathway you're on...

Cheers...

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Hmmmm...
Posted 2003-01-08 05:01:58 and read 5054 times.

7000 ft to stop a regional jet is more than enough, even if full of water or ice. The only reason why 7000 ft would not be enough, would be if the pilot did not use the 7000 ft he was given. And for that, only he can be blamed.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Avt007
Posted 2003-01-08 05:38:15 and read 5018 times.

N766UA: You been on a.net for 3 years, you should know by now how people are. Posting here is not for thin skinned people. In your title, and original post, you have suggested that they should lose their jobs. As with the chock in the engine guy, people are very quick to get out a rope and look for the nearest tree. I get annoyed with that crowd because it's not their career they're talking about, and they are far too willing to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Wait until you've made a few screwups of your own on the job, then see how that changes your attitude about these things.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Alaskaairlines
Posted 2003-01-08 08:19:14 and read 4934 times.

I heavily doubt the pilots will be fired, just sent back to the sims for training! I talked to a CO Express pilot in EWR 2 months ago, we talked about the crash CO Express had on a practice flight, well both of those pilots are still flying and the check captain still has his job, this isn't even close to what the other crash was, so just back to the training sim, thats all.

-Dmitry

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Cloudy
Posted 2003-01-08 13:26:20 and read 4779 times.

There was a similar incident with a Southwest 737. It was a runway overun and there were several injuries. The plane nearly hit a gass station. According to what people have said in other threads, the aircraft was written off.
The captain was found at fault and was fired....While evacuating he was heard to say "There goes my carreer.". The First Officer was almost fired but the union intervened on his behalf. His main mistake was in not speeking up before the captain commited to the doomed approach. Needless to say, he is reputed to be one of WN's most conservative pilots now.

Strange that the union and company(they get allong relatively well) would keep on one of the guys responsible for the only accident with injuries in WN's history. But this guy learned his lesson, and I'm sure that whether or not the pilots are found at fault for the Continental Express accident they will fly allot differently because of the experience.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Groholsky
Posted 2003-01-08 15:06:22 and read 4710 times.

""Braking was reported poor at the time "" !!!
Are you allowed to land then per FOM ???

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: JETPILOT
Posted 2003-01-08 18:11:07 and read 4603 times.

7000 feet doesnt mean usable. If shooting an ILS then the landing zone is 1500 feet from the threshold. and float another 1500 feet leaves 4000 feet. Add the poor braking conditions, and there you have it.

JET

Topic: RE: "Braking Was Reported Poor"
Username: OH-LZA
Posted 2003-01-08 18:16:04 and read 4594 times.

The phrase "Braking was reported poor" should explain the situation quite well...

Alex

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Hmflyer
Posted 2003-01-08 18:22:33 and read 4577 times.

Most if not all airlines can land if the runway conditions are reported to be poor. If a runway is reported as nil, then that runway is shutdown for all practical purposes.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2003-01-08 18:24:27 and read 4574 times.

Hey we're back on topic! Anyway, if the pilots knew braking was poor, could they have taken extra precautionary measures? Other landing aircraft including 737s and 757s were making the turnoffs, so why couldn't an RJ?

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Heavymetal
Posted 2003-01-08 18:25:22 and read 4571 times.

Jtamu worded it best....

Pilots get paid to remember the protocols, rules and minimums that have been established for every possible condition the aircraft could enter. What makes flying so safe are the standards that have been established that if a is b then your outcome is virtually always c.

One of two things happened...either those rules were:

a) discarded.
b) in question themselves because of some new variable which must be investigated.

That's not to say there isn't any "grey area" in this situation, but it is a starting point to find out how much grey and where this particular flight crew sits in it.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Hmmmm...
Posted 2003-01-08 20:00:21 and read 4481 times.

7000 ft of runway provides more than ample length regardless of whether he was in an ILS approach or eyeballing it. That's long enough to land a 747. If he ran off the end of a 7000 ft runway, in a regional jet, the pilot simply did not use the runway length available to him to affect a safe landing.

He either landed too fast, or too far down. It's one or the other, or both. If he did not touch down too far, then he came in too fast and floated when he flared. That floating chewed up his runway. It's pilot error no matter how you slice it. Should he lose his job for making a error like that? I don't know.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: MD88Captain
Posted 2003-01-08 21:17:16 and read 4406 times.

Hmmmm... I would submit that you couldn't be more wrong. You said, "It's pilot error no matter how you slice it." That's is just silly coming from a man that knows virtually nothing about what happened to that flight at CLE. A blanket statement that claims 7000' is always enough ignores the hundreds (or thousands?) of aircraft that have skidded off the end of 7000'+ runways in the last 30 years.

I do not even know where to start when it comes to enumerating all the variables that effect stopping distance. Ever hear of broken anti-skid transducer wires? How about the fact that some braking reports are produced by a guy in a truck running down the runway and deciding for the #115,000 737 braking action is fair? Ever hear about the requirement to add up to 20kts to bug speed for gusty crosswinds? Ever hear about CLE keeping a runway active even with a tailwind component? CLE is bad about that. Ever hear about an aircraft that increases flight idle automatically any time the anti-ice is on? Ever hear about auto-ground spoilers that fail to extend on a slick runway?

Sorry to shotgun these variables, but what about rubber runway deposits that make the last 1500' of a runway slick as ice? CHS is really bad and the end of 22 in front of the MAT in LGA will eat you up. You'll be decelerating nicely anticipating an easy right turnoff to the MAT when suddenly you are slipping and sliding on the rubber deposits and WISHING THAT 22 WAS LONGER THAN 7000''.

Then there is the patchy ice that lays under the snow just waiting to screw with you. Maybe the last 10 aircraft missed that ice and reported poor braking. Then you land 10' right and hit the ice which results in NIL braking and you never slowing despite making braking and reverse. BTW. Do you know what happens at 70kts with max reverse on a snow covered runway? WHITEOUT. No forward visibility.

I know of two crews who went off the end of 7000' runways (well one was 6700') runways. Both could not have been more professional. The safety/accident investigations virtually could not find any significant deviation from the procedures. Yet both went off the end. Their extensive briefs and perfectly flown approaches didn't help them when they landed on snowy runways in conditions that were much worse than reported.

How about those tower reports concerning snow accumulating. Man they are just guessing sometimes. In a windy snowstorm the conditions change from minute to minute. The snow drifts. The snow plows leave patches here an there. The 1 in of snow reported on the runway 30 minutes ago can be 3 or 4 by the time you land. That's what happened to the two crews I know. And in those two cases 7000' was NOT ENOUGH.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Hmflyer
Posted 2003-01-08 22:48:46 and read 4351 times.

The point which MD88 Captain's post makes is that you shouldn't be so quick to judge crewmembers when there is an accident. Heck, we already have people on another thread blaming the crew of the 1900 that just crashed!

Fact of the matter is that most people coming to such judgements have never flown a 1900 or an ERJ. Most of us that have know enough to know that while we may speculate, we will let the proper authorities investigate to come up with an answer.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Groholsky
Posted 2003-01-08 22:50:45 and read 4348 times.

@ Hmflyer :
""Most if not all airlines can land if the runway conditions are reported to be poor. If a runway is reported as nil, then that runway is shutdown for all practical purposes.""

To be accurate, in a friction coefficient or braking action report,
the sign " // " means Braking action not reported OR Runway not operational.

Good night

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Hmmmm...
Posted 2003-01-08 23:00:15 and read 4331 times.

Add up all the variables, and 7000 ft is enough for any regional jet, no matter what. Because experience, and common sense, teach that a runway can be slick or braking systems could be faulty, extra distance is factored into the runway requirments to make large allowances for these anomalies.

However, when a plane the size of a regional jet cannot stop in time to avoid running off a 7000 runway, the most likely cause is too high, too fast. Rather than propose an unlikely scenario where the pilot made no errors in judgment, and it was a chain of incredible bad luck that foiled his landing, I propose a much more likely scenario where he simply came in too high and too fast. It happens. Don't be upset. Pilots have done much worse.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Hmflyer
Posted 2003-01-08 23:20:35 and read 4295 times.

Hmmmmm,

Just curious, what is your background that you can make such a blanket statment? While I am not saying that 2051 was not pilot error, it could have been something as simple as a brake failure which caused the incident.

I will give you a REAL WORLD example. A few weeks ago I was landing in EWR in similar weather. The runway was reported poor, we landed on speed in the touchdown zone and we slowed down to turn off and guess what, we skidded even though our airplane has autobrakes and anti-skid protection. We missed two turnoffs due to the skidding, causing the aircraft behind us to go-around. Runway conditions can change quickly.

It is not a stretch to propose a scenario in which the accident was not caused by pilot error. However it may be such a stretch for someone who can't accept that another scenario may have occurred.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Redngold
Posted 2003-01-08 23:21:02 and read 4295 times.

From my experience, and might I emphasize "my experience," I've seen more ERJs have difficulty braking on CLE's short runways than any other aircraft -- especially landing Runway 28, which is our short ILS/crosswind runway (6017 X 150 ft.) I'm out spotting quite frequently and I don't know how many times I thought an ERJ was going to "park at NASA" while landing 28, and those same days I saw numerous 737s and MD-80s land within a reasonable distance.

CLE was struggling to keep ANY runway open that day. The ERJ in question circled for nearly 30 minutes before the pilots attempted a landing -- in heavy snow -- on a runway that was not free of ice and snow. Even nearly 9 hours after the skid-off, Approach ATIS was "Runway surface patches of ice and snow."

The question remains for me -- did the pilot ever think of diverting? That's going to be a major factor in the decisionmaking process which led to the accident. If the pilot was dead-set on landing at CLE despite bad weather, then there's a problem. Continental and CLE ATC will have to chip in in terms of diversion policy and reporting of airport conditions, respectively.

Just my 0.02,
redngold

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Hmmmm...
Posted 2003-01-08 23:41:59 and read 4280 times.

I'm willing to accept any plausible theory. But I like to propose the most plausible first. Even if some take offence to that. Redngold brings up a good point about whether the decision to land, itself, my have been the main factor as to why this plane ended up as it did on that day. But on the main issue of whether they should lose their jobs, I think it was a bad title for a thread. Unless they were advised not to land, I don't think they should. But human error is the first scenario that must be investigated.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: JBC75
Posted 2003-01-09 00:04:46 and read 4251 times.

Hmmmm....

Stick to Microsoft Flight Simulator. Opinions like yours are pretty well not needed or wanted in this profession.

Brandon
CRJ Captain

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2003-01-09 00:50:55 and read 4225 times.

I'd just like to make a disclaimer and say I am not in any way blaming the crew or saying they should be fired, I'm just asking if you think it's a reasonable punishment. Keep in mind that those determining that punishment will likely have no time in airplanes and be also paper-pushers so they're even less considerate than we are... with the exception of the chief pilot.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Hmmmm...
Posted 2003-01-09 02:57:07 and read 4168 times.

Of course you don't care what my opinion is. I am not speaking for your benefit, or for your profession. My opinions are for the benefit of others on airliners.net. That's how forums work. Members read the threads then decide whose argument is more persuasive.

You and I already suspect the truth as to why this accident happened, in all probability. But as a professional pilot, I understand it angers you that a non-pilot would point out an error for other non-pilots to examine.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: JBC75
Posted 2003-01-10 15:23:16 and read 4062 times.

Actually hmmmm..., I don't already suspect anything.

I apologize for the tone of my previous post. It was uncalled for.

I can't really state it any better than MD88Captain did. There are so many things that could contribute to running off the end of a runway, it is ridiculous to place the blame on the crew before the facts come out.

Could it have been pilot error? Absolutely.
Could it have been any number of other things? Absolutely.

As to your comment that it angers me that a non-pilot would point out an error for other non-pilots to examine, I'll have to admit it does a little bit.

It is and always has been my policy not to jump up and start screaming "pilot error. pilot error." because in most situations I can see how it could have been me instead of them.

I've been to CLE numerous times. I've landed in lousy weather there numerous times. I almost taxied right into a jetway there once because of a patch of black ice. Could it have just as easily been me who went off the end of that runway? I like to think not, but that's unrealistic.

When I went to the doctor last year complaining about back pain and he told me he was going to have to do a little cutting to make it all better, I didn't argue with him. He's a professional TRAINED to make those kinds of decisions.


Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: IAHERJ
Posted 2003-01-10 18:51:35 and read 3995 times.

Just a little information on the ERJ for those who think that just because it is a "regional jet" it should be able to stop in less distance than a 737 or larger. The ERJ has no leading edge slats thus requiring a higher landing reference speed than aircraft with leading edge slats. It also has no auto-brakes which means that reverse and braking are done manually by the pilot flying. At fast speeds on contaminated runways it is hard to have any real feel for the runway or to even determine if your brakes are working properly until you start to slip. The reversers on the ERJ only deploy with both main wheels planted on the ground and require squat switches to send a message to the system. Then you have to have the nose wheel on the ground to spool up the engines in reverse. A crosswind landing sometimes confuses the air/ground sensors thus giving you a air/gound failure and requiring you to cycle the reversers back to ground idle, then back into reverse to get deployment. This takes a second or two but a second or two at 140 kts eats up valuable stopping distance.

I fly the ERJ 145/135/145/xr and land routinely in CLE in fair/poor runway conditions and can tell you only one thing. Every landing is a bit different. No situation ever repeats itself completely. I don't claim to know what exactly happened in this situation so I will not pass judgement either way. I hope I have pointed out some technical facts about the 145 that explain the longer ground rolls on average for the aircraft type.

IAHERJ

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2003-01-10 22:08:55 and read 3937 times.

Very helpful, IAHERJ. Thank you.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: J32driver
Posted 2003-01-10 22:53:27 and read 3910 times.

Hmmmm...

"Of course you don't care what my opinion is. I am not speaking for your benefit, or for your profession. My opinions are for the benefit of others on airliners.net."

You may not be speaking for my profession, but you ARE speaking about my profession. The reason you offend so many pilots with your statements is because you are spewing things that may not be accurate, and others that don't know any better may take your rants as fact.

It may very well have been pilot error that caused that accident. BUT, YOU don't know that. It could be that the braking action degraded to NIL after the reading of POOR was taken. Guess what... I don't know that either.

This goes again to the same argument we had over guns... IF YOU DON'T LIVE IN A COCKPIT LIKE THE REST OF US, THEN DON'T TELL US HOW IT IS OR HOW IT SHOULD BE.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: J32driver
Posted 2003-01-10 22:57:21 and read 3907 times.

Hmmmm...

"Of course you don't care what my opinion is. I am not speaking for your benefit, or for your profession. My opinions are for the benefit of others on airliners.net."

You may not be speaking for my profession, but you ARE speaking about my profession. The reason you offend so many pilots with your statements is because you are spewing things that may not be accurate, and others that don't know any better may take your rants as fact.

It may very well have been pilot error that caused that accident. BUT, YOU don't know that. It could be that the braking action degraded to NIL after the reading of POOR was taken. Guess what... I don't know that either.

This goes again to the same argument we had over guns... IF YOU DON'T LIVE IN A COCKPIT LIKE THE REST OF US, THEN DON'T TELL US HOW IT IS OR HOW IT SHOULD BE.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: J32driver
Posted 2003-01-10 23:09:26 and read 3896 times.

Sorry for the double post.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Hmmmm...
Posted 2003-01-11 02:32:16 and read 3845 times.

I gave my opinion on that accident. I believe my assessment is most likely correct. But even if it weren't, I am not the NTSB, so you can relax. This is cyberspace, remember. This is airliners.net. This is the airliners.net forum. And this is what forums are all about.

You have to learn not to get angry just because a non-pilot, or anyone else in cyberspace, passes an opinion that you don't like. It's not worth it. All you can do, if motivated to do so for whatever personal, or professional reasons, is argue your point persuasively. And you stated your case and made your points. Fantastic. It's a good skill to have. Hone it, and you will find you get less angry, less often. Don't let things, or people, get you down.

Cheers

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: ILOVEA340
Posted 2003-01-11 10:45:04 and read 3751 times.

I have noticed in all of my ERJ-145s that they have an inherrent tendency run into a sort of groud effect. At ZRH we twice floated about 15' off the ground a good 1/4 of the way down the runway.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Alaskaairlines
Posted 2003-01-11 11:19:14 and read 3746 times.

When I was talking to a CO Express FO in EWR, he stated that it is very hard to make a perfect landing in an ERJ, usually its a tippy one or a bouncy one.

Maybe somebody who flys ERJ's can confirm?

-Dmitry

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Ramper@iah
Posted 2003-01-12 03:01:11 and read 3641 times.

Runway 6L has a usable landing length of 4,983 feet. The numbers from "the book" say the landing is possible with the given conditions - but obviously with very little room for error. Yes, the landing speeds were higher than normal because the approach and landing was executed with 22 degrees of flaps insted of the normal 45. Flaps 22 landings are company procedure when a monitored approach is being used.

Notice I haven't speculated about anything; I'm just giving facts. My opinion: the crew should keep their jobs while the company reviews its policy on monitored approaches.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2003-01-12 05:09:39 and read 3607 times.

4,983 feet? the runway is 6800 feet long, so how do you get 4983?

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Ramper@iah
Posted 2003-01-12 05:36:02 and read 3598 times.

4,983 ft. is the usable landing length beyond the glide slope. Only real pilots would understand this.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2003-01-12 05:42:16 and read 3591 times.

lol I think i do....and i disprove that, im a real pilot  Big grin. I'm assuming it's after the spot the glideslope leads you to on the runway.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: Ramper@iah
Posted 2003-01-12 05:47:06 and read 3583 times.

"I'm assuming it's after the spot the glideslope leads you to on the runway."

Yes, you're correct. I'm sorry if my post sounded condescending. I didn't mean to insult anyone.

Topic: RE: Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?
Username: N766UA
Posted 2003-01-12 06:11:35 and read 3561 times.

No problem, I just wasnt exactly sure what you meant. I understand now, thanks.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/