N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7990 posts, RR: 27 Posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3881 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?
MD88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1287 posts, RR: 22 Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3821 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".
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7990 posts, RR: 27 Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3800 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.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3795 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...
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7990 posts, RR: 27 Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3774 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.
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2088 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3768 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.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
Jtamu97 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 655 posts, RR: 2 Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3723 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.
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7990 posts, RR: 27 Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3648 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.
N766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 7990 posts, RR: 27 Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3592 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.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3556 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...
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2088 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3533 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.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
Avt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2131 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 3497 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.
Alaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3413 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.
Cloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3258 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.
JETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 32 Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3082 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.