Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should The Crew Of Flight 2051 Keep Their Jobs?  
User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8230 posts, RR: 23
Posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5436 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


This Website Censors Me
52 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBlatantEcho From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1903 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5397 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



They're not handing trophies out today
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5389 times:

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


"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineExpressJet_ERJ From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 834 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5381 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


ETOPS...Engines Turn Or People Swim
User currently offlineMD88Captain From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1330 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5376 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".
























User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8230 posts, RR: 23
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5355 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.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5350 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...


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8230 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5329 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.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5323 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
User currently offlineJtamu97 From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 658 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5278 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



Propeller, we don't need no stinkin propeller
User currently offlineJcxp15 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 997 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5219 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.


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8230 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5203 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.



This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineAA61hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5203 times:

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


Go big or go home
User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5172 times:

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

User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8230 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5147 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


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineCO/ba From United States of America, joined May 2001, 399 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5146 times:

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

User currently offlineOPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5111 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...


User currently offlineHmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2104 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5088 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
User currently offlineAvt007 From Canada, joined Jul 2000, 2132 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5052 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.


User currently offlineAlaskaairlines From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2054 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4968 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


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4813 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.


User currently offlineGroholsky From Belgium, joined May 2001, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4744 times:

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


User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 29
Reply 22, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4637 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


User currently offlineOH-LZA From Finland, joined Jun 2001, 1000 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4628 times:

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

Alex


User currently offlineHmflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 4611 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.

25 N766UA : Hey we're back on topic! Anyway, if the pilots knew braking was poor, could they have taken extra precautionary measures? Other landing aircraft inclu
26 Heavymetal : Jtamu worded it best.... Pilots get paid to remember the protocols, rules and minimums that have been established for every possible condition the air
27 Hmmmm... : 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.
28 MD88Captain : 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 m
29 Hmflyer : 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 peop
30 Groholsky : @ 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
31 Hmmmm... : 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
32 Hmflyer : 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
33 Redngold : 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
34 Hmmmm... : 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 go
35 JBC75 : Hmmmm.... Stick to Microsoft Flight Simulator. Opinions like yours are pretty well not needed or wanted in this profession. Brandon CRJ Captain
36 N766UA : 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 re
37 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
38 JBC75 : 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 be
39 IAHERJ : 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 73
40 N766UA : Very helpful, IAHERJ. Thank you.
41 J32driver : 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
42 J32driver : 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
43 J32driver : Sorry for the double post.
44 Hmmmm... : 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
45 ILOVEA340 : 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 g
46 Alaskaairlines : 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
47 Ramper@iah : 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
48 N766UA : 4,983 feet? the runway is 6800 feet long, so how do you get 4983?
49 Ramper@iah : 4,983 ft. is the usable landing length beyond the glide slope. Only real pilots would understand this.
50 Post contains images N766UA : lol I think i do....and i disprove that, im a real pilot . I'm assuming it's after the spot the glideslope leads you to on the runway.
51 Ramper@iah : "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'
52 N766UA : No problem, I just wasnt exactly sure what you meant. I understand now, thanks.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Crew Of TWA Flight 800 posted Wed Jul 7 2004 15:25:07 by Usair320
For The Crew Of Nationair Flight 2120 posted Thu Jan 24 2002 22:55:48 by Canadi>nBoy
The Story Of A Flight Attendant (S7 778) posted Thu Jul 27 2006 22:39:40 by Tu204
How To Find Out The Load Of A Flight posted Thu May 18 2006 11:45:52 by SNBru
The Peacemaker Of Flight 847 posted Sun Dec 25 2005 21:06:07 by Dtwclipper
United The Vision: To Restore The Dream Of Flight posted Thu Sep 8 2005 20:04:47 by Baw716
The Crash Of Flight ZU522 (Helios Airways) posted Sat Aug 20 2005 03:50:04 by D5DBY
The Taking Of Flight 847: The Uli Derickson Story posted Thu Jun 30 2005 04:34:39 by Jetpixx
The Crash Of Flight 191 On Tv posted Sun Feb 6 2005 03:43:58 by Hawk44
Anyone Ever Been To The Museum Of Flight In SEA? posted Wed Jan 26 2005 23:45:19 by PanAm747