Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
08-02-2009, 02:46 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
At the new DAL, don't have to call for it Ice. When we clear the runway, it's done. "After Landing Check Complete." Plus, we're chatting with ramp and making sure the ACARs data is ready. We'll take care of you brother.
08-02-2009, 02:54 PM
Back on TDY
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 747-400 Captain
Posts: 12,487
Why is it important that the captain dictates FOs' actions? It borders on micromanagement. And to take the discussion to a ridiculous point... where does it stop? Should the captain direct him to retract the flaps after landing? No.. because he is a big boy.. professional pilot, and you trust him to do it correctly
And as far as trust goes, I don't trust ANY pilot during normal operations...especially myself. Trust has no place in normal operations. The only time trust comes into play is in an emergency situation. Fortunately for me, I've been blessed with great crew members that I could trust when my number was called for an emergency.
Carl
08-02-2009, 03:00 PM
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Posts: 76
I agree with you. In fact, I know some of the people you speak of (double dipping companies and using mil leave as an excuse). It makes all of us look very badly. And when they are caught, it is only a matter of time. Actually, I know the company knows about some of them already (not saying how I know that ... I didn't tell), they are and should be fired. No questions asked.
That being said, I hear a little mil bashing here and would like to add some perspective. For most of us we have to maintain currencies on 2 different aircraft, take 2-3 times the number of checkrides, do operational readiness exercises and inspections, potentially additional duties, write our own performance reports, sit in the desert for up to 365 days all while trying to maintain a semblance of family life.
Those who abuse the system are no different than those who "sick out" all summer (reference the ATL reserve references in the thread) because they didn't get the vacation they wanted. I think the company has much bigger fish to fry than the fraction of a percent of their pilots that "abuse" the military leave policy afforded to them by congress for serving their country as citizen soldiers.
PS. I dont know the numbers, but I would bet that the company has wasted thousands of times more money and poor fuel hedge decisions than on retraining people who went non-current doing their military duty...
I raise my glass to all our military, your and your family's sacrifice is not lost on me or anyone I choose to associate with.
Cheers.
08-02-2009, 03:06 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 757 Left
Posts: 1,308
NWA only added the requirement to set the flaps on command before taxi around 7-8 years ago. Before that, they could be set during taxi and checked, yes, twice.
That worked great until we had a couple more incidents where aircraft attempted to takeoff yet again with the flaps up, despite being checked TWICE. So, NWA instituted a standardized procedure where the captain ordered the flaps extended prior to taxi as a third level of safety.
In one fell swoop we have eliminated that step. Seems to me like a "lesson learned" that has just been flushed, and it is not a comfortable feeling for me personally.
I haven't flown a Phase 3 flight yet, so I don' know how I'll like the latest procedures. I don't see the new philosophy blending well with the DC-9's 4-5 leg, quick turn with airplane changes daily schedule, but we'll see.
That worked great until we had a couple more incidents where aircraft attempted to takeoff yet again with the flaps up, despite being checked TWICE. So, NWA instituted a standardized procedure where the captain ordered the flaps extended prior to taxi as a third level of safety.
In one fell swoop we have eliminated that step. Seems to me like a "lesson learned" that has just been flushed, and it is not a comfortable feeling for me personally.
I haven't flown a Phase 3 flight yet, so I don' know how I'll like the latest procedures. I don't see the new philosophy blending well with the DC-9's 4-5 leg, quick turn with airplane changes daily schedule, but we'll see.
08-02-2009, 03:12 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
Blind trust is never good Carl, I agree. However, pofessional trust in your FO to do his thing is a great thing. Trust but verify.
08-02-2009, 03:27 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,590
NO...THEY MAY NOT BE CAUGHT! They weren't caught on DAL 1141, or on our NWA flight, or many other fatal flights.
Delta made major checklist and procedural changes following flight 1141. The checklist in use then had the flaps checked once right before TO. The are now checked twice. In addition the procedures and testing for the config warning system were changed.
There is also substantial evidence that the flaps were placed down and a mechanical malfuntion occurred. The slats were unlocked and the spool reel was broken. At that aircrafts weight and power settings it flew every single time in over 100 simulations with no problems regardless of if the flaps were up or down.
The real cause of the accident in the opinion of a very experienced accident investigator who worked at the scene on that accident was Delta's fueling procedures. The aircraft was dispatched with a wing fuel gauge inop. Delta had a very poor policy on fueling and fuel verfication. The aircraft rolled away from the wing with the inop gauge at rotation and dragged the wing. When it came to rest the wing with the inop gauge did not burn. The other wing did. Despite repeated requests from ALPA no core sampling was done under the wing to determine if there was fuel in the wing and how much may have leaked out. Keep in mind Delta's fueling procedures were FAA approved and Delta developed. Liability is often a issue in accident investigations even though it should not be. His belief and many others is that the main cause of the accident was the fueler never fueled the inop wing tank and double fueled the other tank.
Within weeks of the accident Delta made a huge change in their fueling procedures and verfications. Never a comment on the reason from the company.
Delta made major checklist and procedural changes following flight 1141. The checklist in use then had the flaps checked once right before TO. The are now checked twice. In addition the procedures and testing for the config warning system were changed.
There is also substantial evidence that the flaps were placed down and a mechanical malfuntion occurred. The slats were unlocked and the spool reel was broken. At that aircrafts weight and power settings it flew every single time in over 100 simulations with no problems regardless of if the flaps were up or down.
The real cause of the accident in the opinion of a very experienced accident investigator who worked at the scene on that accident was Delta's fueling procedures. The aircraft was dispatched with a wing fuel gauge inop. Delta had a very poor policy on fueling and fuel verfication. The aircraft rolled away from the wing with the inop gauge at rotation and dragged the wing. When it came to rest the wing with the inop gauge did not burn. The other wing did. Despite repeated requests from ALPA no core sampling was done under the wing to determine if there was fuel in the wing and how much may have leaked out. Keep in mind Delta's fueling procedures were FAA approved and Delta developed. Liability is often a issue in accident investigations even though it should not be. His belief and many others is that the main cause of the accident was the fueler never fueled the inop wing tank and double fueled the other tank.
Within weeks of the accident Delta made a huge change in their fueling procedures and verfications. Never a comment on the reason from the company.
08-02-2009, 04:04 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 765-A
Posts: 6,844
South guys,
I understand. Your (and now our) system is great. Your FO's are great. And everything works perfectly and everyone is happy with it. Your FO's are engrained to lower the flaps every time and they NEVER miss them.
Unfortunately, that's not the point. At the very least, we North guys are saying that we are not used to the way it's now supposed to be done and there could be a problem. Not a widespread problem. Just the possibility of a problem. A couple of us have mentioned specific instances where your solution "we check the flaps twice before takeoff anyway" has failed.
So, once again I ask, whats the big deal? Why not add one more level of safety for something that is so important? While it may be that 99.9999% of the time a North crew gets the flaps down prior to takeoff, in this business it only takes one time.
We are part of the same team now, and one incident by either side refelects poorly on us all. Let's not make this a discussion of whos way is better. As I told ACL earlier, I don't care how you want me to run the checklist or who does the preflight, it will get done. But, just as if we were in the cockpit, if someone says that they believe something is not safe we should not dismiss it.
I hope our training department doesn't take this "we're going to do it my way, because that's how we've done it, so you should be ok with it" attitude.
The North side is taking the brunt of the changes, no big deal. We are Delta pilots now. But, as a former NWA pilot, I reserve the right to tell the training department, the chief pilot, this forum, or whoever, when something sucks for the rest of my career. This is not an ego issue for us. It's a safety issue and if it make you feel better, consider it to be an issue just for us.
When it comes to flying, safety first. Let's check the egos at the door. The new system is great, but it is not perfect.
New K
I understand. Your (and now our) system is great. Your FO's are great. And everything works perfectly and everyone is happy with it. Your FO's are engrained to lower the flaps every time and they NEVER miss them.
Unfortunately, that's not the point. At the very least, we North guys are saying that we are not used to the way it's now supposed to be done and there could be a problem. Not a widespread problem. Just the possibility of a problem. A couple of us have mentioned specific instances where your solution "we check the flaps twice before takeoff anyway" has failed.
So, once again I ask, whats the big deal? Why not add one more level of safety for something that is so important? While it may be that 99.9999% of the time a North crew gets the flaps down prior to takeoff, in this business it only takes one time.
We are part of the same team now, and one incident by either side refelects poorly on us all. Let's not make this a discussion of whos way is better. As I told ACL earlier, I don't care how you want me to run the checklist or who does the preflight, it will get done. But, just as if we were in the cockpit, if someone says that they believe something is not safe we should not dismiss it.
I hope our training department doesn't take this "we're going to do it my way, because that's how we've done it, so you should be ok with it" attitude.
The North side is taking the brunt of the changes, no big deal. We are Delta pilots now. But, as a former NWA pilot, I reserve the right to tell the training department, the chief pilot, this forum, or whoever, when something sucks for the rest of my career. This is not an ego issue for us. It's a safety issue and if it make you feel better, consider it to be an issue just for us.
When it comes to flying, safety first. Let's check the egos at the door. The new system is great, but it is not perfect.
New K
08-02-2009, 04:08 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2008
Position: 737A
Posts: 1,890
That's very interesting...never heard the fueling theory. It's a real shame there is nothing comparable to military safety privilege in the airline business. It would be nice to be able to immunize guys so that we can really get to the bottom of what happened like we do in the mil.
08-02-2009, 04:20 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Urban chicken rancher.
Posts: 6,070
South guys,
I understand. Your (and now our) system is great. Your FO's are great. And everything works perfectly and everyone is happy with it. Your FO's are engrained to lower the flaps every time and they NEVER miss them.
Unfortunately, that's not the point. At the very least, we North guys are saying that we are not used to the way it's now supposed to be done and there could be a problem. Not a widespread problem. Just the possibility of a problem. A couple of us have mentioned specific instances where your solution "we check the flaps twice before takeoff anyway" has failed.
So, once again I ask, whats the big deal? Why not add one more level of safety for something that is so important? While it may be that 99.9999% of the time a North crew gets the flaps down prior to takeoff, in this business it only takes one time.
We are part of the same team now, and one incident by either side refelects poorly on us all. Let's not make this a discussion of whos way is better. As I told ACL earlier, I don't care how you want me to run the checklist or who does the preflight, it will get done. But, just as if we were in the cockpit, if someone says that they believe something is not safe we should not dismiss it.
I hope our training department doesn't take this "we're going to do it my way, because that's how we've done it, so you should be ok with it" attitude.
The North side is taking the brunt of the changes, no big deal. We are Delta pilots now. But, as a former NWA pilot, I reserve the right to tell the training department, the chief pilot, this forum, or whoever, when something sucks for the rest of my career. This is not an ego issue for us. It's a safety issue and if it make you feel better, consider it to be an issue just for us.
When it comes to flying, safety first. Let's check the egos at the door. The new system is great, but it is not perfect.
New K
I understand. Your (and now our) system is great. Your FO's are great. And everything works perfectly and everyone is happy with it. Your FO's are engrained to lower the flaps every time and they NEVER miss them.
Unfortunately, that's not the point. At the very least, we North guys are saying that we are not used to the way it's now supposed to be done and there could be a problem. Not a widespread problem. Just the possibility of a problem. A couple of us have mentioned specific instances where your solution "we check the flaps twice before takeoff anyway" has failed.
So, once again I ask, whats the big deal? Why not add one more level of safety for something that is so important? While it may be that 99.9999% of the time a North crew gets the flaps down prior to takeoff, in this business it only takes one time.
We are part of the same team now, and one incident by either side refelects poorly on us all. Let's not make this a discussion of whos way is better. As I told ACL earlier, I don't care how you want me to run the checklist or who does the preflight, it will get done. But, just as if we were in the cockpit, if someone says that they believe something is not safe we should not dismiss it.
I hope our training department doesn't take this "we're going to do it my way, because that's how we've done it, so you should be ok with it" attitude.
The North side is taking the brunt of the changes, no big deal. We are Delta pilots now. But, as a former NWA pilot, I reserve the right to tell the training department, the chief pilot, this forum, or whoever, when something sucks for the rest of my career. This is not an ego issue for us. It's a safety issue and if it make you feel better, consider it to be an issue just for us.
When it comes to flying, safety first. Let's check the egos at the door. The new system is great, but it is not perfect.
New K
08-02-2009, 04:59 PM
Happy to be here
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: A-320A
Posts: 18,563
Better yet call for every thing you want. You are the CA and can amend anything you choose. That is Captain Authority.
Like I say, do everything the FOM, Airway Manual and Vol1 states, at a min. You can always add whatever you want.
It is kind of like saying "1000 feet, cleared to land, missed approach altitude set." It used to be that way, but now the missed approach altitude statement is not made on the 767. Most add it and I am one of them.
Call for the Flaps. I will look at you and think that you are an overbearing Captain, but like everything I will just go about my job. It will not bruise any ones' egos.
If you feel that strongly about it, send a comment in to the A team. They read all of those. State a good case and they might change it.
Like I say, do everything the FOM, Airway Manual and Vol1 states, at a min. You can always add whatever you want.
It is kind of like saying "1000 feet, cleared to land, missed approach altitude set." It used to be that way, but now the missed approach altitude statement is not made on the 767. Most add it and I am one of them.
Call for the Flaps. I will look at you and think that you are an overbearing Captain, but like everything I will just go about my job. It will not bruise any ones' egos.
If you feel that strongly about it, send a comment in to the A team. They read all of those. State a good case and they might change it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
