forgot to bid

How come airline pilots can answer this question:

29. (Refer to appendix 2, figures 237, 238A, 239C, 231, 254 and 281B.) Given the following conditions, what are the takeoff V speeds?
Weight: 170,000 lb.
Flaps: 10°
Temperature (OAT): 25° C
Field pressure altitude: 427 ft.
Runway slope: 0%
Wind (KTS) Headwind: 8 KTS
Runway Condition: Wet Runway
For VR more than or equal to .1 VR, round up VR to the next value (example: 140 +.1 =141)

A. V1 134 kts., VR 140 kts., V2 145 kts.
B. V1 140 kts., VR 140 kts., V2 145 kts.
C. V1 138 kts., VR 141 kts., V2 145 kts.


But not this one?

Where is room 1631? Left or right?

Sink r8

Why don't we simply avoid the "commuting is a choice" debate? We've had it before.

If you look at things from a dispassionate and pragmatic standpoint, you've got a NPRM that is not compatible with the current contract. It will be the catalyst to sit down and re-negotiate Section 23. You've also got language that make the company jointly responsible for examining individual commuting practices, and jointly responsible for ensuring the pilot is rested. And you've got language that would make commuting time not count as rest. And you've got acclimation issues on which duty time and flight time are based. If everyone on the crew is not acclimated the same... they can't fly the same flight time and duty day.

How on earth do they make this work?

Option A: they require the pilot to come in to the base for a pre-trip rest. Option B: they try to reduce commuting. Option A implies costs. I don't think our contract allows for free rest periods before a rotation, therefore it would have to be built into the rotation. I also don't think the contract allows the company to force anyone to live anywhere particular. So you're down to B.

The only effective way to avoid commuting is to let the flying originate near the pilot. I'm not anywhere as smart as, say, Carl (noone is), but it seems reasonable to conclude that there will be a huge incentive for the company to put satellite basing on the table, like never before. I would bet the next contract offers dozens (and dozens) of cities, so that almost anyone can drive to any such city in two hours. I don't think this ends up costing any negotiating capital, because this is all about the impact of the new rules, and the effective lobbying by the family of Colgan 3407 victims. Never mind the fact that crash had little to do with fatigue, and almost everything to do with stupid pilots and poor flying skills: FOX and CNN decided it was a fatigue issue... and so it was.

For the record, I'm not a commuter, and I prefer big bases. But this strikes me as the obvious way out of the new regs, assuming they don't end up being changed. If anyone else has a alternative (and rational) vision of the future, I'm open to it. This is just where my speculation leads.

NWA320pilot

Sorry I guess letter was the incorrect verbage..... It was actually in a council 20 update:

"Inappropriate Materials and Graffiti On Aircraft
Inappropriate material and graffiti have recently been discovered on some aircraft. If you discover any of these materials during preflight, please remove and discard them and in the case of graffiti, make a logbook entry so that maintenance can remove it."

Sink r8

OK, thanks.

clipperskipper

Still looking for room 1624...sink r8 writes "Never mind the fact that crash had little to do with fatigue" I beg to argue this one as it is always that uninterrupted chain of events, with no intervening variable that produces the accident. Calling for flaps five, the F/O replied "what"? Sure the Captain allegedly made an error, and there was nobody there to help him.

I think that HR needs to change applications to read must be willing to relocate, and then again as we merge and close crew bases.

johnso29

If the company wants to eliminate commuting then the will pay COLA. A guy can not live as nicely in the NYC are on the same pay as a guy living in the DTW area. I think airlines will fight rules that eliminate commuting, because not allowing commuting will cost them $$$.

NWA320pilot

I think the bigger issue is the government shouldn't butt into our personal lives. Uncle Sam has no right to dictate where anyone should live.

Sink r8

OK, take a look at the NTSB animation:

YouTube - Colgan 3407 NTSB Animation with Sound

When you say the Captain "allegedly" made an error, what exactly do you mean?

The Captain crashed the plane, independently of the fact the F/O was also trying to help him crash the plane. Look at the speed tape (which reflects stall speed for existing flap settings, not the settings he wished for), look at the power levers, and look at the elevator and aileron inputs throughout this sad evolution.

IOW, he F/O was trying very hard for a Best Supporting Actress Oscar in this horror movie, but he was notnethelss the lead actor, and the director. Considering his actions in the years prior, and his (alleged) falsifications of records, I'd say he wrote the script too.

I stand by my assertion: this accident had little to do with fatigue. You're mistakenly assuming that even if she had rolled out of bed all nice and fresh, she would have the skills and experience to overcome his desperate attempts to crash the thing. Looking at her act of retracting the flaps, even once the adrenalin flowed... I just don't see it. In other words, her being tired was not the accident link that needed to be broken, her presence and was the accident link.

Carl Spackler

Your statement is backed up by the US Constitution. Any legislation that had such a provision would have to be struck down as a clear constitutional violation.

Carl

Sink r8

Except the NPRM doesn't tell you where you have to live, only that you have to be rested and fit for duty. What you suggest may be a big issue, but it's not the relevant issue in this case.

The NPRM language is incorrectly skewed by the 3407 lobby, based on a non-related case, but the refernces to commuting are nonetheless present in the text. With Pandora's box opened, I think there is no way you successfully argue that anything that happens before you fly is only your business. If it were so, there would also be no alcohol regs.

Again, I'm not arguing any of this is good, and I disagree with the inclusion of the language, but it seems to me the most logical solution that might then work for all parties would be for pilots to be affored an option to pick up trips close to home. This isn't a case of advocating for something on my part: I prefer driving to my junior, big base, and I have no incentive to see the flying shift to satellite bases.