AA767AV8TOR

This tread seems to have gotten off track so……

In my fifteen years with AA and most of it in the right seat, the slow taxi have very little to do with our checklist. Yes, they are onerous and lengthy, but after a few thousand hours, one tends to get used to it.

The main problem over the years though has been getting our “load close out” numbers. If we are over our planned take-off weight, we have to get updated take-off numbers and then we still have to rebrief the data. Because of the many connecting bags at AA, it sometimes takes a while to get the numbers from the crew chief to loads and then out to us via our ACARS.

Southwest doesn’t have the magnitude of our connecting bags problem which enables them to get out to the runway faster. Also, I don’t think they have an ACARS yet – is that still the case?

In the end, it all comes down to money. Maybe a LUV pilot can explain it better, but I’ve always been under the impression that it’s to the Southwest’s pilot advantage to taxi fast and get off sooner. At AA, it just the opposite – we are paid by the minute. There is simply no incentive to taxi faster.

AA767AV8TOR

P.S. BTW, Shack-one you are OTL with your rudder analysis at AA and applying it to what happened on AA587. It simply is another way for Airbus to dodge their responsibility of designing a poor rudder system. Moving the rudder pedal in small increments on the A300 moves the rudder disproportionally – hence it is very easy to over control. Read the accident report and APA’s response to it. In my 12,000 hours at AA, not once have I seen a pilot overcontrol a plane based on what was taught at AAMP. Airbus (and you) used the class as a red herring.

Velocipede

Once again, pilots shouldn't be afraid to take all the time necessary to get an accurate weight and balance, program the FMC, brief the numbers, etc. Whatever it takes to avoid a smoking hole at the end of the runway.

I'll wait. Safety first.

shackone

What exactly do you find 'OTL' in my 'analysis'? I'm only commenting on what was presented in a briefing. If you have followed the threads, you will note that all I've really asked for was that a poster explain a remark that he made about rudder use while inverted. So far, he's refused to do so.

Probably not. Inasmuch as AAMP dealt with unusual flight attitudes, you would not have had the chance to see the procedures implemented unless you had been in an unusual attitude.

Airbus may have done what you allege...but not me. My comments only have to do with what was taught in that class. The possibility that this may have had something to do with an accident is a different story. I'm not saying anything about that accident other than what the NTSB findings have stated.

As for that AAMP class...is it being taught the same way today?

jetblaster

Now, THAT's a shack.

And the rudder ratio is only one aspect of the flaws.

Shack-one is ignoring

--the subsequent tail cracks and rudder disintegrations on only A300/A310s;

--he is ignoring the fact that, despite Dave Tribou's "grave concerns" letter, Airbus had NO notes, warnings or cautions concerning rudder use in their manual;

--he is ignoring that the FAA signed-off on the AAMP training (AAMP was a reaction, mainly, to the Delta L1011 crash in Dallas, where a microburst took the jet down short of the runway; FDR showed plenty of "energy" for a recovery and the case was made that the "smooth, steady" airline pilot training resulted in the guys not being aggressive enough in recovery efforts from the microburst) to me, AAMP was a simple reminder of basic aerodynamics--nothing new was covered, I am not a fighter guy and I saw nothing I hadn't seen before. Furthermore, common sense tells us--in fact, it proves--that AAMP was surely not the catastrophe it was portrayed to be as no other incident or accident has been shown to have anything to do with that training. (Hint: AA 587 didn't have anything to do with that training, either.)

--and, Airbus included an intentional use of "alternating sideslips" in LND Gear Not Down and Locked Abnormal.

Shack-one keeps trying to ask a specific question about rudder use in unusual attitudes. Shack-one...I already told you, we were taught to use rudder in coordinated fashion in the recovery; it was mentioned that the rudder is the first control surface to recover from a stalled condition, therefore can be the most effective to use when rolling to recover from a low-energy position or extremis. (AA 587 was never in this position.) We were never taught to bang the rudder back and forth rapidly. The point was, if the FO on AA 587 did this (and the only way that I think he might've done it is if there was something already tragically crippled about his aircraft and he was fighting an un-commanded rudder), he was not doing it in accordance with anything we were taught.

Got it?

And, as illustrated above, the one little briefing Shack-one had when he came onto AA property notwithstanding, AA has had no widespread "problem" with pilots misusing rudders.

110 Captains interviewed by the NTSB stated that they had never witnessed improper rudder use--either by the FO from AA 587, or any other AA pilot.

More to the point, THE ONLY AA PILOT who claimed that the FO from AA 587 had a history of improper rudder use was refuted by both Flight Engineers on the flight decks of the 727s from which he made the claims. Not only was Dave Lavelle's (I refuse to call this rodent a Captain) testimony refuted, it was incorrect factually--he claimed that he flew more often and at great frequency than the record verifies--he was informed of this discrepancy, yet he stands by his fraudulent testimony.

That's called "lying under oath."

The former airline scab who now works for the NTSB, Dave Ivey, jumped on this testimony like a fumble in the end zone, disregarding the refuted nature or the record. (I predict he will find a snug job at Airbus/NA sometime in the future...as his colleague from the FAA, Tony Broderick, did.)

As I have stated, Shack-one, if you wish to discuss the finer points of rudder use in hypothetical situations (I assume so you can show off your technical knowledge and attempt to ridicule those who might take issue)...start a Rudder Use thread.

My reasons for getting into this furball is to battle what I see as an all-too-common tendency for our career peers to criticize their fellow pilot, especially when the pilot is deceased (and therefore cannot defend himself); coupled with this concern is the concern that too many pilots are too trusting of government agencies, ignore the real facts and data that comes out in the course of these investigations, fail to realize the "glossing over" that goes on by manufacturers, airlines and NTSB/FAA, do not see the clear and demonstrated connection between these agencies and money/power/politics and do not recognize how our dead peers are exploited in aircraft accidents as convenient scapegoats.

They also fail to understand that the next "goat" could be them.

Of the parties involved in any accident investigation:

the manufacturer will avoid any and all incriminating evidence, even if it covers the truth;

the airline will do the same;

the government simply wants to tip its hat to safety while working with the Big Money and possible politics (ex.: at the time AA 587 crashed, the US was seeking France's support for invading Iraq; EADS is partially owned by the French government and Airbus is the Crown Jewel for the EU. Politics certainly were in the mix...) toward a "fix" that doesn't tag too much liability on either "money" party;

the union is a token party with no real power; APA didn't even get to make a presentation at the NTSB hearing (it was really embarrassing for them, too, as they had worked for weeks on a presentation, and were told the morning of their time on the floor that they could only call a witness or two and ask a few questions; even during those questions, acting-NTSB Chairman Carole Carmody harassed and hurried the APA Safety Chairman, before cutting him off.)

The dead pilot has no advocate--just ask the union accident investigators, they will tell you right off that "we are not here to defend the pilot."

So, this exchange has been my effort to open a few eyes and beat down the condescention and (apparent) self-loathing that I see, as I said, all too often.

Other professions don't do this to each other...I wonder why we do?

Jetblaster

shackone

I'm continuing to ask why you won't answer that question. Have I not used language that was clear and concise?

You made a statement about rudder use while inverted...you in fact stated that rudder use was unique for inverted recoveries. I then asked what you meant. You have yet to answer.

Your understanding of slow speed flight dynamics is poor.

The rudder is not "first control surface to recover from a stalled condition". It is the last control surface to lose effectiveness as speed decreases into the stall.

Your contention that rudder "can be the most effective to use when rolling to recover from a low-energy position or extremis" is grossly inaccurate. In a swept wing aircraft, rudder effectiveness as a roll device is not so much a function of speed as angle of attack. Your AAMP training emphasized the need to 'unload' first when initiating an unusual attitude recovery. In doing so, the rudder loses its roll control ability as AOA is decreased.

In short, if ever presented with an unusual attitude situation, particularly an inverted one, only use your rudder inputs to offset adverse yaw. Don't try to roll with it. Otherwise we'll be reading about you.

You have been pretty active in your name-calling. This was probably your most extreme example:

Is Mr. Lavelle still an AA pilot? I very much doubt he would appreciate that remark. He might even be tempted to make use of that Article 32 prohibition against derogatory language being used against another employee.

In any case, your continued personal attacks on me, other AA pilots (to include the dead LIT Captain), and others only underscores the point about AA pilot arrogance. Unfortunately for the other AA pilots who choose not to go this route, you more than make up for them with your trash talk.

jetblaster

No, your understanding of huge issues regarding air crashes is woefully naive. And, you hug your precious fighter-pilot persona closely to your chest. Low-self-esteemers always do this.


This is what I was talking about--Shack-one cannot even approach a serious discussion on the issues raised here--everything from his denigration of dead pilots (used to thump his chest about how smart he is) to his boasting about his Check-airman status (Shack-one--many of us have served in evaluation roles...get a life) and even now attempts to steer the focus off of his offense to try to pin the chat into an area he feels comfortable with...yet, even then he gets it wrong.


Any pilot who lies on the stand in order to assist manufacturers and crooked "independent" investigative entities in their liability-escape campaign...by affixing blame onto a dead pilot is a rodent. A rat. Or, perhaps a weasel (are they members of the rodent family?...I think so.) If the allegation that he is lying is true--and I assure you that it is as even a cursory look at the record vs. what he said will show that fact, then he will have a hard time making the case that he was wrongfully maligned.

Here is another glaring deficiency of intellect: how can it be a "personal" attack on you, when we don't even know who you are? You may take some of the criticism of your actions personally, but I assure you it is impossible for the attack to be personal when your identity is unknown.

[quote]other AA pilots (to include the dead LIT Captain),[\quote]

Nothing said was untrue; therefore, it is a statement of fact, not an attack.

If it were unprovable or untrue, why then, you would have a point. As for your thin attempt to paint me with the same offense that you yourself are guilty of, Rick Buschmann, the LIT Captain, was on a management conference call at 7 am before crashing after midnight in LIT. He did this because he was a good guy, a hard-working pilot trying to be a good chief pilot; he also did it because he was expected to do this by a management that enjoys heaping liability on pilots--they had no problem brow-beating him into being on a 7 am conference call and still assigning him a midnight trip into horrible weather with a newbie co-pilot. And, for good measure, the corporate culture added a dispatcher who pushed even more on the ACARS. So, no, it was not an attack...all of this is in the record of the LIT crash.

This is different from your boasting of your own (and TWA) prowess by grandstanding by making disparaging and condescending remarks about the deceased at "Cali, LIT and New York" as you did, and for which you (in typical ex-TWA arrogance) refuse to apologize.

There are more and more AA pilots--and other pilots--who are done with the "soft-talk" with dimwits. Given the outright failings of any representation--whether it be crash investigations or career value preservation--many of us are done with the small talk. The truth hurts sometimes, but it is necessary to make the point. If your feeling are hurt, go to counseling, you will recover in time.

Shack-one...you are a guy who cannot face the truth; cannot discuss important facts intelligently and whose massive ego is apparently a complete obstacle to comprehension. Your discussion of aerodynamics is laughable, as is your dogged effort to get it off into a corner so you can try to make a point, then use ridicule, as I told all on the thread you were attempting, and then you proved me right (rising to the bait like a good little fish). Couple that with your outright disrespect for the unfortunate pilots who have paid the ultimate price, your naive and completely uneducated understanding of the truth of NTSB/FAA and airline/manufacturer roles, goals and results in air crashes...and top it all off with your overly-sensitive and defensive ex-TWA (self-destroyed) status, and you make quite a package.

But, you are not unusual for an ex-TWA guy; you guys are a real piece of work.

Cheers.

Jetblaster

MWright

SWA does have ACARS.

Connecting bags or not, the gate agent documents all of the cargo, bags and gas on the load sheet that is handed to the crew before the door is shut. These #'s are put into a computer that then spits out the Vspeeds, trim setting, runway length required, and stopping margin data.

There is no $ incentive to taxiing fast other than to ensure an ontime/early arrival at the next station. When you have 20-25 minutes to turn an airplane at the next station, its nice to show up on time. Throw in a crew change, de-icing etc, and you'll be late on the next leg.

shackone

Well, folks...like it or not, fair or unfair, I think the answer about why AA acts like it does has been made more than painfully clear. This has been a look into the psychology of a pilot group that certainly meets the definition of TMI.

jetblaster

Read the thread and decide for yourselves. This guy is a great example of the "retro" pilot...the guy who pretends, but really doesn't get it. He bolsters his own ego by denigrating and ridiculing dead pilots.

If you wish to view the "psychology" of a pilot group, look at the post-Icahn TWA and see a group that Sold Their Soul for another day, another hour, another minute....and sold out the profession in the process (if you are fooling yourself about the last claim, check the paychecks of pilots from 1999 to 2006 and see which ones are higher.)

I have asked this FOOL to start independent threads addressing the myriad issues he has fronted on this one; Shackone is the typical past-airline-pilot sellout who is attempting to re-claim some respect that he gave away with his votes to sell out the profession.

I don't care about you, Sellout. I care about the future of the profession...so, push off, work at Walmart to get your lost wages, whatever...but leave us alone.

Your concessions will be remembered.

Jetblaster

shackone

I hope folks do. What they won't find is me trying to match you in the trash talk and insults category. You can have that all to yourself.

You do seem to have a problem with pilot concessions.

Yes, we did make concessions at TWA to keep the company alive. There were two separate occasions when Icahn had hired Pinkerton to lock up the company...only through the MEC Chairman's intervention did we manage to avoid a complete shutdown.

APA agreed to concessions in 2003 under far less serious conditions. Why is it so bad for others to give concessions when you APA guys did exactly the same thing? Are we to remember your concessions as well?