Vsplat

Donating Member
  • Content Count

    1,504
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    47

Vsplat last won the day on October 14 2018

Vsplat had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

369 Excellent

1 Follower

About Vsplat

  • Rank
    5

Recent Profile Visitors

3,429 profile views
  1. Vsplat

    Another Wing Design from Boeing

    icing conditions would be interesting.... Vs
  2. Making America Late Again? (I know, I know....) Vs
  3. Vsplat

    Crowded Sky

    Confusing narrative. Did I read it right that ATC attempted to override a TCAS RA? Vs
  4. Adding a new fleet type is more disruptive because you have to maintain old and new crew complements, so there is a bump to manage. Straight addition of pilots is simpler, they go direct to the fleet that needs them. To be clear, these new rules do not negatively impact all fleets within an operator, or even all operators. Despite the lobbiest doomsday scenarios, the FRMS waiver is probably going to end up with some longer days than today for certain pairings. Vs
  5. Well, the cynic in me thinks that in two (four) years the public perception of this issue will be lower, 'we fixed it' mentality. There is plenty of time for the lobbiests to make just about anything sound worthy of an exemption. Add in an economic downturn and viola - we can't afford it. WRT the airlines crying about the time it will take to rebuild crew planning. I'm not arguing with you on what was said, but the airlines (really their lobby groups) are, frankly, full of crap and TC bought it. One place that I have some familiarity with is not showing positions for an aircraft due on the line within a year from now. Hiring is based on how many positions they are short. So how can they only need a year to staff a new aircraft, but two to meet the regs? Like I said, not aimed at you. But an aerobatic aircraft can't spin at this rate... Vs
  6. 2 years to implement for airlines. 4 years for smaller operators. I believe my comment 'that's just nuts' would not be original on this file... Hopefully the US will intervene (again) and sort out that wrinkle. My own opinion here is that, without the NTSB, this change would still be destined for nowhere. And for the next 2 years it will stay exactly there. I wonder how many exemptions to the starting date are going to go out between now and then.... Vs.
  7. Vsplat

    Cessna 335 crash in Florida

    Thanks Kip. A few there I had not heard. Surprising it never attracted more names associated with those leading edges. Like meat cleavers on a stick. Just after electricity was invented, there came the 172 and of course we did many checkouts on pilots over the years coming to rent an airplane. After their first experience, instructors who figured out that the rentee was ex military would just come out and ask, 'did you ever fly the 104?' Saved a lot of drama during the engine out off strip work.... Vs
  8. Vsplat

    Cessna 335 crash in Florida

    The military/civilian licensing transition has been an irritant for decades. I've handled a few queries on this along the way. Of course, more than a few military pilots posted out directly to Transport Canada, so feedback about the transition process was immediately available. The primary issue, at least during my time, was knowledge of the civilian regulations and infrastructure. While infrastructure differences are likely less now, civilian pilots were driven by the regulations to make different decisions in certain cases than their military counterparts. The process also got its start pre-SMS, back when part of the TC checkout involved time over a coffee with the inspector, often ex military themselves per the above, chatting about what to expect in the civilian world. Think about a T-33 or F5 pilot flying TACAN coming to civvy street for a navajo job. That chat could be a life saver, but alas, not every time. OT: I lost a friend, came off the 104 , flew an aircraft one day with a history of malfunctioning carb heat into conditions it would have been able to handle normally, but not that day. The end. I vividly remember the last conversation we had, discussion went sorta like, 'are you sure you want to go there? There's a reason they are the only ones hiring right now.' and his complete disbelief that TC would allow an operator to stay in operation if they weren't totally safe. But that was then. I'm not sure what the specific requirements are today, but I would have to think a written exam would be just about unavoidable, much like it is for a Canadian civilian pilot wanting a US licence. The aircraft competency part, well, I would have a hard time justifying grinding a military A310 pilot through a civilian ride, given that the machine itself started out with an airline. Vs
  9. Vsplat

    Another bad day for a Boeing

    Is that an EMAS save?
  10. Vsplat

    Cessna 335 crash in Florida

    The key part of the experience is 'once trimmed and feathered'. I did some training on the twin commanche but never really saw it on a hot day and max gross weight. And it was a piper product. For some reason I found the pipers I flew pretty benign on one, the commanche, the aforementioned seminole, seneca and aztec. Only flew one cessna twin, an old clapped out 310. Long, time, rusty memory, but for all that I liked the 310 in many ways, engine out wasn't in my 'love it' column. Maybe the 340 is the same. dunno. Vs
  11. Vsplat

    Cessna 335 crash in Florida

    That's tough to watch. It's been many years since light twin instructing days, but blue line equalled survival in that weight class. Apart from the Vmca control issues, Part 23 aircraft have no certification to maintain altitude or climb engine out. Blue line was the minimum speed at which the supplementary info said you could (in theory) maintain altitude or (WAT dependent) climb. For that to work, the inop engine had to be feathered. An engine fire was considered the absolute worst case scenario on so many levels. Apart from the fact that, in general, there were no extinguishers, a partially running, but burning engine often confused the pilot and delayed the decision to shut it down and feather it. We taught this scenario at altitude because as often as not, aircraft attitude and flight path control degraded within seconds. I had one memorable lesson where the student got us to 45 deg of bank and -2000 fpm doing this exercise. Until that day, his belief that twins were universally safer than singles had been unshakeable. Thoughts to the occupants, their loved ones and those affected on the ground. So sad. Vs.
  12. Vsplat

    Lion Air Down

    I think others have asked these questions: What within the Boeing machine broke so badly that a new system with fatal side effects was incorporated so invisibly? Is there a comparison to be made with the Challenger accident? Did someone within the design team identify this threat and get shut down, or was it missed completely? What other 'undocumented features' are lurking out there as a result of this same, or a similar, process flaw? Vs
  13. Vsplat

    747 at YHZ

    I think it did make for an interesting report recently, when the lights never quite made it to strength 5 as advertised.... Something is definitely up at YHZ.... Vs
  14. Vsplat

    Who Knew?

    Hmmmmm. I guess I'll have to look up my definition of 'North America'. Either it's taken on the confines of the great lakes on the south and the 407 on the North, or things have really slid a long way elsewhere. Vs
  15. The E190 has a pretty simple flight control system. Something must have really gone wrong with that maintenance exercise. I hope we get to read the report. Glad they made it. Test flight or no, no one should experience a ride like that. Vs