I was genuinely embarrassed for them
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, North Shore
-
co-joe
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
- Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them
If Otto took the day off that's a nuisance for sure, but no yaw damp sucks. Especially if you don't have much for visual reference and have some light chop. Someone could end up needing to mop puke off the ceiling and walls.
Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them
Yaw damp? In a Q400?? Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!
Seriously though, if this was a YQM flight on the day in question, I know the crew. I almost got stuck with that tail but was swapped at the last minute (not at our request). Solid, experienced crew. The OP is a twit for starting this thread.
Seriously though, if this was a YQM flight on the day in question, I know the crew. I almost got stuck with that tail but was swapped at the last minute (not at our request). Solid, experienced crew. The OP is a twit for starting this thread.
Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them
Some advice for the crew though - it is the PIC's call whether or not an aircraft is suitable for a particular flight regardless of the MEL relief. It even says that in the MEL. I have declined to fly an aircraft with no AP on its long, originally scheduled revenue flight but did agree to take it with passengers on a shorter one to a maintenance base.
No one thanks you for a decision like that except your FO because everybody else thinks you should do it. In my case the CP said afterwards it was a good call because in a similar situation (ferry flight though) he said yes and regretted it afterward.
No one thanks you for a decision like that except your FO because everybody else thinks you should do it. In my case the CP said afterwards it was a good call because in a similar situation (ferry flight though) he said yes and regretted it afterward.
-
pilotidentity
- Rank 3
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 12:00 am
Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them
The pilots asked for and did what they felt they needed to do. Can't see why anyone would have a problem with that.
-
Shady McSly
- Rank 5
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:28 am
Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them
Nice Shady!!!
Were you "Genuinly embarrassed for them" because you can do better?
Were you "Genuinly embarrassed for them" because you can do better?
Re: I was genuinely embarrassed for them
I am going to go ahead and guess that yes, s/he could manage to hold altitude better than +/- 500 ft on a less than 2 hour leg. I have done my fair share of hand flying over the years, and have somehow managed to keep well within the +/- 200 ft standard that ATC expects THE WHOLE TIME. And I'm just an average pilot.DutyFree wrote:Nice Shady!!!
Were you "Genuinly embarrassed for them" because you can do better?
We're not talking a jet at FL410 here, we're looking at a large twin turboprop at or below FL250, that is limited to that altitude because of equipment carried, not by performance.
But at the same time, if they were having difficulty maintaining altitude for whatever reason, I suppose it is better to let ATC know and avoid a potential loss of separation.
