Conference back40::soapbox

 I support the pilots as well..





Jim

Well, that'll prevent spilling all that ethylene glycol on the tarmac.

  One of the 1st things they teach you when you are learning to fly is to not
fly in bad weather. 

  Patty (the Lawyer)'s oldest son is a flight engineer in the Navy. He believes
that one reason that there have been icing crashes lately is because so many
commercial airplanes today fly without an engineer, only a pilot and co-pilot. 

  He says that the de-icing equipment is complicated and if left on it's own
will not distribute heat properly allowing control surfaces to ice up. He went
on to say that his P-3 Orion squadron has never had a crash due to icing and he
believes it's because they keep their aircraft in better condition and they
operate the equipment properly. 

  George

The real question is whether the ATR 72 is safe under even the slightest
adverse icing conditions (high humidity + low temperature).

I flew on an ATR 72 this summer from Sydney, Nova Scotia, to St. Pierre,
France.

My next American Eagle commuter flight is on a Fokker 100.

/john

    That's quite a Fokker.

    
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the pilot accepts *full*
    responsibility for the aircraft before taking off, and that they are
    legally within their right to refuse to fly whenever they feel that
    conditions are dodgy.  Of course, management aren't usually too 
    thrilled with such caution, and can make their opinions...um...known.
    
    And, of course, whenever weather plays a role in a crash, the airline
    bends over backwards to lay the blame at the pilot's feet.  Since the
    pilot is as likely to die in a crash as myself, I'd just as soon they
    cancelled the flight if the pilot doesn't want to fly.
    
    I support the pilots, too.
    

 I believe you are correct, .6, however I don't believe the airlines blame
 the pilots in crashes.  It would only serve to prove their (airlines) 
 liabilities.  The FAA or NTSB seems to find the pilots to blame
 frequently.




 Jim

    It's not a great time of year for flying... seems to me that most of my
    white knuckle flying experiences happen in November and March, when
    winds seem to be the worst... at least in the northeast. Anytime in
    between isn't too good either... I have 7 flights scheduled this month.
    Yuck. All on "aren't you just all kinds of happy to be here" USAir...
    
    -b

 I used to travel between Colorado Springs/Phoenix/Albuquerque quite a bit.
 Hated making those trips in the summer during thunderstorm season.




Jim

    the pilots are WRONG! i hate flying on planes that "someone, somebody"
    says may be unsafe. IMHO, that's just about all planes.
    
    however, the pilots have a contract with the company. if they are being
    pressured into endangering their lives by the company then they have
    legal recourse. they can also quit. i don't agree with that. but that's
    the way the system works. 

    Yup, it's pilot responsibility, but the airlines are not at all
    supportive of pilots of crashed aircraft.  The IAPA (I think) is the
    one that's always defending the pilot against the manufacturers and the
    airlines.
    
    I also support the pilots (duh).  Icing is a tricky business, though. 
    In the case of this aircraft, it is specifically icing on the
    horizontal stabilizer.  At lower speeds, it stalls when iced and causes
    a pitch up and subsequent wing stall.  Ironically, to speed up,
    normally you push forward to lower the nose.  Unfortunately, you lower
    the nose by raising the tail, which means you are *increasing* the
    angle of attack on the stabilizer, accelerating the stall.  It'd take a
    sharp cookie to handle the problem, adding power and pulling back
    slightly.
    
    I'd bet that in this case, there simply has not been enough study on
    the tail surfaces to determine the best location of de-icing equipment. 
    Normally, tail surfaces are not big icing candidates compared to wing
    and prop leading edges.
    
    Also, re: the P-3's...  I'd be willing to bet that the Navy lost a
    bunch of those buggers learning to fly in inclement weather.  It's a
    luxury we do not allow civil aviation.  It's a safe bet that the
    airlines don't lose anywhere's near 20% of their pilots, whereas the
    navy did at one point, and maybe still does.
    

    
    .7, Jim,
    
    I may be wrong, but I believe that if an airline can show that the
    pilot chose to fly when he shouldn't have, they can push some or all
    of the liability onto (the estate of) the pilot.
    

	I think a lot is hidden from consumers. My parents were flying from
Agusta Georgia and were waiting on a small passenger plane. The pilot never
noticed that the door to the cockpit was still open. There was some light on
and he kept banging the control panel. My mother just watched. Then the pilot
noticed the door was opened, and closed it shut. About 5 minutes later he came
out and was grumbling about something. 10 minutes later he came back and made
an anouncement that everyone would have to leave the plane. He said that they
would be held up for an hour because of all the traffic in the skys. Yet
everyone on the plane had to try and book themselves on a different plane. This
happened Tuesday. 


Glen

    The American flight that landed in San Juan Monday was the same flight
    I was on the week before.  We also experienced turbulence but not that
    bad.  
    
    Brian

    re: .0
    
>A small passenger airliner crashed a few weeks ago (belonging to
>"American Eagle Airlines" I believe) due to ice which formed on the wings in
>bad weather.
    
    Perhaps you ought to wait until the NTSB makes their probable cause
    ruling before making your opinion fact.
    
    Bob
    

I applaud the pilots.  In the late seventies I worked as a crew chief on
F-4 Phantoms (and briefly F-15s).  Most of these pilots were so macho they
would have flown missions in an aircraft with one wing missing if they 
could.  We had a crew not come back because they ignored a known problem with 
their altimiter.  I think this machismo sometimes translates over to their 
civilian careers.

It used to be (and may still be) standard practice to de-ice an aircraft at
the gate.  Well, if you are at O'Hare you de-ice and the then go out and
stand in line for 30-45 minutes.  If it is cold enough ice will form again.
It certainly wasn't that cold the night the American Eagle (but it was 
freezing at altitude) in the Chicago-Indiana area that night.  There was no 
need to de-ice because the ice wouldn't have formed on the ground.  But as -1 
says, we really don't know until the NTSB releases their report.  This could 
be during the spring thaw.

Paul

>if they are being pressured into endangering their lives by the company
>then they have legal recourse. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you the one who's always complaining
about the inefficiency of the courts?

Can't sue if you're (at least) 6ft underground.

>they can also quit.

...and go on welfare, I presume...

><<< Note 131.17 by NASAU::GUILLERMO "But the world still goes round and round" >>>
>
>>they can also quit.
>
>...and go on welfare, I presume...
>


Are you saying the only job left in this world for them is the one they
have now?


Bruce

I'm saying that even under ordinary circumstances, for a variety of reasons
it may be difficult to simply vote with your feet.

I don't know the extent of opportunities for airline pilots, and I'm not sure
their skill set is so flexible that they could pick up another (type of) job at
their current salary.

I think it is unfair to expect them to resign under such circumstances as concern
for their (and our) safety.

re: .19

>I don't know the extent of opportunities for airline pilots, and I'm not sure
>their skill set is so flexible that they could pick up another (type of) job at
>their current salary.

Unfortunately for commuter pilots, working at McDonalds wouldn't be much of a
pay cut.

Bob